Dec 13, 2022 City Council Meetings

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:12]

TONIGHT'S INVOCATION WILL BE IMPERADORED BY PASTOR BRIAN WITH CORNERSTONE CHURCH. IF WOULD YOU LIKE TO JOIN US,

PLEASE STAND C. >> GOOD EVENING.

FATHER WE THANK YOU TONIGHT FOR THIS TIME THAT WE CAN GATHER AND ASK YOU TO BE INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF THIS CITY.

LORD FIRST OF ALL WE GIVES THANKS FOR THE CITY THAT WE LIVE IN AUTHOR THESE THAT SERVE WELL AND WE THANK YOU GOD FOR BLESSING US IN SO AND WAYS AND SO LORD TONIGHT WITH THAT IN MIND AND THAT IN OUR HEART LORD WE ASK FOR YOUR WISDOM WE ASK FOR GUIDANCE WE ASK FOR TRUTH WE ASK THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT WOULD GUIDE AND LEAD OUR THOUGHTS WORDS AN ACTIONS AND THINGS WE DO AND SAY WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THIS CITY AND THIS PEOPLE AND LORD WE PLAY BLESSINGS ON THEM DURING THIS SEASON OF CHRISTMAS AND WE PRAY THAT ALL THEIR FAMILIES WILL BE BLESSED AND EVERYTHING YOU DO SO WE THANK YOU LORD IN JESUS' NAME.

>> YOU'RE GIRLSCOUT TROOP WILL BE DELIVERING THE PLEDGE OF

ALLEGIANCE. >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN PLEASE STAND FOR US IN SAYING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE STATE OF TEXAS ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

>> THANK YOU. Y'ALL DID A GOOD JOB.

[5A. Hear presentation for Comprehensive Monthly Financial Report (CMFR) for the period ending September 30, 2022.]

>> ALL RIGHT. I NOW CALL OUR REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER. OUR FIRST ITEM IS PRESENTATIONS AN PROCLAMATIONS. ITEM 5-A PRESENTATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD SENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2022 AND MAKING THAT PRESENTATION WILL BE WENDY BADGETT OR BRIAN FUNDRAISERBERG CITY MANAGER.

YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS STUFF, SIR.

>> WE ARE WAITING ON YOU. OH, GOOD EXCUSE.

>> IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. >> HE'S THE NEW ONE.

>> OKAY, LET ME GET IT PUT TOGETHER HERE.

SO GOOD EVENING. TONIGHT'S FINANCIAL REPORT PRESENTATION IS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2022, WHICH IS THE FOURTH AND FINAL QUARTER OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED IN DETAIL WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON DECEMBER 6TH AND BEFORE I GET STARTED I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT WE HAD A GREAT YEAR. AS WE CLOSED OUT OUR EXPERIENCE ON JUST HOW THE PANDEMIC HAD PARTICULARLY AFFECTED AND NOT AFFECTED ROWLETT AS WE THOUGHT IN FISCAL YEAR 2021.

WE REINSTATED OUR FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET BACK TO MORE PRE-PANDEMIC EXPECTATIONS THE GOOD NEWS IS FORTUNATELY ROWLETT STABILITY WITHSTOOD THE PANDEMIC IN FISCAL 2021 AND MADE A THEY WILL HI REBOUND IN FISCAL YEAR 2022.

MOST RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS ARE BACK IN FULL FORCE, DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES TO GROW THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH AN INFLATION HAVE DRIVEN HIGHER SALES TAX COLLECTIONS FAR BEYOND WHAT WE ANTICIPATED LEADING CITY TO FINISH FISCAL YEAR 2022 IN A REALLY STRONG FINANCIAL POSITION SO AFTER KICKING OFL WITH THAT WE WILL GET SOME HEALTHY FINANCIAL NEWS TO REPORT IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES. OVERALL CITY IS REPORTING

[00:05:09]

THE CITY IS REPORTING EXPENSES OF APPROXIMATELY $124 MILLION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR WHICH IS BELOW THE REVISED BUDGET.

OF THE $8 MILLION BELOW BUDGET APPROXIMATELY 1.7 MILLION IS OPERATIONAL IN NATURE PRIMARILY THE RESULT OF POTION PANDEMIC EMPLOYEE TURNOVER. THE REMAINING DUE TO THE TIMING OF PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED. WITHIN TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION I'LL GO A LITTLE BUILT MORE IN DEPTH INTO THE OVERALL REVENUE AND EXPENSES RESULTS. THE GENERAL FUND AND THE UTILITY FUND. PROPERTY TAXES REPRESENT OVER-50 PERCENT OF THE GENERAL FUND RECEIVE NEWS AND THEY SERVE AS THE PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT.

THE CITY REPORTED $96,000 IN THE FOURTH QUARTER WITH YEAR END PROPERTY TAX EXCEEDING THE REVISED BUDGET BY 491,000 DUE TO HIGHER THAN FORECAST COLLECTION RATE THIS YEAR.

SALES TAXES ARE COLLECTED BY THE STATE COMPTROLLER AN REPRESENT ALMOST 15 PERCENT OF THE GENERAL REVENUE BUDGE TEMPT CITY COLLECTED 2.3 MILLION IN THE FOURTH QUARTER EXCEEDING THE BUDGET BY ONE MILLION OR 13 PERCENT FOR THE YEAR.

OVER 550,000 OF THIS YEAR'S REVENUE WAS DERIVED FROM INTERNET MARKETPLACE SALES WITH A DESTINATION IN ROWLETT UP 14 PERCENT FROM THE $495,000 RECEIVED IN THE PRIOR YEAR OVERALL MARKETPLACE SALES COMPRISED 6 PERCENT OF OUR TOTAL SALES TAX REVENUE IN FISCAL YEAR HEALING CONSISTENT WITH FISCAL YEAR 2021 RATE. OVERALL, GENERAL FUND RECEIVE NEWS WITH 3.3 MILLION ABOVE THE REVISED BUDGET AS JUST DISCUSSED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE WAS ALMOST HALF OF THIS AS THE PROJECTED COLLECTION RATE WAS EXCEEDED AN SALES TAX REVENUE CONTRIBUTED ONE MILLION REFLECTING THE STRENGTH OF LOCAL RETAIL AND RESTAURANT SECTORS THROUGHOUT THE COVID ECONOMIES.

FINALLY AMBULANCE FEES EXCEEDS TENDAI YOU'LL BUDGETS BY ALMOST $400,000 FOR THE YEAR DRIVEN BY HIGHER VOLUME

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

[00:20:17]

>> I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU SOMETHING GOING ON WITH THE

[00:20:20]

[00:20:24]

RECREATION CENTER THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL, ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

[6. CITIZENS’ INPUT ]

NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN. ANY CARDS?

>> WE DO HAVE ONE SPEAKER, DAVE HALL.

PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE FOR THE

RECORD. >> DAVE HULL, ROWLETT.

I WOULD LIKE TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON THE TWO NO PARKING SIGNS MY CUSTOMERS WERE TRIPPING OVER.

HERE'S THE CITY RESPONSE I RECEIVED.

YOU HAVE REQUESED THE NO PARKING SIGNS BE REPOSITIONED TO PREVENT A TRIP HAZARD AND PLEASE BE ADVISED THESE SIGNS ARE NOT CITY ISSUED SIGNS MORE WERE THEY PLACED IN THE STRIPED NO PARKING AREA BY THE CITY AS EVIDENCED BY THE FOYT BELOW.

