Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

THANK YOU.

[00:00:02]

ALL RIGHT.

UH, WELCOME EVERYBODY

[1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

TO THE JANUARY 21ST, UH, MEETING THE GROWING CITIES COUNCIL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COMMITTEE.

I'M CHAIRMAN ROBERT SMITH.

UH, WITH ME TODAY ARE COUNCIL MEMBERS MCNEIL AND NICKERSON.

UH, SPECIAL GUESTS WOULD BE, UH, MAYOR PRO TEM, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, UH, DEBRA MORRIS, AND I TOTALLY FLUBBED MAYOR PRO TEM NICKERSON, BUT I'LL GET THERE.

UH, GOT A COUPLE OF MEETINGS TO GET CAUGHT UP BEFORE WE CHANGE AGAIN.

UH, FIRST ON THE AGENDA WILL BE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE PRIOR MEETING.

IS ANYBODY HAD THE CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE? AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES.

SO I'VE REVIEWED THEM, UH, WEB MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THOSE MINUTES AS WRITTEN.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? UH, I'LL I WILL SECOND WITH ONE CAVEAT.

OBVIOUSLY I WASN'T ON COUNCIL AT THE TIME, BUT I WILL SECOND.

WELL, W W WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING.

UH, WE USED TO COOKOUT CAME ON TWO YEARS AGO AND WE WENT BACK AND WE READ ROBERT'S RULES AND WE SAID, WE FIGURED OUT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO SECOND, EVEN IF YOU WEREN'T HERE.

UH, BUT YEAH, WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD ONCE, SO I APPRECIATE IT.

UH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, ANY OPPOSED, HEARING NOTHING THAT MINUTES PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

AND MY AGENDA IS GIVING ME SOME TROUBLE HERE.

OKAY.

ITEM TWO,

[2.a. Garland Foundation for Development (Morris)]

A ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, UH, THE GARLAND FOUNDATION FOR DEVELOPMENT.

UH, THIS WAS BROUGHT TO US BY DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TIM MORRIS.

UH, UH, BASIC PREMISE IS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CURRENTLY DOUBLES AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE GROW AND FOUNDATION FOR DEVELOPMENT.

UH, UH, THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM ASKED US TO LOOK AT THAT MEMBERSHIP, JUDGE, ITS APPROPRIATENESS, UH, GET SOME IDEAS FROM STAFF AND HERE WE ARE.

UM, MR. ENGLAND IS THIS ONE YEARS.

I, UM, I CAN, I CAN LEAD OFF OR I CAN DEFER TO, UM, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MORRIS AND LET HER, UM, PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT, BUT I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO LEAD, WHICH IS THAT YOU WANT DEPUTY MAYOR.

I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO GET A LOT OF THIS WAS, WAS LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MY MIND.

SURE.

LET ME TRY TO SHARE MY SCREEN REAL QUICK.

AND IF YOU AREN'T TALKING EVERYBODY, PLEASE REMEMBER TO MUTE YOUR MIC.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

ARE Y'ALL SEEING THAT I'M NOT SEEING YES, SIR.

I SEE IT NOW.

OKAY.

I SEE IT AS A MATTER OF CONTEXT, THIS CAME, UM, UH, THIS HAS BEEN, UH, BEFORE THE COUNCIL TWO DIFFERENT TIMES.

THE ORIGINAL TIME IT WENT TO COUNCIL WAS WHEN WE, UM, ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED THE FOUNDATION.

UM, AND THAT WAS BACK IN 2010, 2011.

AND, UM, WHEN WE WERE ESTABLISHING THE FOUNDATION, UM, THROUGH BOTH ITS ARTICLES AND BYLAWS, THE ONE OF THE POLICY DECISIONS THAT THE COUNCIL HAD BEFORE, IT WAS THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THIS OFFICE, BOTH BRAD AND MYSELF GAVE THE LEGAL ADVICE THAT, UM, UM, BEST PRACTICE IS NOT TO HAVE THE, UM, COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS BE THE SAME AS THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, JUST FOR LEGAL REASONS AND TO, UH, MAINTAIN THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE FOUNDATION FROM THE CITY THAT IS TO, UM, HELP AVOID CLAIMS THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY ONE IN THE SAME ENTITY OR, UM, AS YOU MAY COMMONLY HEAR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THAT IS ANY ACTION THAT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY TAKE ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE FOUNDATION IS ACTUALLY THE CITY COUNCIL ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

AND SO TO AVOID THAT, WE OFFERED LEGAL ADVICE BACK IN 2010, 2011, THAT, UM, UM, THAT THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD NOT BE THE SAME, THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME MADE THE POLICY DECISION.

UM, UH, BECAUSE THE FOUNDATION WAS ONLY BEING CREATED TO HELP WITH THE TRANSPORTATION PRODUCT, UH, PROJECT, IT MADE THE POLICY DECISION THAT IT WOULD IN FACT, UM, UM, THE COMPOSITION WOULD BE THE SAME AS THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, MOVING FORWARD ABOUT, UM, UH, TWO TO THREE YEARS WHEN THE FOUNDATION, WHEN THE COUNCIL MADE THE DECISION TO HAVE THE FOUNDATION MANAGE THE GOLF COURSE.

AND, UM, UH, INCLUDING IN THAT, UM, UH, MANAGEMENT OF THE GOLF COURSE WAS THE, UM, UM, TABC, UM, UH, LIQUOR LICENSE AND OUT OF CONCERN FOR THAT AND THE ANY, UM, LIABILITY THAT MAY ATTACH TO THE CITY AS, UH, OFFERING, UM, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO THE PUBLIC AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE MAY BE OVERSERVED.

AND WE COULD, UM, UH, TAKE ON LIABILITY UNDER THE DRAM SHOP ACT UNDER STATE LAW.

UM, WE, ONCE AGAIN, APPROACHED COUNCIL AND ASKED TO RECONSIDER THEIR PREVIOUS POLICY DECISION OF TWO OR THREE YEARS EARLIER.

AND THAT IS, UM, UM, UM, CHANGED THE, AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD.

[00:05:01]

SO IT'S NOT THE EXACT SAME AS COUNCIL.

ONCE AGAIN, THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME DECIDED, UM, UH, THAT THEY WOULD PREFER THAT THE BOARD REMAINED THE SAME.

CURRENTLY WE NO LONGER HAVE THE LIQUOR LICENSE ISSUE.

WE DON'T, THE FOUNDATION IS NOT PARTICIPATING IN ANYTHING THAT WE CONSIDER AT THIS TIME, UM, UM, UM, CONTROVERSIAL OR PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITIES THAT EXPOSE THE CITY TO A GREAT AMOUNT OF LIABILITY.

BASICALLY FOUNDATION IS, IS BEING USED FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES AND FOR LAND BANKING PURPOSES.

HOWEVER, UM, UH, IT IS STILL NOT BEST PRACTICE, UM, FOR THE TWO BOARDS TO, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE FOUNDATION, THE COUNCIL, UM, TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME, BUT I DON'T WANT TO, OVER-EXAGGERATE THE LEGAL CONCERN HERE.

UM, AS I SAID, WE'RE NOT REALLY THE FOUNDATION ISN'T DOING ANYTHING THAT EXPOSES THE CITY OR ITSELF TO A GREAT DEAL OF LIABILITY AT THE MOMENT.

UM, WE WENT OVER THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION.

THE ARTICLES ACTUALLY DO SET THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD, AND IT IS SAID IN THE ARTICLE IS NOT MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT WAS THE INITIAL, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR.

HOWEVER, IT DID ALLOW FOR THE, FOR THE COUNCIL TO, UM, TO CHANGE, UH, MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING BACK AND AMENDING THE ARTICLES AND ALL THAT CAN BE DONE, UM, BY, UM, UM, UH, GOING THROUGH THE, UM, AUTHORITY SET FORTH IN THE BYLAWS, UM, UNDER THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, THE TERMS OF OFFICE WERE SET IT'S.

UM, IF IT'S A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN IT'S COMMENSURATE WITH HIS OR HER OFFICE.

IF IT'S NOT, IF A MEMBER IS NOT A BOARD MEMBER THAT IS, IS NOT A COUNCIL MEMBER, THEN IT'S FOR A TERM SET BY THE BYLAWS AND WE'LL GET TO WHAT THAT TERM IS.

AND THE ARTICLES ALSO SAY THAT THE DIRECTOR MAY BE REMOVED FOR ANY REASON, IF, FOR NO REASON AT ALL.

AND AT ANY TIME, UM, UM, THE ARTICLES DO SAY THAT THE MAYOR IS PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD.

SO WHATEVER COMPOSITION, UM, UM, THE PA, UM, THE COUNCIL MAY DECIDE ON IN THE FUTURE.

UM, ONE THING THAT SHOULD REMAIN THE SAME AS THE MAYOR SHOULD REMAIN TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, UM, THE ARTICLES CAN BE AMENDED.

HOWEVER, IF THE COUNCIL SO CHOOSES TO AMEND THE ARTICLES, THERE'S NOTHING IN STATE LAW THAT, UM, UM, UM, EXPRESSLY SETS THE, ANY MEMBER OF COUNCIL, UM, UH, TO PARTICIPATE ON THE MEMBER OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

OUR TRADITION IN THE CITY HAS BEEN THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND THE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SERVE AS THE OFFICERS OF THE FOUNDATION THAT BEING THE TREASURER AND THE SECRETARY.

