Few actions from Backroom Dealings aka "Executive Session".
- Development agreement with Presbyterian Hospital. Passed 7-0
-Something about park projects. Passed 7-0
-From the minutes: "Councilmember Scott made a motion authorize the city manager to execute
development agreements with Harbor Heights Investors subject to resolving the insurance questions, confirming the legal descriptions of the properties involved and approval of the agreements as to legal form." Passed 6-1, Councilman Sevier opposed.
This was regarding PD-32, part of the failed (regardless of what some clueless morons say) Harbor Project. This motion was to move ahead and spend $9,000,000 to put in infrastructure for a new speculative office building.
What you say? When did we start absorbing costs for developers? New to me, too. It is far beyond normal and customary practice for the city to pay for costs that are part of normal commercial development.
There are the defenders of this action (which was a deliberately ambiguous motion if you remember) who will say this will do "this" or "that" and bring in trillions of dollars to Rockwall and this will help the Harbor (why would it need help it it wasn't a failure as some state?) If you recall further the reason for the taxpayer "investment" into PD-32 was to increase "foot traffic" from new residents in homes and apartments...
Anyway what's really going on is political favoring and backroom deals at the expense of the taxpayer. Nothing is being discussed openly or honestly. No one will know anything about it until this part of the harbor fails and we'll be sitting on even more millions upon millions of debt.
Merry Christmas from the City of Rockwall.
Only Councilman Sevier cast the honest vote. The rest gave the proverbial middle finger, albeit secretly, to the rest of us.
III. Consent Agenda.
Councilman Scott pulled items 2,3,6.
Remaining items passed 7-0.
Items 2 and 3 regarded minutes.
Item 6 was Mr Scott's traffic light project at Ralph Hall and 3097. $31,200 for the project, not to mention the destruction of all the foliage. Reason pulled 12% - talk about the project, 78% - grandstand for the audience.
IV Appointments.
1. Planning and Zoning Chairman. Quite a few items, nothing reaching national security level, so I won't detail.
VIII. Action Items.
3. City renaming a portion of FM 3549 to Stoghill Rd. Sounds easy, but it was apparantly Grandstand Night at the Apollo, so Mr Sweet, Mr Scott, and Mr Russo blathered on for 20 minutes about how easy a decision it was to make renaming a street. Not quite as easy as screwing over the taxpayers for $9 million, but still pretty easy.
6. Renaming Caruth Lake to Raymond Cameron Lake. Mr Cameron has been a long time resident of Rockwall and contributed much to the city.
Also, as Councilman Scott noted, the city got involved in litigation with the Caruth family which "caused a lot of heartache" a short time ago, so renaming the lake was a great opportunity to show others what happens if you mess with the city. Watch out, Mr Hubbard.
IV. Appointments.
2. Leadership Rockwall is going to build a Rockwall County dog park at Harry Myers. It was pProposed that it won't cost the city anything to build or maintain for one year. City will resume maintenance (the Parks Dept already does maintain the area in question) after the first year of operation.
Mr Russo commended the project and expressed how this has been a "need" for Rockwall.
(Quick question, does any politician really know the difference between a "need" and a "want?)
No money has been raised (around $11,000 needed), but there are many companies that have pledged support.
Few comments from various council including one jerky response from Mr Scott to Mr Sevier's comments about a previous motion from Mr Sevier to keep dogs out of the Kids Zone at Harry Myers.
The Mayor noted that it was a county project, but all contributions from governmental entities were from the city of Rockwall.
The answer was basically that Rockwall as the only city with any means.
Acceptance of project passed 7-0.
3. Presentation of City's Strategic Business Plan.
Truthfully, the girl who did the presentation was nice and professional, but the content was drier than a klejner.
V. Public Hearing Items.
1. Lady wants to open a B&B in one bedroom at her house.
-Would only operate Friday nights and Saturday nights
-She met all requirements for the SUP
-SUP would be reviewed in 6 months (basically, giving her a trial run)
Caused a lot of debate and discussion, but when it came down to asking the neighbors' opinion (via 14 or so mailed inquiries), 5 supported (all on her cul-du-sac), 3 opposed (actually 4 opposed, but ANONYMOUS RESPONSES ARE NOT CONSIDERED UNLESS THEY ARE MENTIONED DURING DELIBERATION THEREBY SKEWING THE OBJECTIVITY OF THE DISCUSSION).
The 3 opposition came from one residence on another street and 2 from Lake Pointe Church (2 of the churches soccer fields were in the notification zone).
Mathematically speaking 5 for, 2 against. And the non responses are tacit acceptance, therefore affirmative votes. Not that anyone on council cares enough to know that.
Not quite the 50% opposition Mr Scott and Mr Sweet kept espousing, but lawyers don't need math and muffins always come in 12's, so math ain't a daily brain battler for these two.
In the end the neighbors' opinion was not considered and Mr Scott didn't believe anyone would stay in a B&B near a Target and Home Depot and gave several other subjective reasons why he opposed.
Mr Sweet concurred with Mr Scott by taking out a small tape recorder and just before playing back into the microphone what Mr Scott finished saying seconds before He said, "And my personal opinion of this is:
Mr Russo asked from whom the anonymous opposition came.
