[3. Consider Approving a Resolution of Intent to Establish a City of Garland Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program and set a Public Hearing]

CONSIDER APPROVING A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ESTABLISH A CITY OF GARLAND PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY OR PACE PROGRAM AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING. ITEM NUMBER FOUR RESOLUTION

[4. Resolution Confirming the Appointment of Civil Service Commissioners and Recognizing Staggered Terms of Office]

CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS AND RECOGNIZING STAGGERED TERMS OF OFFICE. AND MR. CITY ATTORNEY HAS A BRIEF MESSAGE ON THIS ITEM. MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL, I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A GOOD HOLIDAY WEEKEND. I'VE BEEN ACTING LIKE IT'S MONDAY ALL DAY.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT Y'ALL. IN 1958, MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE THE CITY OF GARLAND BECAME A CIVIL SERVICE CITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, MEANING THAT OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND OUR POLICE OFFICERS OBTAIN CIVILIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS. AND ALONG WITH THAT, THERE ARE CERTAIN PROCEDURAL ITEMS THAT WERE REQUIRED FROM THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. WHEN WE INITIALLY ESTABLISHED OUR CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IN 1958, WE HAD STAGGERED TERMS. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THROUGH MY RESEARCH THAT ACTUALLY WASN'T REQUIRED BY THE STATE LAW AT THE TIME, BUT WE HAD DONE IT ANYWAY. IT WASN'T UNTIL 1987 WHEN THE LEGISLATURE PASSED SECTION 143 .00006 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. DID THEY ESTABLISH STAGGERED TERMS? AND BASICALLY WHAT THEY SAID WAS EACH YEAR YOU WOULD HAVE ONE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER FALL OFF, AND EACH CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER WILL SERVE A THREE YEAR TERM. AND WE DID THAT UP UNTIL ACTUALLY WE DID THAT AT SOME POINT BETWEEN 1958 AND 1987, WHEN THE LAW WAS PASSED STATEWIDE, WE HAD ALREADY STARTED TO SEE WHERE OUR STAGGERED TERMS HAD STARTED TO GO AWAY BECAUSE OF PEOPLE RESIGNING EARLY OR NOT FINISHING THEIR TERM FOR WHATEVER REASON. AND SO BY THE TIME WE GOT TO 1987, OUR TERMS WERE NO LONGER STAGGERED. WE REESTABLISHED STAGGERED TERMS. SO ABOUT 1990, AND IT STAYED THAT WAY UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 1995, THE BEST I COULD TELL. AND THEN IN 1997, TWO COMMISSIONERS WERE SWORN IN AT THE SAME TIME, AND THEY WERE BOTH SWORN IN FOR THREE YEAR TERMS. AND WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED IS THEIR SEAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SWORN IN FOR WHATEVER WAS LEFT FOR THEIR TERM. BUT IT WASN'T. AND THEN AS TIME PASSED ON, BETWEEN 1997 UP UNTIL 2023, THAT SAME, THAT SAME THING HAPPENED SEVERAL DIFFERENT TIMES. SO WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS WE HAVE THREE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE BEEN SWORN IN AND ARE LAWFULLY IN OFFICE, AND THEY WERE SWORN IN IN 2023. AND SO THE ITEM THAT'S ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS A WAY TO STAGGER THEIR TERMS, TO BRING US INTO COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 143 .006 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. NOW, I HAVE GOOD NEWS IN ALL THAT. YES, TECHNICALLY WE ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 143

[00:10:06]

.006. HOWEVER, THE STATE CONSTITUTION IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE ACTS AS A SAFETY NET AND THAT IS ALL. ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH HOLDOVER PROVISIONS. AND SO ARTICLE 16, SECTION 17 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION BASICALLY SAYS, WELL, IT REQUIRES OFFICERS OF THE STATE TO CONTINUE TO SERVE IN THEIR POSITION UNTIL THEIR SUCCESSOR QUALIFIES. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS UNTIL THEIR SUCCESSOR IS SWORN IN. WE HAVEN'T HAD A PERIOD OF TIME IN GARLAND'S HISTORY THAT I'M AWARE OF WHERE WE'VE HAD CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS IMPROPERLY, UNQUALIFIED AND IMPROPERLY SWORN IN. SO WE'VE BEEN COVERED BECAUSE OF THE HOLDOVER PROVISIONS. HOWEVER, WE HAVE NOT, IN THIS SENSE BEEN COVERED BY SECTION 143. LUCKILY, AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE CONSTITUTION PREEMPTS OVER CODE. AND SO AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, IF COUNCIL DECIDED NOT TO VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION OR THIS RESOLUTION TO BRING US BACK INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE STAGGERED TERMS, WE WOULD BE FINE LEGALLY AGAIN, THE HOLDOVER PROVISIONS COVER US AND WE COULD AS THESE PARTICULAR COMMISSIONERS, AS THEIR TERMS EXPIRE IN 2026, WE COULD STAGGER THE TERMS AT THAT POINT WHEN ONE OF THEM FELL OFF.

