From the councilman's chambers:

The city council authorized the City Manager, Director of Finance, the City’s Financial Advisor and the City’s Bond Counsel to review the Bond Series 1996 and 1997 for possible refinancing.

Depending on the current finance market, said bonds could possibly be refinanced saving the city taxpayers $100K to $161K.

 From the councilman's chambers:

The five year grant only covers a portion of salaries and benefits for the six additional firefighters, with a decreasing funding scale each year.  The city will be responsible for covering the remaining portion of salaries and benefits not funded through the grant.

Based upon the current economy, this additional funding would be a concern to the city budget and taxpayers.

The city was contacted by the Ellis County Emergency Services District # 2 (ESD), who offered financial assistance to the city if we agreed to enhance service capability for the district.

The ESD board assured the city that the board could fully pay the city’s portion of the grant for FY 08-09, FY 09-10 and a major portion for FY 10-11.  By the ESD stepping up with financial assistance, the city will accept the SAFER grant for an additional six new firefighters, with little or no cost to the taxpayers.

Getting "free money" from grants saves the citizens of Midlothian from spending their tax dollars.  I have relentlessly preached about getting money from other sources, and I commend Fire Chief Schrodt for his ingenuity and concern for the citizens in making this grant a reality.

 From the councilman's chambers:

The original ordinance that passed council last meeting (1/27/09) by a 4-3 vote, with Fryer, Massey and myself opposing the ordinance, was resubmitted by staff for two minor text changes.

I remained opposed to the ordinance because I feel government is taking control of your livelihood and your Constitutional rights.  This new ordinance will restrict how you maintain your property.

As I stated during the last posting, there are properties that need to be addressed regarding compliance, but don’t group everyone in the same category.  There are current ordinances on the books that will address compliance concerns without creating an additional new ordinance like this one.

 From the councilman's chambers:

The Community Problem Solvers representing Frank Seale and Walnut Grove Middle Schools will promote a district-wide fundraiser from January 26^th through February 5^th.

The group is asking the entire population of MISD to join them in community spirit and donate a dollar ( just $1.00) toward project P.L.A.Y.

The purpose of project Playgrounds Linking A community of Young people is to modify the Hawkins Springs Park so that it is accessible for children with or without disabilities.  This will enable all children to interact with each other and receive the full benefit of the playground.

The goal is to overcome barriers between children of all abilities so everyone may enjoy life to its fullness.

Students donating to the project will have the privilege to be in a giant photograph that will be placed in their school for the duration of time.  Each photo will be unique to each school.

The city council voted to support the group and match all funds collected for this worthy project.

If you or your business would like to donate to the Community Problem Solvers, please call 972-775-5355.

From the councilman's chambers:

There was considerable debate among council members regarding the proposed ordinance.  I feel the ordinance groups everyone into one definition, regardless if your home is well maintained or disorganized.  Fryer, Massey and I feel that 90% of good responsible people are being punished for the 10% who don’t care how their property is maintained.  Mayor Whatley, Frizzell, Houston and Sibley feel the ordinance is needed.

City staff amended the information to a point that the ordinance primarily affects home owners with less than an acre. The ordinance is very detailed and there will be several changes. The end result is property owners with less than an acre will not be able to keep a boat, utility trailer, RV trailer, etc., on the property, unless the vehicle is concealed behind a 6’ privacy fence or live screening (bushes), and sitting on an improved surface, i.e., concrete, stones or gravel hidden from public view.  There are other requirements to the ordinance.

Although I don’t own any of these vehicles above, I personally cannot afford to install a privacy fence around my half-acre yard, and I’m sure others are in the same situation.  You have three choices;  commercial storage facility, comply with the ordinance or sell your vehicle.

From the councilman's chambers:

The city’s goal is to prohibit the installation of all off premise billboards within the city limits of Midlothian, with special attention directed to the electronic media billboards. Existing billboards not meeting the amended ordinance regarding maintenance and service may be removed.

The city feels that the electronic media billboards and billboards in general, are a distraction to the driver and may cause a vehicular accident by the driver viewing the information while in motion.