Mayor Pro Tem Farris and Councilmember Nielsen were the only ones who wanted to give the chance to see how it would play for the next 6 months. Failed 5-2.
2. Rezoning of some land from Ag to Commercial. Continued to January 18th.
3. Guy wants to open a bail bond place and needs an SUP. Passed 7-0.
4. New McDonald's by Tom Thumb needs drive-thru (will be a double drive-thru) approval. Got it 7-0.
VI. Site Plans/Plats.
1. New bank going in by Home Depot doesn't meet the masonry standard of monotony. This time the masonry standard wasn't important and the exception was granted 7-0.
(Mr Scott left at this point.)
VII. Action Items.
1. Sign variance for new JoAnn store. Passed 6-0.
2. Annexation item postponed to January 18th.
4. Contract for vet to fix animals at the animal clinic. Passed 6-0.
5. No idea, something vague about Chandler's Landing. Probably something about spending a was of taxpayers money. Passed 6-0.
7. State law forcing the city to change the employee benefits due to population change. Passed 6-0.
8. Big damned electronic sign to let folks who drive passed the sign know when community events are happening.
Gonna cost somewhere between $40k and $100k and no one can agree where to put it.
I've got a suggestion where to put it.
David once again takes extreme journalistic liberties in reporting on PD32 (or anything he reports on for that matter). It is so wrong that it can be defined as fiction. First of all it is not 9 million dollars.It is substantially less. Fiction writers often embellish to gain readers and evoke shock and awe. This is misinformation plain and simple. Secondly, This city and other cities often provide incentives for development. Rockwall has done it before and will again to bring a tax base that will help relieve (that's right Mr's White...Relieve) the taxpayer burden. The current Harbor Project is paying back it's debt without any problems and the new development will as well. Thirdly, The cost to the City associated with this development will be paid by the Rockwall Economic Development Corporation. The Citizens of Rockwall voted in 1996 to create the Rockwall EDC and dedicated 1/2 of a cent of sales tax to go toward bringing Economic Development to Rockwall. The money to pay for the infrastructure associated with the Harbor Heights Project will come form the REDC. David would have you believe, in his half-hearted understanding of economic development, that the City is sticking the bill on you and will increase your taxes to pay for it. Nothing is further from the truth. You will see no increase in taxes but you will see new development, and increased sales tax and ad valorem taxes coming into the city. That is exactly why the Rockwall EDC was formed, to create this kind of development. Fourthly, Yes these things are legally discussed in Executive Session. The reason being is that if this information was public you would have people trying to buy and flip the land to gain money. It has happened before in Rockwall. The State of Texas allows for Executive Session and it is legal.
ReplyDeleteSo David, there is no political favoring and back room deals. It is all straight up and the only on giving the middle finger is you. You give it to your readers when you misinform and embellish your information.
I suggest your readers take what you write as non-truths. It is important for them to know the real truth associated with the issues you (retort) report on. Most informed citizens know the real truth is as simple as a phone call to any Rockwall City Council Member. That is where all your readers should go and not rely on some half baked blog for so called truthful reporting. You're not going to find much validity on the Rockwall Zoo folks.
Glen Farris
Response to comments:
ReplyDelete-Glen doesn't say what the actual costs are
-The only tax burden is that created by the city
-We lose nothing by not doing anything, but introduce risk to the taxpayers by taking on debt
-REDC gets the money from taxpayers, not a magic fairy
-Taxpayers WILL be stuck with the bill if the speculative development of PD-32 does not do what the city "hopes"
-I have no faith that any elected official or employee has actually read opinions and the law regarding the open meetings act, nor grasp the true spirit of the law
-I do have faith in that the council frequently engages in unethical behavior that contradicts the open meetings act
-The spiderweb of interconnected relationships with council and government could trap a buffalo
-The only argument against my validity presented is that readers should take the word of a politician over that of a citizen with a healthy, critical view of government.
And as the old question goes, "How can you tell a politician is lying?"
His lips are moving.
My response under Davids retort:
ReplyDeleteGlen doesn't say what the actual costs are.
Correct but it is substantially less than 9 million. You will know the final figures.
-The only tax burden is that created by the city
There is no burden REDC will pay whether it fails or not.
-We lose nothing by not doing anything, but introduce risk to the taxpayers by taking on debt
See above....no risk.
-REDC gets the money from taxpayers, not a magic fairy
and those taxpayers voted in favor of creating the EDC snf providing money for economic development. That is what this is.
-Taxpayers WILL be stuck with the bill if the speculative development of PD-32 does not do what the city "hopes"
No the EDC will.
-I have no faith that any elected official or employee has actually read opinions and the law regarding the open meetings act, nor grasp the true spirit of the law
We are required by law to review ethics every year and all have done so.
-I do have faith in that the council frequently engages in unethical behavior that contradicts the open meetings act.
Prove it. This is not true under any circumstance. If you have proof bring it up. If not...don't make unfounded assertions.
-The spiderweb of interconnected relationships with council and government could trap a buffalo
More unfounded allegations.
