Jan 07, 2026 Charter Review Committee

[CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

[00:00:11]

THIS MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TO CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER. WE HAVE HERE OUR FULL GROUP. ROBERT OWEN, SECRETARY MARK DOUGLAS, JEN GREENWALD, GENE HARRIS VICE CHAIR, AND MYSELF, LINDA AIRD. WE ALSO HAVE OUR CITY STAFF LIAISON, CHARLES WEST, THE CITY MANAGER, AND OUR CITY COUNCIL LIAISON, JESS HALL. WELCOME TO EVERYONE. AND WE EVEN HAVE A CITIZEN PARTICIPANT TODAY. THIS MAY BE A FIRST. SO LET'S START

[II.1. Routine reports from City Council Liaison(s).]

SO I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC ONES. THE OTHER, THE ONLY THING I WOULD MENTION IS THAT THE WORK OF THIS COMMITTEE IS REVIEW COMMITTEE IS MORE IMPORTANT, I THINK, THAN EVER, IN THAT A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE AND DECIDED UPON BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE ON HOLD PENDING THE COMPLETION OF YOUR WORK, BECAUSE THERE'S A NUMBER OF ORDINANCE ORDINANCES AND AND OTHER THINGS THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE FOR FOR US TO TRY TO DO ANYTHING WITH IN THE SHORT TERM IN TERMS OF MAKING CHANGES, BECAUSE ALL OF THAT NEEDS TO BE THE SAME, OF COURSE, WITH THEIR CHARTER. AND SO YOUR WORK IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO MOVE FORWARD AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS YOU CAN TO COMPLETE THAT TASK. BUT AGAIN, IT'S TOO IMPORTANT TO TO NOT DO THOROUGHLY, AND WE ALL APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING. THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT. AND AND WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET IT DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND WE ARE TRYING FOR THE END OF JANUARY OR THE BEGINNING OF FEBRUARY TO HAVE THIS COMPLETE. SO. AND MR. WEST, DO YOU HAVE A REPORT? NO, I JUST YOU KNOW WHAT, COUNCIL MEMBER HALL JUST MENTIONED? OKAY. APPRECIATE THE JOB YOU ALL ARE DOING. OKAY.

[III.1. Approval of Minutes of December 17, 2025, Charter Review Committee Meeting.]

[Items III.2 & III.3]

BUT IN THE INTEREST OF KIND OF MOVING THINGS FORWARD, I'LL GO AHEAD AND GIVE A, GIVE A SUMMARY. SO I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT AT THE LAST MEETING AND THE MEETING BEFORE. SO I THINK WE'RE PRETTY WELL ALIGNED ON THIS, BUT KIND OF GOING OVER THIS AGAIN TO

[00:05:03]

TO THIS SECTION, I PUT AS A NOTE THAT I KNOW WE'RE GETTING TO THE NITTY GRITTY HERE, RIGHT? FINISHING UP IN THIS MONTH OR NEXT MONTH. I'D LIKE THE. SO JUST NOT GOING TO HESITATE TO BRING UP ANY OF THE PUNCTUATION OR THINGS THAT KEEP ME UP AT NIGHT, RIGHT? I LIKE THAT WE HAVE ALL CAPS IN THE ARTICLE SECTION HEADERS. I THINK THAT'S NICE AND CONSISTENT. SO I JUST WANTED TO CALL THAT OUT. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE THAT. I THINK THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING ABOUT OUR CHARTER. THAT'S GOOD. AND SECTION 2.01 THAT'S CHANGED TO THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE AUBREY CITY CHARTER. AND THEN WE DELETED OUR SECTION 2.02, BECAUSE THE SECTION ABOVE FROM AUBREY'S CHARTER REALLY ENCOMPASSES THAT. SO THAT KIND OF STREAMLINES THINGS, MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT LESS REDUNDANT. RIGHT? OUR WHOLE GOAL IS TO KIND OF PULL THIS SECTION DOWN AND THEN SECTION THE NEW SECTION 2.02. RIGHT. WE TOOK OUT THE EXISTING IS SECTION, THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND THE PREVIOUS SECTION, AGAIN, CONSISTENT WITH CHANGING THE TITLE OF THIS ARTICLE TO FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO THIS. THE WORDING OF THIS SECTION. AGAIN, IT'S OUR PREVIOUS SECTION 1.02. THAT'S NOW OUR NEW 2.02. EVERYTHING ELSE IS EXACTLY THE SAME. IT'S JUST MOVING IT TO THE TO ARTICLE TWO. MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO SECTION 2.03 EMINENT DOMAIN. THIS WE HAD AT THE PAST COUPLE MEETINGS TO THE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH REALLY JUST KIND OF TAKES OUT ANY I MEAN AGAIN REALLY WITH THE NEXT COUPLE SECTIONS IS JUST KIND OF TAKING OUT ANY EXTRANEOUS WORDING. AND THEN I ELECTED TO KEEP, AS WE DISCUSSED, THE, THAT THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN SO THAT THE CITY CANNOT USE IT TO ACQUIRE LAND THAT IS OWNED BY OUR PROPERTY OWNER ASSOCIATION, THAT IS DEDICATED USE OF PARK LAND FOR A CITY PARK. AND THEN JUST A COUPLE TWEAKS THERE IN THE WORDING. BUT I STILL THINK, AND I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT, THAT THAT SHOULD REMAIN SEPARATE BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT PROHIBITION ZONING. AGAIN, THERE'S NOTHING REALLY SUBSTANTIVE. IT'S JUST KIND OF TAKING OUT REPETITION. DO YOU GUYS KNOW IF YOU WANT TO BRING UP YOUR COMMENT ABOUT CONTINUITY THAT I'M IN? YEAH, I JUST SUGGESTED MAKING SECTION 2.06 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, MOVING THAT TO ZERO FIVE. SO YOU'VE GOT EMINENT DOMAIN ZONING, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, AND THEN FINISHING IT OFF AS 206 TRANSITIONING CONTINUITY. I JUST SEEM TO MAKE MORE SENSE TO ME. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT TOO. SO ZERO SIX THEN WILL BECOME OH THREE. NO OH SIX WOULD BECOME 05505 AND ZERO FIVE EMINENT DOMAIN ZONING. AND THEN SO SO FIVE AND SIX ARE SWITCH PLACES. YES. YEP. JUST SWAP THOSE TWO. AND THEN THE ONLY THING AND MAYBE I MISSED THIS. FOR SECTION 2.06. THIS IS FROM. THIS IS FROM THE AUBREY CITY CHARTER. SO WHICH I DON'T I DON'T HAVE I JUST FOUND TWO POINTS. I'M PUTTING THIS IN FROM THE, FROM THE AUBREY CITY CHARTER THAT I THOUGHT WE COULD MENTION. THERE JUST TWO THINGS AS KIND OF GOING THROUGH IT. THAT FLAG I FLAGGED IN MY MIND THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO, AMONG OTHERS. SO AMONG OTHERS, KIND OF STUCK OUT TO ME AS KIND OF GOING AGAINST WHAT OUR INTENT WAS TO KIND OF SAY EXACTLY WHAT WE MEAN, LIKE THE THING THAT'S A LITTLE VAGUE OR JUST LIKE THAT. AND THEN RIGHT IN THAT SAME LINE, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN WITHIN OR WITHOUT ITS CORPORATE LIMITS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, WHERE BEFORE IN OUR PREVIOUS SECTION, IT IS RIGHT BELOW THAT LINE. I AM NOT MARRIED TO IT WHATSOEVER, IT'S JUST WHAT I HAD DONE PREVIOUSLY. SO I KEPT IT FOR BASICALLY ORGANIZING IT IN MY

[00:10:04]

I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE PREPARED TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT. SO I DON'T WANT MY COMMENT TO HOLD UP ANY ANYTHING. BUT I'LL SAY IT NOW AND THEN I'LL SAY IT WHEN THIS GETS TO COUNCIL. I WAS TRYING TO FIND ON MY PHONE MY. MY FOLDER ON MY NOTES REGARDING LAND USE AND THE LAWS AND CASE LAW THAT REGULATE IT, ESPECIALLY AS IT TIES TO ZONING. ONE OF THOSE IS A TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASE. I THINK IT WAS THE CITY OF PHARR. AND IT'S IN THAT WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT SPOT ZONING. AND IN THAT CASE, THE SUPREME COURT SAID THERE'S FOUR CRITERIA YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHEN REZONING LAND TO ENSURE THAT WHEN YOU'RE DEVIATING FROM YOUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, YOU HAVE THESE FINDINGS OF FACT SO THAT IT'S NOT SPOT ZONING. AND ONE OF THOSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IT TALKED ABOUT IN THAT OPINION WAS THE RIGHT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO PRESERVE THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. Y'ALL HAVE HEARD ME SAY THAT ON SOCIAL MEDIA. YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY IT ON THE DAIS IN PUBLIC COMMENTS. QUALITY OF LIFE IS SOMETHING THAT I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND RESEARCH AND SEE IF THAT WOULD FIT HERE IN THIS SECTION ON 2.04, IT TALKS ABOUT ZONING BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, PROTECTING AREAS OF HISTORICAL CULTURE. IT GOES ON. BUT IT WAS IN THAT SUPREME COURT RULING, IT ALSO TALKED ABOUT HAVING A RIGHT TO PRESERVE YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE. SO JUST SHARING THAT, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I THINK I THINK THAT'S REALLY ACTUALLY VERY RELEVANT BECAUSE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IS, IS EQUAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS TO, TO PRESERVE, TO DO WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF PEOPLE WILL ARGUE IT'S SUBJECTIVE, RIGHT. WHAT IS WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

[00:15:01]

ENCOMPASS THAT. BOTH TERMS. ARE THEY SYNONYMOUS WITH EACH OTHER? I THINK YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT EITHER WAY. I THINK YOU COULD ARGUE EITHER WAY. I JUST PUT IT INTO GOOGLE MACHINE AI, WHAT HAVE YOU. AND IT LOOKS LIKE WITH QUALITY OF LIFE VERSUS GENERAL WELFARE. RIGHT.

AND IT LOOKED LIKE QUALITY OF LIFE IS PRIMARILY THE DISTINCTIONS OF PRIMARILY ON THE INDIVIDUAL RATHER THAN THE GENERAL WELFARE, PRIMARILY COLLECTIVE WELL-BEING PROVIDE A WEALTH OF BEING. SO THAT EXTENT I SEE A LITTLE BIT I THINK YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT OF DISTINCTION. THERE IS ONE IS THE COLLECTIVE VERSUS THE INDIVIDUAL. MAYBE THAT, YOU KNOW, ROBERT. YEAH. I WAS GOING TO SAY SIMILAR TO JEAN, ADDING THE PHRASE PRESERVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER GENERAL WELFARE. ONE, THERE'S NO HARM. AND TWO, IT DOES SIGNAL A COUNCIL WHEN THEY'RE FORMING THEIR ORDINANCES, THAT THEY SHOULD GIVE SOME DEFERENCE IN RESPECT TO PRESERVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE AS PART OF THE ORDINANCES THAT THEY THEN CREATE. SO I THINK IT WAS IN THAT DECISION. IT DID TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, QUALITY OF LIFE BEING YOU HAVE A RIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, A QUALITY OF LIFE IS DEFINED AS NOT HAVING SMOG.

