[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
>> GOOD EVENING. AS THE THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 2023 AT 5:30. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY CONVENE.
THE CITY OF ROWLETT CAN CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT.
IF YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND IN PERSON, YOU MAY COMPLETE THE CITIZEN INPUT FORM BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING.
ALL FORMS WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO THE START OF THE MEETING. AND OUR FIRST ITEM OF THE NIGHT
[2A. Discuss recommendations from the Charter Review Commission and determine whether to proceed with a Special Charter Amendment Election in May 2023. (45 minutes)]
IS ITEM 2-A. DISCUSS RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND DETERMINE WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH A SPECIAL CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION IN MAY OF 2023.>> WE HAVE INCORPORATED THE THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT TUESDAY'S MEETING. THOSE ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN A DIFFERENT COLOR. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CALL THOSE OUT. ALSO INCLUDED ON EACH SLIDE IS COUNCIL'S SCOPE REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION.
WE CAN JUST GO ONE BY ONE. >> I MEAN, ONE BY ONE.
THERE IS NOT TOO MUCH. THERE ARE SOME BIG POINTS TO HIT ON. THE ADMINISTRATIVE STUFF, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTIONS. RIGHT? DO WE WANT TO? DO WE WANT TO HIT THE BIG STUFF?
>> WELL, WE NEED TO HAVE AN ANSWER ON ALL OF THEM.
SO WE CAN GO ONE BY ONE. >> ALL RIGHT.
. >> CONVERSATIONS, QUESTIONS.
>> IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH THAT? >> YEAH.
I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS ONE.
>> YOU HAVE TO AT LEAST NOD. >> YES.
>> HERE WE GO. >> AT WHAT POINT WILL WE DRAFT THE LANGUAGE THAT WILL APPEAR ON THE BALLOT?
>> AFTER TONIGHT. >> THE LANGUAGE... THE FINAL VERBAGE WILL BE IN THE ORDER WE CALL FOR THE ELECTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH LAURIE TO GET THE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS TOGETHER. IT WILL REFLECT EXACTLY THAT.
THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE, WHAT WE WILL DISCUSS WILL ACTUALLY
APPEAR... >> CAN I INTERJECT SOMETHING
HERE, MAYOR? >> BEFORE YOU DID, YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ON THIS THE LAST TIME.
>> THEN YOUR POINT. >> THIS IS A GOOD GENERAL POINT FOR ALL OF THESE. WHAT WE ARE DOING THIS EVENING IS MAKING SOME CONSENSUS DECISIONS AROUND WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO LET THE CITIZENS DECIDE ON THESE ISSUES.
>> YES, YES. >> THAT IS THE CONTEXT TO LOOK AT THIS. TO MAKE SURE OUR CITIZENS KNOW
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. >> AS YOU ALL KNOW, I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT. THIS I WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT AND LAY THEM ALL OUT. THTHEN WE CAN KIND OF DECIDE, YU KNOW, WHAT WE WILL END UP DOING. FIRST AND FOREMOST, I VIEW...
WELL, I SHOULD SAY THIS. SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THE CITY COUNCIL ASKED FOR LEGISLATION TO BE PASSED WITH TEXAS LEGISLATURE TO REMOVE AN EXCEPTION 40 OR 50 YEARS AGO THAT WAS PUT IN THAT, THAT THE JUDGE, THE PRESIDING JUDGE DOES NOT OVERSEE STAFF.
AT THE TIME, THE STATE HAD PASSED THIS BLANKET THING FOR THAT TO BE THE RULE OF THE LAND AND BASICALLY, SEVERAL DOZEN CITIES GOT A BILL PASSED THAT SAID, OKAY, EVERYBODY EXCEPT FOR US. WE WERE ONE OF THOSE, EXCEPT FOR US. THEN A COUPLE OF SESSIONS AGO, WE HAVE REMOVED THE EXCEPTION. AND NOW THE RULE IS THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE IS... DOES SUPERVISE THE MUNICIPAL COURT EMPLOYEES. SO I WANTED TO TALK TO JUDGE
[00:05:04]
KILL GORE ABOUT THIS. HE ACTUALLY IS OKAY WITH THIS.EITHER WAY. THE COUNCIL MAY GO.
SUPERVISION IS IMPORTANT TO HIM. BECAUSE HE IS THERE EVERY DAY.
HE SEEMS WHAT'S GOING ON. HE TALKS TO PEOPLE.
HE KNOWS WHAT HE NEEDS TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
HE HAS SAID HE DOESN'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION. HE IS OKAY WITH IT EITHER WAY.
I WANT THEN TO CHARACTERIZE MY CONCERN MORE SO THAN HIS.
SO I DO, I DO LIKEN THIS OPERATIONALLY TO THE RELATIONSHIP THAT I HAVE TO LAURA HALLMARK ASTY SECRETARY.
LAURA REPORTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, NOT TO ME.
IF SHE WAS TO DISCIPLINE OR TERMINATE AN EMPLOYEE, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT, UNDER PERSONNEL RULES, TO APPEAL.
THAT APPEAL COMES TO THE CITY MANAGER BY VIRTUE OF THE PERSONNEL RULES. ONE THING THAT WITH CORE, THE JUDGE IS FINE WITH THAT AS WELL. HE AND I BOTH AGREE THAT THE ABILITY FOR A COURT EMPLOYEE TO HAVE THAT SAME POWER... TO HAVE THAT SAME ABILITY, THEY ARE, AND WE BOTH ACKNOWLEDGE THEY ARE CITY EMPLOY EASY. REGARDLESS OF WHO THE SUPERVISOR IS. AND IN THIS REGARD, JUDGE KILL GORE FEELS HE IS A DEPARTMENT HEAD FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
REGARDLESS OF HIS JUDICIAL CANONS.
HE UNDERSTANDS THE ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE OF HIS POSITION. THEN IT COMES DOWN TO, WHAT IF IT IS NOT ME AS CITY MANAGER? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? MY CONCERN IS SIMPLY THIS. I WOULD NOT GO TO LAURA AND FIRE ONE OF HER EMPLOYEES WITHOUT, WITHOUT HAVING THAT INTERACTION.
AS A DEPARTMENT HEAD, SHE IS ALLOWED TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS FOR HER PEOPLE. AND I WOULD ONLY BE INVOLVED IF THERE WAS AN APPEAL OF THAT DECISION.
BY THE WAY OUR PERSONNEL RULES ARE WRITTEN.
I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING WITH THE JUDGE.
I SHOULD NOT INTERFERE. THIS WOULD GIVE ME THE ABILITY TO INTERFEAR. I SHOULD NOT INTERFERE UNLESS THE ULTIMATE APPEAL IS TRIGGERED.
THEN, ONLY THEN, OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS TREATED FAIR, THAT THEY... THAT EVERYTHING IS OUT ON THE TABLE. THAT THEY HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO TELL SOMEBODY THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY.
THAT THE WHOLE THING PROTECT US FROM LITIGATION.
BUT SHORT OF A COMPELLING RE REASON, I WOULD NOT EVEN OVERTURN EITHER LAURA'S DECISION OR THE JUDGE'S DECISION.
AGAIN, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A COMPELLING REASON TO DO IT.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO THIS.
KILO I STRUGGLE WITH HUE THIS WORKS. I UNDERSTAND SOME DAY IT MAY NOT BE THE JUDGE. AND SOME DAY IT MAY NOT BE ME IN THIS SEAT. ALL BETS ARE OFF.
AND WE COULD HAVE THESE DISPUTES AGAIN.
WHERE I THINK COUNCIL AS A POLICY-MAKING BOARD, I THINK YOU HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE SENSE THAT THEIR EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE TREATED AS CITY EMPLOYEES. AND THAT THERE ARE PROSESSES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO PROTECT THEM AS WELL.
I DON'T THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE A CHARTER-LEVEL DECISION.
AND I THINK... MY VIEW OF IT IS, MAYBE IT IS NOT A LEGAL SUPPORTED... BUT MY VIEW IS IT EVEN COUNTERACTS WHAT THE CURRENT STATE STATUTE NOW SAYS ABOUT THE PRESIDING JUDGE.
[00:10:02]
CONFLICT. IT IS NOT LEGAL.IT IS AN ACCOUNTING VIEW. YES, YES.
THAT IS MY CONCERN. I DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT. I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS THE RIGHT VENUE TO DO THAT. BUT THIS IS THE RIGHT VENUE.
I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS. I AM.
>> THIS ORIGINATED BECAUSE WE PRESENTLY HAVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EXISTING CHARTER AND PAST COUNCIL.
THE GOVERNING BODY SHALL PROVIDE BY ORDINANCE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A CLERK. I ASKED DAVID QUESTION.
WHETHER THE CHARTER IS, IN FACT, AN ORDINANCE OR NOT.
HE NODS HIS HEAD YES. >> IT IS NOT AN ORDINANCE.
>> IT IS NOT AN ORDINANCE. I HAVE COME TO THE VIEW THAT THIS FRANKLY NEEDS TO DISAPPEAR FROM THE CHARTER ENTIRELY.
AND NEEDS TO BE MANAGED THROUGH AN ORDINANCE AS DIRECTED BY
STATE STATUTE. >> SO THEN WE JUST UPDATE THE
ORDINANCE. >> I'M GOING TO TELL YOU.
>> IF YOU ARE GOING TO REMOVE IT FROM THE CHARTER, THEN YOU HAVE
THE PROPOSITION. >> THAT IS EASY TO DO, THOUGH.
WE CAN DO THAT ANY TIME WE WANT. STATE LAW DOES SAY... AND BRIAN
IS EXACTLY CORRECT. >> WHICH BRIAN?
>> WELL, I'M NOT SAYING YOU ARE WRONG.
>> I'M AGREEING WITH BRIAN F. >> YOU KNOW, CHAPTER 30 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, BACK IN 1997 AND THEN IN 1999, YOU KNOW, DOZENS OF DOZENS OF CITY HAD SPECIAL LEGISLATION AND ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL COURSE OF RECORD. AND GOING THROUGH THE LIST OF WHAT'S LEFT AFTER SOME LEGISLATIVE CHANGES WERE MADE IN SUBSEQUENT SESSIONS, THE VAST MAJORITY ALL CONTAINED A STA STATUTE. THEY HAVE RETAINED THE PROVISION THAT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER OR CITY ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTS THE COURT CLERK. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CITY MANAGER DOING IT. MOST CITIES THAT ARE COURTS OF RECORD, AND I'M GOING THROUGH THE LIST.
>> YOU SAY THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CITY MANAGER
I'M NOT TALKING OPERATIONALLY. I'M TALKING LEGALLY.
IT IS A VERY COMMON THING FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO APPOINT.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR SPREADSHEET.
>> PARTLY THINK ABOUT THIS, TOO. A LOT OF JUDGES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS ARE CONTRACT JUDGES. THEY ARE NOT FULL JUDGES.
OURS ARE THE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE JUDGE.
IN ANY MIND, THAT ALSO MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.
BACK WHEN JUDGE LOAKEN WAS OUR PRESIDING JUDGE FOR YEARS AND HE WAS CONTRACT, IT WAS A NO-BRAINER.
THE CITY MANAGER TECHNICALLY OVERSAW THAT.
DELEGATED SOME RESPONSIBILITY BUT OVERSAW THAT.
>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT. >> I THINK THAT SUGGESTS YOU NEED TO GET THIS DECISION POINT OUT OF THE CHARTER AND MOVE IT
TO ORDINANCE. >> I AGREE WITH THAT.
>> THE NEXT JUSTICE MAY DISACE GREE... DISAGREE WITH BEING...
WE MAY NOT HAVE A FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE FOR THE NEXT JUDGE.
>> SO THEN THIS CHANGES... >> YOU NEED TO BE MORE DYNAMIC IN OUR ABILITY TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHO IS APPOINTED.
>> BASICALLY, THE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE IS TOE REMOVE THIS
WHOLE THING. >> HE IS RECOMMENDING REMOVE.
THIS IS THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION.
>> TO REVERT BACK TO THE OTHER PART.
RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER RECOMMENDATION IS TO REMOVE THIS SUB-SECTION 7 COMPLETELY.
>> YES. >> WHICH WOULD BE A PROPOSITION.
>> MM-HMM. AND THAT, I WOULD BE FOR.
THEN WE NEED TO UPDATE THE ORDINANCE.
>> THEN WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT THE ORDINANCE.
(LAUGHTER). >> COULD THIS BE LEFT IN TO READ THE MUNICIPAL COURT SHOULD BE APPOINTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. AS OPPOSED TO REMOVING IT ENTIRELY. THAT MIGHT FACE SOME OPPOSITION.
TO CARVE OUT PIECES OF THE CHARTER.
>> THERE IS AN ADDITION OF SPECIFICITY IN THE RESPONSIBILITY OR THE AUTHORITY OF THE DEPUTY CLERKS.
>> NUMBER ONE, I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA.
IT MAKES SENSE TO SAY THAT. IF YOU DO IT, IT CREATES AN INHERENT CONFLICT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.
THEN WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE WHICH IS STATE LAW.
THERE APPEARS TO BE A CONFLICT. >> WELL, THEN, WE MIGHT NEED TO
AMEND THE ORDINANCE. >> WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE FIRST SENTENCE IN THIS CHARTER PROVISION AT ALL.
BRIAN G IS CORRECT. THE SECOND SENTENCE HAS... TALKS
ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE. >> WE SIMPLY TOOK OUT, IN THIS PROPOSITION, IF THE PROPOSITION WERE TO REMOVE THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SUB-SECTION 7, AND RETAIN THE SECOND SENTENCE...
>> WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? >> FIRST AND SECOND, RIGHT?
>> THE SECOND SENTENCE RETAINS THE FROM VISION.
>> IT SAYS DEPUTY CLERK. >> CLERKS AND DEPUTY CLERKS HAVE
THERE ARE TWO SENTENCES. >> THAT IS THE APPOINTMENT.
>> YOU WANT TO TAKE THE FIRST AND SECOND?
>> YES. >> YOU ARE COMPLICATING IT.
>> YOU ARE GOOD AT THAT. IT IS NOT COMPLICATED.
[00:15:05]
>> THAT WOULD BE FINE. THEN WE HAVE THE...
>> TO JEFF'S POINT, AND TO RICHARD'S POINT, ON TUESDAY, YOU DON'T WANT, WHEN WE PRESENT THE LANGUAGE TO THE PUBLIC, FOR THEM TO THINK THAT SOMEHOW WE ARE ACTING CONTRARY TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES. I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO HAVE LANGUAGE TO THE EFFECT THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, THEY SHALL BE APPOINTED AS... DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.
WITH THE ORDINANCE. >> THE COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE CLERK... I CAN'T QUOTE IT EXACTLY.
USE THE LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE. >> THE FIRST SENTENCE IN THERE.
YOU COULD DO THAT. >> WHICH SAYS THE GOVERNING BODY SHALL, BY ORDINANCE, PROVIED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CLERK AND THE MUNICIPAL COURTS OF RECORD. PERIOD.
>> THEN WE DO AN ORDINANCE. >> OKAY.
>> THAT IS FAIR. WE GOOD WITH THAT?
>> I'M GOOD WITHMENT THAT. >> I SECOND BRIAN'S MOTION.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> POINT OF ORDER.
>> LET ME LOOK OVER HERE. >> YEAH.
>> I THINK LEE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE SOMEBODY TO...
>> WE HAVE THE PROPOSITION IN 2021.
THE VOTERS WENT AND VOTED FOR THE SUPERVISION OF THE COURT CLERKS. THAT IS WHAT I WAS CHECKING INTO. AND SO WHEN I LOOKED UP THE JOB DESCRIPTION, THAT ALSO SAYS UNDER DIRECT SUPERVISION.
IF THE PEOPLE VOTED FOR DIRECT SUPERVISION, THAT IS MY ONLY
CONCERN. >> THAT IS ACTUALLY COVERED, I
THINK, BY STATE STATUTE. >> YOU THINK?
>> YEAH. SUPERVISION OF COURTS.
>> THE SUPERVISION IS SEPARATE FROM THE APPOINTMENT.
>> APPOINTMENT AND SUPERVISION. >> WE DON'T HAVE SA CHOICE.
WE DO NOT HAVE A CHOICE IN THAT. >> WHAT WE ARE BASICALLY SUGGESTING AT THIS POINT, IS TO TAKE OUT ALL OF THAT AND REPLACE IT WITH A SIMPLE SENTENCE. THAT GOES BACK TO STATE TACH UTE. ... STATUTE.
REFERRING TO HOW THIS WORKS. >> THE CHARTER WOULD INCLUDE...
>> CITY COUNCIL SHALL, BY ORDINANCE, PROVIED FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CLERK OF THE MUNICIPAL COURTS OF RECORD.
THEN WE DO THE ORDINANCE. >> YEAH.
>> TAKE IT OUT OF THE CHARTER. DO IT IN THE ORDINANCE LIKE
>> YOU COULD STILL KEEP IT IN THAT SENTENCE.
>> THE SECOND SENTENCE. THIRD SENTENCE.
>> AND THEN AS WAS MENTIONED TUESDAY AT THE MEETING, THE RECOMMENDATION TO PUT "IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW."
>> YES. >> WELL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I TOTALLY SUPPORT THE CHARTER RECOMMENDATIONS.
I RESPECT THE DIFFERING OPINIONS THAT I KNOW EXIST.
BUT I KNOW THEY PUT A WHOLE LOT OF HARD WORK INTO THIS.
I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE DONE A LOT MORE THAN WE HAVE IN TERMS OF RESEARCHING, IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT WHAT THE OTHER CITIES DO.
THE SPREADSHEET THERE. THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING.
I WISH KELLY WAS HERE. I WOULD LOVE TO GIVE HER KUDOS FOR THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO HIRE HER TO DO THE SPREADSHEET FOR EVERY SINGLE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE AT COUNCIL.
THAT WAS SO HELPFUL. THIS WHOLE THING BEGAN WITH THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS, MYSELF, DEPUTY MAYOR... I'M SORRY.
MAYOR PRO TEM WINGET AND COUNCIL MEMBER GALUARDI GETTING TOGETHER AND TALKING ABOUT THE CHARTER AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD BY THE PREVIOUS CHARTER COMMISSION.
AND HOW TO FIX THAT. WE KNEW THAT SOME ISSUES MIGHT BE SEEN AS CONTROVERSIAL. CERTAINLY POLITICALLY, DIVISIVE MAYBE. THAT IS WHY WE WANTED TO APPOINT A CHARTER COMMISSION, PUT SOME CITIZENS ON THIS WHO WERE NOT ELECTED, WERE NOT POLITICAL, AND LET THEM DIG INTO THIS AND LET THEM, YOU KNOW, FIND OUT WHAT... FIRST OF ALL, WHAT OTHER CITIES WERE DOING IT AND WHAT WAS LEGAL, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THEY DID AN EXCELLENT JOB WITH THAT.
WE HAVE SOME REALLY GREAT PEOPLE WHO ARE CRITICAL THINKERS.
INDEPENDENT THINKERS. RESEARCHERS AND SO FORTH.
AND A GREAT GROUP. THEY PUT A TON OF WORK INTO IT.
[00:20:03]
AND I RESPECT THEIR RECOMMENDATION ABOUT THIS.I THINK THAT THIS SEPARATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND THE JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS, AS SHOULD BE DONE. IT IS NOT A RADICAL OR UNUSUAL IDEA. THE SPREADSHEET SHOWS THAT MOST OTHER CITIES DO IT THIS WAY. THERE ARE SOME TWEAKS OR SOME VARIANCES. THERE ARE A FEW THAT REQUIRE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE. MOST OF THEM DON'T.
MOST OF THEM SAY, MAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO YOU KNOW,BURY PREFERENCE WOULD BE IF THE JUDGE WAS ELECTED, TALK ABOUT FORECAST POLITICAL... TALK ABOUT POLITICAL. I AM NOT GOING TO PUSH.
THAT I WOULD LIKE THE CITIZENS TO HAVE POWER.
THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO GO. THE COMMISSION PROBABLY WENT BACK AND FORTH OVER THIS, PROBABLY PUT LOTS AND LOTS OF THOUGHT AND LOTS AND LOTS OF TIME INTO IT.
I FULLY SUPPORT THIS. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
SO... BECAUSE CURRENTLY, THE JUDGE IS A CITY EMPLOYEE.
