Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

>> >> GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US THIS EVENING. WE'RE GOING TO START OUR EVENING OFF WITH INVOCATION. COUNCIL IF YOU WOULD STAND AND ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO JOIN US, PLEASE

STAND AT THIS TIME. >> DEER HEAVENLY FATHER, WE COME BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENCE HERE AND TO ASK FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AND WISDOM AS WE CONSIDER THE DECISIONS WE'LL BE MAKING ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED HAND OF BLESSING OVER OUR CITY TONIGHT AND ALWAYS IN JESUS NAME AMEN. PLEASE JOIN US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAGS OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE ALLEGE TONS THEY TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD ONE AND INDY

VISIBLE. >> WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO START

[5A. Presentation announcing the promotion of Sergeant Kevin Harrelson to Lieutenant and Corporal Patrick Ray to Sergeant in the Rowlett Police Department.]

OUR EVENING OFF WITH SOME EXCITING NEWS.

ITEM 5A WHICH IS PRESENTATION ANNOUNCING THE PROMOTION OF SERGEANT KEVIN HARRELLSON TO LIEUTENANT AND PATRICK RAY TO SERGEANT IN THE ROWLETT POLICE DEPARTMENT F. WE COULD CHIEFS.

ARE YOU WANTING TO US GIVE YOU A GRAND RECEPTION OR SOMETHING?

>> MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL IT'S AN HONOR TONIGHT I'M ABOUT TO PROMOTE TWO OF OUR FINE OFFICERS.

RAY HAS BEEN WAS FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

HE'S BEEN A CORPORAL AND SERGEANT HARRELLSON HAS BEEN WAS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. SOME RETIREMENTS RECENTLY GIVE US OPENINGS FOR UPWARD MOVEMENT. I'M GOING TO READ THIS TO THE OFFICERS HERE. BEFORE ANY OFFICER TAKES THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OATH OF HONOR, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT HE, SHE, UNDERSTANDS WHAT IT MEANS. AN OATH IS A SOLEMN PLEDGE SOMEONE MAKES WHEN HE/SHE INTENDS TO DO WHAT HE/SHE SAYS.

HONOR MEANS THAT ONE'S WORD IS GIVEN AS A GUARANTEE.

BETRAY IS TO BREAK FAITH WITH THE PUBLIC TRUST.

BADGE IS A SYMBOL OF YOUR OFFICE.

INTEGRITY IS BEING THE SAME PERSON IN BOTH PUBLIC AND CHARACTER MEANS THE QUALITIES THAT DISTINGUISH AN INDIVIDUAL.

PUBLIC TRUST IS A CHARGE OF DUTY IMPOSED -- AND UNETHICAL PRESSURE, FEAR OR DANEER. ACCOUNTABILITY MEANS YOU ARE ANSWERABLE AND RESPONSIBLE TO YOUR OATH OF OFFICE.

COMMUNITY IS JURISDICTION AND CITIZENS SERVED.

ABOUT TO GIVE YOU THE OATH FOLLOW AFTER ME.

ON MY HONOR, I WILL NEVER BETRAY MY BADGE, MY INTEGRITY, MY CHARACTER OR THE PUBLIC TRUST. I WILL ALWAYS HAVE THE COURAGE TO HOLD MYSELF AND OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS.

I WILL ALWAYS UP HOLD THE CONSTITUTION, MY COMMUNITY AND THE AGENCY I SERVE. GENTLEMEN CONGRATULATIONS SERGEANT YOU ARE NOW LIEUTENANT. CORPORAL YOU ARE SERGEANT.

CONGRATULATIONS.

[00:05:05]

. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND

CONGRATULATIONS GENTLEMEN. >> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA

[5B. Hear presentation for Comprehensive Monthly Financial Report (CMFR) for the period ending September 30, 2019.]

IS NOT QUITE AS EXCITING. ITEM 5B.

>> THIS WILL BE VERY EXCITING. >> GOOD EVENING COUNCIL.

TONIGHT'S FINANCIAL REPORT PRESENTATION IS FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2019 WHICH IS THE FOURTH AND FINAL QUARTER OF THE FISCAL YEAR END OF 2019. ON A BUDGETARY BASIS THE CITY EARNED $190.2 MILLION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR.

THIS IS 2.2% MORE THAN FORECAST AND PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY INCREASED GRANT REVENUE AND INCREASED UTILITY SALES OVER THE SUMMER. THE CITY UTILIZED 104.5 MILLION WHICH IS 2% LESS THAN FORECAST PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY CONTRACT SERVICE AND SAVINGS AND PERSONNEL VACANCIES.

PROPERTY TAXES REPRESENT OVER 50% OF THE REVENUE FUND BUDGET AND PRIMARILY COLLECTED IN DECEMBER AND JANUARY.

THE CITY COLLECTED 137,000 IN GENERAL FUND PROPERTY TAX REVENUE IN THE FOURTH QUARTER. AT YEAR END PROPERTY TAX REVENUES ARE 24,000 MORE THAN FORECAST FOR THE YEAR.

SALES TAXES ARE COLLECTED BY THE STATE COMPTROLLER AND REPRESENT 20% OF THE GENERAL FUND REVENUES.

THE CITY COLLECED 1.8 MILLION IN THE FOURTH QUARTER AND ENDED AT 185,000 OR 2.5% LESS THAN FORECAST.

IN THE FOURTH QUARTER THE CITY EARNED 6.7 MILLION IN WATER REVENUES. THE YEAR ENDED WITH WATER REVENUES 216,000 MORE THAN FORECAST.

OUR LAST MONTH OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

40% OF THE UTILITY FUND REVENUE BUDGET.

THE CITY EARNED 3.9 MILLION IN SEWER FEES.

AT YEAR END SEWER REVENUES ARE 98,000 OR ALMOST 1% â– AHEAD OF FORECAST. ON A BUDGETARY BASIS GENERAL FUND REVENUES ENDED 270,000 ABOVE FORECAST PRIMARILY DUE TO INCREASED INTEREST EARNINGS AND EXPENSES ENDING AT 709,000 BELOW FORECAST PRIMARILY DUE TO SAVINGS IN CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AND THE WATER AND SEWER FUND REVENUES ENDED 577,000 ABOVE FORECAST DUE SUMMER SALES AND EXPENSES ENDED 1.3 MILLION BELOW FORECAST PRIMARILY DUE TO SAVINGS IN WASTE WATER TREATMENT AND ESTIMATES IN PERSONNEL VACANCIES.

THESE SAVINGS WE WILL BE FACTOR INTO OUR RATE STUDY THIS SPRING FOR NEXT YEAR'S WATER RATES. THE OTHER FISCAL YEAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GOLF COURSES. GOLF COURSE ALL MET OR EXCEEDED BUDGETED REVENUES AND WERE WITHIN THE BUDGETED EXPENSES ITCH WANT TO NOTE THE FINAL 19 YEAR END COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT IS CURRENTLY IN PREPARATION AND WILL BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL ON FEBRUAR. AND THIS CONCLUDES TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT IS CERTAINLY GOOD NEWS. SO WE WEREN'T SURE WE WERE GOING TO END UP IN THAT SITUATION UNTIL THE LAST MONTH OR SEW ZO IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT. I KNOW THAT YOU AND OTHERS WERE SWEATING THIS OUT. IT COULD GO THE OTHER WAY.

WE'RE SO DEPENDANT ON WEATHER AND USAGE OF THE WATER.

I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THIS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER THAT IN OUR FUTURE RATE ANALYSIS. I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THAT. BUT WE STILL HAVE SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY SO THAT WILL ALSO BE FACTORED INTO THAT.

>> WE WANT TO PASS THIS ALONG TO OUR CITIZENS, ANY BENEFIT THAT

[00:10:02]

WE CAN. >> COUNSEL, ANY COMMENTS?

>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN FOR THE PUBLIC WHY WE CAME IN 2.5% BELOW

FORECAST ON OUR SALES TAX? >> THAT IS DUE TO WE HAD A MAJOR TAXPAYER THAT MOVED TO A DIFFERENT CITY.

>> OK. >> ARE WE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY WHO

THAT IS? >> WE HAD A COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPER THAT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT WAS PARTIALLY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF ROWLETT.

>> IT WAS JUST THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT OF THAT COMMERCIAL.

>> IT WAS NOT THE ENTIRE EMPLOYER -- THE ENTIRE AGENCY?

>> NO , THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.

THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT FOR THIS DEVELOPER WAS LOCATED IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT CITIES. NOT GASTRO.

THEY CONSOLIDATED THEIR PURCHASING OPERATIONS AND MOVED THEM ALL TO ARLINGTON WHO GAVE SIGNIFICANT INCENTIVES TO OBTAIN THOSE SERVICES IN THEIR COMMUNITY.

IT WAS NOT GASTR JUST ROWLETT TT SUFFERED THIS LOSS.

IT WAS 7 OR 8 COMMUNITIES ALL ACROSS THE STATE.

SALES TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY IN RECORDS TO STRICTLY RETAIL HAS BEEN INCREASING AND CONTINUES TO INCREASE.

WE TOOK A BIG HIT WITH THIS ONE COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPER. >> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT

WAS CLEAR. >> WE'VE ALL BEEN GETTING

QUESTIONS. >> IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. >> WHERE WE ENDED AT THE FISCAL YEAR SHOWS WE WERE INCREASING IN REVENUE EVEN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE IMPACT OF THE LOSS OF THAT TAXPAYER.