THE TRIP HAZARD IS SELF CREATED AND THE SIGNS WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED FOR PARK PATRON SAFETY. MY RESPONSE, THESE TWO SIGNS WERE NOT MY SIGNS AND WERE NOT PLACED BY ME.

THESE TWO SIGNS WERE BROUGHT INTO THE PARK DURING THE SANITARY WEATHER IS LINE BY ROWLETT AND OR THE CONTRACTOR.

DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THESE TWO SIGNS WERE PLACE GHED TWO PARKING LOT LOCATIONS TO MAKE ROOM FOR CONTRACTORS VEHICLES. I HAVE PICTURES OF THESE SIGNS IN THREES LOCATIONS AND AFTER THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED MOST OF THE SIGNS WERE REMOVED. THE TWO SIGNS IN QUESTION WERE PLACED IN TIN THE STRIPED AREA. I DID NOT PLACE THEM THERE.

I BELIEVE THE PARK DIRECTOR MAY HAVE PLACED THEM THERE OR KNOWS WHO DID. WHEN THESE TWO NO PARKING SIGNS SHOWED UP THEY HAD PAGE STICKERS ON THEM.

MY ASSUMPTION IS SOMETHING FROM THE ROWLETT STAFF ASKED THE RENTAL COMPANY TO LEAVE THE TWO NO PARKING SIGNS IN THE PARK AND NOT REMOVE THEM WITH THE OTHER SIGNS WHICH WERE REMOVED.

ONCE A RESPONSE WAS INSTALLED THE TWO NO PARKING SIGNS DISAPPEARED. I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR CURRENT LOCATION. IT WAS THE ROWLETT PUBLIC WORKS STAFF WHO EVENTUALLY PLACED THE NEW NON-TRIP NO PARKING SIGN.

HERE ARE PICTURES OF THE NO PARKING SIGNS AS THEY ARRIVED AND WERE USED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SANITARY WEATHER IS PROJECT. FIRST PICTURE SHOWS THE SIGN ALONG WITH THE SANITARY WEATHER IS CONSTRUCTION IN PAD EM POINT PARK. SECOND PICTURE SHOWS THE SIGN WITH CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT CROWDING OUT THE USERS FROM THE PARK. DID WE BUILD POWER POINT PARK FOR THE CONTRACTORS TO USE WITH THEIR PROJECTS OR FOR THE RESIDENTS TO USE? PADDLE POINT BE USED BY THE CONTRACTORS AND CONSTRUCTION CREWS TOWER THE WEATHER IS CONSTRUCTION? WHY NOT LET THIS REMAIN AS . . .

THE FACT SHOWS FAULT. I WAS A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNT ANT I KNOW THE VALUE OF ACCURATE INFORMATION.

[READING]. >> CAN I GIVE TO TO YOU TO PASS

TO COUNCIL? >> THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE DID RECEIVE 33 PUBLIC INPUT FORMS OPPOSED TO ITEM 8-A ON INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

WE WILL DISCUSS THAT FURTHER AFTER WE PASS THE CONSENT

[7. CONSENT AGENDA]

[00:25:02]

THESE ITEMS WILL BE ACTED ON IN ONE ANYONE IN ATTENDANCE WISH TO PULL ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? SEEING NONE LAURA PLEASE TORPEDO CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS.

>> 7-A CONSIDERING APPROVING THE MINUTES, 7-B, CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING AN AMENDED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, 7-C, CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES, 7-D, CONSIDER ACTION APPROVING PAYMENT FOR SERVICES TO DRINKING WATER SYSTEM AND 7-E, CONSIDER ACTION EXECUTEING A TASK AUTHORIZATION

FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN WORK. >> COUNCIL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS READ BY THE CITY SECT.

>> DEMAYOR PRO TEM. >> CALL THE VOTE.

[8A. Conduct a public hearing and consider action to approve an ordinance amending the City’s drainage utility regulations and the Master Fee Schedule to revise and establish a fee structure for drainage charges based on impervious area for residential and nonresidential accounts]

OF COURSE, STAFF WILL HAVE MORE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

SO THE PROPOSED SYSTEM IS BASED ON IMPERVIOUS AREA.

AT 7301 MEASURES 48,00011 SQUARE FEET IN TERMS OF ERU'S THAT CALCULATES TO 12 ERU'S. EACH ERU EQUATES TO 4,000 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS AREA. EACH NON-RESIDENTIAL ERU IS CHARGE AT A RATE OF $5.50 ERU PER MONTH WHICH IS $66 PER MONTH, FOR YEAR ROUGHLY $792 SO THE CURRENT BILLING FOR DRAINAGE IS A FLAT FEE AT A RATE OF $13.50 FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. THE CURRENT BILL FOR THIS PROPERTY MULTIPLIED BY 12 MONTHS EQUALS $162 A YEAR.

SO THE DIFFERENCE IN COST BETWEEN TODAY'S CURRENT BILLING FOR DRAINAGE AND THIS PROPOSAL IS ROUGHLY $630 A YEAR.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. SO, WHILE THAT IS UNDERSTANDABLY A LARGE INCREASE TO SOME IT IS NOT THE $36,000 INCREASE SOME OF YOU WERE MISTAKENLY LED TO BELIEVE.

SO NOW, COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY?

>> YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MAYOR WITH THE REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF THAT INCORRECT INFORMATION IT WAS I, AND WAS NOT DONE INTENTIONALLY. WE HAD THIS MEETING LAST TUESDAY WHEN WE FIRST HEARD ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO GO FROM A FLAT FEE TO THIS IMPERVIOUS USING THE ERU'S.

I UNDERSTOOD THAT. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ON THE COUNCIL. I TOOK AWAY FROM THAT A MISUNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT IT WAS GOING TO HAVE IN TERMS OF IMPACT TO THE CHURCH COMMUNITY. AND SO, I DID TALK TO SEVERAL PASTORS ON WEDNESDAY MORNING AND THAT'S KIND OF THE GENESIS OF HOW THAT STARTED. SO, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE AND I WANT TO OWN THAT AS BEING THE SOURCE OF THAT.

YOU KNOW THE GOOD THING ABOUT WHEN YOU MAKE A MISTAKE NOPEFULLY YOU LEARN FROM IT AND WHAT I HAVE I SHOULD HAVE DONE WEDNESDAY MORNING WHEN I HAD THOSE CONCERNS OR MAYBE TUESDAY NIGHT, PICK UP THE PHONE OR CALL JEFF OR CALL BRIAN AND SAY DID I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY AND I DIDN'T DO THAT SO I JUST WANT TO TELL PEOPLE THAT I'M SORRY FOR GETTING PEOPLE SPUN UP.