UM, AND, BUT THAT'S JUST TRADITION.

THAT'S NOT LIT OR WRITTEN IN STATE LAW BYLAWS, OR THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION.

NOW, THE BYLAWS FOR THE FOUNDATION, UM, THE BYLAWS SET THE COMPETITION OF THE BOARD WITH THE MINIMUM OF THREE PERSONS.

SO WHATEVER COMPOSITION THAT THE COUNCIL DECIDES MOVING FORWARD, UM, UM, UH, THE TWO THINGS THAT WE KNOW THAT HAVE BEEN SET ARE THE MINIMUM OF THREE PERSONS AND THE MAYOR IS TO BE THE PRESIDENT.

OKAY.

SECOND THING IS THE MEMBERSHIP WILL EITHER BE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL OR APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER.

AND SO IN, UNDER THIS STRUCTURE, THE CITY MANAGER WOULD RECOMMEND AN APPOINTMENT TO THE, UM, UM, THROUGH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IF THEY'RE NOT MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL AT THAT POINT, UM, WOULD, WOULD, UM, UM, CONFIRM THAT ACTUALLY THE SAB MISSPOKE THERE, THE CITY MANAGER WOULDN'T APPOINT THEM, CITY MANAGER WOULD RECOMMEND THEM TO COUNCIL AND THEN CITY COUNCIL WOULD ULTIMATELY ONE APPOINTING THEM NOW, UM, FOR THE DIRECTORS THAT ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, THE BYLAWS DO SET THEIR TERM LIMIT TO, AND THERE ARE NO TERM LIMITS IN THE SENSE THAT THEY CAN SERVE AS MANY, THREE YEAR TERMS AS, UM, THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, UH, DESIRES.

AND AGAIN, THE DIRECTORS MAY RE BE REMOVED AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON UNDER THE BYLAWS AND THE BYLAWS ALSO, UM, EXPRESSLY, UM, CALL OUT REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTATIVE, THE CITY ATTORNEYS, OR A SENIOR MANAGING DIRECTOR, WHICH DOESN'T EXIST IN THE CITY.

AND, UM, UM, ANY MORE NOW THEY'RE JUST MANAGING DIRECTORS, BUT, UM, THEY CAN, IF, UM, IF THE COUNCIL SO CHOOSES, THEY CAN SERVE AS EX OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

OKAY.

SO WHAT ARE OTHER CITIES DOING? UH, NOW, BEFORE I GET INTO THE NEXT TWO SLIDES, UM, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I DIDN'T DO A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE HUNDRED LOCAL GOVERNMENT, UH, CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN FORMED WITHIN THE STATE.

UM, IN FACT, I PROBABLY WENT THROUGH MAYBE 10 TO 15, UM, AND IN THE 10 TO 15, I WENT THROUGH, WHICH WERE RANDOM.

UM, UM, I DID NOT FIND ANY OF THOSE WHERE, UM, THE, THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD WAS IDENTICAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

IN FACT, THE FIVE I FOUND, UM, UM,

[00:10:01]

I DIDN'T FIND ANY WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL, OTHER THAN, UH, MAYBE A SINGLE MAYOR OTHER THAN THE MAYOR WHERE ANY MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, OTHER THAN THE MAYOR ACTUALLY SERVED ON THE BOARD AND THERE FOR VARIOUS REASONS, MOST OF THESE KEEP IN MIND, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS ARE USED THROUGHOUT THE STATE FOR A WIDE VARIETY OF PURPOSES.

AND, UM, UH, AND MY SUSPICION IS, IS THAT MEMBERSHIP, OTHER CITIES HAVE, HAVE, UM, SET MEMBERSHIPS BASED ON THOSE PURPOSES.

AND SOME OF THOSE ARE VERY, UM, UM, SUBJECT MATTER ORIENTED, MEANING THAT, UM, UH, MAYBE REQUIRES A CERTAIN EXPERTISE TO SIT ON THOSE BOARDS, BUT HERE ARE THERE, HERE ARE A FEW THAT I HAVE FOUND THAT ARE BOTH LOCAL AND ACROSS THE STATE, THE TRINITY RIVER QUARTER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION.

THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S DALLAS CREATED TO, UM, UM, UH, REDEVELOP THE TRINITY RIVER BOTTOM FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.

THERE ARE THREE IT'S, A THREE MEMBER BOARD, AND ALL MEMBERS ARE REGISTERED VOTERS AND RESIDENTS OF THE DALLAS.

AND THEY ARE VERY INFLUENTIAL BUSINESS PEOPLE THAT ARE WELL-KNOWN IN DALLAS, THE THREE MEMBERS OF THAT BOARD.

AND THESE ARE OUR INITIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIPS.

THEY MAY HAVE CHANGED TO THIS DATE, BUT THESE ARE THE ONES WHEN THE BYLAWS AND THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION WERE ADOPTED.

THESE WERE HOW THE BOARDS WERE COMPOSED AT THAT TIME.

ALL OF THEM, THE OTHER ONE IS HOUSTON, FORENSIC SCIENCE.

THIS IS MORE OF A TECHNICAL, UM, UM, USE.

AND SO IT IS A NONMEMBER BOARD.

UM, UM, ALL THE MEMBERS, UM, HAVE SOME TECH TECHNICAL SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE, AND THEY'RE APPOINTED BY THE MAYOR AND CONFIRMED BY COUNCIL, UH, WALLER CREEK.

UM, UM, LGC, IT'S AN AUSTIN AND IT'S A FIVE MEMBER BOARD.

UM, THREE MEMBERS ARE FROM PRIVATE ENTITIES, THE WALLER CREEK CONSERVANCY, AND TWO ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY, AND THOSE ARE CITY EMPLOYEES.

AND THEN YOU HAVE JUST THE GENERAL AMARILLO, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION, AND IT'S A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD WITH ALL MEMBERS BEING CITIZENS.

AND THEN THE SPRING CREEK, LGC FROM COLLEGE STATION, UH, IT'S THE FIVE MEMBER BOARD, AND THAT IS THE MAYOR PLUS A CITY EMPLOYEE PLUS CITY EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE CITIZENS.

AND I DON'T KNOW THE CURRENT COMPOSITION, BUT IT COULD BE A COMBINATION OF ANY OF THOSE THREE PLUS THE MAYOR.

SO THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THERE IS THAT THE MAYOR IS SITTING ON THE BOARD AS WELL AS, AND THAT IS HOW OUR, UM, IS AT LEAST STRUCTURED FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT TO DATE.

OUR BYLAWS CAN ALWAYS BE AMENDED AND OUR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION CAN BE AMENDED.

ARE THERE ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD NOT SEEING ANY, I THINK YOU'VE GOT IT COVERED.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, I HAD LOOKED AT THIS, UH, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE MIGHT TACKLE THE QUESTION AND, UH, WHAT I CAME UP WITH WAS, YOU KNOW, THREE BASIC OPTIONS, ONE FOR NO CHANGE AT ALL, ONE FOR FULL APPOINTMENT OF THE BOARD AND ONE FOR A HYBRID APPROACH.

UH, IF YOU ALL ARE COMFORTABLE, UH, USING THAT METHODOLOGY, I THINK WE COULD, WE COULD SIT AND DISCUSS AND DEBATE THE, UM, VARIOUS INS AND OUTS AND, AND COME TO A, COME TO SOME CONCLUSIONS, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM MORSE.

GO AHEAD.

UM, THANK YOU.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY BRIEFLY, AND I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE JUST SAID THIS TO BEGIN WITH.

UM, WHEN YOU OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY, THE REASON I REFERRED THIS, UM, I HAVE NOT BEEN COMFORTABLE CHANGING HATS.

IT HAS FELT TO ME IMPROPER TO HAVE TO GO FROM COUNCIL AND BEING COUNCIL MEMBERS TO FOUNDATION AND BEING DIRECTORS WITH THE EXACT SAME BODY OF PEOPLE THAT JUST ON AN INSTINCTUAL LEVEL TO ME DID NOT FEEL TRANSPARENT TOWARDS THE CITIZENS.

AND I KNOW ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO CAN, CAN COME AND WATCH AND LISTEN, BUT, UM, I, WHEN MY GUT KIND OF COINCIDES WITH WHAT LEGAL RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN TWICE IN THE PAST, I FELT LIKE IT NEEDED TO BE LOOKED AT.

SO THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF MY REFERRING THIS.

SO I'LL BACK OUT AND YOU ALL CAN DISCUSS IT.

ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, STAFF, ANYTHING? UH, MAYOR PRO TEM NICKERSON.

GO AHEAD, SIR.

THANK YOU.

UH, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT IT MAYBE AS OTHERS, BUT, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S A, REALLY, ANY REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T OR COULDN'T, UH, ALTER THE MAKEUP, IT, UH, TO INCORPORATE, UH, OTHERS IN IT OTHER THAN JUST, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

UM, UH, I THINK THAT THE ALIGNMENT OF

[00:15:01]

THE, OF THE, UM, CORPORATION AND, YOU KNOW, THE GOALS OF THE COUNCIL HAVE BEEN, UH, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE ARE BEEN, I THINK, FAIRLY, UH, VERY WELL FAIRLY WELL-SERVED.

