Apr 07, 2020 City Council on 2020-04-07 4:00 PM (EMERGENCY MEETING)

Welcome everybody to this emergency meeting of the Denton City Council on Tuesday, April the 7th, 2020. It is 4.01 p.m. Before we get started, we do have, for this item, we have one person who made comments using our online forum. There was one in support and zero against. We also have one caller that wants to provide some public input. So I'm not sure that, I'm not sure that staff has an actual presentation. So what we'll do is we'll go ahead and cue the caller up, but we'll take the public comment after we go through any discussion here with the original first presentation of the resolution. So staff, Sarah, do you have that ready or? Sure. Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council, Sarah Keakler, Chief of Staff. We did prepare a resolution this morning and this afternoon in regards to the conversation requests we had last night from City Council. Last night during the new order that was adopted by City Council for a stay at home order through the end of the month, Council Member Meltzer had brought up a suggestion to adopt a resolution that would urge the governor to call a special session to address a number of items. So what we've done is drafted a resolution and I can share it on the screen and kind of walk through the main components of it and tried to reflect the discussion that we heard last night from City Council and then we can work on any edits or revisions as requested. So let me try to pull that ordinance up. All right, so it should be sharing on your screen now and this is included in the backup as well to the agenda. So the resolution as drafted has a number of whereas clauses acknowledging some of the things that we have discussed, acknowledging in the second whereas that there have been a number of executive orders from the governor to address COVID-19 and the response. The third whereas clause addresses that the Texas Supreme Court has taken action to prohibit any trials, hearings or other proceedings until after April 30th for eviction proceedings. The fourth whereas clause is expressing appreciation for some of the actions that have been taken to date from Governor Abbott and the Texas Supreme Court as mentioned, and that order that goes through the end of the month. The fifth whereas clause is acknowledging that unfortunately Sutton residents have lost or may continue to lose income or employment through no fault of their own and that they may not be expected or they may not be able to pay their rent on time without first receiving unemployment benefits. Going into the next clause, it's that discussion that we had yesterday in regards to that there is a delay in being able to apply and some uncertainty in knowing when individuals who even have applied successfully will receive those unemployment benefits at this time. Moving into the next whereas clause, that in Texas landlords have the right not to accept late rent payments and may be able to use non-payment of rent as grounds for eviction once the moratorium on evictions expires that the Texas Supreme Court has put into place. And then also encouraging the landlords and lenders to work and collaborate with homeowners and tenants during this period to provide relief as available. So those are kind of the acknowledgements that you would see in a resolution. And then going into if the resolution is adopted, council is asking for these things to take place. So section two would be asking that Governor Ebert call a special session of the Texas legislature to consider additional measures to address the public health emergency, including allowing renters the opportunity to cure the default of required rent payment if it was caused by the delay of unemployment benefits. And then secondly, disallowing any eviction or foreclosure proceedings against a person who's qualified for unemployment benefits but has yet not received them. And then it also in section three asks that the state of Texas and its agencies take whatever measures necessary and appropriate to increase the efficiency in accepting and processing applications and remitting benefits for individuals experiencing job loss or other financial hardship due. The governor and some of the state agencies have powers available to them as you've seen that have been put into place. And then fourth, requesting that landlords and lenders continue to collaborate and reflecting some of the conversation that council had last night. So that is the drafted resolution and we'll take any feedback. Any questions for staff before we go to the public comment just on the resolution itself? Council member Briggs, if we could drop the, if we could drop the, there we go. Council member Briggs. Yeah, so my question is, is this just about relationships between renters and landlords in general? So it encompasses all of those things, residential, commercial, it's about the relationship or is that? Sarah? I'm not sure if I understand. I think what she's asking is, is this just restricted to residential tenants and landlords or does this encompass the entire tenant landlord relationship which includes commercial properties and residential properties? And let me just follow that up because there's a lot of individuals that call to our business owners who are having the same issue with filing and getting that unemployment or the payment protection or the SBA loans. And so from what I read there, it would include that time when the payments weren't made. So I just, I was just curious if that was included. I think it was drafted to be for residential and that's how we've drafted it. Could you place the draft back on the screen please? And then just move down to the, the substantive part, the sections there. Okay, well, as far as the, it doesn't seem like it limits it to, and I see section four for, section four seems to have some maybe clarifying language, but it says collaborate with one another, homeowners and tenants to identify and provide solutions for continuing housing through the duration of this measure. So there's where the difference is Council Member Briggs is, are you wanting that to be more broad or are you okay with this limited scope? Well, I mean, I'm okay with this is the way it is, but I do think that the small business owners are having the same type issue with waiting for the funding and the rent being due. I just, I didn't notice that it said housing in the first run through. So it was just really a question. Let's see, let me get, okay, could we go ahead and pull that down so I can see all my colleagues? Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Council Member Armitage, I believe, and then Council Member Metz will go to you. So, so several points/questions, one, what about expanding it to not only unemployment, but any kind of federal or state funding? I don't, I don't want that to, if that substantively changes this, then I wouldn't want to, you know, add further complication, but money is money and rent is rent. And so I think that as long as any kind of landlord could be assured that some kind of money was coming in, or at least that it's been applied for, you know, that that could help. Number two, it is in no particular order, I wonder if instead of, in section two, and this is for a city attorney, so heads up, if instead of saying disallowing any eviction or foreclosure proceedings, what about saying disallowing any notice to vacate posting, you know, keeping it on the municipal level so as not to step in into that, that territory. I'm not saying that that's not possible, but it's much less controversial to stick to notice of vacate, to notice to vacate. And then thirdly, I wonder, and this is a genuine, you know, not really knowing which is most strategic, I have a guess, but never having done this before, this being my first date of emergency, I wonder if instead of calling for a special legislative session, which is so rare, unfortunately, what about just simply trying to get this in under section 214 of the state code, you know, whereby the governor, whereby if we pass this, it would have to go to just the governor for approval and he wouldn't have to hold a special legislative session. That probably comes with disadvantages too, but at least in terms of timing, maybe if that came back as a no, then we would, the next step would be to call for a special legislative session. Hi, and mayor, I can answer those questions if I may with question number two, whether we add a notice to vacate or use the term eviction, it's all the same. It's talking about residential evictions. Now keep in mind that the whole purpose of this is to request the governor to call the special session for the legislature to address these issues through a temporary or a permanent amendment to state the property code provisions that deal with the evictions process. And so that's that process. To me, I would leave that language eviction because it encompasses the notice to vacate that you, that you're seeking. If you're seeking for something else, that's for the legislature to consider. As far as your third question, rent control, which is the provision that you sent to, or you mentioned yesterday to the council, rent control has a certain definition and that's basically to provide some type of restriction on landlords to increase the rent up to a certain, past, or sorry, beyond a certain dollar amount or a percentage amount, such as what New York City has or San Francisco. That's the whole concept of rent control. Rent control does not mean waiving of rent or abatement of rent. So if the, and the provision that you identified is also tied to emergency disaster to implement rent control. In our case, if we wanted to do something like that, we would be seeking permission from the governor to allow us to freeze the rent. So whatever rent was in effect the day before the first declaration that the mayor adopted, that would be the rent to continue that it wouldn't increase beyond that. It would not be for waiving of rent or the abatement of rent. Okay. So this would not call now. So you're saying that this would not fit under that category as opposed to something like a rent grace period or a freeze. Is that what you're saying that it wouldn't, that it's just, that it would have to go to another legislative session? What I'm saying is that whatever you submit to the governor under the 212.904, it's to ask them, the governor to allow you to implement at the local level a rent control system. So I'm going to interject here, I'm going to interject here. This is wholly outside, I mean, we're not going to spend a whole lot of, we're not going to spend a whole lot of time trying to add to this because we had a specific conversation about it. If we want to modify it somewhat, but we don't, we haven't even received anything from legal staff regarding your inquiry or your bringing up to the council this 418.212. So I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on this. I think we've got the question answered that this is not a rent freeze, it's not a grace period, it's a rent freeze of the amount prior to the declaration of emergency, you can't raise the rent. So I'm not sure what else you're needing to know on this. Anyway, what you just said just made me more confused, but I mean, I'll do more research on it and I hope this works. I support it, I just want to do it the way that works best, however we can help people best. Okay. Council Member Davis, let me go to Council Member Meltzer because he's the one that sort of proffered this and there's some question about or comments about maybe