[5A.Presentation of a proclamation recognizing August 26, 2022 as Women’s Equality Day in the City of Rowlett and requesting the lighting of the water tower on behalf of the Rowlett Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Commission (RDEIC).]

PROCLAMATIONS, WE HAVE ITEM PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING AUGUST 26, 2022, AS WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND REQUESTING THE LIGHTING OF TH WATER TOWER ON BEHALF OF THE ROWLETT DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION COMMISSION (RDEIC). AND MAKING THAT PRESENTATION TONIGHT WILL BE DEPARTMENT MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER. AND RDIC MEMBERS, CAN

YOU COME UP TO THE FRONT? >> DEPUTY PRO TEM SHINDER: WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY IS ABOUT UPLIFTING AND EMPOWERING WOMEN AND CELEBRATING HOW FAR WOMEN HAVE ADVANCED DEIFYING ALL ODDS AND OPPRESSION, TO REMIND US OF THE STRUGGLES OF THE PAST, PRESENT, AND THE FUTURE, CONGRESS DESIGNATED AUGUST 26TH AS WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY IN 1971 IN RECOGNITION OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE 19TH AMENDMENT GRANTING WOMEN THE RIGHT TO VOTE. WHILE WOMEN HAVE MADE STRIDES, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT GAP AS EVIDENCED BY THE STATISTICS BELOW. 18 IS THE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES WHERE HUSBANDS CAN LEGALLY PREVENT THEIR WIVES FROM WORKING, 39 IS THE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES WHERE SONS AND DAUGHTERS DO NOT SHARE EQUAL INHURTANCE RIGHTS. 23.7% IS THE PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN REPRESENTATION IN NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS. 6 IS THE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES THAT GIVE WOMEN EQUAL WORK RIGHTS AS MEN. AND 108 IS THE NUMBER OF YEARS IT WILL TAKE TO BRIDGE THE GENDER GAP. 47% IS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE INCREASED LIKELIHOOD FOR WOMEN TO SUFFER SEVERE INJURIES IN CAR CRASHES BECAUSE SAFETY FEATURES ARE DESIGNED FOR MEN. 13% IS THE PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN GLOBALLY WHO ARE AGRICULTURE LAND HOLDER. HERE ARE A FEW ACTIVITIES YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN TO HONOR WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY SHARE ON SOCIAL MEDIA SUCCESS STORIES USING THE HASHTAG WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY. THANK THE WOMEN IN OUR LIFE. SUPPORT WOMEN OWNED COMPANIES AND TAKE TIME TO LEARN MORE ABOUT WOMEN'S HISTORY AND THE COMPLICATED AND FASCINATING JOURNEY OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN THE U.S. TO HONOR THE WOMEN THROUGHOUT HISTORY, THE RDEIC IS REQUESTING THAT THE WATER TOWER BE LIT IN PURPLE TO SIGNIFY THE EQUALITY MOVEMENT ON

[00:05:11]

AUGUST THE 26TH. THAT WAS THE PREPARED STATEMENT, I ALSO HAVE A FEW THINGS I WANTED TO SAY HAVING SPENT MOST OF MY ADULT LIFE IN TRADITIONALLY MALE DOMINATED CAREERS POSITIONS. IF I WOULD BEEN BORN IN MY GRANDMOTHER'S TIME, IT'S UNLIKELY THAT I WOULD BE HAVE BEEN A POLICE OFFICER MUCH LESS A SERGEANT WHO TRAINED RECRUITMENT OFFICERS. I PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ELECTED IN TWO CITY COUNCIL'S IN TWO CITIES AND THE BOOKS THAT I WROTE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN PUBLISHED. I FOUGHT FOR EQUAL COMPENSATION, RECOGNITION AND RESPECT. WE'VE COME A LONG WAY IN MY LIFETIME, IN SOME WAYS WE MAY HAVE OVERSHOT THE MARK BUT IN OTHER DAYS WE'RE NOT THERE YET. I WAS THE ONLY FEMALE IN MY CLASS AND I WAS I BECAME A RECOGNIZED EXPERT IN THE MOSTLY MALE, AT THE TIME, FIELD OF IT SECURITY, BUT I ALSO FELT THE STING OF REPEATEDLY HEARING THE BOOK THAT I CO-AUTHORED WITH MY HUSBAND AND FOR WHICH I WROTE TWO THIRDS OF THE CHAPTERS REFERRED TO AS "TOM'S BACK. . I STILL RUN ACROSS MEN AND WOMEN TOO THAT STILL BELIEVE GUYS SHOULD TAKE ON THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE LEADERSHIP ROLES AND THE WOMEN SHOULD BE MAKING THE COFFEE AND BE NICE. WE'RE GETTING THERE, MY DAUGHTER RETIRED FROM THE NAVY WITH 20 YEARS OF SERVICE. TODAY'S LITTLE GIRLS WILL LOOK AT MORE OPPORTUNITIES THAN IT WAS BEFORE WHERE WE WILL BE VALUED AND APPRECIATED BASED ON OUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS REGARDLESS OF OUR GENDER. WHEREAS THE WOMEN OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE BEEN TREATED AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS AND NOT FEN GUARANTIED THE FULL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AVAILABLE TO MALE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHEREAS THE WEWOMEN OF E UNITED STATES WORKED CONTINUOUSLY TO GET THE 19TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION GUARANTIED THAT THE RIGHT TO VOLT SHOULD NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED ON THE ACCOUNT OF SEX THE THE DATE THAT THE 19TH AMENDMENT WAS CERTIFIED AS THE SYMBOL OF THE CONTINUED FIGHT FOR THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN. FOR THAT, THEREFORE, I ON BEHALF OF OF MAYOR MARGOLIS DO HERE BY PROCLAIM AUGUST 26TH, AS WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF WOMEN'S SUFFERAGE MOVEMENT AND THE GUARANTY OF FULL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES FOR ALL OF OUR CITIZENS, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE WATER TOR BE LIT IN PURPLE ON AUGUS AUGUST 26TH. AND IN HONOR OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT OF SERVE EQUITY AND INCLUSION WHO IS LASTING CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR CITY PLAYAL VALUED ROLE IN MAKING CITY OF ROWLETT THE PLACE

TO WORK, LIVE, AND PLAY. >> (CHEERS)

>> (APPLAUSE) >> THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, FOR

[5B.Presentation of the third quarter investment report for period ending June 30, 2022.]

THAT PRESENTATION. THAT WAS A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION." >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT.

SO, NOW, NEXT, WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 5B. PRESENTATION OF TH THIRD QUARTER INVESTMENT REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2022. RO ROBERT COEHN OUR BUDGET OFFICER

WILL BE PRESENTING THAT. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL, I'M ROBERT COEHN, THE CITY'S BUDGET OFFICER TO REPORT ON THE THIRD QUARTER 2022. OUR INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES FOR OPERATING IN DEBT SERVICE, OUR FIRST AND FOREMOST, SAFETY, THEN LIQUIDITY, TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT CASH FLOW AND FINALLY, OUR RATE OF RETURN. PERFORMANCE MEASURES AS SHOWN HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR BOTH THE SHORT TERM AND LONG-TERM INVESTMENT GOALS. AS FAR AS ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR THE THIRD QUARTER, THE ECONOMIC INDICATORS THAT WE SHOWED THE MOST INCLUDE UNEMPLOYMENT REMAINING FLAT AT 3.6%, FALLING GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT TO A

[00:10:04]

NEGATIVE 1.6 IN THE THIRD AND A CONSUME TERRE INDEX RISING FROM 8.5% TO 8.6% IN THE THIRD QUARTER. IN REGARD TO SAFETY AND LIQUIDITY. OUR CREDIT QUALITY MEETS POLICY LIMITS.

OUR INVESTMENTS MEET OR EXCEED THE CREDIT RATING MINIMUM. OUR COMPOSITION FOR OUR INVESTMENTS IS WITHIN AUTHORIZED POLICY LIMITS. NO SINGLE SECURITY EXCEEDED MAXIMUM ALLOCATION LIMIT FOR THE THIRD QUARTER AND OUR LIQUIDITY REQUIREMENTS FROM MET. AT LEAST TWO MONTHS OPERATING EXPENSE IN LOCAL BANK ACCOUNT OR LOCAL INVESTMENT POOL, WE HAD 64% OF OUR PORTFOLIO IN TEXT POLE AND 8% IN A LOCAL BANK. AS FAR AS OUR RATE OF IT RETURN AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR THE THIRD QUARTER GO, THE LONG-TERM FUND PORTFOLIO TOTAL RETURN PERFORMANCE IS NEGATIVE 0.41%, OUTPERFORMED THE BENCHMARK OF NEGATIVE .5.4%.

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> WITH THAT, THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION ON THE THIRD QUARTER INVESTMENT REPORT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS? >> ALL RIGHT. AND NEXT IS PFM ASSET MANAGEMENT? NOPE. THAT'S -- OKAY, SORRY, I SAW IT ON HERE. OUR NEXT

[5C.Update from the City Council and Management: Financial Position, Major Projects, Operational Issues, Upcoming Dates of Interest and Items of Community Interest.]

HERE. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM HERE. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM MANAGEMENT: FINANCIAL POSITION, MAJOR PROJECTS, OPERATIONAL ISSUES, UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST AND ITEMS OF COMMUNITY

INTEREST. COMMISSIONER GALUARDI DO YOU HAVE THOSE COMMENTS? >> OKAY. JUST A REMINDER, THE ART'S AND HUMANITIES COMMISSION IS ACCEPTING SUBMISSIONS THE 19TH AND 20TH FOR THEIR ANNUAL PHOTO CONTEST, VISIT ROWLETT.COM FOR THE ENTRIES. IS YOUR YOUNGSTER READY FOR BLAST?