[00:30:02]

SO I WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL COST ON TERRIBLE ORGANIZATIONS NONPROFIT CHURCHES. I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE BUSINESS IMPACTS ON OUR BUSINESS COMMUNITY BECAUSE SOMETIMES THAT IN TURN IS A DIRECTOR INDIRECT IMPACT ON OUR CITIZENS, BECAUSE CHURCHES DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO REALLY TAKE THAT EXTRA COST AN JUST PASS IT ON TO MEMBERS. BUSINESSES CAN, SO I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO MY FELLOW COUNSEL MEMBERS TO JEFF TO THE PASTORS I TALKED TO TO GET THEM SPUN UP. IT WAS BASED ON INCORRECT

INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA. >> COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. IT SAYS A LOT ABOUT YOUR CHARACTER. WE ALL SLIP UP AND MAKE MISTAKES SO OWNING IT SPEAKS TO YOUR CHARACTER SO I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

STAFF, YOUR TURN. >> THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEN AN THANK YOU FOR YOUR REMARKS COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON. VERY WELCOME.

SO, YES, THIS PRESENTATION IS ABOUT AMENDING THE DRAINAGE UTILITY FEE. I WOULD LIKE TO START OFF WITH A LITTLE BACKGROUND. THE DRAINAGE RUE UTILITY IS A LEGAL MECHANISM THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE STATE THAT ALLOWS MUNICIPALITIES TO ASSESS FEES THAT COVER THE COST OF PROVIDING DRAINAGE SERVICES IN THAT MUNICIPALITY AND OUR DRAINAGE UTILITY THE CITY ESTABLISHED IT IN 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AFFECTS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE WHICH IS THE GOVERNING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR DRAINAGE UTILITIES THAT ARE ENACTED BY MUNICIPALITIES. OUR DRAINAGE UTILITY RESIDES AT THE ROWLETT CODE OF ORDINANCES IN CHAPTER 70 ARTICLE IV AND THAT CODE DOES INCLUDE A SCHEDULE OF FLAT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROBLEMS AND DOES NOT AT THIS TIME INCLUDE ANY EXEMPTIONS. BASED ON THE UTILITY BILLING RECORDS, WE KNOW THAT THE CURRENT DRAINAGE UTILITY FEES GENERATE ABOUT $1.5 MILLIO ANNUALLY IN REVENUE.

THIS REVENUE CAN SUPPORT STORM WATER RELATED PROGRAMS, INCLUDING MANAGEMENT AND OVERHEAD AS WELL AS IMPORTANTLY TCEQ, TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MS4 WHICH IS MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM WEATHER IS SYSTEM RULES IN PERMITTING AND CAPITAL AND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS AS WELL.

FOR EXAMPLE, RECENTLY, COUNCIL ADOPTED THE BUDGETS WHICH INCLUDES $4.2 MILLION IN STORM WATER PROJECTS AND THOSE COULD BE FUNDED THREE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION BUT WE COULD ALSO USE THE STORM WATER FEES TO OFF SET SOME OF THOSE COSTS, THE CITY ENGAGED FREEZE AND NICHOLS, THE CURRENT DRAINAGE UTILITY ORDINANCE AND THE ASSOCIATED FEE STRUCTURE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BETTER ALIGN THE ORDINANCE WITH CURRENT PLGC TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT RULES REQUIREMENTS AND ADJUST THE FEE STRUCTURE TO REPRESENT THE TRUE COST OF THE SERVICE.

TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT THE DRAINAGE UTILITY FEES ARE CLASSIFIED IN A NON-DISCRIMINATORY REGIONAL AND EVENING MANNER OH FREEZE AN NICHOLS STUD HIS AN RECOMMENDS IF WE MODIFY THE CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE FROM A METER BASIS TO IMPERVIOUS BASIS WE WILL RESULT IN A MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS WE CAN RECOUP MORE OF THE COSTS THE CITY SPENDS TO PROVIDE THAT DRAINAGE SERVICE AN INCREASE THE REVENUE STREAM WE USE TO FUN THE DRAINAGE PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

THE CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE AS WAS MENTION CDC A METER BASED STRUCTURE, MEANING THAT EVERY PROPERTY SERVED BY A WATER METER IN TOWN, IS ASSESSED A UTILITY DRAINAGE FEE IN ADDITION TO THE WATER WEATHER IS AND TRASH FEES THAT THEY GET WITH THEIR METER BILL. THIS APPLIES TO BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND AS I MENTIONED THESE FEES ARE FLAT, $5.50 A MONTH FOR RESIDENTIAL WATER METER $13.50 FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER METER THAT MEANS THAT REGARDLESS OF THE PROPERTY SIZES ALL CUSTOMERS WITHIN THOSE CLASSES MAY THE

[00:35:03]

SO FOR RESIDENTIAL USERS, THIS DOES NOT REALLY AMOUNT TO MUCH OF A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE, BUT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS, THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN USERS AND WHAT THEY'RE PAYING AND THEIR LOAD ON THE SYSTEM IS VERY LARGE.

FOR EXAMPLE, LARGE BOX STORES AN LARGE STRIP CENTER WILL GENERATE FOR MORE STORM WATER THAN THE SMALL DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS AND ESPECIALLY SHOPS THAT WE HAVE. SO, AN IMPERVIOUS AREA IN BASIS IS, CAN BE USED TO ASSESS A DRAINAGE UTILITY FEE AND THAT WOULD BETTER REPRESENT THE LOAD ON THE CITY STORM WATER SYSTEM.

IMPERVIOUS AREAS ARE SURFACES THAT EVERYBODY ALTERED FROM THEIR NATURAL STATE, THEY'RE HARDEN'S MATERIALS SUCH AS DRIVEWAYS AND ROOFTOPS AND PARKING LOTS.

THESE SURFACES DON'T ALLOW I FILTRATION INTO UNDER THE LYING SOIL AND THERE BY INCREASE RUNOFF TO THE MUNICIPAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. IMPERVIOUS AREAS ARE THEREFORE A GOOD MEASURE AFTER PROPERTY'S USE OF THE STORM WATER SYSTEM AND THEREFORE ARE AN EFFECTIVE MEANINGS OF EQUALIZING THE BURDEN OF COST TO THE DRAINAGE UTILITY USERS.

SO, WE HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE IMPERVIOUS AREA BASIS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF DATA, SOURCES THAT WE CAN USE, AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, GIS PARCEL DATA IS ANOTHER, THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCEL DATA AND UTILITY BILLING DATABASES ARE AVAILABLE TO US.

GIST WANT TO MENTION THAT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT PARCEL DATA OUR CONSULTANT FREEZE AND NICHOLS WAS ABLE TO DO IT DOWNLOAD DATA DOWNLOAD BEFORE THE SYSTEM WENT DOWN SO THEY'RE WORKING WITH FAIRLY RECENT DATA AND GOOD NUMBERS.

FREEZE AND NICHOLS RANDOMLY SAMPLED 100 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO DETERMINE THE MEAN VALUE OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THAT WORKED OUT TO BE $4,000 SQUARE FEET, SO WE DEFINE AN EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT HAS 4,000 SQUARE FEET AN IT WILL SERVE AS THE BASIS FOR THE BASE UTILITY STRUCTURE. WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE COST OF THE SERVICE. WE WORK WITH FREEZE AND NICHOLS TO DETERMINE THESE EXPENSES. MOST OF THESE EXPENSES, THERE'S A LIST THERE. MOST OF THEM ARE OVERHEAD MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE STUFF BUT THERE'S ALSO OF COURSE CAPITAL PROJECTS AND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS MGS THOSE DO CONSTITUTE THE BULK OF THE COST TO THE CITY.

