Loading...
05 - City Council MinutesItem No. 5 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS November 16, 2015 The City Council of the City of Paris met for a regular session at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, November 16, 2015, at the City Council Chamber, 107 E. Kaufinan, Paris, Texas. Present: Mayor: A.J. Hashmi Council Members: Aaron Jenkins; Billie Lancaster; Benny Plata; Steve Clifford; Matt Frierson; and Edwin Pickle City Staff: John Godwin, City Manager; Gene Anderson, Finance Director, Kent McIlyar, City Attorney; Janice Ellis, City Clerk; Larry Wright, Fire Chief, Bob Hundley, Police Chief, Doug Harris, Utilities Director; Jerry McDaniel, Public Works Director; Kent Klinkerman, EMS Director; Priscilla McAnally, Library Director; and Alan Efrussy, Planning Director Opening Agenda 1. Call meeting to order. Mayor Hashmi called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. Invocation. Gene Anderson gave the invocation. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Council Member Lancaster led the pledge. Mayor Hashmi asked for a moment of silence for the victims in Paris, France. 4. a. Citizens' Forum. No one spoke. b. Proclamation declaring the month of November as "Operation Heart to Heart." After reading the proclamation, Mayor Hashmi presented it to Mrs. Deb Fleming and Crockett Middle School sixth grader Ms. Ava Lassister. Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 2 Consent Agenda Mayor Hashmi inquired of Council Members if they wished to pull any items from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Council Member Pickle asked that the Board of Adjustment minutes be pulled from the May 12, 2015 meeting. He asked Council Member Lancaster is she was at the meeting that day and she answered in the affirmative. Council Member Pickle asked that those minutes be corrected. Subject to the Board of Adjustment minutes of the May 12, 2015 being corrected, a Motion to approve the consent agenda was made by Council Member Pickle and seconded by Council Member Lancaster. Motion carried, 7 ayes — 0 nays. 5. Approve minutes from the meeting on October 26, 2015. 6. Receive reports and /or minutes from the following boards, commissions, and committees: a. Board of Adjustment (5 -12 -2015; 7 -28 -2015; and 8 -25 -2015) b. Paris Economic Development Corporation (9 -15 -2015) c. Main Street Advisory Board (10 -13 -2015) 7. Receive September monthly financial report. 8. Approve an Event Center use policy. 9. Approve RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -040: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN INTERLOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARIS POLICE DEPARTMENT AND CHISUM INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT PERTAINING TO LAW ENCOFRCEMENT FUNCTIONS ON CHISUM PROPERTY; MAKING OTHER FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10. Approve the Final Plat of Lot 1, Block A, American Plant Food 188 Addition, located at 1231 S.E. 6t` Street. 11. Approve the Final Plat of Lot 1, Block A, First United Methodist Church of Paris Addition, City Block 184, located at 322 & 430 Lamar Avenue. 12. Approve RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -041: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS, AMENDING THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LAMAR COUNTY FOR THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM, GMS APPLICATION NUMBER 2015 - H4184-TX-DJ TO INCLUDE THE USE OF THE FUNDS BY THE CITY FOR THE PURCHASE OF A FEDERALLY CONTROLLED EXPENDITURE, A DRONE; MAKING OTHER FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 3 13. Approve Personnel Policy revisions. 14. Authorize the City Manager to execute a five -year lease with Paris Remote Control Association for property at Lake Gibbons. Regular Agenda 15. Convene into Executive Session pursuant to: Section 551.087 of the Texas Government Code, (1) to discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the governmental body has received from a business prospect that the governmental body seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the governmental body and with which the governmental body is conducting economic development negotiations; or (2) to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect described by Subdivision (1) as follows: JS Baking, LLC (Skinner Bakery). Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code, Consultation with Attorney, to receive legal advice from the City Attorney about pending or contemplated litigation and /or on matters in which the duty of an attorney to his client under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas, clearly conflict with this chapter, as follows: JB Baking, LLC (Skinner Bakery) tax abatement agreement. Mr. Godwin and Mr. McIlyar said they did not have anything for items 15 and 16. Mayor Hashmi said there would be no need to convene into executive session. 16. Reconvene into Open Session and possibly take action on those matters discussed in Executive Session. 17. Conduct a public hearing, discuss and act on AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS, AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1710 OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS AS HERETOFRE AMENDED, SO AS TO REZONE LOT 2, CITY BLOCK 307 -A, BEING LOCATED IN THE 3200 BLOCK OF NORTH MAIN STREET, IN THE CIYT OF PARIS, LAMAR COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) TO A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (LI); DIRECTING A CHANGE ACCORDINGLY IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CIYT; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. City Planner Alan Efrussy said the application represented two public hearings to consider the petition of Love's Travel Stops and Country Stores, Inc., on properties adjacent to each other. Mayor Hashmi asked if items 17 and 18 needed to be combined and Mr. Godwin said the Ordinance contained both lots, but they needed to have two separate public hearings. Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 4 Mr. Efrussy explained the two lots were currently zoned Commercial District (C) and the request was to rezone both properties to Light Industrial District (LI). Mr. Efrussy said the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed rezoning and staff also recommended the proposed rezoning. Mayor Hashmi opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor or in opposition of this item, to please come forward. Caton Hogan, representing Love's, spoke in support of the zoning changes. With no one else speaking, Mayor Hashmi closed the public hearing. A Motion to approve this item was made by Council Member Pickle and seconded by Council Member Frierson. Motion carried, 7 ayes — 0 nays. 18. Conduct a public hearing, discuss and act on ORDINANCE NO. 2015 -031: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS, AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1710 OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO REZONE LOTS 2 AND 3, CITY BLOCK 307 -A, BEING LOCATED IN THE 3200 BLOCK OF NORTH MAIN STREET, IN THE CITY OF PARIS, LAMAR COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C) TO A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (LI); DIRECTING A CHANGE ACCORDINGLY IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mayor Hashmi opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition of this item, to please come forward. With no one speaking, Mayor Hashmi closed the public hearing. A Motion to approve this item was made by Council Member Pickle and seconded by Council Member Lancaster. Motion carried, 7 ayes — 0 nays. 19. Conduct a public hearing, discuss, and act on ORDINANCE NO. 2015 -032: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS, AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1710 OF THE CITY OF PARIS, TEXAS, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO REZONE LOT PART OF 9, CITY BLOCK 249, BEING LOCATED IN THE 2500 BLOCK OF LAMAR AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF PARIS, LAMAR COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM A ONE - FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT (SF -2) TO A GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICT (GR); DIRECTING A CHANGE ACCORDINGLY IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY; PROVIDING A REPEALER CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, A SAVINGS CLAUSE, A PENALTY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr. Efrussy explained this application was to consider the petition of John House for a zoning change from One - Family Dwelling District (SF -2) to General Retail (GR) District, which Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 5 would allow multiple- family or apartment buildings. Mr. Efrussy further explained that Planning and Zoning unanimously approved this zoning change, but staff did not support this zoning request and recommended denial, because it could possibly represent spot zoning and did not satisfy the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Plan. He reviewed three options with Council, one was denial of the request and two of which recommended approval but recognizing the issues. Mayor Hashmi opened the public hearing and asked for anyone wishing to speak in favor or in opposition of this item, to please come forward. Adjacent land owner Donie Hussey spoke in favor of the zoning change and said to deny the request would also deny access to half of her property. John House spoke in favor of this request and said he had until the end of the year to invest the money from his sell of the Extended Stay. Mayor Hashmi asked of his plans, if he was unable to get rezoning of this property. Mr. House said he would develop something in Beavers Bend. With no one else speaking, Mayor Hashmi closed the public hearing. Council Member Frierson said although he was not in favor of spot zoning, that he was in favor of development in Paris and would agree with Planning and Zoning. Council Member Plata agreed with Council Member Frierson. Council Member Lancaster said she took the recommendations of staff seriously. Mayor Hashmi said he was not in favor of spot zoning and appreciated staff's recommendation, but did not want Mr. House investing in Broken Bow. Following additional discussion between City Council and Mr. Efrussy, a Motion to approve this item was made by Mayor Hashmi and seconded by Council Member Pickle. Motion carried, 7 ayes — 0 nays. 20. Receive presentation from Dr. Clifford regarding Paris Warehouse 107 tax abatements, discuss and possibly act. Council Member Clifford said this presentation was about the tax abatement agreement with Paris Warehouse 107, but was also about how the PEDC, the City of Paris, and the Lamar County Appraisal District really failed in their responsibility to the citizens of Paris Texas. He said in March of 2006, the City of Paris, Lamar County, and Paris Junior College entered into a tax abatement agreement with Paris Warehouse 107, in which taxes on a new warehouse would be abated, a new 150,000 square foot warehouse would be constructed, and the company would maintain 158 full -time jobs over the next 7 years. Council Member Clifford explained that in exchange for the economic benefit of the new warehouse, that the City, the County and the College were to abate the taxes according to a declining percentage formula. He further explained the contract specified mandatory annual reports that had to be filed with the PEDC or the City of Paris including the number of full time employees employed during each quarter. He said the established policy at that time delegated most of the compliance responsibility to the PEDC. Council Member Clifford said he discovered that for the first several years of the abatement, none of the required documents verifying compliance with the terms of Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 6 the agreement appeared to have been submitted to PEDC or to the City, although the abatement contract mandated that these documents be sworn to and submitted annually. He also said Gary Vest was the director of the PEDC at that time and it appears that neither he nor any PEDC employee or board member ever requested these documents throughout most of the time of the abatement, but the submission of these forms was in fact a mandatory part of the contract. Council Member Clifford said failure to submit the forms might have completely negated the contract. He said that it was only during the last year that the PEDC attempted to straighten out this problem, when they requested all compliance information under all contracts pertaining to abatements and incentives for a variety of companies. Council Member Clifford also said they requested the compliance information for all the years of the 2006 abatement contract from Paris Warehouse 107 to verify that the company had indeed fulfilled their obligations under the terms of the contract. He said employment figures were submitted for the years of the abatement by Paris Warehouse 107, and all submitted figures pertained to the 2006 abatement agreement and the company attempted to prove that they had indeed satisfied the 2006 contract requirement of 158 full -time jobs. He also said the contract clearly