expanding it, so I just want to get your input on it as sort of what I would consider the author of this item to begin with. Yeah, thank you. First of all, thanks to everyone for being willing to have this special session. I think I understand Councilor Armstead's question a little differently. I took it to be, would it be faster if we just asked the governor to act on emergency powers? And my understanding, and I'm asking Aaron to confirm this, is that these specific asks are not within the governor's emergency powers. He's got the power to suspend laws. Paul, you're freezing out a little bit. Can you repeat that specifically why I put forward this request for a special session? Okay. Paul, you're… Do you want to respond to that, Aaron? Well, no. The thing is you froze up a little bit and so your speech was sort of garbled. Yeah. Did you catch any of that? Just barely. And you're still sort of frozen on the video and the audio is a little bit garbled. Okay. I think… Let me try it again. Is this better? That's better. Yes. Go ahead. So, I think I understood Councilmember Armstead's question differently. I believe she was asking, would this be faster if we were just asking for the governor to act? My understanding, and I'm looking to Aaron to confirm, is that these would fall outside of the governor's Emergency Powers Act alone, that he can suspend laws or provisions of laws but he can't write them. That's why specifically I've presented this as a request for a special legislative session. So I think I'll pause for a minute and let Aaron respond if that's correct. And that is correct. The governor will suspend, but as the governor has already indicated, he's not going to rewrite specific provisions and laws. Yeah. So that's why this is presented this way. Secondly, I don't respond to what Councilmember Briggs offered up as well, but I'd like to say my own amendment to my own thing here that was just sort of too late breaking to get into the draft for you, but I'd like us to consider is when we talk about suspending, disallowing eviction proceedings, excuse me, foreclosure proceedings, I would also want that to apply to mortgaged rental property where tenants are waiting for unemployment benefits. So I hope we can address that. And as far as whether we expand this to include other federally backed programs where the proceeds can be used to apply to rent, I would support that. Okay, sorry about that, Paul, could you repeat the last thing you said that you could support? Oh, well, I'm trying to paraphrase what I think Councilmember Briggs was suggesting that we apply the same effort against not just those waiting for unemployment benefits, but those waiting for other federally backed COVID-19 related funds that can be used for rent. In other words, if someone has been approved for PPP loan or the other previous form of loan but is waiting for funds that would apply there as well, I think that's a constructive suggestion. I'd be fine with that. Okay, all right. Councilmember Davis? Sure. So real quick, I think to one of the points that just has been made, I think that if I'm not mistaken, it's 120 day freeze right now on calling the note or foreclosure on any federally backed commercial loans as well. So there's some additional predictions there. I guess my overall caution for the council would be, and a very supportive of the resolution, that we not get too bogged down in wordsmithing it. Ultimately, we're asking the governor to call a special session of a bunch of people who are pretty sure they know how to write the law and hopefully if we get what we want, they're going to get together and they're going to write the law they're going to write. And if that happens, then we want to reach out to our individual legislators and kind of advocate for what it is that we want to advocate for. But I think the more simple we keep this, the better. And I think our whereas is as staff has drafted it, make it really clear what our aims are and what our motivations are and what we'd like to see out of the special session. Okay. So yeah, what you're saying is maybe, and this is, if I'm incorrect, let me know that you're okay with the original draft, simply because it does not limit us to just simply those items mentioned in the draft that this is just a request primarily to be to have a special session, which if that occurs, there's going to be a lot of other things are going to be a part of that special session other than what we've requested and most likely some of those other items that we've discussed would be in there as well. Yeah, that's basically correct. I mean, we're not writing the bill now, not writing the relief now we're asking for them to get together and be a legislator, a legislature, and that's a whole different thing. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem. Yes, thank you. I do want to strip out a couple of things. The section there under section two, the first bullet, it says, you know, touches on payment. If caused by delay in unemployment benefits by making late rent payments, if the goal is to be successful and not draw immediate blowback from those that would be at the state that would be discussing that, that second portion either needs to be balanced by saying leveraged against that unemployment benefit because right now it says, if you show one, it's a little narrow because it's, you could have a situation where people are in a bad situation and not be able to tie it directly to delay of unemployment benefits. So that kind of tailors it a little narrow, one, and then two, the immediate blowback is okay, you're waiting on benefits, but as an individual, I don't have any way to put a lien or recoup that money first. So then you put me further on the back burner. So now you're waiting on unemployment benefits, your