WE CALCULATE THE ANNUAL STORM WATER COST TO BE ABOUT $2.1 MILLION PER YEAR. SO, ONCE WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT, WE HAVE TO ASSESS THE FEES, THE METHOD OF DOING THAT IS WE TAKE OUR UTILITY BILLING RECORDS.

WE SEE THAT WE HAVE ABOUT 20,500 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES DO CONTAIN A VERY NOMINAL AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA.

WE HAVE ELIMINATED THOSE FROM THE CALCULATION AND WE ARE LEFT WITH AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IN THE THIRD BULLET ITEM, 20,372 PROPERTIES. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE PROPERTIES DO FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITIONS OF ONE ERU.

THAT'S 4,000 FEET OF IMPERVIOUS AREA THAT'S BECAUSE A HOUSE AN DRIVEWAY AND THE WALK WAYS CONSTITUTE THAT IMPERVIOUS AREA THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO CHANGE MUCH BASED ON THE PROPERTY.

YOU HAVE SOME OUTLIERS. WE ARE PROPOSING ALL RESIDENTIAL CLASS PROPERTIES ARE ASSIGNED EXACTLY ONE ERU AND WILL BE BILLED AT THE RATE OF ONE ERU. ON THE OTHER HOON NON-REST DESHL PROPERTIES VARY WIDELY IN THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA.

WE HAVE TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF ERU'S ASSIGNED TO THOSE PROPERTIES BY MEASURING THE IMPERVIOUS AREA OF EACH PROPERTY. THEN WE TAKE THE NUMBER OF ERU'S AND WE MULTIPLY BY THE RATE OF E YOU RU TO CALCULATE THE FEE CHARGED FOR THAT PROPERTY. THE CITY'S CURRENT DRAINAGE UTILITY ORDINANCE DOES NOT EXEMPT PROLGTS FROM A DRAINAGE UTILITY FEE BUT TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DOES PROHIBIT MUNICIPALITIES LIKE US FROM ASSESSING DRAINAGE UTILITY FEES.

THOSE PROPERTIES ARE PROPERTIES FLORIDA HAVE A WHOLLY SUFFICIENT AND PRIVATELY OWNED DRAINAGE SYSTEM SO THEY'RE NOT USING OUR

[00:40:01]

SO THE DRAFT AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE PUT FORWARD TONIGHT DOES NCLUDE EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AND IT ALSO INCLUDES COUNTY PROPERTY, SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY AN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY PROPERTY WHICH ARE OPTIONAL UNDER TLGC RULES BUT THE DRAFT AMENDMENT DOES NOT RIGHT NOW EXEMPT STATE PROPERTIES OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION PROPERTIES OR HIGHER EDUCATION PROPERTIES.

TLGC REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE.

THAT INCLUDES A NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND AT LEAST THREE TIMES WITH THE FIRST PUBLISHED HONOR BEFORE THE 30TH DAY BEFORE THE HEARING DATE. TONIGHT WOULD BE THE HEARING DATE. NOTICE WAS PUBLISH IN THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS ON SUN, NOVEMBER 13TH AGAIN ON NOVEMBER 25TH AND AGAIN ON DECEMBER 4TH. ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT REQUIRED BY TLGC WE ALSO POSTED THAT NOTICE ON THE CITY'S PUBLIC BULLETIN WEB PAGE. NOW, TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS, WE ARE PROPOSING A RATE OF $5.50 PER ERU PER MONTH. THIS RATE WILL KEEP THE FEW FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AT THE SAME LEVEL THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY BILL. NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WILL BE ASSESSED THE FEE BASED ON THE MONTHLY ERU RATE MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER OF ERU'S MEASURED FOR THE PROPERTY.

AS A COMPARISON, CURRENTLY WE ARE BRINGING IN $1.476 MILLION AS YOU CAN SEE IN THAT TABLE AND THE PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE COULD GENERATE A POTENTIAL OF $1.855 MILLION.

WHEN COMPARED WITH THE EXISTING FEE STRUCTURE, THE ANNUAL REVENUE BROUGHT IN BY THAT IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT 26.7 PERCENT INCREASE OR JUST OVER $400,000.

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WILL CONTINUE TO SEE THE SAME DRAINAGE UTILITY FEE BUT NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WILL PAY A FEE THAT REPRESENTS THEIR BURDEN ON THE CITY'S DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PORTION OF ANNUAL REVENUE FUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WILL DROP FROM 91.1 PERCENT TO 72.5 PERCENT WHILE THAT PORTION FUNDED BY NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS INCREASES FROM 8.9 TO 27.5 PERCENT.

THERE IS ALSO AN OPTION OF KEEPING THE FEE, THE DRAINAGE UTILITY STRUCTURE REVENUE-NEUTRAL.

IF WE DID THAT, THE ERU RATE PER MONTH WOULD DROP TO $4.38 AND THE FEE BILLED TO RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WOULD BE $4.38 PER MONTH. NON-RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS WOULD STILL SEE AN INCREASE IN THEIR DRAINAGE UTILITY FEE BUT NOT AS MUCH AS SHOWN IN THAT PREVIOUS TABLE.

THAT'S BECAUSE AND ALSO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE NUMBER OF ERU'S FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NOT RESIDENTIAL USERS WILL NOT CHANGE. THAT'S A MEASURED VALUE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE PROPERTY. SO THEREFORE, THE PROPORTIONS OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL REVENUE THAT I WENT OVER BEFORE OF THE 91 PERCENT DOWN TO 72 PERCENT AN THE 9 PERCENT UP TO ABOUT 27 PERCENT WILL STAY THE SAME. WE SIMPLY WILL BE CHECKING $1.746 MILLION AS WE ARE NOW. THE ANNUAL COST TO PROVIDE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SERVICES IS ESTIMATED TO BE $2.1 MILLION F.

THE FEE STRUCTURE REMAINS REVENUE-NEUTRAL, THEN WE WOULD

[00:45:06]

400,000 IS A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN WHAT WE ARE CLAL COMPLICATING WHICH IS ABOUT $500,000 PER YEAR.

THE REMAINING REVENUE WHETHER WE COLLECT IT AT THE $4.38 OR $5.50 LEVEL IS STILL AVAILABLE TO SPEND ON DRAINAGE PROJECTS.

SO, OUR RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT'S AS I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN QUITE A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ITEM WOULD BE TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE DATE SO THAT COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER AN DISCUSS THE VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR EXEMPTION AND THE FEE LEVEL F. COUNCIL DOES CHOOSE TO ACT ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT, EVEN WITH ANY AMENDMENTS THAT MAY BE DESIRED PLEASE NOTICE A FOLLOWUP OPTION WOULD BE MENDED TO THE FEE SCHEDULE.

>> COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN IF PUBLIC HEARINGS?

>> YES, I'M LITTLE CONFUSED. WE WERE IN THE WORK SESSION LAST NIGHT WE WERE ALL THERE. BRIAN YOU SAID THIS NEEDED TO GET DONE. IT WAS MADE HOW I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE PASSED AS THAT WE WERE GOING TO MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION NOT THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE THE ORDINANCE. ONCE IT'S PASSED WE ARE GOING TO START IMPOSE WILL FEES. I CHALLENGE STAFF THAT WE WERE GOING TO REEXAM THESE THINGS. IF I HAD KNOWN THIS WAS GOING TO BE THE OERNZ THAT WOULD BE PUT IN PLACE I WOULD HAVE PUSHED HARD AREA THE WORK SESSION UNTIL WE HAD A CHANCE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED WHY WE

ARE HERE. >> WHAT I THOUGHT I MADE CLEAR LAST WEEK WAS WE NEEDED TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ONE THING WE DID NOT FEEL WE COULD ADEQUATELY ADDRESS'S WERE THE QUESTIONS COUNCIL RAISED. SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE VARIOUS EX-EDGES ANSWERS THE PIECES AND THE PARTS.