AND, UH, I'D, HAVEN'T SEEN, I MEAN, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT TO BE A REAL, UH, CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUOTE IN SOME WAY, IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, VISIBILITY OR MORE OPENNESS TO ALL NET, UH, CORPORATION, UH, AND, AND IT'S FELT THAT, UH, HAVING NO ONE OTHER THAN COUNCIL MEMBERS ON IT, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT REALLY AGAINST DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I JUST, UH, LIKED TO HEAR THE OTHERS, BUT, UH, I, I, I MYSELF HAVE, UH, HAVE NOT HAVE NOT BEEN BOTHERED BY THE SITUATION.

AND MAYBE IT'S JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T, WE WE'VE BEEN FAIRLY WELL ALIGNED WITH WHAT THE GOALS WERE OF THE CORPORATION VERSUS WHAT WE AT THE COUNCIL HAD IS FOR THE CITY.

SO, UH, IN THE AREAS IN QUESTION, SO, UH, RIGHT NOW I'M FAIRLY, UH, OPEN TO, UH, UH, LOOK AT THE OPTIONS AND SEE WHAT OTHER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL MIGHT, UH, MIGHT HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT TOO.

BUT, UH, SO I WOULDN'T BE ADVERSE TO BRING IT FORWARD, UH, FOR, UH, FURTHER DISCUSSION ONCE WE KIND OF HONE IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

YES, SIR.

YES.

MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I GUESS MY QUESTION GOES BACK TO, UM, MR. ENGLAND, AND, AND I THINK YOU MAY HAVE INDICATED THAT THE SCOPE OF THE FOUNDATION IS RIGHT NOW IS AROUND, UH, THE LAND USE.

UM, IF THAT'S, IF THAT SCOPE WERE TO BE INCREASED, UH, TO OTHER AREAS, UH, OTHER, UM, UH, TO EXCLUDE ADDITIONAL SCOPE, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS, AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS TO CHANGE THAT THEN SECONDLY, WHAT LIABILITY, UH, UH, RISK WOULD YOU SEE, UM, SCOPE OF THE FOUNDATION, WHAT THE WHAT'S THE LEGAL SCOPE OF THE FOUNDATION AND WHAT ACTIVITIES IT IS ALLOWED TO OPERATE UNDER LAW IS REALLY QUITE BROAD.

AND IT'S REALLY A CHOICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND WHAT THE, UM, THE SCOPE OF THE, UM, FOUNDATION IS.

AND THAT IS ANY, ANY GOVERNMENTAL ACT, UM, UM, IN WHICH THE FOUNDATION IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, THAT'S QUITE LARGE, IT'S QUITE BROAD.

THERE'S, THERE'S VERY LITTLE LIMITING LANGUAGE, WHAT THE FOUNDATION CAN DO AS LONG AS IT'S A GOVERNMENTAL ACT AND NOT A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION.

UM, UM, AND EVEN THAT IT, EVEN IN THAT THERE'S ARGUMENTS AT TIMES OVER WHAT'S A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION AND WHAT'S A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.

AND SO EVEN THAT CAN BE QUITE BROAD AS WELL, EVEN CREEPING INTO WHAT YOU MIGHT, UM, UM, AT LEAST WHAT MOST PEOPLE MIGHT COMMONLY REFER TO AS PROPRIETARY FUNCTION.

UM, AND SO IT CAN BE QUITE BROAD AND, UM, THAT IN ITSELF WOULD NOT CHANGE THE, THE PURPOSE OF THE FOUNDATION WOULD NOT CHANGE JUST BECAUSE YOU CHANGE THE COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD.

IT WOULD STILL ONLY ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

AND SO THERE ARE SOME ACTUAL SAFEGUARDS PUT IN PLACE, BOTH BY STATE LAW AND BY THE ACTUAL, UM, GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.

UM, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MOST OBVIOUS THAT COMES TO MY MIND IS THAT, UM, THE CORPORATION CAN'T TAKE ON DEBT WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

THAT IS THE, THE CORPORATION HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ANY BONDS, CERTIFICATES, NOTES, OR, UM, UH, ANY OTHER OBLIGATION.

UM, THAT'S EVIDENCED BY SOME TYPE OF INSTRUMENT WITHOUT THE, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, WITHOUT THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY TAKING A FORMAL VOTE AND SAYING, UM, YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS.

AND SO THAT'S THE MOST OBVIOUS EXAMPLE.

UM, AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WOULD PROBABLY CONCERN COUNCIL THE MOST IS IF THE FOUNDATION WAS ABLE TO GO OUT AND, UM, UM, UM, ISSUE BONDS AND SOMEHOW, UM, UM, UH, PLACE THE CITY AT LIABILITY BECAUSE OF THAT.

UM, BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT THE, UM, UM, THE COUNCIL CAN LIMIT THE FUNCTION OF THE FOUNDATION.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE WOULD BE REAL PROPERTY.

UM, THE, UM, OFTENTIMES THE CITY CONVEYS REAL PROPERTY OVER TO THE FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.

HOWEVER, WHENEVER WE HAVE, UM, BECAUSE STATE LAW REQUIRES IT WHENEVER WE CONVEY PROPERTY OVER TO THE D UH, FOUNDATION, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD TO PLACE LANGUAGE IN THEIR LIMITING LANGUAGE ABOUT THE FUTURE USE OF THAT PROPERTY.

WE CAN'T, THE CITY CANNOT JUST, UM, CONVEY RURAL PROPERTY OVER TO ANY PRIVATE ENTITY WITHOUT SOMEHOW GOING THROUGH THE BID PROCESS OR PUTTING SOME KIND OF DEED RESTRICTIONS IN THERE.

IN OUR CASE, WE ALWAYS TIE IT TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND THOSE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ARE ACTUALLY REFERENCED IN THE DEEDS IF THE FOUNDATION EVER CONVEYS THOSE OUT TO OUTSIDE PARTIES.

OKAY.

AND THEN THE SECOND QUESTION WOULD BE

[00:20:01]

OBVIOUSLY, UH, WE HAVE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, A MODE IN WHICH OBVIOUSLY WE CAN GO THERE, UH, ANY CONFLICT OR ANY, ANY TRANSPARENCY ISSUE THAT COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MENTIONED EARLY REGARDING WHETHER THERE'S A CONFLICT OF WHETHER THEY ARE, UH, WORKING IN CONJUNCTION OR ANY OPINIONS THERE.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

UM, UM, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE PRECISE, LEGAL ISSUE IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION IS IF THE FOUNDATION WERE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WOULD THEIR COUNCIL MEMBERS NOT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM THE, FOR THE FOUNDATION HAVE ACCESS TO CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? IS THAT THE QUESTION? CORRECT? UM, MY INITIAL OPINION ON THAT WOULD WITHOUT DOING ANY RESEARCH WOULD BE NO, IF YOU'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE, UM, UH, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, YOU WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THAT, UM, UM, TO THOSE DISCUSSIONS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

HOWEVER, AGAIN, NO FORMAL ACTION CAN BE TAKEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BY THE FOUNDATION.

SO ULTIMATELY WHATEVER FORMAL ACTION WAS BEING TAKEN BY THE FOUNDATION, THE COUNCIL WOULD BE PRIVY TO IT.

THEY JUST WOULDN'T BE PRIVY TO IT UNTIL THAT FORMAL ACTIONS BROUGHT UP BEFORE THE FOUNDATION.

THANK YOU.

SO I KNOW THAT, UH, YEAH, UH, I KNOW THAT, UH, I'VE HEARD CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT US HAVING A FIDUCIARY DUTY, UM, TO THE LAND THAT WE PURCHASED AND, AND ALL THIS.

AND, AND I THINK WHAT IT'S GOING TO BOIL DOWN TO WITH THE, THE WHOLE COUNCIL IS THAT THEY'RE WORRIED THAT A BOARD THAT IS NOT MADE UP OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD GO AND DO SOMETHING THAT'S COUNTER TO THE STRATEGIC INTERESTS THAT THE COUNCIL IS LAID OUT.

AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THESE LIMITATIONS THAT YOU'VE SPOKEN ABOUT ARE PRETTY KEY TO ANY PROPOSAL THAT WE MIGHT TAKE BACK TO THE COUNCIL.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT THEM BUYING AND SELLING PROPERTY WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL.

THAT'S THE BIG THING, RIGHT? UH, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT TAKING ON DEBT WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL.

AND SO IN SOME RESPECTS, I THINK IF WE DO THIS SPLIT, THEN THE FOUNDATION BECOMES PARTLY AN ADVISORY BOARD, UH, MUCH LIKE THE PLAN COMMISSION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THEY THEY'RE BRINGING US THESE THINGS AND WE'RE APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING OF THEM.

UM, UH, THERE'S NO INHERENT NEGATIVES OR POSITIVES ARE THAT I THINK THAT'S JUST, THAT'S JUST THE CHANGE THAT WE ENDED UP MAKING.

UH, IS THAT STILL, IS THAT STILL ENOUGH OF A SEPARATION OF DUTIES THAT WE'VE, WE'VE ACTUALLY SOLVED THE PROBLEM THAT PROMPTED THIS DISCUSSION? SURE.

I, I, I BELIEVE SO.

