[00:00:07] >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IT IS 5:00, AND IT'S TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6TH, 2022. WE'RE AT CITY HALL AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.001 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE THIS MEETING CAN BE CONVENED INTO CROSSED SECTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEEKING ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. REALIGN REGULAR SESSION OR CALL THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. INFORMATION ON PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE MEETING CAN BE FOUND ON THE PUBLIC AGENDA OR ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. AND OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS WILL BE DISCUSSED AFTER THE REGULAR SESSION. WE'LL MOVE DIRECTLY INTO THE REGULAR WORK SESSION. ITEM 3 A, DISCUSS AND RECEIVE DIRECTION REGARDING THE $50,000 DONATION RECEIVED FROM THE ROWLETT HOUSING CORPORATION FOR HOME REPAIRS FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT REQUIRE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> WE HAVE ONE CARD. >> WE HAVE ONE CARD. >> MAYOR, OUR PRESENTER IS NOT HERE YET. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST MOVE US AROUND A LITTLE BIT. >> WE MOVE OBJECT TO THE NEXT ITEM, ITEM 3 B. SO, THEN ARE YOU READY TO DISCUSS THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA? [3C. Discuss 2023 Legislative Agenda for the City of Rowlett.] >> I'M ABSOLUTELY READY. >> OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 3 C DISCUSS 2023 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT, DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY ONLINE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM. IT'S ALL YOUR'S. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO, COUNCIL AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE COMING UP FAST ON THE 88TH, TEXAS LEGISLATION SESSION. EVERY TWO YEARS WE HAVE A NEW ONE. AND THIS ONE IS COMING UP ON US PRETTY QUICK. SO, JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THE LAST SESSION, UM, OVER 7,000, OR ALMOST 7,000 BILLS WERE INTRODUCED, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN 2021. APPROXIMATELY 28% WOULD HAVE EFFECTED TEXAS CITIES IN SOME WAY, SOME SUBSTANTIAL. IN THE END, OVER 1,000 BILLS WERE PASSED AND SIGNED INTO LAW. SO, WITH THE 88TH TEXAS LEGISLATIVE ESSION COMING UP, WE WANT TO TUNE INTO THAT, AND WE KNOW THAT IN THE AFTERMATH, THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, AND WITH THE CURRENT POLITICAL CLIMATE, PARTICULARLY, INFLATION AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A RECESSION, WE KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY INTERESTING SESSION. THERE'S ALWAYS A LOT OF POLITICS INVOLVED IN THIS, SOMETIMES WHEN YOU'RE PRETTY CONFIDENT SOMETHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN, IT DOESN'T, AND VICE VERSA, SO, THE STAKES ARE, OBVIOUSLY, VERY, VERY HIGH. SO, THERE ARE MANY TOOLS AVAILABLE TO HELP STAFF AND YOU TO IDENTIFY AND TRACK BILLS. SO, TML IS A GREAT RESOURCE FOR US. THEY ACTUALLY PUBLISH STUFF ON A REGULAR BASIS. I THINK IT'S EVEN WEEKLY, BUT, THEY ALSO SEND OUT EMAILS DAILY IF THERE'S BILLS THAT ARE MOVING REALLY FAST. PARTICULARLY ONES THEY KNOW ARE AFFECTING THEIR CITIES, SOMETIMES THEY'LL EVEN TELL YOU TO CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT THAT. THE OTHER TOOL THAT WE HAVE IS THE TLO WHICH IS THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE ONLINE, WITH THAT, YOU'RE ABLE TO SET UP YOUR OWN PERSONAL ACCOUNT. AND WITH THAT, YOU'RE ABLE TO TRACK CERTAIN BILLS. YOU COULD TELL IT, I WANT TO TRACK HOHOUSE BIL 2073, I WANT TO ATTRACT, SENATE BILL, PICK A NUMBER, AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT IT WILL OBVIOUSLY ENGAGE WITH YOU, EVERY STEP OF THE WAY AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY PROCESSES OR, THE PROCESS IS VERY LONG THAT BILLS GO THROUGH, THEY END UP SOMETIMES GOING TO COMMITTEE, SOMETIMES THEY COME OUT. THAT'S THE MOST SIMPLIST THING, SOMETIMES THEY'RE READ, ONE READING, AND TWO READINGS, THEN [00:05:01] THEY'RE ENROLLED. THERE ARE SO MANY STEPS IN THERE AND THIS IS PROBABLY THE SING BEST TOOL THAT YOU HAVE TO TRACK A SPECIFIC BILL THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN. AND JUST TO SAY THIS, THE WEBSITE IS NOT YET LIVE, I MEAN, IT IS LIVE, BUT IT'S STILL REFERENCING THE 87TH SESSION, SO, THE 88TH ONE IS NOT YET SET UP. AND THEN, AGAIN, THIS ALLOWS YOU TO SET UP A BILL LIST, ALERTS, YOU COULD SAVE YOUR SEARCHES, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING SPECIFIC. IT HAS MOBILE DEVICE SUPPORT, SO YOU COULD TRACK IT ON YOUR PHONE OR IPAD EASILY, AND IT ALLOWS RS S FEEDS. THIS IS THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR, PREFILING STARTS AS EARLY AS FEBRUARY 2ND, IDENTIFY FRIDAY MARCH 10TH IS THE DEADLINE FOR FILING BILLS. ON JANUARY 10TH, THE LEGISLATURE WILL CONVENE AT NOON, THIS IS VERY REGIMENTED, EVERY STEP IS SO MANY DAYS FROM THIS, AND WE'LL DO THAT, AND THEN MAY 29TH, IS THE LAST DAY OF THE REGULAR SESSION. IN THE PAST, ROWLETT ACTUALLY HAD A BILL THAT WENT TO THE WIRE AND IT WAS APPROVED THE FINAL DAY. EVEN AT THE 11TH HOUR, IT WAS FINALLY APPROVED. SO, THERE'S A BUZZ AT THE LAST MINUTE SOMETIMES ON THESE BILLS, AND EVEN WHEN YOU THINK THEY'RE GONE, THEN THEY GET RESURRECTED AND PASSED AT THE LAST MINUTE. SO, FOR THE 87 TEXAS LEGISLATION SECTION. THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHED PRIORITIES, IN THE PAST, WE WOULD SOMETIMES HAVE A DOZEN ITEMS OF WHAT WE WOULD OPPOSE AND SUPPORT. AND, A LOFT OF THESE ARE BOILER PLATE. YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, ANY ATTEMPT TO THAT WOULD ERODE OUR MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY IN ANY WAY, ANY ATTEMPT TO AFFECT REVENUES THAT OTHERWISE THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO APPLY. COUNCIL, THE LAST SESSION, DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO FOCUS ON A SMALLER NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WERE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. NOT JUST ALL THE BOILER PLATE, TMLS, GOING TO HELP US SUPPORT THESE THINGS, BUT SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT WERE IMPORTANT TO ROWLETT THAT WE WOULD ENGAGE OUR LEGISLATURES ABOUT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE PARTNER WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND WE WILL GO DOWN THERE, USUALLY IN FEBRUARY, WE'LL MEET WITH OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION. AND SOMETIMES THOSE CONVERSATIONS LAST 20 MINUTES, 15 MINUTES, SOMETIMES WE GO LONGER. IF WE HAVE A DOZEN ITEMS ON THERE, WE COULD AT MOST TALK ABOUT 2-4 ITEMS, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE FOCUS ON WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO US. SO, IN THAT SESSION, WE FOCUSED ON LEGISLATION, TO HELP ELIMINATE WHAT WE VIEWED AS UNFAIR PRICING PRACTICES BY THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, THE OTHER THING THAT WE ASKED TO DO WAS REPEAL PORTIONS OF HOUSE BILL 3167. THIS HAD TO DO WITH APPLICANTS REQUESTING AN EXTENSION FROM US FOR PLAT APPLICATIONS. SO, TWO SESSIONS AGO, THE STATE PASSED A NEW BILL THAT SAID PLATS HAD TO BE APPROVED WITHIN 30 DAYS. APPROVED OR DENIED IN 30 DAYS. FROM TIME TO TIME, WE'RE TRYING TO HELP HAND-HOLD SOMEBODY THROUGH THE PROCESS, MAY BE IT'S A MOM AND POP, MAY BE THEY MAY NOT HAVE A PROFESSIONAL PERSON HELPING THEM, AND SOMETIMES THEY NEED A LITTLE EXTRA, SO OUR ONLY OPTION IS TO DENY, BECAUSE, UNDER STATE LAW THAT'S ALL WE COULD DO. SO, WE HAD TALKED TO OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AT THAT TIME, TO SAY THAT IF A BILL COULD BE SUPPORTED THAT WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ASK FOR AN EXTENSION, WE WOULD SUPPORT THAT. AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO OPPOSE BILLS THAT ERODE OUR AUTHORITY. SO, TML HAS ALREADY PUT TOGETHER THEIR PRIORITY PACKAGE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP TO CONSIDER. AND IN EARLY OCTOBER, TML WILL HOLD THEIR ANNUAL CONVERSATION, THAT'S WHERE THEY WILL TALK ABOUT THE BILLS. THERE'S A RESOLUTION, IT WAS IN YOUR PACKET THAT SHOWS ALL THE DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS THAT THEY WANT TO SUPPORT. AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASKING -- OR OPPOSE, SUPPORT OR OPPOSE, FROM THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, BUT, AGAIN, THEIR HIGHEST PRIORITY IS TO DEFEAT LEGISLATION DEEMED DETRIMENTAL TO CITIES. THEY OPPOSING BAD [00:10:07] BILLS AND THAT'S THEIR SINGLE BIGGEST FOCUS AGAIN. SO, UM, AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED A GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. AND, THEY HAVE MET, AND DISCUSSED WHAT KINDS OF ACTION THEY WOULD RECOMMEND TO THIS FULL BODY TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE. YOU COULD SEE HERE, OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT TO CONTINUE OUR WORK WITH THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT AND SPECIFICALLY, ASKING THE LEGISLATURE TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS OF REQUESTING MEMBERSHIP. WE WANT TO ADVOCATE THAT SCHOOL DISTRICTS PAY 100% OF THE COST OF SECURITY. REGARDLESS OF HOW IT'S PROVIDED. TO ADVOCATE FOR TOLL WAY AUTHORITIES TO PAY A PER INCIDENT COST TO MUNICIPALITIES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE. REMEMBER, THEY ALREADY PAY HIGHWAY PATROL, I SHOULD SAY, DPS, THEY PAY DPS TO MONITOR THEIR ROADWAYS. BUT, IN THE NORTH TEXAS AREA, AND PARTICULARLY WITH DFW, A LOT OF TIME THAT'S DONE WITH CITIES, NOT DONE BY THEM. IF THERE'S A RECOGNIZE, IT'S OUR FIRE-FIGHTERS AND MEDICS THAT RESPOND. WE WANT TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS MUNICIPALITIES TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL CAN PURCHASE. FROM SOMEBODY THAT SNATCHES UP ALL THE AVAILABLE PROPERTIES. OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO PROHIBIT CITY OFFICIALS FROM THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS PROFESSIONALS OR JOIN ASSOCIATIONS TO EFFICIENTLY ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THEIR COMMUNITY WHEN DISCUSSING THESE ITEMS WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS. INCLUDING STATE AGENCIES. SO, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THE LAST TWO SESSIONS, THIS HAS BEEN A HOT TOPIC. AND THEY, IT WAS EITHER THE LAST SESSION, I THINK IT WAS, WHERE THE GOVERNOR AND SOME OTHERS INTRODUCED BILLS THAT TO PROHIBIT CITIES FROM JOINING GROUPS LIKE TML THAT WOULD HELP ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF CITIES. PRIVATE COMPANIES CAN DO IT, BUT, PUBLIC COMPANIES, SUCH AS MUNICIPALITY, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, COUNTIES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SUPPORT INTERNET SALES TO DESTINATION CITIES. WE'RE VERY TUNED INTO THIS, RIGHT NOW, THERE'S LITIGATION OVER THIS ISSUE. WE DO KNOW THAT SINCE THIS LAW WAS CHANGED BY THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER, A FEW YEARS AGO, ROWLETT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVES QUITE A BIT OF MONEY FROM THAT. AND THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES THAT THEY'RE FIGHTING THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEM RIGHT NOW. AND THEN, OVERTURN SENATE BILL 1004 TO ALLOW CITY TOSS FIX RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT AND USE PFE TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY INSIDE OF A CITY'S LIMITS ARE OWNED BY THE CITY. AND THE STATE SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DICTATE ANY TERMS THAT WE WOULD OTHERWISE SET FOR THAT AND A FEW SESSIONS AGO, THEY DID EXACTLY THAT RELATED TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS. SO, THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE, I'LL COME BACK TO THAT IN A MINUTE. SO, BASED ON TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION, WE WANT TO GET FEEDBACK TO HELP FINALIZE OUR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES. ONCE WE HAVE THAT FINAL FEEDBACK, WE'LL PREPARE A FLIER TO ARTICULATE OUR MESSAGE AS WE MEET WITH OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION, MOST YEARS WE ACTUALLY GET TO MEET WITH THEM BEFORE THEY GO DOWN TO AUSTIN. AND THEN, WE IMMEDIATE WITH THEM AGAIN WHILE THEY'RE IN AUSTIN. SO, AGAIN, IN FEBRUARY, WE ANTICIPATE PARTNERING WITH OUR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO DO EXACTLY THAT. SO, THE QUESTION FOR TONIGHT IS, ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC ISSUES OR ITEMS COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER IN ESTABLISHING ROWLETT'S LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES THAT IS NOT INCLUDING FROM THE DRAFT FROM THE COUNSEL'S SUBCOMMITTEE, OR IS THERE ANYTHING MISSING OR IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE ALSO NEED TO DISCUSS. WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE TIME FOR THAT, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE ALL SUPER CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. AND GIVEN THE LAST COUPLE OF SESSIONS, WE'RE VERY, VERY CONCERNED THAT THE STATE WILL, AGAIN, ISSUE UNFUNDED MANDATES WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THAT WOULD BE [00:15:04] HUGELY DETRIMENTAL TO CITIES AND COUNTIES. >> I HAD A QUESTION, SO, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE DESTINATION TAX CHANGE HAD BEEN PLACED ON HOLD BY A COURT CASE BROAD BY ROROUND ROCK. >> WELL, THERE ARE TWO PIECES TO IT. THE FIRST OFF, THE GENERIC PART HAS GONE INTO AFFECT, AND WE'VE BEEN GETTING $45,000, TO $55,000 A MONTH FROM THAT BILL. THE THINK THAT THE COMPTROLLER DELAYED IMPLEMENTING WERE CITY'S WHERE THEY HAD 380 AGREEMENTS WITH A PARTICULAR FACTION. LIKE, WE KNOW, THAT DLHORTON LEFT HERE BECAUSE OF THAT EXACT ISSUE. ARLINGTON, NOT IN ARLINGTON, GAVE THEM A 380 AGREEMENT TO BUILD THEIR HEADQUARTERS THERE. SO, SOME OF THESE CITIES ARE FIGHTING THAT ELEMENT THAT WAS DELAYED, THAT DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION, AND THAT'S WHAT IS TIED UP IN THE COURTS AND THAT THEY'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, IT MAY INCREASE OUR TAX AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS THIS FIRST TRANCHE DID. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I THINK ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO WATCH CAREFULLY, BECAUSE, I DON'T KNOW WHICH DIRECTION IT'S WILLING TO GO IN TERMS OF REGULATION, BUT IN TERMS OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS, WITH THEN MUNICIPALITIES, AND HOW DO YOU COLLECT THAT HOT TAX? SOME WE'VE SEEN BENEFITS FROM, BUT NOT ALL ARE DOING THAT. I HOPE THAT THERE'S GUIDANCE THAT COMES OUT OF THIS THE NEXT LEGISLATION SESSION, THERE ARE A LOT OF CITIES MAKING THEIR OWN RULES RIGHT NOW, IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE WILD, WILD WEST. I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY TO GO WITH IT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT'S NET SPECIFIC UNTIL WE SEE HOW SOME OF THAT STUFF PANS OUT, BUT, TRACKING THOSE SO THAT WE COULD SEE KIND OF HOW THEY START ROLLING. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I KNOW, WHAT WAS IT, THE LAST BILL, OR THE LAST LEGISLATIONTIVE SESSION, DIDN'T THEY BAN CITIES FROM BANNING SHORT-TERM RENTALS. SO, IT'S LIKE, YOU CAN'T OUTRIGHT BAN THEM, BUT YOU COULD ADD REGULATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS. I THINK IT WAS ARLINGTON, NO IT WAS FORT WORTH, IT WAS CONSIDERING REZONING EVERY SHORT-TERM RENTALAL TO A HOTEL, SO, EVERY SHORT-TERM RENTAL WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE COUNCIL TO REZONE IT A HOTEL. >> I THINK FRISCO AND MCKINNEY DID SOMETHING TO, BUT, ANYWAY, I FEEL LIKE THOSE ARE GOING TO BE ATTACKED. ANYTHING THAT CHIPS AWAY OP THE CITY'S ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO REGULATE, TRACK, TAX, SHORT-TERM RENTALS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE ON THE LIST. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND THAT WAS SOMETHING ON OUR END, WE STARTED TO SEE A SPIKE IN OUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX BECAUSE OF THE COLLECTIONS AND SHORT-TERM RENTAL HOT TAX. >> AND IN ROWLETT, WE'VE COLLECTED $45,000 FROM SHORT-TERM RENTALS. >> THAT WAS FROM ONE, RIGHT, AIR B&B? >> YES. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I'LL GIVE CREDIT TO LAURA, SHE POINTED OUT SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER. WE HAVE ALREADY RUN INTO THIS ISSUE A COUPLE TIMES WITH OUR COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ENFORCEMENT. WE'RE RESTRICTED ON WELL, LET'S, OKAY, IF WE DON'T SPEND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, THE MONEY GOES BACK TO THE STATE. EVEN THOUGH WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE CONDUCTING THE INSPECTIONS AND ISSUES THE CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS. SO, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSS WITH OUR LEGISLATORS ON, WHICH IS REMOVING THAT DEADLINE -- >> THAT CAP. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THAT CAP. >> OR MAY BE ROLLING INTO AN AVERAGE OR SOMETHING. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YEAH, BECAUSE NOW, WE'VE HAD TO SEND THE STATE $60,000? >> ONE TIME, IT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE HAD THIS PROBLEM HAPPEN, BUT, YES, WE HAD TO CUT A CHECK. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND THAT WAS HOW MUCH MONEY? $60,000? >> YEAH, I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT, I THINK THAT WAS ABOUT RIGHT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY TO SEND BACK TO THE STATE FOR OUR WORK. SO, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. >> SEVERAL OF US WENT TO THE TML CONFERENCE IN ALLEN THE LAST MONTH OR SO, AND THE PRESENTATION BY NATHAN JOHNSON, AND MATT [00:20:09] (INDISCERNIBLE) WAS THAT THE STATE HAS A LOT OF MONEY THIS YEAR BECAUSE THEY COLLECTED A LOT MORE SALES TAX. >> RIGHT. >> AND THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE THAT ONE WAY TO HELP THEM ALLEVIATE THIS PROBLEM IS TO ACTUALLY A LOCATE SOME OF THAT BACK TO THE MUNICIPALITIES DIRECTLY FOR THINGS LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS A BILL OR JUST SOME LOBBYING, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BENEFIT US, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS GAP THAT WE HAVE COMING UP IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS IN OUR TAX REVENUES, MOVE SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS FORWARD THAT WE WERE UNABLE TO GET INTO THE BUDGET FOR THIS TIME OF YEAR. >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SHARING? >> I GUESS IT WOULD BE EATING MORE INTO THE STATE'S PORTION OF THE SALES TAX, SO WE GET 2%, 1% GOES TO DART, SO, BASICALLY SAYING GIVE US $0.03. >> OR ADD A PERCENT. >> OR ADVOCATED A REALLOCATION OF THE EXCESS IN THE RAINY DAY FUND BACK TO MUNICIPALITIES. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IT DOESN'T HURT TO ASK. >> THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT AS ANTI-CITY THIS SESSION AS IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST, THIS IS WHAT I'M HEARING FROM AUSTIN. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WELL, THEY'RE FOCUSED ON OTHER THINGS. >> SOME OF THE CITY HATERS ARE NO LONGER IN THE LEGISLATURE ANYMORE. >> NATHAN JOHNSON, AND ANGIE (INDISCERNIBLE) THEY MADE A OH NOTE WHICH MADE ME THINK THEY WERE THINKING FAVORABLY ON THAT, SO, THERE MIGHT BE SOME WAY TO GET SOME TRACTION, WE COULD BUY A FIRE TRUCK WITH SOME OF THAT MONEY. >> I'M SURE THERE WOULD BE STRINGS ATTACHED. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANOTHER PERCENT IS LIKE, $8 MILLION. >> SO, WE WOULD GET LIKE $3.5 MILLION, A QUARTER? >> IT'S MONEY THAT OUR CITIZENS HAVE ALREAD PAID TO THE STATE AND THE STATE IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ALLOCATE OUT. THEY HAVE STATEWIDE PRIORITIES AND THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT, THE MESSAGE WE WERE GETTING IS THAT THEY HAVE MORE MONEY THAN THEY'VE HAD IN PREVIOUS SESSIONS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND THEY'RE CALLING A PROBLEM. >> SO, WE SHOULD HELP THEM ALLOCATE IT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YEAH, WE COULD HELP THEM. CITIES TO THE RESCUE. WE'LL TAKE YOUR MONEY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? >> ANY COMMENTS? >> JUST ONE NOTE ON THE FLIER, LAST YEAR STILL REFERENCES THE CRYSTAL (INDISCERNIBLE) BE SURE TO CATCH THAT. >> THAT WAS THE DOCUMENT FROM LAST YEAR. THE NEW ONE WILL NOT HAVE THAT. >> SO, FROM THIS LIST HOW DO WE IDENTIFY OUR TWO TO THREE TALKING POINT THAT IS WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ENGAGE SOMEONE PERSON TO PERSON? >> I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IF WE WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS LIST AND MAY BE THE THREE ITEM THAT IS WE TALKED ABOUT, THAT'S FINE. I THINK, THAT MAY BE THE NEXT MEETING WITH THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIR IT IS COMMITTEE WE COULD SIT DOWN AND HIGHLIGHT THE THREE OR FOUR TALKING POINT THAT IS WE WANT TO HAVE WITH THEM. BUT, WE WILL PROVIDE THE ENTIRE LIST TO OUR DELEGATION. WE WILL E-MAIL IT TO THEM AND HAVE IT ON HAND WHEN WE DISCUSS IT WITH THEM. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND WE USUALLY AS A GROUP AS A COUNCIL GO TO AUSTIN TOGETHER. I REMEMBER LAST YEAR, MOST OF COUNCIL WENT. >> PRIORITIZE THAT, IF WE GET ENOUGH TO TALK ABOUT THREE OR FOUR ITEMS OR OUR TOP FOUR (INDISCERNIBLE) >> I JUST, I DON'T THINK HAVING THREE DOZEN ITEMS IS VERY EFFECTIVE, QUITE FRANKLY, BECAUSE, THEN EVERYTHING'S IMPORTANT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WELL, I WOULD IMAGINE A FEW OF THINGS OVERLAP THINGS OTHER CITIES ARE CLAMORING FOR AS WELL, WE NEED TO FIND THE ONES MOST IMPORTANT TO US, I.E., THE FIRST ON THE LIST, MOST LIKELY, IS ONE OF THOSE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YEAH, THAT ONE'S PENDING A (INDISCERNIBLE) GOING INTO THAT ONE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. >> KUDOS TO THAT COMMITTEE FOR THEIR WORK. >> SO, I'LL ADD THESE OTHER THREE ITEMS, I'LL WRITE IT OUT, AND THEN, WE'LL PREPARE OUR FLIER, AND THEN, WE'LL SHARE THAT WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND BE READY TO START HAVING CONVERSATION. AND, BE READY TO GO. NEXT TIME YOU GUYS SEE THIS, IT WILL BE TO PASS A RESOLUTION, ALL RIGHT? >> NEXT MEETING. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ARE WE READY TO GO BACK TO 3A? >> [3A. Discuss and receive direction regarding expenditure of funds process regarding the $50,000 donation received from the Rowlett Finance Housing Finance Corporation (RHFC) for home repairs for individuals that require financial assistance.] [00:25:02] >> YES, SIR. WE ARE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, ITEM 3A, DISCUSS AND RECEIVE DIRECTION REGARDING EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS PROCESS REGARDING A $50,000 DONATION RECEIVED FROM THE ROWLETT FINANCE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR HOME REPAIRS FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT REQUIRE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. WE HAVE ONE COMMENT CARD, WE DIDN'T GET ANY OTHERS, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, SIR. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, RICK SHEFFIELD, 36 (INDISCERNIBLE) STREET. I WANTED TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ALONG WITH THE FUNDS. BUT, ALSO AFTER READING THE PACKET, I'M SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTED THAT IT'S TAKEN US THREE MONTHS TO GET TO THE POINT TO ASK HOW YOU WANTED TO DO IT. BUT, I WOULD ADVOCATE THAT YOU CONTINUE WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING WITH HABITAT. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE THE STAFF INCREASING THE OVERHEAD, DOING LIKE A 50/50 LIKE A SIDEWALK, THE AIR CONDITIONER'S OUT. IF THEY COULD FIX IT, THEY WOULDN'T NEED HELP. TRYING TO GET A 50/50, I DON'T THINK WOULD WORK. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH HABITAT, THEY HAVE A SYSTEM THAT'S WELL MANAGED AND DOCUMENTED. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. DALE, IT'S YOUR'S. >> AND I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE, I HAD A CITIZEN THAT CAME UP WITH AN ISSUE. AND, I LET TIME SLIP AWAY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE'LL FORGIVE YOU FOR THAT. >> DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? >> I DO NOT. >> OKAY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK THAT THE PACKETS PRETTY CLEAR. I THINK THAT I KNOW WHAT I WANT DO WITH THIS. >> BASICALLY, TO GIVE YOU A RECAP, ROWLETT HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION DID DONATE $50,000, I KNOW THERE WERE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS WHICH WERE MADE DURING THAT MEETING, AND I KNOW COUNCILMAN GALUARDI MADE A COMMENT ON IDEAS ON HOW TO SPEND THE MONEY. WHAT IT BOILED DOWN TO ON OUR END IS THAT IF WE ATTEMPT TO OVERSEE THIS PROGRAM, WE'RE JUST -- WE DON'T HAVE STAFF MEMBERS DEDICATED FOR THIS. IT'S NOT A PROGRAM THAT WE TYPICALLY DO, THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO DONATE THE MONEY TO HABITAT. THEY'RE ALREADY SET UP FOR THIS, THEY'RE ALREADY PROCESSED REQUESTS OF THIS NATURE, AND WE'RE OPEN TO HOWEVER THE COUNSEL WANTS TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU FOR THAT. I THINK IT'S A NATURAL THAT IT GOES TO HTO HAB FOR HUMANITY SPECIAL GIVEN THAT LAST YEAR WE EAR-MARKED $50,000 FOR THEM. AND THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF THE REDUCED ALLOCATION FROM HUD, THAT'S $40,000, SO THIS COULD BRING US BACK TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE FOR FUNDING HABHABIT FOR HUMANITY PROJECTS. >> THEIR PROGRAMS, DO THEY HAVE SIMILAR INCOME REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT WAS WRITTEN UP? >> (INDISCERNIBLE) >> THEY'RE FOCUSED ON THE AMI, BUT, THEY WILL WORK WITH FOLKS AS LOW AS THE 30% AMI, IT JUST DEPEND ON THE NEEDS. >> WE TYPICALLY DON'T GET INTO THEIR NUMBERS, BECAUSE THEY FUND THEIR OWN PROGRAMS AND HANDLE THEIR OWN PROGRAMS AND I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. >> I LIKE THE IDEA OF PEOPLE HAVING A STAKE IN IT IF THEY CAN, IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, I LIKE IT GOING WHERE IT'S NEEDED. >> I USED TO BE ON THE BOARD FOR HABITAT, AND THEY'RE AWESOME. LET THEM KNOW, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE EVERYTHING IN ORDER (INDISCERNIBLE) AND THEY KNOW WHAT TO DO. >> I AGREE, IT SEEMS LIKE THE BEST FIT FOR THAT IS TO INCREASE MORE OVERHEAD IN THE CITY. I'M ALL FOR THAT. >> FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. YOU KNOW. >> WE WOULD LOVE TO DO MORE NEXT YEAR. >> WHEN WE STARTED THE HFC YEARS AND YEARS AGO, ONE OF THE HOPES WAS NOT ONLY TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT PROJECTS FOR HOMES BUT WE KNEW AS WE MAKE ENOUGH MONEY, WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO PROGRAMS LIKE THIS. TO BE ABLE TO SEE THIS COME TO FRUITION, IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO [00:30:02] DO AND ALL THE GREAT THINGS THAT YOU'VE DONE. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, AND I AGREE, WE DON'T WANT TO PUT ANY UNDUE BURDEN ON OUR STAFF, IF WE HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE, THAT'S THE RIGHT PLACE TO PUT IT AND IT'S FOLLOWING THE MISSION OF WHAT THE HFC IS. AND GIVING BACK. SO, THANK YOU, AGAIN, SIR. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> I ALWAYS WANT TO EXTEND A THANKS TO THE HFC FOR THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS DO. IN PARTICULAR FOR THIS DONATION, BECAUSE, I THINK IT WILL HELP A LOT OF PEOPLE. THERE'S NO SENSE TO REINVENT THE WHEEL. WE HAVE A PROGRAM THAT WORKS. AND, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO TRY AND SET UP OUR OWN PROGRAM INTERNALLY. YOU MENTIONED THE OVERHEAD, YOU KNOW, I JUST SEE STAFF JUST HAVING ADDITIONAL WORK TO DO WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY OVERLOADED WITH OTHER TASKS. SO, IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IT SEEMS LIKE YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER. >> DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO DO THE PRESENTATION. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THAT WAS THE EASIEST. >> THANKS FOR TAKING CARE OF OUR RESIDENTS. >> SO, WHAT'S THE PATH FORWARD TO AFFECT THE DONATIONS? >> SO, WE WOULD? >> (INDISCERNIBLE) >> SO, WE'LL REACH OUT TO THEM AND LET THEM KNOW THAT WE WANT TO CONTRIBUTE ANOTHER $50,000 TOWARDS THAT PROGRAM, WE ALREADY HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE, MY REQUIRED AMENDMENT, I ASSUME, AND THEN, SO, YOU MAY SEE A FORMAL APPROVAL TO THAT, IN A FUTURE RESOLUTION. >> DO WE, UM, DO WE TRACK THE HABITAT PROJECTS WHEN THEY OCCUR? >> JUST FOR YOU KNOW, SHOWING THE WORK THAT WE'RE HELPING TO DO IN THE COMMUNITY THAT HABITAT'S DOING? >> I KNOW THAT WE COULD GET A REPORT ON WHERE THAT'S SPENT. WE COULD LET COUNCIL KNOW WHERE THE MONEY WAS SPENT LAST YEAR. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD SO WE COULD TRACK IT AND HAVE COUNCIL TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE DOING SO THAT WE KNOW THE GOOD WORK THAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR COMMUNITY. I THINK THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. >> THE CITY'S RECEIVED $50,000, THANK YOU, WE'RE NOW GIVING IT TO SOMEBODY ELLS TO DO WORK TO REPORT BACK TO THE PUBLIC. $50,000 FOR A GOOD PURPOSE. >> THAT'S GOOD, SO LONG AS WE DO IT AT A HIGH LEVEL BECAUSE THERE ARE PRIVACY CONCERNS. BUT, IF WE COULD SAY THEY WERE ABLE TO REPLACE SO MANY AC UNITS OR ROOFS OR WHATEVER. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) >> IT'S NOT LIKE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, I THINK IT'S MORE AD HOC WHEN IT'S BEEN REQUESTED, BUT, I AGREE, HAVING AN ANNUAL REPORT, NOT JUST FROM HABITAT WOULD BE GREAT. [3B. Update City Council on Employee Benefits for Fiscal Year 2022 to include Plan Performance Updates and the Wellness Program.] >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, DALE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT ITEM IS 3B, UPDATE CITY COUNCIL ON EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 TO INCLUDE PLAN PERFORMANCE UPDATES IN THE WELLNESS PROGRAM. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. RICHARD, IT'S YOUR'S. >> ALL RIGHT, MAYOR, COUNCIL, THANK YOU, THAT WAS FAST. TWO THINGS IN LIGHTNING SPEED. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE'LL BE OUT OF HERE BY 8:00. >> WE KNEW YOU WERE WAITING. >> OKAY. >> SO, MY FIRST SLIDE IS TO SORT OF SET THE STAGE. THE PROPOSED COST FOR THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR IS A LITTLE MORE THAN IT HAS BEEN, $780,000 OVER FISCAL YEAR '22. THE TWO PRIMARY REASONS ARE JUST THE CONTINUED INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF ACTUAL EMPLOYEES AND FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE COVERED. SO, WHEN THE ACTUARY DOES THE CALCULATION OF WHAT THE COST IS GOING TO TO BE, THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES OVER THE LAST 24 MONTHS. SO, WHEN YOU LOOK BACK OVER 24 MONTHS FROM ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE JULY, THAT NUMBER INCREASED BY ABOUT 25. SO, IT'S FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT DIRECTLY IN THE NUMBERS OF FAMILY MEMBERS. SO, THEY MAKE SOME ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE COVERED. THE AVERAGE PERSON COSTS, IN THE $17,000 PER YEAR RANGE, APPROXIMATELY. SO, IT'S SIGNIFICANT WHEN YOU AVERAGE OVER AN ADDITIONAL 25, SO, OUR NUMBER WENT UP QUITE A BIT. IN ADDITION, IT'S JUST THE INFLATED COST OF MENTAL CARE AND I USED COST PER UNIT. WHEN YOU [00:35:07] GO TO THE DOCTOR, IT COSTS A CERTAIN AMOUNT, WHEN YOU GET A PRESCRIPTION, IT COSTS A CERTAIN AMOUNT, ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASING. I'VE SEEN EVERYTHING FROM WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, 4.85% TO AS MUCH AS 30-40, DEPENDING ON WHO IS DOING THE ACTUAL MEASURES. CLEARLY WE'RE GOING TO WEIGH HEAVILY ON WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT HEALTH CARE IS INCREASING AT A MUCH FASTER COST THAN PERHAPS WE ACTUALLY SAY. SO, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FOUR YEARS, WE ACTUALLY HAD TO INCREASE PREMIUMS TO THE EMPLOYEES. SO, THERE IS SOME SHARED COST HERE. IT'S ABOUT 20/80, THE EMPLOYEES PAY ABOUT 20% OF ALL THE COSTS FOR HEALTH CARE AND THE CITY PAYS ABOUT 80%. AND THAT IS FOLLOWING THE SAME TREND AND METHODOLOGY THAT WAS IN PLACE SINCE I GOT HERE IN 2019. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT THAT'S THE WAY THAT WE'VE DONE IT. WE'VE ALWAYS SHARED IN THE COST BETWEEN THE EMPLOYEES AND THE CITY, 80/20. THE CITY'S FUNDING ABOUT $6 MILLION, AND THE CITY'S EMPLOYEES ARE FUNDING $1 MILLION GIVE OR TAKE A FEW DOLLARS. ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I GO ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IS THERE A STANDARD, ACROSS CITIES FOR HOW THEY TO THAT? >> I CAN SAY THAT UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IN 2008, YOU CAN'T GO BELOW 60/40 BY LAW. SO. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IS THE 80/20 SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SEEING AS A TREND OR IS IT NORMAL? >> SO, THE LAST TIME THAT I DID A BENEFITS COMPARISON, AND I DID NOT DO ONE THIS YEAR, BUT WE DID ONE IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS, I WOULD SAY THE 18 CITIES THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY USING, THEY PROBABLY FUND SLIGHTLY MORE. THAN THAT. BUT NOT A LOT. JUST SLIGHTLY. AS A TOTAL GROUP. BECAUSE, SOME OF THEM HAVE MORE RESOURCES, OBVIOUSLY, THAN PERHAPS WE DO. BUT IT'S CLOSE. >> SO, I WOULD SAY, PUT THAT ON THE LIST FOR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET DISCUSSIONS. >> AND WE'LL DO A BENEFITS COMPARISON NEXT YEAR. AND JUST LIKE WE'RE GOING TO DO IS DEEPER DIVE ON THE COMPENSATION NEXT YEAR SO THAT WE'RE NOT MISSING SOMETHING. THE OTHER CHALLENGE WHEN WE DO THAT IS LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR HEALTH CARE BENEFIT PLANS, THERE'S SUCH A WIDE DIVERSITY BETWEEN PLANS. YOU KNOW, ALL OVER THE PLACE, HOW DEEP THE DEDUCTIBLE IS, WHAT ARE CO--PAYS, ARE WE DOING JUST HRAS, OR JUST HSAS, OR DO WE HAVE A TRADITIONAL STYLE PPO, IT'S NOT ALWAYS SO SIMPLE TO GO DEEP INTO THE PLAN AND BE ABLE TO DO APPLES TO APPLES. >> DO WE ONLY OFFER ONE MEDICAL PLAN OPTION? >> THREE? >> SO, WE HAVE A HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT AND WE HAVE AN HSA. SO, WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS. BUT, RIGHT NOW, MOST OF THE TIME WHAT HAPPENS IS PEOPLE CAN SEE THE EPO AND SAY "I KNOW THAT I HAVE A CO-PAY FOR A PRESCRIPTION, I KNOW THAT I HAVE A CO-PAY FOR A DOCTOR" VERSUS, DEEPLY UNDERSTANDING HOW THE SPENDING ACCOUNT WORKS. IT'S COMPLICATED. AND WE'VE NOT MADE IT EASIER THE WAY THAT HEALTH CARE IS CURRENTLY SET UP. IT IS HARD TO CONVINCE SOMEBODY TO GO DEEPER INTO THAT. >> AND IS THE 80/20 SPLIT THE ONLY SPLIT PER PREMIUM? >> IT'S JUST THE TOTAL OF ALL THE COSTS THAT ARE PAID, EVERYTHING IN THE BUCKET. SO, RIGHT NOW, THE BUDGET IS ABOUT $7,345,000, SO, 80% IS FUNDED BY THE CITY AND 20% IS FUNDED BY THE EMPLOYEES. AND WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CO-PAYS AND INSURANCE AND DEDUCTIBLES, BLENDED IN. IT'S DIFFERENT YEAR OVER YEAR OVER YEAR. IF YOU LOOK UP THERE, AND I DON'T MEAN TO GET EVERYBODY DIZZY, THAT'S A LOT OF NUMBERS, IF YOU LOOK DOWN CURRENT REVENUES, YOU COULD SEE WHAT HAPPENS YEAR OVER YEAR, SO, ACTUALS USUALLY ARE FAR DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU PLAN OR BUDGET. BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY INSURANCE CLAIMS WILL EXCEED YOUR REINSURANCE LIMIT. AND IN 2019, IT'S A LOT. AND IT'S BEEN A LOT, ACTUALLY, MAY BE THAT'S THE NEW NORM IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CLAIMS THAT EXCEED THAT NEW NUMBER AND [00:40:06] ALWAYS HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE TO PROTECT OURSELVES. >> SO THAT 20%, WHAT DOES THAT ALLOCATE TO A TYPICAL EMPLOYEE PER PAYCHECK? >> WELL, IF YOU'RE JUST AN EMPLOYEE ONLY, WE ONLY CHARGE BETWEEN $19.50 A MONTH, AND ABOUT $24 (INDISCERNIBLE) >> IF YOU FUND YOUR PLAN, THAT'S WHERE THE NUMBER STARTS TO GET SIGNIFICANT. SO, FAMILY COVERAGE IS APPROXIMATELY $500 A MONTH, THE ACTUAL COST PER MONTH IS ABOUT $2,500. AND WHEN YOU DO THE MATH ACTUALLY. SO, $30,000 A YEAR PER FAMILY. SIGNIFICANT. >> I THINK THE NEXT SLIDE IS MORE SIGNIFICANT WHEN YOU LOOK AT COMPARED TO OTHER TRENDS. WE'RE REALLY PROUD OF THIS SLIDE. SO, OVER TIME, BEFORE MY TIME, THE CITY BECAME SELF-FUNDED. WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO HOLD YOUR FUNDS AND ONLY SPEND THEM AS YOU ACTUALLY USE THEM. WHICH, YOU'RE NOT PAYING SOMEBODY A PREMIUM AND NOT KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE THE DOLLARS ARE GOING. AND YOU COULD SEE THAT WE'VE HAD GOOD YEARS AND WE'VE HAD PRETTY GOOD YEARS, IT'S GONE UP QUITE A BIT, WE CONSIDERED $780,000, THAT'S ABOUT 12% FROM WHERE WE WERE LAST YEAR. BUT, I I I I I I I HAPPENED 2019-2020 IN PARTICULAR, COVID, 2021, THAT 24-MONTH LOOK BACK, THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T DO THINGS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE NORMALLY DONE OVER 20-24 MONTHS AS IT RELATES SPECIFICALLY TO COVID, AND ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE AND ESPECIALLY VOLUNTARY HEALTH CARE, WE'RE PROBABLY ADJUSTING FOR THAT NOW. SO, IF YOU TOOK THAT LARGE JUMP IN ONE YEAR AND GO BACK THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN 4 OR 6% FROM WHERE THEY ENDED UP, WHICH IS GREAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, BUT, MY SENSE IS THAT THERE WAS SOME COVID DISRUPTION FOR PEOPLE. JUST BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T GO IN UNLESS IT WAS NECESSARY. AND BY THE TIME IT FINELY LOOSENED UP, IT HAD BEEN ALMOST TWO YEARS. NOW, EVEN THOUGH IT JUMPED UP, WE'RE STILL AT A NICE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S GONE UP AND DOWN, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MANAGE THIS. AND IF YOU GO BACK, YOU COULD LOOK AND SEE, OPERATING REVENUES, OPERATING EXPENSES, SINCE 2018, WELL, ALL THE WAY TO 2017 WHERE EXPENSES EXCEEDED REVENUES, BUT, WE'VE ALWAYS MANAGED TO WORK THROUGH PLANNING AHEAD AND MAKING SURE THAT EXPENSES WERE NOT AS MUCH AS REVENUES, AND YOU COULD SEE THE FUND BALANCE IS GOOD. UM, MORE THAN OR AT THE 90-DAYS THAT WE LIKE TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLAN IS COMPLETE. >> I DO WANT TO PAUSE ON THIS SLIDE ONE MORE TIME. PRIOR TO 2013, THE CITY USED TO HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE. WE WOULD CONTRACT WITH, AND, OUR SCHEDULE OR OUR CHART WAS MORE LIKE A W, BECAUSE, WE HAD A REALLY GOOD YEAR, THEN WE WOULD HAVE MAY BE A BAD YEAR, THEY WOULD TRIPLE THE RATES, OR TRY TO, WE WOULD GO BACK OUT ON THE MARKET AND TRY TO FIND SOMEBODY ELSE. IT WAS CONSTANTLY THIS UP AND DOWN, UP AND DOWN, BUT, REMEMBER, ALL OF THESE YEARS WHEN WE'RE UNDER, WE'RE ABLE TO PASS THOSE SAVINGS ONTO OUR EMPLOYEES EITHER BY VIRTUE OF NO INCREASES IN THEIR PREMIUMS, AND/OR MODIFY BENEFITS, TOO. SO, BY MANAGING THAT, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS, AND I KNOW COVID HAD SOMETHING DO WITH IT TOO, BUT IT WAS THREE YEARS WITHOUT US HAVING TO INCREASE PREMIUMS. ALTHOUGH, THIS YEAR, WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE. >> HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN WITH UNITED HEALTH CARE? . >> WE BEGAN WWITH UNITED HEALT CARE FISCAL YEAR (INDISCERNIBLE) >> AND WE RENEWED THAT AGREEMENT WITH THEM AS OUR PARTY ADMINISTRATOR IN 2021-2023. AND IT IS ELIGIBLE TO BE CONTINUED IF IT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE FOR US NOT TO NECESSARILY GO OUT AND [00:45:03] DECIDE WHAT THE MARKET HOLDS. THEIR COSTS TO US, ADMINISTRATIVELY ARE LOW. (INDISCERNIBLE) THAT'S THE KEY. AND, HOPEFULLY, WHATEVER COMES OF ALL OF THAT, THEY'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF DOING EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN AS IT RELATES TO MANAGING THE DIRECTION OF HEALTH CARE MEANING, WE TRIED TO GET PEOPLE DIRECTLY TO THE LOWEST COST OPTION WITH THE BEST OUTCOMES IN BOTH THIS PROGRAM AND OTHER PROGRAMS. THERE'S NOT REALLY TOO MANY CARROTS LEFT TO PUT OUT THERE, NECESSARILY, OTHER THAN TO GO TO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STYLE OF HEALTH COVERAGE, WHICH IS COMPLICATED -- MORE COMPLICATED THAN HRAS. >> DO WE OFFER A MATCH ON THE HSAS? >> SMALL, BUT YES. >> THIS SLIDE IS JUST TO REITERATE THAT REVENUES ARE OUTPACING EXPENSES. SO FAR THIS YEAR, THROUGH JULY 31ST, WHICH IS WHERE NUMBERS WERE OFFICIAL, WE'RE GOOD AT $17,218. SO, POSITIVE. THIS IS JUST TO SHOW REALLY, THE DEPTH OF WHAT HEALTH CARE'S FOR. SO, 19 CLAIMS, I'M SORRY, IT'S A LITTLE BUSY, MAKE UP, 49 PERCENT OF ALL THE HEALTHCARE COSTS THROUGH JULY 31ST, 2022. BUT, THE TRUTH IS THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF IT, TO CATCH THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT THE MOST. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT OUR PLAN DOES WITHOUT MAKING IT COST PROHIBITIVE TO THE ENTIRE (INDISCERNIBLE) WHO PARTICIPATE. WE USE A COMPANY CALLED THE LIGHT THEY BASICALLY PROVIDE AID TO EMPLOYEES LIKE A CONCIERGE WHERE THEY HELP YOU FIND LOWEST COST FACILITIES, WITH THE BEST OUTCOMES. THEY REVIEW MEDICAL BILLS AND COMPARE PRICING AND COST OPTIONS. AND THE BEST OF ALL IS THAT OVER TIME, USING THEIR METHODOLOGY, THEY BELIEVE THEY'VE SAVED US MORE THAN $1 MILLION OVER 10 YEARS. SO, IT'S SIGNIFICANT, A PLUS, IT PROVIDES A GREAT DEAL OF HELP. IF YOU NEED A DOCTOR, YOU JUST SIMPLY SEND AN E-MAIL OR MAKE A PHONE CALL AND WITHIN A FEW DAY, THEY GET YOU DIRECTED TO WHERE EVER THE ZIP CODE IS TO THE PERSON THEY SAY CAN PROVIDE YOU THE BEST COST OR OUTCOME. >> I WANT TO SAY THIS, THIS IS REAL. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A PROCEDURE, YOU DON'T KNOW, YOUR DOCTOR SAYS "HEY, JUST GO OVER HERE." BUT IF YOU CONTACT THEM, THEY WILL WORK FOR YOU, THEY FIND YOU THREE REPUTABLE SURGEONS THAT DO THAT SERVICE AND PROVIDE YOU THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND THEN DEPENDING ON YOUR SCHEDULE, YOU KNOW WHO TO PICK. IT SAVES US MONEY AND THE EMPLOYEE FOR THE AMOUNTS THEY WOULD OTHERWISE HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR DEDUCTIBLE OR CO-INSURANCE. I'VE USED THIS PERSONALLY AND IT'S BEEN A HUGE BENEFIT TO OUR EMPLOYEES. >> DO OUR MEDICAL PLANS INCLUDE OR DO WE OFFER SEPARATELY A TELEHEALTH OPTION? >> WE DO. I DIDN'T PUT IN A SPECIFIC SLIDE IN HERE, BUT, OVER TIME, IT'S BECOME, NOT ONLY IS THE TELEHEALTH OPTIONS AVAILABLE, BUT THE ACTUAL DOCTOR THAT YOU GO TO WHEN THEY OFFER THAT OPTION, WE TREAT IT JUST THE SAME AS IF WE WERE DOING IT FOR I'LL CALL IT, THE URGENT CARE, YOU KNOW, I NEED SOMEBODY NOW, IF YOU'RE DOCTOR DOES IT, THEY STILL TREAT IT AS A REGULAR DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT. >> SO, MOVING INTO THE WELLNESS SIDE OF THINGS, WE'RE ALWAYS MEASURING A LITTLE BEHIND, RIGHT, SO, THIS IS COMPARING THE LAST FIVE YEARS, BUT WE DO THE BIOMETRIC SCREENING IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER. AND WE GET THE RESULTS, USUALLY IN DECEMBER. SO, WE'LL BE DOING THAT AGAIN COMING UP IN OCTOBER. LAST FISCAL YEAR OVER THIS FISCAL YEAR, WE'RE CURRENTLY IN, WE'VE HAD BETTER OUTCOMES FROM THREE OUT OF THE FOUR CATEGORIES THAT WE SORT OF FOCUS IN ON. AND YOU COULD SEE THE DIABETIC, PREDIABETIC, OPIECITY, B.M.I., ESSENTIALLY, AND TOTAL CHOLESTEROL WERE DONE FROM PREVIOUS YEARS, FOR SOME REASON [00:50:01] HYPERTENSION WAS UP. UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS UP. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) >> OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THE GOAL IS TO MEASURE. THE CHALLENGE WITH MEASURING YEAR OVER YEAR IS IT DEPENDS HOW MANY PEOPLE LEFT AND HOW MANY NEW EMPLOYEES THAT YOU HAVE, AND THERE'S ALWAYS THAT CHURN AND WE'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO GET THAT NEXT GROUP THAT YOU BRING IN TO HAVE THE SAME CONCERN, IT TAKES TIME, USUALLY TO GET THEM TO THAT SAME LEVEL OF CONCERN TAKING CARE OF THEMSELVES. IT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY BECAUSE IT'S PERHAPS NOT WHAT THEY'VE THOUGHT ABOUT DOING. >> A LITTLE BUSY, AGAIN, WE HAVE A TON OF OPTIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED IN OUR WELLNESS AND ASKED THEM TO JUST GET 20 POINTS. WHAT I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW IS THAT THIS IS NOT ALL JUST PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF IT. WE HAVE DONE THE MATH, AND, ANYBODY POTENTIALLY CAN ACHIEVE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF 50 POINTS AND NEVER ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY HAVE TO DO ANY ACTIVITY. IT'S ABOUT GOING AND GETTING YOUR SCREENINGS, IT'S TAKING YOUR BLOOD PRESSURE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE MANAGING IT. WE DO A HYDRATION CHALLENGE, WE DO SOME MENTAL HEALTH STUFF THAT GOES ALONG WITH ALL OF THIS. SO, THAT, YOU DON'T REALLY EVER HAVE TO ACTUALY GO AND DO PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IF YOU COULDN'T DO THAT. SO, WE MADE THIS SPECIFICALLY SO, IF I'M UNABLE TO DO IT, I COULD AT LEAST BE MANAGING AND MONITORING MY HEALTH AND HOPEFULLY, TAKING CARE OF IT. BECAUSE, REALLY, THE GOAL HERE IS TO GET PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES, AND KNOW WHAT THEIR HEALTH IS. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. AND MANY PEOPLE DON'T. SO, IF YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU CAN'T REALLY TAKE CARE OF HYPERTENSION, OR WETHER OR NOT YOU ARE DIABETIC. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IS THE BIOMETRIC SCREENING MANDATORY OR VOLUNTEER? >> SO, JUST FOR EMPLOYEES, IT IS MANDATORY. IT IS VOLUNTARY FOR SPOUSES. >> I GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE MENTAL HEALTH. DO WE HAVE A RESOURCE, EITHER IN-HOUSE OR CONTRACT WITH SOMEBODY THAT PEOPLE CAN CALL THAT'S COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL IF THEY NEEDED TO TALK TO SOMEONE? IS >> WE DO, IN THE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR EVERYONE, AND WE HAVE A SEPARATE PROGRAM THAT'S SPECIFIC (INDISCERNIBLE) AT POLICE AND FIRE CAN ACCESS DIRECTLY THREW THEIR MECHANISM TO DO THAT. IN ADDITION, I KNOW THAT FIRE AND POLICE BOTH HAVE REPRESENTATIVES THAT HELP THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO HAVE HELP WITHIN THEIR BODY GET TO THE RIGHT PERSON WHO HELPS A FIRE-FIGHTER AND OR A POLICE OFFICER. SO, THERE ARE THREE THINGS GOING ON. NOT ALL EMPLOYEES HAVE ACCESS TO THAT OTHER ITEM, BUT, WE HAVE (INDISCERNIBLE) A GOOD ONE, I THINK, ONE OF THE BETTER ONES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS BY FAR. ACCESSIBLE, BECAUSE, THERE'S ALWAYS THE CHALLENGE TO GET PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY REACH OUT. BECAUSE, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH, IT'S ABOUT EVERY SINGLE THING THAT YOU MIGHT NEED HELP WITH THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. DREAM IT UP, MAKE A CALL AND THEY WILL DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO ATTEMPT TO GET YOU HELP. WHETHER IT'S FINANCIAL, OR, WHETHER IT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH MY ELDERLY PARENT THAT NEEDS TO BE HELPED, BUT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. >> THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. >> SO, BEGINNING IN 2018, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID WAS WE PUT IN PLACE A WELLNESS INCENTIVE, IF YOU ACHIEVED GREATER THAN THE 20 POINTS THAT WE ASKED YOU TO ACHIEVE, THEN, YOU RECEIVED A GIFT CARD AND THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT HAS SHIFTED OVER TIME FROM THE BEGINNING, AND NOW FOR THE NUMBER OF POINTS THAT WERE NECESSARY. IN 2018, WAS 30, 35, AND 40 TO GET TO 50, $100, OR $250 GIFT CARD. FISCAL YEAR '19 IT WAS THE SAME, '20 WE HAD CHANGED IT TO 30-40-50, BUT COVID PICKED UP SO WE BACKED OFF A BIT. AND YOUR ACHIEVEMENT WAS BASED AND A SLIGHTLY REDUCED NUMBER OF POINTS AND WELLNESS INCENTIVE WAS INCREASED LAST YEAR. AND YOU COULD SEE, THE 30 POINT LEVEL AND THE 40 POINT LEVEL AND THE 50 POINT LEVEL, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THERE ARE SOME HICCUPS THERE AS FAR AS THE POINTS. AND IT HAS INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY, EVEN