specified that only full -time employees were to be counted and that according to the documents submitted by Paris Warehouse 107, it appears they replaced several full -time employees with temporary employees and that appeared to violate the agreement. Council Member Clifford said with counting temporary employees, Paris Warehouse 107 was out of compliance in the year 2012 and according to the contract being out of compliance for even one year could negate the entire abatement agreement resulting in all taxes, interest and penalties being assessed. He also said it was discovered over a year ago that the percentage of taxes abated had been done incorrectly over the entire course of the abatement. He explained that the contract allowed abatement of only 80% of the taxes for the first 3 years and then the percentage of the taxes abated was to have dropped by 16% per year until none of the taxes were abated. He further explained that Lamar County Appraisal District actually abated 100% of the taxes for a full 8 years from 2006 until 2013, and that he requested documents from the Appraisal District that would justify 100% tax abatement for a full 8 years. He said a few documents were submitted, but clearly none of these documents justified granting of the 100% abatement for 8 years, and that about a million dollars in taxes were abated but the Appraisal District doesn't have any documents to explain why they applied 100% abatement over 8 years. Council Member Clifford said according to the application, Paris Warehouse 107 applied for the tax abatement February 28, 2006, and the company stated "we will be building a dock - high enclosed metal building which will be a minimum of 150,000 square feet." He also said the company was required to submit within 30 days of completion of the construction and the failure to do so would have violated the contract and negated the abatement agreement. He explained this certificate of completion was critical to verify that the company had fulfilled its requirements prior a tax abatement being granted. He also said this was so important that the contract required it to be sworn to and included a penalty of perjury. Council Member Clifford said that he had requested a copy of the mandatory sworn statement containing the initial reporting requirements but no one could find it. He said it seemed that the document may have never been submitted; that the PEDC did not appear to have ever requested the document at the time the building was completed, nor did the City of Paris request this mandatory document. Council Member Clifford Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 7 said in the last year, the PEDC finally requested the mandatory initial reporting documents, as well as employment figures that were all required by the contract. Council Member Clifford depicted slides with regard to Paris Warehouse 107, one of which reflected a list of the warehouse construction costs in the 2006 contract noting the project as of September 9, 2006, and a document reflecting the abatement period of 1/1/2007 through 12/31/2013. He said the 150,000 square foot warehouse was listed as costing about $5.3 million dollars and the date of substantial completion was listed as September 9, 2006 and the 158 full - time jobs that were a direct requirement of the 2006 contract, thus the Paris Warehouse 107 had stated that they had indeed complied with the terms of the 2006 abatement contract. He noted that the document reflecting the date of substantial completion of the 2006 warehouse was listed as September 9, 2006. Council Member Clifford depicted several slides reflecting aerial photographs taken October 21, 2005 and October 30, 2008 noting the warehouse was never constructed. He also depicted a recent photo of the property and noted the warehouse was never constructed, but $4.4 million dollars in taxes were abated at 100% for a full 8 years, but it wasn't the building shown on the 2006 abatement contract, because it was never built. Council Member Clifford said these type problems occur when the PEDC does not even think it is necessary to require a company to fulfill its end of the contract; that this is what happens when the City of Paris fails to do the most rudimentary compliance; and this is what happens when the local Tax Assessor Office grants an abatement with inadequate documentation. He also said the complete lack of compliance is the result of no one even checking to be sure the building was constructed. He said for 9 years, everyone granted the abatement and arguments were made regarding mandatory employment levels, but no one at the PEDC, no one at the City of Paris, and no one at the appraisal district noticed that the building was never built. Council Member Clifford said he discussed this with Mr. Godwin, and laid it out on the table for Mr. Godwin, and the document that surfaced was indeed on August 20, 2004 when Paris Warehouse 107 presented a document to the Paris City Council that requested an abatement on the planned construction of the new warehouse. He said in that proposal they agreed to build a new 172,000 square foot warehouse and create 30 new jobs, including 20 packagers, 5 forklift operators, 4 clerical workers and 1 supervisor. Their proposal was to increase the payroll in the amount of $470,000 annually. He also said the proposal was presented to the PEDC on September 10, 2004. He said the company wanted to add 170,000 square feet to their existing plant on the loop and the application reflected they would add 30 jobs, but Gary Vest met with David Owens of WePack and he said it would be more like 50 jobs. Council Member Clifford said the PEDC unanimously passed the resolution and recommended to the city council that they approve the abatement, which was approved by the city council on October 7, 2004. Council Member Clifford referenced the agenda information sheet of that meeting that was given to the Council, which depicted "an additional condition of the tax abatement was the creation of 30 new jobs." He said a contract was also attached to this sheet, and in the fine print of the contract contained a very significant change, which was signed by then Mayor Curtis Fendley. He said Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 8 the document reflected a change of instead of creating 30 new jobs that Paris Warehouse 107 was to retain 30 jobs, which meant they were not required to increase their payroll by $470,000. Council Member Clifford said Paris Warehouse 107 themselves had proposed to both the city council and the PEDC they would create 30 new jobs and increase their payroll, but the final contract that was