AND, AND, AND YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE PROBABLY BENEFICIAL TO GO BACK AND WE DON'T HAVE TO AMEND THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, WHICH MEANS WE DON'T HAVE TO REFILE ANYTHING WITH THE STATE, BUT I WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL GO BACK AND AMEND THE BYLAWS TO WHERE WE PUT IN SOME EXPRESS LANGUAGE TO, UM, ADDRESS REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS TO ADDRESS, UM, NOT JUST THE, UM, UM, UH, ISSUANCE OF BONDS OR DIFFICULT CERTIFICATES OR TAKEN ON ANY DEBT, BUT ALSO TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE CONVEYANCE OF ANY ASSET, WHETHER THAT BE, UM, UM, FUNDS OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR REAL PROPERTY WHERE THE FOUNDATION CAN'T CONVEY ANY OF THOSE THINGS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AUTHORITY OR PERMISSION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND WE CAN CERTAINLY GO BACK AND AMEND THE BYLAWS TO DO THAT.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, WITH THE COMMITTEE'S BLESSING, WHAT I'D LIKE US TO DO, MAYBE OVER THE NEXT MONTH, UH, GO AHEAD.

A MAYOR PRO TEM NICKERSON, SORRY, JUMPED IN THERE A LITTLE LATE, BUT I GUESS RYAN, BACK TO THAT, I MEAN, IF DO THAT, AND WE AMEND THE BYLAWS AND CERTAINLY IT'S A, IT'S AN ACTION.

UH THAT'S UM, YOU KNOW, APPROPRIATE IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

I, I JUST BEGAN TO WONDER WHETHER WE'RE WE'RE THEN, THEN WHAT, WHAT WOULD BE THE FOUNDATION OR THE CORPORATION'S ROLE, UH, OTHER THAN TO ADVISE.

AND, UH, AND SO THEN IT'S ALMOST TO THE POINT WHERE, WHY DO WE HAVE THE, WHY DO WE HAVE THE CORPORATION, UH, IF WE ALREADY HAVE A COUNCIL THAT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, GOING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT, IF THEY'RE NOT ON IT, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? AND SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW.

I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST CREATING AN ENTITY MAYBE THAT ISN'T REALLY NEEDED NOW.

UH, I DON'T KNOW, BRIAN, WHAT'S THE THOUGHT ON THAT? AND WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, ARE WE REALLY ADDRESSING, UH, THIS, THIS VISIBILITY TO THE CITIZEN ISSUE BY DOING THIS? I JUST, ARE WE JUST DOING IT BECAUSE WE WANT TO COVER THAT BASE? I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS, BRIAN, I THINK, UM, UH, MAYOR PRO TEM, I THINK THE, THE

[00:25:01]

ADVANTAGE OF THE FOUNDATION, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH THE ITS CURRENT COMPOSITION OR THROUGH ANY COMBINATION OF COUNCIL, PRIVATE CITIZENS, EMPLOYEES, WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE, THE ADVANTAGE ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE.

AND PRIMARILY THE, THE ADVANTAGE THAT THE FOUNDATION OFFERS THE CITY RIGHT NOW, THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY IS THAT THERE IS A EXCEPTION UNDER STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS THE FOUNDATION TO CONVEY REAL PROPERTY, UH, OR THE CITY TO CONVEY REAL PROPERTY TO THE FOUNDATION WITHOUT BECAUSE IT'S CONSIDERED AN INDEPENDENT FOUNDATION WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE BIDDING PROCESS.

AND SO AT LAW, IT ALLOWS SOME FLEXIBILITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MATTERS.

IF WE'RE GOING TO PARTNER WITH OUTSIDE ENTITIES, THAT'S REALLY THE BIGGEST ADVANTAGE THAT THE FOUNDATION HAS TO OFFER BOTH THE WAY IT EXISTS NOW, OR THE WAY IT COULD EXIST IN THE FUTURE.

IF YOU CHANGE THE COMPOSITION BOARD.

AND I MEAN, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK THE HISTORY OF THESE, THESE THAT'S REALLY IT IN A NUTSHELL, THERE BE REALLY NO OTHER REASON.

THE CITY WOULD NEED TO HAVE TO HAVE ONE OF THESE CORPORATIONS OTHER THAN FOR IT TO, TO ALLOW THAT CORPORATION SOME OPTION IN HOW TO DEAL WITH IT, WHERE THE CITY COULD NOT STRIKE, UH, WITH, UH, PROCUREMENT AND ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

AND CERTAINLY THE WAY THAT WE HAVE THE CITY OF GARLAND HAS TRADITIONALLY USED ITS FOUNDATION.

I THINK THAT'S A CORRECT STATEMENT.

NOW, THERE ARE SOME ACTIVITIES THAT WE COULD DO THAT WOULD, WOULD BENEFIT THE CITY IF WE WERE GETTING INTO A CONVENTION CENTER, UM, UM, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO WHERE IT COULD BE, IT COULD PARTNER WITH THIRD PARTIES INSTEAD OF THE CITY.

UM, BUT THAT HASN'T BEEN, UM, UM, THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL, UM, UM, HERE TO FOUR.

SO, AND, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE ONES THAT YOU HIGHLIGHTED EARLIER, UH, CORPORATIONS, THAT WAS, IT WAS A SCIENCE-BASED, UH, SCIENTIFIC FOCUSED GROUP.

SO IN THAT, IN THAT CASE, YOU GOT, YOU WOULD HAVE PEOPLE ALL IN, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THEN TO HAVE OTHERS ON IT, OTHER THAN JUST COUNSEL, BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SPECIFIC, A SPECIFIC EXPERTISE OR KNOWLEDGE BASE THAT COUNCIL WOULDN'T NORMALLY OR ALWAYS HAVE.

SO TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE THAT WAY.

UH, IN THE OTHER CASE, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT REALLY DOES TO, UH, IF WE'RE NOT, IF WE HAVE LEGAL IS COMFORTABLE THAT THE ACCOUNT THAT THE CORPORATION IS REALLY FAIRLY WELL ALIGNED AND WHAT POLICY AND WE'RE MANAGING IT THAT WAY FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.

UM, THEN YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T SEE, AS YOU MENTIONED, I DON'T SEE THE REAL LIABILITY TO THE CITY ABOUT IT, BUT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, AS I SAID EARLIER, I'M NOT ADVERSE TO HAVING OTHERS.

UM, UH, YOU KNOW, WE BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL FULL COUNCIL FOR THEIR INPUT, BUT TO ME, UH, I'M, I'M NOT WANTING TO REALLY MAKE THE CHANGE IF WE REALLY ARE NOT GOING TO SEE AN OPERATIONAL BENEFIT OUT OF IT, UM, AT THIS POINT, JUST BECAUSE I THINK IT'S JUST, I THINK WE'RE MAKING A CONCERN THAT REALLY ISN'T, ISN'T REALLY THERE IN MY MIND, MAYBE.

SO ANYWAY, THAT'S MY FAULT AT THE MOMENT.

UM, MR. CHAIR, SO THANK YOU.

UH, VERY GOOD, SIR.

UM, I'D LIKE A LITTLE TIME PERSONALLY TO GO THROUGH SOME, JUST LOOK AT THE HYBRID OPTIONS ON MY OWN TIME AND, AND GIVE THIS SOME MORE THOUGHT BEFORE, UM, BEFORE I'M READY TO MOVE FORWARD, UH, WITH COMMITTEE'S BLESSING, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND TABLE THIS UNTIL OUR FEBRUARY MEETING AND THEN MAYBE MAKE A FINAL DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION THEN, UH, THAT'LL GIVE US SOME TIME TO ENGAGE WITH, WITH LEGAL AND, UH, JUST GET ANY QUESTIONS KNOCKED OUT HERE.

YOU GUYS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? I AM.

OKAY.

OKAY.

VERY GOOD.

SO WE'RE TABLING ITEM TWO A UNTIL FEBRUARY, UH, AND, AND THANK YOU TO DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM FOR BRINGING THIS ISSUE TO US.

IT'LL, IT'LL TAKE SOME TIME AND SOME, SOME THOUGHT, BUT WE WILL DEFINITELY GET TO SOME, SOME RECOMMENDATION ITEM TO BE

[2.b. Donation Handling (Bookhout)]

A DONATION HANDLING.

THIS WAS BROUGHT TO US BY FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER, UH, BOOKOUT OUT OF DISTRICT FOUR.

UH, HIS PRIMARY CONCERN WAS THAT DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY HAD DIFFERENT RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR WHAT THEY NEEDED TO DO TO ACCEPT DONATIONS FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

UH, HE ASKED US TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF GENERAL POLICY THAT MIGHT COVER EACH OF THOSE ITEMS. AND I BELIEVE, UH, OUR CITY ATTORNEY, MR. UH, MR. NEIGHBOR HAS SOME INFORMATION ON THAT FOR US.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN CITY ATTORNEY, NOT THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY.

UM, THE, UH, THE ISSUE THAT MR. BOOKOUT WAS, UM, WAS ONE RELATING NOT TO SMALL DONATIONS, BUT THE MAJOR DONATIONS TO, UM, TO THE CITY.

NOW, HE COMES FROM A BACKGROUND OF WORKING FOR THE COUNTY.

DALLAS COUNTY APPARENTLY HAS THE POLICY, UH, THAT ALL THE DONATIONS MADE TO THE COUNTY

[00:30:01]

OR TO, UH, AGENCY AT THE COUNTY MUST BE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER.