WITH THE [00:55:05] ADJUSTMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES, PEOPLE COMING AND GOING, WE'RE STILL ABLE TO GET PEOPLE TO ENGAGE AND PARTICIPATE, EVEN IF THEY'RE JUST GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS. THE GOAL IS TO GET THEM AWARE OF THEIR HEALTH. SOMETIMES YOU'RE IN THAT CONTEMPLATION, PRE-CONTEMPLATION, OF DECIDING WETHER OR NOT TO DO IT, OR HAVEN'T QUITE GOT THERE AND FINALLY, SOMETHING CLICKS AND THEY DO IT. AND DECIDE, HEY, I'M GOING IT TAKE CARE OF MYSELF. I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO, UNITED HEALTH CARE HAS A PROPRIETARY TOOL, I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN AS MUCH AS I CAN, AND YOU COULD ASK QUESTIONS. WHAT THEY DO IS THEY TAKE THE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS WE TOLD THEM ACHIEVE 30 POINTS OR GREATER, AND THEY COMPARE IT AGAINST THE GROUP OF COVERED EMPLOYEES DID LESS THAN THE 30 POINTS. BEAR IN MIND, THERE ARE NO CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THIS AND THERE ARE NO SPOUSES BEING COMPARED BECAUSE CURRENTLY WE DON'T REQUIRE THEM TO PARTICIPATE AND GIVE THEM A REWARD. IN FISCAL YEAR YEAR '19 AND FISCAL YEAR '20, IF YOU GO DOWN, YOU COULD SEE THE NUMBERS THEY COMPARED. SO, THEY'RE DOING THIS COMPARISON POST-YEAR, SO, AROUND JANUARY OF '20, JANUARY OF '21, JANUARY OF 22 JEER JEER FOR THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR. AND THEY'RE ONLY COMPARING THE ACTIVE EMPLOYEES AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME. THEY'RE NOT GOING BACK AND TAKING TERMINATED EMPLOYEES OUT. SO, THE NUMBER'S ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ON WHO RECEIVED A REWARD IS BASED ON WHO WAS HERE AND MEASURED AT THAT TIME. AND YOU COULD SEE THERE ARE SOME THINGS THERE THAT REALLY STAND OUT. THE FIRST ONE THAT STANDS OUT FOR SURE IS $229.11, AS COMPARED TO, $356, $363 AND $368, THAT'S A PER MEMBER, PER COST FOR THAT GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS THAT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR HEALTH CARE FOR ON AN ON GOING BASIS. AND THEN RIGHT BELOW IT IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS, THERE WERE ACTUALLY NOBODY THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE WELLNESS THAT HAD WHAT THEY CONSIDERED TO BE A CATASTROPHIC CLAIM. AND THEN, AS WE HAVE MOVED THE PENDULUM, AND INSPIRED OR GOT PEOPLE TO ENGAGE AT A HIGHER LEVEL, WE MOVED SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY BELOW 30 TO ABOVE 30, THE KEY IS NOW THEY KNOW THEIR HEALTH. BUT, WE HAD A FEW CLAIMS THAT WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE CATASTROPHIC. I COULD THINK OF ONE OFF-HAND THAT I KNOW OF, A PERSON WHO IS GENERAL WILL I COMPLETELY HEALTHY, BUT HAD ONE EVENT THAT HAD TO BE PAID FOR. AND THEN, AS YOU GO DOWN AND LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCES FOR INSTANCE, ADMISSIONS TO THE HOSPITAL OR DAYS IN THE HOSPITAL, EVEN IF YOU GO TO THE VERY LAST YEAR, ABOUT ONE THIRD AS MANY. SO, THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS FOR THAT GROUP IS 1/3RD LESS, SO, SIGNIFICANTLY LESS FOR THOSE THAT ENGAGED AND PARTICIPATED. AND UNITED HEALTH CARE'S PROPRIETARY INDEX, THE THINGS THEY DO, THE HEALTH ACTIVATION INDEX IS 53 DIFFERENT MEASURES THAT UNITED HEALTH CARE DOES TO COMPARE THE TWO GROUPS. THE PERCENTAGE IS THAT GROUP IS MORE ENGAGED IN TAKING CARE OF THEMSELVES AND PARTICIPATING IN THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY WOULD BASED ON THEIR AGE, GENDER AND IF THEY HAD ANY DISEASE STATES OR COMORBIDITIES WHICH ARE MULTIPLE DISEASE STATES. THAT INCLUDES THE DECISIONS THEY MADE ABOUT ACCESSING HEALTH CARE, DID THEY GO TO THE ER WHEN THEY COULD HAVE WENT TO URGENT CARE. DID I GO TO URGENT CARE WHEN I COULD HAVE GONE TO MY DOCTOR AND SO FORTH, AND YOU COULD SEE THE PERCENTAGE IS HIGHER THAN THE GROUP THAT SCORED LESS THAN 30%. EMPLOYEES THAT ACHIEVE 30-POINT MILESTONE IN EACH OF THE YEARS HAD LOWER COSTS, LOWER EMERGENCY ROOM UTILIZATION, LOWER HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS. A HIGHER HEALTH ACTIVATION INDEX, AND OVERALL MADE BETTER HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES IN COMPARISON TO THOSE THAT WERE NOT UP IN THE 30 POINTS. THAT WAS OUR REASON TO TRY TO GET [01:00:05] PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN THE PROGRAM, KNOWING THAT SOME MAY BE JUST GOING THROUGH THE MOTIONS, BUT HOPEFULLY, EVENTUALLY, THEY MAY TAKE IT SERIOUSY. >> WHEN WE SAW THIS LAST YEAR, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHAT IT SHOWED US IS THAT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT BREAK POINT WHEN WE GET EMPLOYEES THAT ARE GETTING AT LEAST 30 POINTS IN THE WELLNESS PROGRAM. SO, WE EXTRA INCENTIVIZED THAT THIS YEAR IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE NUMBER TO PEOPLE THAT GOT AT LEAST THE 30 POINTS. AND I'M REALLY HAPPY TO SAY THIS BLEW IT OUT THE WATER. >> SO, INCENTIVE LEVELS, YOU COULD SEE THE NUMBERS, FOR FISCAL YEAR '20S REWARD, AND THE '21'S REWARD, AND THE UPCOMING, BUT IT'S WHERE WE ARE BUT WE WOULDN'T DO IT UNTIL OCTOBER. IN FISCAL YEAR 20, 126 PEOPLE WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND AT THE THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS. IN '21, 142. AND THEN WHEN WE CHANGED AND BASICALLY DOUBLED THE REWARDS, AND INCENTIVIZED THOSE WHO HAD NEVER ACHIEVED 30 TO GET $100 EXTRA DOLLARS, 192 PEOPLE ENGAGED. AND 57 OF THOSE THAT HAD NOT PARTICIPATED BEFORE ABOVE 20% ACTUALLY ACHIEVED 30%. SO, THE KEY WAS TO GET PEOPLE TRULY ENGAGED IN THE PROGRAM. I HAD SPECULATED THAT IT WOULD HAVE DOUBLED FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SO, WE WERE OFF BY A SMALL AMOUNT. BUT, STILL, COMPARED TO $7 MILLION OF ANNUAL HEALTHCARE COSTS, A SMALL NUMBER TO GET PEOPLE TO TRULY ENGAGE AND TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. >> WHERE IS THE GIFT CARD TO? IS IT MCDONALD'S? >> NO. >> I THINK IT'S AMAZON. SPROUTS. >> WE HAVE FIVE, BECAUSE WE GO OUT AND PURCHASE THOSE, WE HAVE FIVE SELECTIONS. >> IT IS ON THERE? >> YES, IT IS ON THERE. IT'S SMALL BUT THERE. >> AND THIS IS SO, ACADEMY, AMAZON, TARGET, WAL-MART. >> $100 GIFT CARD TO AMAZON, I'LL TAKE THAT. >> I WANTED POPEYES, YOU KNOW, CAYENNE PEPPER, KILLS EVERYTHING. NO CALORIES. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, FINAL COST FOR EVERYTHING HERE IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, IT'S ALREADY IN THERE. AND OUR OPEN ENROLLMENT ENDED AT THE END OF THE MONTH AND IT'S BEEN CONCLUDED. SO, THOSE INDIVIDUALS DID, HOPEFULLY, ALL WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. WE PRETTY MUCH DON'T LET IT LIE UNTIL WE GET EVERYBODY TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR BUSINESS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE? >> IT'S JUST ALWAYS IMPRESSIVE WHEN I SEE THAT MANY PEOPLE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT. I THINK THAT WAS THE RIGHT MOVE. THE CITY IS A GOOD PLACE BECAUSE HEALTH CARE ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS IS GOING UP AND UP, AND IN TERMS OF RECRUITING TOOLS, YEAH, CITIES MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PAY AS MUCH AS A CORPORATION OR ANY OTHER PLACE, BUT, YOU ADD IN THE VALUE OF THAT HEALTH CARE COMPEL IS, AGAIN, 80/20, THAT'S WHY I ASKED WHAT THE ACTUAL COST IS FOR EMPLOYEES. IT'S NOT APPLES TO ORANGES, IT'S A SMALL AMOUNT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE OVERALL BENEFIT IS TO OUR EMPLOYEES AND THAT'S WORTH MORE IN GOLD IN TODAY'S WORLD TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, IT'S AN INCENTIVE TO USE WHEN TRYING TO ATTRACT THE BASS TALENT TO WORK HERE. >> FOR THE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM THAT'S OUT THERE. I THINK THAT'S FANTASTIC. THERE'S A NUMBER OF DEPARTMENT HEADS HERE, AND I HOPE THAT YOU ARE COMMUNICATING TO YOUR TEAM. YOU NEVER KNOW WHO IS SUFFERING SILENTLY, IF THEY HAVE A PERSON TO TALK TO ABOUT ISSUES ACROSS THE BOARD WHETHER IT BE RELATIONSHIP OR FINANCIAL, THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT THEY COULD TALK TO AND GET IT OUT. >> IT'S DEFINITELY POSITIVE TO HAVE AN ACCESS POINT. TODAY'S REPORT CAME, OUR ENGAGEMENT IS [01:05:08] AROUND 15-16-17%. THE NATIONAL AVERAGE IS LESS THAN THAT. SO, WE DO HAVE GOOD ENGAGEMENT, SO PEOPLE KNOW IT EXISTS. >> WHAT'S THE NUMBER THAT COUNCIL IS INVOLVED? >> IT'S (INDISCERNIBLE) >> SO, I WOULD JUST SAY THIS, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE RESTRICTIONS, SO, YOU COULD ACCESS THE CYME LINE AND TELL THEM YOUR A CITY OF ROWLETT EMPLOYEE. TECHNICALLY, YOU ARE ELECTED, BUT YOU'RE BEING PAID, SO, WE DON'T RESTRICT THE ACCESS TO JUST EMPLOYEES. IT'S EMPLOYEES AND THEIR SPOUSES AND FRANKLY, ANYONE THAT. >> I KNOW. >> ANYONE WHO IS ACTUALLY LIVED INNIN >> ANYONE WHO LIVES IN THE HOUSEHOLD. >> RICHARD'S THERE, THAT'S WHY I ASKED. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) >> THERE YOU GO. >> AND IF YOU WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WELLNESS, WE'RE HAPPY FOR YOU TO DO IT. >> YEAH. >> YOU AND (INDISCERNIBLE) >> . [3D. Receive a presentation regarding the annexation of Vinson Road, an orphaned roadway in the unincorporated area of Dallas County.] >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANY COMMENTS QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 3D, RECEIVE A PRESENTATION REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF VINSON ROAD, AN ORPHANED ROADWAY IN THE UP INCORPORATED AREA OF DALLAS COUNTY. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> ALL RIGHT. ALEX AND JEFF, IT'S ALL YOUR'S. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL. ALEX AND I ARE HERE TO DISCUSS THE VINSON ROAD ANNEXATION PROPOSAL. SO, IN 2011, DALLAS COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ROWLETT ENTERED INTO A MASTER AGREEMENT GOVERNING A MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM KNOWN AS KPRP WHICH SETS FORTH THE FRAMEWORK THAT THE COUNTY USES TO FUND CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. AND THAT AGREEMENT WAS FOR A 10-YEAR TERM. AND SO, THE MTIP MASTER AGREEMENT WAS RENEWED BY THE COUNTY AND THE CITY IN 2021. SO, IN THE MCIP MASTER AGREEMENT THERE IS AN ORPHAN ROAD POLICY. AND THAT POLICY GRANTS THE QUESTION TO THE COUNTY SO THAT THEY COULD EITHER PRIORITIZE CLOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN CITIES THAT HAVE PLANNED TO OR HAVE ALREADY ANNEXED ORPHAN ROAD SEGMENTS, THEY CAN ALSO REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN THOSE CITIES THAT HAVE NOT PURSUED ANNEXATION OF THE ORPHAN ROAD SEGMENTS. AND, THEY CAN SELECT SPECIFIC ORPHAN ROAD SEGMENTS FOR A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEN THE CITY COMMITS TO ANNEXATION, AND THOSE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS COULD BE COMPLETED EITHER BY THE COUNTY OR BY THE ANNEXING CITY, AND IT WOULD BE AN MCIP PROJECT. SO, I TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ORPHAN ROADS. LET ME DEFINE WHAT AN ORPHAN ROAD IS, IT'S SPELLED OUT IN THE MASTER AGREEMENT. AN ORPHAN ROAD IS DEFINED AS ALL OR PART A ROADWAY WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF THE CITY BUT IT ABUTS OR EXTENDS INTO THE RIGHTED OF WAY. IT ABUTS INTO THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO, SHSHELL CREEK PARTNERS IS DEVELOPING THE TRAILS AT THE CREEK, IT'S A MULTIPHASE HOMES. IT'S IN THE FAR NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE CITY, AND VINSON ROAD WHICH IS A TWO-LANE, ASPHALT, COUNTY ROADWAY, THAT SKIRTS THE WESTERN PERIMETER OF THAT PROJECT AND SERVED AS A LINK FOR TRAFFIC THAT GOES BETWEEN GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE AND THE SOUTHEASTERN REGION OF WYLIE. AND ALSO IT'S USED TO ACCESS 66 AND I-30. BUT, IF YOU COME DOWN VINSON ROAD, YOU GET LIBERTY ROAD AND THAT GOES TO GEORGE BUSH. . [01:10:02] VINSON ROAD, THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY, IS COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREA. AND, IT ALSO IS THE CITY'S EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. THEREFORE, VINSON ROAD DOES MEET THE DEFINITION OF AN ORPHAN ROAD BECAUSE IT LIES BOTH OUTSIDE OF AND ABUTS OUR CORPORATE LIMITS. SO, NOW THAT THE TRAIL IS BEING DEVELOPED BY TRAILS, TRAILS, COD CREEK PARTNERS, DALLAS COUNTY REQUESTED THAT THE CITY ANNEX THAT ADJOINING PORTION OF VINSON ROAD UNDER THAT ORPHAN ROAD POLICY AND AS A CONDITION OF HONORING THEIR COMMITMENT IN THE MCIP MASTER AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FUNDING OF UPCOMING MCIP PROJECTS. THEY WILL PLACE A RESOLUTION FORMERLY REQUESTING OF THE CITY TO ANNEX VINSON ROAD ON AN UPCOMING COMMISSIONER'S COURT MEETING. IN THE STAFF REPORT, I APOLOGIZE BUT THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY WOULD BE PUTTING IT ON TONIGHT'S MEETING, BUT, THEY HAVE SINCE REQUESTED A MEETING WITH US TO HASHOUT SOME OF THE DETAILS, SO, THEY WANTED TO WAIT FOR THAT MEETING. SO, IT WILL BE ON ON UPCOMING AGENDA. LET ME GIVE A FEW FACTS OF THIS VINSON ROAD SEGMENT. IT EXTENDS APPROXIMATELY 1860 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION WWITH STONEWALL ROD NORTH TO THE CITY OF GARLAND ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT THAT CROSSES VINSON ROAD. EVERYTHING ON VINSON ROAD NORTH OF THAT EASEMENT ABUTS EITHER THE CITY OF GARLAND OR UNINCORPORATED DALLAS COUNTY. SO, WE, THE CITY, WE ENGAGED LAND SURVEYORS TO SURVEY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THEY PRODUCED A LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN A MAP. UPON ANNEXATION, THE CITY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THAT ROADWAY, INCLUDING SWEEPING, PATCHING, AND VARIOUS REPAIRS AND WE WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE BRIDGE AND GUARDRAILS WHICH ARE USED TO CROSS COTTON WOOD CREEK. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO POST AND MAINTAIN TRAFFIC SIGNS ALONG THAT ROADWAY. WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EN FORCEMENT OF THE TRAFFIC REGULATIONS AND, THE NEW CITY TRUCK ROUTES AND WE WOULD HAVE TO RESPOND WITH POLICE AND FIRE TO ACCIDENTS (INDISCERNIBLE) >> SO, THE NORTH FOR THE CITY TO ANNEX VINSON ROAD IS FOUND IN 431055 AND 43106 OF THE TEXASLOGICAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT RELATES TO THE ANNEX REQUEST BY OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND ANNEXIZATION OF ROADWAYS, RESPECTFULLY. THE PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE ANNEXIATION ARE IN CHAPTER C-1 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THAT REQUIRES PUBLICATION OF NOTICES FOR I BELIEVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WE HAVE TO POST THOSE NOTICES ON OUR WEBSITE AND OF COURSE, THEN, WE HAVE TO PREPARE, AND ADOPT THOSE EVENTS. SO, I WANTED TO SUMMER RISE A FEW OF THE COSTS THAT MIGHT BE INVOLVED WITH ANNEXING VINSON ROAD. WE DID HAVE TO HIRE THE SURVEYORS, THAT COSTS US $4,500. THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT FOR BOTH PUBLIC HEARINGS IS GOING TO BE AROUND $2,000. STREET SWEEPING IS ABOUT $200 A YEAR CRACKED CEILING FOR AN ASPHALT ROADWAY IS $500 A YEAR FOR THIS SEGMENT. FIX SHALL ANY POTHOLES MIGHT BE $500 A YEAR AND WHEN THE ROAD HAS FINALLY IMPROVED AS A CONCRETE ROADWAY, WE COULD HAVE TO REPLACE SOME OF THE CONCRETE PANELS WHICH COULD BE ABOUT $1,800 IN ANY GIVEN YEAR. BRIDGE MAINTENANCE IS HARDER TO ESTIMATE, AND THAT IS BID OUT AS NEEDED. THOSE COSTS ESTIMATED BASED ON OUR ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST FOR ONE LANE MILE AND I WORKED WITH PUBLIC WORKS TO GET THOSE COSTS AND THEN APPLIED THOSE COSTS TO THE LENGTH OF THE ANNEXED ROADWAY, PLUS THE FACT THAT IT WAS A TWO-LANE ROADWAY AND I ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST $100, AND OF COURSE, SOME OF [01:15:03] THESE COSTS MAY NOT BE INCURRED EACH YEAR BECAUSE THE REPAIRS MAY NOT BE NEEDED AND SUCH. SO, WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL AS TO WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH THIS ANNEXATION PROCESS AND WHEN TO SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND WE WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR QUESTIONS AND DO OUR BEST TO ANSWER THEM. >> JEFF, REAL QUICK, I MAY HAVE LOOKED DOWN IF YOU DID IT, BUT, THE MAP THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT, DID YOU COVER THAT? IS THAT IN HERE? >> THIS MAP? >> YEAH. I GUESS. >> OR THAT ONE? >> I WAS THINKING THAT ONE. I JUST THINK THAT ONE'S A GOOD ONE TO PAUSE AT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: FIRST QUESTION, AS PART OF THE COTTON WOOD CREEK DEVELOPMENT, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME REMEMBERING IF THEY WERE GOING TO IMPROVE THE ROADWAY IN THAT AREA TO SUPPORT IS THAT >> WE HAVE STIPULATED THAT IS WELL, YES, THE BOTTOM LINE IS, YES, WE HAD TO, TO INSERT THAT REQUIREMENT INTO THE PROCESS MIDWAY BECAUSE THE COUNTY CAME TO US ABOUT ANNEXING VINSON ROAD BEFORE THE TRAILS WAS ACTUALLY PROPOSED IN CONCEPT. BUT, THEY HAVE AGREED THAT THAT I SOMETHING THEY NEED TO DO. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND IS IT GOING TO BE CONCRETE OR JUST A REASPHALT? >> IT NEED TO BE IMPROVED TO OUR CURRENT CITY STANDARDS WHICH IS A TWO-LANE CONCRETE ROADWAY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. I'LL LET OTHER QUESTIONS GO. >> TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, HAVE THEY INDICATED HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO FUND ON THAT? THE DEVELOPER? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALL OF IT. >> BECAUSE, AS A SECOND QUESTION, GOING BACK TO YOUR ANNUAL COSTS, PART OF THE CURRENT CONDITION ARE THERE ANY UP FRONT COSTS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO? >> THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT ONE SLIDE. THOSE ARE THE UP FRONT COSTS THAT I THINK THAT WE'LL SEE. >> I THOUGHT THERE WERE ANNUAL. >> WELL, THERE WERE ANNUAL, BUT, THERE WERE ALSO UP FRONT COSTS. I CAN'T SEE ANY SIGNIFICANT UP FRONT COSTS OTHER THAN THE SURVEY AND THE NOTICES. THEY ARE, THEY ARE, CONSTRUCTING A ROUND ABOUT, AND THEY WILL BE MODIFYING THE VINSON ROAD ALIGNMENT. THAT'S ALL ON THEM. >> BUT IN PRINCIPLE, THE DEVELOPERS AGREED TO FUND IT ENTIRELY? >> YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO GO BACK INTO THE PID AS A PID COST. >> SO, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE? BECAUSE THIS IS (INDISCERNIBLE) >> THE CHOICE IS UM, TO ANNEX THE ROAD AND THEN, AND THEN, COUNT ON THE COUNTY TO HONOR THEIR COMMITMENT TO FUND SOME OF THE MCIP PROJECTS THAT THEY HAVE SAID. OR, NOT TO ANNEX THE ROAD AND RISK THE COUNTY BACKING OUT OF THOSE COMMITMENTS. >> SO, WHEN I STARTED TO THINK ABOUT THIS, I HAD TWO CONCERNS, ONE IS WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD THAT WE ARE INHERITING, IF WE ANNEX IT AND THE OTHER IS HOW MANY CALLS OF SERVICE ARE WE COVERING OUT THERE? I SPOKE TO THE CHIEF TODAY AND THE SHORT ANSWER, WAS THAT WE HAD 0 MUTUAL AID ASSISTS THAT WE DID ON THIS STRETCH OF ROAD. THE FIRST PART, IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD IS, I THINK WITHIN THE LAST 24 MONTHS THEY RESURFACED A PORTION OF THIS ROAD WITH ASPHALT. >> I THOUGHT THAT THEY DID TOO. >> SO, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT IN TOO BAD OF SHAPE. IN TERMS OF REPAIRS, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. >> THE BRIDGE ALSO, THE GUARDRAIL ON THE BRIDGE WAS REPAIRED. AROUND OF COURSE, THAT CURVE THAT YOU SEE THERE WILL BE REPLACED BY A ROUND ABOUT. >> BUT THE REAL ISSUE IS THAT THE OPPORTUNITY COST OF NOT DOING THIS IS TOO GREAT, TO HAVE DALLAS COUNTY COME BACK AND SAY, IF YOU GUYS AREN'T GOING TO ANNEX THIS AT SOME POINT SOON, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HELP YOU WITH SOME OF THE OTHER FUNDING AND I'M THINKING LAURA ROAD. AND THE OPPORTUNITY COST IS EXTREMELY HIGH NOT TO DO THIS. >> SO, THE COUNTY LIKES TO ADD THESE SURPRISE STIPULATIONS, WHEN THEY SAY, OKAY, WE'VE ALLOCATED THIS MUCH MONEY TO MCIP, BUT... WE WANT THIS, AND ONE OF THOSE, LAST TIME, WAS THE DAMS. SO, IF THEY WANT TO TALK, I WOULD SAY, OKAY, WELL, WE CAN ORPHAN THIS ROADWAY, AND INCORPORATE IT, BUT, WE'RE NOT [01:20:08] INTERESTED IN THE DAMS, THANKS. >> WELL, BUT, MAYOR, AS YOU KNOW, IT'S TWO SEPARATE PROGRAMS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I KNOW. I KNOW. >> SO, WE'VE ALREADY MADE A COMMITMENT TO DOING THIS WITH THE LAST PROGRAM. THE MONEY THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE TWO DAMS COMES WITH ANOTHER WHOLE 7-$8 MILLION WORTH OF NEW MONEY. >> IT'S A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO, THE PACKET SAID THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD RESURFACE THE ROAD OR REPLACE THE ROAD WHEN PHASE 2 STARTS. DO WE HAVE A TIMEFRAME AROUND THAT, HOW LONG ARE WE MAINTAINING THE ROAD? >> WELL, WE WILL MAINTAIN IT ADD INFINITE. >> NO, I DON'T HAVE A TIMEFRAME. >> DO WE KNOW THE TIMING, I THINK THAT THE DEVELOPER IS DEDICATING OR BUILDING A FIRE STATION, SO, HOW'S THE TIMING OF ANNEXING THIS PROPERTY AS THE BUILDING OF THE FIRE STATION? DO WE KNOW THAT? >> THE STATION IS GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE FRONT OF PHASE TWO. IN TERMS OF THE PID AGREEMENT. >> AND THEY DID HAVE AN ESTIMATE. WHEN THEY PRESENTED THE MATERIALS ON THE PID, THERE WAS AN ESTIMATE AT THAT TIME. I DON'T RECALL, BUT. >> I THINK IT WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF IT (INDISCERNIBLE) >> IT HAD BEEN DELAYED ALREADY. >> YOU'RE RIGHT. >> BECAUSE OF THE SEWER LINE AND THE ACQUISITION OF THE EASEMENT. >> AND ONE OTHER QUESTION, THIS IS THE RED SEGMENT ON THE SCREEN HERE, EVENTUALLY BECOMING WHAT IS IT A FOUR-LANE DIVIDED? >> A TWO-LANE UNDIVIDED. >> IT'S A COLLECTOR'S. >> AND WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF THIS AND FURTHER TO THE SOUTHWEST THERE, WHAT IS THAT? ASPHALT? >> IT IS ASPHALT. >> IS THAT OUR'S? >> THE STONE WALL IS IN VERY BAD SHAPE RIGHT THERE JUST SOUTH OF VINSON ROAD. >> I WAS UP AND DOWN STONE WALL, THAT'S BAD. >> A LOT OF STRUCK ARE DRIVING THAT ROAD DAILY. SO, YOU COULD TELL. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> TO USE DANNY'S FAVORITE WORD IS THAT WE HAVE NO LEVERAGE ON THIS, DALLAS COUNTY IS ACTIVELY USING MCIP MONEY TO DISCARD MAINTENANCE ISSUES. IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE, GO TO JJ AND COMPLAIN. (INDISCERNIBLE) >> PRICE. >> PRICE, THAT'S RIGHT, WE SWITCHED. >> PRICE. >> WE SWITCHED, ACTUALLY, SHE MIGHT ACTUALLY LISTEN. BUT, IT'S KIND OF, WHERE WE ARE IN THAT SITUATION. >> OKAY. >> CAN YOU GIVE ME AN IDEA OF THE TIMING OF THEM PASSING A RESOLUTION? >> I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE SOON. BUT, I DON'T HAVE A DATE, I ASKED TODAY IF THEY DID, BUT THEY DID NOT GIVE ME A FIRM DATE. >> I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, KNOW, FUTURE PLANNING BECAUSE THAT IS GOING TO GET UPDATED. EITHER THIS NEXT CIP OR THE CIP AFTER THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE OTHER SECTION OF VINSON ROAD. >> THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR POLICE ENFORCEMENT OF THAT ROAD ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT IS FINISHED TOO. BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS ARE GOING TO WANT TO ENSURE THAT CARS AREN'T SPEEDING IN THE ROADWAY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND IF IT'S OUT OF OUR JURISDICTION, WE DON'T HAVE THE LEVERAGE TO ENFORCE ANYTHING ON THAT ROAD. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) >> WE WILL HAVE TO STEP UP OUR PATROL, WE ALWAYS KNEW THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT WITH THE TRAIL OF COTOF COTTON WOOD CREE ANYWAY. I'M CONCERNED WITH THE CURRENT ROADWAY STATUS ON VINSON ROAD. AND THAT'S A CONVERSATION THAT STAFF WILL NEED TO HAVE FOR THE FUTURE TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE PLUGGING THAT INTO THE BUDGET SOMEWHERE TO UPGRADE. >> LET THAT BE A LESSON TO YOU. >> WE DON'T HAVE THAT ON THE LIST FOR AN ASPHALT RESURFACE? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THAT IT WILL BE IN THE NEXT BUDGET THAT WE APPROVE FOR MORE MONEY FOR ASPHALT REHABILITATION. BUT, I THINK THEY'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED A LIST OF ROADS BY THIS POINT OR SOON. >> IS THERE, UM, THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY A TRUCK ROUTE, IS IT? [01:25:06] >> TRUCKS USE IT. >> ESPECIALLY FOR THE LANDFILL. >> THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M GOING WITH IT. >> I WOULD SAY THE ROWLETT PART IS NOT DESIGNATED TO TRUCK ROUTE. THEY USE IT, BUT IT'S NOT DESIGNATED A TRUCK ROUTE. >> WELL, THAT'S THE SHORTEST ROUTE TO GET. >> IF YOU WERE MAKING A STOP TO THE INSIDE OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT, YES. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK ABOUT IT LATER ON IN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH DALLAS COUNTY, BUT, WE DO NEED TO HAVE MAY BE THE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE NEEDS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE RELATIONSHIP IS TO THE COUNTY IN THE FUTURE. >> OUR RELATIONSHIP IS PURSE STRINGS. AND JUST TO SAY, WE HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED TO THIS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OH, I KNOW. >> JUST LIKE WE HAVE WITH THE DAMS. BUT, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I KNOW WHY YOU'RE RAISING THAT ISSUE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WELL, WE SAID IT BACK THEN TOO, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DAM. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? >> JUST A COMMENT. >> BEYOND THAT THERE'S A SERVICE LEVEL HERE AS WELL. WE HAVE 760 SOMETHING HOMES GOING UP THERE, THOSE ARE ROWLETT RESIDENTS. I THINK IT'S, I HATE TO USE THE WORD (INDISCERNIBLE) BUT IT DOES BEHOOVE US TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS. NOT DRIVE. >> HOW DO YOU USE THIS AS LEVERAGE TO TALK TO THE OTHER CITIES AROUND THERE, AND EVERYBODY THAT ACCESSES THAT DUMP IN TERMS OF HOW AND DALLAS COUNTY, IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU COULD HOPE TO IMPROVE ALL OF THAT ROAD WAY? >> I THINK THAT SAXIE HAS AN AFREMONT WITH GARLAND AND PLEASANT VALLEY, I THINK. BUT, I COULD BE WRONG. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. OH, I GUESS YOU NEED DIRECTION. I THINK THAT WE HAD. HANDS ARE TIED. SO, WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO BE SAID? YEAH. LET'S MOVE FORWARD. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. [3E. Discuss a request from Stephanie Higgins to “de-park” Take-Area property located between 4021 Chiesa Road and Lake Ray Hubbard.] OUR NEXT ITEM IS 3E, DISCUSS A REQUEST FROM STEPHANIE HIGGINS TO "DE-PARK", TAKE-AREA PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN 4021 CHIESA ROAD AND LAKE RAY HUBBARD. WE HAVE SOME COMMENT CARDS, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, THERE ARE COMMENT CARDS AT THE FRONT OF THE DOOR JUST HAND IT TO ME AND I'LL LET YOU SPEAK. THE FIRST COMMENT CARD THAT WE HAVE IS FROM DAVE HALL AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >> TPLEASE NAME THE CITY OF RESIDENCE PLEASE. >> OVER THE YEARS I'VE TAKING HENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE OUT ON LAKE RAY HUBBARD IN KAYAKS AND STAND-UP PADDLE BOARDS. THE TWO THINGS THAT IMPRESS THE USERS ARE THE BIRDS ON THE LAKES AND THE RESIDENT'S HOUSES ON THE LAKES, IT'S NOT THE PARKS OR APARTMENTS. THE TAKELINE PROPERTY IS MAINTAINED BETTER THAN THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REST OF THE TAKELINE LOCATIONS. THIS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AT MINIMAL TO NO COST TO THE CITY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE TAKE LINE ON LAKE SIDE NORTH UBE DEVELOPED PARK HAS BEEN USED MULTIPLE TIMES BY THIEVES TO BREAK IN AND STEAL KAYAKS FROM ME. THE USE OF THE LAKE AND TAKE LINE ARE CONTINUOUSLY EVOLVING AND CHANGING. SINCE COVID, THE AVERAGE USER ON THE LAKE IS LESS EXPERIENCED AND IS USING EQUIPMENT WHICH IS LESS SAFE FOR A BODY OF WATER AS BIG AS LAKE RAY HUBBARD, THE CONCEPT OF THE TRAIL ALONG THE TAKE LINE NEXT TO HIGH VOLUME RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SUNSHINE NO LONGER THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THE TAKE LINE. SAFE WATER TRAILS AND EDUCATIONAL OVERLOOKS PROVIDE GREATER QUALITY OF LIFE VALUE FOR ALL. THEY DO NOT INVOLVE TRAILS ON THE NARROW TAKE LINE IN FRONT OF RESIDENT'S HOUSES. FOR THIS REASON I RECOMMEND TAKE LINE SUBLEASES BE ALLOWED FOR RESIDENTS NEXT TO THE TAKE LINE. THANK YOU. [01:30:08] >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: NEXT SPEAKER IS BART READER. YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES, STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. >> I'M BART REIDER, THE CITY OF RESIDENCE IS DALLAS. I'M THE DEVELOPER OF CANNON BERRY COVE. IT'S VERY CLOSE TO THIS PROPERTY. MY POINT, MY REASON TO BE HERE TO SPEAK IS SIMPLY THAT I'VE ALREADY COMMITTED AS A DEVELOPER OOF CANBERRY COVE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO PUT IN THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS AND THE TAKE LINE AREA TO THE SOUTH, ROUGHLY 1,000 FEET PARALLEL TO THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PARTS OF CANBERRY COVE IN THE TAKE LINE AREA. I'VE ESTIMATED THAT THAT'S A 70-$75,000 INVESTMENT THAT I WILL BE PUTTING IN IN PHASE 2 WHICH WE EXPECT TO START IN SIX TO SEVEN MONTHS. MY POINT HERE TO MENTION TO COUNCI IS THAT IF THE TRAIL'S NOT GOING TO BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE NORTH END OF MY PROPERTY, WITH MY PROPERTY BEING CANBERRY COVE, CONNECT TO THE PART THAT I UNDERSTAND WILL RUN EAST AND WEST TO THE AREA TO DALROCK, IF THE TRAIL'S GOING TO BE DISJOINTED, I DON'T SEE A REASON TO PUT IT IN. IF THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT HAVE THE TRAIL THROUGH THE TAKE LINE CONTINUE, THEN, I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE CITY RELEASE ME FROM MY COMMITMENT TO PUT IN THE TAKE LINE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL THAT IS NOT GOING TO CONNECT. IT SEEMS POINTLESS TO ME TO PUT THAT IN AT $75,000 THAT'S NOT GOING TO CONNECT ANYTHING. APPRECIATE IT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. AND OUR LAST COMMENT CARD IS FROM STEVEN HORWIT-Z. >> STEVE HOROWITZ, MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE 2013. I'VE TRIED TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE WHOLE TAKE AREA LEASE WHICH IS NOT AN EASY THING TO UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE OCCURRED WITH THE CITY, WITH THE TRAILS AND WHAT NOT, I'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF HOMEWORK, I HAVE A LOT TO DO, BUT JUST GOING WAY BACK TO OLD CITY MEETING MINUTES AND LOOKING AT KIND OF WHAT THE INTENT WAS FOR THE LOCAL AGREEMENT AND THE TAKE LEASES TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHY WOULD YOU WANT THAT? WHAT WAS THE INTENT AT THE TIME? AND I THINK THAT THE INTENT WAS TO REALLY FOR EROSION CONTROL AND FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTIES AND ALTHOUGH WE DON'T HAVE FORMAL OWNERSHIP OF THE AREA, UM, ONCE YOU SIGN THE TAKE LEASE, WE'RE ADOPTING RESPONSIBILITY OF TAKING CARE OF THE AREA. WHICH IS A HUGE PLUS FOR THE CITY. IT MAKES IT REALLY NEAT, CLEAN, AND I KNOW THAT THE KIND OF MONEY THAT WE'VE PUT IN AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAD TO PAY JUST FOR THE HOUSE INITIALLY BECAUSE OF THE SEA WALL AND THE DOCK AND WHATNOT, AND THE UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY IS QUITE A BIT, BUT IT LOOKS GREAT. AND OUR AREA'S BASICALLY BETWEEN 66 BRIDGE AND 30, AND THOSE PROPERTIES REALLY DO A WONDERFUL JOB OF TAKING CARE OF THEIR LAND. AND HAVE PUT TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY INTO THAT PROPERTY. SO, I THINK ANYBODY WHOSE WILLING TO TAKE ON THAT BURDEN FOR THEMSELVES IS JUST A HUGE PLUS FOR THE CITY AND A HUGE PLUS FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY IF SOMEBODY'S WILLING TO TAKE OP THE JOB OF TAKING CARE OF THEIR PROPERTIES, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD BE A NEGATIVE, I COULD ONLY SEE THAT AS A POSITIVE. SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE TWO MORE COMMENT CARDS. WE HAVE PHILLIP CASCAVILA, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. AND STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I JUST WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE TRAILS. >> EXCUSE ME, COULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. AND CITY. >> PHILLIP CASCAVILA. >> MY PROPERTY ADJOINS THE CITY'S PUMPING STATION WHICH ADJOINS BAY SIDE. SO, I'M THE LAST PROPERTY WHERE YOUR PUMPING [01:35:02] STATION IS AND THEN BAY SIDE STARTS. IT GIVES ME A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF WHAT GOES ON ON A TRAIL THAT IS OWNED BY BAY SIDE, BUT IS OPENED TO THE PUBLIC. AND SINCE I LIVE THERE AND I'M THERE IN THE EVENINGS, AND IN THE MORNINGS, WE HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE TRAILS. IF THERE'S HOUSES AND TRAILS, THERE'S TROUBLE. THERE'S BREAK-INS, PEOPLE SPEND A LOT OF THEIR EVENINGS, DRINKING, AND BASICALLY THROWING TRASH AND MAKING A MESS ON THE TRAILS. MAY BE ABOUT ONCE EVERY TWO OR THREE HOURS YOU'LL SEE A POLICE CAR. MOST OF THE TIME, WHEN THE POLICE COME, THE PEOPLE DISAPPEAR. BUT, I SEE WHAT HAPPENS EVERY MORNING. I SEE THE BEER CANS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH THESE TRAILS. PLEASE, DO NOT CONFUSE A GOOD THING, LIKE A TRAIL, WITH RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. IT TURNS INTO A MESS, I HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT, AND I'VE ACCEPTED IT, I ACCEPTED A PUMPING STATION THAT HAS BASICALLY BEEN ENLARGED AND HAS NOT BEEN THE BEST NEIGHBOR IN THE WORLD SINCE SOMETIMES (INDISCERNIBLE) >> I HAVE TO CALL, BUT WHAT'S WORSE IS TO SEE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING TO THAT TRAIL AFTER MIDNIGHT, AND SEE THE DAMAGE THAT THEY DO. SOMETIMES, IN THE MORNING, IT WOULDN'T HURT TO, WALK THE BAY SIDE TRAIL WHICH ENDS AT I-30 AND SEE WHAT IT'S LIKE IN THE MORNING. ESPECIALLY AT THE END WHERE THERE ARE NO HOUSES YET, THE LOTS ARE FINISHED BUT THE HOUSES AREN'T THERE YET. ONCE THE HOUSES GO IN, IT TENDS TO BASICALLY LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ON THE TRAIL, BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS CALL AND THEY SAY THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE FISHING, OR DRINKING OR DOING THE THINGS WHICH I SEE EVERY NIGHT. SO, PLEASE, ALL I'M ASKING, IS WHEN YOU MIX RESIDENTIAL HOUSING WITH A TRAIL, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. >> AND ASA? >> I'M PHILLIP'S SON, I LIVE AT 8817 CREEKSIDE DRIVE. WE HAVE A LOT OF LAKE FRONT HOUSES WITH AND WITHOUT BOAT (INAUDIBLE) >> IT'S REFLECTED IN THE PARKS AND REC'S TRAILS MASTER PLAN. >> IT WAS DIRECTED BY A PRIOR COUNCIL AT THE UPDATE FOR THE MASTER PLAN WHICH HASN'T HAPPENED YET. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN HAS BEEN AMENDED TO REFLECT. >> SO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> IT'S JUST NOT AN ORDINANCE. >> SO, IT COULD HAPPEN IT COULD NOT HAPPEN? >> NO, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE A CONVERSATIONAL PART. >> SORRY. >> BUT, I'M SORT OF, I'M DOING THAT ANYWAY. AND, THE PARK'S TRAIL'S MASTER PLAN, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT DOES STATE THAT -- I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER, IT WAS AWHILE AGO. >> IT SAYS PER COUNCIL DIRECTIVE, THERE'LL BE NO PLANNED TRAILS BEHIND HOMES. >> THAT'S WONDERFUL, BECAUSE WE CELEBRATED THAT AS A COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE A BUNCH OF US IN THE COMMUNITY AND LIVED THERE IN THE SAME AREA FOR A LONG TIME AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. SO, THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. >> AND THEN, REALLY WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS IS TALK ABOUT HOMES THAT DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO LEASE LAND, RIGHT? WE HAVE TWO PROPERTIES ON STONEWALL ROAD, AND WE HAVE ANOTHER HOUSE ON LIBERTY ON THE LAKE. I NEED TO KNOW THAT 760 HOMESITE IS GOING IN. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ROADS AND THAT WILL BRING (INDISCERNIBLE). >> AS FAR AS LEASING THE LOBBED, I THINK WHAT HE JUST SAID, I MEAN, YOU COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY BETTER, I MEAN, WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO ALLOW SOMEBODY TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT REALLY LEGALLY TAKING OWNERSHIP, BUT MAINTAIN IT, MAKE IT NICE, IMPROVE IT. I'VE LIVED ON THE LAKE FOR 20 YEARS AND I'VE SEEN PEOPLE WHO LEASE THE LAND NEXT TO ME AND MY NEIGHBOR NEXT TO ME DOES NOT LEASE THE LAND AND HIS LAND IS ERODED 20 FEET AND THERE ARE OLDER PEOPLE THAT CAN'T [01:40:04] AFFORD THE HOUSE THEY'RE IN ANYMORE. BUT, FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DO IT, I THINK IT'S A NO-BRAINER. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. THANK YOU, GUYS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ONTO OUR PRESENTATIONS. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT STEPHANIE HIGGINS, YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION. WE'LL ALLOCATE 20 MINUTES FOR THAT AND THEN WIFI A STAFF PRESENTATION. SINCE WE HAVE AMPLE TIME. SO, 20 MINUTES FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND WE'LL HAVE STAFF PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'LL HAVE DELIBERATION WITH COUNCIL. >> SO, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE RIGHT TO SUBLEASE WHICH IS GOING TO BE, I GUESS, THIS AREA OF DISCUSSION WHICH WAS WHAT WAS PUT IN TO THE AGENDA. I WANT TO MAKE NOTE THERE ARE A FEW OTHER HOUSE THAT IS HAVE THE SAME ISSUE, BUT THIS ONE FOR THIS SESSION. UM, WITH THIS, WE'VE HAD, UM, A LOT OF EROSIONS, SINCE WE HAD OUR SUBLEASE, SINCE WE HAD OUR SURVEY DONE, WE HAVE EVEN EROSION FROM A FOOT TO A FOOT AND-A-HALF SINCE WE HAD THE SURVEY DONE. AND THAT WAS TWO YEARS AGO. THAT'S A LOT. WE WOULD GET THOSE WESTWARD STORMS THAT COME IN, AND I'VE SEEN WAVES AND SPLASHES COME UP 8-9 FEET THERE. WE GET A LOT OF STRONG WIND AND OUR LAND IS ERODING BACK THERE, ON A REALLY, REALLY, QUICK RATE. AND ON TOP OF THAT, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF TRASH, I'M HIGHLY ALLERGIC TO POISON IVY, OAK, AND SUMAC, AND SO, THIS HAS BEEN MOSTLY HIS THING, SO, I'LL LET HIM SPEAK ON THIS, BECAUSE HE'S BEEN CLEANING UP A LOT OF THE TRASH BACK THERE, THIS IS LOGAN. MY FIANCE. >> SO, BASICALLY, IN THE PROCESS OF CLEANING UP ALL THE TRASH BACK THERE AND MOWING IT, UM, A LOT OF STUFF HAS BEEN DISCOVERED. ON THE BOTTOM LEFT, THAT TRASHBIN ACTUALLY WASHED UP IN THE LAKE AND I'VE BEEN USING IT TO FILL UP THE TRASH THAT I'VE COLLECTED FROM THE BRUSH. A LOT OF THIS STUFF IS SO OVERGROWN I HAVE TO WEED EAT IT, PULL OUT THE TRASH AND THEN I CAN MOW IT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW THE PROPERTY, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE JUST TO GET THE DRIVEWAY'S WORTH IT TOOK AN ENTIRE WEEK. I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR TWO YEARS NOW AND GOT TO DO TO A DOUBLE DRIVEWAY AS WORTH. >> AND THERE'S BEEN MORE, WE'VE CARRIED OUT BAGS UPON BAGS OF TRASH. SOME OF THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SENT IN, I BELIEVE IN THE VERY BEGINNING WHEN WE HAD PICTURES OF BAGS HANGING FROM LIMBS AND THINGS. AND I THINK, I WAS MET OUT THERE AND WE WALKED THROUGH IT AND LOOKED THROUGH IT AND IT TOOK AWHILE, BUT WE GOT SOMEBODY TO CLEAN SOME OF THAT UP, BECAUSE OF THE VIEWS FOR THE KAYAKERS, IT WAS NOT A PLEASANT VIEW OF TRASH HANGING EVERYWHERE. >> THEY WERE IN BASICALLY IN CIRCULAR PATTERNS, I THINK PEOPLE WERE BUILDING FIRE PITS. MOST OF THOSE WERE IN LITTLE CIRCLES, COLLECTED, PUT IT THERE, IF YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR STONE, I HAVE A FIRE SALE GOING ON HERE, EVERYTHING'S FREE. THE BOTTOM BIG ONE, THAT'S SOME INDUSTRIAL REBARB. LIKE WHAT YOU WOULD USE FOR, THE ONLY THING THAT I COULD THINK OF IS THE MANHOLE COVERS, BECAUSE IT HAS A BOLT HEAD ON ONE SIDE AND AT THE VERY END OF IT IT HAS A NUT. THIS WAGON WAS IN WITH ALL THE BRUSH AND THE. >> IT'S LIKE A CAR FRAME. >> THEY TURNED IT INTO A WAGON, THAT LONG POLE FROM THE FRONT ATTACHES TO A VEHICLE AND THERE'S A REAR DIFFERENTIAL IN THE BACK. AND THEN THIS GIANT PIECE IN WITH ALL THE BRUSH. I'LL LET HER TALK ON THE ISSUE THAT SHE HAD WITH THE VEHICLE DRIVING BACK THERE. EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE SIGNS THAT SAY NOT TO DRIVE. >> YEAH, THIS IS VERY CLOSE TO OUR BEDROOM WINDOW, OUR BACK FENCE. ONE OF THE MANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE DRIVEN BACK HERE. UM, ACTUALLY, IF YOU HAD THE SOUND ON, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO HEAR THE HORNS THAT HAPPEN BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND 4:00 A.M. A GENTLEMAN ACTUALLY GETS OUT OF [01:45:06] HIS VEHICLE, WALKS UP TO OUR FENCELINE AND STARTS TO SCREAM AT THE HOUSE. >> SO, HE WAS TOLD BY POLICE NOT TO DRIVE BACK THERE, HE CAME BACK THERE ARE MULTIPLE VIDEOS HERE, THESE ARE DIFFERENT DAYS. THIS IS THE POLICE TOLD HIM NOT TO COME BACK. HE LIFTS UP THE CAMERA, LAYS ON THE HORN AND LEAVES. THE TOP ONE, HE STOPS BEHIND THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE IS NOT FAR FROM OUR BEDROOM WINDOW, HE GETS OUT AND STARTS TO YELL AT THE HOUSE. >> THIS IS ANOTHER VEHICLE BACK THERE. THERE ARE MULTIPLE. AND IT ALL HAPPENS BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND 4:00 A.M. I WORK MONDAY-FRIDAY JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES AND I GET WOKEN UP FROM THE LOUD MUSIC AND GUNSHOTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE'VE GOT PEOPLE THAT GO BACK THERE AND SHOOT GUNS RANDOMLY AND DRIVE OFF OR RUN OFF. PEOPLE WALKING BACK THERE WITH RIFLES DURING THE DAY AND AT NIGHT. HORNS BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND 4:00 A.M. >> BY THE WAY, THAT TOP, LEFT ONE IS WHERE THE CITY GATE USED TO BE. THE TOP LEFT IS WHERE (INDISCERNIBLE) >> THAT'S WHERE THE GATE WENT. >> THIS GENTLEMAN CAME AND PICKED IT UP, I GUESS HE THOUGHT IT LOOKED BETTER ON HIS PROPERTY. >> AND WE HAVE, AFTER THE CITY GATE DID GO IN, WE HAD THIS GENTLEMAN GO BACK THERE AND TRY TO CUT IT. >> THE BOTTOM LEFT IS THE CITY'S GATE. THANK YOU. THIS GUY DIDN'T LIKE THE GATE, HE DECIDED TO TRY AND CUT IT OFF. >> THERE'S JUST A LOT OF VANDALISM AND ISSUES. I HAD A GENTLEMAN HOP THE BACK FENCE, I GUESS, THE FENCE WAS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE BACK THAT HE THOUGHT HE COULD MAKE THE DISTANCE. I CAME OUT TO HAVE COFFEE AND HE WAS ON MY BACK PORCH RUMMAGING THROUGH MY LAWN EQUIPMENT. NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO DEAL WITH WHENEVER YOU'RE TRYING TO ENJOY YOUR COFFEE IN THE MORNING. JUST ALL SORTS OF SAFETY CONCERNS FROM DAVE, THEY'VE USED THIS STRIP TO STEAL FROM HIS KAYAK SHOP. THEY HAVE A POP-UP GUN RANGE THAT LASTS 10-15 SECONDS. THEY UNLOAD TWO MAGAZINES, RUN BACK TO THEIR VEHICLES AND DRIVE OFF. WE SHOWED YOU THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S HAPPENING BEHIND OUR HOUSE. >> I MEAN, AT THIS IPOINT, WE'E ASKING TO SUBLEASE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, WE'RE ASKING TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN IT AND TAKE CARE OF THIS AREA, SHOW AWARENESS OF THIS AREA FOR ALL THE THINGS HAPPENING AROUND. YOU KNOW, BART'S MENTIONED ABOUT RELEASING HIM FROM THE TRAIL AREA, THAT WOULD GIVE THOSE HOMEOWNERS ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT, ADD IN THE EROSION CONTROL WHICH WILL COST THE CITY LESS MONEY TO DO. LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE A LOT OF EROSION ISSUES HAPPENING WITH THE STORMS COMING IN FROM THE WEST AND WE JUST HAD THAT ONE COME IN FROM THE NORTHWEST, THAT WAS A DOZESY, WE LOST TWO TREES. WE GOT 60 MILES PER HOUR PLUS WINDS HITTING THAT SHORELINE, WE'RE ACCELERATING THE EROSION HAPPENING THERE. AT THIS POINT, WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE AVAILABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SUBLEASE IT TO TAKE CARE OF IT TO PUT THAT RETAINING WALL IN TO HAVE LESS EROSION AND BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE AREA FOR THE REMAINING PART OF THE LEASE. >> FOR THE PURPOSES OF GOING BACK TO THE WHOLE COFFEE THING, EVERYBODY REMEMBER THE MOUNTAIN LION VIDEO IN ROWLETT? WELL, THAT HUMMER PULLED UP TO THAT BACK FENCE, THAT'S WHERE THE MOUNTAIN LION IS AT. >> WE HAVE A VERY HEALTHY ECOSYSTEM. >> WE LIKE TO SEE THE WILDLIFE. >> THE MORE PEOPLE THAT COME THROUGH THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO GO AWAY. >> WE HAVE BOBCATS BACK THERE, WE HAD A MOM THAT HAD THREE CUBS THIS YEAR, WE HAVE THE DIFFERENT BIRDS AND WE ENJOY WATCHING A LOT OF THAT STUFF. SO, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE Z ASIDE FROM... >> ANY QUESTIONS? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANY QUESTIONS. >> I WAS GOING TO WAIT FOR THE STAFF PREPARATION. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE'LL ASK, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE'LL ASK YOU, WE'RE GOING TO WATCH THE STAFF PRESENTATION FIRST. THANK YOU, GUYS. >> SO, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THE [01:50:15] REQUEST HERE IS TO DE-PARK THE PROPERTY, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORY ON THIS, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY LEASE THE TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT BY THE CITY OF DALLAS, FORT WORTH IN 2001 AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL LOCAL AGREEMENT. THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SHOWN AS A FUTURE PARK PROPERTY. THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME THROUGH THAT APPROVAL AND AGREEMENT, AND WHEN THE TAKE AREA ZONING REQUIREMENTS WERE PUT IN PLACE IN 2002, INITIALLY, THAT WAS ALSO SHOWN AS A PARK. THE ISSUE WAS THAT WHEN THE ORIGINAL TAKE AREA MAPS WERE CREATED IN 2002, AND, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ITERATIONS THAT OCCURRED AS FAR AS WHAT THE PROPERTY LINES WERE BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES OF EACH OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. UM, THE STONE MEADOW PROPERTY WAS SHOWN AS LEASABLE PROPERTY, EVERYTHING SOUTH OF STONE MEADOW ON THE MAP IS (INDISCERNIBLE) CITY PARK. SO, THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN SINCE THE VERY START OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND THE ORIGINAL ZONING REGULATION IT IS FOR THE TAKE AREA. AS A FUTURE PARK PROPERTY. OBVIOUSLY, THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY BACK IN, TO CHANGE WHAT PREVIOUS COUNCILS DID RESERVE AT THAT TIME AS FUTURE PARK LAND. AND SO, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY. IS DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO CONTINUE THAT RESERVATION OF THAT PARK PROPERTY OR DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO PULL IT OUT, DE-PARK IT, MAKE IT AVAILABLE AS A LEASE SPACE. >> SO, I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ONLY WAY THAT THE CITY CAN DE-PARK LAND IS A REFERENDUM. >> THAT'S IF WE OWNED THE LAND. A RESOLUTION THAT SAYS IT IS RESERVED FOR A FUTURE PARK, IF THAT'S THE ONLY DESIGNATION (INDISCERNIBLE) >> IF WE OWN THE LAND AND WE WANT TO SELL IT WE HAVE TO HAVE A (INDISCERNIBLE) TO THE PARK. WE DON'T OWN THIS LAND. AND WE'RE NOT SELLING IT. >> EVEN TO REPURPOSE IT, DON'T YOU HAVE TO DO IT THROUGH A REFERENDUM? >> I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IN THE PACKET. WHICH IS TO MAINTAIN THE SITUATION UNTIL THE MASTER PARK PLAN CAN BE ASSESSED. AND IF THERE'S A COUNCIL DIRECTIVE TO NOT ALLOW A TRAIL BEHIND HOMES, HOW WOULD WE EVER GET TO A POINT WHERE WE WOULD USE THAT LAND IN THAT WAY, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO WAIT AS OPPOSED TO TAKING ACTION NOW? >> REAL SIMPLE IT WAS JUST BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT WAS COMING UP. WE WERE UPDATING THE MASTER TRAIL PLAN NEXT FISCAL YEAR, AND WE'RE STARTING ON IT AS EARLY AS JANUARY. AND SO, IN OUR MIND, RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH THE EXPANSE OF HAVING NEW MAPS PRINTED AND TRYING TO AMENDMENT IT THAT WAY, THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO END UP BUILDING SOMETHING BACK THERE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN ANYWAY. AND THBECAUSE THAT WAS COMING UP ON US QUICK, WE FELT THAT WE SHOULD WAIT. WE'RE NOT ADVOCATED YES OR NO, JUST WAIT UNTIL THEN AND THAT WAY WE COULD INCORPORATE IT AS PART OF THE UPDATE AND DO IT ALL AT ONE TIME. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND THE CITIZENS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. TO ME, WHEN I SHARED MY VIEW ON NO TRAILS BEHIND EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, THE DIFFERENCE FOR ME HERE IS THIS IS A PARK. A PUBLIC PARK. MEANING, THE PUBLIC ACCESS. THE TAKE LINE IS NOT REALLY FOR THE PURPOSES MEANT TO BE A TOTALLY PUBLIC ACCESS AREA. ESPECIALLY, IF IT'S SUBLEASED. SO, FOR ME, THAT'S WHY THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT [01:55:02] WE CONSIDER TO BE A FUTURE PARK. UNLIKE OTHER PARKS OF THE TAKE LINE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER SHINDER AND I, SHE COULDN'T BE HERE THIS EVENING, SHE IS SENT IN COMMENTS THAT I'LL READ LATER. BUT, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PETITION OF THIS YEAR, AND I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OF FACTS, THIS DESIGNATION WAS MADE IN 2001, WHICH IS NOW 21 YEARS AGO. AND THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT A PARK IN THIS AREA. THE TAKE LEASE PROVISIONS EXPIRE IN 2041, IN JANUARY 16TH OF 2041, WHICH IS ONLY 19 YEARS FROM TODAY. WE JUST WENT TRUE A BUDGET PROCESS, I DID NOT SEE THE 10-15-$20 MILLION NEEDED TO INVEST IN THE NORTH SHORE PARK. WITH THAT IN MIND, WE HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PETITIONER HERE TO REACH A COMPROMISE FOR THIS PARTICULAR REGION. AND I'LL SAY, IT'S NOT JUST HAD RED AREA HERE, THE 2021 DESIGNATION POINTS TO DUE WEST OF DELTA ROAD. SO IT BISECTS THAT PROPERTY. THAT'S THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THE FISHERS, THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF THAT, THE DOCTOR'S I CAN'T THINK OF THEIR NAMES. THEY'RE INTERESTED IN SUBLEASING. AND IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT DEB AND I HAD WITH STEPHANIE AND LOGAN, THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SUBLEASE THIS PROPERTY AND LEAVE IT AS PARKLAND FOR THE DURATION, UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT ROWLETT COMES UP WITH THE FUNDS TO BUILD A PARK OR UNTIL THE SUBLEASE EXPIRES 14 YEARS FROM NOW. I CAN'T IMAGINE HAVING TO LIVE WHERE YOU HAVE FOLKS RUNNING BEHIND THERE WERE THE PROPERTY'S UNPATROLED. WE DON'T SEND THE POLICE OR FIRE UP THERE. I WALKED THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, I COULD TELL YOU, IT'S BEING USED AND PROBABLY ABUSED, IT'S FULL OF TRASH, LIQUOR AND BEER BOTTLES, CAMP SITES AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS, IT'S NOT A SAFE AREA TO BE IN AT NIGHT. WE COULD PROVIDE THE CITY A GREAT DEAL OF SAFETY IF WE ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT AREA, AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE PEOPLE IN THE NORTH. SO, BASICALLY HAVE PEOPLE WILLING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PROPERTY FROM STONE MEADOW CIRCLE TO MR. REIDER'S PROPERTY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ROWLETT CAN COME UP WITH THE $10 MILLION TO $20 MILLION TO ACTUALLY BUILD A PARK. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, SO, THE THEY WOULD BE WILLING -- OKAY. >> NOT TO DE-PARK, BUT TO ALLOW THE SUBLEASE, SO, IT WOULD NOT BE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE? >> NOT WHILE IT'S SUB-LEASED. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, THAT'S IN ESSENCE, DE-PARKING, ESSENTIALLY? >> (INDISCERNIBLE) >> THE CITY WOULD STILL HAVE RIGHTS TO TURN IT INTO A PARK. THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN, THE RESOLUTION IN 2001, THAT ESTABLISHED THE TAKE LINE AREAS, SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE THE LEASING OF PARKLAND, SO, WE WOULD HAVE TO UPDATE THAT RESOLUTION TO ALIEU THE LEASE OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THE TAKE LINE LEASE AGREEMENT WOULD NEED TO BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT IT WAS THE CITY'S, THE CITY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY ONCE FUNDED TO BUILD A PARK IN THAT PROPERTY WHICH ISN'T PRESENT IN THE CURRENT LEASE AND THEN LIKE ALL LEASES, ONCE THE LEASE EXPIRES, THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THEM ARE THE PROPERTY WHICH IN THIS CASE (INDISCERNIBLE) ARE DOUBTS. SO, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN, WE WOULD NEED ASSISTANCE IN UPDATING THE LEASE AGREEMENT THAT ONCE THE CITY HAS DESIGNED AND FUNDED A PARK TO BE BUILT, THEN, AT THAT POINT, THE LEASE CAN BE . THE LEASE AGREEMENT REQUIRES THAT THE SUBLEASESOR PERFORM EROSION CONTROL ON THE [02:00:02] PROPERTY. IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY, IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND DO EROSION CONTROL. IT DOES ALLOW THEM THE BUILDING OF A BOAT HOUSE AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, THE TAKE LINE ADVISORY BOARD. SO, IT ALLOWS THE CITY TO GET OUT THE M MAINTENANCE AND INCREASES THE PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE AREA. WE HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS READY TO BUILD BUT THEY'VE BEEN STIMEKIE BY THE FACT THAT THEY COULD NOT USE THE PROPERTY. AND, PRETTY SOON, MR. REIDER'S NEIGHBORHOOD WILL HAVE HOUSES DOWN THERE, I PRESUME AND WE'LL HAVE TO THE AIM AFFECT OP PUBLIC SAFETY IN THAT AREA. SO, I THINK, THIS IS A POTENTIAL WIN/WIN. >> THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT AND I'VE GOT A DIFFERENT TAKE ON IT T IN ORDER DO IT, FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE WOULD NEED CONSENT FROM DALLAS. DALLAS WILL WANT CONCESSIONS THAT WE WILL NOT WANT TO GIVE. AND IT WOULD BE COSTLY FOR US. BUT, WE DO NEED CONSENT, DALLAS WOULD LIKELY, READILY AGREE TO IT IF THERE'S COMMITMENTS TO CONSTRUCT SEA WALLS. THEIR PRIMARY GOAL IS EROSION CONTROLS THAT COMES FROM SEA WALLS BUILT BY OUR SUBLEASES. WE WOULD NEED TO AMEND OUR MASTER PARKS PLANS. AND WE WOULD DO THAT BY RESOLUTION AND THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE. WE NEED TO GET CONSENT FROM DALLAS, AMEND THE MASTER PARKS PLAN AND BUILD PROVISIONS INTO THE SPECIFIC, UNIQUE PROVISIONS INTO THESE PARTICULAR SUBLEASES THAT CONTAIN A CONDITION PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT WHEN WE DO BEGIN TO CONSTRUCT A PARK OR IT REALLY SHOULD SAY AT OUR INSISTENCE THAT THE SUBLEASESOR TERMINATE. IT'S AT THEIR RISK. WE COULD TURN AROUND AND SAY WE'VE DECIDED THAT WE WANT THAT PROPERTY AND WE WANT TO BUILD A HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL OR AS A CITY PARK. >> I LOVE THE IDEA, BECAUSE, IT TO ME, IT TEAMS LIKE A WIN/WIN. WE'RE NOT USING THE PARK NOW. IT'S JUST LEFT TO SIT THERE AND YOU KNOW. SOME TROUBLE. >> I'LL TACK ONTO WHAT YOU SAID. IT'S BEEN 20 PLUS YEARS AND WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE GREAT PARKS AND RECS FOLKS THAT DO THE BEST THEY CAN TO MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE. WE HAVE HERFORD PARK WHICH WE CAN'T HARDLY FUN. I'M IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS RESOLUTION, DE-PARK IT AND SUBLEASE IT TO STEPHANIE AND LOGAN. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT, PERSONALLY, DE-PARKING IT, I THINK THIS APPROACH SEEMED REASONABLE FOR THE CITY'S INTEREST AND THE SUBLEASER'S INTEREST, I'M INTERESTED IN HEARING MORE ABOUT THAT. I'M A LITTLE HESITANT, BECAUSE, I WOULDN'T PERSONALLY LIKE TO WAIT FOR THE MASTER PLAN BECAUSE IF CANNON BERRY COVE IS DEVELOPING A TRAIL ADJACENT TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THE WAY THAT THE CITY AT LEAST FROM THE PREVIOUS TRAILS MASTER PLAN IS TRYING TO GO IS CONNECT SCHRADY ROAD TRAIL TO THE LAKESIDE PARK TRAIL. I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD OFF UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND MORE. OF COURSE, THE COUNCIL HAS TO AGREE WITH THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN ADS WELL. >> I THINK THAT BASED UPON THE PRIOR COUNCIL THERE WAS A STATEMENT ABOUT NOT GOING BEHIND HOMES. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, YOU COULD GO BEHIND THAT CIRCLE. >> . >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: RIGHT, THE SIDEWALK WOULD HAVE TO GO DOWN CHIESA ROAD, AND VEER OFF. >> IT'S BEEN THERE 20 PLUS YEARS, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANOTHER 20 PLUS YEARS BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING WITH IT? >> WE ONLY HAVE THREE LAKESIDE PARKS IN THE CITY, SO, I'M NOT INTERESTED IN SAYING TO ALL THE RESIDENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY A FUTURE OPPORTUNITY. BECAUSE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT COUNSEL'S GOING TO DO OR THE NEXT COUNCIL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND I DON'T WANT TO RUIN A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THE FUTURE FOR ALL RESIDENTS TO ENJOY THAT PIECE OF LAND. [02:05:04] SO, DE-PARKING, I'M A COMPLETE NO. BUT, THIS MIDDLE GROUND APPROACH, I THINK IS A LOT MORE ATTRACTIVE. >> GO AHEAD. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, LET ME ASK DAVID THIS QUESTION, SO, DEB COULD NOT BE HERE, SHE DID SEND ME AN E-MAIL WITH HER POSSESSION ON THIS, IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD HERE? >> DEB SENT AN E-MAIL WITH HER POSSESSION, SHE COULDN'T BE HERE THIS EVENING, IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO READ WHAT SHE'S WROTE. >> THERE'S NO PROVISION THAT WOULD ALLOW AN ABSENT COUNCILMEMBER TO STATE THEIR OPINION, IF YOU'RE ABSENT, YOU'RE ABSENT. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) >> I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH LEASING, I'M A REAL ESTATE AGENT. I THINK ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS LEASE THE PROPERTY SO IT'S NOT A JUNK YARD AND A PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE TROUBLE. WHY CAN'T WE JUST GIVE THEM A LEASE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE'VE FINISHED CITIZEN'S INPUT, THIS IS COUNSEL'S DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION. >> I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION ON WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER. THE WAY THAT ILA READS IS THAT EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURES, WHICH ARE SEA WALLS ARE ONLY REQUIRED IN CRITICAL EROSION CONTROL AREAS. SO, NOT EVERYONE THAT LEASES IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL A SEA WALL, IN FACT, DALLAS HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ANY AREAS ALONG THE LAKE AS CRITICAL NEEDS FOR EROSION CONTROL, SO, ANYONE THAT DOES LEASE, THEY'RE NOT AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRED TO INSTALL A SEA WALL. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: DAVID, UM, WOULD THAT BE A PROVISION THAT COULD BE ADDED WITHIN THE SEPARATE AGREEMENT IF WE WERE TO AGREE TO SUBLEASE? >> WHAT PROVISION? >> REQUIREMENT OF EROSION CONTROL. >> THE SUBLEASE ALREADY SPEAKS TO THAT. BUT YOU COULD WRITE THAT IN. WE USE THE STANDARD FORM, BECAUSE IT'S ADMINISTRATIVELY (INDISCERNIBLE) FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL SUBLEASE. SO, WE COULD WRITE PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT WOULD APPLY TO THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY THAT INCLUDE EROSION CONTROL, VACATION ON DEMAND, THINGS LIKE THAT. >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THE ILA DESIGNATES THIS AS A PUBLIC PARK OR AS A FUTURE PUBLIC PARK, OR POTENTIALLY AS A PARK. WHERE DOES IT SIT ON THAT SPECTRUM? >> SO, IT LISTED IT AS A FUTURE PARK. AND THEN, WHEN WE ADOPT THE ZONING REGULATIONS WHICH WERE ALSO APPROVED BY DALLAS, THOSE REGULATIONS LISTED AS A FUTURE PARK, ALL OF THE SHORE LINE WAS SHOWN ON BOTH OF THOSE DOCUMENTS, SHOWN. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, DAVID, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO DRAFT AN AGREEMENT, AND GET CONSENSUS FROM DALLAS TO ALLOW THE SUBLEASE OF THESE PROPERTIES UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE CITY HAS AN INTEREST IN DEVELOPING A PARK? THAT CAN BE DONE? >> YES. >> YES. WE DON'T DO ANYTHING OUT THERE WITHOUT DALLAS' CONSENT. AND WE WOULD NEED THEIR CONSENT, AND I'M LOOKING AT THE MASTER LEASE NOW AND I DON'T SEE PROVISIONS IN THERE THAT REQUIRE SPECIAL PROCESSES OR PROCEDURES FOR UNDESIGNATING A PARK. THE MASTER PLAN DOES NOT CONTAIN DESIGNATED PARK AREAS. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS JUST THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ENTIRE TAKE AREA. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WE DON'T DO ANYTHING OUT THERE WITHOUT DALLAS' PERMISSION, WE'LL CLEAR IT WITH DALLAS BEFORE WE TOUCH IT AT ALL. IF DALLAS IS OKAY WITH IT, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE DOING SOMETHING THAT DEVIATES FROM EXISTING RESOLUTIONS SPECIFICALLY, THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE A PIECEMEAL AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER PLAN. >> WE HAVE ORDINANCES TODAY THAT THE STATE HAS THE LAW. >> (INDISCERNIBLE). >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING READY TO REDO IT ANYWAY, I MEAN, IS THERE AN OVERARCHING NEED TO AMEND THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN? [02:10:08] >> WE NEED TO AMENDMENT IT BECAUSE THIS IS OUR MASTER PLAN FOR PARKS. BUT, IF WE ADOPTED A RESOLUTION AND PROVIDED FOR THAT AS BEING AN INFORMAL AMENDMENT, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IMFORMAL. REALLY, I'M ONLY GOING TO ADVOCATE THAT IN THE ATOPPINGS THAT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOCTORING AN OVERHAUL OF OUR MASTER PLAN. BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED TO DO PIECEMEAL CHANGES. THE PLAN IS THE PLAN. THAT'S HOW IT WAS LABELLED AND THE RESOLUTION IN 2001. IT WAS, THE ZONING WAS. THIS IS FIRMLY NOT ZONING BECAUSE THERE ARE NO PROPERTY RIGHTS EXCEPT BY VIRTUE OF SUBLEASE. THAT'S THE HUGE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE. >> I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE CONCERN ABOUT THE PLAN, IF WE'RE NOT DE-PARKING IT, WE'RE SIMPLY LEASING THE PART. >> OUR CONCERN PRIMARILY WAS IF WE'RE GOING TO DE-PARK IT, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, THEN, TO UPDATE THE PLAN BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IT ANYWAY. IF, INSTEAD, WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME SORT OF A HYBRID, WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TEMPORARY ALIGNMENT, TEMPORARY MEANING YEARS OR MONTHS, BUT, WHERE, IT'S JUST BASICALLY A FORM OF (INDISCERNIBLE) MAKING SURE THAT DALLAS IS NOT AGAINST THAT, THEN, MAY BE WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE PLAN IS UPDATED. BUT, WE HAVE ALL OF THESE ENTANGLEMENTS, WE HAVE A DEVELOPER COMMITTED TO BUILDING A TRAIL AND WE HAVE PLANS FOR THAT TRAIL. AS LONG AS WE GO INTO IT WITH OUR EYES OPEN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO AT THIS TIME. THEN, MAY BE YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT JUST TO UPDATE IT. I STILL THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT TO IN THE FUTURE, BUT, WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT SOONER. WITH THIS HYBRID, THAT I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS ON THIS, ONE, YOU CAN'T, PEOPLE ARE GETTING THEMSELVES IN A LOT OF TROUBLE SAYING WE HAVEN'T DONE IT IN 20 YEARS, WE ARE NEVER GOING TO DO IT. WE HAVE VERY LITTLE PUBLIC LAND. I SAID ON OUR COMP PLAN REVIEW AND OR STRATEGIC PLAN REVIEW AND THE ONE THING THAT WE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN FROM ALL THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT, WAS, WE'RE A CITY ON A LAKE THAT NOBODY HAS ACCESS TO. FROM ALL OF THE CITIZENS, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND AND EMPATHIZE WITH A LOT OF THE ISSUES GOING ON. I TOTALLY AGREE THEY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, BETTER FENCING, INCREASE PATROL, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HELP CLEAN THESE AREAS UP TO DISCOURAGE THOSE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES, UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS GOING ON ALL OVER DALLAS AND ALL OVER THE LAKES UNLESS IT'S A CORE LAKE WHERE THE CITY'S IN CONTROL. UNFORTUNATELY, SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE HERE, ARE HERE. UM, TO ME, THIS WAS PUT BY PREVIOUS