BECAUSE IF COUNCIL MEMBERS DID WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WE DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THAT OPTION FROM YOU.

SO THAT WAS AN INTERESTING DIALOGUE WE HAD WITH STAFF.

WHAT IS THE A LITTLE BIT OF DISAGREEMENT.

SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION.

>> MAY I ADD SOMETHING TOO? WE ALSO WANTED TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE WE NOTICED THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE NEWSPAPER. WE WANTED TO GIVE THE PUBLIC THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THIS.

>> I'M FINE WITH FEEL THAT WANT TO SPEAK ON I. I'M IN FAVOR OF TABLING THIS. WE ARE A LONG WAY FROM BEING ABLE TO RECOMMEND THAT ORDINANCE.

AS I SAID AT THE WORK SESSION. >> 2.1 MILLION WITH THE

[00:50:03]

DRAINAGE. >> SO THE CUSTOMERS WOULD BE BILLED FOR THAT, SO THAT ADDITIONAL $400,000 IF WE ARE GOING TO KEEP RESIDENTIAL, IF WE END UP KEEPING RESIDENTIAL THE SAME, COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS WOULD END UP PICKING UP THAT DIFFERENCE. WAS THAT YOUR QUESTION?

>> I'M GOING TO PUT IT ON DISCUSSION REAL QUICK.

SO, HIT YOUR BUTTONS AGAIN. >> NOT ALL THE WAY TO THE $2.1 MILLION. THIS TAKES TO US 1.8.

>> THAT IS CORRECT, REQUIRE? >> MAYOR PRO TEM SAYS IT'S CORRECT. WE ARE ESTIMATING ABOUT 1.8 MILLION. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

I BELIEVE THOSE ARE IN BONDS. DRAINAGE CAPITAL BONDS.

I BELIEVE. IT'S IN THE BUDGET.

>> SAY IT AGAIN TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T MISSION UNDERSTAND.

SO WE CURRENTLY BRING IN 1.8. >> CURRENTLY WE BRING IN 1.4.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. AND THEN WHAT YOU SAID IS THAT IF WE DID THIS, IT WOULD BRING IT UP TO 1.85 OR SOMEWHERE

AROUND THAT. >> RIGHT.

>> THAT WAS A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS DIFFERENCE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT PRIMARILY WOULD COME

FROM THE COMMERCIAL ACCOUNT. >> THAT IS CORRECT ALSO, BUT TO GET TO THE 2.1 THERE'S STILL 3.2 MILLION.

>> WE WOULD HAVE TO GO EVEN BEYOND THAT.

>> YES. >> BUT WHO IS COVERING THAT DIFFERENTIAL NOW TODAY BETWEEN THE 1.4 AND THE 2.1?

>> WE ARE PROBABLY FULLY NOT GETTING THINGS DONE.

>> IN BONDS, IF WAY I UNDERSTAND THE BUDGET.

>> WE SOLD IN 2004-2005 TWO YEARS IN A ROW, WE SOLD BONDS THAT WE ARE NOW PAYING FOR. THEY'RE 230 YEAR BONDS AND SOMETIME AROUND '24-'25 THOSE BONDS ARE PAID OFF.

THAT WILL FREE UP THE ABILITY TO ISSUE ADDITIONAL BONDS AT THAT

TIME. >> RIGHT.

>> BUT THAT WOULD ONLY FUND MAYBE $3.4 MILLION AND OUR NEEDS ARE FAR IN EXCESS OF THAT. SO ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE COMMENTS ON GENERAL OVERHEAD IT'S CAPITAL THAT WE

NEED MOST. >> PARDON ME.

MAY I ASK A QUESTION THAT I THINK WILL CLARIFY? I THINK WHEN WE SAY THE UTILITY FUND I DON'T THINK OUR GENERAL CITIZENRY KNOWS WHERE THE MONEY IN THE GENERAL UTILITY FUND IS COMING FROM SO I'D LIKE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.

SO THE BONDS ARE BEING PAID OUT OF WHAT REVENUES THE CITY IS

COLLECTING. >> THAT IS CORRECT, SO WE DO THINK OF UTILITIES SOMETIMES IN THE CONTEXT OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT TYPES OF SERVICES THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED UTILITY BUT WHAT WE TRAIN EVERYBODY TO THINK OF UTILITY FUNDS IS WATER AND WEATHER IS. STORM DRAINAGE IS A SEPARATE UTILITY AND IT HAS ITS OWN FEE Y THAT'S THE PREMISE BEHIND THIS STRUCTURE.

>> I THINK, AN FORGIVE ME IF I'M TAKING WORDS FROM YOUR QUESTION.

I THINK THE INTENT HERE IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT TODAY, WITH NO CHANGE, WE HAVE A $623,000 DEFICIT BETWEEN WHAT WE ESTIMATE WE ARE SPENDING ON DRAINAGE AND THE REVENUE WE ARE COLLECTING FOR DRAINAGE CHARGES. IF WE MAKE THE CHANGE WE HAVE A $244,000 DEFICIT AN THERE'S OTHER CALCULATIONS I DID IN HERE REGARDING CHANGES AN EXEMPTIONS BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE WORK SESSION WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET WHERE WE ARE SO WE ARE NOT FUNDING THIS SERVICE BY CHARGING MORE OR OTHER SERVICES. THAT'S I THINK THE DIRECTION MORE THEREOF QUESTION. ARE WE CHALLENGING MORE FOR WATER OR SANITARY WEATHER IS WHAT ARE WE CHARGING MORE FOR TO MAKE UP FOR THE $600,000 DEFICIT.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT IS PAID FOR BY THIS FEE

[00:55:22]

SO THEREFORE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF ELECTIONS THERE'S BEEN DRAINAGE PROJECTS IN OTHER GEO BONDS.

>> YES, I DIDN'T HAVE TO LOOK AT BRIAN THAT TIME.

>> SO, WHAT I APPRECIATE OUT OF THE FEE PROPOSAL THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED IS WE HAVE KEPT THE FEE FOR HOMEOWNERS THE SAME.

WE ARE REALLY MAKING IT MORE EQUITABLE WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. A TARGET AND WALMART HAS MORE CON COMPLETE IN THEIR PARKING LOT THAN A LOT OF HOUSES.

>> HALF THE PARKING SPOTS ARE NOT BEING USED.

>> I THINK WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE IS FAIR AS IT RELATES TO COMMERCIAL. WHAT I HAVE A CONCERN WITH IS OUR NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AS YOU MENTION WE COULD POTENTIALLY EXEMPT SO MY QUESTION FOR YOU THERE IS, IS THIS A BINARY SOLUTION OR IS THERE MIDDLE GROUND WHERE THEY PAY A LESSER FEE THAN COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONS?

WHAT OPTIONSES DO WE HAVE THERE? >> WELL, IN TERMS OF THE FEE I DON'T THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S BINARY.

