[00:00:08]
IT'S 3 P.M. I'M CALLING THE MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO ORDER, AND WE HAVE WITH US TODAY ROBERT OWEN, MARK DOUGLAS, JEAN HARRIS, OUR VICE CHAIR, AND MYSELF, LINDA AIRD AND JEN GRUNWALD AND OTHER MEMBER WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES LATE, BUT SHE'S ON HER WAY. WE ALSO HAVE WITH US OUR CITY STAFF LIAISON, MR. CHARLES WEST, CITY MANAGER. AND DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR. SAME AS LAST WEEK. Y'ALL ARE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB AND WE APPRECIATE THE WORK Y'ALL ARE DOING. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO STEP OUT FOR A MINUTE, BECAUSE I'VE GOT TO GET ON ANOTHER CONFERENCE CALL WITH THE ATTORNEYS, AND THEN I'LL BE BACK IN HERE. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS. WE HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE
[IV. CONSENT AGENDA]
CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4TH, 2026 FOR OUR CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. AND WE ALSO HAVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT AS POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. JEAN. I MADE SOME COMMENTS ON TEN THAT I GUESS NEED TO BE DISCUSSED. SO MAYBE WE CAN TAKE THAT FROM I AGREE. I ALSO POSTED SOME COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT. THEY SHOULDN'T TAKE LONG TO DISCUSS, BUT WE DO NEED TO PULL IT OFF. JUST. I MADE SOME COMMENTS ON TEN AND ALSO SOME COMMENTS ON THE CHARTER DRAFT. LET ME CHECK MY NOTES AND SEE IF I HAVE ANYTHING ON THE CHARTER DRAFT IS CORRECT. OKAY. JEAN. WHAT? YOU. RECOMMENDED. TYPOS ON TEN.ON LINE 19, LINE 50 AND 103. THOSE WERE ALL JUST TYPOS AND WELL, 19 AND 50 WERE TYPOS.
THOSE ARE FIXED. AND THE ARTICLE TEN THAT I REPOSTED ON SATURDAY, LINE 103 IS IN PLACE HERE. TWO FOUR WELL, PREVIOUSLY I DID THAT. LINE THREE. YOU POINTED OUT THE PERIOD BEHIND AUTHORITY. I DIDN'T MAKE THAT CHANGE IN THIS DRAFT BECAUSE THAT WAS A FORMATTING THING, BUT I DID MAKE IT IN THE FORMAT DRAFT FOR BASICALLY EVERY SECTION THAT. SO I WOULD JUST CALL OUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE NEW ARTICLE TEN THAT'S POSTED. AND IF THOSE CORRECTIONS ARE SUFFICIENT, THEN I THINK WE CAN LEAVE IT ON CONSENT. YES, THOSE CHANGES WERE ADDRESSED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'M HAPPY. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT'S ON THERE. OKAY. SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ON THE CONSENT APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 4TH MEETING AND THE APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT ON ARTICLE TEN, THE POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM ONE AND TWO AND WE PRESENT AGENDA. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OKAY. THAT IS UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU. AND? WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY OUR MAYOR. AND ACTUALLY IT KIND OF GIVES US A GOOD OPPORTUNITY IF IF YOU ARE AS BUSY MAYOR AS I ASSUME YOU ARE, BECAUSE OF EVERYBODY HERE AT THE CITY IS EXTREMELY BUSY THIS WEEK. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE HAD PLANNED FOR ITEMS TWO, THREE AND FOUR AND DEFER OUR DISCUSSION ITEM FOR ARTICLE 11 TO COMPLETE ARTICLE 11. AFTER WE DISCUSS. THE THE THREE
[Items V.2 - V.4]
ARTICLES THAT YOU BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT EVERYBODY HERE HAS READ THE ARTICLES THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY THE MAYOR AND ARE IN THE PACKET. AND, MARK, I GUESS I WOULD ASK YOU, AS OUR COMMUNITY COMMUNICATION LIAISON, IF ANYONE FIRST OF ALL, I[00:05:05]
ASSUME THEY WERE ON FACEBOOK, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM ON FACEBOOK. AND SO THEN I WOULD ASK YOU IF PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTED ON THOSE OR HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK AS THEY DO THAT. I'M PRESSED. I'M BEING ASKED TO TELL YOU TO SPEAK INTO THE OH HIM OR ME. YES, THE RESPONSE WAS OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE ON. I THINK THERE WERE FOUR POINTS. IT'S A FOUR PRONG DRAFT. WHAT'S THAT THREE MEAN? YEAH. SO BUT YEAH. AND THE ENTIRE AS A WHOLE, IT WAS IT WAS GREATLY WELL-RECEIVED. OKAY. IT'S IT'S GOOD TO KNOW. I THINK WHAT I WILL DO IS THEN ASK THE MAYOR IF HE WILL COME UP. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO THE COMMITTEE ON YOUR PROPOSAL REGARDING THE C-O BONDS, OR ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THE RESPONSIBLE BUDGET ITEM OR ANY REGARDING THE HOMESTEAD PROPOSAL? YEAH. THANK YOU ALL FOR GIVING ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. SORRY THAT I PUT THIS OUT THERE IN THE PUBLIC AFTER YOU ALREADY FINISHED ARTICLE EIGHT. MY INTENT IS NOT TO NECESSARILY INFLUENCE Y'ALL OR EVEN ASK THAT Y'ALL MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATION OR NOT RECOMMENDATION. I WAS JUST PUTTING OUT THERE THAT THE CHARTER RECOMMENDATIONS COME TO CITY COUNCIL. THESE ARE THE PROPOSALS THAT I INTEND TO PUT OUT THERE. SO HAPPY TO ELABORATE ON THEM. YOU KNOW, THE INTENTION TO ME IS, AS YOU KNOW, I COME FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AS A STAFFER IN TEXAS, WHEN WE HAVE PRINCIPLES THAT WE BELIEVE STRONGLY IN, SOME OF THOSE MAKE THEIR WAY INTO THE STATE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE IT LOCKS THEM IN THERE. AND FUTURE LEGISLATORS HAVE A HARD TIME PULLING THAT BACK OUT, AND IT TAKES IT TO THE VOTERS. AND THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF ME. SO I THOUGHT, WHAT ARE SOME PRINCIPLES THAT I HEAR CITIZENS TALK ABOUT THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY PUT TO A VOTE FOR THEM IF THEY WANT TO PUT IT INTO THE CHARTER? AND THESE ARE THE ONES THAT I CAME UP WITH. I THINK LAST YEAR'S BUDGETING PROCESS WENT A LOT BETTER THAN PREVIOUS ONES THAT WE HAVE DONE. AND ONE OF THOSE REASONS WAS WE ADOPTED THE MODEL THAT I'VE PROPOSED HERE, AND THAT IS EVERY DEPARTMENT BEGINS THEIR BUDGET AT 90% OF EITHER WHAT THEY SPENT