The electronic media billboards are becoming popular throughout the country.  Billboards in general, are a way of life for the motoring public.  Their existence began in the early 1900’s.  Many studies have proven billboards are not the primary cause of vehicular accidents on the highway.  Driver error was the main cause.

It is my personal belief that billboards are no more dangerous than someone talking on a cellular telephone, talking to a passenger, adjusting the radio station or any other distraction that drivers face daily while operating a motor vehicle. 

It’s human nature that the majority of people want to blame someone or something for their mistakes.  People need to accept personal responsibility and learn from their mistakes.

I have no opposition to general billboards or the new electronic media billboards.  In my opinion, reading and viewing billboards is a way of staying alert while driving.

From the councilman's chambers:

The purpose of this ordinance is to remove immobile vehicles, prevent multiple parking, organize trailers/campers, recreation vehicles and many other issues pertaining to the residential home.

There are areas within the city limits of Midlothian that require attention to these concerns.  My concern regarding this ordinance is that it will group all residential homes into one definition, and I feel this is unfair to certain home owners.

There are many homes within the city limits of Midlothian that are well maintained regarding the exterior structure, landscaped yard, grass, fencing, etc, and meet all current city ordinances.

This new ordinance will force some home owners, depending on lot size, who own a boat, utility trailer, camper, recreation vehicle or a multiple vehicle family, to restructure their driveway, yard and fencing to comply.

As a home owner you may be required to comply with this new ordinance.  The ordinance is very detailed with information.  Click here to review the ordinance being presented to the council on January 13, 2009.

I will share several new requirements, but please read the ordinance for full details:

• Except as otherwise provided in section 12.003.009 it shall be unlawful for the owner, occupant or person in charge of property to park or store or permit the parking or storage of a vehicle, recreational vehicle, trailer, large vehicle or utility trailer on vacant or unimproved property within the front yard of any residential lot or tract that is smaller than two (2) acres in area.

• Except as otherwise provided in section 12.003.009 it shall be unlawful for the owner, occupant or person in charge of property within a residential district to park or store or permit the parking or storage of a vehicle, recreational vehicle, trailer, large vehicle or utility trailer on vacant or unimproved property within the side or rear yard except on an improved parking surface if parking surface is visible from a public street, or gravel if not so visible. Any vehicle parked within the side yard shall screened from view by a fence six (6) feet in height or by a live screening wall that grows to a height of six (6) feet along the side yard property line running the length of the large vehicle and/or the towable vehicle.  

There are many homes that do not have access to the rear yard for parking or storing boats, campers or trailers.  If this describes your situation, you have two choices; sell your boat, camper, etc, or pay to store the item in a commercial storage facility.

I personally feel the long arm of government is now reaching into your back yard controlling your property, your possessions and your life.  I voiced my concern during the council discussion regarding this item, but the item was tabled for the next council meeting, January 13, 2009.

There are many citizens who attended the council meeting and supported this ordinance.  I believe if people want to live under government control and allow the government to tell them how to manage their home, then I feel these individuals need to move from the middle and lower middle class neighborhoods to a gated community where there are multiple regulations telling you how to live, manage your property and your life.

I’m just a regular person who works hard to enjoy the simple things in life.  I don’t own a boat, camper, utility trailer or recreation vehicle.  I maintain my home, as my neighbors do, and if my neighbor is financially blessed to own a boat or camper and it’s parked in his driveway, then I will be his friend.  I enjoy fishing and camping.

From the councilman's chambers:

Both items were originally listed under the Consent Agenda.  Items under the Consent Agenda are not discussed or debated, unless a request is made to transfer said item to the regular agenda for discussion.

The items were transferred to the regular agenda after a pre-council discussion that I had with Mr. Hastings, City Manager, regarding details of the expenditures.

According to Mr. Hastings, the expenditures listed under these two items were allocated for payment in the 2007-2008 budget, but were not expended. Now the city is requesting council’s approval to pay these expenditures.