unemployment benefits come in and you have other stuff you want to pay for. Well, then I'm left holding the bag, you know, so I think you would get immediate blowback on that. And the second bullet point, similar thought about just, I don't think it would be well received where it requires a commitment to, so let me see here, it says, pardon me just a minute. So it talks about disallowing evictions, but for, you know, we have property owners that are hurting as well. And so there's no, it doesn't close the loop on that. It just says, well, property owners, you're in this kind of nebulous territory and we're going, we're asking the governor to extend that gray area for further without any end in sight or without kind of giving some direction. So I'd really like to see that component either left out or at least give some, speak to the other side of the argument. If we're going to be successful, we're going to have to speak to the fact that there are property owners that are concerned about when they're going to get paid because they have bills that they have to satisfy as well. Okay. So what I want to do is I want to toll the discussion between council right now. I want to take the caller who's been on hold so patiently and graciously. So I want to go ahead and go to the caller and then we'll come back and have this brief discussion to wrap it up. Rick Hamilton, are you there? Mr. Hamilton? Okay. Mr. Hamilton, are you there? Yes, I am. Okay, good. Thank you so much. You're on with the Dent City Council for this public portion, public comment portion of this agenda item. So if you, as soon as you state your name and address, your time will begin and I'll be the timekeeper. You'll have four minutes. So you're, if you could go ahead and start, that'd be great. Okay. My name is Rick Hamilton. I live at 902 Church Street in Sanger, Texas. I'll just germane to what you're talking about today, but the thing I wanted to say was that first place, government telling a business, private business, what it can and can't do and when it can open and when it can't is totally unconstitutional and it doesn't matter whether it's the city government, state government or the federal government. The other half of that story is we all understand we're in a very careless time and we need to do some of these things in order for us to make health better for everybody. Those businesses are doing that, are doing this on a voluntary more or less basis. You ask them to do it and they've done it. They deserve all the rewards they can get for doing it. They're looking out for better wellbeing of all of us. The way that I would encourage you to encourage the businesses to do it on a voluntary basis is when this is all over with, give them tax breaks so that they can recover their business faster. Also, I believe that there should be low or no penalties for those who violate these things. Again, it's unconstitutional. I would also say that I would hope and do not want this to happen, that there should be no closing, permanent closings of grocery stores, gas stations or pharmacies. If you want to cause a panic in the public, that would be the way to do it and I'm sure that's not what you're in at. Or at least let them do this, let them rotate their days when they're open, like Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, Kroger's open, Tuesdays and Thursdays, Albertsons is open, Friday and Saturday, Walmart and whoever else, holidays may be open. And I have a deputy or a policeman at the door to maintain 10 people at a time going in and coming out. That would accomplish the purpose of distancing and keeping the food shelves full because they'll be able to stock the shelves and they won't have people in there all the time. 10 people at a time should fix it where with a limit of so much per person, everybody ought to have a chance to get a better chance of getting what they need. Pharmacies definitely need to be open. There are four things we all need just to live, and it's not talking about freedoms and rights. It's air, food, water and shelter. If you close the grocery stores, there's no food to be got. If you close the grocery stores, some of us can't drink the water we've got in our towns and so we have to buy bottled water. You're taking away water. If you close the gas stations, those of us who are in essential businesses who have essential jobs who want to get to work, have to get to work, then you're fixing it where we can't get to our jobs and our mortgages and our rents don't get paid and we're in trouble that way. So, three things that we need just to live. If you shut grocery stores and gas stations down, you're going to take those away. Plus, the pharmacies must stay open because there's those of us who have medication we have to have such as diabetics and heart patients and so forth like that. Those businesses need to be open and you can regulate them, balance it out where some pharmacies are open some days, some the other, 10 people at a time. This is my suggestion. I appreciate you guys listening to me and let me have my say. I hope that's germane to what you're talking about today and my prayers are with you in whatever you do. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Councilmember Armitter. Oh, question for the caller, if he's still on the phone, are you still there, sir? Yes, ma'am. I am. Go ahead. Okay. Yes. So, I just, for what it's worth, I just wanted to assure you that on this city council and I can say I have not heard any talk at the state level or at the federal level of closing grocery stores or pharmacies or gas stations. Right now they're listed under essential businesses and as far as I've heard, that that's not even up for debate. So rest assured, I think that most decision makers, regardless of our disagreements on details, agree with you that food and shelter and clean air are essentials and also transportation. Okay. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Armitter. Mr. Hamilton, thank you so much for calling in. Appreciate it. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. All right. Okay. We will pick back up with our discussion on the resolution. I really like Councilmember Davis's, I'm going to be hesitant to really agree to a lot of changes to this ordinance as it's written simply because number one, article came out today that the comptroller was given some interviews and talked about either the likelihood or non-likelihood of a special session being called by the governor. That's sort of up in the air, that's not something that is expected. But also this isn't the bill. This isn't, if they go into special session, this is not what is going to happen. And I'm sure that if they do, we're going to have many more opportunities to craft that or to have our say in how that's crafted as we move forward. So I don't want to get into a big long discussion trying to craft a bill right now when we're just simply asking for the government to have a special session based upon these basic things. And it's not limited to those things. We're not limited to that, either adding to it and we're not limited to it from subtracting from it. So let's not get bogged down in that today. So I'd really, what I'd like to see is if we just couldn't have some action on the motion. Mayor Pro Tem, I understand you were asking for that, but I think I needed to be consistent with some of what Councilmember Meltzer had also done and that is provided some additional changes that he would like. And I really appreciated Councilmember Davis chiming in with, we could talk about this, but whatever we craft is we're not going to be beholden to it, I guess, is the point. The main point of this is to call for a special session. Any other comments? Chair would look for some action on this. Councilmember Davis? I move approval of the resolution as presented. Councilmember Meltzer? Yeah, I'll second, and then we'll hear how, you know, amendments go. Sure. All right. We have a motion and a second. Mayor Pro Tem? I think I want to have a clear record. I'll vote for this, but I think it's, the state is leery of cities overreaching at this point and to ease those concerns, I think is prudent because obviously it's going to be met with resistance because it is extraordinary and we're asking for something extraordinary and so I think we should put ourselves in the best position to not act like we haven't a gotcha around the corner because once they get there, if we follow the logic, then all of a sudden we lump a bunch of ideas on them versus being transparent and narrow up front. Not to say this is not transparent, just saying we could narrow it a bit and remove some of the angst that may prevent action on this. So I don't think this is the way to be most successful to get it heard, but I think to vote against it gives us no opportunity to be heard, in my opinion, and so I'll support it, but I think it's not shaped well. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Briggs? Yeah, so I'll be supporting it, but I'm kind of the opposite. I feel like it should be a little bit more general and when we're talking about the state government, if you add in small businesses, they seem to have more of a, I don't know, they want to do more for the small businesses and so by adding that in, I think it's more likely to get heard and also help some of our community small businesses here as well. But again, I will be supporting this today. Okay. Anybody else? Councilmember Armitter? Then we'll go to Councilmember Ryan. I too, I agree with what Councilmember Briggs said, but I will be supporting it today since I want what we have consensus on. I also think that it is more likely to get approval if we do notice to vacate, but I hope to be proven wrong. I just want what we can get consensus on and pass, so I approve. Okay. Councilmember Ryan? Thank you, Mayor. Along the same line as Mayor Pro Tem, I think that it's nice to reach out to them and say it would be good if you did have a special session, but I don't know that we've got enough pull to get anything in there to actually get it done. Having read that article earlier today, I see it quite unlikely, but at least it's a gesture and I can support it in that manner. Okay. Councilmember Meltzer? I'd like to ... I've heard opinions about whether or not that would happen or not. I would like to suggest that if we do in fact pass this today, that we distribute it to the Texas Municipal League to be shared with other municipalities and as they choose to their legislative delegations. I believe that our elected representatives seeing the opportunity to do something very targeted and constructive where they've really not had an opportunity to directly help. I think there may be more appetite than the people are saying right now to take some action. Of course, I'll be voting yes. Okay. Real quick, Councilmember Armitage? I would support that too. I think it would be good to get coalition of cities on it. I do think that some of them are going to ask why we're not doing it under Section 214 and just legislating it ourselves and get the governor's approval. But yeah, I think it's good to get coalition work with us on it. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. So we're going to poll. Councilmember Davis, I'll say you. Aye. Councilmember Meltzer? Aye. Mayor Pro Tem? Aye. Okay. Councilmember Briggs? Yes. Councilmember Armitage? Aye. Councilmember Ryan? Aye. Mayors an aye. Motion carries unanimously 7-0. That will conclude our emergency called meeting at this time. We will adjourn at 436 to reconvene for our normally scheduled work session at 5 p.m.