UM, I DID FIND A STATE LAW THAT AUTHORIZED THAT THEY ACCEPT DONATIONS.

I DIDN'T FIND ONE THAT MANDATED.

AND SO WE DETERMINED THAT IT WAS A COUNTY POLICY THAT, THAT DROVE THAT DIRECTION AS TO US, WE COULD ADOPT THE SIMILAR POLICY, AND I BELIEVE THAT MR. BOOKOUT WERE PROPOSING.

UM, AND, AND IT WOULDN'T BE FOR MONETARY DONATIONS AND OUR PUBLIC SAFETY BRANCHES DO GET THINGS DONATED.

SO LAUNCH CHRISTMAS, THINNER COOKIES, THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

I DON'T BELIEVE MR. BOOKOUT WANTED TO DELVE IN TO THAT LEVEL.

UM, RELATIVELY MINOR THINGS OF THAT SORT, BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO DONATE A MAJOR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, UM, YEAH, AND WE'VE HAD SIMILAR THINGS HAPPEN OVER THE PAST, UM, AD, UH, DONATIONS, BOTH POLICE AND FIRE, UH, ONE COMES TO MIND MOST RECENTLY, IT WAS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT DONATION, UH, TO, UM, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO BUY SOME NECESSARY GEAR.

UM, THERE WASN'T ANYTHING UNTOWARD ABOUT THAT.

UH, IT CAME AND WENT NOTHING SUSPICIOUS AT ALL.

I THINK WHAT MR. BOOKOUT, UM, WANTED HERE WAS, UH, SOME EYES AT THE COUNCIL ON THAT KIND OF DONATIONS, UH, PLEASE TO DETERMINE ON THE COUNCIL LEVEL, WHETHER THAT DONATION WAS ACCEPTABLE TO CITY, WHETHER THERE WERE SOME STRINGS ATTACHED THAT, UH, THE COUNCIL WOULDN'T WANT TO ACCEPT, UH, POLITICALLY OR OTHERWISE.

AND, UM, UH, I THINK THAT, UH, I'M SORRY THAT, UM, I DON'T SEE THEM ON A CALL HERE, SO I APOLOGIZE IF I'M MISQUOTING QUOTIDIAN, BUT, UH, I THINK WHAT HE WANTED TO DO WAS PUT IN PLACE A POLICY, ANY DONATION OVER A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, A MONETARY WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

UM, I HAVE NOT, EXCUSE ME, UM, SPOKEN DIRECTLY TO, UH, EITHER THE CHIEFS ABOUT THIS.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A MAJOR CONCERN IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO ADOPT A POLICY OF THAT SORT, UH, AND THINKING ABOUT IT, MONETARY THRESHOLD WOULD BE HELPFUL.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE.

UM, THEY COULD BE SUBSTANTIAL WHEN YOU'RE FEEDING, UH, QUITE A FEW PEOPLE.

NOW THAT COULD BE AN EXPENSIVE LUNCH, BUT I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH WHAT'S THAT WOULD COST.

WE COULD LOOK AT MONETARY THRESHOLDS AND CATEGORICAL THRESHOLDS TOO, IN THE SENSE THAT IF IT'S A DONATION THAT IS, UH, AGENCY-WIDE, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, WE COULD CALL IT A LUNCH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT EVERYBODY GETS TO PARTICIPATE IN.

THOSE WOULD BE, UH, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE NECESSITY OF COMING THROUGH THE COUNCIL FOR ACCEPTED.

AND WITH THAT, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU AND THE COMMITTEE ON THEIR PART, TIM NICKERSON.

YES.

THANK YOU.

UH, I GUESS AS I THINK ABOUT THAT IN THIS, W WE ALWAYS, WE ALWAYS KIND OF, UH, DEAL WITH THIS, I THINK, AS A COUNCIL ON, ON MANY THINGS, BUT, AND, AND IT REALLY IS JUST HOW DEEP DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF THE CITY? WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE THE CITY MANAGER AND WE'VE GOT THREE TO FOUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS.

UH, WE'VE GOT POLICIES, UH, THAT, UH, UH, AND, AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES THAT ARE, THAT, THAT ALL CITY EMPLOYEES, UH, USES GUIDELINES AND RULES FOR BEHAVIOR AND, AND, UH, FOLLOWING, UH, UH, ETHICS AND, AND THIS SORT OF THING.

AND, UH, I, I'M A LITTLE, UH, RETICENT ABOUT WANTING TO TRY TO START APPROVING, UH, THINGS AT THAT LEVEL.

IF WE HAVE POLICY THAT WE'VE SET OR RULES INSIDE THE OPERATING GUIDELINES OF THE CITY, THAT WE, WE HAVE THAT ADDRESS IT.

AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT, ABOUT THE OTHERS, BUT, UH, I HAVE KIND OF FELT THAT WE, SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL, WE ARE CONTINUING TO SORT OF DRIFT MORE AND MORE INTO DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONAL.

UM, DECISION-MAKING AND I'VE JUST WARY OF IT EVERY TIME.

I, I SENSE IT, AND THAT'S WHY I'M SPEAKING ABOUT IT NOW.

I, I'M NOT PARTICULARLY, UH, AGAINST THE IDEA OF SOME OVERSIGHT, BUT I THINK WE CAN DO IT WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE COUNSEL REVIEW IT.

UH, IF WE WANT TO, UM, SET SOME SORT OF

[00:35:01]

POLICY OR ASK THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND HIS, UH, OPERATING GUIDELINES.

SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU, SIR.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER MCNEIL.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

UH, AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH, UH, COUNCILMAN NICKERSON, I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE THE CURRENT POLICIES THAT ARE IN PLACE.

UM, MR. NEIGHBOR, IS THERE A, IS THERE A CURRENT AMOUNT IN PLACE AND THEN IS, IS THERE A FREQUENCY OF THOSE DONATIONS NOT TO EXCEED AN AMOUNT OR THOSE THINGS IN PLACE CURRENTLY? UH, LAST QUESTION THERE'S, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THEY'RE RATHER INFREQUENT AS FAR AS SIGNIFICANT DONATIONS, UM, AND, AND ARE USUALLY ENOUGH THAT SOMEBODY WILL, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, CHECK WITH ME, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER THAT TRANSIT TRANSACTION MAY BE, UM, DOESN'T HAVE SOME ILLEGALITIES INVOLVED OR NEED SOME FORMALITY.

UM, AS FAR AS WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE, WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE, UM, UH, TO THE MEMBER OF TIM'S POINT.

UM, USUALLY THE, THE STAFF IS ALERT TO, UM, THE INTRICACIES OF SOMETHING AND, AND I GUESS THEY WOULD REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER THAT, HEY, WE'VE BEEN GIVEN THIS OFFER AND WHAT SAY YOU, UH, SO FAR AS I'M AWARE, AND I, I DON'T DROP THE DIRECTORS.

SO THAT CITY MANAGER, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A, UM, UH, AN HR DIRECTOR, THE CITY MANAGER, DIRECT EVENTS, UH, WHAT EMPLOYEES SHOULD DO IN THAT SITUATION.

ALL THAT SAID, I SHOULD REMIND THE COMMITTEE THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT COULD OTHERWISE BE CONSTRUED AS, AS BRIBERY, UH, OR AN ILLEGAL DONATION IN THE SENSE THAT, UH, THERE'S SOME KIND OF QUID PRO QUO, EITHER SPOKEN OR UNSPOKEN, UH, THOSE AREN'T ON THE TABLE HERE.

UH, THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE DONATED TO THE ORGANIZATION AS AN ORGANIZATION AND NOT FOR INDIVIDUAL USE OTHER THAN MEALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE'RE CONCERNED WITH THOSE, BUT EVERYBODY CAN COME IN AND EAT THEM.

SO IT'S NOT THAT KIND OF A QUID PRO QUO ARRANGEMENT.

DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR? YES, SIR.

THAT THAT WAS THE BIG ONE WAS AROUND THE BRIBERY AND THEN THAT FREQUENCY AND I'M INCLINED TO DEFINITELY, UM, TO, TO, TO SUPPORT COUNCILMAN NICHOLSON'S POINT WAS THAT, YEAH, WE DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE WAY OF OPERATIONS AND, AND SO WHATEVER, UH, MR. BRADFORD'S, UH, POLICIES ARE, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY LET'S REFER THAT BACK TO HIM AND LET HIM COME UP WITH THAT ETHICS POLICY, BECAUSE IN THIS CLIMATE TODAY, OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE A LOT OF COMMUNITY GROUPS THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE DONATIONS IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OUR STAFF.

AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD, UH, UH, PREVENT THEM FROM DOING THAT, HONESTLY, AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO CURRY FAVOR.

SO MY RECOMMENDATION, AND I THINK I'M IN LINE WITH COUNCILMAN NICKERSON WOULD BE, UH, LET'S REFER THIS BACK TO THE CITY MANAGER AND LET THEM DEVELOP A POLICY.

I KNOW THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THEY HAVE SOMETHING, I THINK IT'S, THEY HAVE A ORGANIZATION THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN DONATE TO THEM.

FOR INSTANCE, THE SCHOOL COULD GO SELECT FROM THAT LIST OF THINGS TO GET.