SO YOU CAN REGULATE TRAFFIC FLOW, THINGS LIKE THAT. HOW HOW MUCH DENSITY YOU HAVE, THINGS LIKE THAT. I WOULDN'T WANT TO GO INTO THE DETAIL OF, OKAY, YOU GOT TO HAVE SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION. NO, NO, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE ZONING WAS. THE SIMPLE PHRASE PRESERVING QUALITY OF LIFE SIGNALS TO COUNCIL. WHEN THEY'RE CRAFTING THEIR ORDINANCE, THEY NEED TO GIVE SOME CONSIDERATION TO THOSE ELEMENTS COLLECTIVELY. AND THEN THEY WERE INDIVIDUALLY.

RIGHT. OKAY. SO I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. YEAH. THE WARMTH OF COLLECTIVITY IS IMPORTANT. SORRY, I SHOULD NOT MAKE OFFHAND REMARKS THAT I THINK ARE FUNNY BASED ON. NO, PLEASE DO PLEASE, ON NEW STUFF. YOU'RE OFTEN MARK WASN'T CAPTURED ANYWAY SO RIGHT FOR FOR FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I, I REALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I JUST KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAN THIS UP AND, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND? I CAN GO EITHER WAY. YEAH. JANE. OKAY, THEN. DOES SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE A A SPECIFIC MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THAT SO WE CAN GET

[00:20:01]

YEAH. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT AS ATTENTIVE. LET ME CLEAN THAT UP THEN. OKAY. OKAY.

SOMETIMES THAT CAN BE EASIER. OKAY. GOT ONE FOR YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. IS THAT. FOR THE.

OKAY. NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO REVISION OF THREE. AND WE ONLY HAD WE'RE ON OUR LIKE THIRD TIME OF REVISING DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THREE. MARK I'M REALLY SORRY I JUST I JUST CAUGHT THIS ON THE. MINUTES. YEAH. LAST THE LAST MEETING THE COMMITTEE VOTED 4 TO 1. IT WAS ACTUALLY 3 TO 2. ON ON I'M SORRY ON RECOMMENDING TERM LIMITS. I'M SORRY. NEVER MIND. I'M LOOKING AT TERM LIMITS. NOT, NOT TERM LIMITS OKAY, I RETRACT OKAY. YOU'RE GOOD. ALL GOOD. AND I THINK IT WAS A JOINT EFFORT BETWEEN ROBERT AND GENE WORKING ON 3.06.

YEAH. I THINK YOU HAVE THE FINAL VERSION IN THE PACKET. WE DO. IT WAS WHICH ONE OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO. AND HOPEFULLY. HOPEFULLY THAT ONE'S GOOD TO GO UNLESS SOMEBODY NOTICES SOMETHING WE OVERLOOKED. ROBERT, I DO HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I RECALLED, OKAY, SO WE DIDN'T HAVE OUR MEETING RECORDED AND I COULDN'T GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK THIS. BUT MY NOTES SAID THAT THIS 3.06 WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD ASKED COUNCILOR PRINCE TO TAKE TO BREAD TO CHECK, AND I WROTE IT TO, TO TO PAUL AND SAID, THIS IS WHAT MY NOTES SAY, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHY. WE WANT YOU TO HAVE THIS CHECKED BY BRAD NOW, LIKE, OUT OF ALL THE THINGS WE'RE DOING, WHY DO WE WANT BRAD TO CHECK THIS NOW? AND I COULDN'T REMEMBER, BUT I DO YOU DO YOU REMEMBER? I VAGUELY RECALL, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS YOUR REQUEST TO HAVE IT ONE MORE TIME. LOOK OVER JUST TO MAKE SURE. 3.06. YEAH, WELL, OKAY. IT WAS IN MY NOTES TO HAVE IT GO TO BRAD.

AND I'M LIKE, WELL, WHY DID WE ASK IT? AND THAT THAT WAS THE ONE THAT THAT'S THE ONE WE WERE

[00:25:02]

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON IT? I HAVE NO PROPOSED EDITS, BUT I APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME THAT YOU GUYS DID SPEND ON THIS. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THAT.

Y'ALL REALLY SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON IT. YOU ADDRESSED THE 30 MILLION, THE SPECIAL CALL MEETINGS. REMEMBER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. REMEMBER THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ALLOW FOR TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO CALL A TOWN HALL MEETING. YOU ADDRESS THAT IN HERE. YOU CHANGE IT FROM 2 TO 3, ENUMERATING IT IN THE CHARTER, THUS ADDRESSING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. YOU ADDRESS THE 30 DAY. YOU KNOW WHEN WHEN TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS REQUEST AN AGENDA ITEM, WHEN MUST THAT GO ON THE AGENDA? YOU PUT 30 DAYS. SO YOU GUYS I MEAN, YOU DID I THINK THEY'RE GOOD. THEY'RE GOOD PROPOSALS. AND IF I JUST MAY ADD ONE MORE THING AND COUNCIL COUNCILMAN LIAISON HALL'S OPENING REMARKS, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION LAST NIGHT. YOU MAY WANT TO GO BACK AND WATCH THE MEETING ON THE AGENDA ITEMS REGARDING THE ETHICS POLICY, THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY. AND I MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE OTHER. IT WAS THE PROCEDURE RULES OF PROCEDURE. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE COMMENTS MADE FROM THE PODIUM AND ALSO FROM THE DAIS. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP BETWEEN THE CHARTER AND THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE ETHICS POLICY, THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO GIVEN YOUR YOUR TASK, IT MIGHT BE WORTH LOOKING INTO. THANKS. THANK YOU. SO I THINK GENE'S LATEST ADDITION ON THE PROHIBITION SECTION CLEANS THAT UP A LITTLE BIT. SO I THINK 3.06 IS BAKED. I THINK WE HAVE REVISED AND DISCUSSED THIS TO THE NTH DEGREE. SO. IF IT'S READY FOR PRIME TIME DO WE HAVE A. MOTION I THINK WELL I, I KNOW I'VE SAID THIS. BUT JUST WHEN I READ IT I ONLY THINK I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE. I JUST THINK THAT. SO IN SECTION B. RIGHT. AND I UNDERSTAND, ROBERT, HOW WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME. SO IT MADE SENSE HOW YOU SAID IT TO ME THAT IT'S, IT'S SO I WAS LIKE, WELL, EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSES OF INCREASING INVESTIGATIONS, WE'RE TELLING THEM TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, BUT THEN A1 AND A2 SAY NO, I'M HAPPY TO AGREE. THE CITY MANAGER, YOU CAN GO, YOU CAN TALK TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. BUT THAT'S WITH RESPECT TO AGENDA ITEMS AND CITY BUSINESSES OR ISSUES. RIGHT? THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF IT TO ME.

I JUST DON'T I DON'T READ IT THAT WAY. I WAS THINKING, I KNOW THIS THIS ADD THIS, ADDS LENGTH TO IT. BUT THEY EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSES OF INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS AS PROVIDED, WHERE YOU PUT AND PROVIDE OR AS PROVIDED IN THIS CHARTER IN SECTION A, ONE AND TWO, I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT NEEDS TO BE CALLED OUT AS AN EXCEPTION, BECAUSE I THINK THAT COULD BE VIEWED BY SOMEONE AS NO, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER FOR THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN INVESTIGATION. IT'S MY FEAR. I FEEL LIKE IT CONFLICTS A LITTLE BIT. THE WORDING. THIS IS A 2.06 B. YEAH, WELL, I THINK WE'RE SPECIFICALLY CALLING OUT THOSE TWO EXCEPTIONS IN THE CHARTER. I DON'T THINK WE. LIMITED IT TO THOSE TWO SECTIONS, BECAUSE

[00:30:03]

RIGHT. AND THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION SECTION. AND THEN LATER IN THE AND THEN SO THAT APPLIES TO THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. INQUIRIES APPLIES TO THE INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER. AND THEN INVESTIGATIONS APPLIES TO THE COLLECTIVE COUNCIL MANDATED INVESTIGATION OF SOME MATTER.

SO SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW, THE WAY I READ IT, WHAT ABOUT THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER LENS. HOW DO YOU DO YOU READ THAT THE SAME WAY I'M READING IT. YEAH. I DON'T SEE ANY CONFUSION WITH THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. I'M GLAD. I'M GLAD THAT JEN IS SCRUTINIZING IT TO ENSURE NO AMBIGUITY. GIVING AFFORDING A FUTURE OPPORTUNITY TO TO GIVE RISE TO CONFUSION OR SOMEBODY CONTESTING THAT. BUT I THINK IN A, IN AN INSTANCE OF SOMEBODY CONTESTING THAT SAYING COUNCIL MEMBER X DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO AROUND THE CITY MANAGER AND INQUIRE WITH THE DEPARTMENT HEAD. I MEAN, IT WOULD TAKE A TEN SECOND READ OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SAY NO, IT'S ABSOLUTELY THEY'RE ALLOWED TO, AS IS EXEMPLIFIED IN 3.06 A AND THEN THIS AS WELL, OKAY. BECAUSE IT, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU CAN'T HAVE A CONTRACT READ OUT A SEGMENT OF A CONTRACT, READ OUT ANOTHER PORTION OF A CONTRACT.

AND SO THESE DON'T CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER IN MY READING OF IT. AND IF THEY DID CONFLICT, THE MORE CONSERVATIVE WOULD, I THINK APPLY. BUT YEAH. ANYWAY, SO THAT'S MY TAKE ON THAT.

EXCEPT FOR INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS. EVERYTHING ELSE AFTER THAT GOES TO THE CITY MANAGER. SO. AND I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT. DON'T FORGET WE'VE ALSO GOT YOU'VE ALSO GOT THE INTERACTIONS WITH WITH STAFFING COUNCIL. AND THAT WAS RECENTLY WE VISITED THAT IN IN NOVEMBER. AND WE FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT IN THAT ORDINANCE. YOU CAN COUNCIL MEMBER CAN INTERACT WITH THOSE DEPARTMENT HEADS OR ANYBODY WHO ANSWERS TO THE DIRECTLY TO THE CITY MANAGER, AND THEY WILL COPY AND MAKE THE CITY MANAGER AWARE OF THAT COMMUNICATION.

UNLESS THE MATTER IS ABOUT THE CITY MANAGER. FOLLOW. YEAH. OKAY. SO I THINK THAT THOSE TWO ALIGN WITH EACH OTHER. I DON'T I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CONFLICT BETWEEN THAT ORDINANCE AND THIS. AND IF THERE EVER IF THIS IS APPROVED AND IF IT DOES GO ON THE BALLOT AND IT IS APPROVED, THEN THAT ORDINANCE CAN BE UPDATED. IF THERE IS A CONFLICT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING ANY ORDINANCES OR RULES OF PROCEDURE OR WHATEVER YOU THE CHARTER IS. SO OTHER THOUGHTS? I THINK. I THINK I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF YOU SAID, EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSES OF INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION AND AS PROVIDED BY THIS CHARTER. AT THE VERY LEAST. SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AGAIN. SO THE WAY I, EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSES OF INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATIONS AS PROVIDED BY THIS CHARTER, TO ME, IT SAYS, EXCEPT FOR THE PURPOSES OF INQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, THE INVESTIGATIONS AS PROVIDED BY THIS CHARTER. IT DOESN'T SAY. TYPICALLY, I'LL SAY, AND IS OTHERWISE SET FORTH IN, IN THIS CONTRACT OR IN THIS CHARTER IS WHAT IT TYPICALLY SAYS. IT

[00:35:07]

EXACTLY. YEAH. BUT THE AND AS IS ALREADY IN THERE. SO IT'S AND AS OTHERWISE TWO WORDS.

