[1. CALL TO ORDER ] [00:00:10] >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, IT IS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1ST, 2022, AT 5:30 P.M. WE ARE AT CITY HALL WITH A QUORUM PRESENT, AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OR ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN. THE CITY OF [3A. Present and discuss possible alternatives regarding Short-Term Rental (STR) regulations. (60 minutes) ] ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE RECESS OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURN: ITEM 3 A IS THE FIRST ITEM, PRESENT AND DISCUSS POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES ON THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. ANYBODY HAVE COMMENTS? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE HAVE ONE COMMENT CARD, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS. IS THIS ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTAL? >> YES. >> AND IF YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. >> STEVE HORWITZ, ROWLETT. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS, A COUPLE OF DEFINITIONS, I SPENT THE AFTERNOON LOOKING AT THE CODE. I'M SURE THAT YOU DUG INTO IT FOR EVERY DETAIL. THERE ARE A LOT IT HAVE DETAILS, BUT, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL. RESIDENTIAL DEFINITIONS GENERAL PURPOSES OF ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IS IN SECTION 77202 PROVIDE APPROPRIATE LOCATED AREAS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND STANDARDS OF MORAL SAFETY, PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE. UNITS DESIGNED TO BE OCCUPIED BY NOT MORE THAN ONE FAMILY. WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY? YOU'VE GOT TO GET INTO THE DEFINITIONS. ONE OR MORE PERSONS RELATED BY BLOOD, MARRIAGE, OR ADOPTION. YOU COULD SEE THE DEFINITION ARE WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT SAYS, MAY BE THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE REALLY HOTELS AND NOT MEANT FOR A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AREA. BUT, I'M GOING TO GET TO THE POINT HERE, MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY LIMIT OF 12, I'LL GO TO THE AIRBNB ON MY STREET. HERE'S THE LISTING. IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS 14 GUESTS. YOU SAY 12. DO YOU HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT MECHENISM? I GUESS MAY BE YOU CAN'T ANSWER, MAY BE YOU CAN, BUT, I DON'T THINK YOU DO HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. IT'S 12 PEOPLE. AND WHAT'S REALLY BEAUTIFUL IS THAT YOU COULD GO TO THE REVIEWS ON THIS PROPERTY AND REVIEW ONE "LARGE HOME WITH A FUNCTIONAL LAYOUT FOR OUR GROUP OF 14." NEXT REVIEW: "OUR GROUP, WE HAD EIGHT ADULTS AND EIGHT CHILDREN. ". SO, THE REVIEWS PROVE THIS IS BEING USED FOR MORE THAN 12 PEOPLE. THIS ONE: "COMFORTABLY FIT OUR GROUP OF 16 PEOPLE". AND THE NEXT ONE SAYS 13 PEOPLE. YOU GET THE IDEA, THERE'S PROOF THAT THIS HOME IS BEING USED FOR MORE THAN 12 PEOPLE. AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH TIME THAT I HAVE LEFT, BUT, I'M GOING TO GO RIGHT INTO WHERE I LIVE, SPECIFICALLY, WHICH IS ON THE LAKE. AND THAT'S THE TAKE LEASE. AND VERY INTERESTING, PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES ON THE LAKE AND SHORE AREA. THIS IS IN THE TAKE LEASE: NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY WILL BE PERFORMED FROM WITHIN THE LEASED AREA. THERE'S HIS DOCK, THERE'S THE LITTLE EXTRA DOCKS THAT HE HAS FOR THE JET SKIS. HE RENTS KAYAKS. SO, I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKE AN IMMEDIATE MANDATORY MORATORIUM ON ALL AIRBNB OR ALL SHORT-TERM RENTALS ON THE LAKE. AND INVESTIGATE THIS STIPULATION WHICH IS NOT SO LITTLE, PAGE SIX ON THE LEASE, PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES ON THE LAKE. I'LL READ IT AGAIN: "NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WILL BE [00:05:01] PERFORMED FROM THE LEASED AREA." AND THEY KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE NEW POLICE CHIEF AND ACTING POLICE. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO, BUT, POLICING ALL THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I'M SURE YOU WOULD ENJOY HAVING TO DO. LET ME TELL YOU, MY FAMILY WAS INJURED BY SOME OF THESE PEOPLE COMING ONTO MY TAKE AREA. I HAVE RIGHTS. AND I HAVE A CHILD AND IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE. SAFETY'S THE ISSUE. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I DON'T HAVE ANOTHER CARD. OKAY. THEN, IT'S OVER TO YOU. >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU. THE PURPOSE OF OUR DISCUSSION FOR OUR COUNCIL AND THE VIEWING AUDIENCE IS TO TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE AND POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES. BEAR WITH ME, THERE ARE A LOT OF WORDS ON THIS PRESENTATION, BUT THE GOAL IS PROVIDE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE CAN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH INFORMED DECISION MAKING. >>> I WANTED TO FIRST DIVE IMMEDIATELY INTO THE EXISTING CITY OF ROWLETT REGULATIONS AND WHAT THE CODE OF ORDINANCE DEFINES SHORT-TERM RENTALS AS. I WANT TO MAKE A DISTINCT CLARIFICATION THAT WE HAVE THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND THE REQUIREMENTS AND WE HAVE THE ROWLETT CODES FOR HOTELS AND SO FORTH. WE HAVE TWO TO LOOK AT SIDE-BY-SIDE. AND AGAIN, I'LL TRY TO GIVE YOU A SNAP SHOT OF WHAT THE SLIDE SAYS, BUT, BASICALLY, A SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LEASED OR RENTED FOR 30 DAYS. AND INCLUDES FAMILY DWELLING, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, BED AND BREAKFASTS, AND LODGING HOUSES AND SO FORTH. THE ROWLETT ENVIRONMENT CODE DEFINES A HOTEL. AND THE REASON I BRING THIS INTO THE CONVERSATION IS THE DISCUSSION ON THE NUMBER OF ROOMS AND THE PERIOD OF RENTING. A HOTEL IS A BUILDING OR A GROUP OF BUILDING IS DESIGNED TO BE OCCUPIED AS A TEMPORARY DWELLING PLACE AND THEN PROVIDE 200 OR MORE UNITS. THE DISTINCTION IS THAT THE HOTELS HAVE SERVICES SUCH AS LINEN, MAID SERVICE AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. AND PRIMARY ACCESS MOST OFTEN IS INTERIOR TO THE BUILDING. AS WE TALK ABOUT THESE DEFINITIONS AND DIVE MORE INTO THE DISCUSSION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD KEEP IN MIND THAT WE SHOULD TAKE ATTENTION THE DEFINITION OF HOTEL AND SHOULD CONSIDERATION BE CREATED SEPARATE HOTEL REGULATIONS AND PROVIDE THE DEFINITION TO PROVIDE THERE'S A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. SO, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CONTINUE TO DISCUSS AS WE MOVE FORWARD. WE DID ADOPT OUR SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE IN 2018. I BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT AUGUST OF 2018. TO SEE WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES WERE DOING AND WHERE OUR LEGAL OBLIGATIONS WERE AND WHERE THEY START AND STOP. AND WE CREATED THAT THE PROPERTY MUST BE REGISTERED. I DIDN'T FIND THE MAX OCCUPANCY OF 12, WHICH WE JUST HEARD WITH. AND IT HAS TO BE OPERATED ACCORDING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY OF THE ROWLETT CODE. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER TWO ORDINANCES AS WE TALK ABOUT THAT. AND NOT ALTERING THE EXTERIOR APPEARANCE, ENSURING THERE'S NO SETBACK OR EXTERIOR SIDE SETBACK NO ADVERTISING DEVICE VICES ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT CREATING TRAFFIC OR PARKING CONGESTION, ATTENDANCE SHEET IS REQUIRED TO BE POSTED WITHIN THE FACILITY ITSELF. INSPECTION AT FIRST-TIME REGISTRATION STATION AND MAY BE INSPECTED AN NEWLYLY WITH OWNER/LANDLORD'S CONSENT. THEN, THE PROHIBITION AS RENTING AS EVENTS/PARTY FACILITY. THESE ARE THE REGULATIONS AND I WILL TALK ABOUT THE CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE FACING AND I THINK THEY WILL MAKE SENSE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SLIDE, THE IMAGE TALKS ABOUT ALL THE SITES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY WHERE YOU COULD RESEARCH AND BOOK A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, AND THEN NUMEROUS TYPES OF AGENCIES THAT OFFER THAT SERVICE. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, OUR ORDINANCE DOES SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT ALL SHORT-TERM RENTAL HAVE TO BE REGISTERED. AT THIS TIME, ONLY 47 SHORT-TERM RENTAL ARE REGISTERED AND WE ESTIMATE THERE ARE ABOUT 100. THAT'S OUR ESTIMATE, AGAIN. SO, WE KNOW THAT THAT'S A DEFICIENCY, THERE [00:10:08] ARE 60 AGENCIES THAT ARE USED FOR RENTAL BOOKINGS. AND IT'S HARD FOR US TO DETERMINE WHERE THESE PROPERTIES ARE BECAUSE OF CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUES, THESE AGENCIES BLOCK THE ADDRESS, UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE THAT YOU GET THE ADDRESS TO THE FACILITY SO THAT YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS. OTHER CHALLENGES INCLUDE YOU KNOW, IDENTIFICATION THAT WE WANT TO KNOW WHERE THESE ARE, E RESIDENTS AND CITIZENS CALL US AND SAY "HERE'S A SHORT-TERM RENTAL" AND THAT'S WHEN THE INVESTIGATION STARTS. SO, DEFINITELY THERE'S LIMITED RESOURCE TO PROACTIVELY IDENTIFY AND REGULATE THESE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. SOMETIMES WE KNOW THAT POSTING INFORMATION SHEET IS LACKING WITHIN THE FACILITY ITSELF. SO, THE REGULATIONS THAT WE DO HAVE IN EFFECT, ALTHOUGH CREATED IN 2018, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT WE COULD AND COULD NOT DO AND WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES WERE DOING AT THAT TIME, THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES. FOR INSTANCE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING SAFETY REGULATIONS ARE DIFFICULT TO VERIFY DURING THE INSPECTIONS SINCE INSPECTIONS ARE ONLY REQUIRED AT THE FIRST-TIME REGISTRATION STATION. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THEM MORE OFTEN IF THERE WAS A COMPLAINT. INABILITY TO VERIFY WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AS RENTING THE PROPERTY AS A PARTY VENUE. DIFFICULTY IN ENFORCING ON-STREET PARKING ISSUES. WE RECEIVE A LOT OF PHONE CALLS SAYING THERE'S CONGESTION ON THE STREET. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO BE VERY COGNISANT OF THE IMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORT-TERM RENTAL. AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC CASES THAT WE'VE PROVIDED FOR YOUR PURVIEW IN THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF. BUT, I ALSO WANTED TO HIT THE CASE LOAD THAT HAS COME BEFORE US AND THEY'RE LISTED ON THE SLIDE IN FRONT OF YOU. WITH THE THREE THAT I PROVIDED THERE, WITH THE FOUR THAT I'VE PROVIDED, THREE DID NOT PASS THE LITMUS TEST. HOWEVER, THE CITY OF ARLINGTON WEREN'T ABLE TO ADOPT REGULATIONS BASED ON THIS CASE LAW CITING THAT CITIES CAN ADOPT REASONABLE REGULATIONS THAT ARE BACKED BY EVIDENCE SHOWING THE REGULATIONS SERVE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. ARLINGTON'S WERE UPHELD BECAUSE THEY CREATED A SPECIFIC SHORT-TERM RENTAL ZONE. WHICH WAS CONTIGUOUS, ABUTTING, CONTIGUOUS TO THE AREA, EXTENDING APPROXIMATELY WITHIN A 1-MILE RADIUS OF THEIR ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT. THEY HAVE AN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT AND BASED ON THAT, THEY USED THAT AS THEIR LITMUS TEST, SO TO SPEAK. SO, WITH THAT, THEY EXPANDED AND NARROWED THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL APPLICABILITY. I WANTED TO PROVIDE USE OF INSIDE. THE TEAM SITTING AT THE TABLE, JANET TUTUCKER WITH NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. AS WE'RE DEALING WITH ALL OF THAT, WE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT OR COMMUNITIES DO. AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DISCERN IS THERE ARE COMMUNITIES WITH REGULATIONS AND THEIR FEES VARY FROM OUR FEES. THEY ADDRESS OCCUPANCY CAPS AND PARKING. AND YOU COULD SEE ON THE LAST COLUMN IT SAYS "THIRD-PARTY VENDORS" SOME COMMUNITIES ARE USING THIRD-PARTY VENDORS TO DETERMINE WHERE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ARE IN THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT ARE THE TURN-KEY SOLUTIONS THEY OFFER. SO, WE'LL DISCUSS THAT IN JUST A BIT TOO. YOU COULD SHORT-TERM RENTAL REQUIREMENTS - WITH CAPS ON OCCUPANCY AND THEY ADDRESS THE PARKING. WE COULD NOT DISCERN WHAT THE CITY OF ALLEN'S REGISTRATION FEE WAS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A NEW ORDINANCE AND THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THAT AS WELL. THE CITY OF DALLAS IS ANXIOUS TO START ON A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE AS WELL, CURRENTLY THEY HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT DISCUSSES SHORT-TERM RENTAL, BUT IN TERMS OF REGISTRATION FEE AND INSPECTIONS, THOSE ARE VOID [00:15:01] RIGHT NOW. FARMER'S BRANCH ALSO HAS THEIR OWN ORDINANCES RELATED TO THIS. WE ALSO SPOKE WITH FRISCO, GARLAND, MESQUITE, AND RICHARDSON. AND AS YOU COULD SEE, EVERYBODY HAS ELEMENTS OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS THAT THEY CAN FEEL THEY COULD ENFORCE. THE PREVIOUS SLIDE SHOWS THE THIRD-PARTY VENDOR. WE'VE HAD A FEW DEMOS FROM SOME VENDORS THAT YOU SEE LISTED THERE. AND WHAT THEY DO IS THEY TRY TO PROVIDE A TURN-KEY SOLUTION ON ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION AND PROVIDING A HOTLINE SO THAT ANYBODY CAN CALL INTO THAT HOTLINE AND FROM THERE WE COULD PROACTIVELY DISCERN WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, MONITOR THE RENTAL ACTIVITY IN THE AREA. HAVING AN APP, COMPLIANCE. AND WE HAVE RENTALS, WE HAVE ALL RENTALSCAPE, HARMARI, GRANICUS AND GOVOS, THE PRICES RANGE FROM WHAT THE REMEMBER ADDRESS WOULD BE, SO, YOU HAVE FOR EVERY NEW PROPERTY, ANNUALLY IT WOULD BE $ $10 AND THE TOTAL IS BASED ON THE PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY. THE HOTLINE COST ANNUALLY, AND THE LINE ITEMS ARE BUDGETED. GOVOS, IS INCLUDED. COPPELL, AND FARMER'S BRANCH AND FRISCO ARE USING THESE THIRD-PARTY VENDORS. IT IS POPULAR BECAUSE IT'S AN EASIER WAY TO MONITOR WHAT'S GOING ON IN A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS AN IDEA OF WHERE OUR SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE. AND YOU COULD SEE THEY'RE IN THESE DOTTED AREAS. AGAIN, WE'VE SAID THAT WE KNOW 27 WHICH ARE REGISTERED WITH US WE ESTIMATE THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 100. TO REITERATE, THE THIRD-PARTY VENDOR WOULD ENABLE THAT ADDRESS VERIFICATION AND VERIFY COMPLIANCE REGULATIONS. I SAY ALL OF THAT, TO SAY WHERE WE SEE THE DISCONNECT. THERE'S A DEFICIT NO OUR ORDINANCES, THE CHALLENGES WE FACE IN HOW TO ENFORCE THIS ORDINANCE. THE TEAM SAT DOWN AND THOUGHT LONG AND HARD AND SAID YOU KNOW HOW DO WE APPROACH THIS, AND HOW CAN WE HAVE A BETTER RECORD OF OUR SHORT-TERM RENTALS? AND SO, THROUGH THAT, WE THOUGHT, WELL, LET'S LOOK AT AN OPTION OF CREATING, FIRST OF ALL, REQUIREMENT A PERMIT OR A REGISTRATION FEE REQUIRING A REINSPECTION FEE. AND THEN, REQUIRING A SPECIFIC PERMIT. SO, NOT JUST REGISTRATION AS WE DO NOW, BUT, YOU WOULD HAVE A PERMIT AND A PERMIT NUMBER ATTACHED TO THAT SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION. REQUIRED POSTING OF SPECIFIED GUEST INFORMATION ON-SITE SO INCLUDE A STATEMENT NOTIFYING GUEST THAT IS VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE WILL LEAD TO PROSECUTION. LIMIT THE OCCUPANCY TO NO MORE THAN 2 PERSONS BETTER BEDROOM PLUS TWO ADDITIONAL PERSONS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OCCUPANCY EXCEED 12 PERSONS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE, AND I'LL GET TO THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE THIRD-PARTY VENDOR COMES IN. PARKING IS A CONCERN, SO WE WERE EVALUATING IF THERE WOULD BE AN OPTION OF LIMITING 1 PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM OR THE MAXIMUM. OR THE MAXIMUM WITHIN THE GARAGE OR DRIVEWAY WITHOUT EXTENDING INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT MEANS YOU WOULD BE LIMITED TO PARKING ONLY WITHIN THE LOT ITSELF. WHICH COULD LIMIT THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANCY MEMBERS YOU HAVE WITHIN THE FACILITY. REQUIRE QUARTERLY BUILDING SAFETY INFECTION TO VERIFY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE REQUIRE NOTICE TO BE SENT TO ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 RATINGS OF THE PROPOSED STR, WHAT THAT WOULD DO OR THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS NOT TO CALL IT OUT, BUT TO ENSURE THAT IT IS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNITY IS PART OF THIS, WHERE EVERYBODY IS PART OF WHAT'S HAPPENING FROM A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERSPECTIVE. [00:20:04] AND THEN, EVERYBODY WOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT OPERATION. REQUIRING A LOCAL, 24 HOUR CONTACT. AGAIN, I CAN GO OVER SOME OF THESE, BUT, THESE ARE BUILDING CODE ELEMENTS WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE SMOKE DETECTERS, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTERS. REQUIRE TO USE WHATEVER AGENCY THEY'RE USING. THERE ARE 60 AGENCIES OUT THERE THAT PROVIDE THIS SERVICE. TAX WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE PAID QUARTERLY. HAVE AN ALARM TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. PROHIBIT ILLEGAL USES SUCH AS OPERATING A SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS. AND ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE QUIET HOURS BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. AND 7:00 A.M. IMPORTANT THAT WE REQUIRE FLOOR PLAN, PARKING PLAN, AND EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN. TEMPARY INSTRUCT YOU ARES NOD TO BE USED BY GUESTS. THEN FOCUS PRIMARILY OR WE WOULD FOCUS ON THE PRIMARY DWELLING ITSELF. PROHIBIT EXTERNAL SIGNAGE ON THE PROPERTY. MAINTAIN BOOKING RECORDS FOR THREE YEARS AND PROVIDE THOSE TO THE CITY WHEN REQUESTED. SO, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A FINANCIAL IMPACT TO ALL ELEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED. THE FINANCIAL COST INCURRED BY USING A THIRD PARTY VENDOR, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $30,000 ANNUALLY. OUR CURRENT REGISTRATION FEE IS $25 PER YEAR AND WE MENTIONED THAT WE ONLY HAVE 27 VENDORS REGISTERED WITH US. PERHAPS INCREASING THE PERMIT FEE TO $500. ASSUMING THAT THE NUMBER OF OUR REGISTRATIONS STAYS STAGNANT AT 100 STRS, THAT WOULD RESULT IN A REVENUE PROJECTION OF $50,000 A YEAR. WHICH COULD, ADDRESS THE COST OF A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR. IT IS, THEREFORE, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AS WE SIT BEFORE YOU, AND DISCUSSED OUR CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE SEEN WITH OUR SHORT-TERM RENTALS, IS TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE TO INCORPORATE A REGISTRATION PROCESS WITH PROPOSED REGULATIONS REVOCATION OF A PERMIT IF THERE ARE MORE THAN THREE REPEAT VIOLATIONS AND ENGAGE WITH A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR TO ALLOW BETTER MONITORING OF PROPERTY TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THIS IS THE TEAM PUTTING IT'S HEADS TOGETHER TO PRESENT ALTERNATIVES TO SHORT-TERM RENTALS. WE MAY NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TODAY, BUT, WE WOULD GET THEM TO YOU, BUT, WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A GOOD STARTING POINT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S WORK ON THIS, AND GETTING ATTENTION ON THE ISSUE. RE ALL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS, ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN NEIGHBORHOODS. SO, I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL WAYS TO ADDRESS THIS. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I HAVE A LOT. >> HOLD ON. LET ME GET OUT MY NOTEBOOK. >> I TOO, APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE. I WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE COURT PLEADINGS, AND DECISIONS AND TIKI ISLAND, WAS ESPECIALLY INTERESTING TO NAVIGATE. THIS WAS A GOOD EXERCISE BECAUSE IT SHOWS WHY WE CAN'T DO WHAT SO MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE DOING. WHICH IS BAN SHORT-TERM RENTALS. THERE ARE CONSTITUTION ISSUES INVOLVED. I HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THIS, I THINK THAT WE HAVE A PROBLEM AND WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE PROBLEM. THE QUESTION IS EXACTLY HOW AND WHAT TO DO. BUT, THE QUESTIONS, FIRST, THAT I HAVE FOR YOU. UM, YOU SAY WHEN A PROPERTY'S FOUND TO BE NON-COMPLIANT, THE PROPERTY OWNER SUNSHINE PRIED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND ISSUED FROM A MUNICIPAL COURT CITATION. WOULD THAT PROCESS REMAIN THE SAME WITH THIS NEW ORDINANCE? OR WOULD THESE COMPANIES, WOULD THEY HANDLE PART OF THAT? HOW WOULD THAT WORK? >> SO, IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON THE VIOLATION'S NATURE. AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GIVE THEM NOTICE, WE'LL GIVE THEM NOTICE AND GIVE THEM A PERIOD OF TIME TO COMPLY, AND IF THEY DON'T COMPLY WITHIN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, THEN WE WOULD ISSUE A CITATION. >> SO, IT WOULD BE SET IN COURT? >> IF IT'S A SITUATION THAT'S HAPPENED TWO OR THREE TIMES IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, WE WOULD PROBABLY ISSUE THEM A CI >> AND WHAT'S THE MAX CITATION [00:25:05] VALUE FOR THAT. >> SO, IF IT'S A HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATION OR A ZONING VIOLATION, THE MAX IS $2,000 PER OFFENSE. IF IT'S NOT A ZONING OR A HEALTH AND SAFETY VIOLATION, IT'S $500. AND EACH DAY IT'S A SEPARATE OFFENSE. >> SO, POTENTIALLY, THE FINES COULD OUTWEIGH -- >> YES. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. AND IN REGARDS TO THE ARLINGTON ORDINANCE, IT SEEMS THEY MANAGED TO KIND OF NAVIGATE AROUND THE LEGAL TECHNICALITIES AND CREATE SOMETHING THAT WORKS. IT SAYS THAT'S SOMETHING BECAUSE ARLINGTON CREATED AN STR ZONE. IS THAT A CONSIDERATION HERE? >> WE DID MULL THAT OVER FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE, THE RAMIFICATIONS OR PIT FALLS THAT CREATES A SPECIFIC ZONING LOCATION FOR THAT. AFTER LOOKING AT THIS -- AND I REALLY LEAN ON DAVID BECAUSE HE'S OBVIOUSLY BETTER VERSED THAN I AM. THE CITY OF ARLINGTON IN TERMS OF THEIR STRUCTURE AND THEIR ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT IN CONTINUOUS AREAS, I THINK THAT WAS A VIABILITY OPTION. THE QUESTION IS ARE WE ABLE DO SOMETHING SIMILAR SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME SPATIAL ASPECTS THAT THEY DO. >> RIGHT. >> WELL, YOU KNOW, ARLINGTON IS QUITE DIFFERENT IN THAT THEY HAVE HUGE ENTERTAINMENT VENUES AND MOST ARE CONCENTRATED IN A SPECIFIC PART OF THE CITY. THE CORE OPINION IN THAT CASE THAT UPHELD ARLINGTON'S ORDERS WAS BASED NOT JUST ON THE FACT THAT ARLINGTON SPENT A PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS INVOLVING PUBLIC COMMENT AND PARTICIPATION AND DRAFTING THEIR REGULATIONS AND IN DETERMINES THE BEST PLACES FOR STRS, AND NUMBER TWO, SPECIFICALLY ALLOWING THEM AS A USE BY RIGHT IN CERTAIN SPECIFIC AREAS. GENERALLY, THE HIGHER DENSITY, CLOSER TO THE ENTERTAINMENT CENTER LOCATIONS. AND PROHIBITING THEM IN THE MORE CALLED THE QUIET NEIGHBORHOODS. WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME FOCAL POINT WITH ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES IF TOWN. WE HAVE A LOT OF LAKESHORE PROPERTY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE A GOOD DEAL OR NOT TO GET STRS TO GET PROPERTY BY THE LAKE. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE MOST PROBLEMS RIGHT NOW. >> EXACTLY. >> AND SO, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR US, AS A CITY, TO CREATE AN OUTRIGHT BAN. THAT'S WHERE YOU CROSS THE CONSTITUTIONAL LINES. AND THAT'S WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, IT MUNS VERSUS GRGRAPEVINE. THEY SAID STRS ARE NOT ALLOWED ANYWHERE. >> (INAUDIBLE) > (FEEDBACK IN AUDIO) >> (INAUDIBLE) >> (INAUDIBLE) >> (INAUDIBLE) RULE OF MAJORITY OR DEMOCRACY, WE DO HAVE OPTIONS THAT MAY NOT BE AS PRACTICAL, IT INVOLVES STEPPED UP ACTIVITY, AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ADOPT A SET OF REGULATIONS THAT DOESN'T PROHIBIT THEM BUT TRY TOSS TAKE A STEP TOWARDS PREVENTING OR REDUCING THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED WITH STRS. >> DAVID, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ON THE QUESTION OF THE TAKE LINE AGREEMENT WITH DALLAS AND THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITH THAT? >> THE TAKE AREA, NOBODY RENTS [00:30:03] PROPERTY AT THE TAKE AREA EXCEPT FOR US. I MEAN, WE RENT IT. (LOST AUDIO) >> OUR PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO THE TAKE LINE AREA, I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE. >> AND FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED A YEAR, A YEAR AND-A-HALF AGO OR SO, WAS, COULD WE NOT ALLOW FOR EVENTS TO OCCUR WITHIN THE TAKE AREA AND THE PROBLEM THAT WE GOT INTO WAS IF WE DISALLOW IT FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, WE WOULD HAVE TO DISALLOW A SIMILAR TIME EVENT FOR A HOMEOWNER. SO, IF THEY WERE HAVING A WEDDING RECEPTION, AND THEY USED THE TAKE AREA, WHICH DALLAS PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. IF IT'S CLEANED UP. (AUDIO INTERFERENCE) >> CAN WE DIFFERENTIATE THE TWO? AND THE ANSWER WAS NOT LEGALLY. >> YOU'RE STILL REQUIRING THE NOT MORE THAN 12. I SAW SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT LIMITING THE NUMBER AND ASSEMBLY, BUT, IS THERE A HARD FAST LIMIT ON WHAT WE COULD SET AS THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY? >> I THINK THAT WE COULD DEFINITELY REDUCE THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY. YOU COULD PUT IT AS ONE PER BEDROOM IF YOU SHOULD CHOOSE TO DO SO. >> DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF A BEDROOM? >> IS IT A CLOSET, DOES IT NEED A WINDOW? >> THERE ARE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE ONE OF THE SCENARIOS WAS IF WE KEEP IT AS 12 BUT RESTRICT THE PARKING. BUT, THERE'LL BE SCENARIOS WHERE PEOPLE DROP OTHER'S OFF, BUT, FROM A PERMITTING PERSPECTIVE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS HOW IS IT MOST PALATABLE ACROSS THE BOARD. BUT, ABSOLUTELY, YOU COULD CONSIDER DISCUSSING REDUCING THAT TO ONE PER BEDROOM. >> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN MOST CASES IT'S NOT WHEN A COUPLE RENTS IT, OR TWO PARENTS AND A COUPLE OF KIDS, IT'S WHEN YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF ADULTS. A LARGE NUMBER OF ADULTS WHO RENT IT AND THAT'S WHEN YOU GET THE PROBLEM. >> AND IT BECOMES A PARTY, AND SOME OF THESE AGENCIES, YOU KNOW, DO PROHIBIT AND SAY PARTIES ARE PROHIBITED. WHICH, SOME OF OUR CHALLENGES, AGAIN, GOES BACK TO ENFORCEMENT. >> AND THEY HAVE MORE PROBLEMS THAN YOU HAVE IN TERMS OF KNOWING WHEN THESE PARTY ARE TAKING PLACE. SGLP AND THAT WAS THE OTHER THING THAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WITH THE PER BEDROOM. WE TIDE OF TWO PER BEDROOM, IF YOU HAVE A THREE-BEDROOM HOUSE, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT SIX PLUS TWO, SO, THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY WOULD BE EIGHT. >> BUT, A LOT OF THESE HOUSES HAVE FIVE BEDROOMS. >> EXACTLY. >> AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT A LMIT OF 12, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY BEDROOMS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT LOWER THAN 12 IF WE COULD LEGALLY DO THAT. >> WHAT WOULD REASONABLY BE CONSIDERED, YOU'RE THE EXPERT. >> WELL, I DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL HERE. BUT, I LIKE THE NUMBER TWELVE BECAUSE IT'S A BIT ON THE RESTRICTIVE SIDE. I MEAN, 10, WE COULD DO, BUT, I CAN'T PROMISE THAT EVEN 12 WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO >> WHAT'S THE LEVERAGE THAT WE HAVE TO GET THE OWNERS TO REGISTER? >> $500. >> $500 PER OFFENSE? >> $500 FOR EVERYDAY THEIR OPERATING WITHOUT REGISTERING. >> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE THIRD-PARTY COULD HELP WITH? >> RIGHT. SO, IF WE RECEIVE A NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS, THERE'S A 24-HOUR HOTLINE AND WE WOULD BE IN A POSITION WHERE THAT COMPLAINT WOULD COME FORTH, SO, A BULK OF THAT WOULD OCCUR BY THE THIRD PARTY VENDOR AND WE WOULD BE ABLE TO FACTOR RESOURCES TO DETERMINE THIS IS THE COMPLAINT WE RECEIVED BASED ON THIS NOW. >> WE HAVE TO SHOW UP, SEND A POLICE OFFICER, SEND A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AND THEY HAVE TO SHOW UP. AND THE PEOPLE [00:35:06] PEOPLE THERE HAVE TO PROVE THEY ARE RENTING IT. AND THE OWNER OF THAT BUILDING GETS FINED $500 OR A THOUSAND OR WHATEVER. AM I FOLLOWING THAT RIGHT? >> YOU ARE FOLLOWING THAT RIGHT. >> THE ONLY INCENTIVE THAT WE HAVE TO ENFORCE THESE PEOPLE TO BE REGISTERED IN OUR CITY IS IF WE HEAVILY PUT A LOT OF RESOURCES INTO IT, HAVE A THIRD-PARTY PERSON AND ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK? >> CORRECT. BECAUSE THE THIRD-PARTY VENDOR IS CONSTANTLY LOOKING AT ALL OF THE AGENCIES AND DETERMINING WHAT PROPERTIES ARE ACTUALLY RENTED AS SHORT-TERM RENTALS, SO, THAT ENHANCES. >> SO, THE COST OF REGISTRATION NEEDS TO BE NOT SO HIGH THAT IT DETURES THEM FROM WANTING TO DO IT, ABOUT YOU ALSO NOT TO LOW THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO COVER OUR COSTS ON IT. >> CORRECT. >> AND REALLY OUR COSTS WILL BE HIGHER BECAUSE TO BE ABLE TO GET THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES TO SIGN UP, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF OUR RESOURCES. AND WE HAVE PRIORITY ONE CALLS THAT AREN'T ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE 13 PEOPLE STAYING AT THIS HOUSE. SO, YES, I'M ALL FOR REGULATIONS WE TRY TO CAPTURE THE ONES THAT WE CAN. BUT, IT'S GOING TO BE THE TROUBLE MAKERS, THE ONES HAVING THE BIG PARTIES OR THE ONES THAT LIVE NEXT TO A NEIGHBOR THAT WILL CALL ON THEM EVERY TIME THAT THEY HAVE A RENTAL. BUT, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IF YOU HAVE ONE THAT'S QUIET AND NOT DOING MUCH, THEY'RE GOING TO SKATE BY AND THERE'S NOT MUCH WE COULD DO ABOUT IT. >> AND THEY'RE NOT THE PROBLEM. >> IN MANY CASES, THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE OWNED BY INVESTMENT COMPANIES THAT BUY UP HOMES IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS OR TURN THEM AROUND TO RENT OR DO A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROGRAM ON IT. SO, I GET THE WHOLE, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S TOO COST PROHIBITIVE, THEY WOULDN'T REGISTER, BUT, $500 FOR AN INVESTMENT COMPANY WHEN THEY'RE MAKING HAND OVER FIST ON THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. >> THAT'S MY CONCERN, IF YOU SET IT SO HIGH, IT'S GOING TO BE THE INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS WHO ARE GOING TO STAY AND THE GOOD LANDLORDS, THE ONES WHO ARE JUST, YOU KNOW, WHO VET THEIR PEOPLE, WHO HAVE THE ONE HOUSE THAT THEY RENT, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT AND WILL GO. I'VE NEVER BEEN A FAN OF PUNISHES THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING WHAT'S RIGHT BECAUSE OF THE ONES WHO ARE DOING WHAT'S WRONG. >> LET ME SAY THIS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AVERAGE COST OF HAVING HELP TO MONITOR THIS, SHE ESTIMATED $30,000, I THINK I REMEMBERED IN THE SLIDE. >> RIGHT. >> SOME MAY BE A LITTLE CHEAPER, ONE'S, SAY, 20. AT $25, THAT'S $1,200 A YEAR FOR 47 VENDRS. AND, BUT, EVEN IF WE WENT TO $50, THAT'S STILL ONLY ABOUT $12,000 A YEAR. SO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO EVEN GENERATE ENOUGH, YOU CAN'T REALLY RAISE IT SO HIGH THAT NOBODY IS GOING TO VOLUNTARILY TELL YOU THAT THEY'RE DOING THIS. YOU KNOW, EVEN TO COVER MONETARY COSTS. THE CITY IS RECEIVING REVENUE, AND WE CAN'T USE IT FOR THIS. THAT'S THE TRICK TO IT. SO, WITH THE FEE, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A HIGHER FEE THAN $25. >> I AGREE. >> BUT, I WOULD DISCOURAGE IT FROM BEING SO HIGH THAT IT PREVENTS PEOPLE -- BECAUSE, I DON'T THINK THIS IS ONLY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS. THE OTHER THING THEY SAID WAS THAT THEY ESTIMATE THERE COULD BE AS MANY AS 100. SO, ONLY HALF OF THEM ARE REGISTERED. THERE MAY BE EVEN MORE. >> WELL, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER, I MEAN, THE REVENUE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, WAS ASSUMING THAT ALL 100 WOULD KEEP DOING IT WITH THE HIGHER FEES AND I DON'T THINK THAT WILL HAPPEN. >> WELL, THEY'RE NOT DOING IT WITH $25. >> THANK. >> ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND AS WELL, IS THAT WE ONLY TALKED ABOUT THE ANNUAL COST FOR THE THIRD-PARTY VENDOR. BUT, WE'RE GOING FROM ZERO INSPECTIONS, FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RENTALS, ANYTIME THERE'S A CHANGE IN TENANT WE CHARGE A $75 FEE FOR THAT INSPECTION. SO, IF WE'RE DOING FOUR INSPECTIONS A YEAR, APPLES TO APPLES, YOU'RE LOOKING AT [00:40:05] $300 IN INSPECTION FEES EACH YEAR FOR EACH SHORT-TERM RENTAL. SO, YOU ADD ON TOP, THE ANNUAL COST FOR THE THIRD-PARTY VENDOR AND WE'RE GOING TO HIT THAT $50,000. >> HAVE WE FOUND ANYONE TO DATE? >> WE HAVE CITED SEVERAL SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND THEY HAVE RESULTED IN FINES, AND WE'VE HAD REPEAT OFFENDERS THAT FEEL CONTRACTIBLE PAYING THE FINE AND MOVING ON AND DOING IT AGAIN. >> I NOTICED YOU RECOMMENDING A THREE-PETE RESULTS AND SOME KIND OF SUSPENSION, IN TERMS OF THE REGISTRATION, IF YOU FIND OUT ABOUT, YOU DON'T GET TO REGISTER, YOU'RE SUSPENDED. >> BUT, YOU COULD SUSPEND THEM, BUT, YOU CAN'T KEEP THEM FROM DOING IT. SO, THE SUSPENSION DOES THEM NO GOOD, NOW THEY JUST HAVE TO PAY. THE ONLY WAY TO CONVINCE THEM INTO DOING IT IS IF YOU HEAVILY, HEAVILY REGULATE IT. THAT MEANS THAT YOU ARE SENDING SOMEBODY OUT THERE EVERY TIME THAT YOU'RE GETTING THAT COMPLAINT. AND YOU'RE OUT THERE, AND COUNTING HEADS AND FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE STAYING. IF YOU MAKE IT TOO RESTRICTIVE, YOU'RE MAKING IT FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT TO REGISTER, IF THEY NEED 12 AND WE MAKE IT 10, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO REGISTER, BECAUSE, MAY BE THEY HAVE A HOUSE THAT WILL FIT 12. >> THE IDEA OF ENCOURAGING, SETTING THE STANDARDS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO REGISTER MAKE IT IS SENSE, BECAUSE, THEN WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, WE COULD DO OUR SAFETY ENFORCEMENTS AND THAT KIND OF THING. BUT, WE HAVE TO SET UP A PENALTY FOR NOT REGISTERING AS WELL. AND THE PENALTY, IF THEY'RE CONTINUING THAT BUSINESS WITHOUT REGISTERING, NOW THEY'RE FINED $500 A DAY. >> IT WILL ACCUMULATE. >> $500, AND, $2,000, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE VIOLATION. WE CAN'T GO ABOVE THOSE NUMBERS. >> $500 PER DAY. BUT, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT CAPPING IT AT $2,000. SO, IF WE FIND THAT THEY'RE RENTING IT FOR FIVE DAYS. >> IF THEY'RE RENTING IT FOR $500 A NIGHT, THEY MAY BE JUST PAYING THE FINE. >> THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT DOING THAT, BUT, I KNOW DAVID WAS LOOKING AT SOME AND WE'VE SEEN ANYTHING FROM $93 A NIGHT TO $200 A NIGHT. BUT, THEY ARE DEFINITELY MAKING MONEY AND SOME OF THEM ARE CHARGING MORE FOR THEM. >> THE LIGHT FRONT REPORT IS WHAT? >> IT'S LIKE $500, TO $600 A NIGHT. >> ALSO, WITH THESE THIRD-PARTY VENDORS, A LOT OF, YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE THE REPEAT OFFENDER, HOWEVER WE WANT TO CALL IT, BUT, THIS WILL BE AN EXTRA SCRUTINY OFF. SO, IT WILL HELP, BUT, YES, WE WILL ABSOLUTELY CONTINUE TO HAVE TO MONITOR WHEN COMPLAINTS COME IN THROUGH THE HOTLINE FOR EXAMPLE, OR THIS HAPPENS OR WE WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT. BUT, WE WOULD ALSO HAVE A BETTER NUMBER OF WHO WAS ACTUALLY OUT THERE AS WELL. SO, IT'S A DIFFICULT DECISION. >> I MEAN, AT LEAST WE HAVE A PROCESS, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. ARE WE GOING TO CATCH THEM ALL? NO. BUT DO I WANT TO INCENTIVIZE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE, YES. DO I WANT TO GET AS MAXIMUM FINE AS WE CAN, WHEN WE DO CATCH THEM, YES. >> DO I WANT TO SPEND ALL OF OUR RESOURCES TO CATCH THEM? NO. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO CATCH 100% OF THEM BUT WE COULD DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN. >> IT'S THE SAME WITH SPEEDERS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CATCH ALL OF THEM. >> BUT, THE ONES CAUSING TROUBLE, WILL BE CAUGHT. >> EXACTLY. >> I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER INSENT TO THAT WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED AND THAT'S IF A POLICE OFFICER OR A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS KNOCKING AT THE DOOR, THE TENANTS IS NOT GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH THAT. AND THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE A BAD REVIEW AND THAT PROPERTY WILL BE SOMEONE THAT'S NOT REGISTERED AND YOU'RE GOING TO PROBABLY GET WOKEN UP AT 2:00 A.M. BY A POLICE OFFICER SAYING "SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS". IT SOUNDS LIKE THE POLICE OFFICER'S SHOWING UP WHEN THE PARTY'S STILL IN PROCESS. >> MAY BE SO. BUT THAT'S A DISRUPTION. >> WHAT IS IT COSTING US PER INCIDENT TO ENFORCE THIS? DO WE KNOW? WHAT IS YOUR PER INCIDENT COST? >> WELL, THAT'S DEPENDENT ON THE SITUATION. >> THAT'S DEPENDENT ON THE VIOLATION. IT'S NOISE, TRASH, [00:45:08] PARKING, OCCUPANCY, THE COMPLAINT OF TENANT OR RESIDENTS. >> SO, THE SERVICE IS HELPFUL, BUT IT'S NOT THE WHOLE NUT. >> IT'S NOT A TURN KEY TO DO THE WHOLE THING. BUT IT PROVIDES, IT DEFINITELY DOES PROVIDE A BENEFIT. >> AND THEY HELP TO COLLECT THE TAXES. >> AND THEN THE HOTLINE ALLOWS US TO SIPHON THROUGH THE COMPLAINTS. AND ANY NEGATIVE REVIEWS OR ANYTHING THAT COMES UP THAT NEED TO BE HIGHLIGHTED IT CAN BE HIGHLIGHTED IN A WAY IT WOULD BE, BECAUSE OF THE HOTLINE, THE COMPLAINTS WOULD COME IN, I THINK, MORE EXPEDITIOUSLY AND HANDLED MORE EFFICIENTLY. >> SO, THAT $30,000, IS THAT A CAPPED AMOUNT, WHETHER WE HAVE 40, 100, OR 300 RENTALS. >> NO, IT WAS BASED ON 100 RENTALS. >> SO, THE GRANICUS WAS UP TO 165, RIGHT? >> IT SEEMED TO ME, WHEN I LOOKED AT THEM. YEAH, GRANICUS IS TOTAL COST FOR SERVICES WAS 165. SO, IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THAT WAS THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE, ASSUMING THAT THE SERVICES THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME SERVICES, ASSUMING THAT THE SERVICE LEVEL IS THE SAME BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE, IF WE HAD A LOT MORE, IT LOOKS LIKE GOVOS DEPARTMENT HAVE A LIMIT. >> NO, IT'S ALL INCLUDED. >> RIGHT. SO, IF WE HAD LIKE 400, THAT WOULD BE THE BEST DEAL. BUT, GIVEN HOW MANY THAT WE HAVE, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE GRANICUS, IS STILL. I ASSUME THAT'S SOMETHING FOR ANOTHER DISCUSSION. >> AND COUNCIL, ONE MORE THING, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THESE SERVICES, THE MOBILE PERMITTING AND REGISTRATION COMPONENT. WE ALREADY HAVE A SOLUTION THROUGH (INDISCERNIBLE) AND SO WE CAN ELIMINATE THAT AND HAVE IT TAKE PLACE THERE. AND WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING OUT IN THE FIELD AND WHAT'S BEING REGISTERED. >> SO, ALL OF THESE EXCEPT GOVOS WE COULD PICK AND CHOOSE? >> YES. (INAUDIBLE) >> . >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, IS THERE A PARTICULAR DIRECTION THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR? >> YES. ABSOLUTELY. IF THERE ARE CONSENSUS TO FURTHER REFINE. WE'VE GIVEN YOU DATA POINTS AND SOME INFORMATION ON WHY STAFF RECOMMENDS OR BELIEVES THAT, UM, A PERMITTING PROCESS IS A BETTER WAY TO HANDLE IT, IF YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE STR NOTIFYING RESIDENTS WITHIN A 200 RADIUS OF THE SITE AND THOSE TYPES OF ELEMENTS, IF THERE'S A COMFORT LEVEL WITH THAT, WE WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK WITH A MORE REFINED DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT DAVID WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO SCRUTINIZE BUT MAY BE COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE, UM, MORE, UM IMPLEMENTABLE. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) >> I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. THERE ARE LITTLE THINGS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE TWEAKED. BUT, ONE FIRE EXTINGUISHER, AND I'M THINKING IN A TWO-STORY HOUSE, YOU SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE ONE ON EACH LEVEL. BUT, LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT. >> ABSOLUTELY, COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE AND WITH THE IBMC. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE WOULD CREATE A SPECIFIC PERMIT TO THAT SHORT-TERM RENTAL NUMBER. IT WOULD NOT BE 100%, BUT, IT WOULD GET US TO THE NEXT STEP OR LEVEL AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND SEE, AFTER A SIX-MONTH ASSESSMENT, SEE HOW IT'S COMING TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, AND MAY BE PROPOSE A AN ALTERNATIVE. >> I LIKE THE SIX MONTH PERIOD, TO BE MONITORED AFTER SIX MONTHS TO HE ENFORCEMENTS, AND SOME OF OUR ADJUSTMENTS MAY BE TO THE REGISTRATION, MAY BE EVEN THE HOTEL TAX. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD DO THAT. >> NO. NOT THE HOT TAX. >> NOPE, WE'RE STUCK. >> (INAUDIBLE) [00:50:03] >> SO, YEAH, I MEAN, IT IS A RIGHT, IT IS A PROPERTY RIGHT STATE, I DON'T THINK WE COULD PROHIBIT, I THINK THAT >> THIS IS HARD BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BALANCE THE RIGHTS OF THE HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE GOING TO RENT THEIR PROPERTIES WITH THE RIGHT'S OF THE HOMEOWNERS WHO LIVE AROUND THEM AND WANT TO ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT DESTRUCTION. AND THAT'S NOT EASY. >> I THINK IN PARTICULAR WHAT I LIKE -- >> I THINK IN PARTICULAR ONE THING LIKE LIMITING THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES ALSO, THAT'S ONE THAT'S EASIER TO TELL. YOU CAN'T DRIVE BY AND FIGURE OUT THERE'S MORE THAN 12 PEOPLE IN THE HOME, BUT, YOU CAN WITH THE VEHICLES. THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER THINGS THAT, UM, THEY WERE REQUIRING, I WOULD LIKE THE LIST AS A WHOLE AND IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO DO MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO NOW. I THINK THIS IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT. BUT, BRIAN SAID, I THINK SIX MONTHS AND REPORT ON IT, I THINK WOULD BE PROPERTY. >> SO, YOU'RE A YES, TOO? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YES. YES WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS? >> ABSOLUTELY. I'M INTERESTED TO SEE THE REQUIREMENTS. BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD DO. >> YEAH. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I TAKE THAT AS A YES. >> I'M A YES. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW MANY GO BACK SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR AND SEE WHAT RESOURCES WE GET INTO AND LET'S SAY WE GET UP TO 100, WILL WE NEED ANOTHER INSPECTOR, WILL WE BE INSPECTING 100 HOMES EVERY YEAR, AND WHAT ARE THE BUDGETARY NEEDS FOR THIS? I THINK YOU BRING THAT BACK, A LITTLE BIT OF ANALYSIS, AND YOU COULD REFINE IT OVER SIX MONTHS AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE PROJECT, AND WE COULD SEE WHAT IT'S DOING AND THIS IS WHERE WE REFINE THE COSTS. IT'S GOING TO HAVE REAL BUDGET AND STAFF IMPLICATIONS. >> AND I KNOW THAT I SAID SIX MONTHS, BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR PROPOSAL, WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST EXECUTING ON A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR AND WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT CONTRACT -- IT MIGHT EKE INTO THE YEAR. WE SAID SIX MONTHS, BUT THAT COULD BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AS WELL. >> (INAUDIBLE) >> I'M SURE WE COULD DO, WE COULD DO AN ESTIMATE, BUT IT WOULD BE, UM, IT WOULDN'T BE PERFECT. IT WOULD BE SKELETAL. WE COULD PULL UP THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS THAT WE GET. IT'S A LOT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO PASS REGULATIONS LIKE THAT. >> THIS ISN'T GOING TO MEAN ANYTHING UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, WE HAVE TO PUT IN THE RESOURCES BEHIND IT. >> AND THERE'LL BE A CLEAR [3B. Discuss the PBS documentary Driving While Black: Race, Space and Mobility in America to be shown at the Rowlett Public Library on November 3rd. (30 minutes) ] DELINEATION ON WHAT DOES WHAT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK THAT'S IT ON THE TOPIC. OUR NEXT ITEM IS 3B, AND AGAIN WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS ITEM IN THE MAIN CHAMBERS DUE TO THE CROWD. SO, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT INTO THE RECORD. DISCUSS THE PBS DOCUMENTARY "DRIVING WHILE BLACK:RACE, SPACE AND MOBILITY IN AMERICA," TO BE SHOWN AT THE ROWLETT PUBLIC LIBRARY. WE WILL CONVENE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, LET'S DO 6:35. >> MAYOR BEFORE WE GO, CAN WE ASK IF THERE ARE ANY ITEMS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY, WE'RE STARTING ITEM 3B DISCUSS THE PBS DOCUMENTARY "DRIVING WHILE BLACK:RACE, SPACE AND MOBILITY IN AMERICA" TO BE SHOWN AT THE ROWLETT PUBLIC LIBRARY ON NOVEMBER 3RD. >> OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS JRFORSTEROS. >> YOU DO NOT NEED TO LIST YOUR ADDRESS, SIMPLE YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE ALONG WITH YOUR NAME. >> HI, I'M JR FORESTER OS. I LIVE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT. I'M AT PASTOR HERE IN ROWLETT. [00:55:02] AND ONE OF OUR CORE VALUE SUNSHINE DIVERSITY. AND I WAS EXCITED TO HEAR THAT THE LIBRARY IS HOSTING THIS SCREENING. I WATCHED THE FILM. IT'S TERRIFIC AND IT HAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION POTENTIAL. AND, I THINK PARTICULARLY GIVEN ROWLETT'S UNIQUE HISTORY AS A SUBURB OF A LARGE CITY ALONG A MAJOR INTERSTATE. THERE'S A LOT HERE FOR OUR CITY TO DISCUSS PARTICULARLY AS WE GROW AND BECOME MORE DIVERSE. I WAS SAD TO HEAR THERE WAS OPPOSITION TO THIS INDIVIDUAL YES, HAVING WATCHED IT, I STRUGGLED TO SE WHAT IT WOULD BE, PARTICULARLY THAT WE ARE SHOWING IT AT A LIBRARY AND THAT IT IS OPTIONAL. PARTICULARLY, AS A PASTOR, WHO WAS RAISED SINGING RED AND YELLOW BLACK AND WHITE, THEY'RE PRECIOUS IN HIS SIGHT. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL THAT THIS IS GREAT, AND GOOD FOR OUR CITY, THE DISCUSSION WILL BE GREAT. AND I WOULD LOVE TO TALK ABOUT IT FURTHER WITH YOU, AND WE CAN TAKE LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES AND I'LL BUY THE COFFEE. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. >> NEXT IS CATHERINE HUDDLE STO >> I RESIDE IN ROCKWALL AND HAVE FOR 23 YEARS. I'M HERE TO DISPUTE THE CITY SHOWING THIS MOVIE PSHGS PBS DOCUMENTARY "DRIVING WHILE BLACK:RACE, SPACE AND MOBILITY IN AMERICA," THIS MOVIE IS ANTIPOLICE. THERE'S HISTORICAL, AND THERE ARE HISTORICAL FACTS WHICH ARE TRUE AND BLATANT. THE POINT OF WHERE THEY ARE AT AND WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY IS NOT DISPLAYED AT ALL. NOT A SINGLE WORD OF OUR SOCIETY'S OVER ALL PROGRESS IN THIS AREA OF RACISM AND POLICE BRUTALITY. I RECOGNIZE THAT RACIAL ABUSE EXISTS EVEN STILL TODAY, THIS MOVIE DOES NOT REFLECT THE CITY OF ROWLETT. WE'RE A SUBURB OF A MAJOR CITY BUT WE'RE NOT THAT CITY. IN THE YEAR 2021, THERE WERE OVER 10,000 TRAFFIC STOPS IN OUR CITY, JUST THAT ONE YEAR. SINCE 2009, THE PAST 13 YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN A TOTAL OF THREE RACIAL PROFILES COMPLAINTS AND ALL THREE WERE UNFOUNDED. THIS IS JUST PERSPECTIVE, AN AVERAGE OF 10,000 PER YEAR, 13 YEARS AND THREE COMPLAINTS. IN ADDITION, OUR ROWLETT PD IS REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH RACE, BIAS AND SOCIAL QUALITY TRAINING. THIS IS PROGRESS. THIS IS WHAT SHOULD BE HIGH LIGHTING, SIMPLY PUT "DRIVING WHWHILE BLACK" IS DIVISIVE AND INACCURATE CONCERNING OUR CITY AND DOESN'T SPEAK ON ANYTHING REMOTELY POSITIVE OR RESTORATIVE IN THE TOPIC. IT'S WRONG, HARMFUL, IT'S NOT THE ROWLETT THAT WE LIVE IN AND DOES NOT REFLECT THE VALUES OF THIS CITY. AND IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY INVITATION FROM OUR POLICE TO DISCUSS THE MOVIE AFTER IT'S SHOWING. SO, I BELIEVE THAT THE DIVERSITY COMMISSION HAS A MISSION TO ENHANCE COMMUNITY BY CELEBRATING FOSTERING MEW ACTUAL RESPECT, INTEGRITY, AND FAIRNESS. I DON'T SEE THIS EVENT BEING FAIR WITHOUT AN INVITATION, OPEN ROUND TABLE OF POLICE AND OTHER CITIZENS, JUST THE SHOWING OF THIS, TO ME, WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE OF THAT. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS AMER FREEMAN, AND AFTER THAT IS JACQUELINE. >> AGAIN YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENT. >> I'M DR. AMERA FREEMAN. AND I'M AN ALTERNATE MEMBER OF THE ROWLETT DIVERSITY INCLUSION COMMISSION. AND I LIVE HERE IN ROWLETT. WITH MY EXPENSIVELY EDUCATED OPINION, IT'S NOT RECOMMENDED TORE SUPPRESS THE HISTORICAL CONTENT NOR THE MARGINALIZATION OF MINORITY COMMUNITIES BY REMOVING THE SHOWING OF THE MOVIE IN IT'S ENTIRETY, BECAUSE THOSE HISTORICAL FACTS ARE NOT GOING AWAY. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE THIS MOMENT WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNIFY AND EDUCATE THE ROWLETT COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. SO, WITH THAT SAME EXPENSIVE EDUCATION, I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE COMPROMISE TO SHOW THE HOUR OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND PROVIDE A SEGMENT OF DISCOURSE, CONVERSATION, WITH OUR CHIEF, ACTING CHIEF, ROWLETT CIVIC AND COMMUNITY LEADERS ON OUR CITY'S STATE OF POLICING. RATHER THAN BETWEEN OUR DIVERSE RESIDENTS S- AND OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT. FROM ADVERSE INCIDENTS THAT HAPPENED OUTSIDE OF OUR CITY LIMITS. [01:00:04] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> NEXT IS JACQUELINE VITAGE AND AFTER THAT SUSAN ARITIA. >> JACQUELINE VITAG AND I'M FROM ROWLETT. I WANTED TO REITERATE WHAT WAS MOSTLY SAID HERE TODAY. I WAS LIKE, OH, I WISH I WENT FIRST, HOWEVER, ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THAT HAPPENED IS, I THINK THAT WE HAD SOME ADVERSITY TO SHOWING THE VIDEO, THE MOVIE BEFORE IT WAS ALL WORKED OUT. BECAUSE, THE ORIGINAL PLAN, LIKE HE JUST SAID WAS TO REACH OUT, ESPECIALLY TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE BECAUSE HE'S NEW. EVERYONE DID NOT GET THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GO AND VISIT HIM THAT FRIDAY, IT WAS A GAME NIGHT. WE HAVE KIDS THAT ARE PLAYING SPORTS, SO, PARENTS WERE THERE. SO, THE NUMBER ONE THING WOULD BE TO HAVE HIM COME AND INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND SAY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS HISTORICAL, HOWEVER THAT MY JOB AND MY GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE NOTHING LIKE THIS EVER HAPPENS IN ROWLETT. BECAUSE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU HAVE A DIVERSE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN ROWLETT. AND IF YOU DON'T ADDRESS WHAT HAPPENED IN HISTORY, WE ALL KNOW IT'S BOUND TO REPEAT ITSELF. AND SO, JUST BECAUSE, I KNOW HE SPOKE ABOUT THERE'S ONLY BEEN THREE COMPLAINTS, BUT, I WILL LET YOU ALL KNOW THE MINORITY CITIZENS, IF THEY DON'T FEEL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE HEARD, JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE STATISTICS FOR ALL THE COMPLAINTS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOMEONE DIDN'T GET PULLED OVER, AND THEY WERE JUST GLAD TO BE ABLE TO GO HOME. I'VE LIVED IN ROWLETT FOR CLOSE TO 20 YEARS, IF NOT LONGER, HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY OF THE KILLINGS, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM THE POLICE, BUT, ROWLETT POLICE DOES HAVE SOME WORK TO DO JUST LIKE ALL OF US DO. ALL OF US HAVE SOME WORK TO DO. AND I THINK THIS IS A PRIME OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THEM THAT THIS IS NOT HOW WE PLAN TO RUN OUR CITY. WE DO NOT WANT OUR CITY TO EVER LOOK LIKE THAT, NEVER GET ON THE NEWS FOR ANY OF THOSE TYPES OF INCIDENTS HAPPENING, AND LET'S HAVE THE CHIEF OF POLICE, IF HE'S AVAILABLE AND SOME OF HIS STAFF, BECAUSE, I KNOW SOME OF THEM HAVE EVEN GRADUATED FROM THESE SCHOOLS AROUND HERE. SO, WOULDN'T THAT BE THE PERFECT OPPORTUNITY? WHAT I LIKE TO SEE THE MOST WITH THE POLICE OFFICERS IS WHEN THEY'RE INTERACTING WITH THE KIDS PLA PLAYING BASKETBALL, THIS WOULD BE THE GATE TO OPEN UP AND HAVE MORE CONVERSATION WHEN THEY KNOW THAT THEY COULD TRUST THE POLICE, AND THEY COULD SEE THAT AND KNOW THAT'S JUST A FILM AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TURN THIS CITY INTO ANY OF THAT. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. >>> AFTER SUSAN IS PETER RUTEA. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. UM, I AM SUSAN ARUTEA, I'M A 21 YEAR CITIZEN OF ROWLETT. I'M EXCITED SERVING AS VICE CHAIR FOR THE YEAR. IN MY OTHER LIFE, I'M A REGISTERED NURSE, AND AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FILM, IT MADE ME THINK ABOUT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS I DO AS A REGISTERED NURSE WHEN I GET A NEW PATIENT. AND THAT IS TO TAKE A MEDICAL HISTORY. I HAVE TO KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE WITH THAT PATIENT. AND SOMETIMES, WHAT THEY HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IN THAT PAST HISTORY IS NOT PLEASANT, BUT, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT'S HAPPENED BEFORE, IAND OTHER HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS CAN'T GOOD CARE OF A PATIENT IN THE PRESENT OR THE FUTURE. WHEN I SAW THIS FILM, I FOUND IT REVEALTORY, IT HELPED ME UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF AN AUTO MOBILE IN OUR BLACK AMERICANS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAD NOT HAD A LOT OF HISTORY LEARNED PREVIOUSLY IN MY EDUCATION IN DALLAS ISD. THAT'S WHY I LOOKED AT IT AS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH OUR COMMUNITY, OUR VERY DIVERSE COMMUNITY. AND IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME, HONESTLY, THAT THIS WOULD CAUSE UPROAR, I LOOKED AT IT AS A POSITIVE WAY TO BRING A GREAT FILM, BY RICK BURNS, OF THE CIVIL WAR, PROBABLY THE MOST AWARDED [01:05:04] DOCUMENTARY EVER IN HISTORY, AND GRETCHEN SWARIN WHO IS A FELLOW OF THE NEW YORK ACADACADEMY OF HISTORIANS, IT WAS AIRED ORIGINALLY IN 2020 ON PBS, IT'S A REALLY OUTSTANDING FILM. SO, AS I LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, I THINK I CAN APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS THAT I DO AS A NURSE. WE HAVE TO KNOW OUR HISTORY IN ORDER TO GET THE BEST OUTCOMES FOR OUR CITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. AS FAR AS ANYTHING ANTI-POLICE ABOUT IT, THAT IS SO FAR FROM MY INTENT OR I KNOW THAT I CAN SPEAK FOR MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE NOT ANTI-POLICE, WE'RE PRO-ROWLETT. AND WE'RE PRO-ROWLETT FOR ALL. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. >> NEXT IS PETER, AND AFTER THAT IS RUSSEL LEONARD. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, PETER ARUTEA, I'M A 21 YEAR RESIDENT OF ROWLETT. MY WIFE JUST SPOKE BEFORE. I FEEL STRONGLY THAT THIS DOCUMENTARY NEEDS TO BE SHOWN. IT'S IMPORTANT, IT'S RELEVANT AND I ECHO THE SPEAKERS BEFORE ME. DIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT. PEOPLE GROW. PEOPLE ACHIEVE. THIS COMMUNITY'S NOT THE SAME COMMUNITY THAT I MOVED INTO 20 YEARS AGO AND I'M HAPPY FOR IT. IT'S A GREAT COMMUNITY, WE'VE NOT MOVE AND WE'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THAT. I'LL FINISH WITH THIS, A QUOTE THAT AMANDA GORMAN SAID. SHE SAID "BECAUSE BEING AN AMERICAN IS MORE THAN THE PRIDE WE INHERIT, IT'S THE PAST WE STEP INTO, AND HOW WE REPAIR IT." THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. >> RUSSEL LEONARD, AFTER THAT, JAMES SPENCER >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS REUSS SELL LEONARD, I LIVE IN ROWLETT, I'VE BEEN A CITIZEN HERE FOR HALF MY LIFE. SO, I'M HERE TONIGHT TO OPPOSE THE VIDEO. AND, ONE, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO ATTEND. AND, EVEN SITTING IN TO THE MEETING EARLIER, I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT HOW OUR CITY WORKS AND HOW MUCH YOU GUYS HAVE A PASSION FOR OUR CITY AND I APPRECIATE THAT. SO, IMPARTIALITY IS DEFINED AS AN UNFAIR BASIS OF ONE THING OR PERSON COMPARED WITH ANOTHER T CAN BE DONE ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OR A GROUP LEVEL. DISCRIMINATION IS THE NEGATIVE FORM OF PARTIALITY TOWARDS ONE PERSON OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE. ALL IDEAS HAVE PRESUPPOSITIONS OR FOUNDATIONS AND BAD IDEAS ARE LIKE SEEDS, IF YOU PLANT A SEED, IT'S GOING TO GROW UP, EVENTUALLY, AND IF YOU PLANT A BAD SEED T CAN GROW UP AS WELL. THAT'S MY CONCERN TONIGHT, BECAUSE, UM, THESE ARE MORAL CONCEPTS, PARTIALITY IS A MORAL CONCEPT, DISCRIMINATION IS A MORAL CONCEPT, AND THE BIBLE CONSISTENTLY TEACHES OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT PARTIALITY IS WICKED. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I BRING UP THE BIBLE IS BECAUSE IT IS MY SOURCE OF MORAL AUTHORITY. THE REASON I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE VIDEO IS BECAUSE IT NARROWLY LOOKS AT HISTORY THROUGH THE LENS OF RACE. WHAT IT TEACHES IS FOR PEOPLE NOT TO THINK OF THEMSELVES AS UNIQUE INDIVIDUAL SE CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, IT TEACHES PEOPLE TO THINK OF THEMSELVES BY THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN. ACCORDING TO THIS MOVIE, HOW DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE AND IT'S BY LOOKING AT THE SHADE MENIN. WHAT'S INTERESTING IS IS THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE WHAT WANT TO PROPOSE A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM LIKE KENNEDY, WHO IS A MAJOR PROPONENT OF A LOT OF IDEAS HE SAYS THE ONLY REMEDY IS PAST DISCRIMINATION IS PRESENT DISCRIMINATION. THIS MENTAL IS THE EYE FOR AN EYE, TOOTH FOR A TOOTH MENTALITY. MAY BE THIS VIDEO DOESN'T GO THAT FAR, BUT, THIS IS THE DIRECTION THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY HIT. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS RATHER THAN SHOWING VIDEOS THAT ARE FUND [01:10:04] MENTALLY FLAWED AND HAVE CAUSED DESTRUCTION IN OTHER CITIES IN OUR NATION, INSTEAD ALLOW PASTORS LIKE THIS MAN OVER HERE TO TEACH GOD'S LAW AND FORGIVENESS IN JESUS CHRIST AND THE SCRIPTURES, HE WOULDN'T FOCUS ON A PERSON'S SKIN, HE WILL FOCUS AN A PERSON'S SIN. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YOU'RE TIME IS UP, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> JAMES SPENCER. AND THEN MISSY TIDWELL. >> GOOD EVENING TO THE BOARD. I'M JAMES SPENCER. I'M BORN AND RAISED HERE IN ROWLETT. SO, I'VE BEEN HERE ALL OF MY LIFE. AND I HAVE SEEN THIS CITY GROW FROM DIRT ROADS TO CONCRETE ROADS AND I CAN APPRECIATE A LOT OF THE FOLKS THAT COME BEFORE ME HAS SAID. I'M IN FAVOR OF SHOWING THE FILM BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT EDUCATION. I'M A RETIRED STATE POLICE OFFICER 28 YEARS. AND I'VE SEEN IT. IT'S HAPPENED TO ME, DRIVING WHILE BLACK. AND I'M AN OFFICER AND I GET STOPPED BY AN OFFICER, HE DOESN'T KNOW I'M AN OFFICER, BUT, I SEE IT AND MOST OF THE TIME IT'S BECAUSE OF IGNORANCE, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN EDUCATED. THIS FILM HELPS TO EDUCATE. I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN TALKING ABOUT PLANTING A SEED. BUT, THE ONE THING ABOUT PLANTING THAT SEED IS YOU HAVE TO CULTIVATE THAT SEED, IT COULD BE FOR GOOD OR BAD, YOU GOT TO CULTIVATE IT. WE'RE TRYING TO CULTIVATE AND EDUCATETA MAKE ROWLETT WHAT YOU SAY THAT IT IS WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT, UM, DIVERSITY AND EMPLOYMENT AND CULTURAL CHARM. YOU CAN'T HAVE CULTURAL CHARM IF YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT CULTURE, YOU HAVE TO DO SOME HOMEWORK, THE FILM BRINGS ABOUT SOME HOMEWORK, BUT, THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT'S ALL ABOUT LOVE. IF I CAN'T LOVE YOU, WHAT'S THE POINT? I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR SKIN COLOR. IT STARTS THERE, LOVE YOUR BROTHER, REGARDLESS, WE HAVE A LOT OF BAD SEEDS, BUT THEY COME IN ALL SHADES, COLORS AND CREEDS, WE CAN'T DWELL ON THAT. IF YOU WANT ROWLETT TO EXCEED THOSE EXPECTATIONS, THEN, YOU HAVE TO PUT OUT THAT HAND TO WELCOME THAT EXPECTATION AND BE UNDERSTANDING AND LOVING AND CARING. I WISH WE COULD SHOW MORE FILMS FOR EDUCATION. ONE OF THE FILMS THAT THEY SHOWED BACK WAS TULSA. I HAD NEVER SEEN THE FILM, BUT, I SAW IT, IT'S PAINFUL TO WATCH. REGARDLESS OF WHO YOU ARE WATCHING IT, IT'S STILL PAINFUL. BUT WHEN YOU START TO LOOK AT IT, A LOT OF THAT IS A LOT OF IGNORANCE GOING ON. A LOT. AND A LOT OF HATRED GOING ON. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOU, YOU HATE ME BECAUSE OF MY SKIN COLOR, WHY? BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT BORN THAT WAY, SOMEONE HAS TAUGHT YOU THAT. SO, IF WE COULD TEACH OUR YOUNG PEOPLE EARLY ONTO LOVE EACH OTHER, I THINK THAT WE WOULD BE BETTER. YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE THAT GOING ON IN ROWLETT, BUT, PEOPLE ARE STILL COMING TO ROWLETT. AND WE WANT THEM TO COME TO ROWLETT FOR A REASON, BECAUSE THE LOVE THAT ROWLETT HAS FOR ANYBODY THAT SHOWS UP REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, AS LONG AS THEY CONTRIBUTE TO MAKE THIS CITY WHAT WE WANT IT TO BE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SIR, THANK YOU, SO MUCH, FOR YOUR COMMENTS. THE TIME IS UP. I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU. >> NEXT IS MISSY, AN AFTER THAT IS REPRESREPRESENTATIVE BOWERS. >> SO, I DON'T HAVAL SPEECH PREPARED, >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. >> MISSY TIDWELL, RESIDENT OF ROWLETT FOR WAY MORE YEARS THAN ANYBODY REALIZES. DIDN'T WRITE A SPEECH, DIDN'T SPEND MY TIME WRITING DOWN MY THOUGHTS. I'M NOT AN OVERLY ELEQUENT SPEAKER, I'M JUST ME, I SPEAK FROM MY HEART. IT TROUBLES ME THAT HERE WE ARE AGAIN, IN SOME KIND OF WEIRD CONTROVERSY, HOW DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING TO OUR CITY? LIKE, IT'S JUST MINE BOGGLING, YOU GUYS, THIS SHOULDN'T BE AN [01:15:02] ISSUE. IT'S A DOCUMENTARY THAT THE LIBRARY IS SHOWING. WHY WOULD ANYBODY BE OPPOSED TO THAT? NOBODY'S BEING MADE TO GO. IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY THE SCHOOLS OR THE CITY TO PLAY ON SPORTS OR ANYTHING ELSE. IT'S PURELY VOLUNTARY. SOMETHING TO DO. AND, THE MOST TROUBLING THING IS I HEAR A LOT OF PEOPLE GET UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT WHY THEY'RE OPPOSED TO THIS, AND IT KEEPS, THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT GOD AND THE BIBLE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, AND WHY IS THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS PLATFORM? SO, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THIS COMES FULL CIRCLE, SOMETHING'S HAPPENING, THE LIBRARY IS SHOWING A RELIGIOUS MOVIE, I OPPOSE, GET SOMEBODY ON HERE TO OPPOSE IT, CAUSE A BIG SCENE. WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO ANYBODY? WOULD I DO IT? NO. BECAUSE, I REALIZE THAT IT'S NOT MANDATORY, NO ONE'S REQUIRED TO DO IT. IT'S PART OF HISTORY. FOR HEAVEN'S SAKES, IT'S A PBS DOCUMENTARY. WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE, PEOPLE? . IT'S AN EMBARRASSMENT FOR OUR CITY. WE HAVE A DIVERSITY COMMISSION, WE CLAIM THAT WE'RE DIVERSE. THEN THIS WEIRD STUFF THAT SEEMS TO BE TIED TO RELIGIOUS STUFF COMES UP, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, EVERYBODY'S IN AN UPROAR, WHY CAN'T WE LET PEOPLE BE WHO THEY ARE. THIS IS HAPPENING. IF YOU WANT TO GO, GO. THIS OVER HERE IS HAPPENING, IF YOU WANT TO GO, GO. IF THERE'S SOMETHING HAPPENING IN THIS TOWN AND I DON'T LIKE IT OR DON'T AGREE WITH IT, I DON'T GO, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO STOP SOMEBODY ELSE FROM PARTICIPATING. IT'S JUST CRAZY. AND YOU GUYS WERE ALL ELECTED TO REPRESENT ALL OF US. ALL OF US. INCLUDES THOSE OF US THAT MAY NOT AGREE WITH WHAT YOU NEED TO BE DOING AND WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF EVERYBODY. NOT WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF YOUR PERSONAL RELIGION, NOT WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF YOUR PERSONAL OPINION. IT'S ABOUT THE CITIZENS AS A WHOLE AND Y'ALL ARE -- DO BETTER. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. >> NEXT IS REPRESENTATIVE REDA BOWERS. >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, I'M STATE REPRESENTATIVE RETA ANDREWS BOWERS, REPRESENT HOUSE DISTRICT 113. I LIVE HERE IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT. I'M ALSO VICE CHAIR OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY. SO, I AM A FRIEND TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE SHOWING OF THE DOCUMENTARY IN OUR FAIR CITY ON CITY PROPERTY. OUR CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW "DRIVING WHILE BLACKBLACK, SPACE AND MOBILITY". THIS FILM IS A HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION OF A RACE OF PEOPLE, MY PEOPLE, I MIGHT ADD, AND THEIR JOURNEY TO ESTABLISHING SAFETY AND DIGNITY FOR BLACK FAMILIES IN THE JIM CROW TO BUILD A CICIVIL RIGHT'S MOVEMENT. THIS FILM SHEDS LIGHT ON HOW THE AUTO MOBILE GAVE AFRICAN-AMERICANS MOBILITY THAT LED TO A SENSE OF PRIDE AND FREEDOM. IT'S A STORY OF HOW WE HAD TO NAVIGATE WITHIN THIS SPACE AND TIME. TO SOME DEGREE, THOUGH, IT IS STILL OUR REALITY TODAY. I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS COUNCIL, SOME OF YOU, WHICH WERE PART OF CREATING ROWLETT'S DIVERSITY, EQEQUITY AND INCLUSI COMMISSION WOULD NOT SENSOR THIS FILM, NOR IT'S MESSAGE. WE MUST ACCEPT PEOPLE AND LEARN FROM THEIR HISTORY. OUR PAST CAN PROVIDE A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT YOURSELVES IF WE ONLY CAN FACE IT FEARLESSLY. WE CAN NOT REWRITE HISTORY, NOR SHOULD WE TRY TO ERASE IT OR IGNORE IT. THE IN THE WORDS OF WRITER AND PHILOSOPHER GEORGE SANTIANA, AND PARAPHRASED BY WINSTON CHURCHHILL, THOSE WHO FAIL TO [01:20:06] LEARN FROM HISTORY, ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. ALL OF OUR CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE TO VIEW IT IF DESIRED, WE SHOULD NOT MAKE THAT CHOICE FOR THEM. AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL STAND WITH ME AND THOSE THAT HAVE COME BEFORE YOU AND ALLOW THE FILM TO BE SHOWN SO THAT WE COULD ALL LEARN TOGETHER. I YIELD BACK THE REST OF MY TIME. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND THANK YOU AGAIN, FOR ALLOWING ME TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. NEXT COMMENTS. THERE'S NONE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, COUNCIL, THIS WAS REQUESTED BY COUNCILMAN BRITTON, AND BELL, SO, I'M GOING TO LET THEM START OFF WITH THEIR COMMENTS ON THIS TOPIC, THEN, I'LL MOVE TO THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS SO WE ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON? >> AND WITH THE PERMISSION OF COUNCILMAN BELL, I'LL LEAD OFF. FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY THAT CAME UP AND SPOKE. THAT IS WHAT OUR COUNTRY'S ALL ABOUT. AND, ALTHOUGH, PROBABLY MOST OF THEM WERE AGAINST STOPPING THIS, THAT'S FINE. YOU HAD A CHANCE TO VOICE YOUR OPINION, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. I DO HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THIS FILM BEFORE TONIGHT. BECAUSE, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE AN HONEST DEBATE ON THE MERITS OF WETHER OR NOT THIS SHOULD BE SHOWN. AGAIN, I'VE WATCHED THE MOVIE TWICE. THE FIRST TIME I WATCHED IT IS WHAT PROMPTED ME TO FEEL LIKE I WANTED TO BRING THIS TO THE COUNCIL, I WATCHED IT THE SECOND TIME JUST TO SOLIDIFY MY OWN PERSPECTIVE OF IT TO BE SURE THAT I'M INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AND THAT I DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISSED. I'LL TRY TO MAKE MY COMMENTS BRIEF, I WILL PROBABLY PAUSE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, IT'S NOT BECAUSE I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY, IT'S BECAUSE I WANT MY WORDS TO BE MEASURED AND CLEAR SO THAT THERE'S NO WAY ANYBODY CAN TAKE THAT OUT OF CONTEXT. IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT I'M WANTING TO INVOKE CENSORSHIP BY NOT HAVING THIS MOVIE SHOWN. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CENSORSHIP, IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH RESPONSE SORESHIP. FRANKLY, I DON'T CARE WHO WATCHES THE MOVIE, AND TO BE HONEST, THE AUDIENCE PROBABLY WON'T BE LARGE. IF IT'S EIGHT OR 80 PEOPLE IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE TO ME. THE POINT IS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THE CITY SHOULD BE SPONSORING THE DOCUMENTARY THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL OF FURTHER DIVIDING OUR CITIZENS AS WELL AS AS A MOVIE THAT DOESN'T REPRESENT, AND THIS IS MY PERSPECTIVE, THE FULL, AND COMPLETE AND ACCURATE PICTURE OF POLICING TODAY. I WILL CONCEDE THIS MOVIE HAS HISTORICAL VALUE. YES, IT IS TRUE, THAT 90 YEARS AGO, HORRIBLE INJUSTICES WERE DONE TO OUR FELLOW BLACK AMERICANS BY THOSE IN AUTHORITY WHICH MAKE IT IS WORSE. AND IT TOOK AN AWFUL LONG TIME TO BEGIN THE PROCESS OF CORRECTING THOSE INJUSTICES. HOWEVER, WHEN I VIEWED THE MOVIE TWICE, I SAW THE DOCUMENTARY'S CONSISTENT MESSAGE THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENTARY, IS THAT WHAT BEGAN IN THE '30S, AND '40S THAT NOT ONLY WHAT HAPPENED THEN AND THROUGH, MAY BE THE CIVIL RIGHT'S ERA, WHAT HAPPENED THEN, STILL EXISTS TODAY BUT EVEN WORSE AND THE MOVIE CONTENDS THERE'S WIDESPREAD, SYMPTOMIC RACIST, I BELIEVE THAT'S A FALSE NARRATIVE AND I THINK THAT'S JUST ANOTHER VEHICLE TO FURTHER THE FLAMES OF RACIAL ANIMOSITY, AND I WOULD THINK THAT EVERYBODY HERE TONIGHT WOULD AGREE THAT WE HAVE TOO MUCH OF THAT IN OUR COUNTRY. I'M A HISTORY BUFF, I LOVE HISTORY, THAT'S ONE OF MY FAVORITE SUBJECTS IN SCHOOL. AND WE SHOULD NEVER FORGET OUR HISTORY, BOTH THE GOOD AND THE BAD. BECAUSE IT SERVES AS A REMINDER FOR US TO NEVER MAKE THOSE SAME MISTAKES AGAIN AND REPEAT HISTORY. HOWEVER, AT SOME POINT, IF NOT NOW, WHEN? IF NOT US, WHO? WE MUST STOP DWELLING ON THE SINS OF THE PAST AND PUT MORE EFFORT INTO POSITIVE THINGS THAT UNITE US AS A PEOPLE. IF WE CAN EVER GET TO THAT POINT, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE THE REAL RECIPE FOR RACIAL [01:25:03] HEALING. NOW, WHENTY ANNOUNCED MY INTENTION TO HAVE THIS ON THE AGENDA, I DID RECEIVE SOME CONSIDERABLE PUSHBACK BECAUSE THERE WAS REASONS OF WE DON'T WANT TO BE DIVISIVE AGAINST THE COUNCIL. AND THAT'S