WE'LL GIVE THEM A THREE YEAR TERM, THE NEXT PERSON, A THREE YEAR, NEXT ONE, A TWO, AND NEXT YEAR A ONE. AND WE COULD GET THEM BACK IN ORDER THAT WAY. THIS WAY WE'RE DOING WE'RE PULLING THE BAND-AID OFF, AND WE'RE DOING IT ALL AT ONCE, AND IT'S GOING TO BRING US INTO COMPLIANCE FASTER, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR SIX YEARS TO GET BACK IN COMPLIANCE. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMEMBER MOORE? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION, SIR? I RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL PASS THE ORDINANCE. THE RESOLUTION, JUST SO THAT WE CAN GET BACK INTO COMPLIANCE WITH 143 .006 FASTER. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS GOING TO BE A BRIEF MESSAGE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY.

AND. I'D LOVE TO TALK. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON THEN. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, CONSIDER APPROVING

[5. Consider Approving "Clean-up" Amendments to the Garland Development Code]

[6. "Clean-up" Amendments to the Code of Ordinances]

CLEANUP AMENDMENTS TO THE GARLAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS CLEANUP AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. ITEM SEVEN IS ATMOS RATE REVIEW MECHANISM

[7. Atmos Rate Review Mechanism Settlement]

[8. Investment Portfolio Report]

SETTLEMENT. NUMBER EIGHT INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REPORT. ITEM NINE FISCAL YEAR 20 2526.

[9. FY 2025-26 Civil Service Classifications and Compensation Ordinance]

CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATIONS AND COMPENSATION ORDINANCE. ALL RIGHT, WITH NO QUESTIONS. THEN

[10. Discuss & Provide Final Direction on the FY 2025-26 Proposed Annual Operating Budget]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR VERBAL BRIEFINGS. FIRST ITEM IS ITEM TEN. DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE FY 2526 PROPOSED ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. I AM NOT CARRYING A BIG BINDER AROUND ANYMORE. I SEE IT MUST BE NEAR THE END.

I'VE GONE DIGITAL THIS YEAR. I'M GIVING IT A TRY. SO EVERYTHING'S ON THIS LAPTOP OR HOPEFULLY UP HERE. I DO HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION JUST TO RECAP THE PROPOSED BUDGET PROCESS AND WHAT WE'RE SEEKING ADOPTION FOR TONIGHT, AND THEN I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR ANY COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND FINAL DIRECTION. SO AS PART OF THE FY 2526 PROPOSED BUDGET, WE ARE PROPOSING A CONSOLIDATED BUDGET OF 1.1 BILLION. THIS IS INCLUSION OF OUR GENERAL FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND, UTILITY FUNDS, OTHER ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND OUR GRANT FUNDS. THE FY 26 PROPOSED BUDGET ALSO INCLUDES A PROPOSED GENERAL FUND OF 257.2 MILLION, AN INCREASE OF 10.3 MILLION OVER THE PRIOR YEAR. AS PART OF OUR OVERALL BUDGET PROCESS, WE PRESENTED THE BUDGET TO CITY COUNCIL AT THE BEGINNING OF AUGUST, HAD DISCUSSIONS ON AUGUST 16TH AND 18TH, AN INITIAL PUBLIC HEARING ON AUGUST 19TH, AND THEN WE ARE HERERE BEFORE U TONIGHT FOR A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING. AS WELL AS SEEKING ADOPTION IN ANY FINAL DIRECTION. FOR SOME UPCOMINGNG ACTIONS AT THE REGULR MEETING AT 7 P.M. WILL BE CONSIDER A VARIETY OF ORDINANCE ORDINANCES RELATED TO THE BUDGET PROCESS. FOLLOWING TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS, A FINAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE, AND A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET, WE WILL BE ASKING THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADOPTING A CIVIL SERVICE ORDINANCE RATIFYING PROPERTY TAX REVENUE PROPOSED WITHIN THIS BUDGET, APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET, APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TAX RATE, AND THEN FINALLY APPROVING AN ORDINANCE FOR ANY

[00:15:01]

RATE AND FEE CHANGES THAT WERE PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED ALONGSIDE THE BUDGET BEFORE YOU.

AND WITH THAT, WE'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR FINAL DIRECTION. COUNCIL, READ THE BUDGET.