LAST YEAR OR WHAT WAS BUDGETED, WHICHEVER ONE IS LOWER, AND THEN THEY CAN GO ABOVE THAT. THEY JUST HAVE TO PROVE THEIR POINT THROUGH AN EXCEPTIONAL ITEMS REQUEST. THEY COME BEFORE COUNCIL. THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS THE BASE BUDGET AT 90%, BUT I NEED TO GO TO 105. HERE'S X, Y AND Z. WHY? I THINK THAT THAT IS A SOLID MODEL THAT EVERY FUTURE COUNCIL CAN FOLLOW. AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITIZENS LIKED. SO AGAIN, I THINK IT'S JUST WORTH PUTTING TO THE CITIZENS. DO YOU WANT TO SEE THAT SORT OF BUDGETING PROCESS PUT INTO THE CHARTER SO THAT ALL FUTURE COUNCILS DO THAT? I BELIEVE THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT DECISION. I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM RELATED TO THE BUDGET, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BIGGEST DRIVERS OF DEBT AND INCREASED TAXES IN THE STATE IS THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS. C-O BONDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE VERY LIMITED, BUT AS YOU'VE SEEN ACROSS THE STATE, THEY'RE NOT SO LIMITED THESE DAYS. AND MY ASK IS JUST THAT WE ASK THE VOTERS, DO THEY PREFER IF THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE ON ANY PROPOSED C-O BONDS THAT ARE NOT EMERGENCY ITEMS? THAT WAS THE IMPORTANT PART TO ME AS WELL. THERE HAVE TO BE EMERGENCY ITEMS THAT POP UP FOR A CITY THAT THE C-O BOND MAKES SENSE, AND THOSE ONES WOULD HAVE AN EXCEPTION FROM GOING TO THE VOTERS. IF THE VOTERS WERE TO APPROVE THAT THROUGH THE CHARTER. AND THE LAST ONE WAS THE HOMESTEAD. I HEAR A LOT ABOUT LOWERING PROPERTY TAXES.OBVIOUSLY, THE LOCAL PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY TAXES HERE IN LAGO VISTA IS NOT THE HIGHEST PART OF YOUR PROPERTY TAXES, BUT IT STILL HAS AN IMPACT. AND ONE THING THAT I POINTED OUT TO CITIZENS WHEN I WAS CAMPAIGNING IS THERE IS AN OPTION FOR A LOCAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. WE HAVE NOT USED IT IN LAGO VISTA. AND WHEN I SPOKE TO CITIZENS ABOUT IT, THEY WERE VERY INTERESTED IN IT, BUT ASKED, YOU KNOW, WHAT COUNCIL IS EVER GOING TO APPROVE THAT? SO THIS THROUGH THE CHARTER PROCESS WAS THE CONCEPT THAT I THOUGHT, WELL, WE'LL TAKE IT TO THE VOTERS. WE'RE JUST SAYING, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A LOCAL HOMESTEAD? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO BE? I PROPOSE A 10%. IT COULD BE 5%. THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THAT COUNCIL CAN HAVE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF THE CITIZENS HAVING THE RIGHT TO ASK ABOUT IT. AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I'M ASKING THROUGH THIS PROPOSAL WHEN IT COMES TO COUNCIL, OR WHETHER YOU ALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION HERE OR NOT, IS, AT THE END OF THE DAY, ARE YOU PRIORITIZING HOMEOWNERS OR ARE YOU PRIORITIZING GROWTH IN THE BUDGET? AND TO ME, I THINK THE CITIZENS ARE GOING TO WANT TO HAVE A SAY. AND SINCE THE CHARTER PROCESS ONLY COMES UP EVERY FEW YEARS, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THEM EVERY SAY THAT THEY WANT ON THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DON'T LIKE PAYING TAXES
[00:10:08]
EITHER. AND I'M NOT SHOCKED THAT 90% OF THE PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA DON'T LIKE PAYING TAXES EITHER. AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT SOME REALLY GREAT PROPOSALS HERE. ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD ABOUT THE HOMESTEAD, WHILE I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE IT, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE THE 10% NUMBER JUST NOW YOU SAID COULD BE TEN, COULD BE FIVE. IT'S NOT FIRM. IS THERE ANY MATH THAT WOULD TELL US WHAT THE BUDGET DEFICIT LOW OR TAKE REVENUE LOSS WOULD BE THIS YEAR IF WE HAD ADOPTED THAT? BECAUSE I WENT THROUGH THE TCAD LETTER LAST YEAR FOR THIS YEAR.AND WHILE YOU CAN FIND OUT WHAT THE AVERAGE HOMESTEAD VALUE IS, AND YOU CAN FIND OUT THERE'S 13,700. AND SO RESIDENTIAL AND MOBILE HOME PARCELS, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH OF THE VARIABLES DEFINED IN THE TCAD LADDER TO REALLY ACTUALLY CALCULATE WHAT THE IMPACT TO OUR BUDGET WOULD HAVE BEEN. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU'VE GOT ANY MATH THAT COULD REASSURE US THAT THIS WOULD NOT BE AN IRRESPONSIBLE THING TO DO ON THAT FRONT? YEAH. KOBUN FRONT. ABSOLUTELY AGREE.
79% OF OUR BOND FINANCES GOING BACK TO, I BELIEVE 2006 WAS ISSUED VIA KO ONLY 21% AS THE CITY ISSUED BY GEO. AND THERE ARE EMERGENCY PROCEDURES IN THE CURRENT CHARTER IN IN OUR REVISED DRAFT. BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT MAKES SENSE TO TRULY MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, IN THE CHARTER AND LOCK IT IN FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO YEARS THAT IT REQUIRES A CEO TO ISSUE BONDS, OR MAYBE WITH SOMETHING LIKE REQUIRING FIVE, SIX OR EVEN UNANIMITY BY THE COUNCIL, MAKE MORE SENSE AND ALLOW FOR THE FLEXIBILITY TO HANDLE NON EMERGING EMERGENCY PRIORITIES WITHOUT LOCKING OURSELVES INTO, WELL, WE'VE GOT TO WAIT FOR AN ELECTION AND THEN THE VOTERS WILL LIKELY SAY NO OR MAY SAY NO. SO THAT AND THEN THE BUDGET PROCESS 100% AGREE WITH. NOT SURE IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE IN THE CHARTER, BUT THE PROCESS IS IS MUCH APPRECIATED TO BRING THAT DISCIPLINE. YEAH. ALL FAIR POLICY DISCUSSIONS. I'D SAY I HAD THE SAME PROBLEM. I'M TRYING TO GO BACK TO LAST YEAR AND SEE WHAT IMPACT THE HOMESTEAD WOULD HAD. I HAD TO GO BACK TO 2020 FOUR'S LETTER, WHICH MADE ME QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF WE PUT THAT OUT THERE ON THE 25 WHEN WE SHOULD, SO I'LL DO JUST PERCENTAGES. IF YOU DID THE 10% HOMESTEAD, IT WOULD REDUCE. IT WOULD REDUCE THE REVENUE BACK INTO THE STATE FROM THE HOMESTEAD BY 4.9%. IF YOU DID THE 5%, IT WOULD BE 2.45% OR 2.5 2.5%. SO IT'S DEFINITELY SOMEWHAT OF AN IMPACT. IT'S NOT A MAJOR IMPACT. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK WE COULD OVERCOME.