THERE MAYBE OTHER MECHANISMS THAT ARE BEYOND MY PER VIEW THAT WE COULD USE TO HELP THOSE INSTITUTIONS.

BUT THE FEE, THE DRAINAGE UTILITY FEE MUST BE ACCORDING TO THE STATE LAW NON-DISCRIMINATORY EQUITABLE AND REASONABLE AN IF WE BASE ONE CLASS OF PROPERTY ON IMPERVIOUS AREA WE HAVE GOT TO BASE ALL OF THEM ON IMPERVIOUS AREA.

>> WITH THAT SAID WE HAVE UNDER STATE STATUTE THE OPTION TO EXEMPT RELIGIOUS NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS.

SO MAYBE, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THE FEE FOR 7301 MILLER WOULD BE CALCULATED AS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $600-700 VS. THE CURRENT FEE $162 A YEAR SO THAT'S INCREASE WHICH FOR A NONPROFIT IS A BIG ASK SO AS WE CONSIDER THIS AS A COUNCIL THAT'S ALL I WOULD MENTION IS POTENTIALLY CONSIDER MAKING THAT EXEMPTION IS COUNCIL

IS FAVORABLE TO DOING SO. >> ARE THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE BEFORE WE GO INTO COMMENTS, LET'S LET THE PUBLIC GIVE US INPUT FIRST. SO ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO MAKE A COMMENT YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES COME TO THE PODIUM SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE STATE YOUR NAME AND THE CITY OF RESIDENCE.

>> OUR FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE CAST TEN HUDDLESTON.

>> FIRST OFF, YOU KNOW WHY WE ARE HERE.

WE UNDERSTAND EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBERS WERE MISREPRESENTED IN THAT, AND I WANT TO TAKE OWNERSHIP, I SENT THE SAME INFORMATION TO NEARLY EVERY PASTOR THAT I KNOW AND IT WAS PROTECTION PRESENTED THAT WAY. IT WAS MORE OF A 220 PERCENT VS.

$36,000 A YEAR IT REALLY DIDN'T CHANGE THE THOUGHT PROCESS MUCH AS ACCEPTING BUT I I THANK COUNCILMAN BRITTON FOR EXPRESSING THAT. READING STAFF ALL THE PAPERS YOU READ, BRIAN YOU'RE ABOUT TO RETIRE AND SO, IT'S EVEN ROUND

[01:00:03]

WE RUN OUR INSTITUTIONS AS THAT, NONPROFIT.

AND SO, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER USING YOUR OPTION TO EXEMPT THE RELIGIOUS NONPROFITS AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN FOR OTHER NONPROFITS LIKE LIFE MESSAGE BUT THE WAY THE STATE LAW READS IT ESPECIALLY SAYS RELIGIOUS NONPROFITS.

I'M SAD FOR THAT BUT I STAND HERE TO ASK TO YOU CONSIDER THAT AND ACCEPT MY APOLOGY. I WAS NOT TRYING TO UNDULY RILE ANYBODY UP. BUT EVEN A SPLIT OF 600 PERCENT YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE SAME OPTION FROM EVERY PASTOR AND PRESIDENT OR HOWEVER THEY'RE CALLED FROM A NONPROFIT HERE IN THE CITY. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT DOABLE BECAUSE OF THAT STATUS NONPROFIT.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU DO.

TRIED TO READ THE STATE LAW AND TOOK ME FOUR TIMES TO FIGURE IT OUT. WE ARE NOT AGAINST YOU.

WE ARE FOR YOU. I PRAY FOR YOU.

MOST OF THESE PASTORS THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

PLEASE ENACT YOUR OPTION TO EXEMPT RELIGIOUS NONPROFITS IN THE CITY AND AGAIN PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGY FOR MISREPRESENTING THE INFORMATION, I HUMBLE MYSELF.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU PASTOR.

NEXT COMMENT. >> NEXT SPEAKER IS BRYAN HIGHLIGHT. AFTER THAT IS MICHAEL GALLUPS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

I WANT TO FIRST OF ALL ACCEPT AND FORGIVE COUNCILMAN BRITS ON THE FOR WHAT HE DID. I'M GOING TO PRAY ABOUT

FORGIVING. >> SAME AND CITY OF RESIDENTS.

>> FOR THE INFORMATION. I HAPPENED TO RUN INFORMATION.

OW, BRIAN HYATT. WE DON'T HAVE GOOD INFORMATION.

I'M TOLD COMMUNICATION IS THE BASIS OF LIFE.

I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS OPENING UP FOR US TO TALK.

SO OBVIOUSLY I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF YOU GUYS EXERCISING YOUR RIGHT TO EXEMPT US. COMING OUT OF COVID TRYING TO BUILD A NEW CHURCH. IF YOU ATTEND A CHURCH SOMEWHERE YOU KNOW THAT THINGS ARE RAZOR THIN AND TO TRY TO GET IT FROM A CHURCH I DON'T SEE IT SO I'M ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER EXEMPTING AN NONPROFITS IN TOWN. WE HAVE GREAT NONPROFITS.

I DON'T KNOW THE NEXT BUILT BUT I KNOW THEY'RE ALL ON A SHOESTRING BUDGET BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

WE DO PRAY FOR YOU AND I DON'T WANT TO TRY TO READ WHAT YOU GUYS READ SO I GET TEXT THAT DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

SO THANK YOU GUYS. >> THANK YOU PASTOR.

>> NEXT IS MICHAEL GALLUPS. AFTER THAT IS RYAN HANKINS.

>> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNSEL.

I'M HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ROWLETT VISITORS CENTER AN MEMBERSHIP AND BASED ON NEW INFORMATION I HEARD TONIGHT I'M ADJUSTING MY COMMENTS. I HAVE ABOUT 70 EMAILS AN ADJUSTING THEM AGAIN SO I DON'T HAVE A NEW EMAIL SO I'M GOING TO READ WHAT I HAVE HERE. YOU KNOW, HAVING SERVED ON COUNCIL I UNDERSTAND THE DECISIONS YOU HAVE TO MAKE AN THE DIFFICULTY THAT CAN COME WITH THAT.

I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT OUR RESIDENTS OUR VOTERS AN OUR CORPORATE CITIZENS AREN'T NECESSARILY VOTERS AND I JUST WANT TO SKIP SOME OF WHAT I HAD EARLIER.

IT'S MUCH NICE WARE I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO SAY THAN WHAT I HAD.

GIVEN THE INFORMATION I WAS GIVEN BUT I WANT TO REMIND YOU UNLIKE THE BANNER WITH AN ALL GREEN SLIDE ON THE FINANCIAL REPORT A LOT OF OUR BUSINESSES ARE STRUGGLING WITH SUPPLY CHAIN

[01:05:02]

FEES ARE GOING TO BE PASSED TO THE CITIZENS.

NOBODY WANTS TO DO THAT WE WANT TO KEEP ROWLETT BUSINESS FRIENDLY AND I WANT TO IPAD AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, I PROBABLY NOT TO ANY OF YOU ESPECIALLY, BUT WHENEVER THINGS LIKE THIS ARE BEING CONSIDERED, PLEASE REACH OUT TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AN INCLUDE US IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS BEFORE IT GET TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING. WE ARE HERE.