YOU'VE HAD A MONTH TO GO OVER IT. IT'S YOUR LAST CHANCE. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS. GOOD EVENING. GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. I THOUGHT YOU WERE GONE. OKAY. HAVE YOU EVER. I SAW YOUR LAST ONE QUESTION. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY ANY SUBSEQUENT INQUIRIES OR OR PENDING RESPONSES FROM THE COUNCIL ON THIS BUDGET? YES. WE RECEIVED ONE QUESTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER DUTTON, ALTHOUGH I IT WAS MORE OF RELATED TO SOME OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO THE AGENDA. IT WAS ESSENTIALLY, IN SUMMARY, ASKING IF WE WERE ELIMINATED A PROJECT FROM THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OR FROM BEING CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. WOULD THAT FREE UP FUNDING FOR ANY MERIT INCREASES IN THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET? AND ESSENTIALLY, THE RESPONSE SUMMARIZED THAT THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE IS SEPARATE FROM THE O&M TAX RATE, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE TAX RATE, WHICH FUNDS THE GENERAL FUND. THE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE CANNOT BE USED TO FUND ANY PERSONNEL OR SALARY COSTS. SO AT THIS POINT, THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT MOVE TO INCREASE THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE TAX RATE, WHICH FUNDS THE GENERAL FUND. THE DEADLINE TO TAKE THAT TO THE VOTERS WAS ON AUGUST 18TH. TO HAVE THAT CONSIDERED FOR THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER OF 2025, AND THAT CITY MANAGEMENT AND STAFF WILL BE BRINGING A PROPOSAL EARLY NEXT SPRING ON A REALIGNMENT OF THE DEBT SERVICE AND THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE TAX RATE TO FIND SOME FINANCIAL STABILITY FOR THE GENERAL FUND LONG TERM, AND TO RESTORE AND HAVE A LONG TERM PLAN IN TERMS OF EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION AND HOW THAT IS SUSTAINABLE. AND I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE CITY MANAGER IF HE NEEDED TO ADD ANYTHING. AND SO THAT THAT WITH THAT, THAT CLOSES THE DOOR ON THE BUDGET QUESTIONS, THE ISSUES THAT WERE OUT THERE. RIGHT? YES, SIR. RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALLISON AND MATT. RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON OUR BUDGET? WE'RE ABOUT TO ADOPT AN HOUR AND 40 MINUTES, I SEE NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

[11. Amendments to Chapters 26 and 32 of the Code of Ordinances - Short-Term Rentals]

MOVE ON, THEN, TO ITEM 11, AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 26 AND 32 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING SHORT TERM RENTALS. IT'S NOT OFTEN YOU'LL GET TO HEAR ME FROM ME TWICE IN ONE MEETING. IT'S OUR PRIVILEGE. YEAH. SO LOOKING. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AT THE AUGUST 18TH WORK SESSION MEETING REGARDING STRS, OR ALSO KNOWN AS SHORT TERM RENTALS. Y'ALL SENT ME AWAY AFTER THE LAST MEETING WITH SOME RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS TO MY SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS. AND SO I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU ALL TO SHOW Y'ALL WHAT Y'ALL RECOMMENDED THAT I CHANGE. AND THEN I'M ALSO GOING TO GO BACK OVER THE ENTIRETY OF WHAT'S ALL CHANGING FROM WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS VERSUS WHAT WOULD BE ON THE BOOKS IF Y'ALL WERE TO APPROVE THIS. SO AFTER THE LAST MEETING, Y'ALL SENT ME AWAY AND AND ASKED ME TO DO SEVERAL THINGS. ONE IS TO PROVIDE IN THERE A PROVISION THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT AS AN STR OWNER, THAT YOU SUBMIT A FLOOR PLAN AND GET THAT FLOOR PLAN APPROVED PRIOR TO SUBMITTING IT. AND SO. IF YOU ANTHAT'S GOING TO BE ON A, YOU'LL SUBMIT IT WHEN YOU GET YOUR PERMIT THE FIRST TIME, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ANNUAL INSPECTION. YOU'LL SEE THAT'S ON THERE AS WELL. AND IF THERE'S DEVIATIONS AFTER THAT FIRST FLOOR PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FROM THAT FLOOR PLAN THAT WERE NOT APPROVED OR PERMITTED, IT COULD RESULT IN A REVOCATION OF YOUR PERMIT. IN FACT, IT SAYS IN THERE THAT IT WILL BE REVOKED IF THERE ARE DEVIATIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PERMITTED. ALSO, THAT INTERIOR INSPECTION IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED. SO ONCE THEY SUBMIT A PERMIT TO STAFF, STAFF WILL TAKE THAT. I MEAN, SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO STAFF, THEY'LL TAKE THAT FLOOR PLAN AND ACTUALLY GO INTO THE HOUSE BEFORE THEY ISSUE THE PERMIT AND DO AN INSPECTION TO MAKE SURE IT MATCHES UP ON THE INITIAL PERMIT. AND THEN, OF COURSE, EACH YEAR THEY'LL DO THAT SAME PROCESS. ALSO, YOU ASK THAT WE CHANGE THE VIOLATIONS. AND SO CURRENTLY IF

[00:20:02]