IF THAT TAXPAYER HAD NOT LEFT WE WOULD HAVE INCREASED.

DOWN HOW MUCH WE WOULD HAVE INCREASED?

>> NO. I DON'T HAVE THAT OFF THE TOP OF

MY HEAD. >> I DID GET THAT QUESTION AS

WELL. >> THE ANNUAL SALES TAX REVENUE WE LOST FROM THAT ONE CHANGE WAS WHAT?

>> $800,000 A YEAR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COUNCIL?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD NEWS.

>> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 5C.

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

UPDATE FROM THE CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGEMENT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THOSE ITEMS TONIGHT.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. MAINSTREET FEST HOLIDAY PARADE.

THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO CAME OUT AND MADE OUR CELEBRATION SO SPECIAL. BASKETBALL REGISTRATION IS CURRENTLY OPEN. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THIS AND OTHER PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS, VISIT DEPARTMENTS PAGE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. ANIMAL SERVICE DIVISION.

ANIMAL SHELLER IS OPEN MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY 10:00 A.M. TO 5:00 P.M. AND LOCATED 4402 INDUSTRIAL STREET.

NEXT LOW COST VACCINATION CLINIC WILL BE HELD SUNDAY JANUARY 5, 2:00 TO 5:00 P.M. LOCATED AT 8502 LIBERTY GROVE ROAD.

THESE CLINICS ARE HELD THE FIRST SUNDAY OF EVERY MONTH EXCLUDING HOLIDAYS. LIBRARY.

AT 3900 MAINSTREET. DOWNTOWN PARKING IS ON THE LIBRARY'S WELL PAGE. TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS.

THE LIBRARY IS CONDUCTING A SURVEY TO FIND OUT WHAT PEOPLE WANT IN THEIR FUTURE LIBRARY. THE SURVEY AVAILABLE ONLINE BUT PAPER COPY IS ALSO AVAILABLE. THE DEADLINE FOR REPLIES IS JANUARY 10, 2020. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SURVEY AND ALL EXCITING PROGRAMS AVAILABLE THIS MONTH, VISIT LIBRARY AT 3900 MAINSTREET, CALL '97 2-412-6116 OR VISIT THE CITY'S WEBSITE. LIGHT UP ROWLETT.

DON'T FORGET TO CAST YOUR VOTE BY DECEMBER 19 FOR OUTSTANDING HOLIDAY DISPLAYS. FOR MORE INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT ARM THE CITY'S WEBSITE. UP COMING PUBLIC MEETINGS INFORMATION WILL BE FOUND ON THE PUBLIC BULLETIN BOARD OF THE CITY'S WEBSITE. EVERYTHING IS ON OUR CITY

[00:15:03]

WEBSITE. TO FIND OUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN ROWLETT, CHECK OUT FRIDAY AT 5:00.

A WEEKLY NEWSLETTER CITY HALL. IT'S FULL OF INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR CITY AND IS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND FACEBOOK PAGE EVERY FRIDAY AFTER 5:00 P.M. OR YOU CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE IT SENT DIRECTLY TO YOUR EMAIL SET UP TODAY AND KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. EMAIL YOUR QUESTIONS ON ANY CITY RELATED TOPIC TO ASK THE MAYOR AT ROWLETT.COM.

AND IT COULD BE ANSWERED ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHLY PROGRAM SPOTLIGHT ENROUGH. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON ANY CITY PROGRAMS OR SERVICES VISIT ROWLETT.COM OR CALL THE ACTION CENTER. ALL CITY OFFICES AND FACILITIES WILL BE CLOSED DECEMBER 24 AND 25TH.

AND JANUARY 1. FOR CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEARS HOLIDAYS. FCC WILL BE CLOSED WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 25 AND WEDNESDAY JANUARY 1.

GARBAGE COLLECTION WILL BE PUSHED BACK ONE DAY DURING THESE TWO WEEKS. AND THAT'S ALL.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY

ANNOUNCEMENTS? >> I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THE LIGHT UP ROWLETT CONTEST IS VERY FUN.

I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY THIS LAST WEEKEND TO GO VISIT ALL THE LOCATIONS THAT WERE ON THE WEBSITE FOR LIGHT UP ROWLETT.

THERE ARE SOME REALLY GOOD LIGHTS.

I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

IT'S ON THE FACEBOOK PAGE. TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND TOUR THE CITY IF YOU CAN. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 6 WHICH IS

[6. CITIZENS' INPUT]

CITIZENS INPUT. THIS IS A TIME WHERE CITIZENS CAN SPEAK ON ANY MATTER FOR UP TO THREE MINUTES.

COUNCIL CAN'T ADDRESS THOSE ITEMS. BUT WE WELCOME THOSE INTERNATIONALLY WHICH.

WE HAVE THREE CARDS. IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS US, YOU NEED TO FILL OUT A AND GET IT TO OUR CITY SECRETARY.

OUR FIRST PERSON THAT WILL BE SPEAKING DURING CITIZEN'S INPUT IS SCOTT. IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. MY NAME IS SCOTT FINALLY.

I LIVE AT 3900 MAINSTREET, APARTMENT 37.

I HAD A SPEECH WRITTEN FOR TONIGHT AND DECIDE NOT TO USE IT WHICH I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE STATE OF TEXAS DEFINES DEFAMATION AND SLANDER BUT YOU KNOW THAT DEFINITION.

I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT HOW LAST SEPTEMBER THE CITY JUDGE RESPONDED TO MY WIFE'S EMAIL. ALONG WITH CITY MANAGER, THE HR DIRECOR AND BOTH CHIEF OFFENSE POLICE IN WHICH SHE DESCRIBED MY WIFE AS DISPLAYING UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR AND SHE WAS SUBSERVICE.

>> SHE ALSO ACCUSED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF USING SOME FORM OF REVERSE SEXISM SAYING THAT THE ONLY REASON MY WIFE STILL HAD A JOB IS BECAUSE SHE WAS A FEMALE. AND YET NOTHING WAS DONE.

I WAS GOING TALK ABOUT THE GRIEVANCE INVESTIGATION.

I WAS TAUGHT LONG AGO IN THE POLICE ACADEMY THAT INVESTIGATION CONSIST OF SPEAKING TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. IF POSSIBLE.

THIS IS NOT FOR THE COMMITTEE LOOKING INTO MY WIFE'S GRIEVANCE SPOKE TO MY WIFE. IT'S HARD TO CALL IT THAT.

THE ONLY TIME MY WIFE WAS SPOKEN TO -- SHE WAS GETTING A WRITTEN REPRIMAND FOR GENERATING AN EMAIL THAT WAS SENT TIE COUNCIL MEMBER AND NOTHING WAS DONE. AS FOR WHY I'M HERE, IF THE COUNCIL LIASON WOULD HAVE HAD THE FORTITUDE TO CONTACT ME ABOUT THE POST ON MY PERSONAL SOCIAL MEDIA HAD TOLD ME THAT THE POST WAS TOO MUCH, MAYBE I COULD HAVE SAVED THE COUNCIL THE TIME AND EXPENSE OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH PUBLIC PROCESS OF REMOVING A NONVOTING ALTERNATE MEMBER OF A CITY BOARD.

YES A NONVOTING MEMBER. I THINK SOME COUNCIL WANTED PUBLIC DISPLAY TO SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THEM OR THEIR FRIENDS.

ON A SIDE NOTE I'VE ATTENDED THE CITY ACADEMY WHICH IS A GREAT PROGRAM. I'VE ATTENDED LEADERSHIP ROWLETT WHICH IS ANOTHER GREAT PROGRAM. THIS EXPERIENCE HAS TAUGHT ME MORE ABOUT HOW THE CITY GOVERNMENT OPERATE AVENUE OPERATES THAN EITHER OF THOSE PROGRAMS COULD EVER DO.

[00:20:03]

IF YOU HAVE NOT PULLED ITEM 7D FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, I'M REQUESTING THAT YOU DO. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL BE PULLING THAT ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS STANLEY POLL

LARD. >> MAYOR, COUNCIL.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND I HOPE ALL OF Y'ALL HAVE A GOOD NEW YEAR AND I HOPE THIS IS THE LAST TIME YOU SEE ME UP HERE THIS YEAR.

I'M HERE BY THE WAY STANLEY POLL ADDER 3110 SYCAMORE STREET IN ROWLETT. IN WORK SESSION YOU SAW A COUPLE OF ITEMS OF APARTMENTS EAGLE VIEW AND CYPRUS CREEK.

I WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS ALONG WITH OTHERS.

NEXT TUESDAY NIGHT ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA IS A FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH HAS AN ITEM BEFORE THEM FOR WANTING TO CHANGE IS ZONING ON PROPERTY.

AND PUT UP 275 UNITS OF APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL AND JUST DOWN FROM THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK FACTS. I FOUND IT INTERESTING A COMMENT THAT THE ABSORPTION RATE FOUND IN THE NEW COMP PLAN WAS 527 UNITS PER YEAR. FIVE MAJOR COMPLEXES OPENED IN 2019, 1419 UNITS. APPROVED IN 2019 AND CURRENTLY BEING BUILT ANOTHER 346 TOTAL UNITS OPENED BEING BUILT OR APPROVED IN 20192681 APARTMENTS. UNITS APPROVED SINCE 2014, 4194 PLUS WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE IN SAPPHIRE BAY.