The concern that I addressed with Mr. Hastings and fellow council members is that the agenda items provided no details regarding the expenditure.  I requested details about the service that was provided to justify the expenditures.  This information was not provided in a timely manner for a decision.

I could not accept responsibility for approving these two items, totaling $541,155.35, without knowing who, when, where, what, why and how the services incurred said expenditures.  It appeared through the vote of 6-1, my fellow council members did not feel the same way.

From the councilman's chambers:

This forced annexation process has been oncoming since December 22, 2005. I became involved in the forced annexation issue when elected to the city council in May 2007. The process involved many meetings, both open and closed to the public, and drew much controversy from the general public and the news media.

Last night, November 25, 2008, in the presence of approximately 200 plus rural and city citizens filling the council chamber, hallways and the outside parking lot, the city council voted to forcibly annex approximately 1100 rural citizens into the City of Midlothian.  The atmosphere was filled with anger, resentment and shock that council members and Mayor Boyce Whatley would do such an act with so much opposition and resistance from the rural citizens. 

Mr. Hastings and Mayor Whatley tried to defend their decision by sharing past annexation experiences and a class on economics regarding how forced annexation is good for the people. These comments angered the new Midlothian citizens and Mr. David Lister, Annexation Activist, was forcibly removed from the council chamber by the Midlothian Police Department.

I voiced opposition on forced annexation, explaining why I believe this is a violation of the United States Constitution and further violates the personal rights of individuals, without the opportunity to vote. My comments were received by the citizens, but my fellow council members and Mayor Whatley disagreed.

This city now has approximately 1100 new Midlothian city voters.  It is my opinion if the annexation group remains united, city government will change and the current city leaders will be voted out of office.  There will be a new day in Midlothian.

See “Personal Convictions” for further information.

From the councilman's chambers:

As I stated in the previous posting, I have drawn the line on unnecessary spending until the people can see where this economy is going.  People are losing their jobs, life savings and homes due to the current conditions.  We are in the midst of a Presidential race and no one knows what the future holds.

It is my opinion, spending $93,000 (over $12 per citizen) to have a company design a trail system at this time is unacceptable.  The construction of this trail system is years away.  The landscape and environment may change before construction, thus creating new and additional expenses.

I have nothing against Parks and Trails, but at this time,  I believe this city needs to stop spending and save the taxpayer’s money until the economy improves.  If we don’t, and the economy continues to plummet, the taxpayers will suffer the burden of higher taxes and loss of services.

If you agree with my beliefs, please contact Mayor Whatley and other Council Members and tell them to “stop the spending.”

From the councilman's chambers:

I have fourteen years in law enforcement.  Five of the fourteen was in criminal investigation, i.e., homicide and armed robbery.  I’m not opposed to crime prevention or the implementation of HIDTA.  The City of Midlothian is responsible for housing the HIDTA Task Force, and our Police Chief, Carl Smith, is the Host for HIDTA.

The formation of HIDTA consists of various officers from multiple jurisdictions, e.g., IRS, ATF, ICE and several local cities.  I questioned Chief Smith during his presentation to council, regarding who initiated HIDTA, reason for the formation, responsibilities, structure, jurisdiction, and mainly why the Ellis County Sheriff's Department is not part of HIDTA.

With the information I currently have been provided, I have the following problems with this plan:

• the lack of coordination with the supreme law enforcement agency in the county, the Ellis County Sheriff's Department,

• Midlothian is housing this group, but it is apparent HIDTA was not initiated by the Midlothian Police Department, and we have only one officer involved,

• the only other cities participating are DeSoto (2 officers), Lancaster (1 officer), and Seagoville (1 officer),

• the Dallas County Sheriff's Office, the Red Oak Police Department, the DEA, and the FBI were all invited to join this task force– but have not accepted,

• potential liability if one of our officers is hurt, or hurts someone, outside Ellis County, and,

• the IRS being involved with drug enforcement in our city.

During my questioning of Chief Smith, my Council and Mayor Whatley "Called the Question.”  In simple terms, a vote was immediately taken to close the discussion preventing any further questioning of Chief Smith and to keep me from getting any more information.  The motion passed 5-2.  A second vote was taken to approve the HIDTA item for housing at the Justice Center, passing 6-1.