COUNCIL AS A PRESERVE FOR AN OPEN GREEN SPACE IN PARKS AND IT'S NOT A PARK'S MASTER PLAN AND WE NEED TO TREAT IT AS SUCH. I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL REALLY WANTS TO DISCUSS, I THINK THAT YOU NEED TO TREAT IT LIKE IT IS PARKLAND. AND IF IT'S THIS COUNSEL'S DECISION TO TAKE IT TO A REFERENDUM AND TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS, BECAUSE IF YOU LET THEM DO A LONG-TERM LEASE, I HAVE REAL RESERVATIONS IN ANY TYPE IT HAVE AGREEMENT THAT SAYS, GO AHEAD AND DO WHAT YOU WANT TO IT, BUT, AT ANY TIME WE COULD COME BACK. THIS IS AN AREA CURRENTLY OPEN, DEVELOPMENT HASN'T HAPPENED, AND AT SOME POINT THE RESOURCES WILL BE IN THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO IMPROVE IT AND PUT IT IN THE SEA WALL TO PUT TRAILS IN THERE AND BE ABLE TO PATROL IT, TO BUILD THAT TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE, TO GIVE THAT PUBLIC ACCESS. AND THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T DO SOME TYPE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THOSE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THERE IF THEY FEEL LIKE, IF WE DO IMPROVEMENT HERE AND HERE, PICKING UP TRASH, DOING THINGS IN THE CURRENT WAY. THERE ARE CERTAINLY THINGS THAT YOU CAN'T DO WITH THE IOA, BUT, HOW DO WE WORK WITH THESE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO FIX SOME OF THESE SECURITY ISSUES WHICH ARE REAL ISSUES FOR OUR RESIDENTS THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF. BUT, JUST LIKE YOU GET AGO LEASE AGREEMENT, THERE, IT'S NOT GOING TO FIX YOUR ISSUES. IT'S [02:15:02] NOT. >> IT'S NOT, BUT IT DOES PUT A BUFFER BETWEEN A LOT OF OUR PROPERTIES AND THE ONES GOING FROM MILLER HAVING HOMES ON THE LAKE. >> UNTIL THEY ALL GET DEVELOPED, UNLESS THEY WERE ALL HOMES AND LEASE AGREEMENTS, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S GOING TO STOP THAT. THAT NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED AND MOVED FORWARD. SO, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF DE-PARKING THAT, I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF PUTTING IT ON A REFERENDUM, BUT, I'M ONLY 1 PERSON, TWO, IS HOW DO WE START TO WORK WITH THESE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO CLEAN UP THESE ISSUES OR WORK WITH THEM TO GO IN THERE SO THEY'RE NOT BREAKING THE LAW SO THAT THEY CAN CLEAN UP THESE AREAS AND MAKE IT SAFE. THAT, I THINK THAT YOU COULD FIND A LEGAL WAY AROUND WITHOUT A LEASE AGREEMENT THAT AT SOME POINT, WHEN WE COME IN AND DO SOMETHING, NOW YOU'RE NOT PUTTING SOMETHING IN THERE PRIVATE INVESTMENT THAT'S HAPPENING. WE'RE ESSENTIALLY GIVING THAT RIGHT AWAY. >> WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT WITH EVERY TAKE LEASE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE. >> ALL OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS BELONG TO THE CITY OF DALLAS. >> BUT NOT IN AREA THAT IS WE HAD DESIGNATED AS PARKLAND. >> CHAPTER 77 SAYS THAT PARK SYSTEM IS DEFINED AS THE GREENBELT AREA AND EXISTING PARKS. THAT'S THE ENTIRE TAKE AREA, WHICH IS CONSIDERED PUBLIC. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: LET'S JUST, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THIS WITH COUNCIL FOR NOW. I'M TENDING TO AGREE WITH MATT. MY CONCERN IS IF WE SUBLEASE THIS, AND AGREE NOT TO DE-PARK IT, BUT SUBLEASE IT, YOU KNOW, IN FIVE YEARS, IF WE COME ACROSS THE FUNDS, I MEAN, CANTEBURY COVE IS GOING TO DEVELOP A TRAIL THERE. YOU MAY HAVE ANOTHER AREA THAT EXTENDS THAT TRAIL. IT COULD BE FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHERE WE HAVE TO SAY, WELL, AFTER ALL OF THE INVESTMENT THAT YOU MADE INTO THE TAKE LINE WE'RE NOW GOING TO TAKE IT BACK AND IT WILL BE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PARK. THAT'S MY CONCERN. THE OTHER THING THAT MATT HIT ON WAS WE HAVE CURRENTLY, ONLY THREE PARKS THAT ABUT THE LAKE. THREE PUBLIC PARKS, FOR A CITY THAT'S SURROUNDED BY A LAKE, THAT'S LACKING. SO, FOR ANOTHER FUTURE OPPORTUNITY, A WAY FOR US TO EXPAND OUR PARK'S SYSTEM ACROSS THE LAKE. I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THAT. >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, DALE, THE ONLY AREA ELIGIBLE TO BE USED AS A PARK IS THE AREA SOUTH OF STONE MEADOW, RIGHT? EVERYTHING NORTH OF STONE MEADOW IS NOT? >> SOUTH OF THE POINT (INDISCERNIBLE) >> THAT MAP'S ACTUALLY THERE'S A MAP HERE THAT GOES FROM THE SUBLEASE FROM STONE MEADOW, WHICH IT'S NOT. (INDISCERNIBLE) >> . >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, LOGISTICALLY, I DON'T SEE A WAY THAT CAN BE CONTROLLED, LONG-TERM, WITH ANY CONSISTENCY. I AGREE, COMPLETELY, MATT, ABOUT MAINTAINING PARK SPACE AND RESERVING THE SHORELINE, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT CAN BE USED BY THE PUBLIC. YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO A DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND PARK ALONG SOMEONE'S ROADWAY AND SOMEHOW GET BACK TO A PROPERTY WHERE A TRAIL IS DESIGNED. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE PATROLLED. IT'S NOT LIKE CREEK SIDE. THIS, YOU WOULD PHYSICALLY HAVE TO HAVE AN OFFICER ON A BICYCLE OR A HORSE TO MAINTAIN THAT ENTIRE SHORELINE. IF IT WAS A DIFFERENT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS MORE ACCESSIBLE, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE A LOT MORE SENSE TO KEEP IT AS A PARK, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS WORKS LODGE GIST TICKLY. >> I SAID, THE 20 PLUS YEARS, I DIDN'T MEAN TO SAY IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN, I'M JUST SAYING WHEN WILL IT HAPPEN? IT'S A [02:20:03] PRIORITY. >> THAT ENTIRE GREEN AREA IS NOT IN OUR MASTER PLAN ARES IT'S JUST THAT LITTLE SEGMENT THERE? STAY THERE'S LAKE SIDE SOUTH, PADDLE POINT, AND THAT. >> THEN, OUR PARK'S MASTER PLAN SHOWS THAT WHOLE GREEN AREA AS POTENTIAL FUTURE PARKLAND AS I LOOKED ON AN AERIAL, THERE'S, UNTIL YOU GET UP TO THAT RED PARCEL RIGHT THERE, THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY ANY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THERE. AND WHAT I REMEMBER ME SAYING IS "I'M NOT GOING TO PUT A TRAIL BEHIND AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME." TO YOUR POINT, WHEN YOU GET UP TO STONE MEADOW DRIVE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO WORK ON. BECAUSE, EVENTUALLY, THAT WOULD COME OUT TO CHIESA AND COME BACK OVER. AND CURRENTLY, THERE ARE NO HOMES THERE. >> JUST THE ONE. >> JUST THE ONE. EXACTLY. >> AND THE ONE SOUTH OF THAT, AND THE ONE SOUTH OF THAT IS ACTUALLY UNDER CONTRACT TO BUY PENDING THE SUBLEASE. >> BUT, I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE DISCUSSION THAT THE AREA NORTH OF THE GREEN IMAGE THERE IS ALREADY LEASED, OR IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE TO BE TURNED INTO A PARK? >> IS IT PUBLIC LAND RIGHT NOW? >> NO, IT'S ELIGIBLE FOR SUBLEASE. >> OKAY, SO, THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU COULD DO TO ACCESS FROM THE NORTH? >> OTHER THAN, YEAH, WE WOULD HAVE TO PURCHASE AN EASEMENT. >> ARE THERE ANY CURRENT LEASES AT THE TIME, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TRAIL, THERE WAS NOT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CHANGED. >> I HAVE NOT LOOKED IN THE LAST MONTH OR SO. BUT, AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS AN OLDER LEASE THAT HAD EXPIRED, BUT THEY DID NOT EVER COME BACK IN AND RENEW IT. >> SO, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S REALLY LAND-LOCKED BY PRIVATE OWNERSHIP? >> THE ONLY PUBLIC ACCESS IS GOING TO BE THROUGH ROADWAYS THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW ACCESS. I MEAN, POSSIBLY? >> SO, WHAT ABOUT THIS, WHAT IF, UP INTO THE POINT WHERE IT REACHES, CAN I GET THAT POINTER? ARE DOES IT HAVE A LASER IN SO, UP INTO THIS POINT, WHERE THE RED STARTS, WHY NOT JUST DE-PARK THIS PART? >> LIKE, WHAT ABOUT THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH OF THE RED? >> THAT'S HER HOUSE. >> I'M NOT SEEING A HOUSE SOUTH OF THAT. >> YOU MAY NOT SEE IT, BUT IT'S THERE. (INDISCERNIBLE) >> WE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY BEEN CONSTRUCTING HOMES ON THE LARGER PROPERTY. >> SO. >> THEY'VE BEEN HELD UP FOR VARIOUS REASONS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, THEN, I THINK THAT WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, I THINK WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE, UM, WE JUST GET A GROUP CONSENSUS ON WHERE WE'RE AT. SO, THE PATH FORWARD ACCORDING TO DAVID IS CONSENT FROM DALLAS, A RESOLUTION COVERING THE AVAILABILITY OF USES FOR THAT AREA, I WILL HE ARE PHRASE THAT. AND, WITH THE CONDITIONS SUBSEQUENT IS THE TERM THAT YOU USED FOR ROWLETT DECIDES TO ACTUALLY DO A PARK IN THAT LAND, THEN, THEY CAN. I THINK THAT'S, IF WE DO THAT, BACK TO YOUR POINT, I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF LETTING SOMEONE GO DROP $100,000 ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND TWO DAYS LATER, KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND SAY, GEE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BUT, TO YOUR POINT, I DON'T SEE AN ACCESS. IT'S GOING TO TAKE $10 MILLION AT LEAST. IT'S GOING TO COST AT LEAST $10 MILLION TO DO A PARK. AND WE DON'T HAVE IT AND IT'S GOING TO BE AWHILE. I THINK IT'S A RISK THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE HOMEOWNERS THEMSELVES IF THEY ARE WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK. WOOER NOT REQUIRING THEM TO SUBLEASE IT, WE'RE MAKING IT AVAILABLE FOR THEM TO SUBLEASE IF THEY'RE WILLING TO TAKE THAT FINANCIAL RIGS CAN. I THINK THAT'S A KEY POINT. YES, WE COULD STILL BUILD A PARK THERE, BUT, THEY CAN IN THE MEANTIME TAKE CARE OF IT. UNDERSTAND FULLY THAT THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE [02:25:04] SOMETHING THAT WE DO, AND ANYTHING THAT COMES THROUGH IN THAT AREA, THAT YOU UNDERSTAND AND HAVE A DISCLAIMER, YOU NEED TO COME BACK DAY ■AFTER OMORROW, AND SAY, WE FUNDED THE PARK, WE'RE KICKING YOU OUT. THAT'S A RISK THAT THE OWNERS, THAT THE LESSORS WOULD HAVE TO BE WILLING TO TAKE. AND I WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO TAKE THAT BY ALLOWING THEM DO IT. BUT, WE'RE ALLOWING THEM TO MAKE THAT RISK DECISION. SDP THA >> THAT SOUNDS GREAT IN THEORY, AS MATT SAID, WE'RE GOING THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE THAT RIGHT NOW, AND I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN PLACE. YOU KNOW WHERE WE'RE AT. YOU COULD HAVE ALL THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS THAT YOU WANT, BUT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, SOMEONE MAY COME IN AND TURN THEIR NOSE WHEN YOU SAY, WE'RE TAKING THAT LAND THAT THEY PERCEIVE TO BE THEIR'S. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> I WOULD RATHER TAKE THAT UP AND RUN IT UP TO CHIESA, AND THEN RUN THAT DOWN TO AND THAT IN THE THE RESOLUTION WAS NOT TO BUILD BEHIND THOSE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ARE YOU SAYING DOWN TO HERE? >> YOU RUN THAT UP TO CHIESA, AND CUT IT BACK DOWN. AND THEN. >> WELL, WE COULD BE A LITTLE. >> YOU JUST HAVE A LITTLE JOG AND IT STAYS IN THE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO THAT WAY WE'RE NOT DEVELOPING THIS TRAIL BEHIND THE EXISTING HOMES, RIGHT HERE? AND, THE TRAIL JUST SHOOTS OUT HERE, THAT WAY CITIZENS ARE STILL ABLE TO ENJOY THIS PART OF THE PARK AND THEN THIS, SO, BASICALLY, HALF OF IT WOULD. >> AND THEN YOU GO UP TO THAT DEVELOPER WHEN THEY REDO THAT TRAILER PARK, THEN THAT CARRIES BACK DOWN ALONG THE LAKE AND CARRIES BACK UP. I DON'T KNOW, IT SEEMS, IT STAYS IN THE THOUGHT AND THE THEORY OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO. KEEP IT FROM BEHIND THE HOUSE. LEASE THAT AND THERE'S A TRAIL THAT WRAPS AROUND IT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD MIDDLE GROUND THERE. I SUPPORT THAT IDEA. >> I'M AMEANABLE. >> THAT WAY, EVERYBODY'S GETTING WHAT THEY WANT. WE STILL KEEP THE PARK, YOU KNOW, WE WON'T BE PUTTING A TRAIL BEHIND THE NORTH HALF OF IT. BUT, THE SOUTH HALF OF IT. >> I REALLY JUST HAVE TO RUN THAT THROUGH DALLAS AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD, DE-PARK. BECAUSE IT'S JUST RECLASSIFYING WHAT THAT AREA IS AND IT MAKES IT ABLE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO SUBLEASE. AND FUTURE BUILDERS IN THAT AREA WILL WONDER WHY THE PATH'S THERE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THAT IDEA. COUNCIL? >> RIGHT HERE WOULD BE THE CUTOFF. >> I'M CURIOUS, WHAT AARON AND ANGIE THINK ON THAT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YOU DON'T WANT TO ASK THAT. >> I THINK THAT THE ARGUMENTMENT IS AND I'LL PROBABLY GET IN TROUBLE FOR THIS, BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I THINK, IT IS OPEN SPACE, THE THING THAT WE HEAR OVER AND OVER IN THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN IS ACCESS TO THE LAKE. ACCESS TO THE LAKE. ACCESS TO THE LAKE. >> WE WILL HAVE THE IT ROAD DEVELOPED. UM, GETTING RID OF THIS IS TOUGH. BECAUSE EVERY DEVELOPER ALONG THERE HAS PLANS TO TIE INTO THE TRAIL THAT BARTS STARTING, RIGHT. SO, AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IS TALKING TO THESE FOLKS, THE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY HAVING THE CONVERSATION OF HOW TO CONNECT IT TO MILLER AND THOSE GUYS IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ARE CONTINUALLY HAVING THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT US NOT PUTTING IN THE TRAIL, BUT AS WE'RE GOING TO DE DO THAT. HOW DO I MAKE MORE OPEN SPACE FOR MY DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT WAS YEARS AGO. BART, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, PHASE TWO OF BART'S DEVELOPMENT, DOES IT GO TO THIS LAND HERE? >> YES. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, [02:30:01] BASICALLY, HIS TRAIL WILL RUN ALONG THE LOWER SOUTH, AND WE HAVE ANOTHER DEVELOPER HERE? >> JOHN HAMMOND. >> SO THEN, BASICALLY, WITH THE TRAIL ALONE, THE TRAIL IS DEVELOPED. >> I WOULD ARGUE THAT YOU DON'T DE-PARK IT BUT WRITE INTO THEIR LEASE AGREEMENT AS LONG AS THAT CURRENT USE IT THERE, BUT IF THEY WERE TO SELL THOSE PROPERTIES FOR REDEVELOPMENT, NOT A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, BUT IF THEY WERE TO SELL IT TO SOMEBODY WHO WAS GOING TO TEAR DOWN THAT HOUSE. THOSE THREE SEGMENTS THERE, THOSE THREE PARCELS. >> TWO, THE OTHER ONE'S DOWN TO THE LAKE. >> SOMEBODY, COULD EASILY BUY THOSE PARCELS, PLUS, ONE, TWO, THREE, I COULD SEE A DEVELOPER AT SOME POINT SAY I WANT TO BUY ALL OF THIS WITHOUT BECAUSE I WANT TO BUILD A COUPLE MILLION DOLLAR HOMES OR DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT COULD BE 50 YEARS FROM NOW, BUT IF THAT HAPPENED AS PART OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT, THAT WOULD BE BACK TO PUBLIC SPACE. >> IT'S A NONCONFORMING USE WHERE WE HAVE THE CASES LIKE DOWNTOWN. >> OKAY. I LIKE THAT IDEA. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I LIKE THAT IDEA. >> OKAY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. COUNCIL? >> OKAY. >> I WON'T USE THE TERM DE-PARK ANYMORE, BUT, I LIKE THE IDEA OF WHATEVER GIVES HOMEOWNERS THE OPTION TO DO THE LEASE, BUT, WHATEVER, THEY NEED RELIEF BACK THERE. WITH ALL THAT'S GOING ON BACK THERE, WE HAVE TO FIND A SOLUTION, OR SOMEONE'S GOING TO GET HURT. AND I APPLAUD YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. >> AND NOT ONLY THE PATIENCE BUT THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE TO CLEAN THAT UP. BECAUSE, YOU GUYS HAVE DONE WORK TO CLEAN UP THAT SPACE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE RUNNING BEHIND, Y'ALL. SO, GOOD? YES. YES? >> SO, THERE YOU GO. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK THAT WAS A REALLY GOOD MIDDLE GROUND. I HOPE, I THINK EVERYBODY'S HAPPY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU Y'ALL. NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO OUR -- OH, UM. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: (INDISCERNIBLE). >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL? COUNCIL? >> WE HAVE ANY ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? >> ANY ITEMS PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. LET'S RECONVENE AT, LET'S * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.