IF A COUNCIL WERE TO FIRE OR TO LET GO OF A MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR A NON-CANON--RELATED ISSUE. SOMETHING IN VIOLATION OF THE EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK. WOULD THE JUDGE HAVE THE SAME RIGHT AS A CLERK WOULD TO APPEAL THAT TO A SEPARATE GROUP AND
EVENTUALLY TO THE CITY MANAGER? >> A GREAT QUESTION.
HOLY COW. MY PERSONAL MANUAL GIVES... IT IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY.
>> THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WILL AND CIVIL SERVICES OR TENURE IS THE OPPORTUNITY VERSUS THE RIGHT.
WE GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO ALL EMPLOY EASY TO DO THAT.
THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS ARE EXCEPTED FROM THAT.
DON'T HOLD ME TO THIS. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> DIRECTORS ARE. MAYBE COUNCIL APPOINTEES ARE.
>> WHAT MAKES IT DIFFERENT, LAURA AND I HAVE CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY. COUNCIL.
FOUR OF YOU SAY BRIAN, YOU NEED TO GO.
BRIAN GOES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE CONTRACT SAYS.
IN THIS CASE, IF THE JUDGE HAS A CONTRACT, I JUST DON'T REMEMBER, BUT IF HE HAS ONE, THEN THAT ALREADY IS ADDRESSED.
AND THERE IS NO, NO BASIS FOR APPEAL.
BECAUSE OU HAVE SPELLED IT OUT ALREADY.
IF HE DOES NOT HAVE A CONTRACT, THEN THERE MIGHT BE ABISSUE.
>> THAT GOES BACK TO THE CHARTER, THOUGH.
DOESN'T IT? THE CHARTER SAYS THEY SERVE AT
THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL. >> THE JUDGE IS JUST AN EMPLOYEE. DO WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE
JUDGE? >> TECHNICALLY, WE HAVE A
CONTRACT WITH ALL EMPLOYEES. >> WE APPROVED THEM.
>> NOT WRITTEN CONTRACTS, THOUGH.
>> WE DIDN'T HAVE THE NUMBER ON IT, THOUGH.
(LAUGHTER). >> IS THE JUDGE CONTRACTED
EMPLOYEE IN. >> THIS IS AN EMPLOYEE.
I'M FULL ARE SUPPORTIVE THAT IF WE WANT TO HAVE THE RIGHT BECAUSE WE HAVE A JUDGE THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THEIR CANONS, THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO LET THAT JUDGE GO FOR SOME REASON.
I STRONGLY, STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT IF THE REASON THAT A JUDGE IS GOING TO BE LET GO FOR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THEIR JUDICIAL DUTIES BUT THEIR OVERSEEING OF THE COURT, THAT IS AN OPERATIONAL ISSUE WHICH, AS A GOVERNING BODY, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE ABLE TO INTERFERE WITH.
THEY SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE SAME ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO APPEAL THAT, THAT ANY OTHER DIRECTOR WOULD THAT, ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE WOULD. IF THEY FELT LIKE THEY WERE WRONGLY BEING FIRED FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS OUTSIDE OF THEIR CANONS AND WAS PART OF A DIFFERENT DUTY AS A JUDGE.
WE CAN WRITE THAT INTO THAT. I'M COMPLETELY...
>> MY RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE THAT THE JUDGE IS A COU COUNCIL-APPOINTED EMPLOYEE. JUST LIKE BRIAN.
JUST LIKE LAWYER Y LAURA. THE WAY I SEE IT, THEY SHOULD BE TREATED THE WAY THAT BRIAN OR LURE RA WOULD BE.
>> WELL,... WE DON'T, WE DON'T... WE DIRECTLY OVERSEE BRIAN AND LAURA. WE DO EVALUATIONS FOR BRIAN AND LAURA. WE DON'T DO EVALUATIONS FOR THE
EVER DONE AN EVALUATION ON A JUDGE.
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE DID AN EVALUATION FOR THE JUDGE?
>> I'M VERY SURE WE HAVE DONE... I MEAN, I HAVE BEEN TO...
[00:25:02]
>> I HAVE BEEN ON THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE FOR FOUR YEARS NOW AND ON THIS COUNCIL FOR SIX. I HAVE NEVER ONCE DONE A REVIEW
I WAS IN THERE. IT WAS IN THIS ROOM.
WE DID GET UPDATES FROM THE JUDGE.
>> IT WAS WHEN THE MOST RECENT JUDGE TOOK PLACE.
THAT WAS DONE IN A WORK SESSION. AND PROVIDED AN UPDATE OF WHAT THE COURT WAS DOING. IN LIEU OF A TYPICAL REVIEW BY
IT WAS AN UPDATE. IT WASN'T PORTRAYED AS A REVIEW.
>> RIGHT. >> SOMEBODY HAS TO REVIEW.
>> GETTING AN UPDATE IN A WORK SESSION...
>> WE DO EVALUATIONS. >> THAT MAY BE AN OVERSIGHT BY COUNCIL. MORE THAN INITIALLY WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE. WE HAVE THEN A CITY EMPLOYEE OR APPOINTEE, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT, WHO IS NOT BEING...
WHOSE PERFORMANCE IS NOT BEING REVIEWED.
STATE LAW PROVIDES FOR HIGHER-LEVEL COURTS FOR THAT VERY REASON TO BE DISMISSED BY, IN THIS CASE, THE SUPREME COURT CAN DISMISS DISTRICT AND APPEALS COURT JUDGES IF THEY ARE NOT
MANAGING THEIR DOCKETS PROPERLY. >> AGAIN, THAT IS A JUDICIAL
>> THE LEGISLATURE CAN REMOVE THEM AS WELL FOR THE SAME THING.
>> THAT IS A JUDICIAL FUNCTION. IF THEY ARE NOT DOING THEIR JUDICIAL FUNCTION, THEN I'M 100% FOR IT.
IF THEY ARE MISTREATING THE COURT CLERK AND WE FIRE THEM AND THERE IS A HE-SAID, SHE-SAID... IT IS JUSTIFIED.
>> WE WOULD FIRE THEM FOR MISTREATING AN EMPLOYEE.
>> THEY NEED TO HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.
THEY DON'T WORK DIRECTLY FOR US. THESE TWO WORK DIRECTLY FOR US.
WE MAY APPOINT THE JUDGE. WE MAY DO THEIR REVIEWS.
NONE OF US IN THIS ROOM HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO A TRUE REVIEW OF A JUDGE. NONE OF US ARE JUDGES OR
ATTORNEYS. >> YOU CAN'T CAUSE... YOU CAN CAUSE IT TO BE DONE. THIS IS A SUBTLETY, MATT.
YOU ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE AND YOU PROVIDE OVERSIGHT FOR THE JUDGE. THE PRESIDING JUDGE.
YOU DO. BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE CHARTER
IS WRITTEN. >> I'M NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.
I'M NOT ARGUING THAT POINT. I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE... IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE LET GO FOR CAUSE, FOR AN H.R.-RELATED ISSUES, THAT THEY DON'T WORK FOR US, IF THEY HAVE THE SAME ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO APPEAL THAT... WELL, THEN, WE SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN THAT INTO THE DAMAGE CONTRACT WHEN WE HIRED THIS LATEST JUDGE, BUT WE DIDN'T.
RIGHT NOW WE OVERSEE THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE.
>> HOW DOES THE CONTRACT READ RIGHT NOW IN RELATION TO THIS PARTICULAR CLAUSE? IDOES THE CONTRACT READ THE WAY THEIR CONTRACTS READ? IF A SUPER MAJORITY VOTES TO LET
YOU GO, THEN YOU ARE GONE? >> I DON'T KNOW HOW THEIR
CONTRACTS READ. >> THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING.
ISN'T THAT A CONTRACT? DOES IT SAY IN THE CONTRACT THAT WE CAN LET THEM GO WITHOUT CAUSE OR WITH CAUSE?
>> THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS...
IT SIMPLY REFERS TO STATE LAW. >> STATE LAW.
>> I MEAN, THAT IS A FAIR POINT. WE CAN'T MAKE THIS DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE THIS IN THE ELECTION BASED ON THE CURRENT JUDGE AND THE CURRENT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.
I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD BE AFFORDED AN APPEALS PROCESS. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
>> APPEAL TO WHO? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. I THINK IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
I BELIEVE THE WRITING INTO THE CONTRACT IS THE WAY TO ACCOMPLISH IT. NOT NECESSARILY THROUGH THE CHARTER. THAT IS FAR TOO LOWER-LEVEL TO BE DRAFTED INTO THE LANG WANG THAT IS HERE... THE LANGUAGE
THAT IS HERE, IN MY OPINION. >> THAT HELPS A LOT.
>> IF ANY COUNCIL-APPOINTED POSITION, IF THAT PERSON IS CAUSING STAFF TO LEAVE AT A RAPID RATE BECAUSE OF THEIR CONDUCT, AND WE DON'T, WE DON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, WE ARE COMPLICIT BECAUSE, OH, WELL, THEY ARE A JUDGE SO WE CAN'T TOUCH THEM. WELL, IF YOU ARE HAVING STAFF LEAVE LEFT, RIGHT, AND CENTER BECAUSE OF THE CONDUCT, WE ARE
>> SO IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. IT HAS IT HAS TO BE FAIR ON ALL
SIDES. >> THE CONTRACT REFERS BACK TO THE STATUTE. IT SAYS THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE MAY BE REMOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN SECTION 30.00085. WHICH SAYS BY CHARTER, OR BY THOSE TWO OTHER OPTIONS. THE DISTRICT COURT LITIGATION OR
POTENTIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION. >> ESSENTIALLY, IT IS A CIRCLE.
IT GOES BACK... IT COMES BACK TO WHEREVER WE PUT IT.
>> IT IS NOT CIRCULAR. IT IS DIRECT.
>> THERE IS NO STATE LAW, AGAIN. WE HAVE TO DO THIS.
WE HAVE TO MEET WITH STATE LAW. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE STATE LAW
[00:30:03]
SAYS. THE LAW SAYS WE REVERT BACK TO THE CHARTER WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE.>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE SAID IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THAT WE HAVE TO THAT, WE HAVE TO... I THINK WHAT THIS IS IS THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY IN STATE LAW, AND WE WANT TO ADOPT THAT.
>> WELL, THEN WHY CAN'T YOU WRITE INTO, WHY CAN'T WE WRITE INTO OUR CHARTER THAT IN ACCORDANCE STATE LAW, THE JUDGE BE REMOVED... I STILL DON'T AGREE WITH THE "WITHOUT CAUSE." SOME TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT FITS FOR A NON-JUDICIAL,
NON-CANONS-RELATED ISSUE. >> HOW ABOUT A HEARING PROCESS INSTEAD? SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS WILL
HAVE. >> THAT IS THE SAME THING.
THAT IS FINE WITH ME. >> THEY NEED SOME ABILITY TO
REDRESS THEIR... >> THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE ABILITY... IT COULD BE A MEMBER OF COUNCIL.
A CITY MANAGER. OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS.
THAT COULD BE DECIDED IN TERMS OF... TO ME, IT SHOULD HAVE OTHER JUDGES ON IT. LIKE ANOTHER ASSOCIATE JUDGE.
>> SOME OF THESE OTHER CITIES PROVIDE FOR A HEARING BEFORE THE REMOVAL. I MEAN, YOU COULD DO THAT.
>> THAT IS IN RESPONSE TO MATT'S GREAT QUESTION EARLIER.
SECTION 15.1 OF THE CITY CHARTER SAYS AND I QUOTE, "COUNCIL APPOINTEES AND EMPLOYEES WILL REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE CITY MANAGER. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO APPEAL." >> WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT?
>> SECTION 15.1. CHAPTER 15, AN EMPLOYEE
HANDBOOK. >> WHO MANAGES THE EMPLOYEE
>> I FIGURED IT WAS H.R. >> IT IS H.R.
>> ACTUALLY,... WE DON'T APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS IN THE HANDBOOK.
>> THE CITY MANAGER APPROVES THOSE.
>> THAT IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING TO.
>> THE H.R. DIRECTOR, STAFF, WE WORK ON THOSE, BUT EACH AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED BY THE CITY MANAGER.
SO... BUT, YOU KNOW, AND IF THERE WAS SOMETHING OBJECTIONABLE TO COUNCIL IN THIS, THEN THAT WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE PLACED SOMEPLACE ELSE. THIS IS INTENDED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICY AND STATE LAW.
SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK WHAT WE HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED, AND THIS HAS BEEN LIKE THIS SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE, ALMOST 20 YEARS. YOU KNOW, IF YOU LET LAURA GO, I DON'T KNOW HOW SHE CAN APPEAL THAT TO ME.
I MEAN, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO EVEN ARGUE THAT.
WHEN YOU GUYS... AND THEN, IF I OVERTURN IT, YOU JUST DO IT AGAIN. IN MY MIND, WHEN YOU ARE A COUNCIL APPOINTEE, YOU ARE THE FINAL ARBITER OF THOSE DECISIONS. YOU HAVE TO BE.
>> THAT IS WHERE I'M AT WITH IT. >> SO DO WE WANT TO DO A...
>> THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
IT WAS IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
A PROVISION THAT REQUIRED THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISMISSAL OF ALL OFFICIALS, STATE OFFICIALS AND ALL JUDICIAL
>> THAT IS WHERE I THINK THIS PARTICULAR STATUTE, THE... A WAY FOR CHARTER CITIES TO DO IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR WISHES AS OPPOSED TO GENERAL LAW CITIES WHICH HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCESS. TO APPEAL TO... A LOT OF THOSE AREN'T ELECTED JUDGES. A LOT OF THOSE DON'T HAVE THE SAME OVERSIGHT OF DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
WHICH AGAIN, I AGREE WITH ALL OF THAT.
TO ME, I THINK THIS GROUP SHOULD BE ABLE TO... YOU ARE... IF YOU ARE GOING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF YOUR JUDICIAL CANONS, THEN BOOM.
YOU ARE DONE. YOU SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. TO ME, IT SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE RIGHT, FOR SOME TYPE OF APPEAL PROCESS.
AND TO ME... >> I AGREE WITH YOU.
THE APPEAL PROCESS REALLY IS THE HEARING PROCESS BEFORE THIS BODY. BRIAN CANNOT DISMISS THE JUDGE.
>> RIGHT. >> I UNDERSTAND... THE REMOVAL OF JUDGES IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, IT TALKS ABOUT...
THIS IS IN THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS.
IT TALKS ABOUT WILLFUL NEGLECT, OPRESENTATION IN OFFICE, DRUNKENNESS OR OTHER REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT. THOSE ARE MUCH HIGHER JUDGES THAN WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. SUPREME COURT JUDGES.
CRIMINAL COURTS OF APPEAL AND DISTRICT JUDGES.
SO I THINK WE ARE IN LINE, IF WE ALLOW FOR A HEARING OF SOME SORT AS PART OF THE PROCESS. IF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AT ALL LEVELS OF THE JUDICIARY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
[00:35:01]
>> YOU COULD JUST ADD "FOLLOWING A HEARING." SOME KIND OF LANGUAGE LIKE THAT AFTER THE WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE.
>> THERE IS PROBABLY SOME LANGUAGE YOU COULD STEAL FROM
ANOTHER CITY. >> I COULD GET BEHIND" PENDING A HEARING." I DON'T WANT TO USE "APPEAL." THAT IS AFTER SOMEONE IS LET GO. PENDING APPROPRIATE HEARING OR WHATEVER. CAN'T BE LET GO.
>> THEY HAVE LANGUAGE LIKE THAT. >> SO I GUESS IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS BUT WITH THE ADD-ON THAT... I GUESS...
>> SUBJECT TO A HEARING. >> AFTER A HEARING BEFORE
COUNCIL. >> LET'S JUST SAY HEARING BEFORE
>> SOMETIMES EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> WHEN YOU ARE DISCUSSING PERSONNEL ISSUES IN PUBLIC, WE DON'T DO THAT.
>> YOU DON'T DO PUBLICMENT. >> FOR GOOD REASON.
>> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS DEBATE, A PUBLIC AGENDA ITEM.
WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE RECORD. >> IF WE, AFTER THE HEARING, DETERMINE THAT WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH TERMINATION, THEN YES. YOU HAVE TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT. IN PUBLIC.
BUT IF IT IS REGULAR AGENDA ITEM, WHEN WE ARE DISCUSSING THE DETAILS OF THE PERSONNEL-RELATED ISSUES,...
>> I THINK THAT NEEDS TO REMAIN BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
>> IN TODAY'S WORLD, WITH THE INCREASED OPPORTUNITY FOR REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS, A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM HAS THE SAME EFFECT
AS A PUBLIC HEARING. >> WHEN WE ARE DISCUSSING PERSONNEL ISSUES, THAT IS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> I'M AGREEING WITH YOU. >> WE NEED TO MAYBE USE A LITTLE MORE BROAD LANGUAGE SO IF THIS IS APPROVED BY IF CITIZENS, WE THEN... THE CGC COMES UP WITH WHAT THAT PROCESS IS.
THEN THAT IS JUST KIND OF OUR POLICY, IF ONE DAY WE HAVE TO
HAVE A HEARING. >> I HOPE WE NEVER HAVE TO HAVE
YUP. >> SO PUT THAT LANGUAGE INTO THAT. "AFTER HEARING BY COUNCIL." SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT SENTENCE.
>> THAT DOESN'T DICTATE THE NATURE OF THE HEARING.
>> RIGHT. >> UNLESS WE CREATE AN ORDINANCE
THAT OUTLINES, IN WHICH CASE... >> AFTER THE CITIZEN DOS APPROVE THIS, THEN THE CGC WILL CONVENE TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT POLICY
>> HOW TO WORK WILL HAVE HAVE A WORK SESSION ON IT.
>> TWO-THIRDS. >> IT IS STANDARD PRACTICE.
AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT TO GO TO TWO THIS THIRDS.
>> WELL, EXCEPT THE OTHER CITY MUNICIPAL JUDGES.
MOST OF THEM ARE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL.
>> IN THIS CASE, WE COULD BE A LEADER.
>> I THINK I WOULD BE FOR TWO-THIRDS.
>> I'M NOT FOR IT. I'M WILLING TO GO ALONG WITH IT.
THAT IS ALL WE NEED. >> I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE
COMMISSION'S THOUGHTS ON THAT. >> YUP.
>> SO THIS WAS A VERY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE.
BUT THEN THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AS WELL.
I WAS IN THE MINORITY. I FELT PRETTY STRONGY THAT IT SHOULD BE A SINGLE MAJORITY. I FELT PRETTY SPHRONGLY THAT OUR WAS DENTS... THAT OUR RESIDENTS DID M NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TE PROCESS WAS. I THINK HAVING A HEARING...
SO ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETHING IS GOING ON. YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T GET INTO DETAILS. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A PROCESS THAT IS BEING FOLLOWED. THAT IS GREAT.
ANY THOUGHTS? >> I WAS ALSO IN THE MINORITY.
ESPECIALLY WITH YOUR CONCERNS. BEING POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, THINGS LIKE THAT. A SUMMER MAJORITY WOULD HELP TO QUELL ANY OF THAT. OR THE APPEARANCE OF THAT EVEN.
>> YEAH. >> THE WHOLE GROUP IS IN THE MINORITY. (LAUGHTER).
[00:40:38]
>> THAT JUDGE THEN DOES NOT PERFORM, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT TAKES A MAJORITY TO REMOVE THEM. I DON'T THINK THE CITY COUNCIL WILL DO THAT LIGHTLY. AND THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE IN THE END. SO WHY WOULD WE GO THE EXTRA STEP? THIS IS A PERSONNEL ISSUE, I'M ASSUMING. WE HAVE DISCOVERED SOME PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE OF WHATEVER. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE STORY BEHIND IT. THE OLD JUDGE.
THERE IS A REASON. AND I THINK YOU GUYS ARE SMART PEOPLE. YOU UNDERSTAND THE VOTERS.
YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE AN ISSUE WHEN YOU POSSIBLY RUN FOR REELECTION. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE WILLY-NILLY TO REMOVE A JUDGE. AND RIGHT NOW YOU NEED THE
MAJORITY. >> IT IS TWO-THIRDS.
WELL, RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NOTHING.