THERE ARE THREE VIOLATIONS, CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS WITHIN SIX MONTHS, IT CAN RESULT IN A SUSPENSION. AND SOMETIMES IN CERTAIN CASES REVOCATION. YOU'LL ASK TO MOVE THAT TO A YEAR. AND SO I CHANGED THAT TO WHERE THE VIOLATION PERIOD IS NOW A YEAR INSTEAD OF SIX MONTHS. ALSO, SEVERAL OF Y'ALL POINTED OUT THAT OUR PERMIT FEES, WHICH WERE $50, CLEARLY WERE NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO COVER THE COST OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS PROGRAM. AND THAT'S CERTAINLY TRUE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ADDED ANNUAL INSPECTIONS. AND SO I PUT IN THERE, AT MINIMUM, A PERMIT FEE OF $500. AND THAT'S JUST TO COVER THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING. WHEN WE ADD FEES TO ANYTHING, IT CAN'T BE MORE THAN WHAT IT COSTS FOR US TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM. WE'RE NOT A FOR PROFIT ENTITY. AND THEN ALSO HIGHER MINIMUM INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. AND I PLACED IN THERE, AS YOU'LL SEE IN THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, UP TO $1 MILLION PER EVENT. AND THEN I THINK IT WAS 250,000 PER PERSON. AND THEN ALSO, AS YOU ALL RECALL, WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS. AND I MADE SOME SOME VERY SLIGHT TWEAKS TO MY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS. AND I'LL GO OVER THOSE NEXT. SO THESE ARE THE CHANGES THAT I'VE MADE SINCE THE LAST TIME WE DISCUSSED THIS A FEW WEEKS AGO FROM THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THOSE CHANGES. IF YOU RECALL, THERE'S WE ADDED IN THERE NO ON STREET PARKING. THAT'S FOR ANYBODY. WHETHER YOU'RE ON A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT OR NOT, A MINIMUM STAY OF 48 HOURS IN YOUR IN THEIR AGREEMENTS. AND THEN OF COURSE, WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS FOR THE BAD ACTORS, FOR THOSE THAT HAVE VIOLATED THE CODE OF ORDINANCES MORE THAN THREE TIMES IN 12 MONTHS, THE FIRST TIME AROUND, THEY'RE GOING TO PUT OCCUPANT. WE'RE GOING TO PUT OCCUPANCY LIMITS OF TEN PEOPLE OR TWO PERSONS PER BEDROOM, WHICHEVER IS LESS. ALSO, A PROHIBITION ON OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES BETWEEN 9 P.M. AND 9 A.M. INSTALLATION OF OUTDOOR NOISE SENSORS, LIMITATION ON TRASH OR DEBRIS, AND THEN A 24 MONTH REVOCATION AVAILABLE FOR THREE OR MORE VIOLATION OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. ARE THERE ANY ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. BRIAN, I'M STILL A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, THIS BILL OR THIS ORDINANCE.

HELP ME WITH THE. QUESTION OF WE ARE AT THIS POINT IDENTIFYING THINGS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE TO DO, THAT NORMAL HOME OWNERS WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO. AND BASED ON SOME OF THE READING THAT I'VE BEEN DOING, IT APPEARS THAT WHEN WE DO THIS, IT OPENS US UP TO LITIGATION, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO WHERE THE STATE LEGISLATORS ARE AND TO SOME COURT CASES. THIS THIS RESOLUTION WITH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE'RE PUTTING INTO IT PRESENTLY, HOW DOES THAT SET US UP IN, IN THE WAY OF LITIGATION AS IT AS IT RELATES TO WHAT A NORMAL HOMEOWNER WOULD HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO ASSURE THAT THEY ARE COMPLYING WITH EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES. AS I'VE AS I'VE SAID REPEATEDLY OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, PROBABLY EVEN SIX YEARS SINCE 2019, ANY REGULATION THAT WE DO BRINGS WITH IT RISK. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE REASON IS, IS THE SUPREME COURT HAS NOT BEEN DOING US ANY FAVORS AS A CITY. THEY REFUSE TO GIVE US DIRECTION ON WHAT IS ACTUALLY LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL AS FAR AS REGULATION GOES. BECAUSE YOU'RE CORRECT. YOU START READING CASE LAW OUT OF THE AUSTIN COURT OF APPEALS, AND THEY MAKE A POINT OF EMPHASIS TO SAY THAT THESE TYPE OF LEASES, THESE SHORT TERM LEASES, ARE MORE LIKE RESIDENTIAL USES THAN THEY ARE COMMERCIAL USES. BUT YOU GO TO THE COURT, FORT WORTH COURT OF APPEAL, AND THEY KIND OF INDICATE OTHERWISE THAT, YES, WE ARE RESTRICTED IN SOME WAYS. WE CAN'T RESTRICT THEM, BUT WE ARE THERE ARE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A A LONG TERM OCCUPANT AND A SHORT TERM OCCUPANT IN THAT WHEN YOU'RE TRANSITORY, YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE PROPERTY DIFFERENTLY AND TREAT IT DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO OBLIGATION RELATED TO MAINTENANCE AND TO UPKEEP, AND TO ALSO BEING NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY. AND YOU HAVE NO SOCIAL EXPECTATION WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE YOU DON'T SEE YOUR NEIGHBORS EVERY DAY. AND SO THERE'S THIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT A TRANSITORY OCCUPANT IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN A, A LONG TERM OCCUPANT. AND SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, ARE WE MORE AT RISK WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT I'VE OUTLINED TODAY THAN WE WERE THAN WE ARE CURRENTLY? YES,