WE APPROVED SOME UP ON HICK COX ROAD, 150 UNITS BACK ON THE 12TH OF NOVEMBER. AND NONE OF THESE PLACES ARE FIXING THE ROAD. NONE OF THESE AREAS THAT I KNOW OF WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE IS THERE ANY PLANS TO WIDEN THE ROADS. AND EVEN THE TWO EAGLE VIEW WHICH IS DOWN HERE AT MILLER AND PGBT ON THE SOUTH SIDE WHICH IS RIGHT BEHIND OR RIGHT UNDERNEATH SOUTH SIDE OF 790 UNITS SUPPOSED TO COME IN AND NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT THIS I KNOW OF WIDE IT CAN ROADWAY TO MOVE THAT KIND OF TRAFFIC.

AND EAGLE VIEW IS TALKING ABOUT 292 UNITS SO YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE 790. 292 AND IF SUCCESSFUL ON THE FIRST BAPTIST PROPERTY ACROSS THE FREEWAY OR ACROSS THE TOLLWAY ANOTHER 260, 75 AND NOTHING ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE ROADWAYS. THE OTHER THING IS SAME THING

APPLIES WITH CYPRUS CREEK. >> CAN YOU START TO WRAP UP SIR?

>> YES, MA'AM. ANOTHER GROUP OF 248 UNITS AND I WISH THE CITY WOULD ADDRESS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE TRAFFIC AND THE EXPENSIVE ROADWAYS WE'RE ABOUT TO PUT IN.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SIR.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RYAN. >> THANK YOU MAYOR.

I'M RYAN BASSINGER. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF ROSINS 2004. I'M SPEAKING NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PLANNED EAGLE VIEW APARTMENTS NEAR THE CORNER OF MILLER AND PGBT. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AT THIS MAJOR CONNECTION POINT WITH THE TOLLWAY TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.

THE NORTHWEST CORNER IS THE LAST AVAILABLE LARGE PARCEL LEFT AT THIS INTERSECTION AND TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY HOUSING TO TAKE THE MAJORITY OF IT WOULD BE A SHAME. THESE PARCELS WOULD BEST BE KEPT FOR A MAJOR RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS A GROCERY STORE OR HOME FURNISHING STORE. WILL IS CURRENTLY NO RETAIL AT

[00:25:02]

THIS ACTION. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT HISTORY AND HOW OVERSATURATION OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING CAN TAKE A TOLL ON THE SCHOOL SYSTEM AND CRIME.

LOOK AT THE I30 CORRIDOR TO BASS PRO DRIVE.

THIS WILL BE ROWLETT IN THE COMING DECADES IF THE AMOUNT OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BEING BUILT NOT LESSONED.

THE OTHER EXAMPLE IS NEIGHBORHOODS ALONG DUCK CREEK.

I USED TO LIVE NANA N THAT AREA. THE AFFORDABLE AND WORK FORCE TYPE APARTMENTS WERE BUILT ALONG THE ROADWAY IN THE 80'S AND 90'S. THE AREA HAS A RAPID CRIME ISSUE AND THE SCHOOLS ARE OVERPOPULATED.

PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOLL THE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT WOULD TAKE ON OUR ROADWAYS. WE HAVE TO SIT IN BUMPER TO BUMPER TRAFFIC TO GET INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

OUR POLICE, FIRE AND SCHOOL RESOURCES ARE ALREADY SPREAD TOO THIN WITH THE CURRENT BUILDOUT OF THE CITY.

ON ANOTHER NOTE THE EAGLE VIEW DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT ALIGN WITH ROWLETT'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES FOR THE AREA WHICH STATE TO PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE PGBT CORRIDORS, MAINTAIN HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT TO MAINTAIN COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE FIRST IN CLASS. EXPLORE TARGETING MERCHANDISING AND BRANDING DISTRICTS TO CREATE A SENSE OF PLACE.

WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT GROWTH AND CHANGE ARE INEVITABLE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A DUTY TO SET A COURSE ON WHAT WE WOULD LIKE ROWLETT TO BE AND BECOME. I ASK THE CITY TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE PERMANENT CITIZENS THAT HAVE BEEN IN ROWLETT FOR DECADES AS WE DECIDE OUR COURSE FOR THE FUTURE.

PARCELS AT THAT INTERSECTION ARE BEST LEFT FOR A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. THE MIXED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ALREADY PROVED DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH.

THANK YOU AND MERRY CHRISTMAS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU NEED TO CONSIDER SERVING ION BOARD OF COMMISSION FOR THE

CITY. >> I WILL.

THANK YOU. >> I DIDN'T SAY THAT TO STANLEY BECAUSE HE ALREADY HAS. I WAS NOT TRYING TO NOT INCLUDE YOU STANLEY. JUST WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE HAD A WORK SESSION TONIGHT.

AND THAT WORK SESSION IS AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR VIEWING.

AND ITEM 3C WHICH IS THE EAGLE VIEW APARTMENTS AND ITEMS 3D WHICH IS THE CYPRESS CREEK PROPOSAL WERE BROUGHT BEFORE US FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. THE DISCUSSION REVOLVED AROUND WOULD WE SUPPORT A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION FOR THAT DEVELOPER TO MOVE FORWARD AND POTENTIALLY DEVELOP THOSE ITEMS AT THOSE LOCATIONS. AND ITEM 3C WHICH SERVICE EAGLE VIEW APARTMENT WHICH IS IS AT THE CORN OVER MILLER AND GEORGE BUSH IT WAS A 7-0 INDICATION NOT TO SUPPORT A RESOLUTION OF NO OBJECTION. THAT MEANS THAT WILL NOT BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO NEWS JANUARY FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED. AND ITEM 3D WHICH IS THE CYPRESS CREEK APARTMENT WHICH IS IS BASICALLY AT THE CORNER OF BIG A AND OLD ROWLETT ROAD, THERE WAS AN INDICATION TO BRING THAT RESOLUTION FOR NO OBJECTION TOWARD TO NEWS JANUARY FOR CONSIDERATION. THERE WAS AT LEAST A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL PERSONS IN THE WORK SESSION THAT SAID WE'D LIKE TO POTENTIALLY CONSIDER THIS IN JANUARY SO BRING THAT FORWARD.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IS HOW THE VOTE WILL GO IN JANUARY.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT A ZONING -- THERE IS NO INDICATIONS, NO DISCUSSION ABOUT ZONING CHANGES AT THIS TIME.

THAT IS JUST BRING FORWARD THE RESOLUTION NO OBJECTION TO THE JANUARY MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION.

THAT'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THAT ONE.

I WANTED TO MAKE -- AND PLEASE WATCH THOSE WORK SESSIONS BECAUSE THERE IS LOTS OF GOOD INFORMATION ON THAT.

YOU DIDN'T SLAP MY HAND FOR COMMENTING DAVID? NOT YET. AND THEN ITEM 4D I AM PULLING FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ANY OTHER CARDS? THANK YOU. SO AT THIS TIME WE WILL PRESENT

[7. CONSENT AGENDA]

THE CONSENT AGENDA. CITY COUNCIL ASKED FOR 7D TO BE PULLED. IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD

[00:30:01]

LIKE ANYTHING ELSE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE WOULD YOU READ THE REMAINIG ITEMS IN THE RECORD PLEASE.

>> READING ITEM 7A, READING ITEM 7B.

READING ITEM 7C. READING ITEM 7E.

READING ITEM 7F. READING ITEM 7G.

READING ITEM 7H. READING ITEM 7I.

READING ITEM 7J. >> THANK YOU.

CAN I HAVE A MOTION AT THIS TIME?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS AS READ

INTO THE RECORD. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. AND THOSE ITEMS PASS UNANIMOUSLY. THE NEXT ITEM IS 7D CONSIDER

[7D. Consider removing a member of the Community Investment Advisory Board. Consider the removal of a member from the Community Investment Advisory Board in accordance with Sections 3.7 and 3.8 of the City of Rowlett Boards and Commissions Handbook.]

MOVING A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT ADVISORY BOARD.

I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS DISCUSSION AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

THIS ITEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HANDBOOK ITEM SECTION 3.7 , THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REMOVE ANY MEMBER OF A BOARD OR COMMISSION THAT WAS CREATED BY CITY CHARTER BY A VOTE OF FOUR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

CONSIDERING WHETHER THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF OUR CODE OF CONDUCT. IN REGARDS TO STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, THAT WOULD BE SECTION 3.8E AND PORTION OF 3. F.

I WANT TO ADDRESS A SPECIFICALLY A COMMENT THAT MR. FINDLEY MADE WE WANTED TO MAKE THIS A PUBLIC DISPLAY.

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. I ASKED THIS ITEM BE PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF NOT MAKING A PUBLIC DISPLAY. I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO PUT SOMETHING ON INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION TO DISCUSS CONDUCT ISSUES WITH RESIDENTS AND PUT THEM IN THE SPOTLIGHT.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHY I DID ASK FOR IT TO BE PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. THERE HAS BEEN SO MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AND OF COURSE MR. FINDLEY ASKED IT TO BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED TO DISCUSS THIS IN AN INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEM.

CODE OF CONDUCT IS IN PLACE FOR ALL OF OUR MEMBERS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. AND THE CODE OF CONDUCT IS A DOCUMENTTA IS SHARED WITH ALL OF OUR VOLUNTEERS ON OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. WE TRAIN TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT IN OUR TRAINING SESSIONS FOR ALL OF OUR MEMBERS.