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: HIT THE BUTTON AGAIN. >> I'LL GET CLOSER. HOW'S THAT? IS YOUR YOUNGSTER READY FOR BLAST? BABY SITTER LESSONS AND SAFETY TRAINING IS AN IMPORTANT TRAINING PROGRAM FOR POTENTIAL BABY SITTERS AGED 10 AND OLDER AND PARENTS IT CONSIDERING HIRING A BABY SITTER. THE BLAST BLAS! PROVIDES THE FUNDAMENTALS OF CHILD CARE TO HELP THEM BEGIN TO BABY SIT. THE FEE TO COVER COURSE MATERIALS. AS YOU COULD FEEL OUTSIDE, SUMMER IS NOT OVER YET. IT IS TIME FOR OUR SUMMER CONCERT SERIES. EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT IN AUGUST FROM 7-9, ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT MAY BE 7:30 TO 9 NOW, 7:30 TO 9:00, WE'LL HAVE LIVE BANDS IN THE VILLAGE OF DOWNTOWN ROWLETT, THERE'LL BE FOOD TRUCKS TO GRAB DINNER AND YARD GAMES FOR THE KIDS TO HAVE FUN DURING THE CONCERT. COME AND HAVE A WONDERFUL NIGHT WITH THE FAMILY UNDER THE STARS, DON'T FORGET THE BLANKETS AND CHAIRS. BE SURE TO KEEP FRIDAYS ON THE GREEN AT THE VILLAGE OF ROWLETT DOWNTOWN ON THE CALENDAR IN SEPTEMBER FOR MOVIES ON MAIN, FREE POPCORN AND PRE-MOVIE ACTIVITIES BEFORE THE SHOW AT DUSK. NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING IS PARTNERING WITH THE ANIMAL SHELTER FOR THEIR NEIGHBOR FEST ADOPTATHON BLOCK PARTY THIS SATURDAY, AUGUST, 20TH FROM 7-9:00 P.M. SIP SOME ADULT BEVERAGES AND SHARE YOUR BIGGEST CONCERNS FOR YOUR LIFE IN ROWLETT IS. EVERYONE IS WELCOMED. THERE'LL BE FOOD TRUCKS, MUSIC, GAMES, FREE BEES, CEILING FANS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, ADOPTABLE PETS. CALL THE ACTION CENTER AT 972-412-6100 THAT'S 9-724-126-0000. CITY SERVICES WILL BE CLOSED MONDAY SEPTEMBER 5TH IN OBSERVANCE OF LABOR DAY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF OUR OUTSTANDING STAFF WHO ARE AVAILABLE 24/7, 365. THANK YOU,

MAYOR. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

I'M SORRY. >> OH, MY BAD. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER, YOU HAVE AN

ANNOUNCEMENT TO MAKE? >> I DO. LAST WEEK I VISITED THE ANIMAL SHELTER AND I FELL IN LOVE. THE OBJECT OF MY AFFECTION, JUNO. HE'S A BIG BOW, AN ADULT MALE SIBERIAN HUSKY MIX AND HE ARRIVED AT THE SHELL AS A STRAY LAST YEAR, HE'S A VERY GOOD BOY, I GOT TO A

[00:15:07]

CHANCE TO MEET HIM AND PLAY WITH HIM, I HAVE TO WARN YOU, HE WILL STEAL YOUR HEART IF YOU MET HIM.

I BADLY P WANTED TO TAKE HIM HOME MYSELF BUT I HAVE TWO LITTLE OLD LADY DOGS WHO PROBABLY WOULDN'T APPROVE, NOT TO MENTION WHAT MY HUSBAND WILL SAY IF I CAME HOME WITH ANOTHER MOUTH TO FEED. EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS GUY IS GORGEOUS, WHAT REALLY STANDS OUT ARE THOSE AMAZING EYES, HE'S HETEROCHROME MAT TICK WHICH MEANS HIS EYES ARE TWO DIFFERENT COLORS, IT'S VACCINATED, NEUTERED AND MICRO CHIPPED. HE'S HOUSE TRAINED, CRATE TRAINED, GO ON A LEASH AND DOG FRIENDLY, WHAT MORE COULD YOU ASK FOR A CANINE COME PAIN I DON'T KNOW. STOP BY THE SHELTER AND SAY HI TO JUNE KNOW, YOU JUST MIGHT FALL IN LOVE WITH HIM TOO.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, DOES CITY HALL NEED A PET? >> COMMISSIONER BELL? YOU HAVE

AN ANNOUNCEMENT? >> YES, I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE SENIOR ADVISORY BOARD, THEY'RE HAVING A RESOURCE FAIR, IT'S ON THE 13TH OF SEPTEMBER, SO PUT THAT ON YOUR SCHEDULE.

IT'S GOING TO BE AT THE RECREATION CENTER IN THE GYM, AND IT'S FROM 9-12:00 P.M. AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU. JUST BECAUSE IT'S SENIORS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOUNG PEOPLE, YOUNGER CITIZENS CANNOT ATTEND. OKAY? BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW YOU MIGHT HAVE A PERSON THAT'S IN OUR FAMILY THAT'S HAPPEN TO BE A SENIOR AND THEY HAVE QUESTIONS. AND ALSO YOU COULD BRING THEM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU, ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

[6.CITIZENS’ INPUT]

>> ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ITEM IS LET'S SEE HERE, CITIZEN INPUT, ITEM 6. AT THIS TIME COMMENTS WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY TOPIC, NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY COUNCIL DURING CITIZEN'S INPUT. COUNCIL RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENT INPUT FORMS FROM THE WEBSITE FROM THIS

MEETING, LORI DO WE HAVE COMMENTS FOR TONIGHT? >> WE DO.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS DAVE HALL, AND DR. DAR WIN MILLER IF

I COULD SEE YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU, YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES, YOU KNOW

THE DRILL. >> DAVE HOLE, ROWLETT, ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST THIRD, 2022, AT 1:30 P.M. I SAW THREE ROWLETT STAFF DIRECTORS IN THE PADDLE PARK PARKING LOT LOOKING AT MY BUILDING, THIS WAS LESS THAN 24 HOURS AFTER MY 3 MINUTE CITY COUNCIL CITIZEN INPUT WHERE I MENTIONED PRACTICING WOULD COULD POSSIBLY ALLOW STAFF TO MAKE A MISTAKE. I PULLED INTO THE PLAT AND PARKED NEXT TO THEM. I GOT OUT AND SAID HELLO, THEY KEPT THEIR BACKS TO ME AND DID NOT RECOGNIZE ME. THEY THEN TURNED AWAY FROM ME WITH NO RECOGNIZE MISSION AND THEIR BACKS TO ME, I FOLLOWED BEHIND, I POLITELY SAID, NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN. AS THEY WERE ENTERING THEIR CAR, I SAW TWO TEENAGERS EXIT THEIR CAR IN THE PARKING LOT AND TRESPASS WALKING TO THE RAILROAD TO JUMP OFF THE BRIDGE. I TOLD THE TWO DIRECTORS, YOU MIGHT WANT TO STICK AROUND AND WATCH THIS, A STAFF DIRECTOR RECOGNIZED ME AND STATED "THAT'S NO CONCERN OF OUR'S, WE'RE NOT COPS, CALL A COUNCILMEMBER, THEN I DROVE OFF. " THERE'S NO NEED TO DEBATE HE SAID, THEY SAID, BECAUSE I HAVE MY SECURITY SYSTEM VIDEOING THE PARK PARKING LOT. HERE ARE PICTURES OF MY STATEMENT AND VIDEO OF THE ENTIRE EVENT. GOING BACK TO" THAT'S NO CONCERN OF OUR'S" MAY BE IT SHOULD BE.

WE'RE NOT COPS. CALL A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, I'LL LET THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HANDLE "CALL A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER" THIS IS NOT THE ATTITUDE OF ONE ROGUE DIRECTOR BUT INVOLVED THREE.

THIS REPRESENTS THE CULTURE OF OUR STAFF DIRECTORS AND SENIOR STAFF. IF YOU WANT THE PICTURES OR VIDEO, YOU KNOW WHERE MY STORE IS, YOU KNOW WHERE MY HOUSE IS AND BOTH MY CELL AND E-MAIL. AND I ALSO P WANTED TO MENTION THAT THE MESQUITE SPECIAL OLYMPICS WILL BE LEAVING WHITE ROCK LAKE AND DOING THEIR KAYAK TRAINING AT PADDLE POINT PARK THANK YOU VERY MUCH."

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT CARDS?