[00:25:05]

WE ALSO ARE MORE AT RISK WHEN WE WHEN Y'ALL PASS THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAN WE WERE BEFORE THEN, BECAUSE WE WERE PROVIDING SOME RESTRICTIONS, RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE CONSERVATIVE, BUT YET THEY BROUGHT A HIGHER RISK. AND SO REALLY IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS THIS COUNCIL'S RISK APPETITE? WHAT IS THEIR APPETITE FOR RISK? AND AS I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH A COUPLE OF Y'ALL, 2 OR 3 OF Y'ALL, I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS ISN'T BRIAN ENGLAND'S APPETITE FOR RISK. MY GOAL IS Y'ALL'S REPRESENTATIVE IS TO REFLECT WHAT Y'ALL'S APPETITE FOR RISK IS. AND SO I TYPICALLY WILL COME TO YOU WITH THE MORE RISK ADVERSE PLAN BECAUSE I LOOK AT LITIGATION AND I WORRY ABOUT LITIGATION. BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S MY JOB TO REPRESENT WHAT YOU ALL WANT TO DO. AND IF I NEED TO PUT ON MY BIG BOY PANTS, THEN I'LL PUT ON MY BIG BOY PANTS AND TAKE AS MUCH RISK AS YOU WOULD LIKE, RIGHT IN THE WAY OF HOMES THAT WE HAVE HAD PROBLEMS WITH, SAY, IN THE PAST YEAR, HOW MANY HOMES WOULD YOU SAY THAT WE HAVE REALLY HAD A PROBLEM IN THE WAY OF THESE VIOLATIONS? FROM TALKING WITH THE CHIEF, THERE'S BEEN ONE THAT'S BEEN CONSISTENT. AND BY CONSISTENT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS CALLED ON MOST WEEKS, AT LEAST ONCE AS FAR AS FINDING VIOLATIONS AFTER THEY CALL. THAT'S DIFFERENT, OF COURSE, BECAUSE WHEN A NEIGHBORHOOD OR A NEIGHBOR CALLS ON A NEIGHBOR, OFTENTIMES THE VIOLATION IS OCCURRING BY THE TIME, BUT BY THE TIME THE POLICE ARRIVE, WHICH, BECAUSE IT'S A LOW PRIORITY CALL, ESPECIALLY ON WEEKENDS WHEN THEY'RE DOING REAL LIFE SAVING, ANSWERING CALLS THAT ARE REALLY LIFE SAVING IN NATURE BY THE TIME THEY GET THERE, AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF LATER, SOMETIMES THOSE NOISE VIOLATIONS ARE NO LONGER OCCURRING. SO IT'S A DIFFICULT. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, THE ONE THAT THERE'S ONE THAT WE'RE CONSISTENTLY BEING CALLED OUT ON, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE VARIOUS OTHER ONES, BUT THERE'S NOTHING BEING CONSISTENT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS ON OTHER PROPERTIES. SO BECAUSE OF ONE, NO MORE THAN FIVE HOMES, WE ARE ABOUT TO. PLACE UPON OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT THE POTENTIAL OF LITIGATION MITIGATION AS IT RELATES TO ESPECIALLY WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THE WEB WITH THE COURTS, IS SAYING AS IT RELATES TO THESE TYPE OF RESTRICTIONS AND ON OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE WAY OF ENFORCEMENT, SO ON AND SO FORTH. BUT WE ALREADY HAVE THESE RULES THAT PROHIBIT SUCH THINGS AS NOISE, PROHIBIT SUCH THINGS AS TRAFFIC, PARKING. WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE ON THE BOOKS, BUT BECAUSE OF ONE OR MORE THAN FIVE HOMES, WE'RE GETTING READY TO PUT AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE THAT IS SUBJECT TO BRING ABOUT MORE LITIGATION, AM I CORRECT? THAT'S YOU COULD FRAME IT THAT WAY. THERE ARE SOME THESE ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THE PARKING, OF COURSE. YES. THESE ARE. YES. RIGHT. THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR OVERALL COMMENT. AND YES, IT IS TRUE THAT WE'VE HAD ONE REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BAD ACTOR IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO, BUT WE HAVE IN YEARS PAST HAVE OTHER BAD ACTORS. IT JUST HASN'T. AS I'VE MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, THE MARKET THAT IS VRBO AND ALSO AIRBNB HAVE DONE A LOT WITH THEIR OWN RULES TO HELP OUT WITH THESE PARTY HOUSES, AND IT'S BEEN SOMEWHAT EFFECTIVE. BUT YET, YOU KNOW, IT'S EASY TO, I GUESS, TO SAY ON ON ONE SIDE EXACTLY HOW YOU ARTICULATE IT, WHICH WAS REALLY, REALLY GOOD. BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS IF YOU'RE IN A NEIGHBOR, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S DEALING WITH ONE HOUSE, IT CAN BE REALLY, REALLY DISRUPTIVE. SO, SO A REGULAR HOMEOWNER DOESN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE LIMIT OF TEN PEOPLE. TWO PERSONS PER BEDROOM WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH ACTIVITY BETWEEN 9 AND 9 A.M. WOULDN'T HAVE TO A REGULAR HOUSEHOLD WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT. BUT. THIS SCR WOULD, RIGHT? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU SIR. COUNCIL MEMBER BASS, THANK YOU. AND I KNOW, I KNOW, BRIAN'S JUST BRINGING THIS TO US TODAY TO SHOW US THE CHANGES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME. AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS QUITE A BIT, BUT JUST TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS JUST HAD, IT ISN'T JUST ONE HOME. I HAVE THREE IN MY DISTRICT ALONE THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT OUT, THREE BEDROOM HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT OUT TO TEN BEDROOMS. WE DO HAVE OCCUPANCY LIMITS ON RESIDENTIAL HOMES, AND YOU KNOW, WHEN SOMEONE IS WHEN SOMEONE IS TWISTING THE TWISTING THE LAW TO THEIR ADVANTAGE, WE NEED TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO, TO TO CORRECT THAT. AND CHANGING THE AND THIS CHANGE ON THIS SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS FOR THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. THIS ISN'T FOR EVERY SHORT TERM RENTAL. THIS IS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE THREE VIOLATIONS