TO BE A VOLUNTEER ON OUR BOARDS OR COMMISSIONS, YOU ARE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD. AND THOSE VOLUNTEERS MUST MEET THE CODE OF CONDUCT POLICY. WE MAKE THAT CLEAR IF OUR TRAINING. SOCIAL MEDIA HAS REALLY CHANGED THE WORLD AS WE ALL KNOW. WE AS COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL HOW WE COMMUNICATE WITH THE PUBLIC.

AND SOCIAL MEDIA DOES FACTOR INTO POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF OUR CODE OF CONDUCT. THERE WAS A CLEAR VAGUES OF OUR CODE OF CONDUCT BY THIS INDIVIDUAL ON MARCH 29 AS A RESULT OF A FACEBOOK POST. DESPITE THIS, COUNCIL REALLY DID NOT WANT TO AT THAT TIME BRING THIS FORWARD FOR POTENTIAL CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL FROM THE BOARD.

WE TAKE THIS VERY SERIOUSLY. WE WANT ALL OF OUR VOLUNTEERS TO BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY GOVERNMENT.

AND WE WERE HOPING AT THAT TIME IT WAS AN ISOLATED EVENT ON MARCH 29. DESPITE THE VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT ON MARCH 29TH, WE ACTUALLY REAPPOINTED THIS INDIVIDUAL AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER ON THE BOARD IN OUR APPOINTMENTS IN AUGUST OF 2019. AGAIN, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL THAT WANT TO HELP AND TO VOLUNTEER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. WHEN THERE WAS ANOTHER VIOLATION OF OUR CODE OF CONDUCT ON DECEMBER 4, WE REALLY DECIDED

[00:35:04]

THAT WE NEEDED TO CONSIDER THIS AND I ASKED IT TO BE PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THERE WAS ANOTHER VIOLATION OF OUR CODE OF CONDUCT.

WE HAVE ENFORCED CODE OF CONDUCT IN THIS REGARD SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST. FOR SIMILAR INSTANCES.

AND FOR POSTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA THAT AVE BEEN IN VIOLATION WITH OUR CODE OF CONDUCT. WE HAVE ENFORCED THESE PROVISIONS OF OUR CODE OF CONDUCT BY EITHER NOT REAPPOINTING A BOARD COMMISSION MEMBER OR IN THIS CASE CONSIDERING REMOVAL OF A BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS.

I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS WE HAVE ON COUNCIL.

>> I'LL TAKE A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

THE ITEM AS READ. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND. >> HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY COMMENTS COUNCIL? >> THIS IS PROBABLY THE HARDEST DECISION I'VE HAD TO MAKE SINCE I SAT IN THIS SEAT BECAUSE I DON'T TAKE THESE SITUATIONS LIKELY AT ALL.

ANYBODY THAT TAKES TIME OUT OF THEIR DAY TO COME VOLUNTEER FOR THE CITY AND DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE DESERVE ACE LOT OF RESPECT. AND WE NEED GOOD VOLUNTEERS.

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU ALSO ANYBODY THAT WE APPOINT OR ASK TO COMMISSION, THE CITY AND YOU ARE ALSO REPRESENTING THIS COUNCIL BECAUSE WE HAVE APPOINTED YOU TO THOSE POSITIONS. AND WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU ARE HELD AT A HIGHER LEVEL. IT'S EASY TO POINT AND SAY FREE SPEECH AND SAY WHISTLE BLOWER POLICY.

IT'S EASY TO SAY A LOT OF THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS AND NOBODY IS EVER SAYING SOMEBODY DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.

EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE COMMENTS THEY WANT TO MAKE. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS, ACTION VERSUS CONSEQUENCES.

AND WE EXPECT THE THEME SERVE WITHIN THE CITY TO ACT A CERTAIN WAY. AND THIS IS A CASE THOUGH I BELIEVE IS A THIN LINE. THERE IS SLIPPERY SLOPES.

WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THOSE SERVING ON OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE HOLDING THE UTMOST INTEGRITY THAT THEY POSSIBLY CAN. AND IF IT WAS SOMETHING THEY FELT THAT MUCH STRONGLY ABOUT THEY NEED TO CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES ON A PUBLIC FORUM, THEN THEY NEED TO EITHER RESIGN FROM THEIR POSITION OR THESE ARE THE TYPES OF ACTIONS THAT HAVE TO TAKE PLACE. THIS IS NOT AN EASY DECISION.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING, THIS IS SOMETHING VERY PERSONAL TO ME.

AND IS ONE OF THE HARDEST DECISIONS I'VE HAD TO MAKE.

I BELIEVE THERE SALINE THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN NOT JUST ON COUNCIL WHICH I THINK THAT'S A BIG ISSUE OF WHAT IS WRONG WITH A LOT OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEMS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. A LOT OF TIMES THESE LINES GET BLURRED ESPECIALLY WITH SOCIAL MEDIA.

WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE LINES STAY FIRM TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY THAT PEOPLE CAN TRUST IN. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WOULD CONCUR.

I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS. NONE OF US WANT TO DO THIS.

BUT WE'RE ALL EXPECTED EQUALLY TO ABIDE BY THE CODE OF CONDUCT.

WE KNOW THAT WHEN WE'RE ELECTED OR APPOINTED.

AND WE ALL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULES AND SO IT'S OUR JOB TO ENFORCE THE POLICIES. BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T WANT TO DO.

THIS I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS. WE'VE BEEN GIVEN NO OPTION IN

THIS CASE. >> I CONCUR WITH BOTH COUNCILMEN. THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION TO MAKE BECAUSE I KNOW THE INDIVIDUAL VERY WELL.

[00:40:02]

BUT WE HAVE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

WE JUST HAVE TO BE LEAVE SOCIAL MEDIA OUT OF IT BECAUSE THAT IS OUR DOWNFALL NOW. IT BREAKS MY HEART.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT.

I'VE HAD TO ENFORCE THIS CODE OF CONDUCT SEVERAL TIMES AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE HARDEST THING I'VE HAD TO DO AS A COUNCIL PERSON AND MAYOR. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT.

WITH THAT I WILL CALL THE VOTE. THAT ITEM PASSES 6-0.

[8A. Conduct a public hearing and take action on a request by Rogelio Martinez, Colimas Company, on behalf of property owner Carla J. Adams, for a Special Use Permit (SUP) for an accessory building on property zoned Single-Family Residential (SF-8) District. The 0.50-acre site is bounded by Dalrock Road, Quail Ridge Drive, and Quail Creek Drive, in the City of Rowlett, Dallas County, Texas.]

THE NEXT ITEM IS 8A. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ACTION AND REQUEST BY MARTINEZ.

READING ITEM WELCOME. >> GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF THE

COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER. >> THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE BOX ON THIS SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE RED BOX.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SUP TO ALLOW A STRUCTURE AT THE REAR AND SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE THE SIGHT IS BOUNDED BY THREE ROADWAYS. THE APPLICANT HAS FRONTAGE ON THREE STREETS. COMES AS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITI COUNCIL. THERE IS A PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE. I MENTIONED THE SIGHT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO SERVE AS ADDITIONAL SPACE. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS LOCATED EQUAL CREEK DRIVE WHERE YOU SEE THAT YELLOW DOT ON YOUR SCREEN. THE VERY IS EXPECTED TO INSTALL THIS FIVE FEET ARE EQUAL CREEK DRIVE.

WE'LL DISCUSS THAT ELEMENT ANYWAY SECOND TOO.

WE WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU STRUCTURE AND HOW IT RELATES TO PLACEMENT ON THAT SUBJECT SITE. IT IS SET BACK FIVE FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THIS PROVIDES A BETTER DESCRIPTION ON ACCESS. AS YOU CAN SEE THE INTENT IS TO USE IT FOR GARAGE SPACE. YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SEVERAL LINE ALLOCATIONS ON THAT PLAN. THE BLUE LINE IS AN EXISTING FENCE. AND THE GOAL IS TO EXTEND WOOD FENCE SHOWN IN BROWN TO PROVIDE SOME SEMBLANCE OF SCREENING FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES. 24 SITE IS UNIQUE IN NATURE IN THE SENSE IT DOES HAVE MULTIPLE ROADWAYS.

[00:45:05]

IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED IF THE PROPOSED SUP IS APPROVED.

THE APPLICANT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO AND SECURE A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE 25-FOOT SETBACK TO FIVE FEET FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT STEP IF IT WERE APPROVED. AS IT RELATES TO THE VIEW OF THIS PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE THE VIEW FROM EQUAL RIDGE DRIVE.

YOU CAN SEE THE FENCE RIGHT THERE.

ONE OF THOSE STRUCTURES WILL BE REMOVED.

THE GOAL IS TO EXTEND FENCE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SCREENING AND SOME FORM OF VISUAL SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. NOTICES WERE SENT WITHIN THE REQUIRED 200-FOOT RADIUS AND 50. WE MAILED APPROXIMATELY 7 NOTICES. ONE RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED FROM FAVOR WITHIN THE 200-FOOT AND ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR IN THE 50.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE THE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT IS 1500 SQUARE FEET MANY AREA WITH THE CAVEAT THE SETBACKS WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL BECAUSE BUILDING WOULD NOT HAVE ADVERSE IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES W. THAT I WILL TRY AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I DRIVE BY THIS LOCATION A LOT.

THERE IS A BUILDING OUT THERE THAT LOOKS LIKE A COUNTRY STORE.

AND IN THE PLANS IT APPEARS TO IS IT DISAPPEARING?

