Dec 06, 2022 City Council Work Session

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, IT IS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6TH, AT 5:33 P.M., AND WE'RE 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 ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN. THE INFORMATION ON PROVIDING PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE MEETING CAN BE FOUND ON THE POSTED AGENDA ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE OR HERE AT CITY HALL.

RARITY, SO, WE'RE CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER. THERE ARE NO

[3A. Present and discuss an update to the drainage utility fee based on impervious area for residential and nonresidential metered accounts. (45 minutes)]

METERED ACCOUNTS. >> DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON

THIS ITEM? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT.

>> GOOD EVENING. WE ARE, YES, HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT AMENDING THE DRAINAGE UTILITY ORDINANCE AND THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

I'M JEFF COHEN, THE INTERIM DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING. AND WITH ME IS OUR CONSULTANT ON THIS TASK. SO, IT'S BEEN AWHILE SINCE WE, AS AN ORGANIZATION HAVE EVEN REALLY ADDRESSED STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE FEES. LET ME BEGIN WITH A LITTLE BACKGROUND, A DRAINAGE UTILITY IS A LEGAL MECHENISM THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE STATE TO MUNICIPALITIES SO THAT THEY COULD ASSESS FEES THAT COVER THE COST OF THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES THAT THEY PROVIDE WITHIN THEIR (INDISCERNIBLE) THE CITY ESTABLISHED A DRAINAGE UTILITY BACK IN 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THE ROWLETT CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 7 ARTICLE 4, DRAIN DRAINAGE UTILITY. IS WHERE THE RULES OF OUR DRAINAGE UTILITY RESIDE IN OUR CODE. THAT ORDINANCE INCLUDES A FEE SCHEDULE, WHICH, AT THE PRESENT TIME THE RATES ARE FLAT. AND, UM, THERE ARE NO EXEMPTIONS WHICH WERE SPECIFIED IN THAT ORDINANCE. SO, BASED ON UTILITY BILLING RECORDS, UM, WE SEE THAT THE DRAINAGE UTILITY FEES CURRENTLY GENERATE ABOUT $1.5 MILLION ANNUALLY. AND THE DRAINAGE UTILITY SUPPORTS SEVERAL STORM WATER RELATED PROGRAMS, WHICH INCLUDE STAFF AND SUPPLIES, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, AND, OF COURSE, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. THEY ALSO OUR EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MS 4, THAT'S A MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SYSTEM RULES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE A PERMIT TO DISCHARGE OUR STORM WATER AND WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT PERMIT. AND IT HELPS TO COVER DEBT SERVICE AND OTHER SIMILAR THINGS. UM, GROESHGS, THE RECENTLY ADOPTED BUDGET INCLUDES $4.2 MILLION IN STORM WATER PROJECTS WHICH INCLUDE AN UPDATE TO THE DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN, SOME STABILIZATION PROJECTS AND A CHANNEL RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT. RIGHT NOW, THOSE ARE PLANNED TO BE FUNDED BY CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION.

BUT, WE COULD OFF SET THAT COST BY MODIFYING OUR DRAINAGE UTILITY FEES. SO, THE CITY, AS I MENTIONED, WE'VE ENGAGEDERIES AND NICKLES TO STUDY THE DRAINAGE UTILITY ORDINANCE AND TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IF ANY THAT WOULD BETTER ALIGN THE ORDINANCE WITH CURRENT TLGS, SEX SEX LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE RULES AND REQUIREMENTS, AND TO ADJUST THE FEE STRUCTURE TO BETTER REPRESENT THE TRUE COST OF THIS SERVICE. THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODES REQUIRES THE DRAINAGE UTILITY FEES CLASSIFY IN A NONDISCRIMINATORY AND FEASIBLE MANNER. AND MODIFIES

[00:05:02]

THIS WOULD APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

AND AS I'VE MENTIONED, THESE ARE FLAT RATES, SO FOR OUR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THEY'RE CHARGED RIGHT NOW AT $5.50 PER MONTH AND NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE CHARGED $13.50 A MONTH PER DRAINAGE. THOSE TWO CLASSES PAY THE SAME FEE FOR WHAT AMOUNTS TO VARYING LEVELS OF THIS SERVICE SO, FOR RESIDENTIAL USERS THAT DOESN'T TRANSLATE TO A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE USERS, BUT, FOR, NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS, THAT'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, FOR EXAMPLE, LARGE BOX STORES AND STRIP CENTERS, YOU COULD PICTURE, A WALMART WITH A LARGE PARKING LOTS, THEY GENERATE A LOT MORE STORM WATER THAN THE SMALL DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS AND SPECIAL RETAIL SHOPS WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AN IMPERVIOUS AREA BASIS IS ANOTHER WAY OF ASSESSING FEES. IF WE ASSESS THE FEES ON THAT BASIS, EACH IT PROPERTY THAT FEE WOULD BETTER FORM THE LOAD FOR THAT PROPERTY. AN IMPERVIOUS AREA IS A SURFACE WHICH HAS BEEN ALTERED FROM IT'S NATURAL STATE WITH HARD MATERIALS LIKE DRIVE WAYS, ROOF TOPS, PATIOS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THESE DON'T ALLOW STORM WATER TO INFILTRATE THROUGH THE GROUND AND IT INCREASES AND GOES TO OUR MUNICIPAL STORM SYSTEM.

IMPERVIOUS AREA ARE THEREFORE A GOOD MEASURE OF A PROPERTY'S USE OF THE STORM WATER SYSTEM, AND THEREFORE, ARE AN EFFECTIVE MEANS OF EQUALIZING THE BURDEN OF COST TO THE DRAINAGE UTILITY USERS. SO, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AN IMPERVIOUS AREA, THAT BECOMES THE BASIS, HOW DO WE DETERMINE THAT? THERE ARE MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES THAT WE HAVE WITHIN OUR CITY THAT WE GENERATE AS A MEANS OF DOING OUR BUSINESS THAT CAN ALSO HELP US ESTABLISH THE IMPERVIOUS AREA AND THE DRAINAGE UTILITY CHARGES. THESE ARE THINGS LIKE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, THE GRS PARCEL DATA, THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCEL DATA AND OUR UTILITY BILLING DATA BASES. FREESS AND NICKICALS DETERMINED THE IMPERVIOUS AREA AREAS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THAT VALUE TURNED OUT TO BE 4,000 SQUARE FEET AND IT REPRESENTS ONE ERU. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT, AN EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT WHICH IS THE BASIS OF OF THE PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE. THE OTHER THING THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, THOUGH, IS THE COST OF THE SERVICE ITSELF, UM, WE AND FREESE AND NICKLES AND OF COURSE, STORM WATER CAPITAL PROJECTS. THE ANNUAL COST RIGHT NOW IS SYMPTOMED TO BE ABOUT $2.1 MILLION. FREESE AND NICKLES TO MAKE IMPERVIOUS AREA BASIS, FREESE AND NICKLES DEVELOPED AND CARRIED OUT A PROCESS BY CLASSIFYING EACH TYPE AND CALCULATED THE IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR EACH PARCEL AND REVIEWED THE DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTIES TO EVALUATE THE FEE

[00:10:03]

THESE ARE PROPERTIES WITH PROPER CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF A WHOLLY SUFFICIENT AND PRIVATELY OWNED DRAINAGE SYSTEM, PROPERTIES THAT ARE HELD IN IT'S NATURAL STATE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED AND ALL OF THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE IS ACCEPTED FOR MAINTENANCE BY THE CITY, AND, A SUBDIVIDED LOT UNTIL THAT -- UNTIL A STRUCTURE HAS BEEN BUILT ON THAT LOT AND A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS ISSUED BY THE CITY IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. AND, STATE PROPERTY, AND PROPERTY OWNED BY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER ON THE DAY INDICATION. SO, THOSE ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXEMPT FROM A DRAINAGE UTILITY FEE. NOW, THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ALLOWS FOR EXCEPTION OF THE FEES WHICH WOULD BE COUNTY PROPERTIES, SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTIES, PROPERTIES OWNED BY A TAX EXEMPT AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND PROPERTIES USED FOR CEMETERY SERVICES WHEN THE CEMETERY IS CLOSED AND DOES NOT ACCEPT NEW BURIALS. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WE'VE PUT FORWARD NOW INCORPORATES THOSE EXEMPTIONS REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AT THIS TIME WE'RE NOT PROPOSING EXEMPTING ANY PROPERTIES NOT

[00:15:05]

AND, A NOTICE WAS IN IT'S COMPLETE FORM WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS ON NOVEMBER 13TH, ON NOVEMBER 25TH, AND AGAIN ON DECEMBER 4TH. ALSO, THOUGH IT'S NOT REQUIRED, WE DID POST THAT NOTICE ON THE CITY'S PUBLIC BULLITIN BORED AS WELL. AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 13TH AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. NOW, LET'S DISCUSS THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THIS RATE CHANGE. SO, A RATE OF $5.50 PER ERU, PER MONTH IS PROPOSED, THAT RATE WILL KEEP THE FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL USERS AT THE SAME LEVEL THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY BEING BILLED. NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WILL BE ASSESSED A FEE BASED ON THE ERU RATE MULTIPLED BY THE NUMBER OF ERUS ASSESSED TO THAT PROPERTY. THE CURRENT FLAT RATE GENERATE ABOUT 1.5, YOU COULD SEE THERE, $1,476,096. THAT'S THE CURRENT ANNUAL REVENUE THAT WE ARE GETTING FROM THE DRAINAGE UTILITY FEES. IF WE CHANGED THE FEE STRUCTURE, WE COULD WE ESTIMATE TO GENERATE ABOUT 1.8-$1.9 MILLION. THAT IS A CHANGE OF ABOUT $390,000, OR 26.7% INCREASE. RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WILL CONTINUE TO PAY THE SAME. BUT, NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WILL SEE AN INCREASE REPRESENTING THEIR BURDEN ON THE CITY'S DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PORTION OF ANNUAL REVENUE FUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, IF WE INSTITUTE THOSE CHANGES DROPS FROM 91.1%, TO 72.5%. WHILE, THE PORTION FUNDED BY NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS INCREASES FROM ABOUT 8.9% TO A FULL 27.5%. IF THE FEE STRUCTURE WERE TO REMAIN REVENUE NEUTRAL, WE COULD DROP THE ERU RATE PER MONTH TO $4.38 AND THE FEE BILLED TO RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WOULD DROP TO THAT RATE AS WELL. NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WOULD STILL SEE AN INCREASE IN THE FEE, BUT NOT AS MUCH AS IN THIS TABLE HERE. UM, NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE NUMBER OF ERUS, THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA IN THE CITY DOESN'T CHANGE, SO, THEREFORE THE PROPORTIONS OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE THAT IS COLLECTED STILL REMAIN THE SAME WHICH ARE, AS I 91 DOWN TO 72 AND ALMOST 9% TO 27.5%. SO, THOSE DON'T CHANGE, BUT, THE AMOUNT OF THE REVENUE, OF COURSE, STAYS THE SAME. IF THE FEES ARE KEPT REVENUE NEUTRAL, WE'RE GOING TO COLLECT, $1.8 MILLION AND THAT WOULD REPRESENT LESS FUNDS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND ON STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE. THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT WE WOULD SEE IF WE CHANGED THE FEE STRUCTURE, THAT ALMOST $400,000 COULD BE USED TO OFF SET SOME OF OUR OVERHEAD COSTS LIKE THE STAFF SALARIES, THE TRAINING, THE COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE, GIS DATA MANAGEMENT AND THE MS 4 COMPLIANCE AND OTHER THINGS. WE'VE ESTIMATED

[00:20:04]

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL? >> WHAT'S OUR CURRENT DELTA FROM WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY TAKING IN IN FEE BASE AS TO WHAT WE'RE

SPENDING, WHAT'S THAT DELTA? >> 2.1 AND 1.5, SO, THAT'S .6.