>> OUR NEXT SPEAKER, DR. DAR WIN SPILLER. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBER,

[00:20:07]

MAYOR, I'M DARWIN SPILLER, I JUST WANTED TO MEET YOU PERSONALLY. I RECENTLY SUBMITTED A PETITION ON BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT SHARE THE ALLEY WHERE I RESIDE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL TONIGHT, BUT, I WANTED TO AGAIN, PERSONALLY MEET YOU ALL TODAY AND PUT A FACE TO THE EMAILS SO THAT WE COULD CONNECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT AT THE END OF AUGUST UPDATED PCI NUMBERS WILL COME OUT AND I'M VERY EAGER TO KNOW WHERE OUR ALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD FALSE IN THAT RANKINGS TO BE REPLACED. I'M ALSO EAGER TO KNOW THE OTHER FACTORS THAT DETERMINE WHERE WE SHOULD BE PLACED IN TERMS OF REPLACING OUR ALLEY. OUR ALLEY HAS CRACKS, POTHOLES, SEVERAL DAMAGES TO OUR CARS, MINE PERSONALLY, I'VE HAD THREE SHOCK REPAIRS WITHIN THREE YEARS BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF POTHOLES. THERE'S HIGH-STANDING WATER, MOSQUITOS, RATS, AND R RODENTS, AND I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR DRIVING THE ALLEY AND NOTING THE CONCERNS. AGAIN, I'M DARWIN SPILLER, A RESIDENTS OF THE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY. I WANTED YOU TO KNOW WHO I WAS, BECAUSE WE'RE BACK AND FORTH IN

COMMUNICATION IN E-MAIL. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU, WE APPRECIATE YOUR ADVOCACY FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT CARDS? ALL RIGHT, THAT'S IT FOR PUBLIC

[7.CONSENT AGENDA]

COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. THESE ITEMS WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION, COUNCIL HAS NOT PULLED ANY ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PLEASE READ THE

ITEMS INTO THE RECORD. >> 7 A, CONSIDER APPROVING THE MINUTES, 7 B, CONSIDER AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. 7 C, CONSIDER ACTION THIRDSING AN'S CROW AGREEMENT TO SECURE THE INSTALLATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, 7 D CONSIDER ACTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT FOR THE FLOOR REPLACEMENT. AND

7 E CONSIDER ACTION AMENDING THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION HANDBOOK. >> I MOVE THAT WE MOVE THE

CONSENT AGENDA. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> COUNCILMEMBER BELL?

>> I SECOND IT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BELL TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS AS READ

INTO THE RECORD. CALL THE VOTE. >> AND THAT ITEM PASSES 7-0. >>> ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT ITEM IS

[8A.Consider action to approve a resolution calling for a public hearing on the Fiscal Year 2023 proposed tax rate for Tuesday September 20, 2022, and to consider approval of a maximum tax rate of $0.699429 for the 2022 tax year.]

ITEM 8 A, CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 PROPOSED TAX RATE FOR TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2022, AND TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A MINIMUM TAX RATE OF $0.699429 FOR THE 2022 TAX YEAR. ROBERT COEHN?

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, I'M ROBERT COEHN, THE CITY'S BUDGET OFFICER AND I'M HERE TONIGHT WITH A PRESENTATION FOR YOU TO CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 PROPOSED TAX RATE FOR TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2022. AND TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A MAXIMUM TAX RATE OF $0.699429 FOR THE 2022 TAX YEAR. TRUTH IN TAXATION IS A CONCEPT EMBODIED IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND THE TAX CODE THAT REQUIRES LOCAL TAXING UNITS TO MAKE TAXPAYERS AWARE OF TAX RATE PROPOSALS.

WHEN A PROPOSED IT TAX RATE EXCEEDS THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE OR THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER, THE TAXING UNIT'S GOVERNING BODY MUST WORK TO ADOPT A RATE AT A FUTURE MEETING ON AN ACTION ITEM, THIS VOTE MUST BE REPORTED. A TAX A PROPOSAL TO INCREASE TAXES BUT AN UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT. IF THE VOTE PASSES THE BODY MUST SCHEDULE A HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE. PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT INCREASE IN THEIR PROPERTY'S APPRAISED VALUE AND TO BE NOTIFIED OF THE ESTIMATED TAXES THAT COULD RESULT FROM THE NEW VALUE. A TAXING UNIT MUST PUBLISH IT'S NO NEW REVENUE AND VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATES BEFORE ADOPTING A TAX RATE. A TAXING UNIT MUST PUBLISH SPECIAL NOTICES AND HOLD A PUBLIC HAIRING BEFORE ADOPTING A TAX RATE THAT EXCEEDS THE NO NEW REVENUE OR VOTER APPROVED TAX

[00:25:07]

RATE. THE REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE TAXES OPT AT AN ELECTION HELD FOR THAT PURPOSE MUST DETERMINE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE ADOPTED TAX RATE. THE NO NEW NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS THE CALCULATED RATE. IF PROPERTY VALUES RISE, IS NO NEW REVENUE RATE TAXES WILL GO DOWN.

APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE IT SPENT THE PREVIOUSLY YEAR FOR DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS PLUS A 3.5 INCREASE FOR THAT INCLUDING ANY UNUSED INCREMENT. THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE ALSO REPRESENTING THE MAXIMUM RATE THE COUNCIL CAN ADOPT WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO AN AUTOMATIC ELECTION AT THE NOVEMBER UNIVERSITY FORM ELECTION DATE. THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE WHICH SHOWS THE RELATION BETWEEN PRIOR YEAR'S REVENUE AT THE CURRENT YEAR'S VALUE IS CALCULATED TO BE $0.660776, THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM RATE THAT MAY BE APPLIED AND NOT SUBJECT TO AUTO MATTIC ELECTION. $0.699429, AND A DEBT SERVICE INS TAX RATE OF $0.1552151 FOR $100 IN TAXABLE VALUE. THIS PROPOSED RATE REPRESENTING THE VO VOTER APPROVAL RATE AND AS SUCH PROVIDES APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE SPENT THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS PLUS A 3.5% INCREASE AND THE UNUSED INCREMENT FROM PRIOR YEARS FOR THOSE OPERATIONS IN ADDITION TO THE DEBT FUNDS TO PAY FOR SERVICES IN THE COMING YEAR. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED RATE IS TO PROVIDE A CEILING OR A MAXIMUM RATE THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER ADOPTING. THE COUNCIL IS NOT REQUIRED TO ADOPT THIS RATE. IF THE PROPOSED RATE THE COUNCIL ELECTS EXCEEDS THE NEW NEW REVENUE TAX RATE OF $0.660776, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL VOTE TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TAX RATE TO BE HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2022, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS LOCATED AT 4000 MAINE STREET, ROWLETT, TEXAS, 75088. RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR TODAY IS CONSENSUS ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE. IF THE PROPOSED TAX RATE EXCEEDS THE $0.660776, THE LOWER OF THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, THE TAXING UNIT'S GOVERNING BODY MUST VOTE TO INCLUDE ON THE REQUIRED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRES THE NAMES OF ALL THE GOVERNMENT BODY AND HOW THEY VOTED ON THE TAX RATE INCLUDING THE ABSENCES IF ANY DURING THE VOTE ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE. AND TO MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A

PUBLIC HEARING AND SETTING THE MAXIMUM RATE AT $0.699429. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IS THAT IT?

>> THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? ALL RIGHT. NO QUESTIONS. UM, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET? >> BEFORE I MAKE A MOTION, I WANT TO ASK DAVID IS THERE ANY

SPECIAL LANGUAGE REQUIRED FOR THIS? >> FOR THIS THERE'S NOT, THE ADOPTION OF THE RATE OF THE BUDGET THERE'LL BE BUT I DON'T BELIEVE FOR THIS THERE'S NOT.

>> OKAY. >> IN THAT CASE, I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE

AGENDA ITEM AS PRESENTED. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A

SECOND? >> APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED, MY APOLOGIES.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK THAT WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GRUBISICH.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS READ INTO THE RECORD.

>> JUST A CLARIFIATION? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YEAH, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO DISCUSSION.

YEAH. DID YOU HAVE, WAS THIS A QUESTION OR DISCUSSION? >> A DISCUSSION.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. SO, THEN IN THAT CASE, THEN YEAH, LET'S, WELL, NO. GO AHEAD.

[00:30:03]

>> UM, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, SO, WE'RE NOT SETTING THE TAX RATE THIS EVENING, WE'RE SETTING THE TAX RATE SEPTEMBER 21ST, THIS EVENING WE'RE SETTING THE MAXIMUM THE TAX RATE CAN BE SET ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, WE STILL HAVE A GOOD BIT OF MEETING TO DO AND PRIORITIZATION TO DO AROUND WHAT THE BUDGET WILL LOOK LIKE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 WHICH WILL LEAD US TO THAT DISCUSSION ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, WHERE WE SET THE ACTUAL TAX RATE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THAT SOUNDS CORRECT TO ME, YEAH. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COMMISSIONER GRUBISICH DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE A

COMMENT, COUNCILMEMBER? >> NO. COUNCILMEMBER WINGET? >> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THIS IS NOT A FINAL RATE APPROVAL. THIS IS SIMPLY A MEASURE THAT WE GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO APPROVE THE RATE. ORDINARILY, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF PUBLISHING A RATE THAT'S THE MAXIMUM OF WHAT WE COULD PUBLISH. THIS YEAR IS EXTRAORDINARY, INFLATION ARE AT ASTRONOMICAL NUMBERS. WE'RE IN THE POSITION TO PROTECT OUR CITY AND THE GREATEST ASSET WE HAVE IS OUR PEOPLE. WE COULD PUT SALARY INCREASES FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS THAT PUTS THEM ABOVE THE MARKET AS WELL AS SALARY INCREASES FOR THE REST OF THE STAFF TO GET THEM TO THE MARKET RATE. AND I THINK THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT THINGS THAT MAKE ME VERY COMFORTABLE APPROVING

THIS RATE AT THIS LEVEL. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER?