signed by Mayor Curtis Fendley did not require them to do that. Council Member Clifford said he did not find anything in the city council minutes where any discussion was made regarding the alteration of the terms of the contract and questioned who would have removed such a critical important item from the contract. He said employment was an obvious goal for encouraging economic development and abatements were granted on the basis of presumed economic development. He said it appeared that the council mandated the formation of 30 new jobs and the council authorized the mayor to execute the contract containing 30 new jobs. He questioned if the entire contract was negated, since the actual contract that was executed was different than what the Council approved. Council` Member Clifford said he believed that Council would the legal advice to see if the passage of a contract that substantially differs from the description of the contract given to the city council is even legally binding. Council Member Clifford thanked Mr. Godwin for bringing to his attention this huge problem with the contract. He said he first pointed out to Mr. Godwin a few weeks ago that the building that was the subject to the 2006 abatement had never been built and of course Mr. Godwin was incredulous when he showed this to him. Council Member Clifford said after Mr. Godwin met with Paris Warehouse 107, Mr. Godwin told him that this apparently had all been a mix up. He said Mr. Godwin explained that Paris Warehouse 107 was now maintaining that the 2004 abatement was actually the legitimate abatement all along and that the company decided not to build the building that was the subject to 2006 abatement. Council Member Clifford said it appears that virtually no one was even aware of the 2004 contract until it was rediscovered a few days ago and that absolutely no compliance documents appear to have ever been submitted regarding this 11 year old contract. He also said the compliance terms of this contract appear to have never been fulfilled and consequently this contract should be deemed invalid due to the absence of all mandatory compliance documents. Council Member Clifford said legal council would also be needed to evaluate whether the absence of all mandatory compliance documents negates the contract. Council Member Clifford wanted to know if the 2004 contract was the abatement agreement in effect, why would Paris Warehouse 107 present a document to the PEDC stating that the warehouse was substantially completed on September 9, 2006. He also questioned what building exactly was Paris Warehouse 107 referring to that was completed in September of 2006. Council Member Clifford reiterated that the aerial photographs document that nothing at all was built during that time period and yet a document was given to the PEDC regarding the costs of the warehouse, and the dates of the abatement period at the top of this document were taken right off the 2006 contract. He also said at that time Paris Warehouse 107 represented that they had indeed built a warehouse in 2006, but now they were saying they actually did not build a warehouse in 2006 but that it was built in 2005. Council Member Clifford again questioned why documents were presented to the PEDC stating that the building was completed in Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 9 September 2006. He said if a 2004 contract was indeed the abatement contract in effect, then by the terms of that contract the abatement ended in 2011. He quoted the contract, "said abatement shall extend for a period of 7 years beginning January 1, 2005, that obviously indicates the agreement ended at the end of 2011." Council Member Clifford questioned why taxes were abated at 100% during 2012 and 2013. He said the invalid 2006 abatement agreement regarding the warehouse that was never built did extend until 2013, but it did not even permit a100% tax abatement at all. He said it seemed that the terms of both contracts that were the most beneficial to Paris Warehouse 107 had been applied to the same property. He also said the 100% abatement starting in 2005, that was in the 2004 contract had been applied while the time -frame of the 2006 contract extending all the way to 2013 had also been applied, which appeared to be how 8 years of 100% abatement occurred, but that was speculation. Council Member Clifford said if the 2006 contract was invalid, and it clearly was invalid because the warehouse was never built then the abatement unquestionably ended in 2011. He said there was absolutely no reason why all taxes in 2012 and 2013 were abated, and those taxes were abated because of a warehouse that was never built and they should immediately be assessed by all 3 taxing authorities. Council Member Clifford gave the following conclusions: "The 2006 contract that extended from 2007 -2013 that started with an 80% tax abatement for the first 3 years then dropping 16% per year is obviously a completely invalid contract. The reason it is invalid is that the warehouse, the subject of this abatement was never constructed. This contract is the only contract referred to by either the PEDC or Paris Warehouse 107 throughout the timeframe of the abatement. This is also the only contract that permitted an abatement of taxes during 2012 and 2013. The 2004 contract lasted from 2005 -2011, this is the contract that I have been informed that Paris Warehouse 107 now contends is the valid contract. It provides no abatement of taxes at all during 2012 and 2013. There is no evidence that any of the 8 mandatory sworn reporting documents were ever filed with the City of Paris or the PEDC. In particular the initial reporting document had to be sworn to and filed before the abatement could even begin. Also, the contract signed by then mayor Curtis Fendley differed substantially from the agenda information sheet given to the Paris City Council as the requirement to create 30 new jobs. A requirement proposed by Paris Warehouse 107 was completely omitted from the contract that mayor Fendley signed. All taxes plus interest should be immediately assessed by the City of Paris, Lamar County, and Paris Junior College for the years of 2012 and 2013. There is absolutely no valid contract or agreement that permits the abatement of these taxes. We need to obtain legal advice regarding the legality of 2004 contract since there is no evidence that any of the required mandatory compliance documents have ever been submitted." Council Member Clifford said the signed contract differed substantially from the agenda information sheet approved by the city council and that Council needed to obtain legal advice