[00:30:02]

IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD OR SOME OTHER REASON THAT THEY'RE NOT ACTING PROPERLY TO FORCE TO FORCE A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. SO FOR THOSE WHO DON'T DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, WE'RE GOING TO PUT MORE RESTRICTIONS ON THEM TO TRY TO MAKE THEM DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. AND YEAH, AND IF YOU LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ONE OF THESE HOMES, THAT'S IN VIOLATION. IT MAKES YOUR LIFE A LIVING HELL. BECAUSE, AGAIN, THESE ARE PEOPLE DOING A COMMERCIAL, RUNNING A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, A HOTEL AND A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T CARE IF THE STATE SAYS IT'S NOT. IT IS. IT IS A BUSINESS. IT IS A HOTEL, AND IT IS BEING RUN IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO WHAT WE CAN WITH WHAT THE STATE ALLOWS FOR US TO CONTROL THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. MAYOR PRO TEM LUCK. MR. ENGLAND, HOW ARE THESE STRS TAXED? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THROUGH THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX. SO THEY'RE NOT TAXED LIKE REGULAR HOMES.

THEY'RE NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REGULAR HOMES. THAT'S. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT.

THEY'RE JUST NOT REGULAR HOMES. THEY ARE. THEY'RE THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY HOTELS. I MEAN THEY'RE TAXED LIKE HOTELS. SO I, I'VE. I'M VERY HAPPY WITH THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT. I LIKE THAT IT IS A STRICTER POLICY PUSHED UPON SOMEONE WHO IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, BEING A BAD NEIGHBOR. AND THEY'RE NOT THERE ALL THE TIME. BUT APPARENTLY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ALLOWS THEIR HOTEL PEOPLE. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY'RE CALLED TENANTS. ARE THEY EVEN CALLED TENANTS? I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT THAT'S GUESTS. WE'LL GO WITH GUESTS ALLOWING THEIR GUESTS TO BE BAD NEIGHBORS. AND I THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE REALLY CAPTURES THE THE ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE NEIGHBORS AREN'T SUFFERING BECAUSE THEY REALLY, REALLY DO.