>> YES, AS EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID, PUBLISHING THIS RATE DOES NOT MEAN THAT'S THE RATE THAT THE COUNSEL'S GOING TO ADOPT, THOSE WHO WATCHED OR ATTENDED THE BUDGET WORK SESSIONS EARLIE THIS YEAR SAW THAT UM, OR HEARD, THAT I HAVE SAID AT THAT POINT IN TIME THAT I COULD NOT SUPPORT VOTING FOR THE MAXIMUM TAX RATE. TO ME, THE KEY WORDS HERE IS THAT THE PROPOSED RATE IS THE CEILING OR THE MAXIMUM RATE THAT THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER ADOPTING. THE MAXIMUM RATE THAT I'LL CONSIDER ADOPTING IS NOT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED RATE. NOW, I AGREE WITH JEFF ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET. THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET DOES NOT GO TO THE MAXIMUM RATE. IT'S NOT BASED ON THIS MAXIMUM RATE. AND THAT'S

WHY I CAN'T VOTE TO PUBLISH THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED RATE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS:

COUNCILMEMBER BELL? >> NO COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS. SO, I WILL ENTERTAIN, DID WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND, I WILL CALL THE

VOTE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND THAT ITEM PASSES 6-1. AND WE'LL MOVE

[8B.Consider and take action to approve an ordinance to amend Chapter 10, Businesses, of the Rowlett Development Code to require a Special Use Permit (SUP) for establishments that sell electronic cigarettes, accessories and CBD related products.]

ONTO OUR NEXT ITEM. WHICH IS, ITEM 8 B, CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10 BUSINESSES OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SELL ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, ACCESSORIES AND CBD PRODUCTS.

AND WE HAVE. >> GOOD EVENING COUNCIL, THANK YOU, MAYOR MARGOLIS FOR READING THE CAPTION INTO THE AGENDA. I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME BACKGROUND FOR OUR VIEWING AUDIENCE AND OUR AUDIENCE SITTING WHITE HOUSE TONIGHT TO EXPLAIN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WHY IT IS BEING PROPOSED. THIS TOPIC REVOLVES AROUND THE SALE OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, ACCESSORIES AND CBD RELATED PRODUCTS. AND A NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES WITHIN OUR RADIUS HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES THAT DO REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMITS FOR STORES THAT DO SELL THESE ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY, IF YOU RECALL AT YOUR JULY 12TH MEETING THERE WAS A ORDINANCE MADE THAT TALKED ABOUT OUR CBD SALES IN THE CITY. WITHIN THE CITY THAT HAVE JUST RECENTLY OPENED IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, SEVEN OF WHICH ARE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CITY AND FOUR ON THE EAST SIDE AND OF THE FOUR STORES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE THEY'RE CONCENTRATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF DALROCK AND LAKE VIEW PARKWAY. UPON RECEIVING THAT PRESENTATION, THERE WAS COUNCIL TO REQUIRE AN SUP FOR CBD RELATED PRODUCTS. IN ORDER TO MEMORIALIZE THIS SUP

[00:35:10]

REQUIREMENT, THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, ARTICLE 10 WOULD HAVE TO BE AMENDED. THE ELEMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE ARE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA, BUT, I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THIS ORDINANCE WOULD INCLUDE. MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT WOULD CREATE A DEFINITION FOR CBD PRODUCTS, E-CIGARETTES AND VAPE STORES, REQUIRE THE STORES TO OBTAIN THE PERMITS FROM THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE. PROHIBIT THE SALE OF THESE PRODUCT TOSS PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 21. ALLOW OUR CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL TO SUSPEND A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IN THE EVENT OF AN ORDINANCE VIOLATION, ARE AND REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ANY NEW APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN POST ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE TO GO THROUGH THE SUP PROCESS AND REQUIRE AMENDED COS FOR VAPE STORES AND IMPOSE REASONABLE CONDITIONS. AND ALSO ALLOW THE CITY TO CONDUCT INSPECTIONS AT ANY TIME THE BUSINESS IS OPEN OR OCCUPIED IN ORDER TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY IF THERE IS LACK OF COMPLAINS ENABLE THE CITY TO REVOKE THE SUP ADMINISTRATIVELY, TO REVOKE THE APPROVED SUP LAND USE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS USE WITHOUT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR COUNCIL ACTION IF THEY ARE INDEED REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION. SO, FROM AN ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE, IT WOULD BE BASED ON A CATEGORY OR POSSIBLY STRIKES TO DETERMINE HOW TO IMPOSE THAT. OBVIOUSLY WE WILL BE REASONABLE IN OUR DETERMINATION OF SUCH. WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE SUP AND WHY IT PLAYS INTO THIS ITEM, THE SUP IS A FORMAL ZONING ACTION THAT IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT PROPOSED USES DO NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON SURROUNDING LAND USES. THE INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORTATION, CORRIDORS OR BASICALLY THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL IMPACTS THROUGH STAFF REVIEW AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION. IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS SUP REQUIREMENT BE MEMORIALIZED AS AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 10, BUSINESSES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, REQUIRING APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SELL ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES, ACCESSORIES, AND CBD RELATED PRODUCTS. WITH THAT, COUNCIL, I WILL TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

YOU MAY HAVE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER

GRUBISICH? >> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SUP DEALS WHERE THE CITY CAN

ARBITRARILY REVOKE AN SUP FOR ANY REASON? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.

>> I'M ALL FOR THE SUP PROCESS, I'M JUST NOT FOR THE LAST BULLET THAT ALLOWS THE CITY TO REVOKE THE SUP ADMINISTRATIVELY WITHOUT PLANNING AND ZONING OR COUNCIL ACTION. IF WE'RE GOING TO VOTE IN AN SUP, THEN, THE COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING NEED TO REVOKE THE SUP, NOT AT STAFF'S ADMINISTRATION. THAT, TO ME, IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE PUT ON STAFF. IF THIS IS GOING TO BE A NEW POLICY IMPLEMENTED BY COUNCIL, THEN COUNCIL SHOULD BE THE ONES WHO REVOKES THE SUP,

THAT'S JUST MY OPINION, ALL THE OTHER THINGS I AGREE WITH 100%. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YES?

>> WE KIND OF DO NEED A HANDLE, THOUGH, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE PROCESS IS TO ENABLE STAFF TO BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY ADMINISTER AND ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A CUMBERSOME PROCESS WITHOUT REVOKING THE SUP. AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, I BELIEVE AN SUP IS STILL REQUIRED, WHAT I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT THE ORDINANCE DRAFT IN THE PACKET MIGHT BE AMENDED TO ELIMINATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE

REVOCATION OF THE SUP BUT NOT THE OVERALL REQUIREMENTS? >> 100%, THEY NEED TO GO IN AND INSPECT AND DO ALL THE THINGS THEY NEED TO DO, BUT, HOW THAT READS IS THEY CAN TAKE THAT PERSON'S ABILITY AWAY TO DO THEIR BUSINESS THAT THEY'VE HAD AN SUP APPROVED FOR. SO, IF IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING BECAUSE OF MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS AND MULTIPLE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THEIR SUP GETS REMOVED AND SO NOW THEY NO LONGER HAVE THE ABILITY TO SELL THESE THINGS IN THEIR BUSINESSES, THAT SHOULD BE A

POLICY THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN. >> ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT IF

[00:40:06]

WE ARE ENABLING AN REPEAL OF AN SUP, THAT WOULD BE A CITY INITIATIVE ZONING PROCESS TO REPEAL THAT SUP AS A RESULT OF A VIOLATION, IT WOULD NOT BE INITIATIVE BY THE.

>> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, DAVID? >> YEAH, IT DOES. I'M WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, I'M TRYING TO CONSIDER WHAT THE OTHER ENFORCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES STAFF WOULD HAVE ARE. AND I

THINK WE WOULD STILL HAVE SOME. >> THE CO REVOCATION. I THINK THAT WE COULD LIVE WITH THAT.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A PREFERENCE, I MEAN, I WAS, TO ME, IT WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT THE EASIER PROCESS FOR MANAGEMENT OF ENFORCING, BUT, I WILL PERSONALLY AM NOT GOING TO BE LIKE, OH, I CAN'T BE AMEANABLE TO THAT, I CAN, IT'S NOT A BIG

DEAL TO ME. GO AHEAD. >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THERE IS AN APPEAL PROCESS FOR

AN ADMINISTRATIVELY REVOKED SUP. ? >> OR WE COULD DO A CO REVOCATION WHICH COULD BE REPEALED DEPENDING ON THE NATION OF THE REQUEST. SO, WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHICH PATH THAT ACTION COULD TAKE. SO, IF YOU WERE TO REVOKE THE CO, THEY COULD THEN REPEAL THAT REVOCATION BUT THAT WOULD BE AN ASSESSMENT OF REVISITING THE SUP, I THINK THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO THAT SO ALL THE INFORMATION IS PROPERLY

DISPLAYED IN PLANNING AND ZONING AND THE CITY COUNCIL. >> .

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> WELL.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YEAH? IS IT A QUESTION OR A DISCUSSION? >> IT'S A DISCUSSION HERE.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY, WELL, IF IT'S -- >> SO, WE HAVE HOW MANY STORES

NOW? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: 11. >> SO, 11 DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO BE A HUGE BURDEN IN TERMS OF BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL, IF THAT'S THE DECISION THAT WE WANT

TO GO WITH. >> THOSE ARE EXISTING STORES, RIGHT?