to see if this also might negate the entire contract. He said he spent countless hours researching all of this, but did not plan to do that when he began this and in fact had just planned to review it. However, he said the more he looked into it the more he realized the complete inaptitude of the PEDC and to a lesser degree, the City of Paris, regarding abatement compliance. He said they have completely advocated their responsibility to the citizens of Paris. Council Member Clifford explained that when a tax abatement was granted, the citizens of Paris have to make up the loss Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 10 of revenue in taxes. He said in exchange for the abatement, the city should be certain that it receives tangible benefits in the form of economic development. However, when the PEDC and the City of Paris ran 100% tax abatement for 8 years on a warehouse, a tax abatement worth almost a million dollars to all 3 taxing entities and when the compliance with the contract is so inept that no one even notices that the warehouse on which the tax abatement was supposedly based was never even built, Council Member Clifford said then they have got problems. He also said when a company voluntarily agrees to create 30 new jobs as a condition of receiving an abatement, presents their plan to the PEDC, and then to the Paris City Council, and then when the requirement for 30 new jobs and an increase in payroll of $470,000 simply disappears in the final signed contract in direct contradiction to the information sheets applied to the city council, we have very large problems. Council Member Clifford said these are problems that lie at the foundation of the policies of the City of Paris and the PEDC and these events highlight massive fundamental deficiencies and incompetence at the PEDC. He said until these deficiencies are fully identified, fully addressed, and fully solved, neither the PEDC nor the City of Paris should be granting any abatements or any incentives whatsoever. He also said if they continue to grant these abatements and incentives, all that could be expected is that our tax money will once again be squandered with no verification of compliance and no measurable economic development. Council Member Clifford said if these problems could not be solved, if the PEDC continued to be a poor steward of the tax dollars entrusted to it, then maybe it was time for the City of Paris to consider whether or not it's time to do away with this organization. Council Member Pickle referenced the signed contract and the agenda information and then inquired what the minutes reflected. Council Member Clifford said the minutes did not reflect discussion, but only that Council approved what was presented. Council Member Pickle said they could not be sure about what was approved since there was no discussion. Council Member Clifford said the minutes reflected they approved it. He also said the information sheet was given to the city council, it was in the minutes, it was in the agenda packet, and they contradicted one another. Council Member Pickle said that was his point, that he was making an assumption. He referred to Mr. House's earlier item citing they were asked to decline the deal and they approved it, so in the minutes it will reflect that they approved it whereas on the agenda sheet it shows it was recommended that they decline it. Council Member Pickle said so they do not know what was approved. Council Member Clifford said that was a problem. Council Member Pickle said they could not assume that the Council did it one way, any more than you can assume they did it the other way. Council Member Clifford questioned if that was any way to run a City and expressed that was the whole problem. Council Member Pickle said in looking at these documents from 2000 forward, that he agreed there were problems with no compliance checks being done. Council Member Clifford asked Council Member Pickle if he realized the document he was working on regarded the building that was never built. Council Member Pickle said he relied on the then PEDC treasurer Rebecca Clifford who provided him the documents for them to check compliance. He said part of his question was if there was no evidence that any of the required mandatory compliance documents had ever been submitted, was there any evidence that they were requested, submitted, and lost. He said since city clerk Ms. Ellis had been there, the record keeping and writing of minutes had gotten much better. Council Member Pickle questioned if they should look at the Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 11 90's and see what they did wrong back then, when the mayor was Council Member Clifford's brother. He said they could have had a discussion with the Harpers to discuss this, to see what they agreed to and to give them information. He said he thought that there are issues with certain members of this council that were going to do anything they could to speak derogatorily and to put down the Harper family. Council Member Clifford said he did request Mr. Godwin to look into this, and Mr. Godwin did meet with the Harpers and kept him informed to the progress. He also said he did not go public with this information until Mr. Godwin had a chance to look into it, and that Mr. Godwin was the one that informed them about the 2004 contract, and for all intent and purposes most people weren't even aware the contract existed until he discovered it. Council Member Clifford said they were given an opportunity to respond and they were going to get an opportunity to respond tonight. Council Member Frierson referenced the policy for presentations specifically that information that was going to be presented in the public was to go to first in the Council's packets. Council Member Clifford said he attempted to do that, but had to make a change at the last minute to ensure the information being presented was accurate. Council Member Frierson said he was not accusing anybody of anything, but it was convenient that a few slides had to be changed right at the end. He said he thought all along this could have been handled much differently. He said he understood if Council Member Clifford had concerns, but since he had been on this council this has totally been about the city engineer. Council Member Frierson said now they were going to have to talk about spending a million dollars extra later on tonight because of an outside of Lamar County inspection firm. Council Member Frierson said Mr. Godwin summarized all those in a memo to the council and this could have been handled without pointing a finger at everyone else or about how