>> NO. HE IS ASKING WHAT IS THE
THAT IS SUFFICIENT. IN MY OPINION.
I'M A VOTER. AND WE DID HAVE SEVERAL ROUNDS ON THIS. AND I THINK MAYBE THE THIRD ROUND IS TOO MUCH. I'M NOT SURE THAT WAS COMING.
WE HAD ONE PERSON THAT PUBLICLY DIDN'T SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT.
YOUR BEST CITIZENS WERE THE ONES SITTING ON THE CHARTER REVIEW.
I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. I WOULD BE AGAINST THE SUMMER
MAJORITY. >> ... THE SUMMER MAJORITY.
>> IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL ISSUE WITH THE JUDGE, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM GETTING A SUPER MAJORITY.
(LAUGHTER). >> THAT SOUNDS EASY.
SOUNDS EASY. >> IN ADDITION TO KIND OF A CONSISTENCY WITH FEDERAL AND STATE LEVELS IN TERMS OF REM REMOVING FOR JUDICIAL POSITIONS. THERE IS ALSO KIND OF A LOCAL POLITICS ASPECT TO THIS. I HAVE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH TO SEE INSTANCES WHERE BECAUSE OF THE SINGLE ISSUE, THERE WAS A COMPLETE TURNOVER IN THE MAJORITY ON COUNCIL.
FOUR NEW DOWN SUL MEMBERS CAME IN AND IMMEDIATELY TOOK ACTION BASED UPON THAT ISSUE. WHICH IN A SUBSEQUENT ELECTION, TWO YEARS LATER, WAS THEN REVERSED.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE AVOID THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT HAPPENING WITH SOMETHING AS IMPORTANT AS THE JUDICIARY.
>> TWO-THIRDS ACCOMPLISHES THAT. >> I THINK TWO-THIRDS...
>> THAT IS IN BETWEEN THE SUPER MAJORITY AND NO MAJORITY.
I MEAN, THE SIMPLE MAJORITY. >> TWO-THIRDS IS KIND OF... IT IS FINE. IT IS THE STANDARD.
>> IT IS A SUPER MAJORITY. >> THE LANGUAGE IS TYPICALLY NOT
LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS. >> THAT IS WHY... IT IS NOT FOUR. IT IS NOT SIX.
>> IT IS FIVE. >> SUPER MAJORITY WOULD BE SIX.
>> THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR THE IMPEACHMENT PROCESS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THAT IS A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY AS
>> THAT IS WHY. CAN WE RECOGNIZE OUR...
>> I RESEARCHED THE STATE LAW OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
AND IT IS GOING TO BE AWFULLY HARD TO FIRE A JUDGE.
BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
WITH THE DIFFERENT COURTS. AND SO I AGREE WITH YOU ALL RIGHT NOW. BUT IF YOU READ THE LAW, IT IS JUST SIMPLE. IT IS ACCORDING TO THE STATE
LAW. >> STATE LAW SAYS ACCORDING TO
THE CHARTER. >> SO THEN THIS LANGUAGE WITH THE HEARING. WITH THE TWO THIS THIRDS MAJORITY. WE WANT TO SPECIFY FIVE OR TWO
TWO-THIRDS OF THE FULL COUNCIL. >> FULL COUNCIL.
>> FULL COUNCIL. NOT OF THOSE PRESENT.
>> WITH THE FULL COUNCIL. >> FULL COUNCIL OF THOSE PRESENT. OR THE FULL MEMBERSHIP OF THE
NOT PRESENT. BUT FULL COUNCIL.
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR. >> DOES THAT MEAN THE COUNCIL
[00:45:03]
HAS TO BE FED BEFORE WE MEET? >> THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO CHANGE
THAT CHARTER ELECTION. >> YOU MISSED MORE THAN SIX CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS. (LAUGHTER).
>> ARE WE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH THE... WITH THE PLAN?
>> THE ADDITION OF "AFTER HEARING BY COUNCIL" AND TWO
THIRDS MAJORITY. >> FOR OPERATIONAL...
>> WAIT. I THOUGHT WE AGREED THAT UNLESS IT IS JUDICIAL-RELATED, THAT THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A
I DIDN'T HEAR A DISTINCTION. >> YEAH.
I THINK YOU WANT TO HAVE A HEARING ANYWAY.
>> EVEN IF IT IS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT.
>> WELL, YOU STILL HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT IT IS.
>> EXACTLY. >> YOU HAVE TO DO THE DUE DILIGENCE. REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS.
>> YOU DO. >> THE JUDICIAL REVIEW COMMIT
COMMITTEE. >> THAT WAY YOU AVOID THE ACCUSATIONS THAT IT IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.
>> YOU COULDN'T GET TO THE HEARING PART UNTIL YOU WENT THROUGH THE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCESS.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAY BE WORTHY OF NOTE IS THAT OF THE PROCESSES THAT ARE DICTATED BY STATE LAW, OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE ADOPT A PROVISION LIKE THIS, OUR MUNICIPAL JUDGE COULD STILL BE REMOVED BY A PETITION FILED IN DISTRICT COURT. THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THAT.
THIS IS NOT THE ONLY WAY IT COULD EVER HAPPEN.
OTHER METHODS ARE STILL THERE. >> THIS TO ME ADDRESSES BRIAN'S POINT. IFS IF SOMETHING THAT IS NONJUDICIAL. OPERATIONAL TO.
ME, IF IT IS OPERATIONAL, WE ARE NOT OVERSEEING THAT DAY-TO-DAY.
THERE HAS TO BE DUE PROCESS. >> IT IS A HEARING BEFORE THE
COUNCIL. >> WE WILL BE DEFINING WHAT THAT
WE GOOD? >> THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE WITH STATING A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY IS MY PARENTS LIVE IN A SMALL TOWN.
I HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE SMALL-TOWN STUFF THAT GOES ON WHEN CALLING COUNCIL MEETINGS. IF YOU HAD FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CALL A MEETING AND THEN HAVE A TWO-THIRDS VOTE, AND HAVE THOSE FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT VOTE YES TO REMOVE A JUDGE. THEN YOU COULD POTENTIALLY ONLY HAVE FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTE TO REMOVE A JUDGE WHILE YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO... THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO GET FIVE COUNCIL
MENTION. >> WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS WAS THE TWO-THIRDS OF THE FULL COUNCIL.
>> FULL COUNCIL. >> AND STATING FULL COUNCIL WILL COVER ANY... SAYING FULL COUNCIL MEANS FIVE OUT OF SEVEN.
>> OKAY. >> THE ONLY EXCEPTION WOULD BE NOT IF SOMEONE WERE ABSENT BUT IF A SEAT WERE VACANT.
IN WHICH CASE, IT WOULD BE FOUR OUT OF SIX.
THE SEAT HAS TO BE VACANT FOR IT TO BE LESS THAN FIVE.
NEXT. BEFORE ANYBODY SAYS ANYTHING.
THAT IS IT. >> ANY OPPOSITION, DISMENTS
(LAUGHTER). >> IS ANYONE HERE RECALL... THIS WAS ACTUALLY IN THE CHARTER. I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING IN STATE LAW. IS THERE SOME HISTORY WHY SIX MONTHS WAS CHOSEN? I AGREE THAT OFF LONG LIST.
IT CAN BE DIFFICULT. YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO GO TWO YEARS. OBVIOUSLY...
>> YOU KNOW? >> WELL, HERE IS THE DEAL.
SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH FIVE OR SIX OF THESE. SOME OF THE COMMENTARY THAT I HAVE HEARD IN THE PAST IS THAT THE DESIRE WAS NOT TO LET THESE THINGS LANGUISH AND HAVE, SAY, A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION START LOOKING AT THINGS THAT WAS REALLY VERY LITTLE DESIRE FOR THEM TO DO AND SPEND A YEAR, ESSENTIALLY, BEFORE YOU COME UP WITH... THE WAY THE ELECTION CYCLE WORKS.
SO IN MY MIND, I THINK THIS IS FINE AS LONG AS COUNCIL CONTINUES TO DO WHAT IT DOES NOW WHICH IS, HERE ARE THE THINGS WE WANT YOU TO LOOK AT. THEN YOU KNOW, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PRECLUDE THEM FROM LOOKING AT OTHER THINGS AS WELL.
THEY WERE AFRAID THAT... THEY WERE AFRAID THAT NOTHING WOULD EVER GET DONE UNTIL THE LAST 30 DAYS ANYWAY.
WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED, THESE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONS WORK
>> THEY DO THEIR HOMEWORK. I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION TO
[00:50:01]
>> WHEN WAS THAT? >> WELL, I'M JUST SAYING OVER THE YEARS. THESE ARE SOME COMMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN MADE. >> I HAVE BEEN HERE TEN YEARS.
THIS IS MY THIRD COMMISSION. >> SO ONE INTERESTING POINT HERE, THOUGH. REGARDLESS OF THE LANGUAGE, WE STILL HAVE A HARD DEADLINE TO MAKE IT TO THE ELECTION.
>> IF YOU NEED 12 MONTHS, YOU NEED TO BE APPOINTING IN
JANUARY. >> IT SAYS NOT MORE THAN.
THE COUNCIL CAN SET A TIME. >> THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
TO GIVE THEM 12 MONTHS, YOU HAVE TO BE APPOINTING IN JANUARY.
>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT. IF YOU FEATUREDDED IT DONE, SAY, BY MAY, AND THERE IS ONLY NINE MONTHS.
IF IT DOESN'T MATTER, THEN, YOU KNOW... OKAY.
(APPLAUSE). >> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
BEFORE WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE THERE, HAS BEEN SOME THOUGHTS OF THE CHARTER REQUIREMENT REGARDING CITY MANAGER RESIDENCY. JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE FOR US TO CONSIDER. WHETHER WE KEEP IT THE SAME, FINE OR WE BROADEN IT OUT A LITTLE BIT TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IT COULD SAY THAT THE CITY MANAGER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SHALL LIVE WITHIN A 45-MINUTE AVERAGE DRIVE TIME TO THE CITY LIMITS.
THAT MAY BROADEN OPPORTUNITIES. >> CAN I SAY THIS?
>> YUP. >> EVERYBODY IN THESE JOBS, THEY KNOW THE SCORE. I WILL FELL YOU THAT... I WILL TELL YOU THAT IT CAUSES SOME STRESS WITH FAM LIPS.
I PROMISE YOU THAT. SOMETIMES SMALLER CITIES DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, AND THEY WILL AGREE TO THAT.
BUT MOST PEOPLE THAT APPLY FOR THESE JOBS, THEY DO UNDERSTAND THAT. NOW, I HAVE WORKED IN STATES WHERE THEY, THEY HAD MORE THAN JUST A CITY MANAGER.
POLICE CHIEFS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS, IN GENERAL.
AND IN COLORADO, THIS WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT SOME POINT. CITY MANAGERS, NORMALLY, THIS IS KIND OF LIKE A GOOD... IT COMES WITH THE COMPENSATION.
IT COMES WITH THE JOB RESPONSIBILITIES.
SO YOU KNOW, BEFORE YOU DEBATE THAT, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE GOING BACK TO THE SPREADSHEET, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT COULD BE DONE ON THIS. YOU WILL FIND VERY FEW CITIES THAT HAVE THAT PROVISION... THAT DO NOT HAVE THAT PROVISION.
>> I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR CITY MANAGER LIVE IN THE CITY. DRIVE OUR SAME ROADS.
ENJOY THE GOOD THINGS AND THE BAD THINGS.
>> SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR BEING PART OF THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU ARE RUNNING OR IN ANOTHER CONTEXT, YOU KNOW, FLYING ON THE
PLANE THAT YOU JUST FIXED. >> MM-HMM.
>> YES. >> THAT IS A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT.
(LAUGHTER). >> I HAVE EXPRESSED THIS IN THE PAST. IF YOU ARE MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT HOW THE CITY IS RUN OR DEVELOPED, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, THEN YOU NEED TO HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME.
I KNOW THERE MAY BE SOME LEGAL CHALLENGES THERE.
I GET WHY WE ARE RAISING THIS ISSUE.
YOU CAN OPEN THE POOL OF CANDIDATES WIDER.
YOU CAN GO LIVE TEN MILES, 13 MILES AWAY.
THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH. BUT YOU ARE STILL NOT... YOU NOW HAVE SOMEONE IN A DIFFERENT COMMUNITY RUNNING YOUR COMMUNITY. I'M NOT SURE I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
>> BY TAKING IT OUT OF THE CHARTER, I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T USE THAT AS A CRITERIA STILL.
IT JUST MEANS THAT IF YOU HAVE AN EXCEPTIONAL CANDIDATE AND THAT IS THE ONLY OBSTACLE, THEN YOU HAVE THAT OPTION.
>> I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE REMOVED, PERIOD.
LET IT STAY LIKE IT IS. >> IN THE CHARTER?
>> IT IS IN THE CHARTER. >> IT IS IN THE CHARTER.
>> IT IS SECTION 4.0. THE LANGUAGE READS, THE LANGUAGE READS "THE CITY MANAGER NEED NOT WHEN APPOINTED BE, A RESIDENT OF THE CITY. THE CITY MANAGER SHALL BE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY WITHIN SIX MONTHS ASSUMING APPOINTMENT TO
CITY MANAGER." >> SO LEAVE IT ALONE OR TAKE IT
[00:55:02]
OUT? >> I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE IT OUT.
I KIND OF FEEL LIKE YOU CAN ARGUE BOTH SIDES.
I WISH IT WAS A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN SIX MONTHS.
TO GIVE THEM TIME. YOU KNOW, A MAJOR RELOCATION FOR SOMEBODY, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE OUT OF STATE CAN BE...
>> WHAT IF WE CHANGED IT TO A YEAR.
>> WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT OUT OF STATE.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN? >> IF THEY ARE COMING FROM OUT OF STATE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE HERE ANYWAY.
>> THAT IS WHAT HE IS SAYING. >> I DON'T THINK GARLAND HAS THIS PROVISION. WHERE IT COMES FROM IS THAT YOU COULD SEE WHERE A LOT OF THESE PROVISIONS ARE FOR A LOT OF LARGER CITIES. THAT IS THE ONLY CITY THAT IS THERE. YOU CAN'T LIVE OUT OUT OF THE WAY. HERE, A MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREA, YOU KNOW, TO ME, YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME IN THE CITY THAT YOU WORK IN. IN A MUNICIPALITY LIKE HERE, I DON'T REALLY CARE IF THE CITY MANAGER LIVES IN ROCKWALL OR GARLAND OR WHEREVER. I MEAN, IT IS GOING TO BE REALLY HARD IF YOU ARE A CITY MANAGER AND YOU LIVE IN FORT WORTH.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT COMMUTE.
LONG ENOUGH HOURS. YOU WILL MOVE CLOSE.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. ABOUT LIVING THERE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. THE CITY SNANNIER, THE CITY MANAGER, YOU ARE KIND OF ENTRENCHED INTO THAT.
>> WELL, THAT SUGGESTS THAT... INTENT.
IT SUGGEST THAT, YOU KNOW, A POLICE CHIEF OR FIRE CHIEF OR THE DIRECTOR OF A DEPARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE VALUE IN THE CITY, BEING A DIRECTOR UNLESS THEY LIVED IN THE CITY.
RIGHT? THEY ALL VALUE THE CITY THEY WORK FOR. THEY HAVE TO.
THEY HAVE TO. THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.
>> AND THE CITY MANAGER WOULD, TOO.
>> THAT SAID, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM.
>> I DO, TOO. >> I TIED THAT NUT ON THE ENGINE REALLY TIGHT. GOOD LUCK.
>> WELL, IF THE PERSON WOULD NOT DO THE BEST JOB BECAUSE HE DOESN'T LIVE IN THE CITY, THEN I THINK YOU HIRED THE WRONG PERSON. TO BEGIN WITH.
>> YES. >> YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH MATT ON THIS. IF SOMEBODY LIVES IN GARLAND, AND WE WANTED TO HIRE THEM TO BE CITY MANAGER HERE, TO MAKE TH THEM... YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THIS HOUSE.
THEY HAVE INVEFSED ALL THEIR MONEY.
THEY HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 25 YEARS TO.
MAKE THEM MOVE, JUST A FEW MI MILES, JUST TO RESIDE IN THE
CITY... >> I THINK WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER IS REMINISCENT OF... BY BEING IN THE CHARTER, IT GIVES US NO
THAT IS MY POINT. YOU COULD STILL IMPOSE THAT AS
I JUST THINK IT IS AN UNNEEDED LIMITATION IN THE CHARTER.
AND LIKE YOU SAID, IF THAT IS SOMETHING WE ARE WANTING, WE CAN MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT. AS PART OF THE HIRING PROCESS.
>> YEAH. ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AGAIN, HERE IS ASKING THE VOTERS TO MAKE A DECISION.
>> RIGHT. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT...
>> THEY MAY LOOK AT IT AND SAY NO, THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN THE CITY. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO.
>> WE ARE NOT MAKING THE DECISION.
>> THAT IS FINE. >> THE CHARTER.
>> I'M ALL FOR... LETTING THE VOTERS DECIDE ON MORE THINGS.
WE ARE LETTING THEM DECIDE ALL OF THIS.
>> LET THEM DECIDE. >> THEY MAY LIKE 90% OF THEM SAY, THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN THE CITY.
THERE WE GO. WE HAVE OUR ANSWER.
SHUT THAT CASE. >> OR THEY MAY SAY OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, WHEN I THINK ABOUT IT, WHY SHOULD THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN THE
CITY? >> OF COURSE, OUR CHALLENGE IS BEING ABLE TO PRESENT A FACTUAL PICTURE OF WHY WE ARE PUTTING
THESE THINGS ON THE BALLOT. >> EXACTLY.
>> WE ARE NOT MAKING POLITICAL DECISIONS, ASKING THE CITIZENS WHETHER THEY AGREE WITH US OR NOT.
WE ARE LIMITED ONCE WE MAKE A DECISION, TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. AND WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT TELLING
PEOPLE WHY IT IS THERE. >> YUP.
>> I THINK THE NUMBER OF THESE WILL REQUIRE SOME GOOD
>> OH, YEAH. >> WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE WITH
FACTS. THAT IS ALL WE CAN... YOU CAN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO GO VOTE FOR THIS.
JUST SAY HERE IS WHY IT IS ON THE BALLOT.
>> HERE IS OUR THOUGHT PROCESS. >> BY THE WAY, IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE BOND COUNCIL. WHATEVER WE SAY... NO, NO, NO.
I'M THINKING OF... IT DOES HAVE TO PASS DAVID'S LITMUS TEST. THE LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE USING
[01:00:01]
TO NOT PROMOTE BUT STATE... EDUCATE.HAS TO GO THROUGH BERMAN. >> BUT HE CAN BE BRIBED.
(LAUGHTER). >> I ASKED THE OTHER NIGHT HOW MUCH THIS IS GOING TO COST. NOBODY HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT
>> FOR ALL THIS WE WANT TO DO. >> THE ELECTION STUFF?
>> YES. >> OH, WE KIND OF ANSWERED THAT AT THE LAST MEETING. YEAH.
IT WAS NEGLIGIBLE BECAUSE WE ARE ON THE BALLOT ALREADY.
>> EVEN ALL OF THESE LITTLE SPECIAL THINGS?
>> YEAH. I MEAN, EACH ONE HAS TO HAVE ITS OWN APPEARANCE ON THE BALLOT. .
>> IT IS NOT AT PER-COST ITEM? >> S IF A NOMINAL... IT IS
NOMINAL. >> THE BULK COST IS ONE ITEM.
AFTER THAT, IT IS NEGLIGIBLE. >> WE ARE USING THE SERVICES OF THE COUNTY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT. THEY ARE HERE ANYWAY.
THAT IS THE MAJORITY OF THE COST.
THE LABOR AND THE EQUIPMENT. SO IF WE HAVE THREE THINGS ON THE BALLOT, THE COST DOESN'T CHANGE FROM JUST ONE TO THREE.
THEY ARE THERE ANYWAY. >> OKAY.
>> I KNOW THE DOLLARS, THE CHARGES HAVE CHANGED.
YOU RECALL THE LAST COUPLE OF ELECTIONS.
WHAT THEY COST US? >> THE LAST ONE WAS, LIKE...