>> I'M AMBIVALENT AS WELL, I'M READING THROUGH THE APPEAL PROCESS AND IT LOOKS LIKE, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT, DURING THE APPEAL PROCESS THEY GET TO KEEP THE SUP UNTIL THE FINAL COMMISSION. AND DURING THAT TIME, THEY ARE ABLE TO OPERATE THEIR BUSINESS UNTIL

SUCH TIME ARE. >> SO, TALKING THROUGH THAT, AND SOMETIMES I MAKE UP MY MIND WHEN AIM SPEAKING, I'M WONDERING WHAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVOCATION, BECAUSE, IF YOU GO AND TELL ANYONE I'M GOING TO SHUT DOWN YOUR BUSINESS, THEY'RE GOING TO APPEAL AND IT'S GOING

TO COME TO COUNCIL ANYWAY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I'M GOING P THE QUICKEST AND WHATEVER THAT MOTION SAYS WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT, THEN I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION. WHO CAN MAKE THE MOTION QUICKEST? I HAVE COUNCILMEMBER

GRUBISICH. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SUP MINUS THE STIPULATION OF ALLOWING THE CITY TO REVOKE THE SUP WITHOUT GOING THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY

COUNCIL. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION?

>> I'LL SECOND IT. >> I THINK THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE SUP, I THINK IT

SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVE THE ORDINANCE. >> TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE,

MINUS THAT ONE PROVISION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER GRUBISICH, A SECOND BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER ON THE MOTION THAT WAS SAID BY COUNCILMEMBER GRUBISICH.

AND DO WE HAVE -- I'M GOING TO START OVER HERE THIS TIME, COUNCILMEMBER BELL DO YOU HAVE

DISCUSSION ON THIS? DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I DO TEND TO AGREE WITH MATT, EVEN THOUGH THE EFFECT IS NOT ALL THAT DIFFERENT IN APPEALING, IF THE COUNCIL GRANT THE SUP THEY SHOULD BE THE ONES WHO WOULD REVOKE THE SUP.

>> ALL RIGHT, MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET. >> I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER SHINDER AS WELL. IT CERTAINLY HOPEFULLY WON'T BE A BURDEN ON COUNCIL OR STAFF TO HAVE THAT

PROCESS IN SUCH A WAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON? >> I'M GOOD WITH THIS AS WELL,

[00:45:02]

AS LONG AS IF THERE IS A REVOCATION THEY COULD FIND REMEDY THROUGH THE PLANNING AND

ZONING AND COUNCIL. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. LET'S CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM PASSES 7-0. ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT ITEM IS 8 C, CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION

[8C.Consider action to approve a resolution approving a Second Economic Development Incentive Agreement with AllofOur Heritage House, LLC, (La Hacienda restaurant) and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on the City’s behalf.]

APPROVING A SECOND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT WITH ALOE OUR HERITAGE HOUSE LL CENTS, LA HACIENDA RESTAURANT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON THE

CITY'S BEHALF. WAS THAT THE SCREEN THAT DID THAT? >> GOOD EVENING, LIBBY TUCKER, THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AND I'M HAPPY TO BE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO HAVE YOU CONSIDER A RESOLUTION FOR A SECOND INCENTIVE AGREEMENT FOR ALLOFOUR HERITAGE HOUSE, LLC, BETTER KNOWN AS LA HACIENDA RESTAURANT. JUST BACKGROUND ON THIS, JESSICA AND CHRISTIAN ARE OWNER THE OF ALLOFOUR HERITAGE BUSINESS. THE MORALES BROTHERS ARE HELPING THEM OPERATE AND COOK THE FOOD, THEY PURCHASED AND RENOVATED AT WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE OLIVER HOUSE AND OPENED TO THE PUBLIC ON JUNE 29TH. HERE'S A MAP TO SHOW YOU THE OVERALL AREA OF THAT PROPERTY. AGAIN, IT'S FORMED AS A HOLDING COMPANY AND UM, THE JONES FAMILY IS RUNNING THAT, JESSICA'S THE MANAGING MEMBER OF THAT. THE MORALES BROTHERS, AGAIN, THE MANAGEMENT AND CHEFS BEHIND THE PROJECT. AND JUST TO GIVE YOU BACKGROUND ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROJECT AND WHY IT WE FELT IT WAS A GOOD QUALIFICATION FOR THE POLICY THAT WE HAVE, IT'S A HISTORIC HOME IN ROWLETT BUILT IN 1922 AND IT HAS UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS TO THE CONSTRUCTION STYLE OF THE HOME, IT'S PROMINENTLY LOCATED JUST OFF OF OUR TECHNICALLY OUR DOWNTOWN AREA, BUT IT'S STILL AT MAIN AND ROWAND ROWLETT ROAD IT IT'S A BEAUTIFUL SETTING WITH A WRAP AROUND PORCH AND IT WAS BEING SOLD AS A TEAR-DOWN WHEN THEY PURCHASED IT, THEY RESTORED THE PROPERTY AND SAVED IT. HERE ARE PICTURES OF WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE PRIOR TO THEM TAKING OVER. SO, IT NEEDED A LOT OF POINT ON THE OUTSIDE, NOT TO MENTION THE INTERIOR, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, BUT THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED IT, I KNOW MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN THERE, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL, THE LANDSCAPING IS OUTSTANDING. JUST A LOT OF GREAT WOOD WORK THEY'VE DONE ON THE OUTSIDE AS WELL. AND THE INTERIOR, THIS IS BEFORE THE FURNITURE GOT IN THERE SO YOU COULD HAVE A LOOK AT THE UNIQUENESS OF THE ROOMS AND THE CARE THAT WAS TAKEN TO RESTORE THE HOME, OPEN UP THE STAIR CASE AND PUT IN MOSAIC TILE ON THE STAIRWAY AND OF COURSE, THE UNIQUE SIGN ON THE SHED OUT BACK, IF YOU WILL. SO, THE POLICY WE HAVE FOR INCENTIVES STATES THAT THE CITY MUST RECEIVE A 10-1 RETURN ON INVESTMENT. SO, GENERALLY, 10% OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT THAT THE BUSINESS MAKES IS THE MAXIMUM THAT THEY CAN BE ALLOWED TO RECEIVE. AND THEIR PARTICULAR PROJECT FALLS UNDER WHAT WE CALL THE DESTINATION SPECIAL RETAIL ENTERTAINMENT AND RESTAURANT CATEGORY. SO, THERE'S A MATCHING GRANT COMPONENT THAT'S UP TO 50% OF THE COST OF THE FURNITURE FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT, ANYTHING INTERIOR TO THE BUILDING AND THEN ALSO A GREASE TRAP REBATE, 50% OF THAT COST UP TO $7,500. SO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BREAKOUT FOR WHAT THEY SPENT AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I'VE REALLY BEEN WORKING WITH THEM SINCE I GOT HERE. THEY WORKED WITH JIM BEFORE ME ON THIS PROJECT, SO, WE'VE BEEN TALKING WITH THEM A LONG TIME WORKING ON THIS PROJECT. AND, HOW OUR INCENTIVE POLICY MIGHT FIT INTO THEIR PLAN. AND SO,

[00:50:08]

UM, CERTAINLY WHEN THEY WERE DOING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON THE RENOVATION PROJECT THERE WERE A LOT OF UNEXPECTED EXPENSES. SO, MY ADVICE TO THEM WAS LET'S WAIT, IT'S A REIMBURSEMENT POLICY ANYWAY, LET'S BE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ALL OF YOUR EXPENSES INCLUDED. SO, $1.19 MILLION THAT THEY'VE INVESTED INTO THIS PROJECT, BUT THE FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT, ARE THE 50% REIMBURSEMENT, SO, WHEN WE PULLED OUT THOSE EXPENSES, THOSE EXPENSES WERE $250,000, 885, SO, AGAIN, THE 10% POLICY, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT THEY COULD RECEIVE THROUGH OUR POLICY WOULD BE $119,273. THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THEY COULD RECEIVE IS 119.

THEY'VE PREVIOUSLY BEEN AWARDED AN IMPACT FEE WAIVER GRANT IN APRIL. AND BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAD TO BE REPLATTED, IT WAS KIND OF UNUSUAL, AGAIN, IT'S KIND OF THE FIRST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT STAFF HAS HAD TO WORK WITH, BUT, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT WORKS, IF YOU REPLATTE A PROJECT, $18,000 IN IMPACT FEES. WELL, THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME, THERE'S NO NEW INFRASTRUCTURE REALLY PLANNED, PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND THE PROJECT, AND SO, WE FELT IT WAS A GOOD USE OF THE POLICY TO BE ABLE TO WAIVE THAT UNDER THE STATE'S CHAPTER 380 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PLAN. SO, AGAIN, IT'S MON THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY SO IT DOES HELP THEM OUT IN THAT AMOUNT. SO, THE INCENTIVE REQUEST WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS THE $119,000 THAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM. S■O,WHENWE LOOK AT, UM, THE ANALYSIS THAT WE DO WHEN WE EVALUATE ALL OF THESE INCENTIVE PROJECTS THAT WE DO FOR ANYONE. WE LOOK AT WHAT THE NET BENEFIT IS TO THE CITY. SO, OVER FIVE YEARS FOR A PROJECT. THE NET BENEFIT IS $204,000, THAT'S TAXES, SALES TAX, PROPERTY TAX, AND WE TAKE OUT THE COST OF SERVICE TO PROVIDE THEM. SO, THE NET BENEFIT OVER FIVE YEARS TO THE CITY IS $139,459,000. THE PAY BACK PERIOD IS 4.3 YEARS WHICH IS LESS THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. AND, FOR THE INCENTIVE, AND THE 23.4% RATE OF RETURN. SO, IT'S A GOOD INVESTMENT THAT ARE YOU'RE MAKING INTO THIS PROJECT. AND THE CITY'S NET BENEFIT IT IS OVER FIVE YEARS ARE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, AGAIN, 139 THAT YOU HAD -- $139,000, THAT WILL BENEFIT FROM THE PROJECT AS WELL. SO, THE DIRECTION WE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL RECENTLY WAS THAT WE WOULD PHASE THE GRANT AWARD OVER OR PERIOD OF THREE YEARS SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT TO STAFF, OF COURSE, RECEIPTS VERIFYING THAT FFNE EXPENDITURE, SO, WE'VE DEVELOPED A PLAN TO HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK. AND THEN, 50% OF THE AMOUNT WOULD BE AWARDED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FINALIZED AGREEMET. SO, NEARLY $60,000. 30% OF THE AMOUNT WOULD BE AWARDED A YEAR FROM THE DATE THE AGREEMENT IS INTO EFFECT. AND THEN 20%, THE REST OF THE AMOUNT PAID ON THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY DATE OF THE AGREEMENT. SO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUOUSLY OPERATE FOR THREE YEARS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP AND EMPLOY A TOTAL OF FOUR FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS AND MAINTAIN ALL THE NECESSARY OPERATING PERMITS. SO, THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD DID MAKE THE SAME RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY RECEIVE $119,000, 273, THE AMOUNT THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THEM AND NOT PULL OUT THE IMPACT FEE WAIVER OF $13,000. SO, THAT IS THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. AND, CHRIS AND JESSICA ARE HERE. DO YOU GUYS WANT TO