>> THAT WILL BE DEMOED. >> THAT'S IT.

>> AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS GARAGE SPACE?

>> YES. >> THAT'S IT?

>> THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT INDICATED.

>> THEY CAN USE IT FOR STORAGE OF THEIR OWN RESIDENTIAL USE.

>> THERE IS NO LIVING QUARTERS? >> NO.

>> NO APARTMENT ABOVE? >> NO.

>> WHAT IS THE SIDE SETBACK? >> ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY?

>> NOT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY -- >> THREE FEET.

>> CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT THE FACADE IS GOING TO BE?

>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IT WOULD HAVE SIMILAR APPEARANCE TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND I WILL DEFER THAT TO THE APPLICANT.

>> CAN THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

WHAT IS THE FACADE? >> ARE YOU USING THE SAME

MATERIAL THAT ON YOUR HOME IF. >> RONNY MARTINEZ AND I'M THE CONTRACTOR ON THIS. WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS THEY WANT TO PUT -- THEY HAVE SIDING ON THE BACK.

THEY WANT TO USE SIDING FOR MOST OF IT AND STONE SOME IN THE FRONT. ON THE FRONT THEY HAVE STONE OVER THE TOP OVER THE MAIN DOOR ENTRY WAY.

THAT'S THE STONE THEY WANT TO PUT DOWN ON THE FRONT AND THE REST WOULD BE SIDING WHAT THEY HAVE IN THE BACK PORCH AREA.

>> OK. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF CORRELATION WEAN THE MAIN RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. AS LONG AS STONE IS ON THE FRONT, THAT SHOULDN'T BE TOO BAD.

>> COULD YOU STATE YOUR ADDRESS? >> 8701 EQUAL RIDGE DRIVE.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> TAKE A MOTION. >> I MOVE WE PASS THIS ITEM.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, I'LL CALL THE VOTE.

THAT ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THE NEXT ITEM IS 8B.

[8B. Conduct a public hearing and consider action on an ordinance adopting the City's Roadway, Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update Study, including the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, and Maximum Assessable Fees established by the study.]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION ON AND ORDINANCE

CONSIDERING WASTE WATER STUDY. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND

[00:50:07]

COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO I'M HERE BEFORE YOU REPRESENTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REQUESTING THAT YOU CONSIDER ADOPTING THE NEWLY UPDATED IMPACT FEE STUDY THAT WE'VE RECENTLY COMPLETED.

AND I'VE GOT A PRESENTATION FOR YOU.

THE STUDY WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS.

I HOPE THAT YOU'VE ALL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK THROUGH THAT. I WANT TO THIS PRESENTATION SHOULD HELP FURTHER CLARIFY ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THIS SUBJECT. LET ME REVIEW WHAT I'M GOING TO COVER IN THIS PRESENTATION TONIGHT.

I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IS AN IMPACT FEE.

AND WHY ARE WE UPDATING THE IMPACT FEE.

ALSO WHAT ARE THE COMPONENTS THAT MAKE UP THE IMPACT FEES AND THE STUDY THAT GOES WITH IT. AND HOW DO WE DO THAT, WHAT IS THE METHODOLOGY THAT WE USE AND ALSO THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE IMPACT FEES. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE AIMING FOR.

AND THEN I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WHAT THEIR DIRECTION WAS TO COUNCIL. AND OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

WHAT IS AN IMPACT FEE? IT IS A MECHANISM THAT CITIES USE TO RECOVER COSTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS NEEDED TO SERVE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

AND BY INFRASTRUCTURE I MEAN WATER, WASTE WATER AND ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE. IMPACT FEES ARE GOVERNED BY CHAPTER 395 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND THEY DO ALSO INCLUDE DRAINAGE BUT HERE IN ROWLETT WE DO HAVE A DRAINAGE UTILITY FEE. SO THEY ARE NOT -- DRAINAGE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE IMPACT FEES. IMPACTS FEES DETERMINE -- AND IT IS A ONE TIME FEE. WHAT COSTS ARE RECOVERABLE? SO PRIMARILY IT IS -- THEY RECOVER COSTS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND THOSE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE IDENTIFIED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. THOSE COSTS WOULD BE CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S BIG TICKET ITEM.

THERE IS ALSO PLANNING AND SURVEYING AND THE ENGINEERING COSTS. AND THERE COULD BE DEBT SERVICE COSTS THAT CAN BE RECOOPED BY IMPACT FEES.

OF COURSE THERE IS ALSO LAND ACQUISITION AND ASSOCIATED COSTS WITH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND THOSE ARE RECOVERABLE.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING TO PLAN OUT THE CIP AND THE FINANCIAL CONSULTING THAT GOES WITH THE DEBT SERVICE, THAT IS RECOVERABLE. AND IN ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPLE , THE COST TO FOR INTEREST AND FINANCIAL COSTS ARE ALSO RECOVERABLE. AND THEN LAST LOCAL -- THE LOCAL SHARE OF OUR SHARE , THE CITY SHARE OF STATE AND CITY ROADWAYS ARE RECOVERABLE. WHAT COST ARE NOT RECOVERABLE.

ANY PROJECT WE HAVE THAT IS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS NOT RECOVERABLE.

AND THEN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS THAT ARE THE ROUTINE WORK OF CITIES, THAT IS NOT RECOVERABLE.

IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD REMEDY ECONOMISTING DEFICIENCIES IN CAPACITY OR CONDITION ARE NOT RECOVERABLE.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL COST OF THE CITY ARE NOT RECOVERABLE AND NON-CIP DEBT SERVICE IS NOT RECOVERABLE.

SO WHY ARE WE UPDATING THIS IMPACT FEE STUDY.

AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 395 IMPACT FEE IS REQUIRED TO BE LOOKED AT EVERY FIVE YEARS. AND THAT LOOKS AT CHANGES IN THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS THAT GO INTO THE STUDY.

CHANGES IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN THAT GOES INTO THE STUDY. ANYTHING THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED TO IMPROVE THE PROGRAM WOULD BE A REASON TO UPDATE IT.

ALSO CHAPTER 395 SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS MUNICIPALITIES TO DETERMINE THAT NO UPDATE IS NECESSARY AT THE FIVE YEAR MARK.

THE LAST TIME THAT IMPACT FEES WERE UPDATED INFORMS 2013.

I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE PUT ON HERE IN THANKSGIVING IN 2016

[00:55:02]

THERE WAS A MINOR UPDATE TO THE ROADWAY PLANS.

THAT MINOR UPDATE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT WHAT IS THE SAPPHIRE BAY AREA N.201 WE ENGAGED KIMBERLY HORN TO HELP US CONDUCT THIS IMPACT FEE UPDATE. I HAVE TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM THERE HERE TONIGHT IN CASE WE NEED TO ASK THEM QUESTIONS.

AND DURING THIS PROCESS, THEY LOOKED AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE LOOKED AT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND WE LOOKED AT ALL THE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT ARE PLANNED FOR WATER, WASTE WATER AND THE ROADWAYS APPROXIMATE IN THE CITY ANTED IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE 2013 IMPACT FEE UPDATE NEED TO BE UPDATED. SO WHAT IS R THE COMPONENTS THAT GO INTO A IMPACT FEE STUDY? THERE ARE FOUR FACTORS, SERVICE AREAS WHICH ACCOUNT FOR THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES, SERVICE UNITS WHICH REPRESENT THE DEMAND.

THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

AND THESE FACTORS ARE FURTHER LOOKED AT BY LOOKING AT POPULATION STATISTICS AND GROWTH, EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS AND GROWTH. WE LOOK AT HISTORIC BUILDING PERMIT RECORDS. AND OF COURSE WE LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE COMP PLAN. WE LOOK AT THE HISTORIC AND FUTURE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

SO SERVICE AREAS. SERVICE AREAS ARE THE AREA SERVED BY THE IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

FOR ROADWAYS, THE STATE LAW LIMITS THAT DISTANCE TO BE SIX MILES. THE DIMENSION FOR THE SERVICE AREA IS SIX MILES. IN ROADWAY WE CAN'T QUITE GET SIX MILES THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE CITY SO THE CITY IS DIVIDED INTO TWO SERVICE AREAS. EACH OF THOSE SERVICE AREAS IS ABOUT HAS ABOUT A FIVE MILE DIMENSION TO IT.

THAT SPLIT AT LAKE VIEW PARKWAY. AND IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ANY MONEY COLLECTED IN THE SERVICE AREA MUST BE SPENT ON AN IMPACT CIP PROJECT THAT IS ALSO IN THAT SERVICE AREA.

PLUS SOME ETJ AREAS. HERE IS A MAP OF THE ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS. YOU'LL NOTE THAT NORTH OF LAKE VIEW PARKWAY IS SERVICE AREA ONE AND SOUTH IS SERVICE AREA TWO.

AND HERE IS THE WATER AND WASTE WATER SERVICE AREA.

AND UP IN THE -- UP HERE IS THE ETJ AND THE SERVICE AREA DOES EXTEND INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT. SO SERVICE UNITS REPRESENT THE DEMAND CITE SIDE OF THE EQUATION.

CHAPTER 395 HAS A DEFINITION. IT IS A STANDARDIZED MEASURE OF CONSUMPTION THAT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO AN INDIVIDUAL UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT. FOR WATER AND WASTE WATER WE USE A STANDARD RESIDENTIAL SIZE METER WHICH.