poorly they are doing eleven years ago. He said it troubled him that they could not get away from the past long enough to look at the future. He said they could always do better, that he was disappointed and looked forwarded to the next item. Council Member Plata said he thought going back in time to try to correct something was not fair to the Harpers or anyone else. He said they need to fix what was happening right now and needed to just leave the past alone, because it appeared to be a vendetta. Council Member Lancaster said this was a whole lot to take in and she was very troubled with what she was seeing. With regard to going back in time, she said they needed to do so to learn what had happened in order to straighten it out so that it does not happen in the future. She said she understood and agreed with Council Member Clifford in they should not grant tax abatements until they understood fully what was going on. Council Member Lancaster said this was tax payers' money and people have to make up the difference when tax abatements were granted. Mayor Hashmi said he wanted to make it very clear that he had no personal agenda against anyone, and that the Harpers were respectable people, they did business in town, and he wanted to hear their presentation. With regard to reviewing what had taken place several years back, he expressed he did not think that any one person could be held responsible, in that all of the entities were at fault. He said when Council was discussing the taxes for 2012, he was unaware of the 2004 contract and questioned which contract was applicable, the 2004 or the 2006 contract. With documentation provided to them, he said he agreed with what Council Member Clifford was saying about the temporary jobs or the permanent jobs, but the council at that time did agree based on the contract. He said a letter was sent to the Harpers and the City Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 12 did not get a property response so the Council asked that the entire contract be cancelled, a new tax statement be sent to the Harpers and abated taxes be returned to the City. Mayor Hashmi said he appreciated all of Council Member Clifford's hard work. Council Member Clifford asked that item 20 remain open should Council want to take any action after hearing from the Harpers. Mayor Hashmi asked if it was acceptable to combine items 20 and 21. A Motion to combine items 20 and 21 was made by Mayor Hashmi and seconded by Council Member Pickle. Motion carried, 7 ayes — 0 nays. 21. Discussion from Harrison, Walker and Harper regarding Paris Warehouse 107 tax abatement agreement(s). Jordan Harper with Harrison, Walker and Harper introduced himself. He said the purpose of coming to the meeting was actually to give factual information on what happened with the 2006 tax abatement. He also said he was there to respectfully request that certain elected officials and appointed officials stop their questionable and harmful behavior and he hoped they could move forward as a community. He said there seemed to be a lot of personal agendas and political agendas and that was not really adding value to the community. He explained this was the 2006 proposed expansion and that Council Member Clifford was right, as they never constructed the building. He explained they had a client that was interested in them expanding operations, so they came to the city council and asked for an abatement if they built the building, their business model changed, they did not build the building, and therefore there was no taxes assessed and there were no taxes paid. Mr. Harper said the 2006 tax abatement was null and void and no one ever acted on it. He said Council Member Clifford's allegations that a million dollars' worth of taxes were abated, and that they were out of compliance for 2012 was all based on a '06 abatement that never happened. He also said they did not build the building therefore they had no compliance requirements. Mr. Harper informed everyone there were never any taxes assessed on it, they did not have to create 158 full -time jobs because they didn't build the building and therefore they got no benefit from the tax community. Mr. Harper said this was absurd that he had to defend their organization or their family because Council Member Clifford provided information that he knew prior to bringing it to the council, never happened. Mr. Harper said certain elected officials were using their position for personal agendas and this had to stop in the community. He stated they had a 2004 abatement agreement that had a requirement of 30 jobs, but they created 152 jobs at the minimum. He also said it was abated for eight years, but should have been seven, and he brought that up when he met with John Godwin, Pam Anglin, and Chuck Superville. He said that Rebecca Clifford was also invited to that meeting, but did not attend. He said Mrs. Clifford's recommendation that we were out of compliance, was all based on a 2006 abatement and they didn't get a 2006 abatement. Mr. Harper said John Godwin sent all of that information to everybody sitting up here, but they were getting slandered in front of the public on something that never happened. He said this questionable behavior by elected and appointed officials had to stop and referenced this happened on the PEDC Rogers and Wade incentive agreement where they had documented appraisal information that came to the council and to the city attorney, but Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 13 that never got shared. He also said subsequently $50,000 was spent on a PEDC investigation that was a waste of tax payers' money, because the investigation proved nothing. Mr. Harper said Council Member Clifford knew that the 2006 abatement was null and void but he chose to give this longwinded presentation about compliance, about people not doing the job correctly and that HWH got a million dollars' worth of taxpayers' money that got abated on a building that never was built. He said that they had the same thing happening from Council Member Clifford's brother Judge Clifford who was continuing to slander HWH /the Harper Family while he was getting reprimanded in public. He said everybody knows that the ongoing FBI investigation is not true. He said this was a pattern of mistreatment and this is a pattern of a problem all the way through. Mayor Hashmi cautioned Mr. Harper to stay on this agenda item, because of the agenda posting. Mr. Harper said this was a waste of public funds, a misuse of power for personal and political agendas and this was harmful to our community. He also said Paris was going to have to work really hard to