YEAH I, I DON'T KNOW I KIND OF LIKE THE WAY IT IS. MAY I MAKE A MOTION. YES, SIR. ARE. WELL ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION. YES WE ARE, WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION. I, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE SECTION 3.06 AS WRITTEN. I'LL SECOND THAT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. OKAY, SO WE HAVE 4 TO 1. JUST TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT I'M KIND OF AGNOSTIC IN TERMS OF ADDING THE WORDS, BUT. I THINK IT'S FINE EITHER WAY. SO TO MOVE IT ALONG I THINK IT'S FINE.

I THAT'S WHY I, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO KEEP UP WITH THE DISCUSSION BOARD POSTINGS. AND WHEN THINGS ARE POSTED TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD, TAKE A LOOK AT THEM AND MAKE COMMENTS AS THEY AS THEY GO ALONG. BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD FOR QUITE A WHILE. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE AGENDA. SO IT'S REVIEW AND TAKE ACTION ON REVISIONS OF ARTICLES TWO AND THREE. SO AS FAR AS ARTICLE THREE GOES, ARE WE JUST LOOKING AT 306? I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE 307 HOPEFULLY WE GET THROUGH ALL THREE. WE'RE GOING TO GET THROUGH ALL OF THREE. BUT ARTICLE THREE THAT'S ALL OF IT. YEAH I KNOW OKAY. WELL WE HAVE WE TAKEN A VOTE ON ALL OF THREE OR. NO, WE JUST TOOK A VOTE ON THREE. WE'RE GOING SECTION BY SECTION, SECTION BY SECTION. AND BECAUSE WE HAD SOME REVISIONS THAT WE WERE WORKING ON FOR THREE, BUT NOT ALL OF THREE, WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL OF WE DIDN'T GET THROUGH ALL OF THREE. BUT WE ARE WORKING ON SOME REVISIONS OF THREE. OKAY. AND I THINK THE NEXT. WELL, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON FROM 306 UP UNTIL WE GET TO 313 3.13, WHICH WAS 307 WAS THE OTHER ONE IN THAT THREAD. AND THAT WAS REALLY, REALLY CLEANING UP. AND STREAMLINING. IT'S ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD IN THE SAME THREAD AS 306. BUT WHAT WE DECIDED WE WANTED TO DO BY CONSENSUS WAS TO SCRATCH LOGO 307, 308, 309 AND REPLACE THAT WITH AN EDITED VERSION OF AUBREY 3.06. SOME OF THE KEY THINGS THERE IS IT STREAMLINES, IT GETS RID OF A LOT OF EXTRANEOUS, POTENTIALLY WEIRD LANGUAGE, AND IT MOVES COMPLAINTS FROM THE SUPER SECRET EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS THE ACCUSED IS DECIDES TO MAKE IT PUBLIC AND ALIGNS IT WITH THE OTHER CHARTERS THAT WE SAW THAT ANY OF THESE COMPLAINTS, BY DEFAULT, WOULD GO INTO PUBLIC SESSION. SO IT STREAMLINES THE PROCESS, BRINGS IT OUT INTO PUBLIC SESSION, AND.

BASICALLY TAKES THREE CHAPTERS, THREE SECTIONS DOWN TO ONE. I THINK I CAPTURED EVERYTHING AND POSTED IT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S. IT'S DONE, BUT IF ANYBODY ELSE SEES ANYTHING, GO FURTHER. I'M JUST AND I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD GOT IT SO THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED LAST TIME THAT YOU WERE JUST DOING LIKE THE FINAL CLEANUP, THAT THERE WAS NOTHING REALLY LEFT TO DISCUSS ABOUT IT, THAT YOU JUST DID THE THE ONLY THING THAT COUNCILOR PRINCE

[00:40:05]

YES. THAT'S WHERE WE WERE WHEN I POSTED THE CLEANUP. OKAY. SO ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION ON WHAT WAS POSTED ON 3.07? MAY I RETRACT THAT AND MAKE ONE OTHER STATEMENT? YES. WHEN I REDID THIS, I SEE NOW THAT I ALSO NOTED THAT PERHAPS WE SHOULD DEFINE SUPERMAJORITY IN SECTION A. OH YEAH, I MADE A BUNCH OF NOTES ABOUT THAT SOMEWHERE AND I FORGOT WHERE I PUT THEM. SO NOTES ON THE NEW VERSION OR THE OLD. NO, JUST TALKING ABOUT THE SUPERMAJORITY.

AND YEAH, THAT WAS AN OPEN QUESTION THAT I DIDN'T CAPTURE. WE ALL AGREE THAT WE SHOULD DEFINE SUPERMAJORITY IN THE DEFINITION SECTION. BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO 3.07.

IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. TO MANY PIECES OF PAPER. SO DID WE AGREE THAT WE WERE GOING TO ADD THE DEFINITION OF SUPERMAJORITY INTO SECTION A THAT THAT IS A QUESTION THAT CAME OUT OF MY EDITING. YEAH, IT WAS THERE WERE THERE WERE TWO THERE. ONE. SHOULD WE PUT SUPERMAJORITY.

SHOULD SUPERMAJORITY REMAIN AND OR BE ADDED TO THE DEFINITIONS. AND SECONDLY, SHOULD WE KEEP THE HARD NUMBER LIKE THE TABLE DOWN BELOW FROM THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, DOES OR JUST REFERENCE SUPERMAJORITY? AT COUNCIL? WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT SUPERMAJORITY, ARE THEY ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE PRESENT OR OF THE SUPERMAJORITY OF THE OF THE BODY AS A WHOLE? HOW DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT? I WASN'T LISTENING, I WAS AT COUNCIL. WHEN YOU WHEN YOU NEED TO DO A SUPERMAJORITY, ARE YOU NEEDING A VOTE OF A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE BODY OF COUNCIL, WHETHER THEY'RE PRESENT OR NOT? OH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THERE'S ONLY ONE CIRCUMSTANCE. I RECALL FORMER CITY ATTORNEY AARON SILVEIRA BRINGING THAT UP, BUT I DON'T I JUST REMEMBERED I REMEMBER A CONVERSATION ABOUT SHORT ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS IT'S SUPERMAJORITY OF WHO IS PRESENT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. AND THAT'S WHY, ROBERT, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DEFINE SUPERMAJORITY HERE BECAUSE IS THIS IN THE CONTEXT OF IN YOUR PACKET ON A REMOVAL OF A COUNCIL MEMBER? NO, IT'S IT'S, IT'S IT'S IN THE CONTEXT OF PUTTING IT INTO, OF DEFINING SUPERMAJORITY AS A DEFINITION.

I CAN TELL THE SUPERMAJORITY DEFINITION IS DIFFERENT FOR COUNCIL THAN IT IS FOR SOME.

FOR EXAMPLE, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE ONLY AREA WHERE I'VE EVER SEEN IT IN OUR WHETHER IT'S IN OUR CHARTER WHERE I'VE SEEN IT DEFINED, IS IN CHAPTER 14 OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, AND IN CHAPTER 14 IT DEFINES A SUPERMAJORITY AS WITH A PERCENTAGE, WHICH EQUATES TO SIX OUT OF SEVEN. IT TAKES SIX OUT OF SEVEN. BUT THE DEFINITION OF SUPERMAJORITY FROM THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT I COPIED AND PASTED IN IS IT SAYS NORMALLY A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE CONSISTS OF SIX VOTES, A HARD NUMBER FOR TO PASS IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY PLUS TWO MORE. AND THEN IT SAYS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESE RULES AND DEFINED IN THE CHARTER, THREE FOURTHS VOTES SHALL BE REFERENCED AS A SUPERMAJORITY. THERE YOU GO. IN THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS IS DIMINISHED DUE TO VACANCY OR PRESUMABLY ABSTENTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL CONSTITUTE THREE FOURTHS OF A SUPERMAJORITY. AND IT SAYS IF YOU HAVE SIX PRESENT, IT'S FIVE OR MORE. IF YOU HAVE FIVE PRESENT, IT'S FOUR OR MORE. THREE PRESENT IT'S IT'S 3 OR 4 THREE AND THREE IS THREE. AND

[00:45:05]

THAT'S IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CODIFY IT IN OUR DEFINITIONS AT THE FRONT OF THE OF THE CHARTER. AND THEN IT'S CLEAR GOING FORWARD WHAT THAT MEANS. OR DO WE JUST LEAVE IT UNDEFINED AND LET THE RULES OF PROCEDURE DEFINED? I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE DEFINED. DEFINED. MARK OKAY. CAN YOU FINISH THAT? YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU BECAUSE BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT BODIES. AND SO I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE LEFT IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE SO THAT IT CAN BE DEFINED PER ISSUE, PER TOPIC AND PER BODY. THE ONLY REASON I WOULD I WOULD HESITATE ON THAT IS BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE A, A COUNCIL THAT DECIDES TO CHANGE THAT AT THEIR WHIM, DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THAT SUPERMAJORITY NEEDS TO BE MADE. I'M A CYNIC, YOU KNOW, OR A CONTRARIAN, I SHOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU IF YOU DEFINE IT IN THE CHARTER, IT FOREVER OR AT LEAST FOREVER UNTIL THE, YOU KNOW, IT GETS CHANGED. AND IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO CHANGE A CHARTER THAN IT IS FOR COUNCIL TO CHANGE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. AND. SO CAN WE COMPROMISE AND SAY, OKAY, FOR THE OVERALL GLOBAL PURPOSES, WE WON'T DEFINE SUPERMAJORITY IN OUR DEFINITION. LEAVE IT TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, A NORMAL CELL. BUT FOR THE PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN 3.07, I.E. THE DISCIPLINE AND REMOVAL OF A COUNCIL MEMBER, THAT WOULD JUST TAKE OUT THE VERBIAGE SUPERMAJORITY AND SAY IT HAS TO BE A VOTE OF FIVE, LIKE THE CITY MANAGER. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO DISCIPLINE THEM SHORT OF REMOVAL, TAKE OUT. WELL, IT'S JUST A MAJORITY VOTE OF FOUR. SO IF WE GO TO LINE 46, TAKE OUT SUPERMAJORITY AND JUST SAY A VOTE OF FIVE. YEAH. THEN IT'S HARD CODED. MUCH LIKE THE CITY MANAGER HIRING AND FIRING.

AND THEN THE REST OF THE SUPERMAJORITY CAN BE DEFINED BY THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AS THEY ARE TODAY AND THE ORDINANCE AND THE AND THE AND THE ORDINANCES. SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE BECAUSE YOU'RE MAKING YOU'RE YOU'RE IDENTIFYING THE EXACT AMOUNT SPECIFIC TO THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC. COMMITTEE MEMBERS, LAST NIGHT'S DISCUSSION, ONE OF THE ONE OF THE ONE OF THE BRAD WAS TASKED WITH. PROPOSING BASICALLY A NEW ETHICS POLICY.

AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS HE RAISED WAS REMOVING COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM OFFICE BY VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU MIGHT WANT TO SEE WHAT HIS RESPONSE IS ON THAT. WELL, I REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS, AND IT'S YOU JUST TALKING ABOUT YOUR OVERTURNING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, RIGHT? BUT HE DIDN'T SAY THIS IS THE POSITION OF THE LAW. HE SAID THAT THERE WAS WHEN YOU GET INTO REMOVING ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM OFFICE, ACTUALLY, YOU'RE RIGHT, HE DID. HE SAID, BASICALLY THE BAR'S REALLY HIGH, LIKE FINANCIAL FRAUD, NEPOTISM, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO DO YOU THINK THE CHARTER AS IT'S BEEN WRITTEN OR A HIGHER BAR LIKE YOU'RE PROPOSING IS SOMETHING BRAD WOULD AGREE WITH? THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAVE. I THINK IT WOULD. I THINK, NUMBER ONE, THE CHARTER NEEDS TO HAVE PROVISION TO REMOVE FOR WHATEVER REASON BECAUSE THERE IS AN EGREGIOUS SITUATION THAT OCCURS. WE GOT TO HAVE A PROVISION IN THE CHARTER, I.E. 3.07, THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT REMOVAL, NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO. THEN IT BECOMES A FACT BASED SITUATION AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, IF IT GETS DOWN TO AN INVESTIGATION AND IT GETS DOWN TO A VOTE REMOVAL, AT THAT POINT, THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN WEIGH IN AND GO, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU GOT ENOUGH HERE FOR A FIVE? YEAH. SO I THINK YOUR POINT IS YOU'RE JUST SETTING THE RISK, NOT THE DON'T DO THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE AT RISK, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS WHAT IS THE NUMBER THRESHOLD FOR REMOVAL, NOT THE CRITERIA. BINGO. THAT'S THAT'S THE. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? MADAM CHAIR? I'D MAKE A MOTION THAT WE

[00:50:07]

YEAH. SO I DID TYPE THAT UP. WHAT I JUST READ WHAT WHAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR CONSOLIDATED NOTES OF HOW THAT WOULD HOW THAT WOULD READ. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION AND. LINE.

WELL, DEPENDING ON WHICH VERSION WE'RE LOOKING AT, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE OLD ONE LINE 481. I THINK. WHEREAS IT USED TO SAY ALL WELL, IT SAID ALL PERSONS PRESENT, AND WE REVISED IT TO ALL RESIDENTS PRESENT. DOES THAT JIVE WITH PEOPLE LIVING LIKE BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S LIVING IN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, THEY CAN'T COME IN AND SAY, I LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THIS PLACE. AND WHAT THEY CAN'T, THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING THIS.

SO THEY CAN'T TALK AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT INSIDE THE CITY LIMIT. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT TECHNICALLY A RESIDENT, BUT THEY LIVE FIVE FEET OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.

OKAY, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION LAST TIME WHEN WE CHANGED IT AND HAVE THE DISCUSSION LAST TIME. LET'S LET'S BACK UP AND LEVEL SET THE FIRST GO ROUND OF THE CHARTER.

WE RECOGNIZE THAT SOMETIMES WE REFER PEOPLE AS RESIDENTS, SOMETIMES WE REFER TO THEM AS CITIZENS, SOMETIMES WE CALL THEM PERSONS. AND SO TRACY TOOK A STAB AT A GLOBAL PASS THAT'S BASICALLY STANDARDIZED ALL THE TERMS TO RESIDENT. NO, NO. AS JEAN POINTS OUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, YEAH. PERSONS MAY BE MORE CORRECT IN THE CONTEXT THAN OUR GLOBAL WISH TO REFER TO EVERYBODY AS RESIDENTS. YEAH, YEAH. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, I, WE DID NOT WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT THE FIRST TIME DID WE. NO, WE ACCEPTED ALL THE RESIDENTS, ALL THE CHANGES OF PERSONS TO RESIDENT. BUT THE CONTEXT OF 8.1, THIS PARTICULAR PARAGRAPH, IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO LEAVE IT AS PERSONS. YEAH I AGREE. I AGREE THE RECENT AG OPINION REGARDING NOTIFICATIONS GOING OUT TO PEOPLE WITHIN 200FT OF THE CITY, AND THE CALCULATION FOR A SUPERMAJORITY REQUIRED TO APPROVE A ZONING CHANGE. THAT'S WHEN THE FUTURE WHEN THE DESIGNATION DIFFERS FROM THAT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE AG OPINION WAS VERY CLEAR, AND IT SAID THAT THOSE PEOPLE WITHIN 200FT OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS DO COUNT. SO PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR THEM TO SHOW UP, BECAUSE THOSE PROJECTS AND THAT LAND USE CAN IMPACT EVERYBODY AROUND. AND THE AG IS SAYING, YES, THE INTENT OF THE

[00:55:06]

NOW COUNTING THAT CALCULATION, THAT'S WHERE I WAS. I KNEW THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS CHANGED, BUT I DIDN'T REALLY I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS CHANGED BECAUSE WE HAD TO CHANGE IT. I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST I THOUGHT WE JUST CHANGED IT BECAUSE WE WERE BEING GOOD PEOPLE. BUT SENATOR CAMPBELL HAD SENT IN THE REQUEST TO THE AG AND IT CAME OUT AND I WANT TO SAY AUGUST OF THIS YEAR. OKAY. AND SO I IMMEDIATELY GOT THAT. OKAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST BECAUSE WE USED TO DO THAT. AND I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST GOING BACK TO THE WAY WE USED TO BE. AND ROBERT AND I, YEAH, JUST TO KIND OF GET US BACK ON TRACK. SO JEAN, YOU'RE RIGHT. LINE 481, IT'S ALREADY THIS WHOLE ARTICLE 3.13 WE ELECTED TO PITCH AND ADOPT THE AUBRY 3.13. BUT THE LAST LINE. SO AGAIN, IF WE GO BACK TO WHAT I POSTED ON THE MESSAGE BOARD, THAT ISSUE IS NO LONGER RELEVANT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REFER TO ALL PERSONS. WE'RE ADOPTING THE THE AUBRY LANGUAGE, WHICH THEN JEAN OFFERED A REVISION TO ON DECEMBER 19TH. AND ULTIMATELY WE I AGREE WITH HIS CHANGES THAT IT JUST SHOULD SIMPLY READ THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE BY ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION OR OTHERWISE, ITS OWN RULES AND PROCEDURES OF BUSINESS. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CLEARLY HEAR, HEAR AND BE HEARD AT PUBLIC HEARINGS. WELL, MAYBE THERE WE CHANGE THAT TO PERSONS. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE FOR MINUTES TO BE TAKEN AND RECORDED FOR ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. SUCH MEETINGS SHALL BE A PUBLIC RECORD, AND SHALL BE KEPT AND MAINTAINED BY THE PERSON PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF CITY SECRETARY, AND THEN B THE CITY COUNCIL. MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE RECORDED BY AUDIO AND MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER THE MEETING. WHEN FEASIBLY AND FINANCIALLY POSSIBLE, THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE FOR VIDEO RECORDINGS, NO CHANGES THERE AND THEN. SEE, THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL MAINTAIN AND RECORD ALL THE MINUTES OF ALL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL, EXCEPT FOR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, AND MAKE THESE MINUTES AVAILABLE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY FOR A REPRODUCTION FEE. SO I THINK THE FINAL EDITS BY JEAN POSTED ON THE MESSAGE BOARD FOR 3.13 THAT CLEANED IT UP. THE ONLY THING WE NEED TO CHANGE THEN IS A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE THAT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE.

ALL PERSONS WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO CLEARLY HEAR MEASURE SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE. OKAY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD EXCEPT. ON THE CITY WEBSITE AND IN PRINT. AND MAKE THESE MINUTES AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. SO WE'RE CHANGING THAT TO MAKE THESE MINUTES AVAILABLE FOR, FOR, FOR PERSONS OR FOR PEOPLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AND IN PRINT FOR A FEE THAT'S COVERED IN C? NO. WELL, I DIDN'T REALLY THINK IT I DIDN'T REALLY THINK IT WAS COMPLETELY COVERED UNTIL I. CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE RECORDED BY AUDIO DEVICE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER MEETING WITH FEASIBLY FINANCIALLY POSSIBLE. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE FOR VIDEO RECORDINGS AND THEN SEE. THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL MAINTAIN AND RECORD ALL MINUTES OF ALL PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL, EXCEPT FOR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, AND MAKE THESE MINUTES AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS OF THE CITY FOR A REPRODUCTION FEE. AND WHAT? WHAT? BECAUSE BECAUSE THERE IT SAYS THAT THE MEETINGS WILL BE RECORDED BY AUDIO DEVICE AND MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE, BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THE MINUTES WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE. AND RIGHT NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MEETINGS AVAILABLE ON VIDEO ON THE WEBSITE AND AND A LACK OF MINUTES AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTS ON THE WEBSITE A LOT. SO THAT'S WHAT WHAT IMPELLED ME TO PUT IN THERE. MINUTES HAVE TO BE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE. I'M

[01:00:06]

AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE AND IN PRINT FOR A FEE. YEAH. READ ABOUT. GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK THIS FALL. THANK YOU. I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS WHOLE THING AGAIN. AND ARE YOU LOOKING AT WHAT'S ONLINE OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT. I'M LOOKING AT WHAT'S ONLINE. OKAY, GOOD. BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY THREE SECTIONS A, B AND C, CORRECT.

YEAH. BECAUSE IT SAYS THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR MINUTES TO BE TAKEN AND RECORDED FOR ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. SUCH MINUTES SHALL BE A PUBLIC RECORD, SHALL BE KEPT AND MAINTAINED BY THE PERSON PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE CITY SECRETARY. WHY CAN'T THAT JUST SAY SUCH MINUTES SHALL BE A. I MEAN, IF IT'S MADE OF PUBLIC RECORD AND POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AND YOU KNOW SUCH MINUTES SHALL BE A PUBLIC RECORD COMMA POSTED ON THE WEBSITE, COMMA MADE AVAILABLE IN PRINT FOR A FEE, COMMA, AND SHALL BE KEPT AND MAINTAINED BY THE PERSON PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE CITY SECRETARY. YOU KIND OF YOU CAN KIND OF SHUFFLE ALL THAT INTO THE INTO ONE AREA. SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? NO. SAY IT AGAIN. NO, I HONESTLY DON'T. I'M LOST. WELL. WHERE IT SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE IN SECTION A.

YEAH. WOULD IT BE NOT TOO MUCH OF A RUN ON SENTENCE TO RIGHT THERE, SAY, BECAUSE IT MENTIONS THE CITY SECRETARY. IT MENTIONS THAT THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC RECORD THAT MINUTES WILL BE TAKEN AND RECORDED FOR ALL PUBLIC MEETINGS, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. AND THEN JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST PUT IN THERE. AND I KIND OF FORGOT THE CITY COUNCIL. YEAH. YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT THE LAST SENTENCE IS REDUNDANT. THE LAST SENTENCE OF A SHOULD JUST SIMPLY READ SUCH MINUTES SHALL BE A PUBLIC RECORD AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE, RIGHT? AVAILABLE IN PRINT FOR A FEE, RIGHT? AND SHALL BE KEPT AND MAINTAINED BY THE PERSON PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE CITY SECRETARY. SCRATCH. SEE? YEAH. THAT'S THAT'S. YES. BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MUCH THERE.