FOR ROADWAYS THE SERVICE UNIT IS CALLED A VEHICLE MILE AND THAT IS BASICALLY ONE VEHICLE TO TRAVEL ONE MILE.

TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT IS, VEHICLE MILES ARE VERY AMBIGUOUS TERM. WE WOULD LIKE TO USE MORE RECOGNIZABLE UNITS. SO FOR INSTANCE, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CAN BE CONVERTED -- CAN BE CONVERTED INTO 4.85 VEHICLE MILES. A SHOPPING CENTER CAN BE CONVERTED INTO 7.3 VEHICLE MILES.

THESE CONVERSIONS ARE BASED ON STUDIES DONE BY VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT COMPILE THE DATA AND REPORT IT OUT. FOR WATER AND WASTE WATER, WE HAVE A RESIDENTIAL SIZE METER THAT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND A TWO INCH METER COULD BE USED IN A SHOPPING CENTER. THE METER SIZE IS THE BASIS FOR THESE SERVICE UNITS IN WATER AND WASTE WATER.

AND LITTLE PICTURE OF HOW THESE COMPARE TO THE BASE UNIT FOR A TWO INCH METER, IT'S ABOUT 8 RESIDENTIAL METERS.

AND A SHOPPING CENTER COULD BE EIGHT SINGLE HOMES.

[01:00:01]

BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER OR WHATEVER COMMERCIAL FACILITY WE MAY BE TALKING ABOUT.

LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS IS ANOTHER FACTOR THAT GOES INTO THE STUDY.

THAT BASICALLY LOOKS AT THE 2019 COMP PLAN THAT WAS UPDATED AND INSIDE THAT IS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ON THE RIGHT YOU'LL SEE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. WE ALSO LOOK AT HISTORIC BUILDING PERMIT RECORDS. THIS IS A CHART THAT JUST GIVES ONIDEA OF THE GROWTH THAT THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ARE PREDICATED ON. FOR ROADWAYS IN THE SERVICE AREA ONE WE CAN SEE AN INCREASE IN 7500 PEOPLE AND THAT TRANSLATES TO 2550 DWELLING UNITS AND THESE ARE THE EMPLOYMENT GROWTH FIGURES FOR SERVICE AREA ONE. THESE ARE THE POPULATION DWELLING UNIT AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH NUMBERS FOR SERVICE AREA TWO. AND DOWN MERE AT THE BOTTOM IS THE TOTALS. THIS REPRESENTS A 10 YEAR GROWTH BECAUSE THE CHAPTER 395 LIPS TO US LOOKING AT TEN YEARS.

THEN THERE IS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN.

THIS IS THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CIP FOR SERVICE AREA ONE.

THERE ARE ABOUT THREE DOZEN PROJECTS LISTED ON THIS PLAN.

AND THEN IN SERVICE AREA TWO THERE, IS ABOUT TWO DOZEN PROJECTS FOR ROADWAYS LISTED IN THE IMPACT FEE CIP.

AND THEN THIS IS THE WATER IMPACT FEE CIP LIST.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS ONLY ABOUT NINE PROJECTS THERE AND WE HAVE ABOUT A DOZEN WASTE WATER PROJECTS LISTED ON THIS IMPACT FEE CIP. THE METHODOLOGY TO CALCULATE THESE IMPACT FEES, THE COMPILE THE DATA FROM THE LAND USE AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS. WE LOOK AT THE MASTER PLANS FOR ALL THREE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE CATEGORIES.

WE DEVELOP THE TEN YEAR IMPACT FEE CIP LIST.

THEN WE TAKE OUT THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND ANY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH GROWTH BEYOND THAT TEN YEAR HORIZON AND THAT LEAVES TO US CALCULATE A MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE PRIOR TO -- AS THE RECOVERABLE COST DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF SERVICE UNITS WHICH REPRESENTS THE DEMAND. THE STATE ASKS TO US REDUCE THAT FOR VARIOUS REASONS AND IT IS REDUCED BY HALF.

FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE CALCULATE AS A CIB NEEDED TO SERVE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, WE RECOOP 50 CENTS OF THAT DOLLAR.

AFTER THE CALCULATIONS ARE MADE, THE WHOLE POINT OF THE MATTER IS TO CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE IMPACT FEE.

THIS IS THE MOST WE CAN CHARGE FOR IMPACT FEES IN OUR CITY IN OUR SERVICE AREAS. FOR ROADWAYS CURRENTLY WE ARE CHARGING OR THE MAXIMUM FEE IS $85 PER VEHICLE MILE IN SERVICE AREA ONE. $466 IN SERVICE AREA TWO.

THAT AGAIN IS PER VEHICLE MILE. THE NEW STUDY HAS CALCULATED $1,418 IN SERVICE AREA ONE PER VEHICLE MILE.

AND $677 PER VEHICLE MILE IN SERVICE AREA TWO.

ON THE WATER AND WASTE WATER SIDE.

THE STUDY , THE CURRENTLY -- CURRENTLY THE MAXIMUM FEE , THE 2013 STUDY CALCULATED $1,466 FOR WATER.

1377 FOR WASTE WATER. THE NEW STUDY IS CALCULATING $2,253 FOR A RESIDENTIAL SIZE METER FOR WATER.

AND $1,189 FOR WASTE WATER. BASED ON A RESIDENTIAL SIZE METER. LOOKING AT TRENDS OVER TIME DURING THESE STUDIES. WE SEE THAT FOR ROADWAY IN THE SERVICE AREA TWO IN 2013 IT WAS NEARLY $700.

IN 2016 WHEN THAT MINOR UPDATE WAS DONE FOR ROADWAYS, IN SERVICE AREA TWO, IT FELL TO 466.

NOW WE ARE CALCULATING $677 IN SERVICE AREA TWO.

THIS IS BASICALLY IN 2016 THERE WERE SOME AGGRESSIVE ESTIMATES

[01:05:09]

MADE ON GROWTH. AND THOSE HAVE STABILIZED SOMEWHAT. WE HAVE -- WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE GROWTH NOW AND THE NEW FIGURE IS MORE REALISTIC.

WATER 2013 , THE BASE METER SIZE WAS 1466.

IT IS NOW CALCULATED TO BE 2253. AND FOR WASTE WATER IT WAS 1377.

IT'S FALLEN A LITTLE BIT TO 1189.

BASICALLY BECAUSE THE POPULATION PROJECTIONS HAVE INCREASED BEYOND THAT BEYOND THE INCREASE IN THE CIP COSTS BETWEEN THE TWO STUDIES. SO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MET A FEW WEEKS AGO AND THEY UNANIMOUSLY PASSED A MOTION TO RECOMMEND UNDERSTAND COUNCIL ADOPT THIS STUDY INCLUDING THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS , THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS AS PRESENTED IN THAT STUDY.

AND WE STAFF RECOMMEND A MOTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE ROADWAY TEXAS ROADWAY WATER AND WASTE WATER 2019 IMPACT FEE UPDATE REPORT PREPARED BY KIMBERLY HORN AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE CITY OF ROADWAY THERE BY AMENDING AND ADOPTING THE ANNALS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND FEES NA SERVE ADDS THE BASIS FOR ROADWAY WATER AND WASTE WATER IMPACT FEES ASSESSED BY THE CITY. WITH THAT I WILL ENTERTAIN YOUR

QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT THOROUGH

PRESENTATION. >> I MENTION THIS ITEM WAS DISCUSSED IN GREAT DEPTH AT A WORK SESSION AND WE HAD LOTS OF QUESTIONS THAT THE TIME. AND THAT SESSION IS ALSO VIEWABLE ONLINE IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED.

AND I GUESS I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

>> I MADE A MOTION. >>

>> WITH NO QUESTIONS I WILL ENTERTAIN TAPE A MOTION.

A MOTION. >> IS THIS PUBLIC HEARING?

>> I APOLOGIZE. >> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK ON THISSITE 78, YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO AND RAISE YOUR AND WE WILL ASK YOU TO COME FORWARD TO SPEAK.

SEEING NONE I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS READ INTO THE RECORD.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I SECOND IT.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? CALL THE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM PASSES 6-0.

THANK YOU FOR THE HARD WORK ON THAT ONE.

[8C. Consider action to approve an amendment to the Master Fee Schedule of the City of Rowlett to establish new impact fee rates based on the Roadway, Water & Wastewater 2019 Impact Fee Update study.]

THAT'S A LOT OF WORK. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 8C.

CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE OF THE CITY OF ROADWAY TO ESTABLISH NEW IMPACT FEE RATES BASED ON ROADWAY WATER AND WASTE WATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE

STUDY. >> NOW THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED THE IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY, WE WANT TO AMEND THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE. AND AGAIN I HAVE A LITTLE PRESENTATION HERE. I'M GOING TO RECAP A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEES.

ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THE CIAC DIRECTION THAT THEY DISCUSSED AND MOVED VOTED ON SEVERAL WEEKS AGO.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED COLLECTION RATES.

AND I'M SURE YOU'LL BE INTERESTED TO SEE SOME OF THE BENCHMARK COMPARISON FEES WE'VE COMPILED AND OF COURSE A RECOMMENDATION. AGAIN, CURRENTLY THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE ROADWAY FEES ARE THESE FIGURES.

THE NEW STUDY IS CALCULATED THESE FIGURES FOR SERVICE AREA ONE AND TWO. AND FOR WATER THE CURRENT RATES, THE CURRENT MAXIMUM FEE ARE THESE FIGURES HERE.