BUT I GET, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE BECAUSE BETWEEN OUR NEEDS OF SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY IN OUR STAFF IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENTLY FROM, FROM, FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

BUT I WOULD SAY LET MR. BRADFORD, UH, EVALUATE THAT FOR HIS TEAM AND LET THEM PUSH IT OUT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, THE SIR, NOT THROW MY COMMENTS ON, UM, ACTUALLY I'LL START WITH THE QUESTION.

DO WE KNOW, UH, IS IT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AS THE CITY MANAGER'S SPENDING AUTHORITY WITHOUT COUNCIL ENGAGEMENT? YEAH.

YEAH.

WELL, ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAD WITH MR BOOKOUT WHILE I WAS STILL ON WITH US WAS, UH, JUST TACKING IN A RULE THAT SAID, HEY, IF WE ACCEPT ANYTHING THAT IS ABOVE, UH, WHAT THE CITY MANAGER SPENDING AUTHORITY IS, AND, AND WE'D LEAVE IT FLUID.

SO AS THAT CHANGED, THIS WOULD CHANGE WITH IT, UH, THAT IT WOULD TRIGGER SOME FORM OF NOTIFICATION TO COUNCIL.

UM, AND THAT WOULD KEEP US OUT OF THE LUNCHEONS AND, AND THE, THE SMALL EQUIPMENT DONATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT GET US MORE INTO THE REALM OF, OKAY, WE'RE ACCEPTING SOMETHING REALLY SIGNIFICANT YEAR, UH, THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT.

UM, BUT I WASN'T SURE WHAT, UH, WHAT MECHANISM WE MIGHT USE TO NOTIFY COUNCIL IS THAT AGENDA WORTHY.

DOES IT GO TO AUDIT? DOES IT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT APPROACH MIGHT WE TAKE FOR THAT? BUT I I'M, I'M ON BOARD WITH, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MCNEIL'S IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, LET'S, LET'S, LET'S SEND THIS BACK TO MR. BRADFORD AND, YOU KNOW, HE, HE TOUCHES THESE THINGS QUITE A BIT MORE THAN

[00:40:01]

US, AND IF HE SEES AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO SET POLICY, UH, LET HIM ADVISE US, UH, THAT, UH, UH, WHAT THAT MIGHT BE, I TRUST HIS JUDGMENT AND I TRUST HIS, HIS, UH, HE, HE'S VERY GOOD AT MANAGING HIMSELF AND, AND MAKING SURE THAT HE'S BEHAVING IN AN ETHICAL MANNER.

AND I WOULD CERTAINLY TRUST HIM TO BRING HIS POLICY IDEAS, A MAYOR PRO TEM NICKERSON.

GOOD.

YEAH.

I MEAN, I'M KIND OF SENSING THAT TOO.

AND, AND ALSO I WAS JUST, I SEEN MATS HERE AND I WAS JUST GOING TO REACH OUT AND ASK MATT IF MATT, IF, I GUESS FROM A DONATION STANDPOINT, AND HAVE WE SEEN LARGE, W WHAT'S SORT OF THE LARGE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE SEEN? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD KNOW, BUT, UH, W HOW DO YOU, WHAT'S YOUR SENSE ON THIS FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT AND OPERATIONS STANDPOINT, FROM THE CITY PERSPECTIVE, FOR THE MOST PART, THE DONATIONS WE GET ARE RELATIVELY SMALL AND THEIR GEAR GEARED TOWARDS SUCH THINGS AS THE ANIMAL SHELTER, UH, POLICE, AS BRAD SAID, THEY, THEY GET QUITE A BIT, AND FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE, WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IS PUT THOSE IN ESCROW ACCOUNTS.

IF THERE ARE STRINGS ATTACHED TO THEM, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE ANIMAL SHELTER MAY BE FOR SUPPLYING FOOD OR TO ANIMALS AND WHATNOT.

SO WE ESCROW THOSE AMOUNTS AND ENSURE THAT THEY ARE APPLIED APPROPRIATELY BASED ON WHAT THE DONATION IS REQUIRING.

BUT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THE ONLY LARGE AMOUNT I CAN RECALL IN MY TENURE HERE IS RELATED TO THE TORNADO.

AND I BELIEVE WE UP TO 80,000, BUT I HONESTLY DON'T RECALL AN AMOUNT THAT'S OVER.

YEAH.

YEAH.

OKAY.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND I THINK KIND OF, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS SENSING AS WELL.

AND SO, SO HEARING THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE, I MEAN, I, I'M KIND OF, I'M ALIGNED WITH WHAT YOU GUYS ARE THINKING TOO.

AND IF WE WANT TO PUT A HIGH LIMIT ON IT LIKE THAT, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

SINCE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A HIGH HIGH-FREQUENCY ISSUE, OR IF WE THINK IT'S, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH FREQUENCY OF THAT LEVEL, THEN MAYBE WE JUST DON'T AND WE, WE STAY WITH POLICY.

SO, BUT I'M, I'M OPEN FOR LETTING THE CITY MANAGER COME BACK AND TELL US A LITTLE MORE ABOUT WHAT IS ON MY B.

OKAY.

ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH REFERRAL TO STAFF FOR FOLLOW-UP AND THEN A FINAL DECISION NEXT MONTH? I AM SURE.

VERY GOOD.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S REFERRED BACK TO STAFF.

UH, LET'S SEE.

ITEM

[2.c. Council Policy Review (Review recurring annuallyby policy)]

TWO C COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW.

UH, WE HAVE A, UH, UH, POLICY THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO REVIEW THE POLICY ANNUALLY.

UH, I'VE RECEIVED A COUPLE OF, UH, OF MINOR EDITS, UH, FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MCNEIL.

I'VE GOT ONE, UH, I'D LIKE TO, TO ADD IN IT'S VERY SMALL.

AND THEN BRAD, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO TAKE PORTIONS OF THAT SPORTS FIELD, USE A NONPROFIT STUFF AND ROLL IT INTO COUNCIL POLICY.

IF YOU'RE PLANNING TO DO IT BY ORDINANCE, UH, CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME DIRECTION ON THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD? I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING, UM, THAT NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN INTO COUNCIL POLICY IN THAT REGARD.

UM, NO, AND IT'S SORT OF ROLLED BACKWARDS INTO THE TOPIC WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING.

UM, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS ARE, UM, THAT ARE MAJOR OR ARE MADE AWARE TO, UH, THE, THAT THE CITY MANAGER MAKES COUNCIL AWARE OF SUCH THINGS, BUT I, I AGREE WITH Y'ALL OUR CITY MANAGER.

PRETTY GOOD ABOUT THAT.

UM, THE ONLY THING OUT OF THE FACILITY YOU USE WOULD BE IF YOU WERE TO, UM, DEDICATE, UM, UH, PUT, TO USE A LONG-TERM DEAL THAT, UH, HAD SOME POLITICAL TIES TO, OR POLITICAL OPPOSITION TO, UM, I THINK COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE TOLD ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO RUN OFF AND EXPOSE YOURSELF TO A LOT OF CRITICISM OVER SOMETHING THAT YOU DID AS A CITY MANAGER.

YOU NEED A LATERAL.

OKAY.

OKAY.

UM, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED AMENDED IN THE COUNCIL POLICIES AS THEY ARE TODAY? NO.

YOU MEET IT, SIR? UH, NO, NO.

UH, NO, SIR.

I'M FINE WITH WHAT I SAW THERE RIGHT NOW.

OKAY.

THE ONLY OUT OF MY HEAD, UH, I'D HEARD PERIPHERALLY, UH, WE'VE HAD ABBOTT SOMETIMES IN THE PAST OF, UH, BRINGING AN IDEA FOR A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM AND THEN TELLING STAFF WHAT DATE IT NEEDED TO HAPPEN.

UH, WE THINK WE WANT TO GET AWAY FROM THAT PRACTICE, UH, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, THAT WE REALLY CAN'T DICTATE THOSE TIMELINES.

UM, AND, AND WE, YOU KNOW, BY DICTATING

[00:45:01]

IT PARTICULAR MEETING TIME, UH, WE, WE MIGHT BE PUTTING OUR ISSUES IN FRONT OF OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS ISSUES.

WHO'VE BEEN IN THE PIPELINE QUITE A BIT LONGER.

AND SO THERE WAS ONE REQUEST THAT I HEARD TO MAKE IT A COUNCIL POLICY THAT WE DON'T DICTATE, UM, UH, MEETING DATES FOR PARTICULAR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS TO BE HEARD.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WELL THAT WORKS OUT.

I MEAN, THERE, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE HEARD IN A TIMELY MANNER.

UM, AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A PLACE IN COUNCIL POLICY WHERE WE WANT TO, WHERE WE WANT TO TACKLE THIS, OR IF WE JUST WANT TO LET IT LIE AND, AND LET STAFF PUSHBACK AS NECESSARY, ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTARY, YOU'LL JUST JUMP ON IT.

AND THEN, YEAH, I, I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE.

UM, I WOULD AGREE, UH, MR. CHAIR, UH, OBVIOUSLY, UH, STAFF THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THEIR CALENDAR, THEIR SCHEDULE, AND THEY KNOW, KNOW THOSE TASKS THAT ARE THERE.