>> JEFF, CAN YOU GO BACK TWO SLIDES IF YOU DON'T MIND?

>> TWO SLIDES? >> YES.

>> OOPS. >> SO, YOUR LAST, ACTUALLY, I GUESS, THE SECOND BULLET POINT, THE $390,000 THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 1.27, AND THE 1.25? AND YOU'RE SAYING AN

OVERHEAD. >> I'M SAYING WITH THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE, IT WILL COVER MOST OF THOSE COSTS, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT CAN ONLY BE SPENT ON THAT.

>> THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE YOU STARTED THE CONVERSATION AND SAYING THAT WE HAVE PROJECTS COMING UP. I WANT TO BE SURE TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME GOAL WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE

PROJECTS. >> IF I CAN, JEFF, TOO, IF, SO, ANOTHER POSSIBILITY IS USE THESE FUNDS BY ISSUING A CO, BUT, THE GOOD NEWS IS, I THINK IN ABOUT TWO YEARS, THE BONDS THAT WE ISSUED FOR DRAINAGE PROJECTS IN 2004 OR 2005 ARE PAID OFF, AND THEN THAT FREES UP ANOTHER $360,000 A YEAR TO BOND ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROJECTS. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S, THOSE ARE GOOD, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WITH THIS, WE'RE STILL NOT GOING TO MEET ALL OF OUR NEEDS, BUT, IT'S A MAJOR

STEP FORWARD. >> IN REGARDS TO THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THINGS, YOU MENTIONED THE NET REVENUE FROM BOTH IS PRACTICALLY THE SAME. SO, WE'RE NOT REDOOING THE CALCULATION ON INDIVIDUAL HOMES? WE'RE KEEPING EACH HOME AT

$5.50? >> THAT'S THE PROPOSED.

>> ARE THERE ANY ALLOWANCES FOR PROPERTIES WHO HAVE A RETENTION POND? DESIGNED FOR THE STORM WATER TO BE ABSORBED BY THE

GROUND? >> IF IT IS DESIGNED TO REALLY DO THAT, RECHARGE THAT IS SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING AT.

THERE IS IN THE ORDINANCE, AS REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE CREDITS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED, ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IF SOMEBODY CAN APPLY FOR THAT, AND WE HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE, EXCUSE ME, OUR PROPOSED ORDINANCE, SOME, ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT'S NOT IN THEIR RIGHT NOW THAT BASICALLY SPECIFIES THAT PEOPLE CAN APPLY FOR A CREDIT. AND THAT BUT WE KEPT IT VAGUE FOR THAT VERY REASON BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THESE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. NORMALLY, A DETENTION POND IS NOT NECESSARILY DESIGNED TO, UM, ENCOURAGE AND PROMOTE INFILTRATION. IT MIGHT BE A SIDE FACTOR, A SIDE BENEFIT, UM, BUT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE DETENTION POND AND IF IT'S A DETENTION POND ON THE NOT A RETENTION POND WILL GENERALLY DISCHARGE, ALTHOUGH, IN A SLOWER MANNER, IT WILL STILL DISCHARGE AT THE SAME VOLUME, AND SO, IT

MAY NOT WARRANT A CREDIT. >> JEFF, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, LET ME, MAKE IT REALLY SIMPLE. IF THE ON-SITE DRAINAGE FACILITY IS WHOLLY SUFFICIENT, WE CAN NOT CHARGE THEM A FEE.

PERIOD. >> THAT'S TRUE TOO.

>> AND THEN, JUST ONE MORE AND THIS IS LESS OF A QUESTION AND MORE OF A COMMENT, I GUESS, UM, THE DELTA, AS YOU SAID, BETWEEN THE CHURCH REVENUE IS ABOUT SEVEN TIMES HIGHER THAN WHAT WE'RE BRINGING IN TODAY. SO, IF A CHURCH CURRENTLY IS PAYING THE $13.50 AS A COMMERCIAL ENTITY, HAVING TO PAY SEVEN TIMES THAT, WHICH IS ALMOST $100 IS A BIG JUMP AND THAT'S A MONTHLY FEE

[00:25:01]

>> WELL, JEFF, AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY OR NOT THAT THE NUMBER OF ERUS ASSIGNED TO EACH CUSTOMER WOULD BE BASED ON A MEASUREMENT OF THAT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY?

>> NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, YES.

>> RIGHT. SO, NOT EVERY CHURCH.

>> NOT EVERY CHURCH. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> YEAH. I UNDERSTAND. >> AND SORT OF RELATED TO JEFF'S QUESTION, A QUESTION FROM SOMEONE NO ONE WOULD THINK OF THIS, BUT, SOMEONE WHO IS ON A LAKE, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ON THE LAKE, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT, I KNOW, LIKE, THE RUNOFF FROM MY PATIO IS BIG IMPERVIOUS AREA IN THE BACK OF MY AREA, BUT IT ALL GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE LAKE RATHERTHAN INTO THE CITY'S STORM SYSTEM, SO THAT WOULD BE

PART OF THIS CASE-BY-CASE? >> I WOULD CONSIDER, IF THEIR PROPERTY DRAINED COMPLETELY TO THE LAKE, AND NOT USING OUR SYSTEMS, THEN, YES, WE CAN NOT CHARGE THEM.

>> SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR THAT?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY FOR ANYTHING, BUT, WE COULD NOT CHARGE THEM A FEE. THAT WOULD BE THE DEFINITION OF A WHOLLY OWNED AND SUFFICIENTLY PRIVATE DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

>> THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN, I'M GLAD TO SEE THE RESIDENTIAL WILL STAY FLAT, I THINK THAT'S A BIG WIN. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE NON-RESIDENTIAL AND SPECIFICALLY THE CHURCHING AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR EXEMPTIONS, BUT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM STAY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING. BECAUSE, WHAT THEY TAKE IN IS TO OPERATE, THEY'RE NOT MAKING ANY PROFIT WHATSOEVER. I GUESS MY QUESTION I DID HAVE IS THAT DID WE LOOK AT OTHER CITIES IN THE METROPLEX WHICH ARE THE SAME SIZE AND

SCOPE AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING? >> I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES, LATELY, WHEN I FIRSTED PICKED THIS UP A FEW YEARS AGO,

I STARTED TO DO THAT, BUT, NO. >> HOW CERTAINLY IS THE $1.5 MILLION ANNUAL COST FOR OUR DRAINAGE FUNCTION?

>> WE BASED THAT ON SOME OF THE DATA THAT WE COLLECTED FOR SOME OF THE OVERHEAD STUFF. UM, THAT DIDN'T QUITE COME OUT TO BE $500,000, BUT IT WAS CLOSE, AND IT WAS A LITTLE LESS THE DATA'S A LITTLE BIT OLD, SO, I PUT A CONTINGENCY FACTOR ON THAT. AND THEN, THE OTHER COMPONENT OF THAT, IS THE ANNUAL BUDGET. SO, I JUST WENT TO THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND LOOKED AT WHAT WE WERE SPENDING ON CAPITAL AND MAINTENANCE, WHICH WAS ABOUT SEVEN SOMETHING, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER AND I DIVIDED EVEN EVENLY. I THINK THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES OCCURRED IN 2027, THAT'S HOW THE BUDGET WOUND UP, BUT, IT DOESN'T MATTER, I MEAN, YOU STILL HAVE TO COLLECT THAT MONEY AND STOCK IT AWAY. SO, I DIVIDED EVERYTHING BY THE NUMBER OF

YEARS AND CAME UP WITH 2.1. >> ON THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS IMPROVING REPAIRING EXISTING UPGRADING EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS NEW INFRASTRUCTURE TO KEEP UP

WITH INCREASED STORM WATER? >> I WOULD HAVE TO SAY ZERO.

UM, THE PROJECT, OTHER THAN THAT THE DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN, BECAUSE, I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MUCH THAT IS. I DON'T HAVE

THOSE FIGURES IN FRONT OF ME. >> YEAH.

>> I KNOW THAT THE CAPITAL BUDGET IS ABOUT 4.SOMETHING MILLION DOLLAR, AND THE MAINTENANCE IS 3.9 -- 8 OR

$9 MILLION. >> RIGHT?

>> AND, I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH THE MAINTENANCE STUFF, THAT'S KIND OF PUBLIC WORKS' DOMAIN, BUT, THE CAPITAL, THE FOUR CAPITAL PROJECTS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE MASTER PLAN, THE OTHERS ARE WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BANK STABILIZATION, THAT'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AS WELL AS CHANNEL RECONSTRUCTION. SO,

AGAIN, EXISTING. >> EXISTING.

>> MOST OF MOST OF THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE THAT GETS BUILT

IS BUILT BY DEVELOPERS. >> SO, THIS IS A FANTASTIC WAY TO START LOOKING AT STORM WATER, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST THE SAME WAY YOU LOOK AT WATER USE, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER YOUR HIGHEST WATER USERS ARE NEED TO BE PAYING THE MOST FOR THAT WATER, IT INCENTIVIZES

[00:30:06]

BECAUSE WHAT COULD REALLY MAKE THIS DYNAMIC IS THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION OF WHY YOU LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THIS IS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO INCENTIVIZE BEHAVIOR. YOU WANT TO INCENTIVIZE LESS LARGE PARKING LOTS, WE DON'T NEED TO BUILD PARKING LOTS FOR BLACK FRIDAY ANYMORE, BECAUSE BLACK FRIDAY IS NOT WHAT IT USED TO BE. THOSE PARKING LOTS ARE NEVER FULL.