IT CAN ALL BE COVERED IN ONE AREA. RIGHT. SHAKING YOUR HEAD I DID. YES, BECAUSE WHEN I WAS GOING OVER IT, I ALSO WAS THINKING IT WAS REDUNDANT AND HOW TO CLEAN IT UP. SO I AGREE WITH YOU. YEAH, YEAH. I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT BEFORE. I'M GOOD WITH IT. I GOES THE OTHER WAY

[01:05:05]

I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF A WHATEVER QUESTION, BUT I HAVE TO ASK IT, SINCE THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE PEOPLE WHO ARE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OR JUST PEOPLE WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, ALL PERSONS, ALL PERSONS WITH A REASONABLE OFFER, ANYBODY HAVE ANY CONCERNS THAT THAT'S OPENING IT UP TOO MUCH THAT WE HAVE TO HEAR ANYBODY ABOUT ANYTHING. SOME DEVELOPER THAT DOESN'T LIVE HERE, YOU KNOW, SO MANY DIFFERENT INTERESTS THAT HAVE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THAT. THAT WOULD BE THIS ISN'T TALKING ABOUT THEM BEING HEARD.

IT'S TALKING ABOUT THEM HAVING THE ABILITY TO ACCESS THE MINUTES OR THE MEETINGS, I BELIEVE. WELL, THE FIRST PART IS TO JIM'S POINT, TALKING ABOUT BEING HEARD. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT AGAIN. OH, I SEE HEARD AT A PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH MEANS IT'S AGENDIZED, WHICH MEANS THERE'S AN AGENDA ITEM THAT THEY CAN ANYBODY CAN SPEAK TO. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IF IT'S ON OUR AGENDA, ANYBODY, ANYBODY FROM ANYWHERE CAN SPEAK ON IT, RIGHT? WE CAN'T REALLY PREVENT THEM FROM COMING IN AND TALKING ABOUT THAT AGENDA ITEM. WHAT THEY CAN'T COME IN AND DO OTHER THAN THEIR THREE MINUTES IN GENERAL COMMENTS, IS TALK ABOUT ANYTHING. AND IF THEY DO WANT TO COME IN AND TALK ABOUT ANYTHING, THEY'RE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. SO I THINK IT'S LIKE FOCUSING IN ON PUBLIC HEARINGS. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF RISK THERE THAT IT GETS ABUSED.

AND WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANYTHING, THEY CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT SOMETHING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COUNCIL. THEY CAN'T JUST TALK ABOUT ANYTHING. ACTUALLY THEY CAN IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTARY SECTION. THEY CAN TALK ABOUT ANYTHING IN OUR CITY MANAGER.

ANYTHING THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO IS SIT THERE AND POINT OUT COUNCIL MEMBERS IN LITTLE ONES, AND THEY CAN'T MAKE THREATS IN FIGHTING WORDS. BUT BEYOND THAT, IT'S PRETTY MUCH OVER. BUT IF THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT A GEOPOLITICAL EVENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL CAN DO, THEY CAN STILL SAY THAT'S FREE SPEECH AND FREE SPEECH. THE WAY THE DEAL IS DONE NOW IN THE CITIZEN TALK STILL CAN'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING, BUT IT'S ONLY IN THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION AND IT'S LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES ONLY. LIMITED TO WHAT? THERE ARE SOME PRETTY HILARIOUS EXAMPLES ON YOUTUBE OF PEOPLE GOING THAT'S BEEN FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL. SO YES, IT COULD HAPPEN, BUT WE HAVE RULES IN PLACE TO MINIMIZE THAT RISK. THE THREE MINUTES. YES. OKAY. THREE MINUTES. AND COUNCIL HAS A RIGHT TO SAY, LOOK, PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION IS CLOSED. WELL WE ALLOWED IT FOR 30 MINUTES.

AND AND THERE'S WAYS AROUND IT. IT'S JUST NOT EASY. SO JUST TO CLARIFY THIS IS GOING TO SAY THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE ALL PERSONS WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BLAH BLAH BLAH. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO DOES THAT. YES, ALL PERSONS. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN

[01:10:05]

YES. OKAY. THAT WAS MY MOTION OKAY. CAN WE GET A SECOND I THINK WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION STAGE. WE HAD A SECOND OKAY. AND NOW WE'RE DISCUSSING ARE WE READY TO VOTE. I'VE BEEN READY I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU ALL. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE AYE. OKAY. SO IT'S UNANIMOUS. I DID HESITATE. SO NOW WE'VE GOT TO CUT THIS MEETING SHORT SO I CAN GO HOME AND THINK OF ZANY THINGS TO COME AND SPEAK TO COUNCIL ABOUT. AND. OH, LORD, WE'VE ALL RIGHT.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS YESTERDAY. YEAH. SO GENE POSTED A 3.14. I RESPONDED TO IT, AND THEN LINDA MADE SOME EFFORTS. SO THE FINAL POST TO 3.14 IS DATED DECEMBER 19TH ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. THAT SHOULD INCORPORATE EVERYTHING GENE AND LINDA COMMENTED ON. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY LINDA? MADE SOME EFFORT? ACTUALLY, LINDA PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE. I'M CORRECTING MYSELF. LINDA PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE TO WHAT THE MY EDITS OF GENE'S WAS AND. I ADDED A COMMENT THERE. BUT IT'S BEEN A FEW WEEKS ACTUALLY, ROBERT, YOU WERE CORRECT BECAUSE IT WAS AN EFFORT AND I FELT LIKE IT WAS LIKE A BIG DEAL. AND THEN I REALIZED THAT I WAS OVERRIDING SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS HAD ALREADY DONE. SO I THOUGHT YOU KIND OF ELIMINATED MY EFFORT.

I'M JUST KIND OF BEING SARCASTIC. IT REALLY WAS A A FIRST STAB AT DOING IT ON THE.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 33.143.14 VOTING. CAN YOU READ WHAT YOU HAVE MATCHES WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. SO IF I CAN MAKE SURE I'M OKAY. SO THE LAST VERSION I HAVE IS THE EDIT OF 1219 THAT READS SECTION 3.14. VOTING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PRESENT MUST VOTE AND SHALL AND HAVE THEIR VOTES RECORDED IN THE MINUTES UPON EVERY ACTION REQUIRING A VOTE, A COUNCIL MEMBER MAY ABSTAIN ONLY IN THE EVENT THE VOTE INVOLVES THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. THE COUNCIL MEMBERS CONDUCT OR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. IF A COUNCIL MEMBER ABSTAINS FOR ANY REASON FROM A VOTE, THE COUNCIL MEMBER MUST CITE A REASON FOR THE ABSTENTION, AND THAT REASON WILL BE MUST BE RECORDED IN THE MINUTES ITS ABSTENTIONS WILL BE TREATED AS A NO VOTE AND RECORDED AS NO BY ABSTENTION IN THE MEETING MINUTES. THE RULE SET FORTH IN THE CHARTER AND ETHICS POLICY SHALL CONTROL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES UNLESS A MORE RESTRICTIVE PROVISION IS ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW. OKAY, OKAY, SO I GUESS YOU HAVE A BETTER MEMORY THAN I DO. IT'S LIKE AS LIKE, YEAH, I THINK I DID, BUT YEAH, YOU DID. WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DISCUSSION BOARD, IT WAS A GROUP EFFORT YOU PUT FORTH, I PUT FORTH LINDA PUT FORTH, AND WE WE BAKED IT AND DISTILLED IT DOWN TO THAT LAST PARAGRAPH. AND I'M SO HAPPY WITH THAT.

OKAY. GOOD. THAT'S GREAT. SO CAN WE HAVE A MOTION ON IT? JEN HASN'T SAID ANYTHING. OH NO, I WAS WAITING. I THOUGHT MAYBE LINDA WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT HER ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE, BUT NO, I'M GOOD WITH THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. OKAY. I MOVE THAT SECTION 3.14 VOTING BE. APPROVED AS WRITTEN. PERIOD. DO YOU WANT TO PUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD? ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD? PERIOD. OKAY, OKAY OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. AYE OKAY. SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS. OKAY. AND SECTION 3.15 WERE THERE ANY COMMENTS.

[01:15:20]

SECTION. I DO REMEMBER THAT. LIKE SELENA HAS A SPECIFIC ARTICLE TEN FOR ORDINANCES. SO WE. I DO REMEMBER THAT NOW THAT YOU MENTIONED IT, WE KIND OF SAID 3.15 AND 3.16. GO AWAY.

AND THEN WE CREATE A SEPARATE ARTICLE IN AND OF ITSELF, ORDINANCES LIKE SELENA ARTICLE TEN. OH YEAH, I EVEN, I EVEN SHOOT, I EVEN PRINTED SOMETHING OUT ON THAT. YES YOU DID. AND ONE OF THE MEETINGS. WELL YEAH I DID. YEAH. SO FOR OUR PURPOSES TONIGHT, I WOULD SAY.

THAT WE JUST BY CONSENSUS AGREE THAT 3.15 AND 3.16 ARE GOING TO BE STRICKEN AND REPLACED BY AN ARTICLE DEALING WITH ORDINANCES TO BE ADDED AT SOME POINT LATER IN THE CHARTER. DIDN'T WE EVEN SAY? THANK YOU? CONSOLIDATED SPREADSHEET? I THINK IT'S SELENA ARTICLE TEN. ARE WE GOING TO USE SELENA'S ARTICLE TEN EXACTLY. I'M NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT TONIGHT BECAUSE I NEED TO GO BACK AND REVIEW SELENA ARTICLE TEN. I'M JUST GOING FROM OUR NOTES THAT SAID WE LIKED IT. WELL, I HAVE IT HERE. BUT BUT IF EVERYBODY DOESN'T HAVE IT, THEN WE CAN'T WORK ON IT. BUT IT'S. I HAVE IT AS WELL. IT'S RELATIVELY SHORT. IT'S VERY SHORT. YEAH. YEAH I HAVE IT. OKAY. SO WE CAN. GOOD. I DO REMEMBER THAT BECAUSE IT WAS PRETTY SHORT AND PRETTY CONCISE. YES, IT WAS MUCH IMPROVED. MY QUESTION IS DO WE WANT TO CHANGE IT IN ANY WAY? WELL I HAVE IT TABBED AND. NO COMMENT ON THE CHAPTER. SO I THINK WHEN I REVIEWED IT MY DECISION WAS WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE ANY OF SELENA'S CHAPTER TEN AND TO AND THAT IT SHOULD

[01:20:01]

INSERTING CHAPTER TEN OF THE SELENA CITY CHARTER IN A LOCATION IN THE VISTA CHARTER TO BE DETERMINED. OKAY, COULD COULD WE AMEND YOUR MOTION TO SAY ABSOLUTELY TO TO INSERT SELENA'S CHAPTER TEN IN ITS ENTIRETY? YES. OKAY. OR ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS? I WAS KIND OF TRYING TO DO THAT ON THE FLY. WELL, I'LL SECOND YOUR MOTION. ANY DISCUSSION? I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT. I JUST I DON'T WANT TO THROW A WRENCH. I'M JUST LOOKING NOW TO REPLACE SECTION 3.172. OR ANYTHING BELOW THAT. WE DIDN'T. WHY DID WE LEAVE 3.17? BECAUSE IT GETS INTO THE PUBLICATION AND IT'S MORE THAN JUST THE ORDINANCES. OKAY. GOTCHA. OKAY. NOW PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES IS ALSO IN SELENA TEN. SO THERE IS SOME REDUNDANCY THERE. BUT WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT NOW BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE. WELL, NO, I THINK IT'S I THINK IT'S A GOOD POINT. AND YEAH, BECAUSE WE DO NEED WE DO NEED TO KEEP OUR 3.17. SO WHY I'M NOT ARGUING. I'M JUST CURIOUS YOUR RATIONALE. WELL. IN FACT BECAUSE I GUESS MY ANSWER BECAUSE I'VE GOT IT ALL MARKED UP BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO ENHANCE IT RATHER THAN DELETE IT. WE NEED TO ENHANCE IT. AND AGAIN, I'M GOING BACK TOWARD THE EMPHASIS OF POSTING ON THE CITY WEBSITE IS HOW I'VE GOT AMENDMENTS IN HERE. PUBLISHING AT LEAST ONE TIME IN IT. YEAH, I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A SUGGESTION JUST IN THE INTEREST OF WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND JUST ON 15 AND 16 TO MAYBE GO AHEAD. THIS IS DISCUSSION TIME, RIGHT? YEAH. TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON APPROVING THAT OR NOT. AND THEN WE CAN THEN LOOK AT 17, 18, 19 EVEN IF NEED BE ON POTENTIALLY MOVING THOSE INTO THE NEW ARTICLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO CREATE OUT OF THE ARTICLE TEN FROM SELENA, WHY DON'T WE AMEND THE MOTION TO ADOPT SELENA'S CHAPTER TEN OF ORDINANCE IS NOT IN ITS ENTIRETY, BUT ALL ALL