AND OBVIOUSLY IF THERE'S SOMETHING MORE TIME THAN THAT HAS TO BE ADDRESSED, THEN IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO, UM, TO WHAT TO JUMP THE LINE.

SO I WOULD, I WOULD ALLOW THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY.

JUST LET IT, LET IT LIE AS THIS.

UH, I THINK SO.

I, I AGREE WITH THAT TOO.

UM, ONCE AGAIN, IT GOES WITH MY SENSE OF STAYING OUT OF THE DETAIL WHERE WE NEED TO, AND LET'S JUST, UH, LET'S JUST REQUEST THAT WE WANT AN ITEM ON THERE.

AND, UH, WE, WE, WE CAN GIVE THAT SENSE OF URGENCY WITHOUT SAYING I GOTTA HAVE IT TOMORROW OR NEXT WEEK.

OKAY.

UH, THEN WHAT WE CAN DO, UH, AT WELL, BEFORE I SAY THAT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT I'VE MISSED THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO SEE ADDED OR REMOVED OR EDITED IN POLICY THAT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED? NO.

OKAY.

UM, I'LL SEND THE RICKY, I'VE GOT YOUR EDITS.

I WILL SEND THOSE OVER TO BRAD, BRAD, IF YOU CAN PROPOSE SOME LANGUAGE THAT REFERS TO WHAT YOU JUST PRESENTED, UH, WE'LL LOOK AT A RED COPY NEXT MEETING, UH, APPROVE IT AND GET IT OVER TO COUNCIL FOR FORMAL ADOPTION.

MAN, WE'RE PUTTING A LOT OF THINGS TO THE NEXT MEETING.

THIS IS, UH, THIS IS RARE FOR ME.

ALL RIGHT.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN KNOCK THIS ONE OUT TODAY.

UH,

[2.d. Senior / Homestead Exemption Rates (Review recurring annually by Policy)]

ITEM TWO D SENIOR AND HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION RATES.

WE ALSO REVIEWED THIS ANNUALLY BY POLICY, UH, JUST, UH, A BIT OF BACKGROUND.

UH, LAST YEAR WE MODIFIED THE SENIOR IN HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION RATES FOR THE FIRST TIME.

AND I, WHAT I BELIEVE WAS ALMOST 20 YEARS.

UM, WE HAVE BEEN SORT OF, SORT OF LETTING THAT OUT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A PANDEMIC ON THE WAY.

AND, UH, THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR I THINK THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO REVENUE CAPS AND THAT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS GOING ON HERE.

UH, BUT LET ME TURN THIS OVER TO, UH, MATTER YOU COVERING THIS ONE THIS WEEK.

YES, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.

IT'S ALL YOURS, SIR.

OKAY.

LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN HERE, EVERYBODY.

SEE THAT SLIDE PRESENTATION.

YEP.

I CAN SEE IT.

UH, JUST REAL QUICK.

I WAS JUST GONNA KIND OF GO OVER, UH, WHERE WE'RE AT NOW WITH HOMESTEAD AND SENIOR, AND THEN JUST KIND OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF MAKING ANY SORT OF ADJUSTMENTS TO EITHER ONE OF THOSE, BOTH FROM A RESIDENT'S PERSPECTIVE AND FROM THE CITY OF GARLANDS, FROM A REVENUE PERSPECTIVE.

SO START WITH THE HOMESTEAD.

UM, AS COUNCILMAN SMITH, UH, ALLUDED TO LAST YEAR, WE INCREASED THE HOMESTEAD OF 10% PREVIOUSLY.

IT WAS AT 8%.

AND I WILL SAY THAT I WENT AND LOOKED AT 16 OTHER CITIES WITHIN THE METROPLEX.

AND 10% IS BASED WHERE THE AVERAGE OF MOST CITIES ARE.

THERE ARE SOME CITIES THAT OFFER UP TO 20%, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE LEGAL HEIGHT THAT YOU CAN GO TO, BUT THOSE CITIES ARE, ARE TYPICALLY CITIES LIKE PLANO AND, UM, IRVING IN CARROLLTON THAT EITHER HAVE A HIGHER AVERAGE, UH, HOUSEHOLD INCOME HOUSEHOLD, UH, TAXABLE VALUES.

AND THEY'RE ABLE TO PERFORM THAT, OR THEY DO NOT OFFER MUCH ON THE SENIOR SIDE, BUT THE AVERAGE OF THE 16 CITIES IS 10%, WHICH IS WHERE THE CITY OF GARLAND IS NOW.

UH, THE MINIMUM EXTENSION IS 5,000.

SO IT, EVEN IF I BELIEVE IF YOU HAD A HOME THAT'S UNDER $62,000, YOU WOULD STILL JUST BE AT THE FLAT 5,000.

YOU WOULDN'T BE CAPPED AT 10%.

ABOUT 66% OF THE HOMES HERE IN GARLAND ARE UNDER A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION RIGHT NOW.

AND AS OF FY 2021, OUR 10% HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, UH, THE CITY OF GARLAND HAS FORGONE $6.1 MILLION, BOTH FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND THE DEBT SERVICE SIDE.

SO FROM THE TOTAL TAX RATE WITH OUR 10% HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, AND THE BIG KICKER HERE IS BOTH FOR SENIOR AND HOMESTEADS, BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS BY JULY 1ST BY ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO HAVE THOSE ACCOUNTED ON OUR NEXT TAX ROLL.

[00:50:04]

OKAY.

REAL QUICK ON THE HOMESTEAD, I JUST KIND OF PICKED SOME, UH, ARBITRARY, UM, HOME VALUES FROM A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS UP TO $400,000 IN JUST TO SHOW WHAT 1%, 2%, 3% ON AN ANNUAL BASIS WE'LL PROVIDE AND SAVINGS TO THESE INDIVIDUALS.

IF WE DO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.

SO YOU SEE FOR 1% INCREASE, UM, A HOME 200,000, WHICH IS ABOUT THE AVERAGE HOME IN GARLAND WOULD SAY ABOUT $15 ANNUALLY.

AND ROUGHLY JUST FROM A QUICK MATH, EACH PERCENTAGE POINT ON A 200,000 HOME IS ROUGHLY $15.

AS YOU CAN SEE IT JUMPS TO 31 AND THEN 46.

SO ON AN AVERAGE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $15 PER 1% INCREASE IN THE HOMESTEAD.

THEN ON THE CITY SIDE, UM, YOU CAN SEE THE FORGONE REVENUE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE UP IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR THE RESIDENTS TO PAY LESS DUE TO THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS.

BUT EACH 1% IT'S ROUGHLY $631,000.

THAT'S BASICALLY SPLIT AT THIS MOMENT BETWEEN OUR OPERATING BUDGET, WHICH IS OUR GENERAL FUND AND OUR DEBT SERVICE.

SO EACH 1% INCREASE IS ROUGHLY $630,000 OF FORGOTTEN REVENUE.

IF WE WERE, IF COUNCIL WERE TO DECIDE TO INCREASE THE HOMESTEAD, OKAY, YOU LOOK AT THE SENIOR EXEMPTION, WE INCREASED THAT $5,000 LAST JULY.

WE PREVIOUSLY WERE AT $51,000, AND IT'S A FLAT FEE.

IT'S NOT A PERCENTAGE BASE JUST FLAT OFF THE TOP OF YOUR, A MARKET VALUE.

WE INCREASED THAT TO $56,000 AGAIN.

AND TO QUALIFY, YOU GOTTA BE 65 AND OLDER ABOUT 24% OF OUR RESIDENTS OF GARLAND QUALIFY FOR THE SENIOR EXEMPTION.

AND A ONE COMPONENT THAT IS, IS INTERESTING WITH THE SENIOR EXEMPTION IS OUR COMMUNITY IS GETTING OLDER.

AND ON AVERAGE, THIS INCREASES ABOUT 4% EACH YEAR.

UH, AS I SAID, FYI, 17, 18, THAT'S A TYPO THAT SHOULD BE 2021.

WE FORGOT WENT FORGONE $6.3 MILLION IN REVENUE WITH THE $56,000 EXEMPTION.

AND BACK TO MY, UH, KIND OF ANALYSIS OF THE OTHER METROPLEX CITIES OF THE 16, THE AVERAGE IS ABOUT 61,000.

HOWEVER, THERE'S TWO CITIES THAT HAVE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER 65 EXEMPTIONS, AND THAT IS RICHARDSON.

AND THAT IS THE CITY OF DALLAS.

IF YOU BACK THOSE TWO OUT, THE AVERAGE IS STRANGELY 56,000.

UM, RICHARDSON HAS A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OVER 65 BECAUSE THEY DON'T OFFER A HOMESTEAD PERIOD.

SO THERE IS NO HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, BUT THEY KIND OF PUT ALL THEIR EGGS IN ONE BASKET WITH THEIR SENIORS.

DALLAS OFFERS A 20% HOMESTEAD AND A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS EXEMPTION FOR SENIORS.

BUT LIKE I SAID, IF YOU BACK THOSE TWO KIND OF, UH, THAT ARE SKEWING THE AVERAGE OUT, THE AVERAGE IS 56,000, WHICH IS STRANGELY RIGHT ON TOP OF WHERE THE CITY OF GARLAND IS.

AND AGAIN, SENIOR EXEMPTION MUCH LIKE THE HOMESTEAD JULY 1ST IS OUR DEADLINE IN ORDER TO GET THAT INTO OUR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET AND TAX ROLLS WITH THE SENIORS.