SO, USING THIS AS INCENTIVES TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY GET REDUCTIONS IN IMPERVIOUS AREAS TO BE ABLE TO COST THEM LESS ON A MONTH TO MONTH BASIS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MODEL WHERE, IF YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD THAT WAY, AND YOU'RE GOING TO DO ABSOLUTE MINIMUM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, THAT YOU'RE PAYING MAY BE DOUBLE WHAT YOUR SQUARE SURFACE IS. AND THEN, YOU HAVE MAY BE THEY WANT TO USE THINGS LIKE BOTTLE SALES AND THEY LOOK FOR PARKING REDUCTION INCENTIVE AND THEY'RE GETTING CLOSER TO THE 100%, AND THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO GET TO THE 100% ON-SITE BUT THEY'RE GETTING CLOSE, THEY MAY BE ABLE TO CUT THAT NUMBER IN HALF. TO ME, THIS SHOULDN'T BE A MODEL TO SHOW HOW WE MAKE UP OUR REVENUE, WHAT THIS IS IS THAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TAKE CARE OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND REPLACE OLD INFRASTRUCTURE AND KEEP UP WITH THAT MAINTENANCE, 100% AGREE WITH THAT, THAT NEEDS TO COME OUT OF OUR NORMAL BUDGET. BUT, IN TERMS OF BUILDING NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, AND WE HAVE DEVELOPERS THAT COME UP AND IF THEY'RE HAVING TO BUILD NEW INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR INCENTIVES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE'RE HAVING TO PROBABLY INCREASE DIAMETER SIZE WHEN WE DO REPAIRS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HIT NEW VOLUME, WE COULD SAVE COST IF WE DIDN'T HAVE AS MUCH, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO TAKE THAT PIPE FROM A 30-INCH PIPE TO A 40-INCH PIPE TO ACCOUNT FOR UPFLOW. IN PHILADELPHIA DID A VERY, VERY, GOOD JOB, AND THERE'S A LEADING EXAMPLE IN THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE AN OLDER CITY, THEY HAVE WHAT'S CALLED COMBINED STORM SEWER, WHICH MEANS THEY'RE STORM SEWER AND SEWER ARE COMBINED. LUCKILY WHEN WE STARTED TO DEVELOP IN TEXAS, WE ISN'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM. BUT, THEY HAD A BIG PROBLEM, WHERE EVERY TIME IS FLOODED AND EVERYDAY THEY HAD A HARD RAIN, EVERYBODY'S SEWERS OVERFLOWED. IT WAS A $40 BILLION PROJECT. THEY INCENTIVIZED LESS IMPERVIOUS AREA AND MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO MEET THOSE STORM WATER NEEDS OVER 15 YEARS PLUS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, I REALLY, STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT WE GO BACK AND REALLY NOT LOOK AT THIS AS A PURE REVENU STANDPOINT BUT LOOK AT IT AS HOW DO WE GET DEVELOPERS TO BUILD BETTER DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR CITY? HOW DO WE GET THEM TO INCENTIVIZE THEM IN MORE LANDSCAPING OR MORE TREE COVERING, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A MODEL WHERE IF THEY ACHIEVED 50% TREE CANOPY COVER AND THEY MET SPECIFICATIONS TO KNOW THOSE TREES WILL MEET THE MAXIMUM SIZE THAT THEY COULD SEE A REDUCTION ON WHAT STORM WATER MODELLING WOULD BE. THAT'S AN EXTRA COST OBJN THE DEVELOPER T GET THAT, BUT, THE OFF SIDE IS THEY DON'T GET THAT, ESPECIALLY IN A RAIN EVENT WHICH OVERWHELMS OUR STORM SEWERS AND LEAD TO THOSE PROBLEMS, THAT'S WHERE TREES COULD BE A BIG ADVANTAGE.

THAT'S WHERE THESE THINGS CAN HAVE A HUGE IMPACT, USUALLY THE TYPES OF RAINS THAT WE HAVE HERE TO OVERFLOW IS THE FIRST FIVE MINUTES OF THE RAIN. AFTER THAT, THE SYSTEM CAN KEEP UP WITH IT. SO, HOW DO WE LOOK AT BEING ABLE TO DO THAT AND INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPERS TO DO THAT. IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, FINE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO IT, BUT, THEN, YOU SHOULDN'T BE PAYING WHATEVER YOUR ERU IS YOU SHOULD BE PAYING DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THAT ERU, WHAT ARE IT IS SO INCENTIVIZE THAT BEHAVIOR. SO, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY, REALLY GOOD START. AND A GREAT WAY TO LOOK AT IT, I THINK THAT I WOULD CHALLENGE US TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND TIE IT IN WITH THE NEW TREE

[00:35:04]

SO, THIS HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ON THE LEADING EDGE OF HOW TO DO THIS TO BE ABLE TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THE BEST DEVELOPERS AND THE BEST DEVELOPMENTS BEING DONE. I'M NOT SAYING WHAT YOU SHOULD BUILD BUT IF YOU'RE BUILDING SOMETHING THAT'S STRAINING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE THEN YOU HAVE TO PAY MORE THAN THE GUY THAT'S COMING IN AND INVEST MORE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. I'M EXCITED TO BE HERE AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR A LONG TIME AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK IT'S A GREAT START, BUT, I THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK AND SEE HOW TO TAKE IT

TOTED NEXT LEVEL. >> ONE COMMENT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS IN TERMS OF THE MODEL OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE WAY THIS IS BUILT, WE DO NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. THE OFFSET OF THAT OR THE OFFSHOOT OF THAT IS THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WE COULD DO TO HOPEFULLY CORRECT BEHAVIOR OR INCENTIVIZE BEHAVIOR IN THE FUTURE FOR PROJECTS, WHETHER IT IMPOSE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OR LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OR WHATEVER, THOSE COME AFTER THIS. BUT, THIS NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD IF WE CAN.

>> SO, I THINK I AGREE WITH MOST EVERYTHING THAT MATT SAID, BUT, IT WAS SO LONG, I CAN'T REMEMBER.

>> THAT WAS LONGER THAN YOU. >> AND THE ONE THING THAT I DO DISAGREE WITH IS THAT I DO THINK WE DO NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE REVENUE ASPECT, BECAUSE, WHAT I'M SEEING RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE PROVIDING A SERVICE FOR CUSTOMERS AND CITIZENS AND NOT CHARGING THEM FOR THAT SERVICE. WE HAVE A SHORT FALL OF $23,000 A YEAR, UNDER THE PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE, IT WOULD BE $244,000 SHORT FALL STILL, IF WE MADE THE CHANGE FOR CHURCHES, STICK WITH WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE, WE WOULD GO TO A $76,000 SHORTFALL, SIMPLE MATH TELLS ME THAT FOR $0.09 MORE PER UNIT WE CAN COVER ALL OF OUR COST IF OUR COST IS TRULY $2.1 MILLION AND I WOULD SUGGEST WE LOOK AT THAT. BECAUSE, ANYTHING THAT WE'RE NOT COVERING WITH THESE FEES THAT WE'RE PROVIDING THE SERVICE FOR, WE'RE FUNDING OUT OF WHAT? OUT OF PROPERTY TAX OR SALES TAX REVENUE, WE'RE CHARGING THEM ANYWAY BUT NOT PROVIDING THAT ECONOMIC INCENTIVE, WE SHOULD CHARGE FOR THE SERVICE AND THE MARKET WILL DETERMINE, IF WALMART WANTS TO BUILD A PARKING LOT WITH 2,000 CARS AND STACK IT VERTICALLY AND PUT TREES AROUND

IT, THAT'S INCENTIVE TO DO SO. >> AND BRIAN, I HEAR THAT WE NEED TO MOVE IT FORWARD, AND I'M FINE APPROVING THE BASE MYTHOLOGY FOR IT, BUT IF I'M APPROVING THE STRAIGHT $5.50

BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> WHAT IS THE TIME?

>> SO, WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?

>> I'VE ALREADY ISSUED THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES, WHICH I

THINK IS A BIG PART OF THAT. >> SO, WE WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, WHICH, IS NEXT TUESDAY NIGHT.

AND THEN, AGAIN. >> WELL, THEN, WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE WE ISSUED THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES.

>> DONE WHAT? >> HAD THIS DISCUSSION.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND NOW WE'RE BEING RUSHED BECAUSE WE

GOT AHEAD OF OURSELVES. >> NO, THE PUBLIC HEAR SOMETHING A REQUIREMENT, OBVIOUSLY, TO MAKE THE CHANGES, BUT, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO ADOPT THIS YET.

>> OKAY. >> BASED ON THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND YOU CAN CHALLENGE STAFF TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT SOME SPECIFICS. I GUESS, MY POINT WAS WE DO NEED TO MOVE FORWARD

WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> ESSENTIALLY, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SAYING WE'RE GOING FROM A METER-BASE TO AN IMPERVIOUS BASED SYSTEM WITH GENERAL PARAMETERS WHICH COULD

CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. >> THAT I'M 100% IN AGREEMENT

WITH. >> SO, IF WE MAKE CHANGES IN THIS PROPOSAL, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING

PROCESS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS MADE. THE CREDIT SYSTEM THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE, WOULD GO A LOT TOWARDS WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF INCENTIVIZING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, IF THEY SHOWED THROUGH A DETENTION POND THAT CHARGES GROUND WATER, THOSE

[00:40:01]

>> SO, WE'LL WORK OUT THOSE DETAILS ONCE WE GET THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AND MAKE THOSE OFFICIAL AND MOVE QUICKLY TO FIGURE OUT THE TIERS AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING?

>> SO, I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WERE YOUR COMING FROM, BECAUSE WE COULD BUILD AN A LA CARTE MENU TO TIE INTO THIS FROM THE PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE INTRODUCING WITH ROWLETT AS WELL AS THE TREE MITIGATION ORDINANCE WHICH IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.

SO, IT WILL CONNECT BUT NOT IMMEDIATELY, AND YOU COULD BUILD THAT A LA CARTE MENU THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>> THERE'S EXPERIENCE WITH FRISCO.

>> YOUR POINTS ARE VERY WELL SAID. FRISCO AND FORT WORTH ALSO HAVE DONE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

INHERENTLY ON THE FACE, SHIFTING TO AN IMPERVIOUS AREA BASIS IS A BUILT-IN INCENTIVE TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF PAVED SURFACE YOU HAVE AND THAT MINIMIZING YOUR FEE. ON TOP OF THAT, WHAT FRISCO DID IS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF (INDISCERNIBLE) PROVIDING PERCENTAGE OFFSET IF YOU HAVE RETENTION PONDS OR (INDISCERNIBLE) OR, CERTAIN TYPES OF LID, LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT THAT MINIMIZING THE IMPACTS. AND MINIMIZES THE AMOUNT OF STORM RUNOFF AND IMPROVES OR PROTECTS WATER QUALITY AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT APPROACHES AND DOING THOSE IN CONCERT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS REALLY THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT. SO, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OFTEN IS DONE, THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IS THAT IT PROVIDES A CASE BY CASE, OR SET UP FOR EXEMPTIONS AS ARE APPLIED FOR IN DEVELOPED STANDARDS FOR THAT TO SEE THESE ARE POLICY STANDARDS FOR WHATEVER CREDITS THAT WE

PROVIDE. >> AND, ONE OTHER THING WITH THAT, IS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT THAT FRISCO IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS, ANYTHING THAT OFFSETS THE COST OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT TO THE CITY, YOU COULD CONSIDER AS A FEE OFFSET.

WHERE FRISCO HAD THE EXAMPLE THAT IF A PROPERTY WOULD TAKE ON AND ADOPT A STREAM SEGMENT, RIGHT, THAT HELPS FOR COMPLIANCE COST TO SHOW AS THE BEST PRACTICES, SO THEY ARE PROVIDED A FEE CREDIT FOR DOING THAT AS WELL. YOU COULD BE CREATIVE TO HELP DRIVE THAT INCENTIVE THAT WAY.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: GOOD CONVERSATION. ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? >> I THINK THEY HAVE, BRING UP THE NEXT SLIDE, IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION ON HERE?

>> NO, JUST DIRECTION. >> OKAY.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK I GOT IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[3B. Discuss the City Manager executive recruitment and agreement with Strategic Government Resources (SGR). (25 minutes)]

>> . >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT THE CITY MANAGER EXECUTIVE RECRUITMENT AND AGREEMENT WITH STRATEGIC GOVERNMENT RESOURCES (SGR). DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?

>> ALL RIGHT. >> SO, WHAT'S GOING ON? IS

SOMEBODY LEAVING? >> .