WE WANT TO BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

NEXT COMMENT. >> NEXT SPEAKER IS RYAN HANKINS.

>> RYAN HANKIN'S I'M THE LEAD PASTOR AT THE CHURCH IN THE CITY ON DALROCK READY. I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE FINANCE OF IT. BECAUSE AS A PASTOR THE LORD MEETS OUR NEEDS WHATEVER COMES OUR WAY.

MY ISSUE WHAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT TODAY WAS READING THAT MEANS THAT WHEN THE PROPOSAL WAS BROUGHT TO YOU GUYS THERE WAS ALREADY A DISCUSSION AMONGST OTHERS ABOUT WHO TO INCLUDE AS EXEMPTIONS AND THE FACT THAT CHURCHES AND NONPROFITS WEREN'T BROUGHT UP IN THE DISCUSSION KIND OF ACTUALLY MAKES ME GO MAN, SO MUCH STUFF THAT'S DONE FOR THE CITY, WE CAN GO BACK TO THE TORNADO, THREE MEALS A DAY THAT WE GAVE PEOPLE AND WE WERE SERVICING THE CITY, AND WE WERE DOING THINGS FOR THE PEOPLE.

I'M HOUSING A POLICE OFFICER RIGHT NOW FOR FREE.

I'M GIVING THEM TRAINING ROOM IN OUR GYM, THREE TIMES A MONTH WITH A FREE ROOM UPSTAIRS FOR ALL THEIR EQUIPMENT, ANY TIME THAT SOMEBODY COMES TO ME FROM THE CITY, I'M HERE TO GIVE.

WE DON'T TAKE. THAT'S WHAT FOR PROFITS DO.

THEY'RE TAKING CONSTANTLY. WE ARE A NONPROFIT.

WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING TO GIVE. I WOULD BEG YOU GUYS TO IS IT A AMONGST YOURSELVES AND TO MAKE NONPROFITS PART OF THE EXEMPTIONS WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN OBVIOUSLY PROPOSED AND APPROVED. YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A LOT OF THINGS YOU HAVE TO GO OVER ALL THE TIME BUT I ALWAYS BELIEVE THAT CHURCHES AN NONPROFIT TWHES THEY'RE RECOGNIZED THAT WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS POPS UP THAT WOULD INCREASE SOMETHING IN A BUDGET LINE WHEN I DON'T GO OVER.

WHEN I GO OVER MY BUDGET I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE STORM DRAIN FEE FOR THE YEAR GOING WE HAVE TO SHIFT MONEY OVER TO PAY FOR OUR STORM DRAIN. THAT'S USUALLY NOT WHAT WE TALK ABOUT. IT'S OTHER AREAS USUALLY OUTREACH SO I WOULD ASK YOU WOULDN'T CAUSE AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN COMING UP WITH SOMETHING CREATIVE THAT WOULD SHIFT IT AROUND AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING MORE BECAUSE IF YOU SEE MY PARKING LOT I WOULD BE THE CHURCH TO GET SLAMMED MORE THAN ANYONE SO IT'S JUST GOT TO BE SOMETHING I'M HOPING YOU GUYS CAN COME UP WITH AND I APPRECIATE THE TIME.

I'VE GOT 40 SECONDS SO I WON'T TAKE LONG.

THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT.

AND AGAIN LIKE I STARTED EARLIER WE HAD 32 WHO ARE 33 PUBLIC INPUT ON LINE PUT INPUT FORMS THAT WERE ALL AGAINST ITEM 8-A.

SO COUNCIL. I NEED TO DO THAT.

I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO, I GUESS I'LL TAKE COMMENTS

NOW. >> I DO WANT TO SPEAK TO THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE ABOUT THE WORK SESSION WE HELD LAST WEEK AND THE LAST OF CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO RELIGIOUS NONPROFITS.

WE ACTUALLY DID DISCUSS THAT. IT DIDN'T MAKE IT INTO THIS PACKET TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS.

COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO AN ORDINANCE BEFORE IT'S PASSED AND THAT'S A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT SHOULD THE ORDINANCE BE MOVED FOR APPROVAL BUT WE DID HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. IT'S DEFINITELY ON THE MINDS OF AT LEAST COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON BECAUSE I SPOKE TO HIM ABOUT IT.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND HONESTLY YOU GUYS CHURCH AN CITY WERE THE FIRST ONES I THOUGHT OF BECAUSE OF THE TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CONCRETE YOU HAVE OUT BEHIND YOUR BUILDING AND I KNOW WHAT A BURDEN THAT WOULD BE ON YOUR FACILITY. THANK YOU.

>> I ECHO COUNCIL MEMBER [INDISTINCT] ON OUR ABILITY TO MODIFY AND WAS RUNNING THROUGH OUR MINDS IN THE WORK SESSION

[01:10:01]

I'M A NEO-CLASSICLY TRAINED ECONOMIST AND PEOPLE ACT ACCORDING TO THEIR INCENTIVES AND I'M CONCERNED IF WE DO A WLANG IT EXCLUSION WHAT WE ARE DOING IS DISCOURAGING PARKING LOTS LIKE YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH THE FORMER CHURCH ON THE ROCK WHICH YOU BUILT THAT PARKING LOT THAT ARE COUNTER TO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH BY MAKING FEE STRUCTURE CHANGE SO I'M WRACKING MY BRAIN TRYING TO FIGURE A WAY WHERE WE SOFTEN THE FISCAL BLOW IN SOME WAY FOR THOSE EXISTING CHURCHES TO BUILD A PARKING LOT AN NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THE DRAINAGE AN FEES THAT THEY'RE IMPOSING ON THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY AND MAKING THAT A DIFFERENT INCENTIVE THAN WHAT A WALMART OR COSTCO OR SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD HAVE COMING IN SO I'M STRUGGLING HOW WE GET THERE.

DO WE PHASE THIS IN SOME WAY, WHETHER WE CAN PROVIDE SOME OTHER TYPES OF EX-EDGES THAT ALLOW OUR MINISTERS TO DEAL WITH THE FISCAL ISSUES THEY'RE DEALING WITH BUT STILL GET US TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE, WHICH IS THAT THE FEES WE CHARGE FOR STORM DRAINS PAYS FOR THE COST OF PROVIDING THAT STORM DRAINAGE. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER BRITTON. >> JUST A QUICK POINT OF CLARIFICATION. CHURCH OF THE CITY DID NOT BUILD THAT PACKING LOT. THAT WAS AN EXISTING PARKING LOT FROM THE PREVIOUS CHURCH THAT THEY PURCHASED.

ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS I KNOW THE PASS TOOR TALKED ABOUT ALL THE THINGS THEY DO OUTSIDE JUST THEIR NORMAL CHURCH ACTIVITIES.

WHAT I LEARN TODAY WHILE WE TOURED BAYLOR LAKE POINT IS THAT FOR QUITE A WHILE DURING COVID, CHURCH OF THE CITY PROVIDED A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THEIR PARKING LOT DURING THE WEEK TO SHUTTLE PEOPLE BACK AND FORTH TO HOSPITAL FOR STAFF SO THEY'RE DOING A LOT FOR THE CITY AS WELL AS OTHER CHURCHES IN THE CITY BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT OF CLARIFICATION IT WAS NOT THE CHURCH OF THE CITY THAT BUILT THAT PARKING LOT.