NOT MY DESIRE AND THERE WAS THE LIKELIHOOD OF INVITING OUTSIDE NEGATIVE FORCES. I CAN NEITHER CONTROL OR BE CONCERNED ABOUT OUTSIDE SOURCES, MY ONLY CONCERN AND FOCUS ARE WITH THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY AND IT'S WELBING. I HAVE EXPERIENCES AND BACKGROUNDS, BUT, I BROUGHT TO THE TABLE MY CONVICTIONS AND I HAVE PRINCIPLES ABOUT A PARTICULAR TOPIC AND IF I CHOSE NOT TO RAISE THOSE ISSUES, IF I CHOSE TO DENY MY OWN CONVICTIONS AND PRINCIPLES OUT OF FEAR OF IT BEING UNPOPULAR OR FEAR OF NEGATIVE OUTCOMES THAT MAY OCCUR, THEN, I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I SHOULD IMMEDIATELY RESIGN AS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, BECAUSE, THAT TO ME IS A LACK OF MORAL COURAGE. NOW, MAY BE JUST FOR A LITTLE LEVITY HERE, FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN EXCITED ABOUT MY RESIGNATION, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO STAND UP FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IS WRONG, BECAUSE, MY CONVICTIONS MAKE ME DO SO. I'LL DO THAT TONIGHT AND IN THE FUTURE IF I SEE SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE IS WRONG, REGARDLESS OF THE POPULARITY. I VIEW MY RESPONSIBILITIES AS A COUNCIL MEMBER TO BE THAT OF ENSURING THAT THE CITY OPERATES EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY SO THAT THE NEEDS OF OUR CITIZENS CAN BE MET. AND I BELIEVE EVERY MEMBER ON THIS COUNCIL FEELS THE SAME WAY. BUT I ALSO SEE MY ROLE AS BEING A WATCHMAN OF THE WALL. AND WHEN I OBSERVE SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE CITY, I'M DUTY-BOUND TO CALL ATTENTION TO IT AS I'M DOING THIS EVENING. LET ME GET TO THE PRINCIPLE OBJECTIONS TO THE PUBLIC SHOWING, IT'S NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP, BUT SPONSORSHIP. I BELIEVE THE MOVIE SHOWS AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE PROGRESS THAT WE SHOW IN OUR COUNTRY. IF THIS FILM PRESENTED THE DARK HISTORY, AND THEN PRESENTED THE POSITIVE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE TO ADDRESS THE WRONGS, THEN I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE SHOWING BECAUSE IT'S PRESENTING AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF WHAT POLICE HAVE DONE TO FIX THOSE PROBLEMS. IT WOULD ALLOW THE VIEWERS TO DRAW THEIR OWN CONVICTIONS. AND IT CONVEYS A NEGATIVE MESSAGE TO OUR NEW ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE AND OUR RANK AND FILE. SINCE IT WILL BE PRESENTED UNDER THE OFFICIAL UMBRELLA OF THE CITY THEN IT PORTRAYS A IT'S SIT APPROVAL OF THE CONTENT OF THE MOVIE. IT CAN HARM THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUR CITIZENS AND THE DEPARTMENT ESPECIALLY IF THEY BELIEVE THE NARRATIVE AND HAVE YOU IT FROM THE CONTEXT THAT IT HAS OFFICIAL BACKING FROM THE CITY. I BELIEVE IN ORDER FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT TO OPERATE IN A MANNER WORTHY OF THEIR CALLING AND I TRULY BELIEVE IT IS A CALLING, THEY MUST DO SO WITH THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE OF OUR CITIZENS AND ANY FALSE NARRATIVE THAT SEEKS TO DAMAGE THAT TRUST MUST BE VIGOROUSLY PUSHED BACK. I'LL END WITH THIS, I MUST REMAIN TRUE TO MY PRINCIPLES AND CONVICTIONS, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY THAT SPOKE FROM HER HEARTS AND CONVICTIONS. I'M A FULL AND COMPLETE SUPPORTER OF OUR POLICE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN BLIND SUPPORT. OUR CHIEF AND ASSISTANT CHIEF AND THE RANK AND FILE HAVE EARNED THAT RESPECT FROM ME, BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING THE RIGHT THINGS. I DON'T DENY THAT THERE'S BEEN UNJUSTICES DONE TO AFRICAN-AMERICANS IN OUR COUNTRY, AND I CAN NEVER ACTUALLY RELATE TO THAT, BECAUSE I'M NOT BLACK, BUT, I KNOW THEY SUFFERED. BUT, I DON'T BELIEVE RACISM HAS OR EVER WILL BE ELIMINATED FROM OUR SOCIETY, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THAT. BECAUSE ALL OF US ARE IMPERFECT, THERE'S GOING TO BE BAD ACTORS IN EVERY ORGANIZATION INCLUDING THE POLICE. BUT, I THINK THAT THE STEPS THAT OUR POLICING ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE DONE WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS PUT IN SOME SOLID MECHENISMS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY ADDRESS THE ACTIONS FROM THE BAD ACTORS AND THE GRIEVANCES OF THE PERPETRATED THOSE WHO SUFFERED FROM THE HARM OF THOSE ACTIONS. I'LL END BY SAYING I URGE MY [01:30:01] FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OR VALUES OF HAVING THIS DOCUMENTARY PRESENTED IN THE CITY. THAT'S THE CRUX OF MY OPPOSITION TO IT. >> THANK YOU, PAM BELL? >> THANK YOU. I'LL ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. >> HE SAID A LOT OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, BUT, I CAN SAY FROM A BLACK PERSPECTIVE, I LIVED THROUGH THE 1950S, I KNOW HOW IT FAILED UP UNTIL NOW. AND, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT IN THAT FILM IT BRINGS BACK HORRIBLE MEMORIES, AND, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT IT, I DON'T THINK TOO MANY OF YOU OLD ENOUGH THAT'S BLACK IN THE AUDIENCE I DON'T THINK YOU CAN RELATE TO WHAT I HAVE BEEN THROUGH. NO. I DO NOT LIKE THE FILM. ESPECIALLY THE END. I CAN GET ALONG WITH THE FIRST PORTION, THE MIDDLE PORTION, I KNOW ABOUT THE HOUSING, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE, BUT IN DALLAS, THERE WAS A SECTION OF TOWN THAT BLACKS LIVED IN. IT'S SET UP BY BLACKS. DO YOUR RESEARCH, I WOULD TELL YOU, BUT, I WANT YOU TO DO THE RESEARCH. AND, SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE MY FRIENDS. THAT SET THAT UP. AND AMERA PROBABLY KNOWS ABOUT IT. I BET SHE DOES BECAUSE SHE'S A HISTORY BUFF ALSO. AND THE END PORTION OF IT, THAT'S WHAT GOT ME, IT'S REALLY BIAS, AND IT REALLY GOT TO ME, BECAUSE, I STARTED CRYING ON IT. BECAUSE, THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR A PERSON TO LOSE THEIR LIFE. WE DO HAVE BAD APPLES ON BOTH SIDES IN A BASKET, NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT, WE CAN BUILD FROM OUR PAST. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE RACISM WHERE EVER AND WHENEVER IT'S GOING TO BE AROUND. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE, YOU DON'T KNOW THIS, WE HAVE RACISM IN YOUR OWN RACE. YOU DON'T REALIZE THIS. THERE'S WHITES AGAINST WHITES, BLACKS AGAINST BLACKS, BUT, WE HAVE GOT TO GET RID OF IT IT MAY NOT BE THIS CENTURY, IT MAY BE A LITTLE WHILE LONGER, BUT, THAT'S OKAY, WE'VE COME A LONG WAYS. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO BE ADDRESSED, NOT SEEING SOMEONE'S SON AT THE FUNERAL, THE END OF THE MOVIE, AND THAT'S WHEN IT END, HOW COME IT DIDN'T BRING IN SOMETHING POSITIVE LIKE A HEY, AND, BUTT, THIS HAPPENED, BUT WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS. I HAVE TO SAY THIS TO OUR CHIEF, ASSISTANT CHIEF AND HIS STAFF, WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE IN ROWLETT. AND I'M GLAD THAT WE DON'T. WE RESPECT ONE ANOTHER AND I HOPE WE JUST KEEP ON RESPECTING ONE ANOTHER. BECAUSE, THAT'S THE MAIN THING, AND MISSY MADE A COMMENT ABOUT "WE'RE HERE AGAIN", THERE'S A REASON THAT WE'RE HERE AGAIN. JUST THINK ABOUT IT. SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT. SO, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COUNSEL'S GOING TO ADDRESS THIS, IT'S FINE WITH ME, BUT, I'M NOT GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF IT. IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT, GO TO PBS, KERA LOOK AT IT. AND THAT'S THE WAY I LOOKED AT IT, AND I DID LOOK AT IT SEVERAL TIMES AND THE END ALWAYS GOT ME. IT REALLY DID. I DON'T LIKE SEEING SOMEONE'S SON OR DAUGHTER DECEASED. WE CAN DO BETTER. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SHOW IT. AND THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. AND LIKE I SAID, I'M BLACK. I'VE BEEN BLACK ALL MY LIFE. AND I'M GOING TO DIE BLACK. OKAY? THAT'S HOW COMIC RELATE. SO, THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU, WE'LL START AT THIS END, COUNCIL MEMBER GALUARDI, YOU'RE UP. >> I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON AND BELL SAID, ESPECIALLY WHEN COUNCIL MEMBER BELL SAID, I'VE NOT SEEN THE END YET, I GOT THREE QUARTERS OF A WAY THROUGH WHEN I GOT HERE TODAY. I INTEND [01:35:01] TO FINISH WATCHING IT WHEN I LEAVE HERE AT MIDNIGHT TONIGHT. SO, I CAN'T COMMENT ON THE ENTIRE CONTENT, I HAVE TO SAY I FOUND QUITE A BIT OF THE FILM ENLIGHTENING AND EDUCATIONAL. THERE WERE THINGS IN THERE I DID NOT KNOW. AND I'M GLAD THAT I'VE LEARNED THOSE. MY FOCUS, THOUGH, IS MAY BE REALLY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON SAID THE SPONSORSHIP VERSUS CENSORSHIP. I TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT. I THINK THIS FPULLIG THE FILM, AT THIS POINT, WOULD BE CENSORSHIP, IT WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT THAN IF WE WENT TO THE LIBRARY AND PULLING YOU HAVE A A BOOK FROM THE SHELF. FOR THAT REASON, BECAUSE I'M A FIRST BELIEVER IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT, CONGRESS, OR COUNCIL SHALL MAKE NO LAW ESTABLISHING THE RELIGION OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM PEACE. THAT IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE FIRST THING THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS THOUGHT OF. AND I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THAT AMENDMENT TO PULL THIS FILM AT THIS TIME. IT IS OPTIONAL. I UNDERSTAND IT IS A ROOM WHERE IF YOU'RE IN THE LIBRARY, IN ORDER TO SEE THE FILM, YOU'LL NEED TO GO INTO THE ROOM, IT'S COMPLETELY OPTIONAL,'S NOT A REQUIRED VIEWING. ALTHOUGH, I WOULD RECOMMEND IT. BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE RATHER INTERESTING FACTS. THAT'S WHERE I AM. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN GALUARDI. COUNCILMAN GRUBISICH? >> FIRST, ECHO HE WHAT BRIAN SAID, I COMMEND THE COURAGE OF MY FELLOW COLLEAGUES, BECAUSE, I'VE ALWAYS SAID THAT YOU GOT TO THINK FOR YOURSELF WHEN YOU'RE UP HERE AND IF YOU DON'T BRING THOSE CONVICTIONS THEN YOU'RE NOT DOING YOUR JOB. AND GOSH KNOWS THAT I'VE BROUGHT MY CONVICTIONS AND HAVE BEEN ROASTED ON THIS STAND BEFORE. BUT, WITH THIS, AND PAM, I TOTALLY SYMPATHIZE FOR YOU AND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON THIS, AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU, THAT EVERYBODY NEEDS TO DO BETTER. WE NEED TO DO BETTER. EVERYBODY IN THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO DO BETTER AND IN THIS WORLD. BUT, I COME FROM THE SENTIMENT THAT YOU DON'T DO BETTER BY HIDING THINGS AWAY. YOU DO BETTER BY SHINING A LIGHT ON THEM RIGHT, WRONG, OR INDIFFERENT. AND THEN HAVING AN OPEN, HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THAT IS. AND TO ME THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. IS SHINE A LIGHT ON IT, IT WOULD BE CENSORSHIP THEN IF YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED TO SPEAK YOUR MIND WHETHER YOU LIKED IT OR NOT. JUST AS WE'RE DOING HERE TONIGHT. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT THEY DO HAVE EITHER OR NEW POLICE CHIEF OR SOME OTHER REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO BE THERE AND ANSWER QUESTIONS AND TO TALK ABOUT THE TYPE OF POLICING THAT WE'RE DOING HERE IN ROWLETT. THAT'S HOW YOU SHINE A LIGHT ON IT. THAT'S HOW YOU MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S HOW YOU START TO BRIDGE THOSE GAPS. NOT BY HIDING IT AWAY. SO, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF PULLING THIS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL THAT CAME TO SPEAK TONIGHT AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THOSE WHO HAVE CONTACTED ME OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM. I HAVE THIS HAS WEIGHED HEAVILY ON MY MIND AND IT'S BEEN A STRONG POINT OF CONSIDERATION ALL WEEKEND. BUT, I THINK WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO MORE THAN ANYTHING, IS, UM, HOW WE ARRIVED AT THIS SPOT WHERE WE ARE. SO, I'M GOING TO START WITH THREE VERY IMPORTANT ITEMS THAT HAVE GUIDED THE WAY THAT I'VE MADE THIS DECISION. THE FIRST IS POLICY. OUTLINED IN THE LIBRARY'S POLICY MANUAL WHICH I'LL SHARE WITH MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS, I HAVE TWO PAGES THAT I'VE PRINTED OUT. I ONLY HAVE SIX COPIES,SORRY, MR. CITY MANAGER. OUTLINED IN THE POLICY MANUAL FOR THE LIBRARY IS A STATEMENT ON PAGE 7 AND IT'S UNDER SECTION A, SECOND PARAGRAPH AND IT READS "A WORK WILL NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM A LIBRARY'S COLLECTION BECAUSE OF FRANK EXPRESSION, OR BECAUSE THE CONTENT MAY BE DEEMED CONTROVERSIAL, UNORTHODOX OR UNACCEPTABLE TO OTHERS. ". WHILE THIS IS NOT A WRITTEN WORK, NONETHELESS IT APPLIES, IN ADDITION ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT THAT I PROVIDED TO COUNCIL IS THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION'S LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS AND THIS IS ON PAGETA ON THE LIBRARY MANUAL. AND FOR THOSE KEEPING SCORE AT HOME, FIND THIS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. BULLET POINT NUMBER THREE. [01:40:01] BULLET POINT NUMBER TWO. LIBRARIES SHOULD PROVIDE MATERIALS AND INFORMATION PRESENTING ALL POINTS OF VIEW ON CURRENT OR HISTORICAL ISSUES, MATERIALS SHOULD NOT BE PRODESCRIBED OR REMOVED BECAUSE OF PARTISAN OR DOCTRINE APPROVAL. SO, THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS THERE I THINK SPEAK HEAVILY TO THE POLICY ISSUE AT HAND. AND WHEN WE LOOK AT HOW WE ARRIVED AT THIS POINT, THE ROWLETT DIVERSIDIVERSITY EQUITY INCLUSION COMMISSION HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ITEM IN JULY, ULTIMATELY MADE A DECISION IN AUGUST, THEY DID NOT HAVE A SEPTEMBER MEETING BECAUSE OF LACK OF A QUORUM. AND THE ITEM WAS BROUGHT BOTH TO THE LIAISON FOR THE COMMISSION, OR THE LIAISON WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, AS WELL AS THE CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, WHICH, I BELIEVE IS OUR MAYOR, AND THE LIBRARY DIRECTOR. SO, THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN DETERMINING WETHER OR NOT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTARY TO SHOW. IN SPEAKING WITH OUR LIBRARY DIRECTOR, I GOT REALLY GOOD FEEDBACK. THE E-MAIL THAT I RECEIVED FROM HER, ONE PARAGRAPH BASICALLY SAID IN JUNE TO COMMEMORATE WITH JUNETEENTH, THE LIBRARY SHOWED THE DOCUMENTARY TULSA, THE FLAMED AND FOR GOTTEN. AFTER THE MOVIE WAS SHOWN, THERE WAS A SHORT DISCUSSION, TWO PREDOMINANT THEMES AROSE FROM THE DISCUSSION, THE FIRST BEING WHY DON'T MORE PEOPLE ATTEND THINGS LIKE THIS AT THE LIBRARY, AND THE SECOND BEING WHY DIDN'T WE LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS IN SCHOOL. AND THE SECOND NOTION LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT. THERE WERE SO MANY THINGS THAT I SAW IN THIS DOCUMENTARY THAT I DIDN'T LEARN IN HIGH SCHOOL, THEY WERE NOT TOLD. THE SECOND PART, PROCESS. AND I THINK THAT AYE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT ALREADY. BUT, THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE RDEIR CENTS AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO STAFF FOR CONSIDERATION. AND THAT E-MAIL THAT I JUST READ FOLLOWS THE PROCESS OF HOW WE GOT TO THIS ITEM SELECTED TO BE SHOWN. AND THE LAST IS PRECEDENT. SELECTIVELY DECIDING WHICH MATERIAL ARE APPROPRIATE IS IMMORAL AND ESTABLISHES A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT. WE HAVE THE PRECEDENT THAT SHOWING A MOVIE LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT CAUSE AN OUTRAGE, SINCE WE TOLD "TULSA" PREVIOUSLY. AND HERE WE'RE SHOWING A DOCUMENTARY AND THE PUSHBACK IS THERE. THE PRECEDENT EXISTS THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHOW THE FILM. AND I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRECEDENT OF BLOCKING THIS FILM, AS FAR AS THAT WOULD HAPPEN. THERE WAS A SPEAKER WHO MADE A COMMENT ON WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF IT WERE A DIFFERENT TYPE OR CONTENT. AND I HAVE REAL CONCERNS THAT WE'RE PICKING AND CHOOSING OUR BATTLES HERE AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE, AS A COUNCIL, SHOULD DOUGH. WE SHOULD HAVE A COMMITTED NORTHERLY DIRECTION. THERE HAS TO BE THAT ONE VISION THAT WE'RE A DIVERSE COMMUNITY AND WE'RE RECOGNIZING THAT DIVERSITY WITH A FILM LIKE THIS. AS FAR AS THE CONCEPT, THE ROAD TO COMING OUT OF RACISM IS NOT AT THE END. WE'RE NOT AT THE END OF THAT ROAD, BUT, WE ALSO CAN'T JUST STICK OUR HEADS IN THE SAND AND PRETEND LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST. MY HISTORY, AND WHAT I GREW UP IN WAS A TYPICAL SOUTH FAMILY, MY GRAND PARENTS ON MY MOM'S SIDE WERE FROM EAST PLEASANT. I FEEL LIKE I CAME OUT OF THAT WITH A LOT OF LESSONS LEARNED AND THAT'S WHY I THINK THAT FILMS LIKE THIS ARE SO IMPORTANT SO THAT PEOPLE MY AGE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN TAUGHT THINGS LIKE THIS, THAT WE COULD LEARN. IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO HAPPEN, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO EXPERIENCE THINGS THAT PEOPLE IN THE FILM DO. THE PROFESSOR IN MIT SAID THESE WORDS DURING THE DOCUMENTARY. AMERICANS IN PARTICULAR LOVE TO CELEBRATE THEIR HISTORY, BUT THEY DON'T LIKE TO LOOK AT IT CROSSLY, WE TEND TO LOOK AT THE LEAST PROBLEM MAT TAKE WAY OF MOVING FROM THE PAST TO NOW. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO IS ENGAGE HISTORY WITH A KIND OF BRUTAL HONESTY. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO-PRO TEM SHINDER. >> FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THAT I RESPECT THE RIGHT OF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER TO PLACE ANY ITEM ON THE AGENDA. UNDER THE STATE LAW AND [01:45:04] CITY CHARTER THIS IS THE PROPER PROCESS. IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT SOMETHING THE CITY'S DOING, YOU DON'T GO TELL THE CITY STAFF DO IT DIFFERENTLY, YOU PUT IT ON THE AGENDA SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN HAVE INPUT AND SO THAT THE ENTIRE COUNCIL CAN DISCUSS IT. I ALSO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN WHO STOOD UP HERE TONIGHT OR SENT WRITTEN INPUT TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR OPPOSED TO THE SHOWING OF THIS MOVIE. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE TOPICS, HERE WE ARE AGAIN, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT INVOKES STRONG FEELINGS. AS A FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND A STAUNCH SUPPORTER OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND IT'S OFFICERS, I PERSONALLY HAVE STRONG FEELINGS OF MY OWN ABOUT ANYTHING THAT CAUSES DISRESPECT OR DEFAMATION OF POLICE OFFICERS WHO PUT THEIR RIVES ON THE LINE EVERYDAY. BUT, MY PERSONAL FEELINGS ABOUT THAT SHOULDN'T AND CAN'T BE THE BASIS FOR MY DECISIONS AS A COUNCIL MEMBER REGARDING SHOWING A MOVIE THAT DOCUMENTS SOME GRIM ASPECTS OF OUR HISTORY. IT'S BEEN SAID THAT WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE, MAY BE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN IN ROWLETT, BUT, WE DON'T LIVE IN A BUBBLE, THOSE OF US WHO RESIDE IN ROWLETT. WE LIVE IN A GREATER COMMUNITY AND IN A COUNTRY WHERE THINGS ARE NOT ALL ALWAYS LIKE THEY ARE HERE. SO THIS WAS A HARD QUESTION, BUT IT'S AN EASY DECISION, FOR ME, AT LEAST. BECAUSE, TO ME, THIS COMES DOWN TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. WHEN I BECAME A POLICE OFFICER AND THEN AGAIN WHEN I WAS ELECTED TO COUNCIL, I SWORE AN OATH TO UPHOLD, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION. THAT INCLUDES THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH IT SELF INCLUDES FREEDOM OF SPEECH. AND WETHER OR NOT I AGREE WITH THAT SPEECH, OR WHETHER IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. I WATCHED THIS MOVIE WHEN I FOUND OUT THIS WAS GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA. AND SOME PARTS OF IT DID MAKE ME UNCOMFORTABLE. BUT, DISCOMFORT USUALLY MOTIVATED ME TO THINK MORE DEEPLY ABOUT A SUBJECT. I'VE THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT THIS. I DON'T BELIEVE THE CITY SHOULD BE SENSORING ANY GROUP OR PERSON UNLESS THEY'RE ENGAGING IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH COUNCILMAN BRITTON THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE CENSORSHIP, HE SAID THE CRUX OF HIS BELIEF WAS THE FACT THAT IT'S BEING SHOWN IN A CITY FACILITY. THE VERY DEFINITION OF SENSOR SHIP IS WHEN GOVERNMENT PROHIBITS OR CONTROLS SPEECH. NO WORK EVER PRESENTS A COMPLETELY UNBIASSED STORY. THERE'S ALSO A HUMAN BEING BEHIND IT, SO THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOME KIND OF BIAS. THE COUNCIL, WE'RE NOT PARENTS WHO HAVE TO PROTECT, THE CITIZENS, OUR CHILDREN, FROM THINGS THAT WE MAY FIND UNCOMFORTABLE OR UNSAVORY. OUR CITIZENS ARE ADULTS, THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS. NOBODY HAS TO GO WATCH THIS MOVIE. THE MOVIE DOESN'T ADVOCATE VIOLENCE AGAINST POLICE. IT DOESN'T INSTIGATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. I WEAR TWO PINS ON MY LAPEL MOST OF THE TIME AND THAT INCLUDES TONIGHT, ONE OF THEM REPRESENTS MY SUPPORT AND MY COMPLETE DEDICATION TO OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE OTHER, THE US FLAG REPRESENTS MY BELIEF IN THE US CONSTITUTION. THEREFORE, I CAN'T BE IN FAVOR OF THE COUNCIL BLOCKING THIS SCREENING. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU. AND, I'LL MAKE MY STATEMENT AND WE'LL WRAP UP. SO, ALL OF US SITTING UP HERE TONIGHT ARE PRIVILEGED WITH HOLDING A POSITIVE WHICH PURPOSE IT IS TO REPRESENT THE CITIZENS IN THIS COMMUNITY. THIS COMMUNITY IS FILLED WITH DIVERSE VIEWPOINTS, BACKGROUNDS, INTELLIGENCE, RACE, SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO DICTATE WHAT MOVIE IS SHOWN AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY, AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT MY JOB OR ANYONE'S UP HERE TO PULL A MOVIE FROM BEING SHOWN BECAUSE WE MAY NOT ALL AGREE WITH IT PERSONALLY. WE WERE ELECTED TO DO A JOB, MAKING AN ISSUE ABOUT A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT OUR COUNTRY'S RACISM IS NOT OUR JOB. WE HEARD FROM MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET TONIGHT THAT OUR OWN LIBRARY POLICY STATES WE CAN NOT REMOVE WORK SOLELY BECAUSE OF FRANKNESS OF EXPRESSION, CURRENT SOCIAL POLICY, DEPICTION OF A PARTICULAR LIFESTYLE OR BECAUSE THE CONTENT MAY BE DEEMED CONTROVERSIAL, UNORTHODOX OR [01:50:02] UNACCEPTABLE TO OTHERS. SOMETIMES THE TRUTH HURTS. AND IT HURTS TO KNO OUR COUNTRY HAS A RACIST HISTORY. MOVING ASIDE OUR PAINFUL HISTORY BECAUSE IT HURTS TOO MUCH, OR BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSITIVE, IS NOT AN EXCUSE, IT'S ONLY EXPEDIENT. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, TOO, I FULLY SUPPORT ROWLETT POLICE. THEY'RE AN EXCEPTIONAL GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO SERVE AND PROTECT US EVERY SINGLE DAY. I FULLY SUPPORTED HIRING MORE OFFICERS AND SUPPORTED A 9% SALARY INCREASE FOR OFFICERS THIS YEAR ALONE AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT EFFORTS TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. BUT, TO TRY AND HIDE OUR COUNTRY'S DARK HISTORY WITH REGARDS TO PEOPLE IS NOT JUST WRONG, IT'S SHAMEFUL. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE TO SAY. SO, I THINK WE KNOW NOW, STAFF, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE A DIRECTION THAT THIS MOVIE WILL NOT BE PULLED AND WILL BE DISPLAYED AT THE LIBRARY ON NOVEMBER 3RD AT 7:00 P.M. I'LL SEE YOU THERE. THANK YOU. >> WE'LL NOW MOVE ONTO OUR REGULAR MEETING. >> GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE CAN TAKE FIVE MINUTES. ALL * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.