[00:55:02]

SPEAK OR SAY ANYTHING? IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL DO

YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OR THE APPLICANTS? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE

APPLICANT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY, A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

>> LIBBY MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS AS WELL, WE MAY HAVE PREVIOUSLY TALKED ABOUT THIS, SO, ALL OF OUR HERITAGE HOUSE LLC WOULD BE RECEIVING THE GRANT, DO THEY OWN THE PROPERTY?

DO THEY OWN THE BUILDING OR THE LAND? >> ALLOFOUR HERITAGE HOUSE IS REQUIRED FOR AN SBA LOAN. SO, IT HOLDS THE PROPERTY AND IT ALSO OWNS 100% OF LA HACIENDA

RESTAURANT OPERATING COMPANY. >> SO IT HOLDS THE PROPERTY BUT OWNS THE RESTAURANT?

>> WELL, IT OWNS BOTH. >> OKAY. OKAY. THAT WAS MY PRINCIPLE QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>> GO AHEAD, MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET. >> ABOUT LIBBY, THIS IS NOT A QUESTION SPECIFIC TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT CAN YOU BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT WHO MIGHT QUALIFY FOR SUCH AN INCENTIVE, AS FAR AS JUST OTHER POTENTIAL BUSINESSES LOOKING TO LOCATE IN THE CITY OR

EXPAND? >> SO, UNDER THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION, IT'S UNIQUE RESTAURANTS, RETAIL, OR ENTERTAINMENT TYPE OF BUSINESSES. SO, OTHER, BORACO'S RECEIVED A SIMILAR GRANT FOR EQUIPMENT THEY PUT IN IN DOWNTOWN. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY ELSE WHOSE RECEIVED IT. IT COULD BE IF YOU HAVE A UNIQUE RETAIL BUSINESS IN THE AREA THAT WE DON'T HAVE, OR IF THERE'S I DON'T KNOW, A MINI GOLF PLACE THAT DECIDES TO COME HERE, SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S UNIQUE, A DESTINATION TYPE OF BUSINESS. AND WE FELT LIKE BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF THIS AND THE UNIQUENESS OF THE PROJECT AND THAT THEY'RE RENOVATING, YOU KNOW, A HISTORIC HOME, THEY FIT INTO THAT

CRITERIA. >> AND CAN YOU CLARIFY, I THINK THAT YOU MENTIONED IT EARLIER, BUT THE TIMELINE FOR THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED WITHIN THE PAST 90 DAYS, BUT THIS HAS BEEN IN PROGRESS FOR A VERY LONG TIME, CORRECT?

>> EXACTLY, LIKE I MENTIONED, IT WILL BE TWO YEARS AT THE END OF OCTOBERND A THIS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST PROJECTS I WAS ASSIGNED TO. AGAIN, I WAS NEW TO THE PROCESS, AND OF COURSE, HAVE NEVER DONE AN INCENTIVE PROJECT BEFORE. SO, AS WE REALLY DOVE INTO WHAT DOES THE POLICY SAY, IT'S A REIMBURSEMENT INCENTIVE. SO, THEY HAVE TO SPEND IT AND INVEST THE MONEY FIRST BEFORE THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO GET IT BACK. SO, WHILE WE TALKED WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS AND REALLY WORKED WITH THEM, WE, TOOK IT TO EDAB, OR MICK, MY BOARD CHAIR AND HE SPENT A COUPLE OF HOURS ARE ME ONE AFTERNOON AND LOOKED THROUGH THE NUMBERS AND WE DECIDED THAT'S A REIMBURSEMENT, WE NEED TO WAIT UNTIL THEY INVEST EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO INVEST

AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE GRANT PROGRAM. >> AND JUST ONE LAST QUESTION, I APOLOGIZE, MR. JONES, THIS IS GOING TO SOUND CRASS. IF FOR SOME REASON THEIR BUSINESS FAILS, WHAT THE PROVISION FOR US TO HAVE A CLAW BACK OF THE INCENTIVE AMOUNT OR DO WE RETAIN

THE UNPAID INCENTIVE? >> IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO

MAINTAIN THOSE PROVISIONS. >> THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE GRANT AGREEMENT HAS CLAW BACK PROVISIONS AS WELL AS GRANT CONDITIONS. IT WILL PAY THE GRANT OUTORY A PERIOD OF TIME IN A SERIES OF THREE PAYMENT, IF THEY FAIL TO MEET ANYONE OF THE CONDITIONSES, NOT

ONLY WILL WE. >> FOLLOWUP QUESTION REGARDING THE REIMBURSEMENT SECTION. I READ AND REREAD THE INCENTIVE POLICY AND MAY BE I'M MISSING IT OR SKIPPED THROUGH IT BY ACCIDENT. I COULD NOT FIND A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THERE THAT SPEAK TOSS REIMBURSEMENT. SO, IS IT, IS IT IN THERE SPECIFICALLY, OR WAS THIS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE IT A MORE OF AIM IT TOWARD A REIMBURSEMENT INCENTIVE?

>> I HAVE THIS WITH ME. >> I DON'T SEE THAT IN THE LANGUAGE THAT I HAVE WITH ME RIGHT NOW. BUT, IN ORDER TO CALCULATE, IN ORDER TO CALCULATE WHAT THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO

[01:00:04]

RECEIVE, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THEY'VE SPENT. SO, HOW WOULD WE KNOW WHAT THEY'VE SPENT IF

THEY'RE NOT THROUGH WITH THE PROJECT? >> I'LL HAVE MORE COMMENTS ON

THAT LATER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> YEAH, I HAVE KIND OF A QUESTION, AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE, I MISSED THIS MEETING. WHAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS FOR MY

FELLOW COUNCILMEMBERS FOR THE THREE-YEAR PAYOUT? >> THAT WAS MUCH DEBATED.

>> BECAUSE TO ME, THIS IS A REIMBURSEMENT GRANT AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING THERE TO HAVE THAT DEBATE, TO ME IF THERE'S CLAW BACK PROVISIONS IN THERE FOR NOT MEETING CERTAIN, GOING OUT OF BUSINESS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. THIS IS A REIMBURSEMENT GRANT, WE'VE ASKED THEM TO GO OUT THERE AND EXPEND THIS MONEY AND NOW WE'RE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO DOLE IT OUT TO YOU IN THREE YEARS, SO, TO ME THAT PART DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THE CLAW BACK PROVISIONS, IF HE CUTS AND RUNS, WE NEED TO HAVE PROVISIONS TO GET THE MONEY BACK, BUT WE ALSO WANT HIM TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO BE LIKE, HEY, WE CAN WORK WITH YOU, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE THREE-YEAROUT WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM EDAB, AND IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO ENLIGHTEN ME ON WHAT THAT WAS. IT'S A REIMBURSEMENT GRANT, HE'S ALREADY SPENT THE MONEY. REIMBURSE HIM FOR IT, KEEP THE CLAW BACK PROVISIONS IN AND

HOPEFULLY HE'S VERY, VERY, SUCCESSFUL IN OUR CITY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. I THINK THERE ARE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES ON THE OPINION OF

THE INCENTIVE POLICY. >> COUNCILMEMBER GALUARDI? >> I'LL OWN UP TO SUGGESTING THIS AND IT WAS FOR TWO REASONS, CLAW BACK PROVISIONS ONLY WORK WHEN THE ENTITY THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO CLAW BACK FROM ACTUALLY HAVE VALUABLE ASSETS. AN LLC, THERE'S A PURPOSE FOR AN LLC AND THIS IS TO LIMIT EXPOSURE TO ASSETS FOR THE POTENTIAL LIABILITY OF CLAW BACK AND OTHER INDEBTEDNESS. AND THE OTHER THINKING HERE IS THAT WE WANT TO ASSURE THAW THAT THIS BUSINESS STAYS IN BUSINESS. RESTAURANTS OFTEN FAIL EARLY IN THEIR TIMEFRAME, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, YES, THEY'VE INVESTED THE MONEY, I BELIEVE CHRIS HAD AN SBA LOAN TO DO THE RENOVATIONS.