build Paris' reputation, because Paris was a laughing stock in the State right now because of handling of these items. Council Member Clifford said his wife, Rebecca, was not invited to that meeting with the taxing entities. Mr. Harper said she was, but she could not come because she was out of town. Mrs. Clifford said she was not invited to the meeting. Council Member Clifford wanted to know what justified the 2012 and 2013 abatements. Mr. Harper said they got eight and it should have been seven. Council Member Clifford said the contract started in 2005 and ended in 2011, and then inquired about the justification of the tax abatements in 2012 and 2013. Mr. Harper said the 2013 abatement was not justified. Council Member Clifford asked about the 2012 abatement and Mr. Harper said it was a seven -year abatement. Council Member Clifford said they should go by the contract. Mr. Harper said when you go by the contract, it will show that the company overpaid taxes and he was working on that with the tax accessor. He also said if there was an error in evaluation or abatement, he would work with the appraisal district to work it out. Mr. Harper said if they owe money, they will pay it. Council Member Clifford said the contract that was signed in 2004, began in 2005 and was to have ended in 2011. He asked the city attorney if the abatement of taxes could be extended to 2012, if the abatement period began in 2005 and ended in 2011 according to the contract. The city attorney said it could not be extended under the contract. Mayor Hashmi confirmed with City Attorney Kent Mellyar that you could not start abating taxes until a building is built. Mr. Harper said he had a substantial completion document dated August 10, 2005. Mr. Harper said logically if you are going to invest 4.5 million dollars in the community, the city council, PJC, and the county say ok, business owner, if you're going to invest in the community, we're going to give you a seven -year abatement. The trade -off is the investment, so who cares if it is from 2006 -2012 or from 2005 -2011, because it is still a seven -year abatement. Mayor Hashmi inquired if the contract ended in 2011 or 2012, understanding the contract reflects a termination date of 2011 but the building wasn't built until 2006. Mr. McIlyar said according to the contract, it began in January 2005 and seven years later ended, in 2011.Council Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 14 Member Clifford said the City of Paris, Lamar County, PJC and the PEDC were all acting as if a warehouse had been built, when in fact it had not. Council Member Clifford said he saw no rational reason according to the contracts that taxes could have possibly been abated in 2012 or 2013, because there was not a single contract to justify it. Council Member Frierson said this entire conversation should have been addressed with the taxing entities and Paris Warehouse 107, instead of trying to point fingers at everyone else. Council Member Clifford said he wanted an explanation for why the contract changed and why they had contradictions. Council Member Pickle said they did not know. Council Member Clifford said they did know, because they had the minutes from the PEDC meeting, they had the agenda information sheet from the City Council, and knew that the 30 new employees that were mandated disappeared from the contract. He said that was a fact, because that was what was contained in the documents. Council Member Frierson said this was asinine and should have not been done in public. Council Member Pickle said part of the problem was compliance and he had recommended several months ago that compliance be turned over to the city attorney. Council Member Clifford made a motion that the city council instruct the Lamar County Appraisal District to immediately assess all taxes and interest that was inappropriately abated in 2012 and 2013 including taxes owed to the City of Paris, Lamar County, and PJC. Mr. Harper questioned why they did not use the contract and assess all taxes for the entire abatement period. He said that would get it all cleaned up at one time and if they owed, they would write a check and if the City owed, the City could write them a check. He said he thought that was fair. Mayor Hashmi asked Council Member Clifford if he wanted to amend his motion. Council Member Clifford questioned why they would instruct assessment for 2012 and 2013, when there was no contractual support that those years needed to be assessed. Council Member Lancaster seconded Council Member Clifford's motion and Mayor Hashmi asked if there was additional discussion. Council Member Plata said he agreed with Council Member Frierson, in that this discussion should not have come before the public. Council Member Pickle asked that Council Clifford amend his motion to address the entire contract rather than just pick out the items that he thinks that they are in error, because reflecting the entire contract would be fair to show there was no agenda. Mr. Harper said they all of them needed to sit down, figure out what went wrong and then it should be fixed. Council Member Lancaster said she was very concerned about a lot of things and that she did not have a personal grudge against the Harpers at all. She also said the Harpers had done good things for the community, but that she wanted to make sure that they were doing the tax abatements correctly. Mayor Hashmi asked Council Member Clifford if he wanted to amend his motion and Council Member Clifford said no, because the 2012 and 2013 abatements had no basis in any contract. Mayor Hashmi said Mr. Harper was saying if you are going to go back and ask for a refund on taxes for 2012 and 2013, that you should follow the entire contract. What he is asking you is if you're going to go and ask for a refund on taxes on 12 and 13 that you follow the entire contract. Council Member Clifford said they needed to follow the contract and that the contract Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 15 required mandatory reports. He said he wanted to follow 100% of the contract. Mayor Hashmi asked if he wanted to make a motion. Council Member Clifford made a Motion that they follow 100% of the contract including the requirement for mandatory reporting. Mayor Hashmi questioned if that was 100% of the contract. Council Member Clifford said exactly. Council Member Lancaster seconded the Motion. Mayor Hashmi called for a vote. Council Member Pickle said he was sort of confused, because if they could not find the minutes of meetings, then how could they be sure they could find these reports that might have been turned in or