[LAUGHTER] >> COMPLIANCE.

>> STARTED ALREADY. [LAUGHTER]

>> SO, LET ME GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE LARRY, HE'S A SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT OF EXECUTIVE RECRUITING AND WORKS FOR SGR AND HAS FOR FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, HE HAS 38 YEARS OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE AND HE COMES TO US WELL-SUITED TO HELP US IN THIS PARTICULAR ENDEAVOR. NOT GOING TO STEAL ALL OF HIS THUNDER, SO, WITH THAT, I'LL LET HIM TAKE OVER AND THERE'S A VERY SHORT POWERPOINT AND HE'LL OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS SO THAT WE COULD TALK THROUGH ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO.

>> GREAT. >> I THINK THAT'S THE DRIVER,

RIGHT? >> ALL RIGHT.

>> WELL, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR GIVING US THIS OPPORTUNITY. I PRESENT TO YOU TONIGHT AS RICHARD SAID, I'M LARRY GILLY AND BEEN WITH SGI A LITTLE OVER SIX YEARS, BUT, PRIOR TO THAT, I WAS CITY MANAGER FOR 38 YEARS, ALL OF

[00:45:03]

REALLY HELPS US. >> WE ALSO VET THE CANDIDATES,

[00:50:04]

WE WANT THEM TO UNDERSTAND THE ORGANIZATION AND THE IT GOOD AND THE ABOUT, THE CHALLENGES THEY WILL DEAL WITH AND THE OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE ORGANIZATION. WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH OUR CANDIDATES MAKING SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND, NOT ONLY THE PROCESS, BUT, THE COMMUNITY. AND FINALLY, WE WANT THE PROCESS TO BE SMOOTH. AND AS SEAMLESS AS POSSIBLE, FOR YOU AS THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALSO FOR THE CLIENT. AND WE EXPECT AND GET FEEDBACK ON THE PROCESS REGULARLY SO WE FINE TUNE IT IN A WAY THAT HELPS ALL OF US ACHIEVE THE BEST POSSIBLE

RESULTS. >> SO, MARKETING IS A VERY, VERY, IMPORTANT PART OF THIS PROCESS. WHAT WE'RE FINDING NOW THAT 54% OF THE JOB SEEKERS USE ACTUALLY, MORE THAN THAT, BUT, 54% OF THE RECRUITMENT BUSINESS IS USING SOCIAL MEDIA NOW. OVER 70% OF THE JOB SEEKERS USE SOCIAL MEDIA WHEN LOOKING FOR A JOB. WE RELY HEAVILY ON SOCIAL MEDIA SUCH AS LINKEDIN, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT RESOURCE TO GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT YOUR POSITION, AND WE USE FACEBOOK, TWITTER, INSTAGRAM, THOSE TYPICAL SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT ABOUT THIS POSITION MUCH ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO, I LIKE TO THINK IT'S A BIT UNIQUE TO SGRS APPROACH TO THIS, IS WE REALLY FOCUS ON PASSIVE CANDIDATES AS WELL. THOSE ARE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T PARTICULARLY LOOKING FOR A JOB RIGHT NOW, BUT, WE BELIEVE THEY MAY BE A GOOD FIT FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT. SO, WE WILL REACH OUT TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS, AND TELL THEM ABOUT THE POSITION AND THE JOB OPENING AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO APPLY FOR THE JOB. BUT, WE DO A LOT OF MARKETING ON YOUR BEHALF. I'M SURE, YOU'VE SEEN A SAMPLE OF THE BROCHURES THAT WE CREATE. I THINK THE ONE IN YOUR PROPOSAL WAS THE CITY OF (INDISCERNIBLE) WHICH WAS A FAIRLY RECENT SEARCH THAT I DID FOR THE CITY MANAGER. SO, WE PRODUCE A HIGH-QUALITY RECRUITING BROCHURE, WE USE THAT FOR OUR MARKETING, WE HAVE SOME MARKETING EXPERTS ON OUR STAFF THAT REALLY KNOW HOW TO REACH OUT TO POTENTIAL CLIENTS. WE HAVE A VERY LARGE DATA BASE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THESE TYPES OF OPPORTUNITIES. SO, WHY SGR? WELL, I'VE SAID WE'RE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT OPERATION. ALL OF OUR RECRUITERS HAVE PAST EXPERIENCE IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE A NEWS LETTER, I HOPE THAT YOU'VE TEN OUR TEN IN 10 UPDATE THAT COMES OUT ON TUESDAYS, WE HAVE 45,000 SUBSCRIBERS TO THAT WEEKLY UPDATE AND YOUR POSITION WOULD BE ADVERTISED IN THAT FORUM. AND WE HAVE A DATABASE OF PEOPLE

[00:55:05]

SO, YOU'LL REACH OUT TO ALL OF THEM. AND FINALLY, I WOULD NOTE THAT WE PURSUE A VERY DIVERSE CANDIDATE POOL, I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT WE HAVE PARTNERSHIPS WITH ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT, HISPANIC NETWORK, LEAGUE OF WOMEN IN GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL FORUM OF ADMINISTRATORS, AND WE REACH OUT TO THEM FOR THESE KINDS OF RECRUITMENTS AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO GET THE WORD OUT TO POTENTIAL CANDIDATES AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY SINCE 2016, 22% OF PLACED CANDIDATES WITH SGR WERE FEMALE AND 17% INDICATED THAT THEY ARE A PERSON OF COLOR. SO, WE REALLY TRY TO IMPROVE THE DIVERSITY OF OUR CANDIDATE POOL AND I THINK THAT THE RESULTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. SO, THAT'S A VERY QUICK PRESENTATION ABOUT SGR, AND HOW WE WOULD APPROACH THIS PROCESS. I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: COUNCIL?

>> SO, I KIND OF SAW THE TIMELINE IN THE PACT, BUT, CAN YOU BRIEFLY GO OVER WHAT NEXT STEPS ARE IN THE TIMELINE AND

THAT SORT OF THING? >> SURE. WE ESTIMATE THAT THE PROCESS WILL TAKE ABOUT 15 WEEKS TOTAL FROM THE TIME THAT WE OFFICIALLY LAUNCH THE RECRUITMENT, WHICH, I THINK WE COULD DO PRETTY QUICKLY, DEPENDING ON THE VARIABLES THAT WE WOULD NEED TO TALK ABOUT, BUT, SINCE WE WORK WITH YOU BEFORE, WE'VE KIND OF GOT SOME OF THE BASICS ALREADY IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WOULD NEED FOR OUR EQUIPMENT BROCHURE, THAT'S KIND OF THE FRONT-END PIECE THAT WE NEED TO NAIL DOWN EARLY ON.

BUT, HOPEFULLY, BY THE TIME WE GET TO THE END OF THE PROCESS WERE YOUR ACTUALLY INTERVIEWING YOUR FINALISTS AND MAKING A DECISION ABOUT WHO YOU WOULD WANT TO HIRE, THAT SHOULD HAPPEN

IN 15 WEEKS TOTAL. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WOULD THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITIES, UM, ALONG THE TIMELINE FOR THE RECRUITMENT SHORTENING OR EXTENDING SEARCH PERIOD?

>> YES. SHORTENING IS A BIT OF A CHALLENGE, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE HAVE A VERY SYMPTOMATIC PROCESS THAT WE USE.

NOW, EXTENDING IT IS NOT A PROBLEM, AND I WILL SAY THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SUGGEST COULD BE PROBLEMATIC WITH THAT IS THE LONGER IT GOES THE GREATER THE TENDENCY IS FOR YOU TO LOSE CANDIDATES. SO, WE WANT TO AVOID THAT POSSIBILITY. BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK AT RUSHING A FEW THINGS.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE CYCLE FOR A CITY MANAGER SEARCH? I'M SORRY, IN TERMS OF A TIMELINE FOR SEARCHING FOR A CITY MANAGER, HOW LONG DOES THE PROCESS TAKE?

>> IN TERMS OF ADVERTISING THE POSITION?

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: RIGHT, ADVERTISING AND GETTING ONE IN.

>> LEAD TIME FROM THIS STEP TO THAT STEP?

>> IT'S ABOUT 15 WEEKS UNTIL YOU MAKE A SELECTION. ONLY, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WHO YOU SELECT, THEN YOU HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE EMPLOYER, WHICH IS YOU KNOW, NORMALLY, 30 DAYS, SOMETIMES IT'S 60. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT

ALSO. >> AND THERE'S ALSO LEAD TIMES IN TERMS OF BUILDING YOUR PROFILE. YOU KNOW, THE UP FRONT WORK, LIKE, WHAT WE DID WITH THE POLICE CHIEF, WE HAD TO BUILD THAT AND WE ALSO TOOK COMMENTS FROM THE STAFF AND PUBLIC, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER. ALL OF THAT GOES IN, BUT, HE'S SAYING FROM THE TIME THEY ADVERTISE UNTIL THE TIME THAT YOU MAY HAVE POTENTIAL CANDIDATES TO HIRE COULD BE ABOUT 15 WEEKS.

>> THAT'S THE TYPICAL TIMELINE. AND YOU RAISED A GOOD POINT ABOUT THE PROCESS ON THE FRONT-END BEFORE WE OFFICIALLY LAUNCH THE SEARCH, THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'LL NEED TO DETERMINE FROM YOU ALL. WHO ALL DO YOU WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THAT POSITION PROFILE. AND THE MORE PEOPLE YOU

[01:00:02]

ARE A LOT OF THINGS WE COULD DO. >> LARRY, GOING TO THE ON-SITE VISITS, IT SAYS TWO ARE INCLUDED, WOULD WE HAVE ONE RECRUITER ASSIGNED TO US THAT WOULD HANDLE EVERYTHING?

>> I WILL BE THE RECRUITER. >> OKAY.

>> NOW, THE WAY WE WORK AT SGR, WE REGULARLY HAVE RECRUITER MEETINGS WHERE ALL THE RECRUITERS GET TOGETHER AND WE TALK ABOUT OUR RECRUITMENTS, AND SHARE INFORMATION, SO, WE'VE GOT THE WHOLE TEAMWORKING ON IT. PLUS, UM, SOME OF Y'ALL, I'M SURE, KNOW RON HOLLFIELD, OUR CEO, HE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATES IN REACHING OUT TO PEOPLE TO HELP BUILD THAT GROUP OF CANDIDATES.

WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WILL BE WORKING ON THIS JOB. I WILL BE YOUR POINT OF CONTACT, BUT, KIND OF BEHIND THE SCENES WE'VE GOT A LARGE TEAM OF PEOPLE WORKING ON THIS

>> AND AT WHAT POINT IN THE SCHEDULE DO THOSE TWO ON-SITE

VISITS OCCUR? >> THAT'S REALLY UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL. TYPICALLY, I WOULD SAY THE MOST COMMON TIME TO DO THAT IS WHEN I VET THE INITIAL POOL OF CANDIDATES WITH YOU WE CALL THAT WE TRIAGE THE CANDIDATES, AND SO, THAT'S WHEN I WOULD GO THROUGH THE WHOLE CANDIDATES WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND YOU SELECT THE SEMIFINALISTS, THAT'S TYPICALLY ABOUT A DOZEN CANDIDATES FROM THERE. SO, THAT WOULD BE ONE ON-SITE VISIT AND THE SECOND ONE IS USUALLY FOR THE ENTER VIEW PROCESS. NOW, I DON'T LIVE TOO FAR AWAY. I'M IN THE METROPLEX, AND SO, I CAN COME MORE OFTEN THAN THAT. AND IT'S JUST BASICALLY, MILEAGE WOULD BE ALL THE ADDITIONAL COST.