-The only argument against my validity presented is that readers should take the word of a politician over that of a citizen with a healthy, critical view of government.
I dispute Healthy. Your arguments have little or no fact and your opinions are wrong.
And as the old question goes, "How can you tell a politician is lying?" His lips are moving.
And how can you tell if the Rockwall zoo is lying. He's typing.
Glen Farris
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo if the REDC fails to pay back debt obligations, the city can sit back and not hae any liability? The city is approving all this spending by the REDC, collects the money for the REDC, and funds the REDC via the money collected exlpicitly for the REDC.
ReplyDeleteYet the city is completely free from responsibility from any REDC action or debt? Baloney.
No funny business? After the vote for the creation of PD-32, the city manager and one of the developers to benefit from PD-32 give each other a friendly little hug. Is that how professional relationships or friend relationships are exhibited?
So everyone attends an ethical class and that makes them ethical. Have you read any cases regarding failure to follow the TOMA? You might want to check those out as you may see Rockwall paralleling some of those complaints.
Keep up the ad hominem abuse, though.
The REDC enters into a contract with the city (something they've already voted to do) to cover the debt service on the debt issued by the city, and for any difference, the increased value of the improvements in the Harbor from the office building (additional property taxes that would not be there but for the infrastructure done by the city) covers the rest.
ReplyDeleteCity construction of roads, water systems, and other basic infrastructure is typical--who do you think built the John King Blvd., the road fairy? And aren't you one of those that believes the city should take care of your problems with AquaSource? Is it only spending that benefits you that is OK? That's not conservativism, that's sheer hypocrisy.
As for the REDC, they have a budget and they have something called forecasting--where they actually make decisions based on facts, like what amount of revenue they received in past years, what amount they anticipate receiving in this and future years, etc. (i.e., they don't just make stuff up like you do).
As for your allegation of improperly benefitting the developer, who do you think the city should conduct business with--only those people who, through experience, the dislikes and does not trust? That makes no sense to anyone but you. It could have been this developer, or another reputable developer or entity willing to spend $22 million in PD-32 (assuming they could prove the financial wherewithal to do so, as this developer did) and the answer would have been the same.
As far as ethics are concerned, go to the DA and let her know you think the city of Rockwall has violated the open meetings law--if she thinks there's merit in it, she'll investigate. You, of course, won't do that because you know there is no merit to anything you say.
Hey David/CM #12,
ReplyDeleteYour fictional blog that has no merit and is full of factual inaccuracies sure has a devoted readership among council members who feel the need to respond to its contents. Thanks for posting.
Ben
John King was built with bond funds that citizens had the opportunity to vote for or against. Irrelevant to this discussion.
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about AquaSource? (It's AquaTexas, but thanks for not paying attention to that minor detail, tells me how much interest the city has in resolving our water issues.)
Providing basic services, including water and not just to LRE, but also other areas in the city without water service, should trump anything little project that is not about improving the lives of citizens, but rather improving the life of a developer while padding your "legacies".
I would respond to that 2nd to last paragraph, but it so poorly constructed I can't even figure out what it says.
And don't worry your twitchy little head about what I may or may not be doing regarding your ethical behavior behind closed doors. If your behavior in open forum or in emails is any indication, what occurs behind closed doors must be down right scandalous.
Notice that I leave your comments for the world to see, not delete them like you have done in the past when I commented on your blog.
And thanks for your loyal readership.
Comparing PD-32 to John King Blvd is like comparing apples to oranges.
ReplyDeleteJohn King Blvd is a major road project that benefits the whole city and really the whole county, not just one property owner or developer as is my understanding of PD-32.
(And hugs are no sign of friendship...I frequently hug my checker at Kroger, Walmart and any other business I frequent all of course in the hopes that they will discount my transaction)
Concerning LRE: this neighborhood has been in the city for two years and now has paid city taxes for the year 2010, and when you compare the infrastructure in this neighborhood: water, sewer, roadways and drainage, the infrastructure in this neighborhood is older and more aged than in any other area in the city of Rockwall, including Old Town Rockwall. Therefore, this neighborhood should have one of the highest priorities for the replacement and upgrade of infrastructure as funds become available.
Also, the state requires that a city show progress towards serving any annexed areas with water and sewer within three years after annexation. It seems that the comments of some council members that nothing will be done with “AquaSource” (really known as AquaTexas) show direct opposition to state law. The council should have been better informed as to the requirements of servicing the neighborhood before they annexed this area.
All I remember from that annexation meetings was being told that there would be answers to all questions, that is except the water problem. So what has the city done for it's citizens in LRE in the last two years?
Oops, I almost forgot that the city has provided an extra trash day, regular drive bys from code enforcement and police protection…too bad the PD can’t protect citizens from people that think they know better than we do as citizens.
But I am sure council members are much smarter and more educated and better informed than a mere subject…I mean citizen.
The definition of opinion that Mr. Farris uses is incorrect. The BLOG, not journalistic piece of news, is a reflection of David’s OPINION of what happens during city council meetings. An opinion is defined as 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal, 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment. Since opinions are like noses, everyone has one…Mr. Farris, your nose is wrong just as much as David’s opinion is wrong.