>> THEY HAVE ALL BEEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GENERAL OR SPECIAL ELECTION. I COULDN'T SINGLE OUT WHAT THE
COST... >> LIKE MAY OF LAST YEAR.
>> IT WAS LIKE 80. >> IT IS 80.
$90,000. >> I THOUGHT WE GOT A REFUND
AFTER THAT. >> WE DID GET A REFUND.
>> IT IS DEPENDENT UPON HOW MANY VOTERS THERE ARE.
RIGHT? >> SO SO IF WE ASK MORE PEOPLE TO COME OUT AND VOTE, IT IS NATURALLY GOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE ALSO. OF COURSE IT IS.
OF COURSE IT IS. >> IT WAS A PER-REGISTERED VO VOTER. OUT OF THE 40,000-PLUS REGISTERED VOTERS THAT WE HAVE AND ONLY, YOU KNOW, 27% SHOW UP, THEN YES, PER VOTER TURNOUT, THEN YES, A HUGE COST.
THAT FIRST GO-ROUND, WE DID GET A SUBSTANTIAL REFUND.
WE ARE GETTING A THOUSAND DOLLARS PLUS A LITTLE BIT OF CHANGE REFUND FROM DALLAS COUNTY.
>> SO THE CONCLUSION IS HAVING THE BALLOT PROPOSALS ON THERE ARE NOT MAKING A LARGE DIFFERENCE.
BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING AN ELECTION.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT.
>> ON THE LAST ITEM, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENCY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.
>> THEY NEED TO GET A CHANCE TO DISCUSS.
>> THIS WAS KIND OF A LAST-MINUTE THING.
>> PAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW BRIAN WAS LEAVING.
HE HAD NOT ANNOUNCED HIS RETIREMENT AT THE TIME WE FORMED THE COMMITTEE. WE HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THIS.
>> AND NOT EVEN INDIVIDUALLY. NONE OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY WENT OUT AND KIND OF LOOKED THAT THE ITEM?
>> OKAY. >> IT WAS NOT ON OUR RADAR.
>> OKAY. >> MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO DEFER TO THE NEXT CHARTER RE REVIEW.
MIKE? >> I LIKE THE IDEA OF CITY MANAGER LIVING IN THE CITY, BUT I GET IT.
I GET THAT KIND OF RESTRICTS YOU ON YOUR OPTIONS.
>> I MEAN, IF YOU ARE GOING TO ASK ME WHAT MY IDEA WOULD BE.
HE OR SHE NEEDS TO SHOP IN OUR GROCERY STORES.
THEY NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE AMBULANCE IS LIKE.
ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF. THEY NEED TO EXPERIENCE WHAT OUR
NEIGHBORS ARE EXPERIENCING. >> IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET A LARGE SALARY, YOU WANT TO SPEND IT HERE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF UPDATING THE CHARTER WITH DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, I GUESS REMOVE THAT PART REGARDING THE RESIDENCY...
[01:05:02]
THE CITY MANAGER RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT...>> CAN I ASK? THE CRC HAS MADE A GOOD POINT.
I WILL ALWAYS SPEAK MY MIND ON. THIS I UNDERSTAND IT IS AN ATTRACTIVE OPTION TO KICK IT DOWN ROAD TO THE NEXT GROUP TO DO DEEPER RESEARCH. WE CAN DO THAT.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE TODAY.
BECAUSE THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY FOR ANOTHER CHANGE IS TWO YEARS.
MORE LIKELY, THIS WAS KIND OF AN EXCEPTION.
I THINK THIS ONE MORE LIKELY WOULD BE THREE OR FOUR, EVEN A STATUTORY FIVE YEARS BEFORE WE REVISIT.
IN THE MEANTIME, BY JULY, WE HAVE TO HAVE A NEW CITY MANAGER.
>> EXACTLY. >> THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, A POSSIBILITY, I SHOULD SAY. WE MAY FIND SOMEONE WHO DOES LIVE ALREADY IN ROCKWALL WHO IS THE PERFECT CANDIDATE AND IS ENSCONCED THERE BECAUSE THEY HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 30 YEARS.
THEY HAVE INVEFSED IN THEIR PROPERTY, AND THEIR KIDS ARE IN SCHOOL. I WOULD PREFER AND I WILL GIVE GREATER WEIGHT TO CANDIDATES WHO ARE WILLING TO MOVE HERE.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND THE TALENT POOL WITH THIS MAKES SENSE. IF THE VOTERS DECIDE AND I SUSPECT THEY SEE THIS POLL HERE, THE VOTERS ARE GOING TO SAY NO,
THEY HAVE TO LIVE HERE. >> THAT IS GREAT.
WE HAVE OUR ANSWER. THAT IS THE BEST KIND OF POLLING YOU CAN DO. AN ELECTION.
SO... >> IT MAY DRAW MORE PEOPLE OUT
PEOPLE ARE PASSIONATE. SAYING OH.
I'M FOR PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT.
>> I'M FOR LEAVING IT ALONE. >> I'M ALSO FOR LEAVING IT
>> I CAN DEFINITELY SEE THE VALUE.
>> I CAN SEE THE VALUE, BUT... >> NO CHANGE.
>> YOU ARE THE DECIDING VOTE. >> WHERE IS THE VOTE RIGHT HERE?
>> HERE. YOU GET A SALT AND SUGAR PACKET.
>> HEY, AT LEAST YOU ARE NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION.
>> I'M FOR LEAVING IT ALONE. >> OKAY.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. OKAY.
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT FACILITIES. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR
>> SEE YOU IN TWO YEARS. (LAUGHTER).
YOU ALL ARE AMAZING. YOU DID SUCH GREAT WORK.
THEY ARE AMAZING PEOPLE. THANK YOU ALL.
(APPLAUSE). >> THAT IS ALL YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE ME. A STIPEND.
[2B. Discuss results presented by the Community Investment Program Task Force (CIPTF) and determine whether to proceed with a facilities bond election in May 2023. (45 minutes)]
LET ME READ IT. OKAY.NEXT ITEM IS 2-B. DISCUSS RESULTS PRESENTED BY THE COMMUNITY TASK FORCE AND PROCEEDING WITH THE BOND
ELECTION IN MAY OF 2023. >> WWE HAVE ALL OF THE PRESENTATIONS. WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS DONE. WE HAVE WHATEVER YOU NEED TO HELP YOU FACILITATE THE CONVERSATION AVAILABLE THAT LAURA CAN PULL UP. ALSO, MIKE, RICHARD, AND JEFF ARE ALL HERE. AND THEY WERE PART OF THE CIPTM.
SO WE DID NOT DO A PRESENTATION. HOPEFULLY, YOU CAN SPEND EXTRA TIME ON IT. I'M HAPPY TO... WELL, THAT IS
DIFFICULT. >> CAN YOU PULL UP THE PRESENTATION... I'M SORRY. THE CITY-WIDE MASTER PLAN NEEDS ASSESSMENT. CAN YOU PUT THAT UP FOR REFERENCE? IF WE NEED TO REFER TO IT.
>> I'M PRETTY SURE. >> IT IS JUST IF WE NEED TO REFER TO IT IN THE OUR CONVERSATION.
>> THE ONE DATED 9-10-20. >> THIS ONE.
>> MAKE A QUICK RECOMMENDATION. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION... I KNOW WHICH WAY I'M GOING.
IT IS WORTH THE CONVERSATION TO START OUT WITH.
DO WE EVEN WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AT THIS ELECTION? THE REASON I BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE GISD IS GOING TO PUT A $1 BILLION BOND PACKAGE OUT. IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
IT IS GOING TO HAVE A TAX INCREASE ON IT.
AND I HAVE RESERVATIONS THAT THEIR LAST ONE FAILED.
WHERE WE ARE,ERING THIS GOING TO SEE THAT.
THEY ARE GOING TO SEE THE TAX INCREASE.
OURS IS GOING TO REQUIRE A TAX INCREASE.
THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE THEM ALL DOWN.
AND AS MUCH AS WE NEED IT, GIS NEEDS IT, TOO.
THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THEY GO THROUGH THEIR PROCESS.
[01:10:06]
THEY HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT.THEY ARE NOT PUSHING IT OFF. THEY ARE DOING IT REGARDLESS.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT... WHICH WAY I CHOOSE RIGHT NOW.
IT IS WORTH THE DISCUSSION. BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE A SHOCK TO VOTERS AND THE ECONOMY THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN.
THE INTEREST RATES GOING UP. WHERE EVERYTHING IS.
INFLATION. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ARGUE A RECESSION OR NOT. I THINK IT IS LESS... LARRY SAID IT IS LESS THAN A CENT. OR JUST OVER A CENT.
YOU REMEMBER WHAT THEY SAID IN. >> I THOUGHT HE SAID MULTIPLE
CENTS. >> I THINK THEY SAID CLFER 1.8
BILLION. >> IN FAIRNESS, THE BOARD HAS NOT HAD THIS CONVERSATION AS A BOARD.
>> ON THE 10TH, THE BOND STEERING COMMITTEE DOES THEIR PRESENTATION. JANUARY 10.
ON JANUARY 24, THEY WILL MEET AGAIN TO HAVE... I JUST PULLED IT UP TO MAKE SURE THE DATE IS RIGHT.
THEY ARE THEY ARE WORKING A MEETING TO DISCUSS IT.
WHAT WE HEARD ON TUESDAY WAS THE POTENTIAL FOR SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $1.2 AND $1.8 BILLION. WHICH WOULD BE A TAX INCREASE.
THEN THE GENERAL IDEA IS IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO ONE, JUST DO ONE. GET WHAT YOU NEED TO GET.
SO AGAIN, ALL HEAR SAY. THEY HAVE NOT HAD THAT CONVERSATION. THEY DON'T UNTIL THE TENTH.
THEY DON'T GET THE PRESENTATION UNTIL THE 10TH.
>> THEY HAVE NOT MADE A DECISION.
THEY ARE HAVING THE SAME CONVERSATIONS WE ARE.
I WOULD ASSUME THEY ARE LEANING THAT WAY.
THEIR NEEDS ARE IMMENSE. >> SO... I HAVE A FEAR OF WHAT... HOW THAT COULD POTENTIALLY HURT OUR CHANCES FOR A VERY, VERY MUCH-NEEDED BOND ELECTION FOR OUR CITY AS WELL.
>> SO I RESPECT THAT. HOWEVER, I THINK CONTINUING TO PUNT EVERY TIME WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, WE ARE NEVER GOING TO GET A NEW CITY HALL OR A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING.
WE HAVE GOT TO STOP DELAYING THIS.
I MEAN, CONTINUALLY. DELAY, DELAY, DELAY.
WE FIND A NEW REASON. DELAY IT, DELAY IT.
WE HAVE TO FACE THE INEF TABLG. WE ARE GOING TO ASK THE VOTERS FOR A RATE INCREASE IF WE WANT TO BUILD A NEW FACILITY.
RIGHT NOW, WE CAN'T HIRE ANOTHER DETECTIVE.
WHY? THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO WORK.
THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO WORK. WE ARE HAVING TO LOOK AT OTHER FACILITY NEEDS. WE ARE HAVING TO LOOK AT BUYING ANOTHER FACILITY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A SPACE HERE.
IN THIS BUILDING. OR THAT BUILDING.
OR THAT BUILDING. WE HAVE NOWHERE TO PUT THEM.
WE HAVE USED ALL THE CLOSETS. WE HAVE USED EVERY CLOSET.
WE ARE AT THE POINT NOW WHERE WE NEED TO HAVE BUNK DESKS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE ENGINEERED THAT.
WE NEED TO DO IT. WE CANNOT HIRE STAFF TO SERVE THE CITIZENS IF WE DO NOT HAVE... START GETTING SERIOUS ABOUT THIS. AND FUND IT IN THE NEXT BOND ELECTION. OR NOT IN THE NEXT BOND ELECTION. IN MAY.
CONTINUING TO DELAY... I MEAN, OH, MY GOSH.
I HAVE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL SIX YEARS.
WE HAVE DELAYED THIS THREE TIMES, I THINK.
DELAYING THE INEVITABLE. THE FACT THAT YES, WE ARE GOING TO ASK THE VOTERS FOR A RATE INCREASE.
IT IS UP TO THEM IF THEY WANT TO GO FOR IT OR NOT.
PRAY THAT THEY DO. AT LEAST FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING. BECAUSE GOD KNOWS WE NEED.
THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO HIRE MORE OFFICERS.
I MEAN, WE ARE CODE RED ALL THE TIME NOW.
I THINK WE HAVE LOST THE LUXURY TO WAIT.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO WAIT ANYMORE.
I THINK A STATE OF EMERGENCY, QUITE HONESTLY.
CAN I WEIGH IN BEFORE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES? JUST NOT TAKING A SIDE YET. JUST AN OBSERVATION.
SO IN MOST OF THE BOND ELECTIONS, THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN DOING THOSE, THEY ARE THREE-YEAR PACKAGES.
SO WE ISSUE BONDS EACH YEAR TO ADD THE NEXT JUNCTURE.
SO IF THE ANSWER IS YES, ON WHATEVER FACILITY, WE ARE STILL GOING TO NEED NINE MONTHS TO A YEAR TO DESIGN IT.
SO IF, IF THE MARKET... AND RIGHT NOW I'M VERY SQUIRRELLY ABOUT THIS MARKET. I HEAR YOU, MATT ON THAT.
WE WOULD SPEND THAT FIRST YEAR ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, WORKING ON THE DESIGN. JUST LIKE WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH FIRE STATION NUMBER FIVE RIGHT NOW.
SO... WHICH WE MAY DELAY THAT ONE.
WHO KNOWS? THAT COMES INTO PLAY.
MY ONLY POINT IS YOU COULD STILL HAVE THE ELECTION.
I DO HEAR WHAT MATT SAYS. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WEIGH EVERYTHING THAT THEY ARE HEARING BEFORE THEY MAKE THAT DECISION.
BUT IF THE ANSWER IS YES, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ISSUE IT ALL AT
>> YOU WILL START WITH THE DESIGN.
>> THE FACT IS THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE IT ON THE BOND ELECTION AND WEAPON DECIDE, OH, I GUESS WE WILL KEEP OUR STAFFER WORKING IN CLOSETS AND NOT BE ABLE TO HIRE MORE DETECTIVES AND UTILITY BILLING PEOPLE AND CITY HALL PEOPLE TO KEEP THE WORK OF THE CITY GOING, THEN INGUESS THAT IS JUST WHAT WE DO.
LET'S JUST PUT IT ON THE BACK BURNER AGAIN.
I CAN'T BE FOR THAT. I'M SORRY.
>> TWO QUESTIONS. WE KNOW AT THIS POINT WHAT OUR
[01:15:03]
BOND CAPACITY IS FOR 2024? >> $63 MILLION.
>> I DO NOT KNOW YET FOR 2024. I DID NOT ASK FINANCE THAT
QUESTION. >> THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT
IT IT WAS $63 OR $64 MILLION. >> WELL, IT WAS FOR THE NEXT
>> THE 2024 PORTION. HE IS ASKING THE 2024 PORTION.
>> YES. I MAY BE ABLE TO FIND THAT FOR YOU. GIVE ME A FEW DAYS.
>> MY KNOWLEDGE IN THIS AREA IS A BIT WEAK.
IF WE GO TO A BOND ELECTION, THE BOND ELECTION FAILS FOR A PARTICULAR THING. THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY.
HOW LONG DO WE HAVE TO WAIT BEFORE WE CAN BRING THAT BACK?
>> SO THAT IS ROLLING THE DICE. >> A ROLL IN THE DICE ANYWAY.
WHETHER IT IS THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR OR THE YEAR AFTER.
WE HAVE DELAYED IT NOW... WE HAVE BEEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION FOR AT LEAST A DECADE. OR MORE.
AND EVERY COUNCIL IS SCARED TO ASK THE VOTERS.
THEY ARE SCARED. WE HAVE TO BREAK DOWN AND ASK
THEM. >> WELL, HERE... I ASK THIS QUESTION. IT IS IN THE BACK OF MY MIND.
THIS IS REALLY A VOTER'S CHOICE. >> IT IS.
>> MIFF THOUGHT IS IF WE DO ANYTHING, IT NEEDS TO BE GRANULAR ENOUGH THAT IT IS A MULTIPLE CHOICE IN EACH OF THOSE
THINGS THAT IS OUT THERE. >> WE HAVE TO ANYWAY BY STATE
LAW. >> BE SPECIFIC AS TO THE IMPACT ON THE TAX RATE. SO THAT THEY HAVE THEIR CHOICE.
THIS IS NOT A CHOICE THAT WE, AS A COUNCIL, CAN MAKE.
OR SHOULD MAKE. I DON'T THINK OTHER FUNDING AVENUES WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR SOMETHING THIS SIZABLE.
WE HAVE A GOOD SURVEY FROM THE CIPTF.
THEY BELIEVE WE NEED NEW PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> I WILL SAY I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT... HOW DO I SAY THIS AND NOT BE IMPOLITE? I WENT THROUGH THIS KIND OF PROCESS A WHILE BACK.
20-SOMETHING YEARS AGO. IN ANOTHER ORGANIZATION.
WHERE THE ORGANIZATION FORECAST THEIR SPACE NEEDS AND WERE ASKING A 50-YEAR PLAN. WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE.
I SEE THE SAME THING GOING ON IN THE STUDY I HAVE HERE.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE VALUE OF THE RESULTS OF THAT PLAN SURVIVED ABOUT A YEAR BEFORE IT BEGAN TO CHANGE.
REALITY SETS. >> THE STUDY WE HAVE... IT IS
ALREADY OLD. >> IT IS OVEREXAGGERATED, I
THINK. >> AND IT IS ALREADY OLD.
>> THAT IS BECAUSE WE ASKED THEM TO LITERALLY SAY AT BUILD-OUT, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO LOOK LIKE? REALITY IS WE ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT COMPLETELY.
BECAUSE OF MONEY. RIGHT? WE MAY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING AND SAY, WELL, IT SAID HERE BACK IN 2020, WHICH RIGHT NOW, THAT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT BUT $60 MILLION. WE MAY BE ABLE TO ONLY BOND $50 MILLION. RIGHT? FOR THAT. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD WITHIN WHAT THEY CAN. WITH $50.
>> I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH THE PRESENTATION BACK IN DECEMBER. WE MOSTLY TALKED ABOUT THE SURVEYOR RESULTS, I THINK. NOT SO MUCH THE STUDY.
ONE THING I WANTED TO BRING UP THERE BUT DID NOT IS WHETHER THERE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN AN ADJACENT STUDY TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE REALLY NEEDED TO TAKE ALL OF THESE DEPARTMENTS AND PUT THEM TOGETHER INTO ONE FACILITY OR WHETHER WE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO SPREAD THAT SO WE HAD MORE OPPORTUNITY TO USE, I'LL SAY, LAND WHICH MAY ITSELF COULD FUND WHAT WE NEED TO BUILD.
THE TIME I HAVE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS PROCESS, THE VALUE OF THE LAND HAS GONE FROM $6 MILLION TO $15 MILLION.
>> WHAT LAND? >> THE LAND OVER BY THE HIGH
>> THE FIRST ESTIMATE I SAW WAS $# MILLION PER TRACK.
THE LAST ESTIMATE WAS $15 MILLION WITH THE TWO TRACKS.
THAT IS THE SIZABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY.
YOU KNOW, I'M COMING INTO THIS AS A FRESHMAN COUNCIL MEMBER HERE. I AGREE WE NEED THE FACILITIES.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THE VISION THAT WE HAVE FOR A VERY TOP-LEVEL, LARGE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE PALPABLE WHEN WE SEE A PRICE TAG OF $163 MILLION.
WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE CONCEPT OUTLINE.
. >> THAT IS THE CONCEPT OUT THERE
WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT TONIGHT.
AND DETERMINE IF THAT IS THE BEST APPROACH.
YOU KNOW, YOU MAY LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WELL, I THINK CITY HALL
[01:20:03]
SHOULD STAY HERE ON THIS PROPERTY.AND THEREFORE, I THINK THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING SHOULD GO ON THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO T THE... THAT MAY BE THE PLAN.
WE DON'T HAVE TO STICK TO THIS. >> WHEN DO WE HAVE TO MAKE THOSE TYPES OF DEAFCISIONS? IS THAT BEFORE...
>> AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. >> WE HAVE TO CALL THE ELECTION
IN FEBRUARY. >> WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE...
WHERE WE PUT IT, THE PRICE IS GOING TO FLUCTUATE.
WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT OUR PLAN IS.
IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN ACCURATE OR AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE PRICE FOR THE VOTERS. FOR EXAMPLE, HERE YOU ARE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, A FOUR OR FIVE-STORY BUILDING.
THERE, YOU ARE LOOKING AT A TOY TWO-STORY BUILDING.
YOU KNOW, THAT WILL IMPACT THE PRICE.
>> ANOTHER THING I HAVE TALKED ABOUT EARLY LAST YEAR IN THIS CONTEXT HERE, WHETHER WE HAVE LOOKED AT ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES.
WHAT I SEE IN THE PLANS HERE, IT IS A FULLY OWNED AND SOLELY OCCUPIED STRUCTURE BY THE CITY. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT WILL GO IN WITH A PRIVATE DEVELOPER AND S SAY, BUILD A TEN-STORY BUILDING. WE WANT THE BOTTOM TWO FLOORS.
YOU GET TO RENT OUT THE TOP EIGHT.
THAT CAN ACTUALLY SAVE YOU A LOT OF MONEY.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE EVER LOOKED AT THAT AS ON OPTION.
THERE IS A COMPLEX GOING IN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF DALLAS.
NOT A MUNICIPAL COMPLEX. A DEVELOPMENT WHERE THEY ARE DOING EXACTLY THAT. THEY ACTUALLY BUILT ONE TEN-STORY BUILDING. IT WAS SO SUCCESSFUL THAT THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY BUILDING ANOTHER TEN-STORY BUILDING.
WHY? BECAUSE IT HAS A LAKE VIEW.
>> SO LET'S GET TO AT LEAST THE FIRST STEP.
THE FIRST STEP, I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DECIDE IS WHAT DO WE WANT TO PUT... YOU KNOW, ARE WE TALKING ANIMAL SERVICES, PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING? ARE WE TALKING MORE THAN THAT? LESS THAN THAT? AND THEN WE CAN GET TO THE WHERE AND HOW. DO WE ALL AGREE THAT WE SHOULD GO FORWARD WITH A BOND ELECTION THIS MAY?
FOR FACILITIES? >> I WOULD AGREE WITH MATT.
THAT IS THE FIRST QUESTION WE NEED TO ANSWER.
YELL OR NO TO THAT QUESTION. YES OR NO TO THAT QUESTION.
>> MATT MAKES REALLY GREAT POINTS.
YEAH. IT COULD BE VOTED DOWN BECAUSE OF JUST THE ENORMITY OF WHAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE FACING.
I'M WILLING TO GO FORWARD AND TRY.
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'M FOR MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE I TRUST OUR VOTERS. THAT THEY WILL DO THE RIGHT THING. IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO, THEN YOU KNOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS. I'M FOR IT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE CONVERSATION.
BECAUSE IT DOES ADD AN ADDITIONAL RISK FACTOR TO THIS
>> I TRUST OUR VOTERS TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION FOR WHAT'S
BEST. >> I SHIP IT IS THE... I THINK IT IS THE FACTS THAT WE SHARE, THE EDUCATION, YOU KNOW.
WE CAN'T HIRE MORE DETECTIVES. YOU WANT THE CITY TO BE SAFER? LET US DO THAT. WE HAVE SQUEEZED AS MUCH AS WE
POSSIBLY COULD. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING THAT IS BEING SAID. I'M GOING TO FALL BACK TO A POSITION I HAD A COUPLE YEARS BACK WHEN I WAS ON THE... I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A SPECIFICITY IN THE PROPOSAL THAT
IS SUFFICIENT TO GET IT TO PASS. >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? >> YOU WANT... IF YOU WANT, LIKE, PEOPLE... WHAT ARE WE BUILDING? HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE. WHAT IS IT GOING TO COST? YOU ARE ASKING PEOPLE TO GIVE US THEIR TAX DOLLARS, TO DELIVER A
CAPITAL PRODUCT. >> THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO GET TO TONIGHT. THEN WE WORK ON THAT.
THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO.
TO GET THE ANSWERS. WE HAVE ALL AGREE.
WE NEED TO PUT THE FACILITIES BOND ON THE BALLOT IN MAY.
THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHAT IS IT. AND I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO SPEAK UP FIRST. ANIMAL SERVICES, PUBLIC SAFETY.
>> I WOULD SAY PUBLIC SAFETY, ANIMAL SERVICES.
PUBLIC SAFETY IS ANY MUM PER ONE.
NUMBER ONE. >> I PUT THEM... WELL.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO THERE. IT IS A TOSS.
PRIME MINISTER PUBLIC SAFETY WOULD BE MY NUMBER ONE IF COST WERE NOT A FACTOR. BECAUSE THE ANIMAL SHELTER IS SUCH A LOWER COST, I THINK IT HAS A MUCH BETTER CHANCE OF
>> I WOULD ORDER THEM THAT WAY. THOSE ARE MY TWO ALSO.
. >> IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S MORE LIKELY TO PASS, ANIMAL SELL THEY ARE IS.
SO I THINK WITH THAT NEEDS TO COME SOME RENOVATION MONEY.
>> OH: LET'S GET TO THAT. HOLD ON.
LET'S GET TO THAT. >> IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT PARTICULAR. THERE IS A THIRD COMPONENT.
DEFINITELY THOSE TWO. >> SOME THINGS WERE BROUGHT UP
[01:25:06]
THAT WERE VOTED DIFFERENT. PUBLIC SAFETY, I AGREE IS NUMBER ONE. THEN ANIMAL SHELTER AND CITY HALL KIND OF EVEN. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WE DON'T NEED TO BUILD A COMPLETE CITY HALL COMPLEX.KIND OF LIKE WITH YOU, BRIAN. BUT THIS CITY HALL, IT IS THE SEAT OF YOUR CITY AND I WOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION... SO I SERVED THE LEADERSHIP OF TEXAS LAST YEAR.
DOWNTOWN LEWISVILLE 20 YEARS AGO, WAS NOT WHAT DOWNTOWN LEWISVILLE IS TODAY. IT WAS FULL OF HOMELESS.
IT WAS STRUGGLING TO BRING IN BUSINESS.
THEY HAD TO GET A PLEA... THEY HAD A MUNICIPAL BUILDING THERE.
HE WAS TELLING ME STORIES. THAT THE POLICE WOULD HAVE TO ESCORT THE EMPLOY EASY OUT AT NIGHT.
IT WAS SO UNSAFE. THEY WERE WRESTLING... I DON'T THINK IT WAS 20 YEARS AGO. CLOSER TO 15 YEARS AGO.
THEIR CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION.
THEY DECIDED TO PUT THEIR CITY HALL DOWNTOWN.
BECAUSE IT SHOWED FAITH THAT THIS IS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO PUT OUR GOVERNMENT, AND THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO GROW OUR BASE.
>> YES. >> AND YOU LOOK AT DOWNTOWN LEWISVILLE TODAY. IT IS A SPRAWLING, HEAVY... LOTS OF BUSINESS. LOTS OF PLACES TO EAT.
LOTS OF DEVELOPMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE.
I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE REARRANGE THE COMPLEX. THE COMPLEX FOR US DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY ROOM TO DO DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT OVER THERE.
AT FIRST, I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT IDEA.
IN FACT, I STRUGGLE UNLESS WE CAN COME UP WITH A CONCEPT ON HOW THAT IS GOING TO DRAW ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT. WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT CITIES CAN BE, THEY CAN BE A CATALYST FOR GOVERNMENT.
GARLAND BUILT THEIR CITY HALL DOWNTOWN.
LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT PLACE RIGHT NOW.
YOU REIMAGINE WHAT MAYBE OUR CITY HALL LOOKS LIKE.
MAYBE WE DO ANOTHER MUNICIPAL COMPLEX SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IN A FUTURE BOND ELECTION. YOU PUT A SMALLER CITY HALL THAT IS BUILT HERE ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
TO BUILD BACK THAT TRUST IN DOWNTOWN TO HELP CONTINUE TO GROW DOWNTOWN AND CONTINUE TO BRING BUSINESS INTO DOWNTOWN.
AND THEN YOU DO THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING.
WE FIGURE OUT WHERE THE BEST PLACE IS FOR THAT.
BASED ON THE SIZE THAT WE NEED. WHAT MAKES ACCEPTS.
THEN YOU DO THE ANIMAL SHELTER. SAME THING.
WE HAVE TO FIND A PLACE TO PUT IT.
YOU PUT ALL THREE OF THEM ON THERE.
YOU LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. >> THAT IS A FINE SUGGESTION.
IN TERMS OF LOAFCATION, FOR THE CITY HALL, I WOULD SAY THE FRONT LAWN RIGHT HERE. RENOVATE THIS BUILDING.
THAT IS ME. >> IT MIGHT HAVE TO BE 99 STORIES TALL. (LAUGHTER).
>> LET ME SAY. THIS YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ROOM FOR A CITY HALL, AND ALTHOUGH I'M LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS, I WOULD SAY YOU WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSOLIDATE AS MANY DEPARTMENTS IN IT AS POSSIBLE.
NOW, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE PUBLIC SAFETY BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE A SEPARATE FACILITY. A LIBRARY WOULD BE A SEPARATE FACILITY. YOU DEFINITELY WANT YOUR PLANNING, ENGINEERING, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE DEPARTMENTSES. YOU WANT THEM IN WITH CITY HALL.
IF YOU WERE TO BUILD A CITY HALL HERE, IT MIGHT NEED TO BE THREE
STORIES. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY FOUR.
>> ON THE BACK HERE, YOU WOULD NEED STRUCTURED PARKING.
YOU CANNOT DO THAT, YOU CANNOT PUT 300 EMPLOYEES, 200 EMPLOY EASY HERE... IT WOULDN'T BE THAT MANY.
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT THAT MANY EMPLOYEES HERE ON SURFACE
PARKING. >> UNLESS YOU DEMOED THAT BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING AND PUT SURFACE PARKING.
WELL, BUT I MEAN, YOU MAY AT SOME POINT, HAVE TO GO ELEVATED.
>> I AGREE. YOU CAN DO A PARKING GARAGE.
. >> IT MAY NOT BE A FOUR-STORY PARKING GARAGE. IT MIGHT ONLY BE TWO.
YOU HAVE TO GO VERTICAL ON THIS SITE IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT
AND THEN DETERMINE WHETHER WE RENOVATE THIS SPACE.
>> I LIKE THIS BUILDING. >> I LIKE IT, TOO.
>> IT IS IN THE CENTER OF ROWLETT FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
IT IS NOT QUITE A LANDMARK. IT IS PRETTY CLOSE TO IT.
>> YOU NEED THAT FRONT FACADE. CHANGE EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> YES. >> I WISH WE HAD NOT SOLD THE OLD MUNICIPAL BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET.
BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN IDEAL PLACE TO PUT A FOUR-STORY OFFICE WHICH IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THIS BUILDING.
YOU HAVE THE CONGRUENCEY THAT YOU NEED.
WE HAVE A NICE PROPERTY WHERE PUBLIC WORKS IS.
[01:30:01]
IT MIGHT BE BIG ENOUGH FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING.KEEPS THEM DOWNTOWN. YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT. THAT IS KIND OF MY POINT HERE.
THE STUDY FOCUSED IN ON THE LARGE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX.
I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH BRIAN ON THIS POINT.
IF NOTHING ELSE, THE PANDEMIC DEMONSTRATED WE DON'T ALL HAVE TO BE LOCATED TOGETHER. IT IS NICE.
KIT BE HELPFUL. IF IT IS NOT COST-EFFICIENT, WE SHOULDN'T GO DOWN THAT PATH. WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE WORKFORCE OF THE FUTURE. AS I SAID, THE PLAN... PUT A 50-YEAR PLAN FORECAST. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF SERVICES WE ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING 20 YEARS OR 50 YE
YEARS... >> YOU DON'T WANT TO MOVE CITY HALL AND LET IT BE ISOLATED FROM EVERYTHING ELSE.
RIGHT? I DEFINITELY AGREE THAT KEEPING CITY HALL IN DOWNTOWN IS THE RIGHT ANSWER.
>> I LIKE THE IDEA OF TRYING TO GET THE LIBRARY AROUND HERE.
SOMEWHERE. >> WELL, YOU COULD... THERE ARE
SOME OPPORTUNITIES, I THINK. >> YOU COULD... ANGIE MENTIONED THIS EARLIER. OFF COULD, LISTENS YOU COULD PUT THE LIBRARY IN THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE CITY HALL.
BUILDING. THAT HAS BEEN DONE, I THINK, YOU
SAID FRISCO. >> I CAN'T REMEMBER.
SOMEBODY HAD IT RIGHT DOWNTOWN. IT IS A CIRCULAR BUILDING.
>> TO MY MIND, IT BEGS THE QUESTION, ARE WE READY?
>> WELL, FOR CITY HALL, I WOULD SAY NO.
THAT IS WHY I WOULD SAY ANIMAL SERVICES, PUBLIC SAFETY.
WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO BE READY FOR THOSE TWO.
>> BUT WE HAVE... SO WE HAVE... >> IF WE ARE GOING TO PUT ALL THREE, WE NEED TO BE READY FOR ALL THREE.
>> WE HAVE A PROJECTION OF EMPLOYMENT.
BASED ON THAT PROJECTION OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE MUNICIPAL CENTER, WE HAVE ESTIMATED COSTS. WHAT WE DON'T HAVE IS BASED UPON A DIFFERENT PLAN. WHAT THOSE ESTIMATED COSTS ARE.
I HATE TO GO OUT TO THE POPULACE AND SAY, WELL, WE WANT $60 MILLION OF YOUR MONEY. WE WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO
WITH IT. >> WELL, I WOULDN'T SUGGEST THAT WE DO. THAT I MEAN, OBVIOUS LIP, I WOULD WANT TO GET BACK WITH THEM AND UPDATE THEM ON WHAT WE HAVE COME UP WITHST. AND HAVE AN EVALUATION ON THE COSTEST MATHS. THAT SHOULDN'T TAKE BUT WHAT, A MONTH? THAT COULD HAPPEN IN TIME FOR OUR EDUCATION PROGRAM. I DON'T THINK WE ARE READY FOR CITY HALL. WE DO NEED TO HAVE A MORE SERIOUS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LONG-TERM PLAN BECAUSE I DON'T... IF SOMETHING IS GOING TO FAIL ON THE FACILITIES BOND, THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE TO FAIL.
>> I KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE LIMITATION ON THE ANIMAL SHELTER. CONCERN ABOUT BEING ABLING TO ADD PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS. I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH OF A PLAN IN PLACE TO GO ASK FOR TENS OF MILLIONS TH OF
DOLLARS. >> UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A CHOICE. OTHER THAN TO TELL THE VOTERS, SORRY, WE CAN'T HIRE ANY MORE DETECTIVES BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO PUT THEM. THAT IS NOT...
I WOULD RATHER ASK THEM FOR A TAX RATE INCREASE THAN TO SAY WE
CAN'T HIRE MORE DETECTIVES. >> AND SORRY YOU HAVE DOGS RETURNING AROUND. WE DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO PUT
>> LET ME WEIGH ON ONE THING. AND THAT IS THAT SHORT OFNOVING WHETHER THE PUBLIC WOULD APPROVE IT, YOU KNOW, IT IS EITHER IF WE DON'T DO IT, SAY, IN MAY, THEN YOU STILL COMMISSION YOUR DE DESIGN, AND THEN YOU HOPE THEN WITH THE DESIGN, YOU KNOW THE SPECIFICITY ENOUGH TO DO IT OR YOU TRY TO BOND IT AND YOU DO IT ALL AT ONE TIME, INCLUDING THE DESIGN.
IT IS NOT UNCOMMON TO DO THIS. WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE TALKING POINTS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH OF AN IDEA. WE HAVE GOTTEN THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFICITY OF WHAT THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE.
BUT ONLY WHAT IS NEEDED AND WHAT KIND OF COSTS WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT WHICH IS NOW ALMOST TWO YEARS OLD.
YOU KNOW, JUST TO SAY. BUT SHORT OF THAT, YOU THEN WOULD HAVE TO COMMISSION THE DESIGN WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE CHOSEN FOR FIRE STATION NUMBER FIVE.
WE BONDED THE DESIGN ONLY. >> FOR VERY SPECIFIC REASONS.
I'M ONLY CHARACTERIZING IT THAT WHEN WE ISSUE THE BONDS TO BUILD, WE HAVE THAT LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY.
MOST OF THE TIME, YOU DON'T. YOU DON'T ALREADY DO THE DESIGN BECAUSE WHAT YOU DO, YOU GO TO THE PUBLIC AND ASK FOR THE MONEY
>> AND INTHINK WE KNOW ENOUGH ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND ANIMAL SERVICES IN TERMS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WE NEED, TO TELL THAT, YOU KNOW, TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC. WHAT OUR NEEDS ARE.
CITY HALL, I THINK IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
WE DON'T QUITE HAVE A GRASP ON THE... WHAT WE ENVISION CITY
[01:35:01]
HALL TO BE. WHAT IT INCLUDES.WE CERTAINLY DO FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, AND WE CERTAINLY DO FOR ANIMAL SERVICES. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE LUXURY OF WAITING ANYMORE. ON THOSE TWO.
. >> SO WHAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE, AND THE REASON I BROUGHT UP THE RENOVATION CONCEPT IS REPURPOSING THE EXISTING POLICE STATION INTO A CITY HALL TYPE
>> AND THERE IS A DRAWING IN THE PACKET HERE THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. IT SEEMS VERY SUITABLE.
VERY PRACTICAL. IT COULD BE AN INTERIM SOLUTION WHERE WE SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY TO REPURPOSE THAT BUILDING ONCE A PROPER PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING IS CONSTRUCTED.
AND THEN WE WORK ON WHAT THIS SPACE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
AND IT TURNS INTO A LONGER-TERM, MORE CENTRIC CITY HALL WITH PARKING GARAGES AND KIND OF ALL THE COMPONENTS.
BUT THIS COUNCIL HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE SOME BOLD ACTION, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO PUT THOSE ITEMS ON THERE AT LEAST.
AND SOME FUNDS TO GO WITH IT, TO POTENTIALLY RENOVATE THAT BUILDING AND DO A FUNCTIONAL CITY HALL.
WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. WE JUST DON'T.
I MEAN, WE TOOK THAT FACILITIES TOUR.
THE STATE OF OUR CITY BUILDINGS IS FRANKLY EMBARRASSING.
EVEN THE ONE THAT WE ARE SITTING IN RIGHT NOW IS IN TERRIBLE CONDITION. AND THERE IS NO MORE KICKING THE CAN. THE CAN HAS HIT A WALL.
WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
EXPONENTIALLY WORSE. >> Z. REALLY BAD.
>> THE FIRE BUILDING IS REALLY BAD.
>> THE SECOND FLOOR IS GETTING READY TO FALL IN.
>> I MEAN, I TOOK THAT FACILITIES TOUR IN 2009 ON THE BOND COMMITTEE THEN. AND WE RECOMMENDED IT AT THAT TIME. WE HAVE AN URGENT NEED FOR A NEW
POLICE DEPARTMENT. >> THE PROBLEM IS THE COUNCILS, UP UNTIL THIS NIGHT, HAVE BEEN TOO SCARED TOE ASK THE VOTERS FOR A LOT OF MONEY. IT IS A LOT OF MONEY.
THERE IS NO WAY TO GET AROUND IT.
THERE IS NO WAY. SO IT IS EITHER GOING TO... THE BUCK STOPS WITH US. OR WE CONTINUE TO PUSH IT DOWN
THE ROAD. >> AND IT IS OUR JOB, THEN, TO TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT WHY IT IS NECESSARY.
>> TO MARKET THAT TO PEOPLE THAT WE REPRESENT.
ABSOLUTELY. >> IT IS ESSENTIAL.
WE HAVE TO EMPLOY THOSE THAT WERE ON THE CIPTF ABOUT WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO GET THEM OUT IN THE COMMUNITY, HAVING ENGAGEMENT
>> IT WILL COME DOWN TO EDUCATION.
>> YES. WHEN THE PEOPLE SEEP IT FOR
>> YOU DON'T REALLY NEED TO EXAINL FOR IT.