[01:25:06]

OR DO WE MOVE THEM TO THE NEW TO BE NUMBERED SECTION. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO SO CAN WE.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OKAY. SO THAT'S UNANIMOUS OKAY. SO NOW ON 3.17. CAN I MAKE LIKE THE COMMENTS THAT I HAD HOW I WANTED TO AMEND 317. AND IT WOULD BE MAKING IT LONGER. SO THAT MAYBE SOME HESITATION ON SOME PEOPLE'S PART. BUT EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW OR THIS CHARTER, THE SECRETARY SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF THE ENACTMENT OF EVERY ORDINANCE. AND I'M ADDING, BY POSTING ON THE CITY WEBSITE THOSE AND THEN GOING ON IMPOSING ANY PENALTY, FINE OR FORFEITURE IN EVERY ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE BUDGET, FRANCHISES, TAXES, OR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND THE SETTING OF THE RATES, FEES AND CHARGES THEREOF SHALL BE DONE BY CAUSING THE ORDINANCE IN FULL OR ITS CAPTION, INCLUDING THE PENALTY, IF ANY, TO BE PUBLISHED AT LEAST ONE TIME IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION. YEAH, I HATE LEGALESE. I DIDN'T CATCH EVERYTHING YOU SAID, BUT I'M JUST LOOKING AT LINE 531 RIGHT NOW. THIS SHALL BE DONE BY CAUSING THE ORDINANCE IN FULL. WHY NOT JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, THE ORDINANCE? INCLUDE IN THE FULL ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE PENALTY, IF ANY, SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN AT LEAST ONE, OR PUBLISHED AT LEAST ONE TIME IN A NEWSPAPER INSTEAD OF THIS SHALL BE DONE BY CAUSING. JUST DUMP THAT AND JUST SAY THE ORDINANCE WILL BE PUBLISHED.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IN THIS IS THAT RIGHT NOW WE ONLY PUBLISH IN A NEWSPAPER ORDINANCES THAT RELATE TO FINES OR FORFEITURES OR FEE AFTER THEY'RE PAST. WE ONLY PUBLISH THOSE IN THE NEWSPAPER, AND I THINK WE SHOULD PUBLISH ALL OF THE ORDINANCES ON THE WEBSITE AND PUBLISHED THE THEM ALL IN THE NEWSPAPER AT LEAST ONE TIME.

WELL, BY LAW, WE'RE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH THE ORDINANCE. ANY ORDINANCE THAT HAS A BOND FEE OR RIGHT ASSOCIATED WITH IT IS REQUIRED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER. BUT THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS PROBABLY GOING TO DO AWAY WITH THAT PROVISION BECAUSE NEWSPAPERS ARE GOING TO

[01:30:01]

THAT'S MORE OF A POLICY TIME. WELL, IT'S NOT A POLICY. THE POLICY IS THAT ALL THE ORDINANCES ARE PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE. THE PROBLEM IS IT'S NOT GETTING DONE WELL AND THE CHARTER IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT DONE. THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN IS FOR IT TO HAPPEN. BUT IF WE SAY IN THE CHARTER, IT HAS TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER, THOSE ARE GETTING PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER, SO AT LEAST THEY'RE GETTING PUBLISHED SOMEWHERE. BUT THE ONES THAT AREN'T HAVING TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER ARE OFTEN NOT GETTING PUBLISHED AT ALL ANYWHERE. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IF WE REQUIRE THEM TO BE PUBLISHED, BECAUSE WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IS, WELL, THAT ONE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER. SO WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, YOU KNOW, WE'LL GET TO IT WHEN WE GET TO IT. SO THERE'S ORDINANCES THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED THAT IF THEY DON'T RELATE TO THE FINE OR ANY, YOU KNOW, THE ONES THAT ARE REQUIRED, THEY'RE PASSED. AND WE DON'T EVEN PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. SO IT'S THE POLICY IS IN PLACE. IT'S JUST THAT THE ACTION ISN'T HAPPENING. AND I THOUGHT IF WE PUT IT IN, IF WE REQUIRED IT TO BE IN THE NEWSPAPER, IT WOULD HAPPEN. WELL IT'S ALREADY IT'S ALREADY.

WELL I DON'T KNOW. AND I'M TRYING TO THINK OF A WAY HOW YOU WOULD WORD IT BECAUSE PRINT IS JUST IT IS GOING AWAY. SO AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE. THAT SMALL PART MIGHT HAVE TO BE AMENDED IN TWO YEARS TO TAKE OUT NEWSPAPERS, I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. ROBERT, DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION? YES, I HAVE A REMINDER FIRST. OKAY, THAT WHEN WE ADOPTED FINALLY, THE FINAL VERSION OF THE PREAMBLE AND DEFINITIONS, WE INCLUDED THE DEFINITION PUBLISHED. WE ADDED THAT IN AND DEFINE PUBLISH AS. AS USED IN THIS CHARTER, THE TERM PUBLISH MEANS TO PRINT IN THE CONTEMPORARY MEANS OF INFORMATION SHARING. YES, WHICH INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ONE OR MORE NEWSPAPERS OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE CITY AND ON THE CITY WEBSITE. SO WE DEFINED PUBLISH. SO NOW WE ROLL BACK UP HERE TO 3.17. I THINK, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, THIS CHARTER, THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL PUBLISH EVERY ORDINANCE METH AND LEAVE OUT ALL THE OTHER LANGUAGE THERE. EVERY ORDINANCE RESOLUTION. AND WHAT'S THE OTHER ONE? PROCLAMATION IS A PROCLAMATION. NO, I DON'T THINK. PROCLAMATION. RESOLUTION.

ORDINANCE RESOLUTION. AND THERE WAS ONE OTHER, I FORGET OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. WELL, THIS JUST SAYS POSTING OF ORDINANCES. THIS ISN'T EVEN REFERRING TO RESOLUTION. SO DO WE EVEN WANT TO THROW RESOLUTIONS IN THERE? THAT'S GOOD. EXCEPT AS REQUIRED BY CITY SECRETARY SHALL PUBLISH USING CAPITALIZED, PUBLISHED OR DEFINED TERM. EVERY ORDINANCE STRIKE OUT THE IMPOSING OF ANY PENALTY, WHATEVER AND EVERY ORDINANCE, EVERY ORDINANCE, PERIOD. STRIKE ALL THAT PERIOD.

DONE. YEAH, CONTEMPORARY WAS THE WORD I COULDN'T. I WAS THINKING CURRENT, BUT THAT WAS NOT I DIDN'T WANT CURRENT. SO CONTEMPORARY IS. AND THEN THE NEXT SENTENCE IS THIS SHALL BE DONE BY CAUSING THE ORDINANCE IN FULL CAPTION, INCLUDING THE PENALTY, WHATEVER. PUBLISH IS ONE. SO WE DON'T NEED ANY OF THAT. WE DON'T. SO NOW, TURNING BACK TO WHAT WE JUST ADOPTED FOR PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE AND SELENA 10.02, WE CAN SAY THE DESCRIPTIVE CAPTION OR TITLE OF EACH ORDINANCE. SHALL BE PUBLISHED. SHALL BE PUBLISHED. PERIOD, PERIOD.

WE'RE DONE. OKAY. OKAY. YOU LIKE THAT? YEAH. NO. WELL, YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. SO SELENA 10.02

[01:35:10]

SO. OKAY. NOW WHAT ABOUT THE CHARLES ARE LAUGHING. ARE WE ARE WE DOING SOMETHING SILLY HERE OR ARE WE GETTING I THINK YOU'RE OVERTHINKING IT A LITTLE BIT. THIS I JUST SITTING HERE THINKING. ANYWAY, IF I GET A COUNCIL LIKE I'VE HAD PREVIOUSLY THAT LIKES TO DO FIVE ORDINANCES EVERY MEETING, I'M SITTING THERE GOING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE TAXES JUST TO PAY THE PUBLISHING. THE PUBLISHING. SO DO WE. WHAT WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY. AND THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL ALSO ENSURE. DO WE NEED TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO 10.2? I THINK THAT'S I'M JUST ASKING FOR NO, BECAUSE. 10.03 AND SELENA ADDRESSES THAT, OKAY. IT TALKS ABOUT PRINTING IT IN CODE FORM AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO OKAY. OH THERE YOU GO. RESOLUTION PROCLAMATIONS AND OFFICIAL. THE ONLY THING IS THIS THE CITY, THE CHARTER IS 3.1. AND YOU'RE RIGHT. RESOLUTIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND OFFICIAL OFFICIAL NOTICES ORDINANCES OKAY. SO WAIT, WAIT. ONE PERSON IS ALSO LET'S JUST HAVE ONE PERSON TALK. I DON'T CARE WHO IT IS, LET'S JUST HAVE ONE GO, OKAY? I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE CITY CHARTERS, RESOLUTIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND OFFICIAL NOTICES, I THINK SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN WHEN WE WHEN WE ADOPT THE SALINAS CHAPTER TEN, THE PUBLICATION, BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD AMEND IT TO INCLUDE ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND OFFICIAL NOTICES BE PUBLISHED TO BE PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. NO, JUST BE PUBLISHED.

OKAY? BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE I DON'T KNOW, DOES IT NEED TO SAY ON THE CITY WEBSITE? NO, BECAUSE OUR DEFINITION OF PUBLISH INCLUDES THE CITY WEBSITE. THAT'S WHY WE STREAMLINED IT AND DEFINED IT UPFRONT. THEN ALL WE HAVE TO USE IS THE WORD PUBLISH. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. BUT YOU WILL, YOU WILL, YOU WILL AGREE TO INCLUDING RESOLUTIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND OFFICIAL NOTICES TO BE INCLUDED IN IN THAT SECTION. YEAH, I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I GUESS THERE'S SOME REASON WHY WE NEED TO PUT THEM ON THE CITY WEBSITE. THEY NEED THEY NEED TO BE THERE'S SOME REASON TO PUBLISH THEM SOMEWHERE. SO THEN I WOULD SAY THERE IS. THERE IS, YES I WOULD. THAT MAKES SENSE. SO SELENA CHAPTER TEN IS TITLED ORDINANCES AND 1001 IS THE PROCEDURES FOR PASSING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SO IT DOES SPEAK TO RESOLUTIONS. AND THEN WE CAN CHANGE 10.02 TO BE PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS. RIGHT AND OFFICIAL NOTICES.