lost. Mr. Harper said the contract was to invest a certain amount of money, create a certain amount of jobs, be abated for a certain amount of time, or years. He said he could prove they did that and that they were in compliance. He said he could prove that they created the jobs, that he could prove they made the investment, and that he could prove what the taxes were or should have been. He said he thought that that was really easy for all of them to create, even if they did not have the compliance report. Council Member Clifford inquired if he could prove the sworn documents were submitted as required by the contract. Mr. Harper said he had certified letters that went to the city, the county and PJC and that it was not his fault that the city could not find them. Council Member Clifford asked Mr. Harper if he was saying that the city lost the initial reporting document, at which time Mr. Harper asked him if he had an agenda. Council Member Clifford asked Mr. Harper if the city lost the first reporting document and the second reporting document the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth and the seventh. He further questioned Mr. Harper if he was alleging that all of those documents were lost. Mr. Harper asked Council Member Clifford if he was alleging that they did not send the reports. Council Member Clifford said he did not know and either Mr. Harper did not send them or the city held them up. Mayor Hashmi said he was going to stop this. Mayor Hashmi said they had a motion on the floor. He asked Council Member Clifford to restate his motion. Council Member restated his motion to go through the 2004 contract and completely enforce it. Council Member Lancaster seconded the motion. Motion carried, 6 ayes — 0 nays, with Council Member Plata not casting a vote. Council Member Plata said he did not want to vote. 22. Discuss disannexation requests received from Dennison (Lot 14, Wildwood Estates) and Kear (Lot 16, Wildwood Estates), and provide direction to city staff. Mayor Hashmi said that when the applicants on Airport Road were disannexed, there was confusion as to whether or not Mr. Denison's application for disannexation was granted and he had re- applied for disannexation. Mr. Godwin said staff was seeking direction how to proceed. City Attorney Kent McIlyar said if Council wanted to move forward with these disannexations, that two public hearings would need to be scheduled. It was a consensus of City Council to move forward with these two disannexations. Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 16 23. Discuss a proposed definition for zoning district locations for an antique and classic automobile restoration use. Mr. Efrussy explained that Mrs. Sharon Jernigan expressed an interest in moving her antique and classic car restoration business from Reno, Texas to Paris. Mr. Efrussy further explained there was no actual definition for her proposed business in the Paris Zoning Ordinance. He said in order to aid in establishing this proposed use within the zoning ordinance, city staff and Mrs. Jernigan agreed on a definition. Mr. Efrussy informed Council since there was no particular description of this use in the zoning ordinance, staff undertook the stated language requirements in Section 8 -109 of the Paris Zoning Ordinance and at the meeting of November 2, 2015, it was an unanimous consensus of the Commission that automobile restoration should also be allowed as a permitted use in the same zones where Auto Sales and Repair were permitted. It was a consensus of the City `Council that automobile restoration be allowed as permitted use in the same zones with Auto Sales and Repair. A Motion to move item 25 up on the agenda was made by Council Member Pickle and seconded by Mayor Hashmi. Motion carried, 7 ayes — 0 nays. 25. Discuss and act on the purchase of a replacement fire truck. Fire Chief Larry Wright informed City Council that the normal life span of a fire truck was 10 years front line and 10 years reserve. He said last year the fire department had two fire trucks that were still front line after 17 years of service. He discussed with City Council the need for a ladder truck. Council heard a presentation from Captain Graves on behalf of the apparatus committee, who recommended purchasing a Quint fire truck in the amount of $975,185. Mr. Godwin said the payments would be spread over a ten year period, with the first payment being due in the 2016 -2017 budget. Council Member Lancaster confirmed with Mr. Godwin that the City now has an equipment retention policy in place. Following additional discussion, it was a consensus of City Council to proceed with the purchase of the Quint fire truck. 24. Discuss and act on execution of an agreement for inspection services H.W. Lochner, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $1,353,934.45. Mr. Godwin said Lochner was in attendance to answer any questions. Mayor Hashmi questioned why they could not just use them to inspect the area Council Member Clifford had brought forward at a previous council meeting. Mr. Godwin said they could do that. Mayor Hashmi favored having them inspect W. Houston and bringing back a report prior to awarding a lame contract. Council Member Plata said the same company that did W. Houston Street did 19 Street on Sherman and it was terrible. Mayor Hashmi said if Council was in agreement, he thought they should inspect the two streets first, come back to the Council with a report and then the Council could make a decision about the larger contract. Cary Hogue with Lochner said that was acceptable to them. He said this was a specified rate and said if they signed the contract they could begin work on B 1 and look at moving to B2. Mayor Hashmi said he was uncomfortable doing that but was comfortable with Lochner inspecting the two streets and if Regular Council Meeting November 16, 2015 Page 17 they like the work, then the Council may authorize the larger contract. Mr. Hogue said that was agreeable. It was a consensus of City Council for Lochner to begin inspection of the two streets referenced. 25. Consider and approve future events for City Council and/or City Staff pursuant to Resolution No. 2004 -081. Mayor Hashmi said if it was acceptable with the Council, he would like for them to send a letter to the mayor in Paris, France conveying their condolences about the tragedy in France. 26. Adjournment. There being no further business, a Motion to adjourn was made by Council Member Pickle and was seconded by Council Member'' Frierson. Motion carried, 7 ayes — 0 nays. The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. A.J. HASHMI, MAYOR JANICE ELLIS, CITY CLERK