AND I THINK THAT MOST OF OUR ORDINANCES ARE PROBABLY BECAUSE OF 1 OR 5 BAD ACTORS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, RULES AREN'T MADE FOR NO REASON AT ALL. THEY'RE MADE BECAUSE THEY'RE USUALLY QUITE REACTIONARY BECAUSE OF SOMEONE'S BAD BEHAVIOR. SO THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT YOU SPENT ON THIS. THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU MA'AM. COUNCIL MEMBER DUTTON I THINK YOUR BIG BOY PANTS ARE UP ENOUGH, SO THANK YOU. I AM TOTALLY FINE WITH THE WAY THAT THIS IS LAID OUT. I DO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT, THAT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT PER GUEST OCCUPANT, WHATEVER, SO THAT IT CAN'T BE ARGUED THAT. OH, WELL, THAT WAS ONE GUEST. THIS IS A NEW ONE. OUR TIME STARTS OVER, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO THAT IT'S PER ADDRESS, NOT PER OCCUPANT. JUST SO THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THEYAN'T SKATE AROUND, THAT IT'S, IT'S IT'S FOR THE PERMIT HOLDER. AND SO THE PERMIT HOLDER OF COURSE IS THAT PROPERTY OWNER MOST OF THE TIME. AND SO IT'S, IT'S IT'S PER PERMIT HOLDER. SO IT APPLIES EQUALLY AMONGST THE OCCUPANTS OKAY. PERFECT. AWESOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS JUST TO TO TO COUNCIL LADY MAYOR PRO TEM LUCK I JUST WANT TO ECHO HER SENTIMENTS BECAUSE I'VE GOT ONE IN AND HAVEN'T HAD THE PROBLEM LATELY. BUT FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF IT WAS IT WAS A TOUCH AND GO. AND I HAD BECAUSE OF ACTIVITIES THAT WAS COVERED, ARE NOT COVERED IN THAT AGREEMENT. SO I THINK THIS WILL GO IN THE AGREEMENT WILL GO A LONG WAY TO. AND CONTROLLING THE TO THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY, NOT TO THE GUEST BUT THE OWNER. SO I THINK I TOTALLY AGREE WITH HER. AND HOPEFULLY IF WE APPROVE IT, THAT THE OWNERS WILL GET THIS MESSAGE AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO MITIGATE A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD UP TO NOW. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. MR. ATTORNEY, JUST ONE SMALL. NITPICK THING HERE. IT'S THE 48 HOURS. IF YOU CHECK IN AT 3:00 PM AND YOU HAVE TO LEAVE BY 11 A.M. TWO DAYS LATER, THAT'S LESS THAN 48 HOURS. ARE WE MAKING THEM GO? WE MEAN TWO NIGHTS WHEN WE SAY 48 HOURS. WE MEAN 48 HOURS. AND SO IT MIGHT CAUSE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS

[00:35:02]

FOR THEM. BUT WITHOUT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT STRS, AND WHEN THE CLEAN CLEANING CREWS COME IN, IT JUST DELAY THEM. SO TECHNICALLY THEIR LEASE HAS TO GIVE THEM RIGHTS FROM 3 TO 3 THREE FRIDAY TO THREE SUNDAY. NOW, IF THEY WANT TO CHECK OUT EARLY, THEY CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY MAY CHECK OUT EARLY. BUT THE ACTUAL SHORT TERM RENTAL WOULD BE FROM 48 HOURS EXACTLY AS IT'S DRAFTED RIGHT NOW. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT 48, BUT IT MAKES IT FORCES IT INTO A THIRD DAY JUST BECAUSE OF THAT GAP IN THAT CHECK OUT VERSUS CHECK IN TIME.

NO COUNCIL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? THIS ORDINANCE WILL BE VOTING ON THIS LATER,

[12. Amendments to Chapter 22, Article II of Garland City Ordinance, Food and Food Establishments]

SIR. ALL RIGHT THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR FINAL ITEM ON OUR VERBAL BRIEFING. IT'S ITEM 12 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE TWO OF GARLAND CITY ORDINANCE. FOOD AND FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS. HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE TO HEAR FROM THE ATTORNEY ANYMORE. IT'S BEEN TWICE. AND OF COURSE, HE LOWERED THE CHAIR. SO. ALL RIGHT, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO RETURN. WE WERE HERE TWO WEEKS AGO TO TALK ABOUT SOME CHANGES TO CHAPTER 22 IN REGARD TO FOOD INSPECTIONS AT AT RESTAURANTS AND OTHER FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS.

BASED ON THE CONVERSATION WE HAD LAST TIME MANDY AND I MET WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WENT THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS YOU ACTUALLY HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO FORWARD WITH IT. A PROPOSAL ON THE ORDINANCE BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION. IF FOR SOME REASON YOU WANT TO TWEAK CHANGE AGAIN, WE CAN OBVIOUSLY PULL THAT IN THE REGULAR SESSION AND THEN REVISE IT HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT. SO BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS FROM LAST TIME WE WERE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE OTHER THINGS WE DISCUSSED. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WAS THE REINSPECTION FEE. WE ARE GOING TO WE DO RECOMMEND MOVING THAT TO $200 FOR THE REINSPECTION FEE. AS WE WENT BACK AND LOOK AT THE STAFF TIME ISSUE IT. THAT IS REASONABLE FOR THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT TAKES. SO THAT'S IN THERE. THE FOOD INSPECTION SCORE. WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHERE POSTING THE FOOD INSPECTION SCORE THAT ACTUALLY IS IN THE ORDINANCE CURRENTLY IN OUR CITY ORDINANCE. AS A REMINDER, STATE LAW DOESN'T REQUIRE RESTAURANTS TO POST IT. THEY GIVE YOU AN OPTION, YOU EITHER POST IT OR YOU PROVIDE IT IF IT'S A REQUESTED. SO. BUT WHAT'S IN OUR ORDINANCE IS FOR THE SCORE TO BE POSTED IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT CLOSE TO THE FRONT ENTRYWAY. SO WE TWEAKED THAT LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT. AND THEN WE'VE ALSO LOOKED AT WE PROVIDE AND PREPARE THE ACTUAL SCORE, THE INSPECTION SCORE THAT IS PROVIDED TO THE RESTAURANT. WE CAN EITHER SEND IT TO THEM PDF, WE PRINT IT OFF FOR THEM.