AND THE NEW STUDY CALCULATED THESE FEES.

THESE THERE MAXIMUM FEES THE CITY CAN ASSESS.

MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEES ARE CALCULATED FOR A SERVICE UNIT.

[01:10:01]

FOR ROADWAYS THAT IS VEHICLE MILES.

FOR WATER AND WASTE WATER IT'S A RESIDENTIAL SIZED METER.

FOR ROADWAYS, THE VEHICLE MILE IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN IMPRACTICALITY. WE WANT TO USE TO MEASURE THINGS IN TERMS OF DWELLING UNITS OR GROSS FLOOR AREA.

BEDS OR ROOMS IN A HOTEL, EVEN MOVIE SCREENS AND VARIOUS OTHER TYPES OF UNITS. SO THOSE VEHICLE MILES FOR EACH OF THOSE USES CAN BE CONVERTED INTO THOSE UNITS.

WATER AND WASTE WATER IS A LITTLE MORE SIMPLE.

THE DEVELOPMENT UNIT IS THE METER SIZE.

ANY MEET THEY'RE IS LARGER THAN THE RESIDENTIAL SIZE , THE BASE MEETER IS A MULTIPLE OF THIS METER SIZE.

AGAIN, CHAPTER 395 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ALLOWS CITIES TO SET COLLECTION RATES THAT ARE BETWEEN 0 AND THE CALCULATED MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE THE COLLECTION RATES ARE SIMPLY A PERCENTAGE OF THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE FOR ROADWAYS.

THE PERCENTAGE IS VARIED BETWEEN ALL THE LAND USE CATEGORIES BECAUSE EACH LAND USE HAS A DIFFERENT CONVERSION FROM THE VEHICLE UNIT TO THE UNIT WE LIKE TO USE.

FOR WATER AND WASTE WATER , THE RESIDENTIAL RATES ARE APPLIED AT A MAXIMUM FEE AND NONRESIDENTIAL RATES 50% OF THE MAXIMUM FEE.

THE CIAC TO RECAP UNANIMOUSLY MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN WHICH YOU JUST DID. THEY ALSO RECOMMENDED AT THIS SAME MEETING WE LOOK AT INCREASING MULTIFAMILY COLLECTION RATES FROM 97% OF THE MAXIMUM TO 100% OF THE MAXIMUM.

WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT. AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT.

THE CIAC ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT ENGINEERING STAFF MEET WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF TO DISCUSS SOME ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES. THESE WHEN WE MET WE CAME BACK WITH SOME OTHER CATEGORIES, OFFICES AND SIT DOWN RESTAURANTS BUT ALSO HOTELS AND MEDICAL CLINICS.

AND SO COMPILING ALL OF THIS DATA AND I GUESS I DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE SLIDE. FOR ALL LAND USE CATEGORIES, WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO CARRY FORWARD FOR THE NEW FEES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THESE SIX ITEMS HERE.

IN SERVICE AREA TWO WE RECOMMEND 100%.

IN MULTIFAMILY AND THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE, THERE ARE THREE MULTIFAMILY CATEGORIES. ALL THREE OF THEM ARE RECOMMENDED AT 100% OF THE MAXIMUM IN SERVICE AREA TWO.

FOR HOTELS, WE'VE BOOSTED THE PERCENT OF MAXIMUM FROM 30% TO 50%. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR MEDICAL CLINICS, GENERAL OFFICES, ALL THE OFFICE CATEGORIES.

AND THE RESTAURANT CATEGORIES. AND THESE ARE PERCENTAGES OF THE SERVICE AREA TWO MAXIMUM. THAT'S THE MAXIMUM IN THIS COLUMN. THIS IS THE PERCENTAGE.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED COLLECTION RATE IN SERVICE AREA TWO.

BUT THESE RATES ARE ALSO CARRIED BACK OVER INTO SERVICE AREA ONE AND THE PERCENTAGES OF THE SERVICE AREA ONE MAXIMUMS ARE JUST SIMPLY BACK CALCULATED TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THOSE ARE. THE FEES IN ALL THE SERVICE AREAS ARE THE SAME EXCEPT FOR MULTIFAMILY WHICH COUNCIL DURING THE WORK SESSION RECOMMENDED THAT WE GO TO 100% IN BOTH SERVICE AREAS. AND FOR WATER AND WASTE WATER, AGAIN, THE ANY METERS LARGER THAN THE BASE METER SIZE IS SIMPLY A FACTOR OF THAT BASE METER SIZE.

SO THE MAXIMUM FEE IS ASSESSED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND WATER AND WASTE WATER ARE ASSESSED AT 100% OF THE MAXIMUM FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL. FOR NONRESIDENTIAL FEES , THE WATER AND WASTE WATER FEES ARE ASSESSED AT 50% OF THAT MAXIMUM.

THEN EVERYTHING ELSE CARRIES FORWARD AS A FACTOR.

NOW GETTING TO THE COMPARISON, THIS IS A COMPARISON OF SINGLE

[01:15:04]

FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. AND THE FEES ASSOCIATED ASSESSED BY VARIOUS CITIES IN THE METROPLEX I NOTICED THAT ALLEN IS MISSPELLED. AS YOU CAN SEE THE CURRENT FEE FOR SINGLE FAMILY THAT ROADWAY IS ASSESSING IS VERY CLOSE TO WHAT THE PROPOSED FEE AND COMPARES WELL TO THESE CITIES HERE. THIS IS A COMPARISON OF MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS. AND THERE ARE TWO -- I PUT TWO OF THESE SERVICE AREA ONE AND SERVICE AREA TWO PROPOSED BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT IN THE TWO SERVICE AREAS AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER LAND USE CATEGORIES.

AND SO THIS IS THE COMPARISON FOR MULTIFAMILY LAND USE CATEGORIES AND THESE OTHER CITIES.

THIS IS A COMPARISON OF A 300 ROOM HOTEL.

THIS IS WHAT ROADWAY WOULD BE WE ASSESSING FOR THAT.

ROCK WALL IS VERY LOW AND MESQUITE IS LOWER THAN WE ARE AS WELL. FOR A MEDICAL CLINIC.

A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL CLINIC, THIS IS THE COMPARISON.

ALLEN AND ROCK WALL AND WILY DO NOT HAVE A COMPARABLE LAND USE CATEGORY WE COULD COMPARE WITH SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY DATA FOR THAT. WE ARE FAIRLY COMPETITIVE WITH MESQUITE. FOR A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING, THESE ARE THE COMPARISONS.

WE ARE COMPETITIVE WITH RORQUAL. AS YOU CAN SEE MESQUITE, ALLEN, GARLAND AND SEEN SAXY ARE CHARGING ABOVE WHAT WE WOULD BE PROPOSING. AND FINALLY FOR A SIT DOWN -- LIKE AN APPLEBEE'S THESE ARE THE COMPARISONS.

HERE IS OUR PROPOSED FEE AND THESE ARE THE OTHER CITIES.

AND FOR WATER RESIDENTIAL WE ARE THIS IS -- RESIDENTIAL IS WE'RE PROPOSING MAXIMUM. AND THESE ARE THE COMPARISONS.

AND FOR WASTE WATER AGAIN RESIDENTIAL THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND THESE ARE THE COMPARISONS.

GARLAND DOES NOT ASSESS WASTE WATER IMPACT FEES.

AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE IMPACT FEES AS PRESENTED HERE IN AND TEAMED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE OF THE CITY OF ROWLETT ACCORDINGLY ESTABLISHING FEES BASEND TO ROWLETT 2019 IMPACT FEE UPDATE STUDY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.

WITH THAT I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THANK YOU AGAIN. QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE VERY THOROUGH PRESENTATION.

WE HAD THE INFORMATION IN A WORK SESSION WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS. SO YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO VIEW THAT WORK SESSION ALSO. AT THIS TIME I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> I MOVE WE ACCEPT THIS ITEM.

>> AND I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND THANK YOU.

>> ANY DISCUSSION. >> SEEING NONE.

I'LL CALL THE VOTE. >> THAT PASSES 6-0.

YOU ARE ON A ROLL. READY FOR ITEM 8D CONSIDER

[8D. Consider action to approve a resolution amending the City of Rowlett's Master Fee Schedule.]

ACTION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF ROWLETT

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE. >>

[01:20:12]

>> GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. WANTED TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY THIS EVENING TO PRESENT PROPOSED AMENITIES TO THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE. WE'RE EXCITED TO BE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. WE'VE PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO REVIEWING OUR FEES CONDUCTING BENCHMARK ANALYSIS WITH SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES AND TO ACTUALLY CONDUCT AN EVEN FURTHER EXTENSIVE STUDY TO REVIEW OUR FEES BASED ON PROJECT TYPES AND DISCIPLINES THAT ACTUALLY REVIEW THESE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE.

THAT BEING SAID I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO THE FEE SCHEDULE.

ON JEWEL 2 WE WERE DIRECTED TO CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF OUR FEES IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

WE DID TURN AROUND AND WE HAD A QUICK TURN AROUND WITH THAT AND CAME FORWARD ON NOVEMBER 5 WHERE WE HAD SUGGESTIONS TO THE FEE SCHEDULE VERY MUCH PROVIDED THE NECESSARY DATA AND DOCUMENTATION TO SHOW HOW WE ASSESS THOSE FEES , THE PROPOSED SUGGESTED FEES.