YOU JUST NEED TO SHOW THEM. >> TAKE THEM THROUGH THE CUBICLES IN THE DETECTIVES' AREA.
>> PROPERTY EVIDENCE IS SIN SINKING INTO THE CORNER OF THE
EARTH. >> FALLING INTO THE GROUND.
>> IT STARTS WITH HAVING ENOUGH TRUST IN OUR CITIZENS AND THEIR INTELLIGENCE AND THEIR ABILIT TO UNDERSTAND.
YOU KNOW, TO GIVE THEM THAT INFORMATION.
IT IS TOUGH. I DON'T TAKE ANY PLEASURE IN ASKING THE VOTERS FOR A SIX-CENT RATE INCREASE.
THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO. >> THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, THOUGH, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANT TO BE A CITY... IF WE DON'T PUT OUR CITY INFRASTRUCTURE INTO SOME KIND OF BETTER SHAPE, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME... WE WILL SLOW DOWN OR IT WON'T MATERIALIZE LIKE WE THINK IT IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE
INFRASTRUCTURE. >> AND TODAY WE HAVE TO LOOK AT BUYING ANOTHER BUILDING TO MOVE UTILITY BIG BECAUSE WE HAVE NOWHERE... THIS TREASURY MANAGER WE HIRED.
WE DON'T HAVE A SPACE FOR HIM. LITERALLY.
WE HAVE USED EVERY CLOSET. THERE IS NOWHERE TO PUT HIM.
EXCEPT IN THE HALLWAY AT A LITTLE DESK.
I MEAN, THAT IS ABOUT IT. >> WHERE ARE WE IN TERMS OF
FUNDING THE FIRE STATION SNIEF. >> THERE IS BOND CAPACITY FOR
THAT THAT WE HAVE... >> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
>> FIRE STATION NUMBER FIVE. >> OKAY.
WHEN WE PRESERVED THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF $12
MILLION... RIGHT. >> IF IT IS $15 NOW, THERE WILL
BE A MARGIN. >> WELL, THEN THAIP NEED TO
REDUCE THE SIZE OF IT. >> A $12 MILLION FACILITY THEY
>> SAY AGAIN? >> DOES IT HAVE THE C.O.'S DOING
THAT? >> THE RECOMMENDATION STAFF HAS MADE. YOU GUYS HAVE TO MAKE THAT
DECISION. >> BEFORE WE GET THERE, I THINK WE HOLD THAT UNTIL THE END. OKAY.
SO WE HAVE AGREED PUBLIC SAFETY AND ANIMAL SERVICES AT A MINIMUM. IN TERMS OF LOCATION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE LOOK AT PUTTING IT ON THE
[01:40:10]
PROPERTY OFF OF THE SERVICE ROAD AT MILLER HEIGHTS.HAS THE EASE OF ACCESS, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY.
WE OWN IT. THERE WILL HAVE TO BE SOME DIRT WORK DONE. OBVIOUSLY.
THERE IS SOME FLOOD PLANE ISSUES OVER THERE.
NOW, IF WE DID THAT AND WE DID WANT TO BUILD AN ENTIRE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T WORK BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF FLOOD PLANE. WE WOULD HAVE TO DO SO MUCH DIRT WORK. TO RAISE IT UP OUT OF THE 500-YEAR FLOOD PLANE. THAT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
BUT I PERSONALLY WOULD RECOMMEND FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, THAT IT BE AT THE SERVICE ROAD AT MILLER HEIGHTS.
ANY OBJECTION? >> WHAT ABOUT THE ANIMAL
SERVICES? >> ANIMAL SERVICES COULD EITHER GO TO... NEXT TO STATION TWO OR WE NEED TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
>> IT IS A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL AREA.
ISN'T IT? >> THAT IS WHAT I'M THINKING.
>> YEAH. NOW, THERE IS AN ALTERNTIVE LOCATION. I FOUND IT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT STAFF IS ALL ABOUT IT.
>> JUST A HEADS-UP. WE HAVE DID GET UPDATED PRICES FROM JEFF, AND THOSE HAVE ALMOST DOUBLED.
SO JUST TO WRAP THAT IN IN A FULL TRANSPARENCY.
WE DID NOT CONSIDER PUTTING ONE BUILDING ON THE FRONT.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT CONVE CONVERSATION.
WE DID HAVE THE CONVERSATION IF% WE BUILT THE ENTIRE COMPLEX ON EAST, INFRASTRUCTURE KOHS, AND THE ENTIRE COMPLEX ON WEST, INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS. AND IT WAS 509.
>> YES. >> BECAUSE WE WERE THINKING ABOUT SELLING THE FRONT OF IT. IT IS COMMERCIAL.
>> IS THERE ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO TO THE PROPERTIES THAT SIT SOUTH OF THE CURRENT POLICE STATION? THERE IS A COUPLE OF HOUSES.
>> WE DON'T OWN THEM. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
THIS PROPERTY IS EXTREMELY VALUABLE.
GREAT LOCATION. MAYBE WE COMPROMISE AND DO
SOMETHING DIFFERENT. >> WELL, I WOULD ARGUE THE PROPERTY AT ROWLETT ROAD IS VALUABLE, TOO.
>> IT SURE IS. THAT IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.
>> AND WE OWN THIS. WE ARE NOT HAVING TO BUY LAND.
THAT IS MY BIGGEST... >> IF WESTERN ONLY GOING TO BUILD ONE FACILITY ON THE WEFS SIDE OF THAT, I THINK YOU COULD DO THAT ON THAT WEST SIDE WITHOUT THE AMOUNT OF WORK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT IS IF WE BUILD EVERYTHING THERE THAT YOU COULD SEE FROM THAT BLUE THAT COMES INTO PLAY.
>> WELL, I DROVE IT TODAY. IT IS MORE THAN THAT BLUE.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO SO MUCH DIRT WORK TO GET IT TO A LEVEL THAT YOU COULD BUILD ON. IF WE WERE GOING TO DO ALL...
>> RIGHT. >> SO I SUPPORT PUBLIC SAFETY AT MILLER HEIGHTS AND SERVICE ROAD. OR WEST.
YOU LIKE THAT. >> I CAN SUPPORT THAT.
I WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR A FOUR OR FIVE-STORY BUILDING WITH
A PARKING GARAGE BEHIND IT. >> HONESTLY, I THINK THE EAST SIDE HAS A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND THE GREEN SPACE ACCESS, PRESERVING THE GREEN SPACE. MATT, YOU WILL LIKE THIS.
WE NEED TO DEDICATE THAT AS PRESERVATION.
LET THE NATURE DO ITS THING AND PUT A TRAIL THROUGH THERE.
>> THAT IS A GREAT PLACE FOR A TRAIL.
>> COULD YOU FIT THE POLICE STATION AND THE ANIMAL SHELTER
>> HERHERE IS THE DEAL. IF THAT IS ALL YOU WERE GOING TO DO THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU WOULDN'T.
I MEAN, YOU COULD DO THAT. PUT THAT IN THE FRONT.
THE ANIMAL SHELTER FURTHER IN THE BACK.
>> THAT IS THE BEST... I'M JUST SAYING IT IS A POSSIBILITY.
THE OTHER SITE NEXT TO THE FIRE STATION NUMBER TWO IS POSSIBLE, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU KNOW, MY ONLY OTHER THOUGHT IS THAT DEPENDING ON HOW FAR BACK YOU WOULD GO TO GET AROUND THE FLOOD PLANE ISSUES, YOU MAY END UP HAVING TO PUSH THAT FURTHER BACK AND CLOSER TO MILLER HEIGHTS WHICH MEANS CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. .
>> WE COULD PUT A NICE BRICK GATE OR FENCE WITH LANDSCAPING.
[01:45:01]
THERE YOU GO. (LAUGHTER).>> IF WE HAVE ALREADY SUGGESTED THAT WE PUT THE ENTIRE MUNICIPAL COMPLEX ON THE WEST SIDE, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM FITTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND ANIMAL SERVICES ON THE SAME SIDE.
I WOULD GO FOR THAT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE POLICE AND ANIMAL SERVICES CLOSE TOGETHER BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN ANIMAL SERVICES ARE NOT THERE, THEN THE POLICE ARE THE ONES
>> I LIKE IT BETTER THAN FIRE STATION TWO.
BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES.
>> WELL, AND YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE SIRENS.
THEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DOGS HEAR SIRENS?
>> THEY GO CRAZY. >> THEY GO CRAZY.
>> YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SIRENS THERE?
>> TYPICALLY NOT. >> UNLESS THERE IS A MAJOR
PRIORITY ONE. >> OH, THAT IS TRUE.
>> QUESTION. I NEED TO ASK A QUESTION.
CAN'T WE JUST FIGURE OUT... JUST SAY, VOTE FOR APPROVAL.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING TO PUT IT.
>> THE POINT THAT WE HAVE BEEN MAKING PRIEST IN... WE NEED TO TELL THEM... PEOPLE ARE SAYING, OKAY, I WANT TO KNOW WHERE.
>> WHAT AM I VOTING FOR? >> THIS WILL HELP US GET A BETTER IDEA OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
>> AND THE COST. >> THE COST WILL DEPEND ON
WHERE. >> IF WE CAN BUILD THE CONCRETE ALL AT ONCE, FOR THIS WHOLE THING, BEING ALL ONE UNIT AS OPPOSED TO CONCRETE OVER HERE FOR AN ANIMAL SHEER THE...
>> I KNOW THAT CONCRETE IS VERY EXPENSIVE.
>> I'M IN FAVOR OF HAVING BOTH ON ONE SITE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE OBJECTIONS? >> I'M STILL FEELING UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT WE ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION NOW ABOUT WHAT A POSSIBLE CONFIGURATION MIGHT BE AND WHERE THINGS MIGHT BE IN A DISCUSSION WHERE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDING WHETHER WE ARE ASKING FOR MONEY TO BUILD SOMETHING.
I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOING TO APPLY.
>> WE PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT, THEN EVERYTHING ON THE BALLOT IN
MAY IS GOING TO FAIL. >> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT AT
>> GARLAND CAN GO DOWN ON THEIR OWN.
A BILLION DOLLARS, THAT IS THEIR THING.
>> WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A BILLION.
>> I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR. IF WE DON'T DO IT NOW, WHEN ARE WE EVER GOING TO DO IT? YOU KNOW, IF THE VOTERS TURN IT DOWN AND THEY DON'T LIKE US, THEY CAN EXPRESS THAT AT THE
BALLOT BOX. >> AND WE HAVE AMPLE TIME BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THE ELECTION HAPPENS TO GET SOME GOOD INFORMATION TOGETHER. WHAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
I MEAN, I HAVE PUTTING THE PRESSURE ON YOU.
YOU WILL GET AN UPDATED STUDY ON WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT IS
GOING TO LOOK LIKE. >> WOULD IT BE PROPOSED?
>> YEAH. WE COULDN'T GET FIRM DRAWINGS.
>> RIGHT. THE LOCATION IS SUBJECT TO
>> IF WE PIN DOWN THE LOCATIONS. >> AS BEST AS WE.
CAN. >> IF IT IS CITY PROPERTY.
WE COULD BE PRETTY CLEAR. >> YOU COULDN'T TAKE A DIGITAL PHOTO OF A BUILDING AND SAY THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AT THIS STAGE. YOU HAVE TO DO DESIGN
ENGINEERING TO GET THAT. >> NO.
ANOTHER THING IS ARE THEY GOING TO BE SEPARATED OR TOGETHER?
>> SEPARATED. ON THE SAME SITE.
>> THAT IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
THEY NEED TO SEPARATE. >> THE BACK TO MILLER HEIGHTS?
>> I'M ASKING FOR ORIENTATION. THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD GO THAT FAR.
>> WE COULD GET SOME HELP TO FIGURE THAT PART OUT.
YOU KNOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SITE ITSELF.
ME PERSONALLY, GOING BACK TO THE TRAIL CONCEPT, IT WOULD BE SO NICE IF WE COULD... IF WE HAD THE FLAT WORK THERE.
PROVIDING PARKING. SO PEOPLE CAN JUMP ON THE TRAIL THERE. YOU KNOW, THE PUBLIC COULD.
NOT TO MENTION EMPLOYEES. >> WELL, YOU HAVE THE TRAILS, TOO. VOLUNTEERS CAN WALK THE DOGS
>> I'M SAYING IF YOU USE THAT EAST SIDE, AND HAVE THE TRAILS AND STUFF, YOU WILL HAVE IT CONNECTED TO THE RCC.
IT WOULD BE NICE TO CONNECT IT THERE AS WELL.
ON THE EXTREME EAST END OF THE EAST SIDE.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THEN WOULD HAVE TWO ACCESSES TO THE TRAILS
SYSTEM THERE. >> THAT WOULD BE NICE.
>> I THINK EXPANDING THE TRAIL SYSTEM WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
I WILL S SAY SAY THIS. IF YOU DO THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING THERE AND ANIMAL SERVICES, YOUR ONLY OTHER CHOICE
[01:50:01]
IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANTED OTHER FACILITIES DOWN THERE TOO IS TO PUSH THAT ALL THE WAY TO THE EAST AND THEN WE HAVE DOUBLED OUR COST TO DO ALL OF IT. AS OPPOSED TO BUILDING IT ALL IN ONE LOCATION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ISCLEAR. >> I THINK... ARE WE... DO WE UNDERSTAND THAT DOING THIS MEANS CITY HALL STAYS IN DOWNTOWN?
PRETTY MUCH. >> I WOULD HOPE THAT THE CITY
HALL DOES STAY DOWNTOWN. >> I DO, TOO.
>> YES. >> I MEAN, THINK I YOU BUT NEED CITY HALL AS AN ANCHOR FOR THIS WHOLE DOWNTOWN EFFORT.
WE HAVE HIRED THE DOWNTOWN MANAGER.
THIS NEEDS TO BE THE CORE FACILITY.
>> FOR DOWNTOWN TO GROW, WE NEED TO PROVIDE A LUNCHTIME CROWD.
>> THE LONGTIME VISION IS TO CONSOLIDATE THE PLANNING BUILDING. AND YOUR CITY HALL ALL INTO ONE SPACE. THAT IS GOING TO TAKE TIME TO.
GET TO THAT POINT. I AGREE WITH MATT.
ON THIS SITE, YOU CAN BUILD A MULTISTORY BUILDING THAT INCORPORATES THOSE DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE CITY.
AND IT IS ALL IN ONE LOCATION. WITH THE PARKING GARAGE.
THEN THE OTHER PROPERTIES WE HAVE CAN DEAL WITH IT AT THAT
TIME. >> MAYBE GO TO A DEVELOPER AND SAY DEVELOP THIS AND WE CAN FINANCE IT THROUGH YOU.
WE MAY AS WELL JUST BOND IT AS PAY THE FINANCING.
>> WHAT IS THE MARKET RATE FOR A POLICE STATION?
IF THIS PASSED. >> WE DID GET AT ONE POINT, AN ESTIMATE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS ART OF THIS STUDY WITH THE SERGEANT, I DON'T REMEMBER.
THE OTHER THING THEY DID FOR US, IF YOU REMEMBER, IS THE COST OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO RENOVATE AS WELL.
WE ALSO HAVE THAT NUMBER, TOO. BUT AGAIN, TWO-YEAR-OLD DATA.
>> THAT WAS $4 MILLION. THAT IS TWO YEARS OLD NOW.
>> I THINK THAT SURE... THAT IS YOUR INTERIM SOLUTION.
QUICHE PLANNING WHERE IT IS. KEEP PLANNING WHERE IT IS.
CITY HALL GOES INTO THE OLD PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING.
RENOVATE THIS SPACE OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.
HOWEVER LOCK IT TAKES. HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES.
BUILDING A MULTI-STORY BUILDING. I MEAN, WITH YOUR BONDING CAPACITY AND THE TIMELINE THAT WAS BUILT HERE WAS 2027, 2030.
SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD. >> YOU COULD DESIGN CITY HALL.
DESIGN IT THAT WAY. YOU TRY TO LEVERAGE THAT MONEY AND SELL OFF THE OTHER SPACE, TO ADD TO IT.
OR YOU MOVE COMMUNITY SERVICES INTO THAT BUILDING.
AND IT HAS MORE ROOM. UNTIL YOU ARE ABLE TO ADD ON.
>> WELL COMMUNITY SERVICES RIGHT NOW IS PRETTY MUCH FINE.
>> WHAT ARE WE DOING IN THE MEANTIME WITH OUR CITY HALL STAFF? IF WE START TO RENOVATE THIS BUILDING. OR BUILD A NEW BUILDING?
>> WELL, IT DEPENDS. IF YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD ON THE LAWN IN FRONT, THEN GO UP AND YOU KEPT THIS BUILDING.
YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THAT. I WILL SAY THIS.
THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH MORE ROOM HERE TO HAVE PEOPLE.
WE ARE CONSTRAINED WITHOUT MAJOR RENOVATIONS.
WE ARE CONSTRAINED IN TERMS OF THE SIZE OF THE FACILITIES.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST MAYBE WE THINK ABOUT SINKING HALF A MILLION INTO RENOVATION OF THIS BUILDING.
IT NEEDS IT ANYWAY. >> WE STAY HERE, WE ARE GOING TO... WE ARE SPENDING MONEY ALL THE TIME ON THIS BUILDING.
JUST TO KEEP IT FUNCTIONAL. >> IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AN EXTEND PERIOD OF TIME, AT SOME POINT, WE WILL HAVE TO SPEND
MONEY. >> YOU EITHER SPEND MONEY HERE TO RENOVATE OR THE OLD POLICE STATION TO RENOVATE CITY HALL.
THAT IS THE QUESTION. >> THE POLICE STATION.
>> SO... GO AHEAD. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THIS.
THAT IF WE RENOVATED THE OLD POLICE BUILDING, YOU BUY SOME SIGNIFICANT YEARS BEFORE YOU WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A FACILITY, SAY, DOWNTOWN OR WHEREVER YOU PUT IT.
FOR A CITY HALL. IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, YOU ARE GOING TO START RUNNING OUT OF ROOM IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT BUILDINGS. IT BECOMES... AND THEN WE ARE BASICALLY... THOSE SAME BUILDINGS ARE GOING THROUGH WHAT
POLICE IS GOING THROUGH NOW. >> I AGREE.
THAT IS WHY I THINK RENOVATING THE CURRENT POLICE BUILDING TO BE CITY HALL... AND KNOWING HOW WE WORK, IT WILL PROBABLY BE CITY HALL FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS, 30 YEARS.
WE WILL BE GONE. BUT THIS BUILDING WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT. (LAUGHTER) THIS BUILDING WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER... I MEAN, WE COULD SAY THAT CITY HALL STAFF WORKS THERE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS REMAINS HERE.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO DO THAT.
>> I HAVE DON'T THINK SO EITHER. >> AS THIS THING CONTINUES TO
[01:55:03]
GROW, YOU WILL NEED MORE SPACE THAN YOU HAVE THERE.THIS IS JUST NOT FUNCTIONAL LONG-TERM.
>> I KNOW. IT IS KIND OF SAD TO...
IT IS SAD. >> HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN MAKING
I WAS JUST PREACHING THAT AT THE START OF THIS.
SO NOW THE PROJECTED RENOVATION COST ON A TWO-YEAR-OLD DOCUMENT WAS $4 MILLION FOR THAT FACILITY.
I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT AT $4 OR $2.
>> $4. AND SAY WORK WITH WHAT YOU CAN.
>> CAN I SUGGEST THIS? ARE YOU SUGGESTING TO PUT THE RENOVATION COST ON THE BOND ELECTION AS WELL?
>> WELL, WE COULD BUILT IT INTO THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING TO MOVE OUT OF THERE TO BUILD A NEW ONE. WE COULD BUILD...
>> I SEE. >> WE COULD BUILD THE COST OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING UP. MAYBE INSTEAD OF $60, IT IS $64 MILLION. $4 MILLION IS TO RENOVATE...
>> LET ME SAY THIS. TO THE TO DO THE DESIGN AND DO THE BUILDING, IT IS PROBABLY THREE YEARS BEFORE YOU WALK IN
>> THAT MEANS THREE YEARS BEFORE THEN YOU WOULD START THE RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING. YOU WOULD DO THE DESIGN DURING
I WOULD SAIL YOU DON'T HAVE TO BOND ALL OF THAT RIGHT AWAY.