>> AND THE LAST QUESTION, THE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT, THOSE ACTIVITIES, IT SAYS THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL COST FOR THE SURVEY, ARE ALL OF THE REST OF THESE INCLUDED? OR IS IT A PICK ONE?

OR? >> I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONES THAT

YOU ARE LOOKING AT, BUT, THE UM. >> THE INTERVIEW

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> YES. YES. IF YOU WANTED TO DO A STAKEHOLDER SURVEY, THAT'S A CHARGE FOR THAT, BUT, THOSE OTHERS, AGAIN, IF YOU DO IT VIRTUALLY, THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL COST, IF YOU WANT ME TO COME HERE AND HAVE THOSE MEETINGS WITH THEM, IT AGAIN, WOULD JUST BE MILEAGE. BUT, THEY ARE,

THOSE THINGS ARE INCLUDED. >> SO IF WE WERE TO DO A MEET AND GREET LIKE WE DID WITH SOME PEOPLE?

[LAUGHTER] >> THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL

ON-SITE VISIT IN THIS CASE? >> IT WOULD BE, UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMBINE THAT WITH THE INTERVIEW PROCESS. AND HONESTLY, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT MEET AND GREET FOR THE POSITION

LIKE THIS. >>

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> I THINK THAT WAS

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> AND I WOULD ALSO COMMENT THAT I LIKE THE IDEA, ONCE WE GET DOWN TO THE SEMIFINALISTS, OR THE SMALLER POOL, DOING THE DISK TEST, I THINK THAT'S A VERY

REVEALING TOOL. >> IT REALLY IS.

>> IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO KIND OF DIG INTO THEIR MANAGEMENT STYLE AND IT'S KIND OF PROFILES HOW THE CANDIDATES WORK IN THIS ENVIRONMENT. IT

REALLY, IS REVEALING. >> (INDISTINCT CHATTER)

>> SO, THE SEMIFINALIST THAT YOU ALL PRODUCE PRIOR TO US DOING INTERVIEWS, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN IDEA OF WHAT MAY BE CONTAINED IN THERE, OBVIOUSLY, RESUME AND THINGS LIKE THAT,

BUT, WHAT ELSE? >> WELL, THE SEMIFINALISTS WILL INCLUDE THEIR COVER LETTER, THEIR RESUME AND WE WOULD HAVE ASKED THEM TO COMPLETE A QUESTION ANYWHERE WHICH IS 10 QUESTIONS. UM, AND REALLY, IT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS IS TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ILLUSTRATE THEIR COMMUNICATION STYLE, THEIR WRITING, AND THEN WE'LL ALSO ASK THEM TO DO IS VIDEO A RECORDED VIDEO INTERVIEW. AND, THAT'S FOUR QUESTIONS. THEY HAVE, I BELIEVE, THREE MINUTES FOR EACH QUESTION TO RESPOND TO AND WE WILL SEND YOU A LINK TO THOSE INTERVIEWS SO THAT YOU COULD WATCH THEM AT YOUR OWN

CONVENIENCE. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ONE EXAMPLE OF THE POLICE CHIEF, THAT TELLS A LOT ABOUT SOMEBODY.

>> IT REALLY DOES, YOU KNOW, AND THE CHIEF MAY BE ABLE TO

[01:05:03]

>> DO YOU SUBJECT THE CANDIDATES TO A PERSONALITY TEXT, LIKE A PREDICTABILITY INDEX?

>> THE DISK PROFILE IS THE CLOSEST THINK THAT WE HAVE TO

THAT. >> OKAY.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE APPRECIATE Y'ALL VERY MUCH. LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH Y'ALL.

>> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE LARRY TO STAY FOR THE REGULAR MEETING?

>> ARE YOU GOING TO PULL IT FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION?

>> IT'S ON CONSENT? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: NOBODY'S

GOING TO PULL IT? >> NOPE.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU Y'ALL VERY MUCH. I'LL BE HERE TO FACILITATE THE WHOLE THING ALL THE WAY THROUGH FOR YOU GUYS.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

>> OF COURSE. >> .

[3C. Discuss action to approve a resolution authorizing renewal of the Master lnterlocal Agreement with Dallas County governing transportation projects. (30 minutes)]

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT THE THE NEXT ITEM IS AUTHORIZING RENEWAL OF THE MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH DALLAS COUNTY GOVERNING

TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. >> IS ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON

THIS ITEM? >> SEEING NONE,

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> WELL, GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, I'M MICHAEL ASBEI WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. AND RYAN O'BRIAN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR HERE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU TONIGHT THE MASTER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH DALLAS COUNTY GOVERNING TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, THIS IS ALSO ON THE CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING.

WE'RE UNDER SOMEWHAT OF A T TIMECRUNCH WITH THIS. THE CITY'S PARTNERING WITH DALLAS COUNTY ON TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS FOR DECADES. THESE RANGE IN SCOPE FROM REPAVING TWO LANE ASPHALT AND STREETS TO RECONSTRUCTING AND WIDENING STREETS AND PARTNERING WITH DALLAS COUNTY HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL FOR US AND DALLAS COUNTY. AND PRIOR TO PARTNERING WITH DALLAS COUNTY, AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS APPROVED WITH THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND DALLAS COUNTY. CONSEQUENTIALLY, DALLAS COUNTY REQUIRES A MASTER TO BE IMPROVED FOR THE MAJOR CAPTAIN PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS. NCIP PROJECTS. THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT EXPIRES AT THE END OF THIS YEAR.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DALLAS COUNTY WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN APRIL OF 2011. SINCE 2011, THERE HAVE BEEN LEGISLATIVE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AND OTHER REVISIONS TO REFLECT CURRENT TRENDS IN FUNDING LARGE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. AND DALLAS COUNTY SUBDENTALLY FORWARDED A DRAFT AND INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IT IS ATTACHED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH YOU MAY HAVE REVIEWED. SOME OF THE CHANGES FROM THE CURRENT AGREEMENT, THE ROAD TYPES ARE DEFINED, THERE'S TYPES A, B, C, AND E, THE TYPE A ARE IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE OF ROADS LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. TYPE B ARE IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE OF THOROUGH FAIRS, BRIDGES, MAJOR CROSS COUNTY AND REGIONAL THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS GOVERNMENTS AND DALLAS COUNTY AVAILABILITY PLAN TO BE USED WHICH THOROUGHFARES AFFECTED BY STATE HIGHWAY PROGRAMS INCLUDING RIGHT-OF-WAY CURB, GUTTER, STORM, SEWER PROJECTS THAT TAPE WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. TYPE E ARE IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE OF STREETS, ALLEYS, ROAD, AND DRAINAGE FACILITIES AS DEFINED IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

[01:10:05]

FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE COUNTY OF THE CITY/TOWN'S INTENT TO SUBMIT A PLAN FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF SMALL WATERSHED, DAMS IN A TIMELY MANNER SHALL BE CON TRUED BY THE COUNTY AS THE CITY/TOWN'S ELECTION NOT TO PURSUE OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE OF THESE DAMS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: CAN WE PAUSE

FOR DISCUSSION ON THIS? >> WE HAVE TWO OF THEM AND THE COUNCIL ABOUT DEVELOPING PLANS TO DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. THE DAMS ARE IN NEED OF REPAIR, AND THE ESTIMATE YEARS AGO WAS SOMETHING THAFRS ONE MILLION DOLLAR PER DAM AND WE WERE NOT PWILLING TO DO THAT AND WE PUSHD THEM UNDER THE RUG, BUT, IF WE THIS MASTER INTERLOCAL NG IN - AGREEMENT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME PLAN OF ACTION. WHAT CAN I SAY. WE ALREADY APPROVED THAT PREVIOUS IRA THAT PUTS THOSE DAMS UNDER US NOW.

>> WE DID IT LAST YEAR. >> WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS.

>> AND JEFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE COUNTY ON THE DAM PROJECT. SO, WE DO HAVE FOOTWORK GOING IN THAT WE HAVE STARTED WITH IT. SO, WE'RE GOING BY THIS AGREEMENT EXACTLY.

SO, WITH THAT APPROVAL LAST YEAR, AND WITH JEFF'S (INDISCERNIBLE) WITH THE COUNTY, THAT'S GOING ON AS WE SPEAK.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ONE IS OFF OF BUSH AND LIBERTY GROVE, MCKINTY PROPERTY AND ONE IS UP AT THE VERY NORTH, CITY LIMITS,

GARLAND AND SAXIE. >> THERE'S ONE THERE. ONE

RIGHT THERE AND ONE RIGHT HERE. >> SO, UM, DALLAS COUNTY NEEDS SOMETHING FROM US. THEY NEED US TO COVER WHAT I'VE BEEN SHARED IS THAT THEY'RE WANTING US TO COVER FIRST RESPONSE IN UNINCORPORATED COUNTY. SO, I THINK IF THEY'RE WANTING US TO HELP COVER FIRST RESPONSE IN THE COUNTY, THEN, THEY CAN TAKE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR DAMS ACCOUNT. IS THERE NO ROOM FOR NEGOTIATION WITH THE COUNTY? THEY JUST SAID "IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT? IN".

>> CAN I POINT THIS OUT, FOR YOU, MAYOR, WE ALREADY HAVE COMMITTED TO THIS CONTRACTUALLY. THIS ORDEAL IS AN ASK THAT WE CAN SAY NO TO. UM, OR, AND THIS AGREEMENT EXPIRES AT THE END OF THIS MONTH. SO, ON DECEMBER 31ST, SO, THAT PUTS SOME OF THOSE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GRANT FUNDS THAT THEY --

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WELL, HOW LONG HAVE WE HAD THIS IN OUR

HANDS? >> LESS THAN A MONTH.

>> THEY GAVE US A MONTH. >> IT WAS A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT, WE WERE NOTIFIED ABOUT IT AND WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESSES OF GETTING THIS TOGETHER THEN ON TOP OF IT, WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THEM, THEY NEED IT TURNED AROUND IMEDIATELY TO PUT IT ON COMMISSIONER'S COURT. AS BRIAN SAID IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS AS WRITTEN, IT COULD FOR FIT A LOT

OF MONEY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OF COURSE,

[01:15:01]

>> THE OTHER THING IS PERSPECTIVE, ALL RIGHT, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GRANTS VERSUS RAH MIGHT BE A SMALLER CAUSE.

>> THAT WE DON'T HAVE. >> YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST IT IS WHAT IT IS, IT'S THE COUNTY, WHAT CAN I SAY, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS IS THE WAY THEY DO THINGS.

>> MAYOR, I TALKED WITH JEFF ABOUT THE DAM SITUATION AND IT'S MOSTLY THE MOLDING THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED WHICH WE HAD COMMITTED TO THEM THAT WE WOULD MOW THIS STUFF AS THEY WANT.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, WHERE'S THE MILLION DOLLAR COMING FROM?