FROM THAT WE HAD A CONVERSATION AND COUNCIL RECOMMENDED WE MAKE SURE THAT HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT OVERBURDENED WITH THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH BASIC PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR FENCES AND HVAC REPLACEMENT SYSTEMS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

WE ALSO PER COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION AND THANK YOU FOR HA REMOVED THE FEE FOR NONPROFIT SPECIAL EVENTS FOR HEALTH PERMITS. WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW FEE SURVEYS ARE CONDUCTED GENERALLY IN MOST COMMUNITIES. IT'S AN SAYSMENT OR BENCHMARK ANALYSIS OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

WE DID DO THAT. WE USED 12 CITIES AS OUR BENCHMARK AND DETERMINED AVERAGE FEES BASENED PROJECTS BECAUSE THE FUNCTIONS ARE SIMILAR. HOWEVER WE WENT AN EXTRA STEP AND CONDUCTED A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE COST OF EACH APPLICATION, PROGRAM AND PERMIT THAT IS PERFORMED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THANKSGIVING WE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE BENCHMARK ANALYSIS. WITH THAT WE QUANTIFIED THE TIME AND COST ASSOCIATED WITH EACH APPLICATION.

THIS GAVE US A VERY GOOD PULSE ON HOW TO JUSTIFY THE FEES AND THE COST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO PAY FOR THE COST INCURRED BY THE CITY. AGAIN, WE USED THE TWO TYPES OF METHODOLOGIES I'VE JUST MENTIONED.

AS IT RELATES TO ANIMAL SERVICES DIVISION -- THE PROCESS IS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. FOR BUILDING INSPECTION PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND ENGINEERING, THOSE DIVISIONS WE DID CONDUCT ADDITION TO THE AVERAGE OF THE FEES, IDENTIFIED EACH POSITION THAT WOULD TOUCH HA PROJECT AND THEN IDENTIFY FUNCTIONS SUCH AS DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AND BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. I'VE SOUTHEASTED SAID THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES. THE COMMUNITIES WE DID SURVEY AND USE AS BENCHMARK ANALYSIS WERE FARMERS BRANCH, FATE, GARLAND, MESQUITE, RORQUAL, WILY.

THE PLANNING FEES THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WE DID SEE A DEVIATION FROM THE CITY. DUE TO RECENT RENT LEGISLATION A SHOT CLOCK WAS WAS INTRODUCED REVIEWING SIGNIFICANT PLANS AND THAT HAS HAD A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OUR RESOURCE ALLOCATION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CITY OF GARLAND THUS FAR BASEND TO REIS E SEARCH WE'VE CONDUCTED OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE NOT AMENDED THEIR FEES. WE DO ANTICIPATE THIS WILL HAPPEN IN THE VENEER FUTURE. THE SLIDE BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY REFLECTS THE PROPOSED AND EXISTING FEES.

I BELIEVE WE WENT THROUGH THOSE APPROXIMATE DETAIL IN WORK SESSION PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 5. IF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH THESE I WOULD. THEY FALL IN LINE WITH THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD IN WORK SESSION.

THE FEES RELATED TO ANIMAL SERVICES WERE IN LINE WITH THE AVERAGE WE DID IN SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

BUILDING PERMIT FEES , THE MAIN FEES THAT WERE IN SOME INSTANCES WE WERE NOT ASSESSING A PERMIT APPLICATION FEE AND WE REINTRODUCED THOSE. QUESTION NOT HAVE A PLAN REVIEW FEE AND IN SOME INSTANCES WE COMBINED THEM TOGETHER WILLIAM

[01:25:03]

RECENT CHANGES IN LEGISLATION, EVALUATION WAS NOT -- WE COULD NOT USE EVALUATION AS A TOOL TO ASSESS OUR FEES SO WE USED SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTER REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE DID DOLLARS AN INDEPTH ANALYSIS AND MADE SURE THE ASSOCIATED COST WERE INCURRED FROM THOSE FEES. SAME THING GOES FOR THE PLANNING FEES. IN SOME INSTANCES YOU WILL SEE IN THE FEE SCHEDULE THAT SOME FEES HAVE BEEN STRUCK THROUGH OR REALIGNED AND THAT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT LINING UP TO THAT LINE ITEM ITSELF. THE CURRENT FEES VERSUS PROPOSED FEES ARE REALLY IDENTIFIED IN THIS BAR GRAPH IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. AND WE HAVE AS IT RELATES TO BUILDING INSPECTIONS THE FEES THAT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED.

IF WE USE THOSE SAME PROJECTS, WHAT WOULD THOSE FEES ALIGN TO AND WHAT WOULD THAT ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT MEAN.

AND THEN WE SPLIT THAT FURTHER INTO THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.

AND THEN TO YOUR EXTREME RIGHT YOU WILL SEE THREE BARS AND THEY REFLECT THE FEES ASSESSED AS IS, WHAT THE NEW PROPOSED FEES WOULD APPROXIMATE IF THEY WERE ADOPTED AND WHAT DIFFERENCE THAT WOULD BE. SAME THING FOR ENGINEERING.

WE HAVE THE PLANNED, ENGINEERING RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS AND MISLANOUS PERMITS. WE DID NOT HAVE REINSPECTION FEES AND WE HAVE ALSO ADDED THOSE.

AND THOSE CHARTS WOULD SHOW YOU THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED AND SUGGESTED FEES OR RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS.

PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE RED BAR IDENTIFIES WHAT THE FEES ARE CURRENTLY AND WHAT THEY SUGGEST THEY ARE. AND THE SUGGESTED FEES ARE IN GRAY. AND THE SAME GOES FOR THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE WOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THAT.

ALL IN ALL, THE BUILDING INSPECTION, ENGINEERING AND PLANNING FEES ARE REFLECTED THERE AND THE TOTAL INCREASE WOULD BE THE AMOUNT IN THE YELLOW BAR CHART.

IT IS EVIDENCE THAT THE CURRENT MASTER FEE SCHEDULE REQUIRES ADJUSTMENT SO WE CAN BETTER ALIGN WITH THE RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES. HOW WE REVIEW THINGS TO HAVE REALISTIC TIME LINES, PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS, ADMINISTRATIVE COST. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BE ADJUSTED AS PRESENTED.

I'LL TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS? WE'VE REVIEWED THIS IN TWO DIFFERENT WORK SESSIONS.

I'M NOT SURE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I MOVE WE PASS THIS ITEM. >> SECOND.

I SECOND IT. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> WE DO HAVE --

>> I WANTED TO SAY I APPRECIATE Y'ALL FOR LOOKING AT THIS.

I'M SURE THIS WAS MANY SLEEPLESS NIGHTS.

I REALLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL WORK ON THIS.

>> OUR TEAM SPENT MANY HOURS ON IT.

WE ALL SAT DOWN, OUR WHOLE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC WAS INVOLVED IN SOME WAY OR THE OTHER. I THANK THEM FOR THE EXTRA TIME

THEY COMMITTED TO THIS. >> I'M GOING TO ECHO WHAT BLAKE SAID. YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DOING WORK SINCE YOU'VE BEEN HERE. BRINGING US UP TO SPEED WHEN YOU LOOK AT FEES OR WE WERE ASSESSING $42,000.

THAT WAS NOWHERE NEAR COMING TO COVER OUR COST.

AND THIS PROTECTS OUR CITIZENS. IT PROTECTS EVERYBODY AND THE CITY. SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING

YOU'VE DONE. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> WHEN DO THESE BECOME EFFECTIVE?

>> I BELIEVE MARCH 1. >> IS THAT TRUE OF THE IMPACT

FEES TOO? >> I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE

ORDINANCE STATED I'M SORRY. >> WHATEVER THE ORDINANCE

STATES? >> YES.

>> CALL A VOTE. I THINK WE DID A MOTION.

I KNOW IT'S GETTING LATE. AND THAT ITEM PASSES 6-5.

THANK YOU. 6-0.OUR LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDAS

[8E. Consider action to approve an amendment to the 2015 International Building Code and the 2015 International Residential Code requiring permits for all accessory structures.]

[01:30:03]

8E. >> THANK YOU COUNCIL.

APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SOME HOUSEKEEPING AS I'D LIKE TO CALL IT. CURRENTLY OUR INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE AND OUR INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE EXEMPTS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE 120,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS FROM THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.

WE FEEL THAT WE ARE DOING OUR RESIDENTS A DISSERVICE IF WE DO NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT APPLICATION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BECAUSE WE'VE RUN INTO SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE RESIDENTS HAVE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE.

IT BECOMES A TASK TO TRY AND REMOVE THE STRUCTURES OR REBUILD ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD. WE ARE PROPOSING A NO, MA'AM MALL COST OF $75 SO WE CAN REVIEW THE APPLICATION, ASSIST THEM IN PUTTING THE PERMIT APPLICATION TOGETHER.

HELP THEM DRAW THAT SITE PLAN. SIGN OFF ON A PERMIT AND DO THE INSPECTION FOR THEM SO THAT SAFEGUARDS THEM IN THE FUTURELE WE ARE HERE TO REQUEST AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE AND THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE TO REQUIRE BUILDING PERMITS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS THAT ARE 120 SQUARE FEET OR LESS IN AREA.

BILL HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS READ.

>> SECOND. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? CALL A VOTE.

THAT ITEM PASSES 6-0. I WANT TO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL WE V A GREAT HOLIDAY.

MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY NEW YEAR AND WE'LL SEE YOU IN

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.