In conclusion, there are many concerns and until I fully understand its existence, I cannot support HIDTA working inside the City of Midlothian.

From the councilman's chambers:

City Council approved the updating of the existing ordinance allowing the formation of a reserve police force.  This new ordinance will permit the hiring of qualified individuals to assist the police department in crime prevention.  These individuals will not be compensated for services, with the exception of medical coverage if injured while performing official duties.

This new program will put more police officers on the street at no cost to the taxpayer.

From the councilman's chambers:

This is the same agenda item that was presented to council last meeting where “CAPP” requested a 24 year contract for electricity.  Changes in the agreement/contract were acceptable to council, thus approving the new contract.  Changes are listed below:

• Five year contract versus twenty-four year contract

• No upfront funding – pay as we use

• One electrical provider versus seven providers

The negative side – the new 5 year contract cost per kwh at or below 8.5 cent, versus the 24 year contract at 5.5 cent.

As I stated at the last council meeting, a 24 year contract at this time, with new technology on the market, would not benefit the taxpayers to be locked into a long term contract for electricity.

From the councilman's chambers:

I realize a 9.21 % increase to your residential household monthly bill is not a lot of money, but when will it stop?  Government (federal, state, county & city) must draw the line.  The taxpayer cannot continue bailing out industry and corporate America for their poor economic planning and allowing government to take control.

I personally believe the 9.21% increase amending the contract for Allied Waste could have been avoided through contract negotiations regarding how services are provided, without passing the increase to the taxpayer.  The contract for Allied Waste ends in 2009.  I will encourage city staff to review other options before presenting a new contract to council for approval.

I’m drawing the line on industry and corporate increases passed through the city to the taxpayers.  The taxpayer can no longer accept the burden of industry and corporate increases.  Industry and corporate America must revamp and balance their own internal operation, without asking the American taxpayer to pay their bills.  We cannot continue supporting corporate America for their mistakes and survive personally. 

From the councilman's chambers:

This item would have locked the city into a 24 year contract with CAPP to purchase electricity.  On paper, the program was very appealing with the concept of purchasing electrical power at a price below consumer cost for the next 24 years.  This program required the city to pay three-fifths of the cost (millions of dollars) up-front, pledging your ad valorem tax (property tax) to pay this bill.

I read the contract and viewed the video.  There were many unanswered questions about the program that concerned me, including:

• The program only provided 60% of the power needed.  The remaining 40% would come from other sources.

• Seven separate companies would provide the power to the program for the 24 year period.  According to the information, within that time period a provider could default from the system, thus leaving the program to seek other providers.  Currently, there are only five providers.  Funds are needed to secure the remaining two providers.

• The overall cost to CAPP members is subject to increase, based upon the current economy, but not to exceed 5.5 cent.

• The city is required to pay three-fifths of the cost upfront to become a member of CAPP.  I believe the amount was approximately $2M.

• My main concern is a 24 year contract is entirely too long to commit to a specific service.  In the current economy and new technology, we may not be dependent upon natural gas and coal to generate electricity.  I believe there may be other options in the near future that will change the way we generate electricity for consumers.

I was pleased to learn other council members felt the same way when I addressed my concerns to the council.  The item was tabled indefinitely.  If council would have passed this item, future council members and taxpayers would be extremely burdened with this tremendous debit when new technology arrives on the market.

From the councilman's chambers:

The Midlothian Development Authority/Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone is an area that I fully do not understand.  I have concerns regarding its authority and the way funds are collected and disbursed.  My understanding of the TIRZ program, industry/corporations within that zone, is that a percentage (approximately (40%) of their property taxes paid to the city is set aside for improvements and/or rehabilitation for that designed zone.   Between corporate tax abatements and the TIRZ program, I believe the home owner is toting the note for property tax revenue for the city.

I will be attending an all day seminar on October 10th, in Austin, TX, to learn about the Tax increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ).  If the TIRZ program is beneficial to the city taxpayers, I will be the first to acknowledge.