I JUST WANTED TO SHOW INCREASE IN THAT $2,000, UH, EACH POP, WHAT, WHAT THE SAVINGS WOULD BE TO A SENIOR.

SO OF COURSE, ON TOP OF THIS, THE HOMESTEAD, IF YOU WANTED TO DO A CONJUNCTION OF HOMESTEAD AND SENIOR, THEY WOULD GET THE HOMESTEAD PORTION, THEN THEY WOULD GET THIS ON TOP OF IT.

SO IT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT $15 PER A $2,000 OF INCREASING THE SENIOR EXEMPTION PER YEAR THAT A SENIOR WOULD SAVE IN TAXES.

AND AS FAR AS THE CITY OF GARLANDS LOST REVENUE, IT'S ABOUT $225,000 FOR EVERY TWO, $2,000 INCREASE IN SENIOR EXEMPTIONS.

LET ME UNSHARE MY SCREEN.

AND COUNCILMAN SMITH ALSO TALKED ABOUT, UM, THE, THERE IS IMPACTS OF SB TWO THAT WILL BE FELT ON TOP OF THIS.

UH, WE KIND OF HAD A, UH, MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF, UH, HOW THIS IMPACTS LAST YEAR WITH ON TOP OF THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT.

HOWEVER, W THIS WOULD WORK IS IF WE GET CAPPED AT THREE AND A HALF AND SAY, IT'S A 5% INCREASE THAT WE GET WE'RE CAPPED AT THREE AND A HALF.

THESE LOSSES IN REVENUE WOULD BE PUT ON TOP OF THAT, BECAUSE THE WAY, UH, THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE IS REQUIRING US TO CALCULATE IT, WE BASICALLY HAVE TO CALCULATE ANY LOSS REVENUE THAT WE, THAT WE PUT ON THE ROLES THIS YEAR.

WE HAVE TO PUT IN THE DENOMINATOR OF LAST YEAR AS WELL.

SO IT WASHES OUT.

SO IT'S ON TOP OF THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT CAP.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR, UM, UH, BE HAPPY TO RESEARCH ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

[00:55:07]

I THINK MATT, CAN I SAY THE, THE, THE, THE BREAKDOWN BEFORE THE SENIOR EXEMPTION SLIDE WITH THE PERCENTAGES FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC? CORRECT.

JUST SAY IT ONE MORE TIME, PLEASE.

THIS SLIDE HERE ON THE HOMESTEAD.

UM, UM, YOU'RE NOT, WE'LL JUST SAY AGAIN.

I'M SORRY.

THERE WE GO.

YES, THAT ONE.

THANK YOU.

SO ROUGHLY 630,000 PER YEAH.

OKAY.

GOTCHA.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, SIR.

AND MATT, COULD YOU, UM, THROW THIS IN THE ASC BOX AFTER THAT MEETING? YES, SIR.

OKAY.

THANK YOU, SIR.

UM, I WILL TELL YOU GUYS THAT, UM, AND, AND NOT SPEAK FOR THE MAYOR PRO TEM, BUT I KNOW THAT WE VOTED FOR SENIOR EXEMPTION INCREASES FROM OUR TIME FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE IN 2017 ALL THE WAY THROUGH LAST YEAR.

AND WE DID FINALLY GET THAT EXEMPTION IN LAST YEAR, BUT, UH, MAYOR PRETEND, GO AHEAD, SIR.

WELL, YOU KIND OF, YOU TOUCHED RON, UM, YOU TOUCHED RIGHT ON WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY AS WELL.

YOU KNOW, WE WENT UP 2% LAST YEAR.

AND SO IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE, MATH THAT YOU JUST SHOW WE FOR THE, UH, I THINK THAT'S THE HOMESTEAD.

I APOLOGIZE.

I NEED TO JUST LEAVE THIS OPEN.

WELL, I GUESS MY POINT WAS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE'VE, AS THE CHAIR JUST MENTIONED, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SEVERAL YEARS TO TRY TO GET THE EXEMPTION, UM, INCREASED.

AND WE DID THAT, AND I THINK THAT, UM, AND WE ALSO AFFECTED WHAT WE DID WITH THE SENIOR EXEMPTION TOO.

SO KNOWING WHAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT HOW THE CAPS ARE GOING TO AFFECT US AND WHAT ELSE WE'RE DEALING WITH AS WE COME OUT OF OUR 2020 CENSUS AND WHAT THE DEMOGRAPHICS BEGIN TO SHOW US, UH, AT OUR LEVEL AT MEDIAN INCOME LEVELS, UM, I'M LEERY REALLY OF MAKING ANY CHANGES AT THIS POINT, UM, UNTIL WE MAYBE GET A BETTER FEEL FOR HOW THAT'S GOING TO GO, UH, JUST AS A GENERAL RULE.

SO, I MEAN, I, AND I THINK WE'VE, WE, UH, AS A COUNCIL, WE, WE, SINCE THE, THE NEED, UH, AND HAVE FOR SOME TIME TO INCREASE THESE, WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT.

AND, UM, I THINK THAT WAS A VERY GOOD THING FOR EVERYBODY, AS WE ALL GET CALLS FROM FOLKS ABOUT TAXES AND TAX LEVELS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

SO, I MEAN, MY OPINION AT THIS POINT, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING I'M MISSING, I'M KIND OF THINKING WE SHOULD, UH, WE SHOULD STAY WHERE WE ARE ON THIS YEAR AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN NEXT YEAR.

SO IT'S KINDA MY THOUGHT, AND I APPRECIATE PUTTING THAT BACK UP, MATT, THANK YOU.

NO PROBLEM.

UH, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ALSO, UM, UH, OR LOOKING AT IN THE LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, UH, THERE'S A, A HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE STARTING TO DISCUSS AND POTENTIALLY PUSH THROUGH THAT LIMITS.

UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A 10% INCREASE IN VALUATION CAP, CONSTITUTIONALLY ON PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE LOOKING AT LOWERING THAT POTENTIALLY TO 5%.

SO WE'VE GOT THAT TO DEAL WITH.

I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO TIGHTEN THE SCREWS ON US ON REV CAPS AGAIN, AND MAYBE EVEN, UH, AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO ISSUE PSYCHOS.

UH, WE OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT THE TOTAL DESTABILIZATION IN THE ECONOMY FROM, FROM COVID AND I, AND I, I WILL ADD TO IT THAT I'M VERY, VERY RETICENT TO, TO MAKE ANOTHER CHANGE IN OUR TAXATION LEVELS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS BY JULY ONE, UH, THANKS TO THE TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE CALENDAR THEY'VE PUT TOGETHER AN SB TWO.

WE DON'T FIND OUT WHAT OUR OFFICIAL PROPERTY VALUES ARE UNTIL JULY 25TH.

AND SO THAT'S ONCE AGAIN, ONE OF THOSE TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT THEY REFUSE TO ADDRESS, UH, LAST YEAR WHEN WE BEGGED THEM TO, OR LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

SO I PERSONALLY, I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO ADJUST THESE VALUES, WE'LL WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR, UH, GET OUT OF THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, SEE WHAT THE MESS IS THAT THEY'VE CREATED FOR US.

UH, HOPEFULLY GET SOME STABILITY IN THE ECONOMY AND THEN, AND THEN TACKLE THIS AGAIN.

THAT'S A, THOSE ARE MY 2 CENTS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER.

NEIL, DO YOU HAVE A, UH, POSITION BEFORE WE

[01:00:01]

PASS A RECOMMENDATION FORWARD TO COUNCIL OR NO, I DEFINITELY WITH BOTH YOU AS WELL AS COUNCILMAN NICKERSON, I CONCUR.

OKAY.

UM, ALL, UH, WELL, I GUESS WE'LL TAKE A MOTION.

GO AHEAD.

GO AHEAD, NICHOLAS.

OKAY.

SURE.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UH, KEEP THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN THE SENIOR RATE, UM, RE UH, LEVEL OF TAXATION AT THE SAME FOR THIS NEXT YEAR AS IT IS NOW SECOND.

OKAY.

WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR NO CHANGE ON THE HOMESTEAD AND SENIOR EXEMPTIONS FOR THIS TAX YEAR.

UM, WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MCNEIL, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, AYE.

AND HEARING NONE OPPOSED THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

UM, MR. WATSON, WE'LL SEND THAT BACK TO COUNCIL WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR NO ACTION.

YES, SIR.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, THE LAST

[2.e. Reporting on Items Pending in Committee(s) (Aubin)]

ITEM, AND I'LL MAKE THIS AS QUICK AS I CAN.

UH, WE HAD A REQUEST FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ROBYN, UH, FOR US TO DISCUSS REPORTING OF ITEMS THAT ARE PENDING OR THAT THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN REFERRED INTO COMMITTEE.

UH, HIS, UH, HIS IDEA WAS THAT WE HAVE A ONE PAGER AND OUR WORK SESSION AGENDA THAT SAYS LIST THE ITEMS IN COMMITTEE AND THE ITEMS, UH, ARE AND HOW THEY WERE REFERRED INTO COMMITTEE.

UH, NOT MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY HOW, BUT WHO, YOU KNOW, WHO'S SPONSORING THESE REFERRALS.

UH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT ON ITS FACE.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?