THAT'S ALL THAT'S ALREADY BE PUBLISHED, PERIOD. BUT WE GOT RID OF 1003 IN OUR PREVIOUS MOTION. WELL, NO, WE STILL HAVE 1003 IN HERE. WE DO. YEAH. YEAH, WE STILL HAVE 1003. I THOUGHT THAT WAS WE ADOPTED TEN IN ITS ENTIRETY AND NOW WE'RE GOING THROUGH. ALL RIGHT. SO ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, OFFICIAL NOTICES. THAT'S GOING IN AS 10.02 UNDER THE TITLE OF 10.02. YEAH. I WOULD REALLY ASK THAT YOU RECONSIDER THE PROCLAMATIONS, BECAUSE THE MAYOR DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE APPROVAL TO DO A PROCLAMATION. HE OR SHE CAN DO A PROCLAMATION FOR ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. ALL RIGHT. SO WE CAN TAKE PROCLAMATIONS OUT. AND PROCLAMATIONS IS NOT COVERED AS IT JUST SAYS ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS. SO WHY DON'T WE

[01:40:02]

YEAH. IF THEY'RE NOT PUT ON THE CITY WEBSITE, THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAPPEN TO GO PAST THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT PUBLIC HEARING COMING UP. SO IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THEY GET ON THE WEBSITE. AND AS SOMEBODY WHO LOBBIED FOR THAT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF UNTIL FINALLY GOT IT ACCOMPLISHED, IT'S GOING BACK TO TRACY'S TIME. I'M NOT WILLING TO GIVE IT UP. NO, THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE IT BECAUSE THERE COULD BE A PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED, LET'S SAY, AT THE AIRPORT PROPERTY. AND I NEVER GO BY THE AIRPORT PROPERTY. AND THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS HELD AND I NEVER EVEN KNEW ABOUT IT. AND SOMETHING I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO HAVE INPUT AS A CITIZEN. HOW ABOUT PERMIT APPLICATIONS? PERMIT APPLICATIONS? ARE THEY PUBLIC NOTICE? NO, THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT. SO IF MY NEIGHBOR WANTS TO PUT A 50 FOOT EXTENSION ON HIS HOUSE, HOW WOULD I EVER HOW WOULD I EVER FIND OUT ABOUT THAT UNTIL THE PERMITS ARE READY? IF THERE WASN'T, IF THERE DIDN'T NEED TO BE, IF THERE WASN'T A NEED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE ORDINANCE, THEN YOU WOULDN'T KNOW. IT'S ONLY FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. OKAY. YOU'RE SMIRKING. I THINK IT GETS DOWN TO THAT WOULD BE COVERED BY AN ORDINANCE AND HOW IT'S TREATED. AND I, I REALLY WANT TO PULL US BACK TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ORDINANCES. WE'VE EXPANDED IT TO RESOLUTIONS.

OFFICIAL NOTICES ARE THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED AS A RESULT OF AN ORDINANCE, OR THE CHARTER DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE IN OUR ORDINANCE SECTION OF THE CHARTER PROCLAMATIONS IS THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY MANAGER POINTED OUT, AREN'T REALLY RELATED TO ORDINANCES, AND MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN BE VOTED ON BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO RESIDE IN ARE TO BE NUMBERED CHAPTER ON ORDINANCES. SO I THINK EXPANDING IT TO RESOLUTIONS IS ENOUGH. WE DON'T WANT TO GET IT SO CONVOLUTED AND CRAZY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO INCLUDE EVERYTHING IN A SECTION THAT PERTAINS TO ORDINANCES. WHERE WILL IT BE INCLUDED? YOU DON'T NEED A SECTION OF OFFICIAL NOTICE. OFFICIAL NOTICES ARE THE RESULT OF SOME OTHER ACTION THAT REQUIRE AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. AN ORDINANCE MIGHT REQUIRE AN OFFICIAL NOTICE, BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO REFERENCE IT IN THE ORDINANCE SECTION. WHEN THE ORDINANCE IS CREATED, IT SAYS YOU WILL DO AN OFFICIAL NOTICE. OFFICIAL NOTICES DON'T NEED TO STAND ALONE IN OUR CHARTER.

WE'VE DEFINED THEM SO THAT WHEN WE DO REFERENCE THEM, WE KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN. BUT THEY'RE NOT AN ELEMENT THAT NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE A PART OF OUR ORDINANCES. CHAPTER. THE PROBLEM WITH OUR CHARTER HERE IS, IS IT'S OUR EXISTING CHARTER IS CONVOLUTED, THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT SAID, OH, BY THE WAY, WE'RE THROWING IN RESOLUTIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND OFFICIAL NOTICES INTO THIS ORDINANCE SECTION, WHICH DIDN'T NEED TO BE THERE FROM THE GET GO. BUT FOR SOME REASON, BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2015, SOMEBODY FELT LIKE, HEY, LET'S THROW THAT IN OUR ORDINANCE SECTION AND CONFUSE OUR CHARTER. AND THAT'S

[01:45:05]

WELL YEAH, BUT YOU CAN PARK AND WALK I MEAN NO, I MEAN I, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING I DO, YEAH, I HAVE TO. YEAH, I THINK WE'RE, WE MAY BE TRYING TO DICTATE WHAT SHOULD JUST BE A NORMAL POLICY AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES. YEAH. BY FURTHER IN MY MIND, CONVOLUTING THE CHARTER UNNECESSARILY. OKAY. TO ADDRESS A VERY SPECIFIC PROBLEM. OKAY. THAT IS BETTER HANDLED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVELY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY. OKAY. IT'S NOT KEY TO THE GOVERNANCE OF THE CITY THAT WE HAVE THIS SENTENCE IN HERE. OKAY. I THINK WE'VE DEFINED OFFICIAL NOTICES.

AND OFFICIAL NOTICES CAN BE INCLUDED APPROPRIATELY, EITHER IN THE CHARTER OR ORDINANCES THAT RESULT FROM THE CHARTER. BUT I THINK THIS, THIS, THIS WHOLE SECTION 3.17 COULD JUST BE STRICKEN IN REPLACE OF WHAT WE SAID OVER HERE ALREADY. THE DESCRIPTIVE CAPTIVE OF EACH ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION. SHALL BE PUBLISHED UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW OR THIS CHARTER. SIMPLE, CLEAN, CATCH ALL, UNAMBIGUOUS AND NOT REDUNDANT. ALL RIGHT. IT DOESN'T SAY OFFICIAL NOTICE ANYWHERE ELSE IN OUR CHARTER. I'M HESITANT TO TAKE IT OUT. I WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. LINDA, YOU CONVINCED ME BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A BIG ISSUE THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT NOTICES IN OUR ORDINANCE CHAPTER. YEAH, I GET THE I GET YOUR LOGIC IS RIGHT ORDINANCES. AND THEN WE'RE CONVOLUTING IT BY THROWING IN. OH, BY THE WAY, INCLUDE THIS AND THIS AND THIS TO YOUR LOGIC, IS RIGHT IN THE WRONG PLACE. LOGIC IS RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU. YEAH, I JUST WANT TO COMMENT THAT YOU'RE NOT TO ARTICLE 11 YET,

[01:50:06]

AND SO IF THERE IS SOME NEED THAT YOU FEEL TO PUT THAT SOMEWHERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

YES. GOOD POINT. OKAY. SO I WOULD MOVE TO STRIKE SECTION 3.17. AMEND THE SELENA LANGUAGE IN 10.02 THAT WE JUST ACCEPTED TO ENTITLE IT PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS AND EDIT LINES 503 AND 504 IN THE SELENA CHARTER TO READ THE DESCRIPTIVE CAPTIVE CAPTION OR TITLE OF EACH ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION SHALL BE PUBLISHED UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY STATE LAW OR THIS CHARTER. OKAY. WAS THAT WAS THAT A SECOND, MADAM CHAIR? WOW. SO, ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? IT WAS HIS MOTION. MY MOTION I SECOND THAT. OH, I THINK LINDA, LINDA, LINDA WHISPERED, AND THAT'S WHY I CLARIFIED. OKAY. WAS THAT LIP READING A SECOND OR NOT? BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? GIVE JEAN CREDIT FOR THAT. I'D RATHER HAVE HIS NAME ON THE SECOND. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? PROBABLY NOT. OR YOU KILL ME IF WE DISCUSS IT ANYMORE. SO ALL IN FAVOR I.

OKAY, SO IT'S UNANIMOUS. ON 3.18 SOMEBODY. IT WAS EITHER ROBERT OR MARK THAT SUGGESTED.

AND I MADE A NOTE THAT THE ONLY CHANGE THAT AT LEAST I THOUGHT NEEDED TO BE DONE WAS THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 60 CALENDAR DAYS FROM ENACTMENT AND THEN ADDING IN, AND SHALL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE ON THE 61ST DAY FOLLOWING ENACTMENT. EXCEPT AS NOTED BELOW, THAT WAS THE ONLY CHANGE THAT I HAD MADE ON THAT. AND IT WASN'T SOMEBODY ELSE'S SUGGESTION AT SOME POINT. I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN. WELL, IF IF IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS, WELL THEN OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO EXPIRE ON THE 61ST DAY. DO WE REALLY NEED TO CALL THAT OUT? NO, BECAUSE IT'S GOOD FOR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF 60 DAYS FROM AN ENACTMENT. RIGHT. SO IT WOULD EXPIRE ON THE 61ST DAY. WOULDN'T IT? WELL, I'M THINKING OF IT. I'M THINKING OF AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED FOR THE ECLIPSE. AND THE WAY THAT ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN IT WE HAD TO WRITE ANOTHER ORDINANCE TO.

TO TO CANCEL IT, REPEAL IT, TO REPEAL IT. AND AT THE TIME, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WHEN I BROUGHT THAT UP. PEOPLE AT FIRST LIKE DIDN'T BELIEVE ME. AND THEN WHEN IT GOT TO THE COUNCIL, HE WAS LIKE, YEAH, WE DID, BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN. AND SO I THOUGHT, IF WE PUT THIS IN HERE AND SHE'LL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE, THEN EVEN IF IT'S EVEN IF THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IN ARTFULLY, IT STILL WOULD BE COVERED BY THIS THIS AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION ON THE 61ST DAY. AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE COUNCIL WRITE ANOTHER. WHAT? WHAT? WELL, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THAT ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WASN'T WRITTEN AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE. IT WAS JUST WRITTEN AS AN ORDINANCE.

AND SO THEN TO GET RID OF AN ORDINANCE, IT WAS WRITTEN AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE. WAS IT? IT WAS. YEAH. WELL, THEN I STILL BUT IT WAS WRITTEN. OKAY. IT WAS WRITTEN REALLY NOT WELL, IT WAS NOT WELL WRITTEN. AND IT WAS BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE. OH, I'D HAVE TO DO IS JUST SAY THIS EMERGENCY ORDINANCE WILL BE, WILL EXPIRE IN 60 DAYS. IF IT'S IF IT WAS WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS JUST SO. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO PUT THAT IN THERE. THAT JUST THAT IT SAYS SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 60 DAYS FROM ENACTMENT. OKAY. SO NOW IF SOMEONE I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE, I CAN'T I DON'T KNOW. BUT IF YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THAT SAYS WHATEVER IT SAYS, AND IN OUR CHARTER IT TALKS ABOUT EMERGENCY ORDINANCES EXPIRING IN 60 DAYS, THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO REWRITE IT IN THE THE

[01:55:02]

LET'S SEE. WE WRITE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS IT'S GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY DIE IN 60 DAYS.