>> I DON'T KNOW. >> WHAT'S THE ISSUE WITH

MOWING. >> HANG ON. WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS TO COUNCIL AT THE TIME, WE GOT ALIKE 10 YEARS WORTH OF AN NEWLY MAINTENANCE COST THAT I GUESS THE COUNTY AT THAT TIME HAD SPENT, AND I WANT TO SAY, LIKE, $30,000 A YEAR, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE, THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO COUNCIL AT THE TIME. IT'S NOT IMMINENT THAT THERE HAS TO BE THIS MASSIVE REPLACEMENT OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THESE DAMS, SO, THAT WAS LIKE, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, WE IDENTIFY WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF WE HAD TO DO THAT. BUT, WE'RE NOT EXPECTING TO HAVE TO DO THAT ANY TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE, THAT'S LIKE LONG-TERM STUFF TO EVEN THINK ABOUT. WELL, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT THE ONE DAM THAT IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF GEORGE BUSH THERE, IS ON THE (INDISCERNIBLE) PROPERTY, AND IF THAT PROPERTY SELLS AND DEVELOPS, I WOULD LIKE THE DEVELOPER TO TAKE OVER THAT.

WHAT THEY WILL DO IS ELIMINATE IT AND IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT, THAT WAS ANOTHER OPTION, THE POSSIBILITY OF COMMISSIONING THAT. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE OTHER OPTIONS RELATED TO THIS.

THE COUNTY IS TRYING TO DISTRIBUTE THIS RESPONSIBILITY

TO ALL JURISDICTIONS. >> I JUST WANTED TO COMPLAIN.

THAT'S ALL. I WANT IT ON THE RECORD THAT I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT THE COUNTY. SO, THERE'S NOTHING WE COULD DO ABOUT IT.

>> HAVE WE EVER HAD A SPECIAL ENGINEER LOOK AT IT. ?

>> OR THINK IT? >> THEY GET IT INSPECTED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FREQUENCY IS, THEY GET IT INSPECTED. I

HAVE THE REPORTS. >> AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME

IT WAS INSPECTED? >> I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, BUT I COULD GET THAT TO YOU.

>> I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW THE LAST TIME IT WAS INSPECTED AND WHAT

THE CONDITION OF IT WAS? >> I WAS JUST MAKING SURE IT WASN'T A RHETORICAL QUESTION, BECAUSE, YOU MAY REMEMBER AT THE TIME WE BROUGHT THAT TO COUNCIL, WE HAD ACCESS TO THEIR LAST

INSPECTION AND REVIEWED THAT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: CAN YOU FIND THAT AND SEND IT TO CITY COUNCIL?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> WHENEVER THERE IS, COMES DUE TO A MAJOR, A MAJOR REPAIR THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE IF IT WASN'T SOLD AND UNDER DEVELOPMENT, TO ME IT'S JUST THE COMMISSION, THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE BUILT TO BEGIN WITH. BUT, 50 YEARS

AGO. >> WE HAD TO OBSERVE THE (INDISCERNIBLE) COFFERED WITH GRAZING CATTLE.

>> WE DEFINITELY NEED TO MOW IT.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: CAN WE BUY SOME COWS?

>> WE HAVE AGREED TO MOW IT. >> HOW MUCH DO SHEEP COST?

[LAUGHTER] >> A LOT LESS THAN COWS.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> (INDISTINCT CHATTER)

>> FIND SOME PUBLIC WORKS? >> ROWLETT PUBLIC WORKS.

>> WE ALSO HAD AN OPTION TO DELEGATE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DECOMMISSION AND MAINTENANCE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. BUT, WE

COULD DO THAT. >> WE'RE NOT TRYING TO, JUST

SAYING. >> UM, OKAY. I INTERRUPTED

YOU. ARE YOU DONE? >> NO, NOT YET.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WHEN WE SUBMIT THIS TO THEM, CAN YOU PUT IN MY STRONG LETTER OF DISSATISFACTION?

>> ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT. >> SO, ONE OF THE OTHER CHANGES IS INSTEAD OF THE 10-YEAR TERM, THIS IS A 5-YEAR AND IT WILL BE REVIEWED AGAIN IN FIVE YEARS. SOME OF THE CURRENT MCIP PROJECTS AND COUNTY CONTRIBUTIONS, SO MILLER ROAD FROM DALROCK TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS, THEIR CONTRIBUTION IS $5.5 MILLION. AND SOME OF THE PREVIOUS MCIP PROJECTS THAT YOU COULD SEE ON THERE, MERRICK ROAD WAS $1.4 MILLION. AND MILLER ROAD FROM THE BRIDGE TO GARLAND WAS $1.2 MILLION. A

[01:20:05]

>> (INDISCERNIBLE).

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE SIGN THIS YOU SIGN THAT.

>> THE CITY ALSO UTILIZES THIS FOR ROAD STRIPING, AND THEY DO IT AT A VERY GOOD COST FOR US AND WE PURCHASE ASPHALT. WE DO USE THAT. SORRY, AND WE PURCHASE ASPHALT THROUGH USING

THIS ILA AS WELL. >> THERE'S NO IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL IMPACT TO ENTER THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. SHOULD THE CITY CONTINUE WITH THIS, PORTENERING WITH DALLAS COUNTY ON TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS WILL ULTIMATELY SAVE THE CITY MILLIONS OVER THE NEXT FIVE TO 10 YEARS SHOULD THEY BE SUBMITTED AND SELECTED. SO, TONIGHT, AS I SAID, THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION, THIS IS ALSO ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND I RECOMMENDED APPROVING THAT TOAP AGREEMENT FOR DALLAS COUNTY.

>> TALK ABOUT THE DAMS, WE HAVE ANOTHER OPEN ROAD SITTING OUT

THERE WAITING FOR US? >> THAT WAS AN ODD BALL BECAUSE DALLAS, A FEW YEARS AGO WENT OUT AND ASKED EVERYBODY TO ANNEX THE ROADS AND THAT VINCENT ROAD WAS A WEIRD ONE THAT GOT THROUGH.

AND THEY WENT OUT COUNTY-WIDE AND ASKED EVERYBODY TO DO IT, THAT WAS ONE THAT SLIPPED THROUGH.

>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY UNINCORPORATED AREAS.

>> IT'S ALSO TIME FOR DALLAS TO RERELEASE A CALL FOR PROJECTS FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF NCIP. IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN FEBRUARY, SO, I SUSPECT THIS IS PREEMPTIVE TO THOSE BEING RELEASED IN FEBRUARY WHEN WE WILL APPLY FOR ADDITIONAL GRANT

MONEY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WHEN DOES THAT MILLER ROAD BRIDGE THING EXPIRE?

>> THE FUNDING? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YEAH, THE

FUNDING. >> THE ONE THAT YOU SAW UP

HERE? >> THAT WAS A PAST PROJECT.

>> NO, THAT WAS A FUTURE PROJECT.

>> THAT WAS THE 2019? >> THAT'S THE MOST RECENT ONE.

WE HAD FOUR PROJECTS PARTIALLY FUNDED AT THAT TIME. AND THAT'S WHAT THE BOND COMMITTEE WAS TOLD A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

>> THREE, MILLER ROAD, CHIESA, AND PARTIALLY

(INDISCERNIBLE). >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AND THAT'S,

THAT'S, YOU HAVE TO MATCH IT? >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN

DO THAT. YOU HAVE TO WHAT? >> REIMBURSEMENT?

>> WE SPEND AND YOU GIVE IT BACK. HOW OFTEN DO THEY GIVE

THE REIMBURSEMENT? >> QUICKLY. ON COMPLETION.

>> REALLY? >> Y'ALL REMEMBER WITH THE MILLER ROAD PROJECT, WE ENDED UP IN ESSENCE BORROWING FROM THE CHIESA ROAD PROJECT TO FINISH IT IN ORDER TO GET OUR REIMBURSEMENT FROM DALLAS COUNTY. WE FLOATED A LOT OF SMALLER PROJECTS, BUT THAT WAS SUCH A BIG ONE THAT WE HAD TO BORROW FROM ONE TO BE ABLE TO DO MILLER AND THEN WHEN WE WERE ABLE TO REIMBURSE TO DALLAS COUNTY, THAT GOES BACK TO THE

CHIESA PROJECT. >> SO, I LOOKED UP THE MILLER ROAD, 66, AT THE DALLAS COUNTY MOBILITY PLAN, THE NORTH TEXAS CENTRAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT IT IS, I COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT, BUT, I DID NOTICE THAT THEY'RE STILL CONSIDERED PRIMARY ARTERIAL, SO, THEY FALL UNDER THE TYPE B, I PRESUME. I ALSO NOTICED THAT THE TRAFFIC COUNTIES WE HAD OUT THERE WERE 8

YEARS OLD. >> AND WE HAVE UPDATED.

>> HOW DO WE GET THAT INFORMATION?

>> IT'S ON GIS. >> HOW DO WE GET THAT INFORMATION INTO DALLAS MOBILITY PLAN AND THE NORTH TEXAS TRANSPORTATION. THEY'RE SEEING TRAFFIC COUNTS OF 9,000 CARS A DAY. RATHER THAN 13,000 OR SO, DURING THE HEIGHT OF THE PANDEMIC AND I'M SURE, FROM TIME TO TIME IT WAS MORE LIKE 20,000.

>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> SO, I SIT ON THE PUBLIC COUNCIL WITH THE NORTH TEXAS COUNSEL OF GOVERNMENTS.

>> AND HOW DO WE GET OTHER ROUTES INTO THAT ARTERIAL PLAN?

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION, PROBABLY WHEN WE GO TO SUBMIT FOR THE NEXT MCIP, RIGHT?

[01:25:01]

>> WE HAD A FEW WORK SESSIONS ABOUT IT BEFORE WE APPLIED WITH

COUNCIL FOR THIS, YOU WILL HAVE. >> SO, THAT'S

>> THIS IS ABOUT RENEWING THE MASTER.

>> AND THAT'S WHEN WE'LL DISCUSS PROJECT OPPORTUNITIES.

>> IT STRUCK ME AS ODD BECAUSE THEY HAD SKYLINE DRIVE IN THEIR

PLAN. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS? >> COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT SAYS CHANGES IN THE CURRENT AGREEMENT? YEAH. OKAY, SO, THIS SHOWS THIS WILL BE THE NEW INFORMATION?

>> YES. >> AND WHAT WAS THE OLD AGREEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH THEY CONTRIBUTED?

>> NONE OF THESE WERE SPECIFIED. IT WAS A PROJECT BY PROJECT, I THINK THEY PROBABLY ADHERED TO THIS.

>> THEY DIDN'T SPELL OUT THEIR ROAD TYPES OR ANY AGREEMENTS, IT WAS STRICTLY JUST WHAT YOU GOT FROM THEM. NOW, THEY'VE BASICALLY TOLD US THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CONTRIBUTE BASED ON ROAD TYPE. SO, THEY'VE SPELLED IT OUT FOR US, NOW, HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO CONTRIUTE TO EACH ONE OF THOSE CATEGORIES.

WHAT CHANGED IN THE WHOLE THING IS THIS AND THE DAMS, THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT CHANGED THE WHOLE THING. AND NOTHING ELSE

CHANGED. >> OKAY.

> >>.

[LAUGHTER] .

>> (INDISTINCT CHATTER) >> EVERYBODY WAS THINKING IT.