I THINK THERE ARE PLACES IN THE BUDGET, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE PUBLIC PROJECTS THAT ARE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, THAT I DON'T THINK ARE GOING TO BE AS LARGE OR AT THE SCOPE THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCUSSED. BUT AGAIN, I TAKE IT BACK TO THIS PROCESS IS MORE ABOUT SHOULD THE VOTERS HAVE A SAY IN IT, AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE VOTERS ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING A SAY IN, THEN I THINK IT'S WORTH SENDING TO THEM. AND IF WE THINK THAT THERE CREATES TOO BIG OF A POLICY ISSUE FOR US, WE CAN CERTAINLY GO OUT THERE AND ADVOCATE TO THE CITIZENS THAT THESE ARE THE PROS OF GOING FOR THIS. THIS IS THE NEGATIVES AGAINST IT. AND I THINK THAT THEY WOULD MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION. AND I AGREE ON THE CEO BONDS AND ON THE BUDGET FORMAT. THERE'S DEFINITELY AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT YOU COULD DO THAT PROCEDURALLY THROUGH EACH COUNCIL. BUT SIMILAR TO THE STATE, YOU KNOW, CITIZENS OFTENTIMES SAY, I DON'T NECESSARILY TRUST WHAT THE NEXT ITERATION OF COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE IN THE NEXT 2 TO 5 YEARS. AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU PUT IT IN THE CHARTER. AND I THINK FORTUNATELY, THIS PROCESS, WHILE IT TAKES A COUPLE YEARS TO HAPPEN AGAIN, THAT'S NOT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME. AND IF THEY FEEL LIKE IT DOESN'T WORK AND THEY PASS IT, THEN THEY CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND REDUCE IT OR REMOVE IT. YOU HAD A NUMBER I THOUGHT I SAW ON YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA POST. YOU HAD A NUMBER VERY SIMILAR TO YOURS AS FAR AS GOING BACK X NUMBER OF YEARS, THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF CEO BOND VERSUS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS WAS LIKE VASTLY TILTED TOWARDS THE ALLIES. YEAH. WAS YOURS ABOUT 80% SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE OR WAS IT. I THOUGHT IT WAS IN THE 70S. BUT THAT'S WHAT I TRUST. ROBERTS NUMBERS. YEAH 79%. I'VE GOT THIS, I GOT IT. I YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T REALLY NEED TO SEE THOSE. I THINK I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT COULD BE A VERY LEGIT ADDITION TO A CHARTER. NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WHICH WOULD LOCK US IN. BUT I THINK THE CITIZENS DEFINITELY A RESIDENTS DEFINITELY HAVE THIS. YOU SHOULD HAVE A SAY WITH THEIR VOTE ON SIGNING UP FOR TEN, 20 YEARS OR MORE OF OF. OBLIGATION OBLIGATIONS. I GUESS MY MAIN QUESTION IS, IS HAS THIS PASSED
[00:15:07]
MUSTER WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY? IF YOU FLOATED THIS BY, YOU KNOW, NOT YET. ONE OTHER QUESTION, JUST TO CLARIFY YOUR ANSWER, THE 4.9% ON THE 10%, THAT'S 4.9% REDUCTION OF TAXABLE VALUE, OR 4.9% REDUCTION IN AD VALOREM TAXES RECEIVED AND AD VALOREM TAXES RECEIVED. SO ON AN $11 MILLION ROUNDING OFF OF AD VALOREM TAXES, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $535,000 REDUCTION, CORRECT? I JUST MADE THE HOMESTEAD I, I WROTE DOWN INCLUDE THAT IN THE CHARTER. I AGREE THAT THE CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION, AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THE CITY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS SPELLED OUT CLEARLY ON THE BALLOT, SO THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT THEY'RE VOTING FOR. AND. I HAVE A QUESTION WHY IS 60 DAY NOTIFICATION ON THE EMERGENCY CEO INSTEAD OF, SAY, 30? I JUST KNOW HOW SLOW WE MOVE TO GET THINGS DONE IN TIME AND TO PUT SOMETHING GOOD TOGETHER FOR THE CITIZENS. SO I TRY TO GIVE 60 DAYS, BUT CERTAINLY A POLICY DISCUSSION. OKAY, OKAY. IF YOU THINK OF SOMETHING, I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT. AND THEN IF YOU THINK OF IT BACK TO YOU, AND ROBERT HAS ALREADY ASKED SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE HOMESTEAD. BUT MY COMMENT IS, I'M I'M REALLY GLAD THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN I HOPE IT ENGENDERS SOME DISCUSSION IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT TAXES AND TAX REVENUE, AND WHERE OUR REVENUE COMES FROM AND WHY, FOR EXAMPLE, BUSINESSES ARE SO NEEDED IN THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE REVENUE THAT THEY WILL GENERATE. AND I THINK THAT MAYBE THERE'S BEEN A RELUCTANCE TO TO ACCEPT BUSINESSES COMING INTO THE CITY. AT LEAST THAT'S KIND OF WHAT MY IMPRESSION IS. AND THAT POSSIBLY JUST HAVING THIS OPENING DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEED FOR REVENUE AND WHERE OUR REVENUE COMES FROM, THAT THIS WILL THIS WILL CREATE KIND OF A RECOGNITION OF HOW MUCH WE NEED MORE BUSINESSES FOR, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE REVENUE SIDE OF IT. SO SO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THESE BECAUSE I LIKE THEM ALL. BUT I DO, ESPECIALLY EVEN IF THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ISN'T ACCEPTED, I STILL LIKE IT FOR THE FACT THAT IT WILL BRING UP CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S PART OF THE REASON I BROUGHT IT UP TOO. I THINK WITHOUT THIS CHARTER REVIEW PROCESS, I WOULDN'T REALLY EVEN BE ABLE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON A LOCAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. I KNOW THAT FOLKS THAT ARE IN CITY HALL AND IN GOVERNMENT TEND TO BELIEVE THAT THE BUDGET HAS TO CONTINUE TO GO UP, AND SO EVEN BROACHING THAT SUBJECT IS DIFFICULT. SO I'M THANKFUL THAT THIS