>> DEPUTY MAYOR. >> I WANTED TO ECHO WHAT COUNCIL

MEMBERS SAID IN TERMS OF -- >> LET'S GET GOVERNOR PRO TEM

SAY WHAT SHE NEEDS TO SAY. >> I'M SAYING THE SAME THING AS YOU GUYS AND I'M COMPLIMENTING YOU.

WHAT THEY SAID IN TERMS OF NOT EXPECTING THIS TO BE ON THE AGENDA AS AN ORDINANCE TONIGHT, AND THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE STAFF REPORT IS JUST TO HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AN NOT TO PASS THE ORDINANCE. I THINK A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE CAN CONSIDER. THIS IS A STICKY WICKET, BECAUSE THE STATE LAW AS FAR AS I CAN TELL DOESN'T ALLOW US TO EXEMPT ALL NONPROFITS JUST RELIGIOUS NONPROFITS SO THEN YOU GET INTO A SITUATION OF IS IT FAIR TO THE OTHER NONPROFITS AN AS MR. GALLUPS MENTIONED IS IT FAIR TO BUSINESSES TO BUT THIS MUCH OF A BURDEN ON THEM SO I THINK WE HAVE A LOT MORE TO DO IN TERMS OF WORKING THIS OUT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH HAVING THE PUBLIC HEARING SESSION BEFORE WE HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION AN WORK IT OUT BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE EXEMPTION. WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE ACTUAL AMOUNT, COULD WE MAYBE SEE SOMETHING IN BETWEEN, I DON'T KNOW BUT I THINK WE HAVE A LOT MORE WORK TO DO ON THIS.

>> I'LL SAY A FEW THINGS. THE FIRST TIME I HEARD WE WERE CONSIDERING A DRAINAGE AMENDMENT THAT I CAN RECALL WAS AT THE WORK SESSION, AN AMENDMENT LIKE THIS, WAS AT THE WORK SESSION.

SO, TO -- I FEEL LIKE THIS HAS BEEN RUSHED ONTO COUNCIL AND I

[01:15:06]

SO I'M GLAD THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO TABLE THIS.

THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WE HAVE NOT ENOUGH TIME TO DISCUSS THIS AND NAIL OUT THE DETAILS.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE COMMUNITY FOR THE MISCOMMUNICATION ON SEVERAL FRONTS. WE WILL NOT DO THAT AGAIN.

SO, COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION.

WE WILL TRY TO WORK OUT THESE DETAILS AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO A FUTURE MEETING LIKELY THE FIRST OR SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY. TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION AND THEN GO FROM THERE. SO, COUNCIL MEMBER BELL, YOU HAD

A COMMENT. >> YES, I JUST WANT TO THANK THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE IN AND FOR THEIR COMMENTS AND ALSO I FELT LIKE IT WAS KIND OF RUSHED ON IT.

I STARTED READING IT READ IT AND TAKING OUT MY CALCULATOR AND SAID THIS IS NOT WORKING RIGHT AND I DID PUT IN SOME QUESTIONS AND I CONTACTED BRIAN TODAY, AND I TOLD HIM, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD REALLY BE VOTING ON THIS TODAY.

WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK AT IT. SO I AM GLAD WE ARE GOING TO BE TABLING THIS, BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME WORK TO DO.

SO, BUT NEXT TIME, GIVE US SOME KIND OF HEADS UP AND NOT JUST A WEEK. THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.

THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL MEMBER GALLOWAY.

>> THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO TABLE THE RESOLUTION.

TYPICALLY WHEN YOU TABLE YOU NEED TO TABLE TO A PARTICULAR

MEETING DATE. >> IT WILL BE THE EITHER THE FIRST OR SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY POSTPONED.

>> POSTPONED. SORRY.

FORGOT MY TRAINING. THAT QUICK, OR ARE WE POSTPONING

TO REGULAR OR WORK STHEN? >> IT WILL BE A WORK SESSION.

AGAIN, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON THIS.

WE ARE NOT PREPARED TO MAKE A DEC DECISION IN JANUARY. SO THE WORK SESSION WE WILL POSTPONE THIS TO A WORK SESSION EITHER THE FIRST OR SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY. WE HAVE TO WORK OUT DETAILS ON OUR CALENDAR. ALL RIGHT.

COUNCIL MEMBER BELL. >> COUNCIL MEMBER.

>> WE HAVE THE HOLIDAYS COMING UP.

THEY NEED TO DIGEST THIS A LITTLE BIT, EVEN THE PART WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT, THERE'S THE EXEMPTION PART OF IT BUT THERE'S THE WHOLE OTHER PIECE OF THIS THAT COULD MAKE IT MORE PALATABLE. AGAIN IT'S ABOUT ENINCENTIVEIZING BEHAVIOR AND I GO BACK TO MY SOAPBOX, I THINK STAFF NEEDS TIME TO WORK THROUGH THAT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER ORDINANCES THAT WERE THERE SO I WOULD SAY LET'S NOT BE IN TOO MUCH A HURRY TO DIVE INTO IT BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE PUSHED

EVEN FURTHER. >> THE INTENTIN TO MOVE IT TO JANUARY WAS TO JUST CONTINUE TO CONVERSATION.

IT WAS NOT TO COME TO ANY:CONCLUSION AS A COUNCIL.

THERE EVEN MAY ANOTHER WORK SESSION AT THE NEXT MEETING.

I WOULD PROBABLY I'M JUST GUESSING HERE, A FORMAL DESIGN ON THIS COUNCIL MATTER PROBABLY WON'T HAPPEN UNTIL FEBRUARY-MARCH. REALISTICLY THAT'S KIND OF GUESSING. S DOES THAT CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION? GO AHEAD.

>> I GUESS TO COUNCILMAN MATT'S POINTS.

I KIND OF WOULD LIKE TO KICK THERE BACK OUT TO JEFF BECAUSE HE'S THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO WORK ON THIS AND BRING BACK SOME IDEAS I THINK AS A BASIS FOR OUR DISCUSSION I BELIEVE, SO I WAS LOOKING AT OUR CALENDAR HERE.

WE'VE GOT JANUARY THIRD, JANUARY 17TH FEBRUARY 7TH AS THE NEXT

THREE MEETINGS. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I KIND OF LIKE WHAT MATT SAID AND THAT IS, WE NEED TIME.

YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT POSSIBILITIES.

[01:20:02]

TO BRING IT BACK. >> OKAY.

>> DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HIT YOUR BUTTON. MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> YES, MAYOR I MOVE THAT WOE POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY.

>> I NEED CLARIFICATION ON THAT MOTION.

I DON'T THINK WE ARE READY TO DETERMINE AN ACTUAL DATE AT THIS

TIME. >> OKAY, I'LL LET THAT MOTION

DIE. >> THE MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER.

>> I MAKE A MOTION WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE MEETING.

>> TO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?

COUNCIL MEMBER G. >> MINE DIDN'T LIGHT UP.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER SECOND BY COUNSELMY G TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO A FUTURE MEETING.

ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE DO SO? SEEING NONE, CALL THE VOTE.

THAT ITEM PASSES, 7-0. DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHINDER'S MOTION PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU.

THAT IS IT, AND GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE.

ON BEHALF OF MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS WE WISH YOU ALL A SAFE HAPPY HOLIDAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.