>> IT'S DUMB, GOSH. >> DO THAT IN YOUR MOTION.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. >> ARE WE GOOD FOR TONIGHT ON

[3D. Discuss a First Amendment to the Library Lease between City of Rowlett, Texas and Buchanan Street Partners (BSP) Rowlett, LLC for property located at 3900 Main Street, Suite 200. (30 minutes)]

THIS? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM LIBRARY LEASE BETWEEN CITY OF ROWLETT, TEXAS AND BUCHANAN STREET PARTNERS (BSP) ROWLETT, LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3900 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200. I HAVE TWO CARDS, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, THERE ARE CARDS OUTSIDE HERE TO FILL OUT AND BRING THEM TO ME.

OUR FIRST COMMENTS WILL BE FROM MARK ENGINE, STATE YOUR NAME AND

CITY OF RESIDENCE. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M MARK ENGINE. WITH THE LIBRARY, AND I LIVE IN ROWLETT, IT'S INTERESTING MOST OF YOU KNOW ME AS PRESIDENT OF THE (INDISCERNIBLE) BUT, I ALSO HELP SERVE ON THE BOARD WITH THE LIBRARY AND MY WIFE WHO IS HOME SICK WITH A BAD SINUS COLD, SHE'S THE VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHE'S BEEN A LIBRARIAN FOR 30 YEARS FOR OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT IN ILLINOIS BEFORE WE RETIRED HERE.

BUT, THE REASON I'M HERE AS YOU GO INTO TALKING ABOUT THE LIBRARY, LEASE, WITH THE PEOPLE THAT NOW OWN THE VILLAGE, AND MOST OF YOU KNOW THIS, BUT, I WANT TO REASSURE YOU THAT, WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND MY WIFE HAS SEEN AND I'M SPEAKING AS A PUBLIC PERSON IS SO MUCH HAS GONE ON WITHIN THE LIBRARY SINCE THE PANDEMIC, AND I THINK THEY HAVE A GREAT STAFF THERE THAT WORKS AND THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVITIES THAT ARE GOING ON. WITH ALL OF THOSE ACTIVITIES COMES A NUMBER OF PEOPLE FAMILIES THAT ARE COMING TO USE IT. AND WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS REALLY TIGHT QUARTERS OVER THERE. SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES. ISSUES WITH WITH CERTAIN TIME FRAME. BUT, I GUESS THE REASON I'M HERE TONIGHT, IS TO ASK THAT YOU BE CREATIVE IN THE WAY YOU NEGOTIATE. AND I GUESS ONE THING THAT I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO SEE IS HOW YOU COULD WORK THIS IN I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GET ONE OF THEM CERTAINLY HELP WITH THE GROWTH OF THE LIBRARY THERE. BECAUSE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE AT BUT I HEAR THINGS THAT I MIGHT BE ABLE TO FIND A NEW LEASE, AND THEN MAY BE TWO WEEKS AFTER THAT. PUTTING OUT A LOT OF MONEY WITH PEOPLE THAT OWN THE VILLAGE OVER THERE RIGHT NOW, AND MAY BE, YOU CAN NEGOTIATE SOMETHING WITH THEM TO GET THE ANSWER. I SAY, WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE BUILDING, IT COULD BE FOR PROGRAMS FOR WITHIN THE LIBRARY, IT CAN BE THINGS WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING

[01:30:03]

OPEN SPACE. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OUR NEXT

CARD IS FROM STANLEY POLLARD. >> HE'S GONE. HE HAD TO LEAVE.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS?

>> ALL RIGHT. >> I'M GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH A BIT OF A STORY FOR SOME OF YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS THIS WILL BE RELATIVELY NEW. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE LIBRARY BRIEFLY. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS DONE WITH THE CAT LIST, A LITTLE ABOUT THE LEASE OF THE LIBRARY FACILITY AND THE LEASE CONDITIONS AND THE RECOMMENDED ACTION. THIS IS A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ROWLETT LIBRARY, THE 1996, AFTER BEING A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLACES INCLUDING THE HR BUILDING, IF YOU COULD IMAGINE, THE LIBRARY OPENED IN THEIR FACILITY ON MAINE STREET. THERE'S A LOT OF TIME IN THERE, I DON'T HAVE ALL THE HISTORY, BUT, THE HIGHLIGHTS.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WHERE WAS THE ONE IN 1950?

>> I THINK IT STARTED IN THE CORNER OF CITY HALL. A SMALL

ROOM WITHIN CITY HALL. >> SO, 2015, THE LIBRARY MOVED FROM DOWNTOWN ON MAIN STREET TO ROWLETT ROAD WHICH MOST OF YOU KNOW TODAY AS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. AND 2018, THE LIBRARY MOVED AGAIN FOR THE SECOND TIME IN A FEW YEARS, BACK DOWNTOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THE VILLAGE IN DOWNTOWN ROWLETT.

HERE ARE SOME AVERAGE ATTENDANCE NUMBERS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS TO PUT SOME PERSPECTIVE, ORIGINALLY ON MAIN STREET. TO ROWLETT ROAD, FROM 2015-2017, WHOOP 43,000 VISITORS, AND BACK TO DOWNTOWN IN 2018, WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE NUMBERS FROM 2020 AND 2021, THEY REALLY SKEW THE AVERAGES, WE WERE CLOSED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, ATTENDANCE WAS VERY LOW, SO, WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THOSE. WE ARE AVERAGING 135,000 A YEAR. LAURIE AND I ALSO, AS WE WORKED THROUGH THIS SINCE JANUARY, LOOKED AT PHYSICAL VERSUS DIGITAL CHECK OUTS, AND AGAIN, BY LOCATION, MAIN STREET THEY HAD ABOUT 291,482 PHYSICAL CHECK OUTS AND 7,000 DIGITAL CHECKOUTS. THE ROWLETT LOCATION WENT TO 301,000 PHYSICAL CHECKOUTS AND 21,000, AND NOW THEY'RE SITTING AT 203,000 AND THE DIGITAL CHECKOUTS IS GOING UP.

>> ALSO IN THOSE NUMBERS WE DID NOT INCLUDE 20 AND '21 BECAUSE OF HOW COVID IMPACTED HOW THE LIBRARY IS USED AND PEOPLE

COMING AND SOCIALIZING AND SUCH. >> UM, A LITTLE HISTORY ABOUT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, HELPED TO PUT THIS TOGETHER, IT WAS SIGNED IN JUNE IN 2014 BETWEEN THE CITY OF ROWLETT AN DEVELOPMENT LLC AND CAT LIST DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT IS WHEN THE INITIAL LEASE FOR THE LIBRARY WAS SIGNED EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T MOVE IN FOR A FEW YEARS LATER. THE FOCUS WAS ON THE REDEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA. THAT INCLUDED 215 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, COMMERCIAL, AND RETAIL FACILITIES INCLUDING STREETSCAPES, OPEN SPACE, LIGHTING, SIDEWALKS, PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED AMENITIES. THEIR GRANT WAS TWELVE, GIVE OR TAKE ACRES, THAT'S WHERE THE INITIAL LIBRARY WAS. THEY HAVE AN AN NEWLY 380 GRANT, 15 YEARS AND 15 ANNUAL PAYMENTS STARTING IN 2017. THE PAYMENT IN 2022 WAS $215,272.

>> DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION, MATT?

>> OKAY. >> NO.

>> OKAY. AND THEY ALSO RECEIVED AN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT GRANT. SOME OF THEIR PUBLIC RAIL IMPROVEMENTS,

[01:35:02]

THERE WERE MAINTENANCE ISSUES WITH THIS. THEIR MAINTENANCE CREW IS REALLY GOOD AT FIXING HOME TOILETS, NOT SO GOOD AT FIXING SPECIAL THINGS. AND WE HAD A COUPLE OF ISSUES WHERE OUR TEAM HAD TO SWOOP IN QUICKLY AND SUM SUPPLEMENT THE MAINTENANCE. AND BACK IN EARLY 2022, IN JANUARY, WE STARTED TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WHEN BUCHANAN TOOK OVER THE PRO THE AND BROUGHT IT ABOUT EXTENDING OUR LEASE AND DOING A NEW FIVE-YEAR LEASE TERM. WE APPROACHED THEM RELATED SPECIFICALLY KNOWING THAT IT MAY BE AWHILE BEFORE WE ENDED UP WITH A NEW LIBRARY FACILITY. SO, I SENT THIS EARLY IN AN E-MAIL SO THAT YOU GUYS COULD HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT.

THIS IS THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO AND I WON'T GO LINE BY LINE. THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS, THIS IS A NET LEASE, IT'S NOT A TRIPLE NET LEASE, BUT, WE'RE GOING TO BE SETTLING UP.

IT IS ONE FLAT FEE A MONTH. WE PAY $16.25 PER SQUARE FOOT ANNUALLY IN 2022, AND THE RATE FOR THE NEW LEASE IS $16 AND $0.20. WITH TWO EXTENSIONS, IT'S BASED ON THE MARKET. THE CAM CHARGES ARE REMOVED FROM THE LEASE, AND REHAVE NEGOTIATED SOME THINGS TO FIX MINOR THINGS MAINTENANCE WISE. WE'RE ABLE TO COME IN AND BE ABLE TO FIX THOSE THINGS. MAJOR MAINTENANCE, HVAC, WE HAVE FACTORED INTO THE LEASE THAT BUCHANAN STREET PARTNERS ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE ITEMS. MINOR THINGS WE COULD TAKE CARE OF WITH OUR CREW IMMEDIATELY, MAJOR THINGS WILL FALL TO THE COMPANY TO DO. HOW DOES THIS RENT COMPARE TO OTHER SPACES. WE'LL TELL YOU AS PART OF THE NEGOTIATION WE TALKED ABOUT THE TWO END CAPS, WE REALLY LOOKED AT WHEN BOOK CLUB MOVED OUT, WHAT CAN WE DO WITH THAT SPACE, IT WAS A GREAT SPACE, WHAT CAN WE DO WITH IT. JANUARY YOU'LL SEE THE DOWNTOWN ASSESSMENT RECENTLY DONE. THERE'S A REAL DESIRE TO LEAVE OPEN THOSE SPOTS FOR RETAIL. LIBBY TALKED WITH BUCHANAN AND ASKED WHAT WE COULD DO TO HELP, THEY'RE HAVING INTEREST? SPACES. THE VILLAGE HAS CLASS A SPACES IN ROWLETT, CURRENTLY, THE END CAPS ON EITHER SIDE ARE LISTED BETWEEN 25 AND $35 PER SQUARE FOOT ANNUALLY. AND ACCORDING TO COSTAR THE AVERAGE RENT FOR RETAIL SPACE IN ROWLETT IS CURRENTLY $21.78 PER SQUARE FOOT ANNUALLY. THE END CAP WHERE BANK HEAD IS IS SMALL AND

[01:40:02]

>> (INDISCERNIBLE) SUITE 100?

>> IT'S CLOSE TO 3,000 SQUARE FEET AND BOOK CLUB IS 1600

SQUARE FEET. >> THANK YOU.

>> NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS HAS BEEN A JOINT PROJECT. SO, COMPARATIVELY, 46 DALROCK IS $24.52 PER SQUARE FOOT AND 5404 KENWOOD IS $31.50. AND WITHWAY LOOKED AT ROCK WALL, GARLAND, MESQUITE, AND SACHSE. TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW MUCH THOSE LEASES ARE. THE LEASE IS SCHEDULED TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL AT THE NEXT MEETING, DECEMBER 13TH, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS AT THIS RATE, IT AVERAGES OUT TO $200,000 A YEAR. GREAT QUESTION, AND WHEN ITDY DID RESEARCH FOR US, WHAT WOULD THAT BOND? RIGHT? IF WE WERE TO BOND AND KEEP THE PAYMENT THE SAME, $2.9 MILLION IS WHAT WE COULD BOND WITH THAT SAME AMOUNT APPOINTMENT. THE LIBRARY WAS NUMBER SIX ON THE PRIORITY LIST OF THE FEED BACK THEY GOT, AS YOU KNOW, THAT PRICE IS $22 MILLION SO, AT $2 MILLION, WE'RE ON THE VERY LOW END.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THE PAST IS THE PAST AND WHAT'S DONE IS DONE, WE JUST GAVE AWAY THE LAND AND NOW WE'RE LEASING IT BACK

FROM YOU. >> I DID WANT YOU GUYS TO HAVE THE HISTORY AND I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY AS WELL.

SO, THERE IS A BENEFIT, TO THE LIBRARY BEING DOWNTOWN, HANDS DOWN. YOU KNOW, WE DO NEED TO WORK ON SIGNAGE, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL COME WITH THE DOWNTOWN ASSESSMENT AS WE LOOK AT DOWNTOWN WAY FINDING AND ALL THE THINGS COMING AS WE GET A NEW DOWNTOWN MANAGER, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

BUT, WE DID APPROACH THEM TO EXTEND THIS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME AND WITH THESE EXTENSIONS WE'RE UP TO THEM ON WHAT THEY CHARGE WHERE HERE WE WERE ABLE TO REDUCE OUR

RATES. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, HAVE WE DISCUSSED WITH BUCHANAN WHAT THEY WOULD CHARGE FOR AN END CAP PER SQUARE FOOT, BECAUSE, I KNOW WHAT THEY'RE CHARGING OTHER

PEOPLE OFF THE STREET. >> WHAT WE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT AS THE BANK HOOD SPACE IN HOPES TO PARTNER BETWEEN THE LIBRARY AND PUBLIC WORKS AND THERE WAS NO INTEREST BETWEEN THEM. IT WASN'T LARGE ENOUGH. WE DID NOT DISCUSS WITH THEM ADDING THE ADDITIONAL END CAP BECAUSE THERE'S A BENEFIT TO DOWNTOWN TO HAVE A BUSINESS IN THERE. AND ONCE WE GET IN THERE, WE'RE

LOCKED IN. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED AT ALL IN LEASING OUT THAT SPACE AT THE CURRENT PRICE.

>> I WILL TELL YOU WILL THEY ARE NEGOTIATING.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SURE, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU, OF

COURSE. >> I TALKED TO SOMEBODY WHO TRIED TO RENT IT. IT'S $36 PER SQUARE FOOT.

>> SO, THERE'S NO APPETITE SO EXPAND THE END OF THE LIBRARY?

>> IF WE DO THAT, WE'RE GIVING UP PRIMETIME SPACE.

>> THE LONG-TERM PLAN WAS TO BUILD THE LIBRARY SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR THAT AREA AND USE THAT SPACE TO DRIVE DEVELOPMENT? DOWNTOWN.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: BUT, THAT PLAN WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER FACILITY NEEDS WHICH ARE WAY MORE CRITICAL THAN A LIBRARY RIGHT NOW. SO, WE TALKED OURSELVES INTO THIS CORNER AND NOW WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH IT FOR A LONG TIME. FIVE YEARS, NO, IN FIVE YEARS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO

BUILD A LIBRARY. >> IN ALL FAIRNESS, IN 2013 WHEN WE STARTED THESE CONVERSATIONS AND AT THAT TIME, I BELIEVED THE CITY THOUGHT THAT WAS SOMETHING THEY COULD DO. AS YOU KNOW, BAYSIDE CAME AFTER THAT IN 2015. WE STARTED NEGOTIATIONS IN 2013. THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THE CITY AT THE TIME AND THERE WAS A STRONG BELIEF THAT THE LIBRARY AND OR CITY HALL MIGHT BE ONE OF THE FIRST FACILITIES WE WOULD APPROACH THE PUBLIC WITH. SO, ALL I'M SAYING IS CONDITIONS WERE VERY DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE TODAY. AND IT WAS VIEWED AS

[01:45:01]

WHY THOSE DECISIONS WERE MADE. >> I THINK MAY BE BECAUSE TODAY ANYBODY CAN ALL A MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPER AND THEY WOULD BEG TO COME TO THE CITY. BUT, THAT'S THE PAST.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT HISTORY LESSON AND WE DID NOT INCLUDE THAT WE TORE DOWN THE LIBRARY TO GIVE THAT LAND AWAY AND IT WAS A

FAIRLY NEW LIE BRARY. >> AND WE KNEW IN 2009 THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS THE MAJOR FACILITIES NEED.

>> I THINK THAT BRIAN IS RIGHT. WE'RE STUCK.

>> AND THAT'S THE GIST OF IT. >> $225,000 A YEAR FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AT LEAST, AND PROBABLY LONGER AND BY THAT TIME, MAY BE IT'S NOT $16.25 A FOOT, MAY BE IT'S $35 A FOOT.

>> THERE'S A 3% INCREASE EACH YEAR.

>> SO, AFTER THE TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OVER THE FIVE, GIVES

US A HARD TARGET. >> I LIKE THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN

THE CAM CHARGES WELLED IN. >> IT WAS AN OUTSTANDING INVOICE THAT I'M UNWILLING TO PAY.

>> I DON'T LIKE THE PRICE BECAUSE COMPARING THAT PRICE TO THAT OF OTHER FACILITIES IN THE CITY THAT WE DIDN'T GIVE $3.469 MILLION OVER 15 YEARS TO, AND $1.9 MILLION CONSTRUCTION GRANT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES TO

ME. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: IS THERE A TIMELINE TO GET THIS APPROVED BY?

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO GET IT THIS APPROVED AND START IN JANUARY.

THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO. AND I REALLY WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN AS A WHOLE. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S FRUSTRATING AND RIGHT NOW, RETAIL IS TOUGH, PERIOD. RETAIL IS TOUGH EVERYWHERE. THERE ARE LOTS OF PLACES. WE'VE BEEN LOOK BUT, THINK ABOUT THE LONG-TERM IN DOWNTOWN, ONCE WE MOVE THE LIBRARY INTO AN END CAP OR A SUITE, WE'RE LOCKED INTO THAT, BECAUSE WE CAN'T JUST.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: BUT WE DID THAT TO OURSELVES, AND SO, YOU KNOW, LIKELY, THEY WILL BE LIVING THERE FOR 10 YEARS. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO, I REALLY THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO NEED MORE SPACE. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY LEADING SPACE, WHAT THEY HAVE IS YOU KNOW, A ROOM SMALLER THAN THIS. SO, I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER, I AT LEAST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD WANT. IF WE HAVE THAT AND IT'S LIKE, CRAZY, THEN, OKAY.

>> OKAY. I CAN ASK THAT QUESTION.

>> I WANT TO SEE THE NUMBERS AND MAKE THAT DECISION AT THAT

POINT. COUNCIL, IS THAT FAIR? >> SURE.

>> I THINK THAT'S FAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE CAM WAS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, OUR SHARE.

>> YOU COULD SEE HERE WHAT IT WAS A MONTH, ABOUT 55, IT'S HIGHER THAN THAT NOW. DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT WAS LAST YEAR FOR

CAM? >> NO, WE PAY A SET AMOUNT EACH

MONTH. >> BUT IS THE $5,500 OUR SHARE

OF THE CAM? >> IN 2018, YES.

>> AND THEN WE SETTLED UP AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WHICH WAS A LOT. SO, WHEN JIM WAS AROUND, WE WOULD GROESH WITH HIM EVERY YEAR TO GET THAT ADJUSTED. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE REAL REASONS, I MEAN, IT'S VERY HARD TO KNOCK THAT DOWN AND SAY THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT EACH DOLLAR WAS GOING FOR. AND I HAD A PROBLEM WITH THAT, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT OVER AND OVER AND OVER THROUGHOUT THE YEARS AND SO THAT'S WHEN WE WENT

TO THIS TYPE OF LEASE. >> I THINK THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WAS GLOSSED OVER IN THIS, THAT WE WERE PAYING NOT ONLY THE $200,000 AT CURRENT RATES FOR THE SPACE, BUT ADDITIONALLILY WE WERE PAYING 60 TO $70,000 A YEAR. SO, $270,000, IS THAT ACCURATE? IS THAT WHAT I'M

HEARING. >> LET ME VERIFY THAT. WHAT LAURA'S PAYING IS LOOPED IN TO THIS.

>> THE $16.25? >> THAT'S WHAT IT WAS COSTING US A MONTH WHICH INCLUDED THE MONTHLY CAM CHARGES. THAT INCLUDED THE MONTHLY CAM CHARGES AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR. I APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T EXPLAIN THAT VERY WELL.

>> I THINK IT WAS 175 TO 200 A YEAR.

[01:50:02]

>> WENDY IS VERIFYING THAT FOR ME TODAY.

>> IT HAS NOT BEEN 270. EVEN IF YOU DO, SHE SAID, WHAT WAS IT SO, EVEN AT 16.25 CENTS, TIMES TWELVE THOUSAND 25, $16.25 TIMES $12.405 IS STILL $200,000 A YEAR INCLUDING THE CAM CHARGES.

>> I WAS LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE, AND WE WENT GOING AND NEGOTIATED SOME OF THAT WITH THEM. THEY HAD TO TRUE IT UP AND PROVE TO US EXACTLY WHAT WAS PART OF THE LIBRARY AND WHAT WAS PART OF THE

VILLAGE. >> I THINK IT'S GOOD TO EXPLORE THE END CAP. I RECOGNIZE THE SPACE IS NEEDED AS SOMEONE WHO HAS SPENT MANY HOURS AT THAT LIBRARY, I RESPECT THAT OPINION.

BUT, I DO AGREE THAT HAVING THAT SPACE AVAILABLE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ALTHOUGH IT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE SEVEN YEARS IT'S BEEN THERE, I GET IT.

>> WELL, IT HAS SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT.

>> WELL, THE OTHER HAS NEVER BEEN, THE BANK HAS NEVER BEEN

ANYTHING. >> AND IN THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING WHAT THAT COST WOULD BE, DID WE DETERMINE THE COST OF WHAT IT WOULD COST TO BUILDOUT THAT SPACE AND ESTIMATED UTILITY COSTS. IF WE TOOK OVER ADDITIONAL CAM CHARGE?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. >> ANY ADDITIONAL OVERHEAD

MIGHT. >> WE HAVE OTHER FACILITIES.

>> IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE. BUT, WE'LL LOOK AT ALL OF THAT AND I'LL HAVE IT FOR -- THIS IS ON CONSENT FOR THE DECEMBER 13TH MEETING BUT I'LL HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. THANK YOU, COUNCIL ANY OTHER

[4. DISCUSS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

OF CONSENT ON INDIVIDUAL? >> ITEM 7 E.

>> ITEM 7E? DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION THAT CAN BE ANSWERED

NOW OR YOU JUST WANT IT PULLED? >> I THINK

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> WE'LL PULL ITEM 7E FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ANY OTHERS? ALL RIGHT. LET'S RECONVENE IN THE CHAMBERS AT LET'S SAY 7:35 P.M.? LET'S DO

THAT. >> MEETING ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.