PROCESS EVEN EXISTS, AND I HOPE THAT IT EVEN HIGHLIGHTS EVEN MORE ABOUT THIS PROCESS THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR. IT'S GOT TO HAVE BEEN A YEAR NOW AND YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN DOING AN AMAZING JOB. SO THANK YOU. YES. AND THE REASON TO INCLUDE IN THE CHARTER, I JUST AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID. IT'S GOING TO ONCE. IF IT'S IN THE CHARTER IT CANNOT BE EASILY TAKEN AWAY.AND UNFORTUNATELY IT DOES SEEM TO BE THE PREVALENT THINKING THAT OUR BUDGET ALWAYS HAS TO INCREASE. AND CHANCES ARE IT WILL, BUT IT SHOULD INCREASE COMMENSURATE TO THE GROWTH OF THE CITY, WHICH IS GOING TO BRING IN ADDITIONAL MONIES TO SPEND FOR THE ADDITIONAL DEMANDS. BUT IT'S GOT TO BE IN THE CHARTER, I THINK, SO THAT IT'S THERE AND IT CAN'T BE EASILY TAKEN AWAY. YEAH. YEAH, JUST ONE QUESTION AND ONE COMMENT. QUESTION ON THE EXEMPTION. DO YOU ENVISION THAT BEING FOLLOWING STATE GUIDELINES? SO IF YOU HAVE, SAY, A SECOND LOT THAT'S ADJACENT TO YOUR HOMESTEAD THAT THAT WOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED IN THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN YOUR VISION? I'M NOT POSITIVE ON THE STATE LAW WITH THAT. SO I THINK THAT WOULD FOLLOW. IT MAY BE COUNTY OKAY. I THINK I THINK THE COUNTY ACTUALLY APPLIES TO THAT. OKAY. REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THOSE THAT HAS A SECOND LOT ADJACENT TO ME. I MEAN, IT'S A NICE LITTLE PERK OF, OF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU BUY THE LOT BEHIND YOU
[00:20:02]
NEXT TO YOU. SURE. AS LONG AS IT'S ADJACENT. I THINK THE KEY, THE KEY TO THE PROPOSAL TO THE WAY I HAD TO WRITE IT WAS TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION ABOUT, DID THIS PASS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY? THE CITY CHARTER ITSELF CANNOT CREATE THE EXEMPTION IN ITS LANGUAGE, BUT WHAT THE CHARTER WOULD BE DOING IS GIVING DIRECTION TO COUNCIL THAT THERE IS TO BE ONE, AND THEN THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON MAKING THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE THAT CREATES IT, AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THOSE GUIDELINES THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT THERE.SO THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF HAVING IT IN THE CHARTER, IS YOU'RE NOT REALLY ON THE HOOK TO HAVE SPELLED EVERYTHING OUT IN THERE. THAT'S SIMPLY THE CITIZEN SAYING THE THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU'RE GOING TO INSTITUTE THE HOMESTEAD. GOT IT. AND THE COMMENT, YOU ARE A VERY POPULAR MAYOR, AND I ADMIRE THE AMOUNT OF WORK YOU'VE DONE TO GARNER THAT EXCITEMENT, THAT LOYALTY AND THAT ABILITY FROM THE FROM THE RESIDENTS. I WAS HOPING THAT IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, GENERATE SOME INTEREST IN THIS PROCESS. BUT AS YOU LOOK AROUND, THERE'S THERE'S NOBODY HERE. SO I, I'M AT MY WIT'S END AS FAR AS LIKE HOW TO ENGAGE RESIDENTS IN THIS PROCESS. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY ANY IDEAS TO TO FURTHER THAT I'D BE ALL EARS. I'M SURE EVERYBODY WOULD BE. MY ANALOGY WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE LOVE TO GO TO A BALL GAME AND EAT A HOT DOG, BUT THEY DON'T REALLY WANT TO GO TO THE FACTORY AND SEE HOW IT'S MADE. YOU ALL ARE MAKING THE SAUSAGE RIGHT NOW, AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT GARNERING A LOT OF ATTENTION, BUT WHEN THIS HITS THE PUBLIC THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT AND IT'S SOMETHING THEY CAN VOTE ON, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY POPULAR. AND I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU ALL TO BE THE ONES TO COME AROUND AND KIND OF DO THE ADVOCATING AND THE DEEPER DISCUSSION AND DOING ALL THE SOCIAL MEDIA. AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION THEN, ESPECIALLY AS YOU GET CLOSER TO NOVEMBER, ASSUMING AND HOPING THIS COUNCIL DOES ITS JOB AND GETS US ALL READY AND PUT ON THE BALLOT BY THEN. YEAH, I WAS GOING TO ECHO THE SAME THING OR MUCH THE SAME. I FIRST OF ALL, I WE'VE BEEN VOTING PUBLIC INPUT, INVITING PUBLIC INPUT AND NOW IT LIGHTS AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL. I DON'T REALLY WANT TO DERAIL AT THIS POINT, MUCH LIKE THE MAYOR'S ALREADY DONE TO US, BUT THAT'S OKAY. I'M SORRY I DID IT THE VERY LAST MINUTE. IT'S LIKE WE JUST APPROVED IT YESTERDAY. SO AT THIS POINT. BUT I THINK TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, ONCE THIS IS ON CITY COUNCIL PACKET DOCKETS, AGENDAS, IT'LL GET MORE INTEREST. AND THEN THE PUBLIC WILL PAY ATTENTION. I, I KNOW, MARK, YOU WEREN'T ON THE COMMISSION WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT THE FIRST TIME, BUT ON THE FIRST GO AROUND, MAYOR SULLIVAN ASKED, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY INITIATIVES COULD WE BE SUPPORTED DURING THE FULL REWRITE? AND I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT ALL THE PREVIOUS CHARTER ELECTIONS AND BALLOT INITIATIVES, AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE BALLOT INITIATIVES, THE THE LOWEST BALLOT INITIATIVE, ALWAYS HAD MORE VOTER INTEREST, I.E. VOTES FOR OR AGAINST IT, THAN THE HIGHEST COUNCIL MEMBER OR MAYOR KENNEDY. SO I FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT VOTERS WOULD JUMP PAST THE CANDIDATES. MORE OF THEM WOULD JUMP PAST THE CANDIDATES AND VOTE ON THE BALLOT INITIATIVES THAN WOULD VOTE ON THE CANDIDATES AND BAIL ON THE BALLOT. SO THERE WILL BE, IF HISTORY IS ANY INDICATION, ONCE THIS IS IN THE PUBLIC AND IN THE PUBLIC FORUM OF COUNCIL AND DISTRIBUTED TO THE CITIZENS, I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GET INPUT. THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN TALKING TO US. THEY'RE THEY'RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT WE DELIVER. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO. OFFHAND QUESTION YOU, ESPECIALLY AS I, I THOUGHT OF THIS, BUT THEN YOU KIND OF BROUGHT IT UP. LET'S SAY WE GET THIS DRAFTED INTO THE DRAFT OF THE CHARTER. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE CHANCES OF IT ACTUALLY STAYING IN THERE FOR THE SURVIVING COUNCIL REVIEW AND MAKING IT ONTO THE BALLOT? AND THAT SAID, THE MORE PUBLICITY THAT'S OUT THERE. THAT WOULD GENERATE MORE PEOPLE CONTACTING THEIR COUNCIL MEMBERS SAYING, I WANT THIS VERY HIGH, I THINK I THINK IT'D BE THE ONE OF THE HARDEST VOTES THE COUNCIL MEMBER COULD TAKE THIS YEAR. IF YOU WERE TO POSSIBLY RECOMMEND THIS, GO FORWARD TO PULL THAT OFF AND NOT LET THE VOTERS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON IT. THAT'S GOING TO BE A TOUGH VOTE FOR YOU TO TAKE AND TOUGH TO EXPLAIN IN FUTURE ELECTIONS. AND THAT'S WHY I INTENTIONALLY HAVE PUT IT OUT THERE AT THIS TIME. WELL, IT'S A GIVE AND TAKE AND AND MY TAKE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. SO WE'VE KIND OF ALREADY WENT AGAINST SOCIAL MEDIA WHEN WE RECOMMENDED THREE YEAR TERMS, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE CITY. AND SO HAVING A POTENTIAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, COUPLED WITH INCREASING THE THREE YEAR TERMS, MAY HELP BOTH PASS. ARE
[00:25:04]
THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PUTTING THESE FORWARD. NEXT TIME I DO IT A LITTLE BIT SOONER, BUT YES, BETTER LATE THAN NEVER, AS THEY SAY. AND THANK YOU FOR COMING AND AND EXPLAINING IT FURTHER AND ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. YEAH, THANK YOU ALL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AND THANKS FOR ALL YOU'RE DOING AND LOOKING FORWARD TO Y'ALL GETTING TIME OFF FROM DOING THIS WHEN YOU CAN SEND IT UP TO US. SO THANK YOU. OKAY, NOW THAT WE HAVE HAD OUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND COMMENTS FROM THE MAYOR, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSAL REGARDING THE CONTINUING OBLIGATION BOND. DO WE WANT TO PUT THIS IN THE CHARTER WOULD VERY LIKELY GO INTO ARTICLE EIGHT. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. OKAY. I'LL JUST MAKE A REAL QUICK COMMENT. I ONLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO ONE PERSON ABOUT THIS SO FAR WHEN I SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE POTENTIALLY PUT TO THE CITIZENS FOR THESE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, WHETHER THEY WANT THEM TO PASS OR NOT. AND THE RESPONSE WAS, WELL, WHY WOULDN'T IT BE UP TO THE CITIZENS? THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I MEAN, I THINK THAT IS MY POSITION ON ALL THREE OF THESE PROPOSALS, THAT WHY WOULDN'T WE PUT THEM IN THE CHARTER RECOMMENDATIONS? IT STILL THEN WOULD GO UP TO THE COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION. BUT I THINK I'LL JUST STICK TO THE ONE THAT WE'RE ON. I THINK THAT THIS ONE SHOULD BE PUT IN THE TABLE. YOU KNOW, I THINK I HAD MENTIONED THIS AT OUR LAST MEETING, AND I THINK THIS MAY HAVE BEEN BEFORE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE EVENING OF THAT MAYOR SONG HAD PUT THIS OUT. I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF VOTERS REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CEO IS. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD DEFINE IT. I THINK PEOPLE ARE STARTING TO REALIZE THAT, HEY, COUNCIL COULD PASS A CEO BOND WITHOUT ANY VOTER INPUT. AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE IN THE KNOW KNOW. BUT I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF VOTERS DON'T.AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD WAY TO I'M ACTUALLY FOR THAT PART. SO I THINK I THINK VOTERS SHOULD HAVE A. VOICE AND GETTING. UP BOOK, SO TO SPEAK, FOR A CEO. ROBERT. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THE CEO PROCESS HAS BEEN ABUSED. 79% OF OUR BOND MONIES ISSUED BY MY ONLY HEARTACHE. HESITATION WOULD BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING BOND WISE, IT USUALLY DOES TAKE SOME PERIOD OF TIME.
YOU CAN MOVE QUICKER WITH A CEO, YOU CAN PLAN QUICKER WITH A CEO IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WHAT I WOULD CALL URGENT, BUT NOT IN AN EMERGENCY. OR IF YOU WANT TO REFINANCE SOME BONDS TO GET A LOWER RATE BECAUSE OF MARKET CONDITIONS AND TRIAGE THAT AND YOU NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE NIMBLE. SO MY MY ONLY CONCERN WITH REQUIRING ABSOLUTE VOTER APPROVAL FOR NON EMERGENCY CEOS IS IS THE POTENTIAL FOR UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. IT'S BEEN ABUSED. YES. SHOULD IT BE REINED IN. YES. SHOULD THEY BE BANNED BY CHARTER? I HAVE A DEGREE OF HESITATION AROUND THAT. I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE SAYING IT REQUIRES UNANIMITY OR 6 OR 7 VOTES BY COUNCIL RATHER THAN SAYING, OKAY, WE HAVE AN IDENTIFIED NEED. IT'S KIND OF URGENT BUT QUALIFIES FOR BONDS. BUT DOGGONE IT, WE MISSED THE NOVEMBER ELECTION WINDOW FOR THIS YEAR, SO NOW WE GOT TO PUT IT ON NOVEMBER OF NEXT YEAR, AND THEN THE VOTERS MAY OR MAY NOT APPROVE IT IN, YOU KNOW, 14 MONTHS OUT. AND AND WHAT DOES THAT DO TO OUR ABILITY TO BE NIMBLE AS A CITY? JUST THINKING IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD AND JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.
THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ABOUT INCLUDING THIS IN
[00:30:06]
ARTICLE EIGHT? MAY I CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE INCLUDING BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY LANGUAGE? OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO PUT A RECOMMENDATION THAT SOMETHING BE DRAFTED BY THE ATTORNEYS? I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT THIS WAS WRITTEN, IT WAS WRITTEN SO THAT IT COULD BE PUT INTO THE. IT COULD ACTUALLY BE INSERTED INTO THE ARTICLE WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PROVIDED.IT. MARK. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S IT'S DONE. ALL OF THESE WERE DONE SECTION A'S AND B'S AND ONES. I MEAN, IT'S WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT COULD BE INSERTED AS IS INTO THE CHARTER. WELL, REMEMBER, THE CHARTER IS JUST ESTABLISHING THE PRINCIPLE THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE BY COUNCIL TO ISSUE ORDINANCES THAT APPLY TO THAT. RIGHT. SO I'M NOT CLEAR. IS ALL OF THIS LANGUAGE INTENDED TO BE CHARTER LANGUAGE, OR IS THAT GETTING TOO SPECIFIC? AND THIS LANGUAGE IS INTENDED TO BE. ORDINANCE LANGUAGE THAT IMPLEMENTS THE CHARTER GENE. YEAH, I'M GOING TO GO BASED ON WHAT MAYOR SAM SAYS, THAT THIS WORDING THAT HE'S PRESENTED. GO. IF IT GOES INTO THE CHARTER, THEN THIS WORDING IS TELLING THE COUNCIL, OKAY, YOU HAVE TO WRITE AN ORDINANCE TO COVER EVERYTHING THAT'S INCLUDED ON THIS PRESENTATION, ON THIS PROPOSAL.
SO YOU'RE READING THIS AS ACTUAL CHARTER LANGUAGE. MARK. YEAH, I, I TAKE PARTICULAR NOTE OF THE EMERGENCY SECTION TWO. HE'S WELL DEFINED WHAT AN EMERGENCY IS LIMITED TO NATURAL DISASTER FAILURE OR IMMINENT FAILURE OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. TOTALLY BEHIND BOTH OF THOSE IMMINENT THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR PUBLIC SAFETY. STILL BEHIND IT. COURT ORDER OR MANDATE OR REQUIRE AN ACTION FOR WHICH TO CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM. TOTALLY BEHIND THOSE. BUT THEN IT'S IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE I THINK THIS GOES TO, TO ROBERT'S POINT, FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE, MARKET TIMING, AVOIDANCE OF ELECTION OR BUDGETARY PREFERENCES NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY. SO I THINK THAT ONE THAT WORDSMITHING AND THAT WORD, THOSE WORDS CAN PROBABLY BE DECIDED. THE AVOIDANCE OF AN ELECTION ABSOLUTELY BEHIND BUDGETARY PREFERENCE, ABSOLUTELY BEHIND IT, NOT SO CERTAIN ABOUT THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO TO CONSIDER TODAY IS BECAUSE THIS IS OUR BASICALLY OUR LAST MEETING BEFORE WE CONFIRM EVERYTHING NEXT WEEK, THAT WE, WE SHOULD TAKE THESE CONCEPTS AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO PUT THEM IN THE CHARTER AS FAR AS CONCEPTS. AND THAT PRETTY MUCH LEAVES IT UP TO DISCUSSION FOR THE COUNCIL. AND GIVEN THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO AWARDS NOW, IF WE WANT TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WE ELIMINATE SOME OF THIS, MAYBE ELIMINATE A PHRASE OR TWO OR DO SOMETHING IN GENERAL. I THINK THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME AND THAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO CONSIDER THAT, THAT WE SHOULD NOT SPEND A LOT OF OF OUR TIME TODAY WORDSMITHING, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST GO WITH THE CONCEPT AND THE LANGUAGE AND LET THE COUNCIL THEN FURTHER REFINE IT. AND SO IT WILL BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE DONE UP TO NOW. BUT GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, GIVEN THE TIMING, I THINK THAT'S OUR ONLY OPTION IF WE WANT IF WE WANT TO RECOMMEND THEM. DO WE TAKE ONE MINUTE AND GO BACK AND LOOK AT OUR ORDINANCES? SECTION, BECAUSE WE ALSO PUT LANGUAGE IN ORDINANCES DEALING WITH EMERGENCIES. AND I DON'T WANT TO NOW CREATE A CONFLICT OR INCONSISTENCY. THE ORDINANCES AREN'T IN THERE YET BECAUSE IT WAS ARTICLE FOUR, AND I DIDN'T PUT IT IN ARTICLE FOUR IN YET, BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE THROWN OFF ALL THE NUMBER. SO YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE SEPARATE ORDINANCES. ARTICLE FOUR. SO YES, WE GOT SECTION 4.0 FOR EMERGENCY MEETINGS AND
[00:35:11]
ORDINANCES, AND WE CAN JUST TAKE A MINUTE AND READ THAT, MAKE SURE NOTHING HERE CONFLICTS WITH. THE ORDINANCES. ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION 4.04. THAT'S THE CURRENT FOR REMEMBER WE'RE GOING TO PUT WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE ORDINANCES ARTICLE IN AS FOUR. AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO SLIDE BACK. IT'S NOT IN THE DRAFT YET BUT IT'S ON THE MESSAGE BOARD UNDER THE TBD ARTICLE. THAT'S. YES. I WANT TO LOOK AT 4.04. MAKE SURE THAT BY ADOPTING THIS LANGUAGE ON CEOS FROM THE MAYOR, THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING A CONFLICT WITH ANYTHING THAT'S IN 404.OKAY. SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S OKAY, EXCEPT NOW WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT 804. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT 404 IS THE EMERGENCY ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SAYS IT MAY NOT LEVY TAXES UNLESS IT'S OKAY BY 804 OR 810. OKAY. I'M LOOKING AT 810 NOW. 810 I WAS LOOKING FOR A TEN. WELL, IT WOULD SEEM LIKE TO ME. IT EXTENDS OKAY BECAUSE THE REFERENCE TO CO. BUT IF IF IT'S THE DESIRE OF COMMITTEE TO INSERT THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL ON CEOS. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT WE TAKE HIS LANGUAGE AND WE INSERT IT AS 8.13. IS 8.12 TALKS ABOUT ISSUANCE OF REVENUE AND GEO BONDS. SO THE NEXT LOGICAL SECTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT REQUIREMENTS ON CEOS WOULD BE TO FOLLOW THAT. SO BASICALLY TAKE HIS LANGUAGE, CREATE A SECTION 8.13. DROP THAT IN AND THEN PUSH 8.8.138145 15 I'M SORRY 1314 1516. BASICALLY JUST PUSH THEM ALL DOWN. 810 WAS GOOD. IS THAT I WAS READING IT HERE. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS CHARTER, IS THAT WHAT MAKES IT GOOD? YES, BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE CLARIFYING
[00:40:05]