THIS WOULD GO AWAYS, I BELIEVE ALLEVIATING FALLOUT THAT WILL RESTAURANTS PARTICULARLY EXPERIENCE AFTER THE INITIAL GLOW WEARS OFF. WE'VE NOTICED THAT ALREADY, IN THE PAST WEEK, THE PARKING LOT IS NOT QUIT AS FULL AS IT WAS THE PAST WEEKS, I'M SURE THAT'S THE HEAT, AND WHAT'S ALL GOING ON, BUT I'M SURE THEY WILL BE SUCCESSFUL. BUT, THAT WAS TO DECREASE THE EXPOSURE, IF THE RESTAURANTS FAILED WITHIN A YEAR, WE WOULD HAVE HALF THE MONEY STILL. IF THE RESTAURANT MAKES IT FIVE YEARS, AND I WAS GOING TO RAISE HOOT QUESTION THERE, WE HAVE IN THERE THAT THEY MUST OPERATE FOR THREE YEARS BUT OUR PAYBACK IS 4.3, THAT MATH DOESN'T LINE UP

FOR ME. THAT WAS THE THINKING BEHIND THE THREE YEAR. >> AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S OVER $1 MILLION OF INVESTMENT INTO THIS FOR $119,000 WHICH IS PRETTY SMALL. AND LET'S SAY HE DID FAIL IN TWO YEARS AND HE WAS COMPLETELY BANKRUPT AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THAT MONEY BACK, WHAT WE DID GET IS A RENOVATED, HISTORIC HOME IN OUR TOWN WHICH IS RESTAURANT READY THAT SOMEONE CAN IMMEDIATELY MOVE INTO AND IS READY TO GO WITH A NEW BUSINESS. TO ME, THAT'S WORTH THE $119,000 INVESTMENT TO SHOW LOCAL DEVELOPERS, AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME IN AND RENOVATE OLD HOME TOSS KEEP THE CHARACTER ESPECIALLY IN OUR DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT, I THINK THE ASSET IS THAT WE GET A BEAUTIFUL RESTAURANT THAT EVEN IF HE'S NOT RUNNING IT, SOMEBODY, I THINK,

WOULD MOVE IN VERY QUICKLY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCILMEMBER BELL?

>> I DID NOT AGREE WITH RYAN, OKAY. I HAVE TO BE HONEST. I BELIEVE IN JUST GO AHEAD AND PAY THEM, BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY PUT MADE AN INVESTMENT OVER $1 MILLION. AND IF A PERSON PUT

[01:05:02]

IN THAT KIND OF MONEY, THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING TO WALK AWAY. I'M JUST GOING TO BE HONEST, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, UNLESS THEY'VE WON THE LOTTO AND THEY DON'T CARE, BUT, I DON'T THINK THEY'VE WON THE LOTTO, BUT I'M FOR GIVING THEM THE MONEY, $119,273 UP FRONT, BECAUSE THEY'RE INCURRING FINANCE CHARGES. IT'S JUST ACCUMULATING. JUST GIVE THEM

THE MONEY. SO, THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, OKAY.

QUESTIONS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I DO.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: GO AHEAD, COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, YES, ABSOLUTELY YOU'RE CORRECT THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE THAT NIGHT AS TO WHAT THE RIGHT THING WAS TO DO. AND I AGREE WITH BOTH MATT AND PAM THAT CHRIS AND JESSICA HAVE PUT THEIR HEART INTO THIS HOUSE. ALONG WITH A LOT OF MONEY. AND SO, I'M ALSO OF THE MIND THAT WE AUTO PAY THIS OUT IN FULL. KNOWING AND AFTER TALKING TO CHRIS KNOWING THAT LA HACIENDA IS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT HE WANTS TO DO IN THIS CITY, HE WANTS TO DO OTHER THINGS, SO, I WANT TO REWARD

THAT. >> MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAD ASKED EARLIER ABOUT THE REIMBURSEMENT. I FOUND THE POLICY STATEMENT.

>> IT IS IN HERE WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE MATCHING GRANTS, THE CITY MAY REIMBURSE UP TO 50% OF COSTS AND THE GREASE TRAP IS A REBATE. THE CITY MAY CONSIDER REBATE THE COST OF PURCHASE.

SO, REIMBURSE, REBATE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> I FELT THAT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC'S INFORMATION. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS? >> IS THAT FOR THE MOTION OR A QUESTION?

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A MOTION

BY COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO CORRECTLY WORD THIS, BUT I'M MAKING A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING A SECOND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT WITH ALLOFOUR HOUSE HERITAGE HOUSE, WITH THE EDIT BEING THAT WE STRIKE THE THREE-YEAR PAYMENT PLAN AND PAY IT IN FULL.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. I THINK THAT'S CLEAR ENOUGH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT?

>> I'LL SECOND. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BELL AND I'LL START WITH DISCUSSION ON COUNCILMEMBER GALUARDI'S SIDE. COUNCILMEMBER GALUARDI.

>> I'LL GO FIRST AGAIN? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WELL, I'M ALTERNATING HERE.

>> WELL, LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT, I HAVE NO QUESTIONS, I DON'T THINK. I THINK, THEY HAVE, AS MIKE SAID, PUT THEIR HEART AND SOUL INTO THIS. AND WE DO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE TAXPAYERS TO BE SURE THAT THEIR MONEY'S WELL SPENT. I THINK THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WHEN WE HAVE HOME-GROWN INGENUITY THAT WE COULD REWARD THAT AND INCENTIVIZE OTHERS TO DO THE SAME. THAT BEING SAID, I DO THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE POLICY MORE CLOSELY. I KNOW THE POLICY WAS ESTABLISHED BY PRIOR COUNCILS, SO, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD STUDY AND ENSURE THAT THE AMOUNTS LINE UP WITH WHAT THEY SHOULD. IT STRIKES ME THAT MAY BE IN SOME BUSINESSES, 10% IS A LITTLE, AND IN SOME BUSINESS 10% IS A LOT, BUT 10% OF TOTAL INVESTMENT COULD BE A LOT OF MONEY THAT THIS CITY DOESN'T HAVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, I EXPECT THIS RESTAURANT TO LAST THE 4.3 YEARS OR 5, OR 7, SO THAT WE WILL GET OUR RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN THIS, AND SO, I DO INTEND TO

SUPPORT THE MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER BRITTON. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY.

COUNCILMEMBER GRUBISICH, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER BRITTON, DO YOU HAVE ANY

COMMENTS? >> I'VE MADE THEM. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: MARRY PRO

TEM WINGET. >> FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I SPENT MOST OF THE WEEKEND ANSWERING QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO THE INCENTIVE REQUEST. I AM ALL FOR THE INCENTIVE REQUEST ITSELF. I THINK IF PEOPLE BETTER UNDERSTOOD OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY, IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO THOSE ANSWERING THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS. WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS TO FOSTER NEW COMMERCE COMING INTO ROWLETT.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY A FACT. ANOTHER FACT IS THAT THIS BUSINESS QUALIFIED FOR THE

[01:10:03]

INCENTIVE AND THE INCENTIVE IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY STAFF AND THE RECOMMENDED ADVISORY BOARD WHICH IS A CITIZEN LED INITIATIVE. AND THE THIRD FACT IS ANY NEW BUSINESS OWNER THAT FITS IN THE CATEGORY IS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR A GRANT IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS YOU MENTIONED, LIBBY. I DO GET HUNG UP ON PAYING EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE. AND I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THIS IS THE ONLY REASON I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS MOTION, I COMPLETELY SUPPORT LA HACIENDA AND THE INCENTIVE ITSELF, I'M JUST NOT A FAN OF MAKING IT ALL UP FRONT ALL AT

ONCE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: DEPUTY MARRY PRO TEM SHINDER?

>> THANK YOU. THIS IS A HARD ONE. I'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF INPUT FROM QUITE A FEW CITIZENS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS QUESTION AND I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS QUESTION.

I WANT TO SAY, FIRST, THAT I'VE BEEN TO THE RESTAURANT, I THINK IT'S BEEN REALLY WELL DONE, IT'S LOVELY, I ADMIRE THE OWNERS. I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK AND THE TIME AND THE EFFORT AND THE MONEY THAT THEY HAVE PUT INTO IT AND I REALLY, REALLY WANT TO SEE IT SUCCEED. BUT, I DIDN'T MAKE ANY SECRET DURING MY CAMPAIGN THAT I'M GENERALLY OPPOSED TO CASH INCENTIVES TO BUSINESSES PAID WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS, I DON'T LIKE THE SELECTIVITY ASPECT, YES, ANY OTHER BUSINESS IS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY, BUT WILL EVERY OTHER BUSINESS GET THAT HELP? PROBABLY NOT. I BELIEVE THAT INCENTIVES IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN SHOULD BE TO ATTRACT TYPES OF BUSINESSES THAT WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE AND WOULDN'T ATTRACT OTHERWISE, AND LIBBY EVEN ALLUDED TO THAT, SAYING, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL TIMES THAT IT'S ABOUT SOMETHING UNIQUE, SOMETHING WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE. WE ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF MEXICAN RESTAURANTS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT INCENTIVES SHOULD BE BASED ON WHETHER WE LIKE SOMEONE OR DON'T LIKE SOMEONE PERSONALLY OR WHETHER WE SYMPATHIZE WITH THE PEOPLE INVOLVED. I DO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE EFFECTS OF INFLATION WITH THE UNEXPECTED EXPENSES THAT THEY'VE ENCOUNTERS, WE'RE ALL DEALING WITH THAT, ALL BUSINESSES ARE DEALING WITH UNEXPECTED EXPENSES RIGHT NOW. I WAS TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE WAIVER OF THE $18,000 IMPACT FEES. ON THE OTHER HAND, I'VE HEARD THE ARGUMENT THAT THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM DOES EXIST WHETHER I LIKE IT OR NOT, AND THE MONEY'S GOING TO GO TO SOMEBODY AND I WOULD PREFER TO SEE IT GIVE IT TO MOM-AND-POP OWNERS WHO LIVE IN THE CITY VERSUS SOME NAMELESS FACELESS CORPORATION THAT ALREADY HAS PLENTY OF MONEY. THE AGREEMENT DID INCLUDE THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS, NOW IT DOESN'T, I GUESS. IN MY OPINION IT'S FAR BETTER WHEN WE DO HAVE THAT LIMITED, UM, INCREMENTAL DISBURSEMENT. I'VE HEARD THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PROMISES BY THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND THEY MAY HAVE DEPENDED ON THOSE PROMISES IN GETTING THIS. SO, WHAT DO I DO. I'M NOT OBLIGATED TO KEEP PROMISES IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE MADE BY SOMEBODY ELSE. I AM OBLIGATED TO KEEP THE PROMISES THAT I MADE TO THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR ME AND MY VOTE TONIGHT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS, IT'S BASED ON MY PERSONAL POLICY AND PRINCIPLE. AND, I ALSO WANTED TO ADD MAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD DID VOTE TO APPROVE THIS BUT IT WAS NOT UNANIMOUS, IT WAS A 5-2