EITHER WAY, WE ACTUALLY TWEAKING THAT A LITTLE BIT AND BASICALLY JUST GOING FROM CHANGING IT TO LANDSCAPE VERSION AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE PROMINENT. SO WE THINK WITH THAT, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT, THAT. I'M STUCK ON THE WORD THAT PATRONS THANK YOU CAN CAN BE ABLE TO REFERENCE AS THEY GO INTO THE RESTAURANT. SO THAT'S IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TONIGHT AS WELL. AND THEN THE LAST CHANGE IS MOVING IT FROM A 18 TO 24 MONTH PERIOD. IN REGARD TO THE FAILURES. REMINDER, FIRST, FAILURE IS A SUSPENSION OF THE PERMIT FOR ONE DAY. SECOND, FAILURE IS A SUSPENSION OF THE PERMIT FOR SEVEN DAYS. AND THEN THE THIRD FAILURE WITHIN THE 24 MONTH PERIOD NOW IS A REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT, WHICH FORCE THEM INTO THAT PROCESS.AND THERE IS AN APPEAL PROCESS FOR THAT, AND I THINK WE TALKED LAST TIME ABOUT THAT. WE GO TO THE PROPERTY STANDARDS FOR. ANYTHING. NO. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCIL MEMBER DUTTON. THANK YOU. I DO LIKE THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THE SCORES ARE POSTED. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO GO HIGH, YOU JUST GAVE ME I DID IT TO USE.

IF YOU WERE TRYING TO GO EAT SOMEWHERE TONIGHT, OUR CITY WEBSITE IS DOWN SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT, SO I OKAY, WELL WHATEVER IT SUPPOSEDLY IS BACK UP. BUT IN THE HOWEVER LONG IT WAS DOWN, IF YOU WERE TRYING TO GO OUT TO EAT AND YOU WANTED TO LOOK TO VERIFY THAT, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO SO. SO I THINK THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THOSE THINGS ARE POSTED THAT ARE POSTED IS VERY BENEFICIAL IN THE EVENT THAT TECHNOLOGY DECIDES TO, NOT TECHNOLOGY. SO THANK YOU GUYS FOR WORKING ON THIS ONE. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD DEAL. THANK YOU MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE ON THIS ITEM? AND AGAIN THAT'LL BE ON. IT'S A

[00:40:03]

SEPARATE ITEM I THINK IT'S ITEM NUMBER 17 TONIGHTT FOR YOUR REVIEW AND DECISION. VERY GOOD.

SORRY. 17 I KNOW THAT WAS YEAH YEAH. THE LAST ITEM. YOU KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME LATE NIGHTS.

WE'RE TRYING TO PUSH A RECORD AGAIN YOU KNOW. SO YEAH. ALL RIGHT. NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GREAT JOB MANDY. SHE DID ALL THE WORK I WAS JUST A MOUTHPIECE. SO. ALL RIGHT COUNCIL THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO ANNOUNCING A FUTURE AGENDA. ITEMS. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS THEY WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE? YOU ALWAYS KNOW THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THAT. IF YOU WANT TO GET TO THEM IN BETWEEN SESSIONS, THEN WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR

[ EXECUTIVE SESSION]

FINAL ITEM. IT'S EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL ADJOURN INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 551.071551.072 AND 551.087 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO DELIBERATE AND DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING. ITEM 13 IS A POTENTIAL OFFER BY THE CITY OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER INCENTIVES TO A BUSINESS PROSPECT, AND THE RECEIPT OF COMMERCIAL OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT THE CITY HAS RECEIVED FROM THAT SAME BUSINESS PROSPECT, WHICH THE CITY SEEKS TO HAVE LOCATE WITHIN THE CITY AND IN WITHIN THE CITY. IN THE AREA OF THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE AND HOLFORD ROAD, AND WITH WHICH THE CITY IS CONDUCTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS 551.087, AND WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY. 551.072 AND ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS RELATED TO THE SAME 551.071 THAT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

WRITTEN BRIEFINGS

VERBAL BRIEFINGS

Sep 02, 2025 Work Session

WRITTEN BRIEFINGS

VERBAL BRIEFINGS

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item