IN ITS OWN SECTION ABOUT HOW CEOS ARE TREATED. AND IF IT'S NOT, I'M SURE THE ATTORNEYS WILL. OKAY. ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION? OKAY. JUST TO FOLLOW ON WITH WHAT YOU SAID, MARK. THIS IS PROPOSED WORDING. THAT'S PRETTY COMPLETE. BUT IF WE WANTED TO MOVE SOMETHING AROUND, FOR EXAMPLE, PUTTING FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE MARKET TIMING AS A FIVE AND SIX UNDER EMERGENCY AUTHORITY, WE COULD DO THAT. OR WE COULD LEAVE IT AS IT IS. AND THAT COULD BE A SELLING POINT, PERHAPS TO GET IT THROUGH COUNCIL. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS WORD FOR WORD, BUT IT'S SOMETHING VERY GOOD TO WORK OFF OF IF YOU WANT TO TWEAK IT AND DO. WELL IN READING FOR. IT STARTS OFF WITH A COURT ORDER OR LEGAL MANDATE REQUIRING A MEETING ACTION FOR WHICH DELAY WOULD CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL HARM. AND THEN FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE, MARKET TIMING, OR POINTS OF ELECTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY. I THINK THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A PERIOD AFTER PALM, BUT INITIALLY I WAS READING IT LIKE, WELL, YOU NEED A COURT ORDER DEFINING WHAT A FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE IS. BUT NO, THAT'S A SEPARATE SENTENCE, IN WHICH CASE I'M WITH YOU, MARK. I THINK FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE AND MARKET TIMING ARE MIGHT BE LEGITIMATE. WHILE THEY'RE NOT EMERGENCIES, THEY'RE URGENT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE MAY WANT TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO. BECAUSE THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT WE CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, BOND MONEY IS NOT JUSTIFICATION TO GO WITH SEA HILLS. SO WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN ELECTION PROCESS IN ORDER TO GET PERMISSION TO ISSUE CEOS TO SAVE INTEREST RATES. YES. BY THAT TIME, THE MARKET COULD HAVE TOTALLY CHANGED. AND NOT REALLY DID MANAGE TO DO IT. CONCEIVABLY, IT COULD BE OVER A YEAR TIME.YOU LOOK AT AN ELECTION CALENDAR, MARRIED UP IN NOVEMBER. YOU REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING AFTER, SAY, AUGUST. SEPTEMBER. I'M GOING TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THE OBLIGATION PORTION OF THIS, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY I MOVED THAT WE. INCLUDE THIS AS WRITTEN, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TAKING OUT FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE, MARKET TIMING AND ADDING THEM UNDER EMERGENCY CERTIFICATES AS NUMBERS FIVE AND SIX. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
[00:45:03]
UNANIMOUS. NEXT, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL REGARDING RESPONSIBLE BUDGETS. AND SO IN THE PACKET IS THE RESPONSIBLE BUDGETING AND ONGOING TRANSPARENCY. I LIKE THE CONCEPT. I DON'T KNOW IF I LIKE IT. IT'S IT'S PUTTING A NUMBER WHETHER IT'S ARBITRARY OR NOT. AND I KNOW WE HAVE A CHARTER THAT'S A LINE IN THE SAND THAT CAN'T BE CHANGED. AND I WOULD JUST ECHO I THINK THAT'S THE REASON WE. ROBERT, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT? I LIKE THE PROCESS. IT'S IT'S TOO MUCH FOR THE CHARTER VOTE AND SOME OF THE STUFF ABOUT THE REPORTS, BUDGET TRANSPARENCY. WE'VE ALREADY INCORPORATED SOME OF THAT IN OUR CURRENT DRAFT. IT NEEDS. SO THE REPORTING STUFF DOESN'T REALLY ADD ANYTHING. THE REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEING ADDED IS THE STARTING AT 90%. AND THAT'S PROCEDURAL. I THINK WE'RE GOING BEYOND THE CHARTER MANDATE AND GETTING INTO THE DETAILS. I LIKE THE IDEA OF IT. AND AGAIN, WE CAN TWEAK THIS HERE IF WE WANT TO. WE CAN OR WE CAN SAY THIS IS GETTING INTO TOO MUCH WEEDS AND UNNECESSARILY CLUTTERS OUR CHARTER AND LEAVE IT TO COUNCIL TO GIVE CITY MANAGER'S DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PRESENT A BUDGET. I AGREE THAT THE QUARTERLY BUDGET PROPORTION, I THINK IS, LIKE YOU SAID, COVERED ALREADY. THE IMPORTANT PART TO ME THOUGH, IS YES, THE LINE IN THE SAND SAYING THAT YOU WILL BEGIN AT 90% AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE EASY TO CHANGE IF IT'S IN THE CHARTER. WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY A LINE IN THE SAND BECAUSE EVERYBODY CAN PUT 90%. THEY COME IN WITH THEIR CONDITION. I THINK WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE AN IMPASSE ON. OR DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS? I DO, NOT MUCH. THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT IS WE. ANYBODY CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE YOUR DO YOU RELYING ON YOUR EARLIER STATEMENTS THAT YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS WHEN YOU SAID YES IN FAVOR OF ALL THREE? OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASSUMING. I WAS ASSUMING I'LL PASS IT. OKAY. MADAM CHAIRMAN, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE NOT INCLUDE THIS AS AN ELEMENT OF THE CHARTER AT THE LEVEL OF DETAIL REQUESTED BY THE MAYOR, AND LEAVE IT AS WE'VE ALREADY DROPPED IN ARTICLE EIGHT.SECOND. OKAY. THE SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. AGAINST. OKAY. SO THAT ONE FAILS. SO I PRESUMABLY YOU GUYS CAN SPIN IT AROUND AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET ANOTHER TWO TO FAILURE. I'M JUST THINKING IF WE LOOK AT IT AND SOME OF THIS CAN BE TRIMMED BECAUSE
[00:50:04]
LIKE I SAID I AGREE THAT WE HAVE QUARTERLY REPORTS. WE HAVE ADOPTED BUDGET ANNOUNCE PARTS THAT ARE REDUNDANT, STRIKE THEM OUT AND SEE IF THAT MAKES IT MORE PALATABLE. WELL, WE CAN DO THAT. BUT WE'VE ALREADY SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS. AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED DOES NOT ADD MUCH THAT CAN'T BE ACCOMPLISHED BY POLICY DIRECTION BY COUNCIL. SO AT THIS POINT, WE'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT OF TABLING YET. ARE WE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, WHICH WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER IMPASSE, OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA? WELL, THE PROPOSAL TO REJECT IT HAS FAILED. DIDN'T SUFFICIENTLY PAST ANY PROPOSAL TO MOVE IT FORWARD ON THE AFFIRMATIVE SIDE WILL ALSO FAIL. SO THAT'S WHY I SAID I THINK WE'RE AT AN IMPASSE, AND I WOULD RATHER WE NOT SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THIS TOPIC THAN WILL NOT PASS UNLESS JANE GETS HERE AND CHANGES HER MIND. LET'S MOVE ON TO SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REALLY HAVE SOME TRUE EFFECT ON. WELCOME. WE STARTED AT THREE. WELL, SOME OF OUR MEETINGS.THIS THIS THIS IS A SPECIAL CALL MEETING. AND SO WE'RE DOING FROM 3 TO 5 HOUR SPECIAL CALLS. I'M SORRY. YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT. BUT WAIT TILL WAIT TILL YOU WATCH THE VIDEO.