OH, BUT EXCEPT FOR THIS, AND EXCEPT FOR THIS AND EXCEPT FOR THIS. OKAY, SO WE'RE CREATING A LOGICAL CHAIN THERE THAT'S UNNECESSARY. OKAY. I THINK NOW I WILL SAY AND I'M LOOKING NOW ROCKPORT DOES HAVE A PROVISION FOR EMERGENCY ORDINANCES. I WANT TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

OKAY. SO ON PAGE EIGHT OF 40 SECTION 3.12 OF ROCKPORT, THEY DO HAVE PROVISIONS FOR EMERGENCY ORDINANCES. AND IT HAS SOME OF THE SAME EXCEPTIONS. YOU CAN'T LEVY TAXES TO RENEW A FRANCHISE, AUTHORIZE THE BORROWING. IT ALLOWS FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL TO PASS IT, I THINK THE TOTAL WAS FIVE. I THINK THEIR TOTAL WAS FIVE. YEAH. AND THEN THEIR WORDING IS SHALL AUTOMATICALLY STAND REPEALED AS OF THE 61ST

[02:00:04]

IT'S JUST WORDED DIFFERENTLY. BUT NOW IT SAYS 61 LIKE YOU WANT IT. WHAT WHAT LINE IN ROCKPORT IS THAT IT'S 37 TO 30 7 TO 38. YEAH. 237 OR 630 722. IT'S PAGE EIGHT OF 40 LONDON.

IT'S IN SECTION THREE. SECTION 312 OKAY, OKAY, I GOT IT. OKAY. I LIKE THAT LANGUAGE. SO THAT WOULD BE LIKE 3.1 TO 4. THE EMERGENCY THAT 235 THROUGH 239. I LIKE THEIR WHOLE SECTION ON EMERGENCY ORDINANCES. AND I WILL SAY THAT. AUBRY ALSO HAS AN ARTICLE SECTION ON EMERGENCY ORDINANCES 3.15. THE LANGUAGE IS VERY SIMILAR TO. ROCKPORT AND ON LINE 386 LINDA I'VE GOT CIRCLED. LINDA LIKES IS AUTOMATICALLY REPEALED BY THE 61ST DAY. SO I FOUND YOUR NOTE.

I'M SITTING HERE THINKING, I REMEMBER I FOUND YOUR NOTES IN THE ROCKPORT CHARTER LINE 386.

AND THAT'S THAT'S BETTER THAN SAYING THEY'RE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. JUST. YEAH, WELL THAT'S FINE.

SO PERHAPS I STAND CORRECTED. PERHAPS WE DO NEED TO HAVE A SECTION ON EMERGENCY.

REFERENCES. YOU KNOW, I WE DEFINITELY NEED ONE. THAT'S IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE, YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT SOMEWHERE. YOU CAN'T JUST SAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THEM. WELL, I LIKE ROCKPORT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT NUMBER THREE, THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES OF AT LEAST THREE MEMBERS. I MEAN, THAT'S A MAJORITY. IT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY. YEAH. I DON'T THINK WE NEED JUST BY WELL, IT'S LESS THAN A MAJORITY. BUT I THINK WHAT THEY'RE MAKING PROVISION THERE IS THAT I DON'T KNOW, I THINK FOR THEM IT'S A MAJORITY.

I THINK THEY HAVE FIVE COUNCILORS. OH THEY HAVE FIVE. OKAY. I THOUGHT THEY WERE ALLOWING FOR A SMALL POINT MARK. THAT'S RIGHT. GOOD POINT. YEAH. AND YOU CAN'T GET EVERYBODY TOGETHER. THAT'S HOW I YEAH THAT'S HOW I TOOK IT TOO. BUT THEN I THINK HE'S HE'S RIGHT.

THEY HAVE THEY HAVE SMALLER GROUP. YEAH. WELL AUBRY AND WAS AUBRY. WELL THAT WHOLE SENTENCE REALLY DOESN'T ADD ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU GOTTA HAVE A MAJORITY TO PASS ANY ORDINANCE, RIGHT? SO I GUESS I GUESS THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT HAVING A QUORUM OF FOUR. THEY STILL WANT THREE VOTES. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK FOR. IT WAS THAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT.

RIGHT. I THINK WE COULD JUST BE SILENT ON THAT ALTOGETHER BECAUSE, I MEAN, IF IT'S GOING TO BE IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY, IT'S IT'S UNLIKELY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET COUNCIL MEMBERS TO APPROVE IT. IT'S UNLIKELY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO SAY THEY DON'T APPROVE IT.

RIGHT. FRANK? GUYS. YEAH. IT WOULD JUST BE APPROVED LIKE ANY OTHER ORDINANCE. YEAH, YEAH YEAH YEAH, THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE. YEAH. JUST TO PUT THE PRESSURE ON US TO LIKE GET GET GOING.

YOU GUYS START AT 630. RIGHT. BUT WE WE NEED TO WRAP THIS UP. I WAS HOPING I, I WAS HOPING WE COULD FINISH THREE TODAY. SO WE'VE GOT ROCKPORT 312. AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER CHARTER. SO.

ROCKPORT 312. THE OTHER WAS AUBREY. AUBREY. YEAH. SELENA DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT I SEE IN THEIR TABLE OF CONTENTS. AUBREY. WHAT LINE? WHAT LINE NUMBER IS ON AUBREY. IS IT? 17?

[02:05:04]

THREE 8586 SAYS 61 JUST LIKE YOUR AGE. AND IT CIRCLED LINDA. LIGHTS, LIGHTS. AT LEAST IN MY COPY. WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS AUBREY. AND 3.18 ON THE GRID AND SAID CONSIDER EDITING LAGO VISTA 3.18 TO STATE. EMERGENCY ORDINANCES ARE AUTOMATICALLY REPEALED AS OF THE 61ST DAY.

LINDA. IT'S IN THE GRID TO. I THOUGHT IT WAS IN THE GRID. IT IS. THAT'S WHY I ATTRIBUTED I ATTRIBUTED IT TO ONE OF YOU GUYS BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK I MADE THE GRID. WELL, YOU MADE THE GRID BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S OBVIOUSLY UNDER THE AUBREY TITLE. SEE, I TAKE NOTES, JEANNE. I KNOW YOU DO. AND BUT YOU I KNOW YOU TAKE NOTES AND YOU REMEMBER STUFF. I'M. I AM FULLY APPRECIATIVE OF YOUR ABILITY IN THOSE AREAS. TRUST ME TO. I WOULD SAY, MADAM CHAIR, THAT WE LOOK AT, AT AUBREY 3.15 REPLACING OUR 3.18. OUR 3.19 ADOPTION CODE IS PRETTY WELL COVERED BY SELENA. REAL SIMPLE SENTENCE AS OPPOSED TO PARAGRAPHS. IT TALKS ABOUT THE CODIFICATION OF IT. IT'S 10.03 CODE OF ORDINANCES. VERY SIMPLE. IN SELENA TWO SENTENCES. IT REPLACES A LOT OF NONSENSE HERE AND I THINK IS THIS THE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT MICROFICHE? MAYBE NOT. I, I JUST DON'T THINK 3.19 REALLY IS NEEDED IN OUR CHARTER, OKAY? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE CITY RETAINS ALL THE POWERS THAT THE CITY HAS TO REGULATE ALL OF THESE CODES AND REGULATIONS AND BUILDING STANDARDS AND PLUMBING AND YADA, YADA, YADA. YOU DON'T EVEN I DON'T THINK TIM BEING PLUMBING. ELECTRICAL. YEAH. I DON'T THINK 3.19 IN OUR CHARTER REALLY DOES ANYTHING, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS RECENTLY REVISED IN 2021, IT WAS PROBABLY REVISED TO TRY TO KEEP THAT LANGUAGE CURRENT. WELL, I THINK, BUT IT TALKS ABOUT ADOPTION OF CODE LIKE LIKE FIRE CODE. AND IT JUST SAYS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY IT GETS INTO BUILDING CODES AND STUFF BECAUSE THERE'S STATE CODES. IT GETS VERY THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOMEBODY FROM BUILDING AND STANDARDS ON THIS, ON THIS CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. AND THAT'S REALLY THAT'S HOW IT GOT IN HERE, IN MY OPINION. WE'VE ALREADY GRABBED ALL THE POWER THAT THE CITY CAN DO, AND THE CITY'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUBLISH ORDINANCES ON ALL THESE AREAS.

IT DOESN'T IT. THIS IS A REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY SECTION. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. SO WOULD YOU MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE IT? I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT ONE SOME MORE WHEN WE'RE NOT UNDER THE GUN. ALL RIGHT THEN LET'S I THINK I THINK WE'RE I THINK THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THROUGH THREE TODAY. IT'S UNREASONABLE TO, TO RUSH BECAUSE WE. YEAH. IT'S UNREASONABLE TO TO RUSH THROUGH THREE TODAY. SO I THINK WE WILL PICK IT UP STARTING WITH 3.19 NEXT TIME OR 3.18. WE DIDN'T FORMALLY WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T WRITE. WE DIDN'T GET WE DIDN'T READ. ROCKPORT 3.18 OKAY. PICK UP WITH 3.18 WITH AN EYE TOWARDS USING ROCKPORT AS THE MODE. OKAY, ONE LAST THING. I'M PROBABLY GOING TO PUT A REPLY ON YOUR. MESSAGE BOARD WITH THE TRANSITION SPREADSHEET. YES, I LIKE THAT. I LIKE THAT A LOT, BUT JUST JUST KEEP IT IN MIND.

I THINK I'M GOING TO SUGGEST MAYBE PUTTING SOME WORDING OF A SUNSET ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF

[02:10:03]

YEAH. WELL IT DOESN'T OUR CHARTER SAY, AND I'VE SEEN IT IN OTHER CHARTERS, THAT WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSITION FROM THIS MANY TERMS TO THAT MANY TERMS, AND WHEN IT GOES ALL THROUGH IT AND IT'S, AND THEN IT'LL SAY BY THE ELECTION OF, YES, 2030, WE WILL FULFILL THIS AND WE DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT ANYMORE. I'VE SEEN ALL THAT EMBEDDED IN CHARTERS, TOO, AND IT MAKES IT CONVOLUTED. THE SIMPLE WAY TO DO IT IS SAY YOU WILL TRANSITION FOR EXHIBIT 2601, AND THEN YOU PUT 2601 AT THE BACK. AND THEN WHEN PEOPLE READ THE CHARTER IN THE FUTURE, THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT TRANSITION PLAN EVERY TIME.

THAT'S FINE. OKAY. YEAH. SO BEFORE LINDA WHACKS HER GAVEL. WAXES AND WAX, NO. SHE MIGHT BE DOING THAT TOO. BUT SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH 318. BUT ROBERT, I THOUGHT YOU SAID WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE LEANING TOWARDS AUBRY. BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS ROCKPORT. WELL, INITIALLY WE LOOKED AT ROCKPORT AND THEN WE SAID, OKAY, LET'S LOOK AT AUBRY. IT'S A LITTLE CLEANER. YES, BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM. BUT I WAS THINKING AUBRY IS. YEAH. AUBRY IS VERY SIMILAR TO ROCKPORT AND DOESN'T HAVE THE ISSUE ABOUT THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS. YEAH. IT SAYS QUORUM. YEAH, CORRECT. OKAY. NOW, JEANNE, GO FOR IT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.