YOU STILL HAVE SEVERAL YEARS BEFORE YOU WOULD NEED TO BOND
THESE. >> SO LET'S BOND THE DESIGN.
>> MAYBE INCLUDE THE DESIGN. I WAS GOING TO SAY, THOUGH, THAT THREE YEARS FROM NOW, THE CONDITIONS WILL BE VERY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF COST AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
I ALMOST THINK THAT YOU DON'T INCLUDE THAT RIGHT NOW, AND THEN MAYBE IN A COUPLE OF YEARS, THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS OR THROUGH A SHORT-TERM FINANCING ARRANGEMENT, YOU FINANCE ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO DO THE DESIGN. THEN MAYBE THE 2024 ELECTION OR SOME OTHER, THEN YOU ALD ADD THE RENOVATION COST.
>> OR THREE YEARS, YOU NEVER KNOW.
YOU MIGHT BE READY TO BUILD IT HERE.
YOU MAY NOT NEED THE RENOVATION. YOU JUST BUILD IT HERE.
>> THAT COUNCIL WILL HAVE FUN MAKING THAT DECISION.
>> UNDERSTAND THIS INFORMATION IS A YEAR AND A HALF OLD OR WHATEVER. IT WAS $60.8 MILLION FOR THE NEXT THREE-YEAR BOND CYCLE STARTING IN 2024.
>> AND I DID ASK ABOUT THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT INTEREST RATES. IF, LET'S SAY, WE WERE TO GO OUT TODAY TO THE BOND MARKET, IT WAS 3.9%.
WHICH ISN'T BAD. THAT IS NOT TERRIBLE.
>> YEAH. WE HAVE BEEN FLOATING AROUND 1.5 TO 2% FOR SEVERAL YEARS. YOU KNOW, YOU ARE RIGHT.% COMPARED TO... OUR AVERAGE FOR MANY YEARS BEFORE THE GREAT RECESSION WAS AROUND 5%. WE HAVE REALLY ENJOYED LOWER
RATES FOR QUITE A WHILE NOW. >> I WAS EXPECTING, LIKE, 4% OR 5%. SO WHEN I HEARD 3.9, IT COULD BE WORSE. SO WE JUST HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO HOPE THAT IT STAYS THAT OR BELOW.
>> I THINK YOUR BIGGER ISSUE RIGHT NOW, HONESTLY, IS STILL THE CONSTRUCTION COST. BY THE TIME YOU GOT THE DESIGN DONE, THAT MAY NOT BE AS BAD. AS IT WOULD BE TODAY.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BUILD IT TODAY.
THAT BUYS YOU SOME TIME. >> OKAY.
IN TERMSLE OF THAT PART, BEFORE WE GET TO THE FIRE STATION FIVE, DO YOU ALL HAVE THE ANSWERS YOU NEED?
>> I WOULD ASK THAT YOU ASK FOR CONSENSUS.
THEN LET US COUNT THAT. >> THIS WOULD BE TWO SEPARATE
>> YOU COULD ARGUE TO PUT ANIMAL SERVICES WITH PUBLIC SAFETY.
WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. >> I WOULD NOT SAY THAT WITH CITY HALL. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. >> WE NEED AN AMOUNT.
>> THAT IS TRUE. WE NEED AN AMOUNT.
ALL RIGHT. >> THE STUDY THAT WE HAD SHOWED THAT THE 104,000 SQUARE FEET PLANNED FOR THE FACILITY, 2022, WOULD HAVE BEEN ALMOST $65 MILLION.
>> YUP. >> ITCH SAY WE TELL THEM THAT IT IS $60 MILLION. IF THEY HAVE TO CUT SOME SQUARE FOOTAGE OFF, THEN THAT IS WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.
>> OFF MAY NOT LIKE WHAT MAY HAVE TO BE CUT.
DO WE NEED A 30O. DISPLVMENT NO. >> A WHAT?
>> NO. >> TUSH YOUR VOLUME UP.
>> TURN YOUR VOLUME UP. >> THEY PLAN THESE FACILITIES BASED ON BUILD-OUT. THE DOLLAR FIGURE YOU SEE IS
[02:00:09]
GOING TO BE WHAT YOU NEED IN 2039.I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE CHIEF AND I WOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION.
WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A $60 MILLION PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY.
IF YOU TELL HIM HE WILL HAVE $50 MILLION, HE WILL MAKE SURE HE HAS A WORKING PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING FOR $50 MILLION.
HE NEEDS THE SPACE. >> PART OF THAT $65 MILLION IS A BIG CHUNK WAS TO BUILD THE UNDERGROUND E.O.C.
>> WE DO NOT NEED AN UNDERGROUND E.O.C.
>> WE DON'T NEED AN UNDERGROUND BUNKER?
(LAUGHTER). >> THEY WANT THAT HEALTH PAD
HELIPAD ON TOP. >> I DON'T... WE HAVE TWO E.O.C.'S THAT ARE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO MANAGE A DISASTER.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO BUILD A $15 MILLION OR $20
MILLION UNDERGROUND BUNKER. >> BUT I WILL SAY THIS, TOO.
I DON'T REMEMBER THAT THAT PRICE DLPS THE $65 INCLUDING THE
INFRASTRUCTURE. >> IT DOES NOT INCLUDE IT.
>> YOU MAY HAVE TO SAY AN AMOUNT PLUS INFRASTRUCTURE.
IF YOU SAY THAT, THEN YOU ARE BASICALLY A TWO OR THREE-STORY METAL BUILDING. I DON'T THINK YOU WANT THAT
EITHER. >> I SHOULD KNOW THIS.
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT INCLUDING FIRED A MONEY IN THE PUBLIC
>> DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A NUMBER TONIGHT?
CAN'T WE GO BACK AND SAY OKAY? >> NO.
WE NEED CONSENSUS. >> YOU VOTE, GIVE US AT LEAST A LITTLE TIME TO WORK ON THAT PART.
>> I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH APPROVING WHAT IT IS.
AND JUST GENERAL LOCATION. I THINK WE NEED SOME MORE NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, AND COME BACK WITH, YOU KNOW, OPTION A.
HERE IS ALL THE BELLS AND WHISTLES.
YOU KNOW, FOR BUILD-OUT. >> WHAT IS THE LAST DAY WE CAN
APPROVE THIS BEFORE THE... >> NEXT MONTH.
>> THE DEADLINE FOR THE BOND IS FEBRUARY 17.
>> FEBRUARY 17. > THAT IS A LOT OF WORK PRETTY QUICK. YOU COULD SAY, HEY, HERE IS OPTION A. HERE IS OPTION B.
WITH INCLUDING UTILITY COSTS. BEST GUESS.
$80 MILLION WITH THE UNDERGROUND E. OOVMENT C. AND $55 MILLION WITH, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THAT WITH UTILITIES.
>> WE NEED TO DO IT ON THE FIRST COUNCIL MEETING.
>> WE COULD HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING.
>> SQUARE FOOTAGE EVIDENCE MATS WERE BASED UPON GROWTH FROM 2020. BUILD-OUT OF 100% IN THE EMPLOYEES. SO $60 MILLION.
THERE IS SOME FLUFF IN THERE. THE E.O.C . IS ONE OF THOSE.
WE CAN SAY THIS IS NOT NEEDED. CUT THAT.
>> MY POINT, LET US REACH OUT TO THE SERGEANT.
HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT ALONG WITH OUR NEW POLICE CHIEF AND CHIEF HOWARD. I THINK WE CAN GET YOU SOME DISCUSSION POINTS, IF NOT... WE MAY NOT HAVE AN E.O.P.C., ENGINEERING OPINION OF PROBABLE CAUSE BY THEN.
WE CAN GET YOU A GOOD TALKING POINT WHERE YOU COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, I'M WILLING TO SUPPORT THAT.
>> YUP. >> I THINK WE COULD DO THAT.
>> COUNCIL, WE GO TO THAT? >> YES.
>> OKAY. >> WELL, GOOD WITH WHAT?
>> TWO PROPOSITIONS. YOU GUYS FIGURE OUT THE DETAILS
>> FOR PUBLIC SAFE I HAVE THE BUILDING AND ANIMAL SERVICES.
>> NOW, STATION FIVE. >> HOLD ON.
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN CONSENSUS YET. >> I HAVEN'T SEEN ALL THE HEAD
NODS YET. >> GO AROUND THE ROOM.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> SO STATION FIVE.
AGAIN, WE ALREADY HAVE THE BONDING CAPACITY WITHOUT HAVING TO RAISE THE TAX RATE TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION.
THE QUESTION FOR US IS WHETHER WE DO IT THROUGH A G.O. BOND WHICH WOULD BE A REFERENDUM. IT WOULD BE ADDED ON TO THE BALLOT OR WE DO A C.O. BOND GIVEN THE NEEDS TODAY FOR A
[02:05:02]
STATION DOWN THERE. >> WHAT IS THE TARGET COMPLETION FOR THE DESIGN? WHAT DATE?
>> IT COULD BE AS EARLY AS MARCH.
IF NOT APRIL. THEY ARE STILL PUSHING REALLY
HARD TO KNOW THAT FOR SURE. >> MARCH OF 2023.
WE WILL HAVE PEOPLE LI LIVE ON S PLACE IN 2024.
>> HE CAN BUILD A TRANSITION PLAN OUT OF THE CURRENT FIRE STATION NUMBER TWO, PROVIDED THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD.
THERE IS OTHER ISSUES INVOLVED WITH WHEN WE BUILD IT.
CAN I WEIGH IN ON THE C.O.-G.O. CONVERSATION TO MAKE SURE
>> YES, PLEASE. >> SO, SO GENERAL OBLIGATION IS FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE CITY, THE CITIZENS VOTE ON IT.
CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE CITY. IT IS APPROVED BY UNDER OUR CHARTER. APPROVED BY THE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. SO HERE IS WHAT I WOULD... AND SUBJECT TO REFERENDUM. WHICH I WOULD SAY A UTILITY REVENUE BOND IS NOT. DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TYPES OF BONDS YOU HAVE. WE WOULD DO 20 YEARS REGARDLESS.
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A CHOICE.
WHEN YOU FEEL THAT WAY, IT IS AS MUCH AS POLITICAL DECISION.
IT IS REALLY A POLITICAL DECISION.
WHEN YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE NO CHOICE, THEN THE C.O. MAKES SENSE. WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE, THE CITY WERE USING C.O.'S FOR A LOT OF STUFF.
AND PUBLIC HATED THAT. WHEN YOU USE IT CONDITIONALLY, AND YOU ARE PREPARED TO DEFEND THAT JUDGMENT AND THAT DECISION, THEN I THINK THAT A FIRE STATION IS A REAL REALLY GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHEN A C.O IS APPROPRIATE. IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PARKS.
WE ALL AGREED WE WEREN'T GOING TO DO FACES.
(LAUGHTER) BUT YOU HEAR WHAT I'M GETTING AT.
IS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU PROBABLY SHOULD NOT USE A C.O. FOR. BECAUSE THE PUBLIC SHOULD WEIGH
>> IT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT ANY FIRE STATION SHOULD BE
A C.O. >> LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS, TOO. IT IS NOT JUST A FIRE STATION.
IT IS ALSO GOING TO PROVIDE FOR OFFICES FOR POLICE.
THAT WILL FREE UP SOME OF THE NEED, IMMEDIATE NEEDS WE HAVE SO THAT WE CAN BRING SOME LIEUTENANTS OR SERGEANTS...
PATROL STAFF TO THIS FACILITY AS WELL.
WE ARE GOING TO NEED IT ANYWAY. WITH THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING.
THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL BE JUST SOUTH OF THE PENINSULA WILL BE EXTRAORDINARY. SO TO HAVE A PLACE WHERE OFFICERS CAN GO TO FOR BREAKS OR STAFF BRIEFINGS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS... WELL, LARGE EVENTS. WE NEED TO PLACE TO MOBILIZE.
YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD HAVE THAT ABILITY.
>> IT IS NOT JUST THE FIRE STATION.
IT IS A PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING AS WELL.
I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO MENTION.
>> YES. >> IMPORTANT FACTOR TO.
BRIAN'S POINT ABOUT APPROVAL. THE CITIZENS DID APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE FACILITY. AND IN FACT, WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED WAS THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.
FOR SOME REASON, THE CONSTRUCTION MONEY WAS PULLED
BACK FROM THE 2020 BOND. >> THAT WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION COUNCIL MADE TO DO THAT.
>> SO NOW WE ARE FACED WITH WHETHER WE CAN GET THE STATION BUILT IN TIME FOR ITS ITS NEED OR WHETHER WE WILL BE RELYING PUTTING FIRE AND POLICE IN TENTS.
>> THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE IN TENTS.
. >> I THINK THEY ARE ALWAYS PRETTY... THIS ISN'T THE BEST ANSWER FOR THIS.
CHIEF HOWARD WOULD SAY THIS ISN'T HIS PREFERRED OPTION.
WE BUILT STATION TWO. WE BUILT IT FOR TWO ENGINE COMPANIES. THERE IS PLENTY OF ROOM FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF. AND ANOTHER CAPTAIN'S OFFICE.
IF WE NEEDED ADDITIONAL STAFF ON THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE CITY IMMEDIATELY. ALTHOUGH HE WOULD SAY HE NEEDS THEM DOWN THERE NOW. HE ABSOLUTELY WOULD SAY THAT.
>> THERE IS POLICE DOWN THERE. THE ACTIVITY ON I-30.
HIGH-CRIME AREA. ACCIDENTS EVERY OTHER DAY DOWN
THERE. >> THEY BASICALLY LIVE ON 30 NOW. THEY SPENT MORE TIME ON 30 THAN THEY DO IN THEIR OWN HOME PROBABLY.
>> I'M ASKING A QUESTION HERE. I KNOW PRETTY MUCH THE LANDSCAPE
[02:10:01]
IF WE GO THE G.O. BOND, THE VOTE IN MAY.WE WILL HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE THIS FALL.
TO GET THEM SOLD. THAT MEANS WE DON'T REALLY GET
GOING WITH CONSTRUCTION UNTIL... >> AUGUST.
THE ELECTION WILL BE IN MAY. COUNCIL WILL APPROVE THE BONDS IN JULY. AND WE WOULD GET THE FUNDS IN AUGUST. AND YOU WANT TO SELL YOUR BONDS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SELL AT ONE TIME IN THE YEAR TO LOWER
THE COST OF ISSUING. >> MEANWHILE, WE ARE LOSING TIME FROM MARCH WHEN THE DESIGN ENGINEERING IS COMPLETE TO
AUGUST. >> WHEN COULD C.O.'S GO OUT?
IT IS A PERIOD OF TIME. QUITE FRANKLY, IF YOU HAVE A MAY ELECTION, YOU MAY NOT SAVE THAT MUCH TIME FROM DOING A C.O., UNLESS YOU WERE TO ISSUE THE C.O. BEFORE THEN.
>> I THINK WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS REISSUE THE BOARD.
I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL AUGUST TO PULL FUNDING TO BUILD A FACILITY. AND ALSO IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER WE WANT IT. WE NEED IT NOW.
>> BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER WE WOULD DO C.O.'S OR
>> IF WE DID C.O.'S, YOU COULD ISSUE THOSE ANY TIME AND NOT
SUBJECT TO THE MAY ELECTION. >> I WOULD GO WITH THAT.
>> UNLESS A PETITION WERE FILED. >> AND A PETITION...
>> I REALLY DON'T THINK C.O.'S ARE THE WAY TO GO.
I FULLY RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE AND NEED OF THIS PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, BUT I THINK WE ARE ENTRUFSED WITH THE PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE, THAT WE WILL BRING SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE THEM AND TAKE IT TO A VOTE. IT IS OUR JOB TO EXPLAIN WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT, WHAT BENEFITS IT BRINGS TO THE CITY AS A WHOLE. AND LEAVE IT IN THEIR HANDS.
>> INTHINK THE CITIZENS ARE VERY EDUCATED.
THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY.
I THINK THEY WOULD BE... I FEEL AS THOUGH THEY WOULD BE OKAY
WITH IT. >> IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A RATE
INCREASE LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE. >> NOT A RATE INCREASE.
>> IT WON'T HAVE A FISCAL... A FINANCIAL IMPACT.
YOU KNOW, I TRUST THE VOTERS TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
I REALLY DO. FRCHES I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE
TIME. >> I CERTAINLY HOPE THEY WOULD MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION. IF THEY VOTE IT DOWN, THE EARLIEST WE COULD BEGIN CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE 2025.
A YEAR AFTER WE HAVE 2,000 PEOPLE LIVING DOWN THERE AND COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES OPENING UP.
WHICH MEANS WE ARE OPERATING OUT OF FIRE STATION TWO... WHICH IS
A 13-MINUTE RESPONSE TIME. >> FOR FIVE YEARS.
>> THEY ELECTED US, TOO, TO MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS FOR THIS CITY. I AGREE WITH YOU IN PRINCIPLE.
I DON'T LIKE MAKING BIG-MONEY DECISIONS LIKE THAT WITHOUT TAKING IT TO THE VOTERS. BUT IN THIS CASE, LIKE WE SAID,
WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS FACILITY. >> BUT I KNOW IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT THERE IS NOT A FINANCIAL IMPACT.
BUT THERE IS. THE FUNDS ARE THERE.
SO WE EITHER SPEND THEM ON THIS OR SOMETHING ELSE.
>> THERE IS SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS?
>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS. IT IS OUR OBLIGATION TO GIVE THAT TO THE CITIZENS TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
>> I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THAT.
I HAVE TO SAY... AND I'M TORN. I HAVE SO DAY THAT I HAVE TO LEAN TOWARD GOING WITH THE C.O.'S IN THIS CASE.
I WOULD BE VERY, VERY RELUCTANT IN MOST CASES.
>> TO PUT THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE AS WELL, TO GET...
FOR STATION TWO AT THIS TIME, TO GET TO 30 TO SAVE LIFE WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES. RIGHT? SO WHEN SECONDS COUNT, WE ARE MAKING THEM COME FROM THE NORTH PART OF THE EAST QUADRANT OF THE CITY.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THERE HAS BEEN INSTANCES WHERE CPR IS BEING DONE BY CIVILIANS ON SECONDS LITERALLY MATTERED.
FOR THOSE REASONS AND FOR THE FACT THAT WE DON'T JUST NEED IT FOR SAPPHIRE BAY, WE NEED IT NOW.
NOW. WITH OR WITHOUT A MAJOR PROJECT.
DOWN THERE. IT IS NEEDED TODAY.
>> GOING BACK TO THE TIMELINE. IT IS A TO-YEAR BUILD.
>> TO CLARIFY ONE THING. IF WE DO A G.O. BOND ELECTION, AND IT FAILS, YOU CAN DO ANOTHER G.O. BOND ELECTION AT THE NEXT
ELECTION. >> OFF CAN'T DO A C.O.
>> YOU CAN'T DO C.O.'S. WE MAY HAVE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION WRONG EARLIER. I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF THAT.
[02:15:01]
>> YOU CAN'T HAVE A C.O. BECAUSE YOUR GMPLET O. FAILED.
>> I THINK WE ANSWERED THAT WRONG EARLIER.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> THANK YOU.
THAT IS A GREAT CLARIFICATION. >> THANK YOU, CITY ATTORNEY.
. >> CAN I CLARIFY THAT REQUIREMENT OF SUMMER MAJORITY FOR A C.O. BOND IS SIX OF ZEN.
>> SUMMER MAJORITY. ... SUPER MAJORITY.
>> WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AT LEAST SIX PEOPLE.
I'M FOR IT. I'M LOOKING AT YOU.
I'M GOING TO GO AROUND. >> I'M FOR IT.
>> I THINK WE HAVE TO DO IT. >> WE HAVE TO DO IT.
>> YEAH. I CERTAINLY COME DOWN THE SIZE OF... THE SIDE OF JEFF ON THIS ONE.
I WOULD HATE TO TAKE SOMETHING OUT OF HANDS OF THE VOTERS.
I DO UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY OF DOING THIS.
>> I'M RELUCTANTLY FOR IT. >> SO LET ME SAY THAT IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL, I WILL VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT.
PRIMARILY, BECAUSE I RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF IT.
>> IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. >> I WOULD BE RETICENT IF I DIDN'T SHARE MY ONJECTIONS. I DO THINK IT IS... THIS IS ONE OF THOSE REALLY TOUGH DECISIONS. IT WILL WEIGH HEAVILY ON ME SINCE WE WERE SWORN IN. AND WE STARTED HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT C.O. VS. G.O. AT THE BUDGET MEETINGS WE HAD WAY BACK IN JUNE. THAT CAME UP.
MAN, I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH THE ROLE OF THIS COUNCIL WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE TYPES OF DECISIONS.
>> IT IS TOUGH. >> AS YOU MENTIONED, WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE USE THAT POWER THAT WE ARE GIVEN.
IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO GO FROM ONE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING TO WHAT THE CITY USED TO DO. WHERE EVERYTHING WAS THERE.
RIGHT? I DON'T WANT TO PUT US IN THAT
POSITION. >> THE STATE LEGISLATURE GOT THE HINT AND STARTED TIGHTENING DOWN ON WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH A C.O.
LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, A SURROUNDING CITY FUNDED A COMMUNITY CENTER WITH THE C.O. THE VERY NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION, YOU CAN NO LONGER BUILD A COMMUNITY CENTER WITH C.O.
DOLLARS. >> I WOULD CLARIFY WITHOUT THE BOND APPROVAL IN 2021 TO DO THE DESIGN, OF THE FACILITY, HAD THAT FAILED, I WOULD NOT BE INCLUDING THAT IN THE FACILITY.
I STILL THINK IT WAS A MAJOR MISTAKE NOT TO INCLUDE THE CONSTRUCTION IN THAT ORIGINAL BOND.
IT WOULD HAVE PASSED. IT WAS PROBABLY THE MOST FAVORABLE THING NEXT TO THE SIRENS.
>> NO. I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT STRATEGY, ALTHOUGH THERE IS GOOD REASON BEHIND IT.
>> YES. >> I HAVE HEARD THAT REASONING ARE. I HAVE DON'T THINK IT WAS GOOD
REASONING. >> THAT IS YOUR OPINION.
>> YES. >> YOU WEREN'T ON THE COUNCIL
ERS ON THE BOND COMMITTEE. >> ARE WE GOOD?
>> I THINK WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED, MAYOR.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> WAS THERE NOT A CONVERSATION
ALSO ABOUT... THE TEMPORARY. >> I'M SORRY.
THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE ALSO. WE ARE NOT DONE.
WE GOT QUITE A BIT MORE TO GO. LET'S GET A BREAK.
I'M SORRY. I WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT IN BETWEEN BOTH. I WAS KIND OF TOO
[02:20:37]
IS THAT WE CAN MOVE SOME OF THE LARGER OFFENSE TO THE SPACE.THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF PARKING PLAZA. SO, THAT IS THE 3 PHASES. PHASE 1 HUNDRED 41 CITIZEN SAYS THEY WOULD SUPPORT THE PRODUCT 84 SAID MAYBE AND 145 SAID NO.
>> I THINK THE QUESTION WAS WHO SUPPORTS ONE NOT NECESSARILY 2
AND 3. >> I DON'T REMEMBER, WHICH USE SUPPORT THE TAX INCREASE FOR THE PARK. 105 SAID YES BUT LET'S WAIT TO PHASE 2. THE 21 PHASE. 84 SAID MAYBE SO THAT WAS 17 AND YOU HAD 30 PERCENT THAT SAID NO WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN TAX INCREASE INITIATIVES.
>> HOW LONG IS PHASE 1 SUPPOSED TO TAKE?
>> I WILL NEED TO MAKE SURE. TYPICALLY YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 4 MONTHS. IF I WAS GUESSING. IT IS A LOT OF DIRT WORK. AND GRASS AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF. I EXPECT 6 MONTHS
MAX. >> DOES NOT INCLUDE THE OTHER CONCRETE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOING?
>> THAT IS THE FIRST VERSION. THE FIRST PART WE CONTRACTED OUT AND ONCE THEY DID THAT AND WE WILL SEE WHAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THAT LITTLE SECTION. IT'S HARD BECAUSE WE DIVIDED UP, THERE'S A PARKING LOT BUT NEEDS TO GO.
>> GOT MONEY FOR THE PHASE 1 THAT CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. WE HAVE A REGULARLY SCHEDULED BOND SELECTION OF MAY 2024. IF WERE BUILDING NOW, THAT BUILDING WILL LAST UNTIL DECEMBER BEFORE PHASE 1 IS DONE THEN WERE ABOUT A 6-MONTH LAG BETWEEN PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2. IF WE WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR. OR WE PUT IT ON $2 MILLION THIS YEAR AND TRY TO GET PHASE 2 TAGGED ON AND THE 2 MEMILLION NEXT YEA
>> IT'S HARD TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE ARE ANTICIPATING IN 2024.
>> THAT IS TO BE DETERMINED. WE NEED SOMEONE TO GET LOOKING
>> WE WILL HAVE DOUBLED THE AMOUNT OF PARKS. THIS IS A WELL DEFINED PROJECT. THE DESIGN IS DONE. IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME OF GETTING IT FUNDED. WITH THE TAX INCREASE THAT HAS SOME SUPPORT. THEN WE ARE ABLE TO WAIT UNTIL 2024
THAT THERE IS NO TAX INCREASE. >> YEAH, THAT IS WHERE WE ARE LEANING. WE ARE ALREADY GOING TO BE ASKING FOR PROBABLY A PERCENT OF 6 4 AN INCREASE. IT WOULD BE LIKE POINT 2 PERCENT.
[02:25:11]
>> I THINK IT WAS 40 FOR BOTH PHASES. $0.40 FOR BOTH PHASES.
>> YOU HAD 41 HUNDREDTHS. >> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.
>> 2024 IS KIND OF AROUND THE CORNER.
>> I WOULD HATE TO LOSE ANY MOMENTUM. PHASE 1 IS NOT A LOT
OF WORK. >> IS THERE A WAY TO DO THIS THAT WE GET THE APPROVAL BUT DON'T OCCUR THE DARKNESS UNTIL THE TAIL END OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT SO WE
COULD REDUCE THE IMPACT. >> AT THE GIVE A LESS CHANCE OF IT PASSING ON ITS OWN. I REALLY DO. ON ITS OWN PROPOSITION. THEN WITH A PARKS BOND WITH MULTIPLE PARKS
PROJECTS. >> I'M STILL SITTING IN THE CHAIR NEXT TO YOU. I SUGGEST WE GO DOWN OUR BOND PACKAGES.
WE LOST THE SPARK BECAUSE OF ANOTHER ISSUE.
>> CORRECT. >> I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN AGAIN. I THINK THIS PARK WOULD HAVE GONE. IT'S A VERY GOOD PROJECT. THERE IS SOME OPPOSITION TO IT.
>> I THINK IF WE PUT THIS ON WITH OTHER MAJOR THINGS ON ITS OWN. WITH THAT RATE FOR INCREASING FOR IT PASSING.
>> FOR FINISHING CONSTRUCTION OUR BONDING CAPACITY GOES UP AT
SOME POINT FOR 2024. >> THAT IS CORRECT.
>> SO WHAT IS THE TIMING OF THAT? WE SELL BONDS IN JUNE AND JULY IN 2024. AT THAT POINT WE HAVE THE TAX CAPACITY TO SUPPORT THOSE BONDS. DO WE HAVE THE TAX CAPACITY ANY EARLIER THAN THAT? I'M NOT SURE HOW THE TIMER THAT WORKS.
>> BASICALLY ARE YOU SAYING HOW LONG DOES THE BOND CAPACITY ONE QUICK LOOKS AT MAY 2024 ELECTION IS A FISCAL YEAR 25 TAX RATE. YOU DON'T START MAKING THE FIRST DEBT PAYMENT NTIL UARY 2025. IF YOU SELL THE BONDSS THE PREVIOUS SUMMER.
THAT'S WHY WE DO NOT HAVE THE BOND CAPACITY TODAY. WE WILL HAVE THAT BOND CAPACITY FOR THE MAY 24 ELECTION. SELLING THOSE BONDS THAT SUMMER IS THE FIRST TIME.
>> I'M KINDA GETTING GRANULAR THAT FISCAL YEAR. WE HAVE BONDS ROLLING OFF WE ARE PAYING OFF. SOMETIMES CALENDAR YEAR 2024 IT FREES UP THE CAPACITY FOR THE FY 25 TAX RATE. DO WE HAVE ANY ROLLING OFF EARLY ENOUGH IN 2024 THAT WE COULD SELL BONDS EARLY IN 2024 TO CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION INTO PHASE 2 INSERT IS PHASE 1 IS DONE?
>> YOU SEEM TO HAVE A WHOLE OTHER REFERENDUM ON ITS OWN.
>> WHILE YOU'RE WONDERING THATB&.
>> WHEN YOU DO A 3 YEAR BOND CYCLE YOU'RE APPROVING AN AMOUNT. THOSE BONDS ARE NOT ALL SOLD IN 2024. I'M SAVED WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE APPROVAL IN MAY OF THIS YEAR TO SELL BONDS IN JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR IF WE HAVE A BODY CAPACITY
AT THAT PLAYTIME. >> SO NEXT YEAR'S BOND CAPACITY. FISCAL YEAR 24 IS ALREADY TIED UP AND WHAT WE EXPECT TO SELL THE SUMMER FROM THE 2021 ELECTION IT'LL BE III YEAR OF THE 2021 AND THAT CAPACITY WILL BE USED UP BY
THAT. >> I THINK THE ANSWER IS THEY DON'T PAY OFF UNTIL BASICALLY SOMETIME.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MICE THOUGHTS. THAT
WOULD'VE BEEN GREAT. >> ERIC THANKS THIS VERSE WANT TO BE DONE BY APRIL THE SECOND WANT TO BE DONE SOONER.
[INAUDIBLE] >> SIT IDLE FOR ONE YEAR.
[INAUDIBLE] >> WE CAN PUT IT IN MAY THIS YEAR AND DON'T PUT IT IN MAY NEXT YEAR.
>> YOU CONGEAL BOND IT FOR ETERNITY.
>> WHEN WILL THE APARTMENTS BE FINISHED? DO WE KNOW? >
[02:30:01]
THERE BUZZING. DO NOT KNOW. >> YOU ALMOST A BOTH PHASES SO YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE MOBILIZATION FEES AGAIN. IF ONLY GET PHASE 2 APPROVED THEM WASTE A LOT OF SOME POINT.
>> THEN WE HAVE TO REBID AND THAT TAKES 6 MONTHS.
>> THE SECOND PHASE WILL TAKE LONGER. YOU COULD DO JUST PHASE 2 IN THIS YEAR AND 2024 FOR PHASE 3.
>> PHASE 1 IS GOING TO BE DONE APRIL QUICK LOOKS PHASE 1, YES.
THEN ANOTHER SMALLER ADDITION WE WILL DO AT THE END. THIS WAS MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE THAN WE THOUGHT IT WOULD. SO WE COULD DO MORE WORK THAN WE REALLY THOUGHT WE COULD.
>> BUT PHASE 1 WILL BE FINISHED IN THE SUMMER.
>> YES. >> PHASE 2 WILL PROBABLY TAKE WHERE THIS ONE WILL TAKE 4 TO 5 MONTHS PHASE 2 WILL TAKE 10 MONTHS. I THEN YOU COULD HAVE THE 2024.
>> A LOWER RATE IMPACT IF YOU JUST DO PHASE 2.
>> I WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER PHASE 2. AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S YOUR DECISION. [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT'S IN BETWEEN. YOU'VE GOT 84 TOTAL ON HERE. [LAUGHTER].
240 68 YES OF SOME FORM. 145 SAY NO AND 84 SAYING I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE REALLY NO OPINION. YOU'VE GOT ROUGHLY 2 TO 1 YES.
>> IT DOESN'T HURT TO ASK RIGHT?
>> THEY COULD SAY NO. [INAUDIBLE]
>> I DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY BE THE SQUEAKY WHEEL ON THIS.
I WILL SAY THAT PREVIOUSLY WE ASKED TO COMBINE PHASE 2 AND 3.
IT MADE SO MUCH FINANCIAL SENSE. THE ECONOMY OF SCALE THERE. I WOULD ALMOST SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD WAIT UNTIL 24 AND PUT THEM BOTH TOGETHER FOR EVEN TO BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER IN MAY AS OPPOSED TO SPLITTING THEM UP. HERE IS THE OTHER PART OF IT. IF YOU DO 3 PHASES THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PARK OVER A 4-YEAR PERIOD WILL BE CONSTANTLY HAVING SOME SECTION OF IT BEING UNDER CONSTRUCTION. ALWAYS BEING GROWN IN OR BUILT OUT WHILE OTHER PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO USE OTHER PARTS OF IT. SOMETIMES DRIVING ON IT, STEPPING ON IT.
>> WE DID NOT HAVE ANY PUBLIC INPUT ON THE 2021 BOND COMMITTEE. THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO BUILD OUT OVERNIGHTED 10 YEARS. WE LOOKED AT IT AND SAID IT'S A PARK. BUILD IT.
AS SOON AS YOU START USING IT AS SOON AS THE BENEFIT TO THE CRUISE AND THE CITIZEN. I THINK WE DID 4 MILLION AND WE WOULD DO IT IN MAY THIS YEAR. CERTAINLY ONE OF THOSE 2. I
VOTE FOR IT THIS YEAR. >> FINALLY PUSH TO DO THIS YEAR IS BECAUSE WE HAD SO MANY PARK FEES AND TO EAT UP $4 MILLION IN NEXT YEAR'S. IF IT DOESN'T PASS THIS YEAR AND THEN WE PUT IT ON 2024 4 AND WE DO IT THEN. MY ARGUMENT IS WE HAD SO MANY PARK NEEDS IN THE CITY. LET ME TELL YOU OF ALL OF THE PROJECTS BEING DONE IN GARLAND RIGHT NOW, HE GATHERS THE ROADS GOING ON AND NEW BUILDINGS. THE MOST POPULAR MONTHS HAVE BEEN THE PARKS. THAT IS ONE THING WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR FOR THE CITIZENS. WE NEED A POLICE STATION? YES. [INAUDIBLE].
IF YOU'RE USING THE POLICE STATION THEN YOU ARE THERE FOR THE WRONG REASON. [INAUDIBLE]. DO WE NEED THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PROTECTING AND SERVING US? YES. MOST OF OUR CITIZENS ARE
[02:35:03]
NOT ON THE STEP FOOT IN A POLICE STATION LESSER GOING ON A TOUR OR DURING POLICE ACADEMY OR SOMETHING ELSE. THIS ISSOMETHING WE SURELY NEED. >> THIS IS PART OF OUR DOWNTOWN
PLAN. IN THE REVITALIZATION. >> I DON'T LIKE THE COMPARISON AT ALL. IF IT'S A FALSE COMPARISON BUT, I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE REASON OF DOING BOTH PHASES EITHER THIS MAY OR NEXT MAY. THE REASON FOR THIS MAY WOULD BE THE CRUISE MOBILIZED. SO YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MOBILIZATION COST. IF I'M
NOT MISTAKEN. >> I CANNOT DEFINITELY SAY YES, SIR NO BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TO DO CONSTRUCTION BONDS. S.
>> AND, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO REBID.
>> GARRITY BID PHASE 1. >> OKAY, THAT'S TRUE. THERE WE DO IT THIS MAY NEXT MAY AND I SEE NEXT MAY ON THIS CASE. THE WE DON'T HAVE A RATE INCREASE IMPACT.
>> I THINK THE MORE THINGS WE PUT ON THIS ONE MORE LIKELY WE
WILL HAVE PEOPLE SAY NO. >> IT WOULD BRING FATIGUE.
>> CORRECT. >> I THINK THE MIDDLE SECTION OF THIS PARK IS BUILT OUT AND LOOKING NICE AND THEN AT THE END YOU HAVE A VISION OF THE OLD AND THE NEW ALTOGETHER.
IT'S A MESS AND IT'S DOING THAT THING WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO WHICH IS KICKING THE CAN. WE HAVE TO TAKE SOME BOLD STEPS. I GET THAT IS $4 MILLION BUT, STOP ABOUT.
>> I DO NOT LIKE THE COMPARISON OF PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE PARK.
I THINK THAT'S TOTALLY WRONG. >> YOU CAN HAVE YOUR OPINION AND THAT'S FINE. THE OTHER POINT HERE IS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THOSE 2 ENDS THAT ARE THERE. $69 SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF MONEY. BRIAN, YOU KNOW AS WELL AS ANYBODY ELSE HALF THAT BOND IS GOING TO GO TO ROADS. THE MOST WE EVER HAD IN A PARK IN A BOND PACKAGE IS 4 MILLION OR 5 MILLION?
>> 15. OR 8. 8 WAS THE ONE THE PAST.
>> 7 AND HALF OR 8. NOW YOU CAN ASSAIL THE NEEDS IT DIDN'T GET PASS FROM LAST ONE. WERE NOT ADDING ANYTHING NEW WERE JUST
DOING THE STUFF THAT WAS THERE BEFORE. >>.[INAUDIBLE].
>> OUR AGREEMENT WAS NOT TO TAKE OUT ANYTHING UNTIL WE CAN PULL IN SOME BIG DEAL. THEY STAY UNTIL PHASE 2 GOES AND
THEN WE HOVEL AROUND IT. >> I SEE THAT BENEFIT PHASE 2.
THERE'S TENNIS BALL COURTS, PICKLE BALL COURTS, SPLASH PAD.
>> THIS IS STILL PHASE 2? THE SECTION BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES AND MAIN STREET IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND IT WILL BE
ROPED OFF. >> WERE ALREADY ASKING THE
VOTERS FOR THE INCREASE. >> JUST ASKED THEM. GIVE THEM
A CHOICE. >> WE NEED TO BE CLEAR IN OUR INFORMATION WERE ASKING THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THIS THING FINISHED. IF WE DON'T START NOW IT'S GONNA BE 2 YEARS TO 2 AND HALF YEARS BEYOND NEXT FALL. WHICH MEANS WE HAVE AN EYESORE, CONTINUE TO HAVE AN EYESORE IN THE DOWNTOWN IT AREA IS WHAT WE'VE GOT.
>> GOES BACK TO THE OTHER THING. WE'VE GOT EXPLAIN. DO MORE EDUCATION. DO TOWN HALLS AND EXPLAINED WHY IT'S
IMPORTANT. >> IT DOESN'T HURT TO ASK AT
THE END OF THE DAY. >> I TOLD YOU. 50-50, YES, SIR
NO. >> OKAY, YES FOR BOTH PHASES IN THIS MAY. 2 AND 3. PHASE 2 AND 3 THIS MAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT,
>> BEFORE WE CONCLUDE BECAUSE WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT EVERYTHING. CAN I RUN IT OFF REAL QUICK TO BE SURE WE HAVE
EVERYTHING CORRECT. >> ,GO FOR IT.
>> GOING BACK TO TRY TO REVEAL. WE HAVE 7 PROPOSITIONS.
EVERYTHING WAS PRESENTED. THE DISMISSAL OF THE JUDGE WAS OUTED AFTER HEARING BY COUNCIL AND AFTER CHANGING TO 2 MAJORITY. THEN ADDING ON A PROPOSITION FOR REMOVING THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR CITY MANAGER.
>> WE SAID NO TO THAT. >> THAT'S WHY AM CLARIFYING.
THANK YOU. >> WE HAD A CHANGE TO THE
[02:40:05]
COURT. >> YES. IT WAS TOTALLY THAT FIRST SECTION FROM THE CHARTER. UPDATE THE ORDINANCE AFTERWARDS. CHANGE TO ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.
ADDED THE GOVERNMENT CODE VERBIAGE. YES. OKAY. THEN FORT FACILITIES 5 WE HAVE PRE-PUMP POSITIONS, PUBLIC SAFETY DESIGN BUILD, ANIMAL SHOULDER DESIGN BUILD AND PHASE
2 A AND 3. >> YES. THE PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER TO BE DETERMINED.
>> I WILL BRING THAT BACK IN FEBRUARY. HOW ABOUT THAT?
>> YES. WE NEED IT. >> THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND ANIMAL SHELTER COST. UNLESS YOU NEED SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
>> NOPE, W
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.