VOTE. SO, THAT'S WHY I CAN'T VOTE FOR THIS MOTION. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS:

COUNCILMEMBER BELL? ANY COMMENTS? >> YES, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS.

I THINK YOU SAID SOMETHING WAS NOT APPROVED IN THAT DEAL? AND I ASKED DAVID AND HE SAID, YES,

WE DO. >> >> I THINK THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION IS THAT YOU MADE REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT PERFOR PERFORMANCE CRITERIA WERE NOT CONTAINED IN THE AGREEMENT. AND THE CRITERIA IS IN ALL OF OUR

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANTS IS THERE. >>

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN TYPICAL.

>> I WANTED TO GET THAT CLARIFIED. I DO SUPPORT YOU. AND IT IS DIFFERENT TO GO AND LOOK AT THAT'S AN OLD BUILDING AND THAT TOOK A LOT OF WORK. I KNOW IT HAS ASBESTOS AND

[01:15:05]

EVERYTHING ELSE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YEAR THE HOME WAS BUILT, BUT I KNOW IT'S OLD.

>> 1922. >> 19 WHAT? >> 1922.

>> OKAY. THAT'S SORT OF OLD, OKAY. AND YOU GOT TO LOOK AT IT FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW, IT IS DIFFERENT. YOU CAN'T GO UPPED THE STREET. WE'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE SOME OF OUR HISTORY, AND THAT BUILDING IS HISTORY. I REMEMBER IT USED TO BE A TITLE COMPANY INSIDE THAT BUILDING AND OR THINGS. AND, YOU JUST GOT TO LOOK AT WHAT WAS HERE. AND WE WANT TO KEEP THAT. WE DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE SOME OF THESE OTHER COMMUNITIES, GO IN AND TEAR IT DOWN JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT SOMETHING NEW. SO, I'M SUPPORTING IT. GO AHEAD AND PAY THEM AT THE FULL RATE AND JUST KEEP ON GOING. BECAUSE WE WANT OTHER COMPANIES TO COME HERE AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, I'VE HEARD IT FROM SEVERAL PEOPLE, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT LOOKING AT ANOTHER HOME THAT IS OLD AND

REHABBING IT AND ANOTHER RESTAURANT. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: GO AHEAD.

>> I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS, I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS, BUT ONE THING THAT I FEEL I NEED TO ADDRESS AND I CAN'T SPEAK IF THERE WAS A FORMER COUNCILMEMBER OR SOMEBODY LIKE THAT THAT MAY HAVE SAID SOMETHING OUT OF TURN, BUT I CAN UNEQUIVOCALLY SAY THAT THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL IN NO WAY

MADE ANY PROMISES TO THIS DEVELOPER. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK THAT

CAME FROM EDAB NOT COUNCIL, IT DIDN'T GO TO THE COUNCIL LEVEL. >> I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH

THAT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IT'S JUST A MISUNDERSTANDING, THAT'S FINE.

OKAY, I'M GOING TO GET ONTO MY COMMENTS. SO, I WANT TO FIRST START OFF BY EXPRESSING MY STRONG, STRONG SUPPORT FOR SMALL BUSINESSES IN ROWLETT AND SPECIFICALLY THIS BUSINESS FOR TAKING A DECAYING STRUCTURE AND TURNING IT INTO A HISTORIC GEM IN THIS COMMUNITY. I AND SO MANY OTHERS AND EVERYBODY HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY ARE GRATEFUL FOR SEEING THIS HOME RESTORED AND PUT TO GOOD USE. I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO BE A GOOD STEWARD WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS, WE ALL DO. MY COMMENTS ARE NOT DIRECTED TOWARDS THIS SPECIFIC BUSINESS BUT MY OVERALL VIEW OF WHAT INCENTIVES ARE AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE CAREFULLY UTILIZED. A THING THAT MOTIVATES OR ENCOURAGES ONE TO DO SOMETHING. THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT SOMETHING, IN THIS CASE, THE PROJECT IS ALREADY COMPLETED AND IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS. THEREFORE THIS NO LONGER APPLIES TO THE DEFINITION OF INCENTIVE, DOES THIS MEAN THAT EXISTING ESTABLISHMENTS CAN NOW APPLY FOR INCENTIVE EVEN IF THEY'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS? WHAT PRECEDENT DOES THIS SET? YOU KNOW, IF THE RESULT OF THIS APPLICANT REQUESTING THE INCENTIVE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WAS FROM STAFF DIRECTION OR EDAP DIRECTION, THEN, IN MY VIEW, WE HAVE A POLICY PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN. INCENTIVE REQUESTS SHOULD COME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION AND PROBABLY EVEN BEFORE COMMENCEMENT, BECAUSE IF A BUSINESS IS ALREADY BUILT AND GETTING READY TO OPEN, WHAT EXACTLY IS THE CITY INCENTIVIZING ON THAT POINT? IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO DO WORK TO ENSURE THAT OUR POLICY REFLECTS THE INTENTION OF WHAT A INCENTIVE IS MEANT TO DO INSTEAD OF HAVING RETRO ACTIVE APPLICATIONS THAT NO LONGER MEET THE INTENTION OF AN INCENTIVE AND FOR THE FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP, I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS INCENTIVE REQUEST. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE I CALL THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM PASSES 5-2.

[8D.Consider action to approve a resolution appointing members to a Charter Review Commission under Article XII – “Adoption of Charter” of the City of Rowlett Home Rule Charter]

>> CONGRATULATIONS. AND WE'LL MOVE ONTO ITEM 8 D CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION UNDER ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT HOME RULE

CHARTER. LAURA? >> OH, MY, GOODNESS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BACK THAT WAY

UP. >> WHAT? >> I GUESS THE VOTE WAS MADE.

>> VOTE WAS MADE. >> THE VOTE WAS MADE. IS THERE A PROVISION IN WHICH AN

ACCIDENTAL VOTE WAS MADE THAT CAN BE RECALLED? >> THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS AN ACCIDENTAL VOTE, THEREFORE, HOWEVER, A PROCESS UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER IF THE SAME MEETING OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING MEETING, A PREVAILING VOTING MEMBER MAY ASK FOR A RECONSIDERATION OF THE ITEM THAT HAS TO BE MOTIONED AND SECONDED AND VOTED ON BY A FAVORABLE

[01:20:03]

MAJORITY AND THEN YOU BEGIN ALL OVER AGAIN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND RECONSIDER THE

ITEM. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME, BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE PASSED ANYWAY. I WILL JUST ASK THAT IT'S STATED IN THE RECORD THAT THE IF THIS IS POSSIBLE THAT MY INTENTION WAS TO VOTE NO, BUT THAT IT WAS VOTED YES.

>> YOU COULD SAY THAT ALL DAY LONG. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WELL, I WANT IT REFLECTED IN THE RECORD. SO THAT COULD BE REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES.

>> I WILL NOTE THAT IN THE MINUTES. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY.

THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS. I'LL BE A LOT MORE CAREFUL WITH RED AND GREEN, THE PROBLEM IS IT'S ANGLED HERE, AND I WAS NOT CAREFUL ENOUGH. EVERYBODY KNOWS HIGH OPINION. ALL RIGHT,

CHARTER CONTROL COMMISSION? >> SO, AT THEIR WORK SESSION ON JULY 19TH, COUNCIL DISCUSSED A POSSIBLE CHARTER AMENDMENT FOR MAY 2023 AND MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET AND COUNCILMEMBERS GALUARDI, AND DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER REVIEWED A TIME LINE OF ITEMS. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION IT WAS THE CONSENSUS TO APPOINT A CHARTER AMENDMENT. SO, THE CHARTER STATES THAT THE COMMISSION SHALL CONSIST OF SEVEN CITIZENS OF THE CITY, COUNCILMEMBERS SUBMITTED NAMES FOR MEMBERSHIP, AND A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMITTED THE FOLLOWING SEVEN NAMES: OF THESE REGULAR MEMBERS, WE NEED COUNCIL NEEDS TO SELECT A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. THERE ARE ALSO TWO ALTERNATE POSITIONS. THE REMAINING NAMES THAT WERE SUBMITTED ARE THE FOLLOWING: OF THOSE NAMES, COUNCIL NEEDS TO DETERMINE TWO ALTERNATES. AND THEN, ALSO, DETERMINE A COUNCIL