YOU'LL JUST BE AMAZED AT WHAT WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED. GENE, I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF TIME THAT WE JUST PROCEED, THAT THIS PORTION DIDN'T MAKE IT. I AGREE. OKAY, SO WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO A AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM, AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL REGARDING HOMESTEAD. AND AGAIN, THE THE HOMESTEAD RESIDENCE, HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AND VOTER PROTECTION LANGUAGE IS IN THE PACKET. AND SO I'LL OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION. HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU THAT PSALMS NUMBERS IS ROUGHLY HE'S HE'S HAVING, YOU KNOW, HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION HAS A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE BUDGET OF 10% IS ROUGHLY 5%, 5%, 7%. I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT HIM, BUT I HAVE NO REASON. I HAVE NO WAY OF VERIFYING THAT, OR I THINK IT WHEN IT GETS IF WE DECIDE TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER AS A RECOMMENDATION, I THINK WHEN IT GETS TO COUNCIL WILL BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT CONFIRMING THE NUMBERS. I THINK THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS IS JUST TO GET THE CONCEPT, THE CONCEPT TO COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION. BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT. AND AS FAR AS THE NUMBERS, I REALLY THINK THAT WE'VE GOT SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE VERY, VERY DILIGENT ABOUT CONFIRMING NUMBERS. ROBERT, DIDN'T YOU PULL A NUMBER? BUT FROM WHAT, LAST YEAR'S BUDGET AND THEN APPLY THE PERCENTAGE TO GET THAT 535 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS? YES, ROUGHLY AROUND NUMBERS. TOP OF MY HEAD. WE HAVE ABOUT 11 MILLION FOR TAXES REVENUE LAST YEAR, THIS YEAR'S BUDGET AND THE MAYOR'S NUMBER OF 4.3%. WE APPLY THAT. AS HE SAID, THAT WOULDN'T BE AN ACTUAL DEDUCTION, THAT REDUCTION OF TAXES. THAT WOULD BE ABOUT $590,000 WOULD HAVE BEEN THE IMPACT OF THIS BUDGET. IF MY 11 MILLION IS
[00:55:07]
RIGHT AND IS 4.9 MILLION IS RIGHT, BUT I LOOK AT THE BUDGET PRETTY CLOSELY AND HAVE AN 11 MILLION SEEMS TO BE THE FAIRLY CLOSE TEN, EIGHT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND I TRUST THE MAYOR CALCULATED THE 4.9. I COULD NOT CALCULATE THAT NUMBER FROM THE TCAT LETTER FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, AND HE HIMSELF SAID HE HAD TO GO BACK TO 24. SO THAT'S THE THING THAT GIVES ME HEARTBREAK ABOUT DOING THIS. ON THE FLIP SIDE, IF IF THE CONSENSUS IS TO INSERT THIS, THEN I WOULD SAY THAT WE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT ARTICLE NINE TAXATION AND FIGURE OUT WHERE INSERTED IN THAT ARTICLE. AND TO ME, IT WOULD SEEM LIKE IT WOULD NATURALLY FOLLOW 9.01 THAT POWERS OF TAXATION. THIS WOULD BE A SUBSET OF 9.01 AND THEN LEAVE IT AT THAT. ARE YOU SUGGESTING ALL OF THE LANGUAGE TO BE THE SUBSET OF 9.01? ALL OF IT, EXCEPT I WOULD RATHER THAN SAY NO LESS THAN 10%. I DON'T THINK WE CAN RESPONSIBLY TAKE A POSITION ON WHAT THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE, AND IF WE PUT IT IN THE CHARTER IS NO LESS THAN 10%, THEN WE'RE PUTTING COUNCIL IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO THEORETICALLY BE ACCUSED OF REDUCING SOMETHING THAT WE RECOMMEND. AND I AM IN NO POSITION READY TO RECOMMEND 10%. SO IF IT WERE ME AND WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT THIS, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT WE LEAVE THE PERCENTAGES OF FILL IN THE BLANK TO BE VETTED BY PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY RUN THE NUMBERS BETTER THAN MY MEMORY AND THE MAYOR'S MEMORY. OKAY. WOULD IT BE PRUDENT OR DANGEROUS TO LEAVE AN OPEN THE AMOUNT OF THE CITY RESIDENCE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY COUNCIL. IS APPLIED OVER. IT WOULD, AND I THINK THE MAYOR'S COME BACK TO THAT WOULD BE EACH FOLLOWING COUNCIL THEN COULD SET A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION EVEN IF IT WAS 0.00001, YOU KNOW, AND THEY COULD REDUCE IT TO THE RIDICULOUSLY SMALL NUMBER AS A WAY TO GET AROUND THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. SO I DON'T THINK LEAVING IT UP TO COUNCIL ACHIEVES WHAT THE MAYOR WANTS TO ACHIEVE. OKAY, ROBERT, SAY AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 10%. I WOULD JUST LEAVE IT AS A FILL IN THE BLANK AND MAKE NO RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS BODY AS TO WHAT THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE. YEAH. AND I GUESS MY PUSHBACK ON THAT WOULD BE EVEN IF WE SAY 5% OR WHATEVER, OR 10%, COUNCIL IS STILL GOING TO REVIEW THIS AND THEY MAY OKAY, WE'LL DO THIS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT AT 5%. THEY CAN. BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS PUT COUNCIL IN THE POSITION OF A CITIZEN GETTING UP AND GOING. WELL THE CRC RECOMMENDED TEN.WHY ARE YOU CUTTING IT BACK TO FIVE? OUR CITIZEN BOARD RECOMMENDED TEN. THAT'S JUST UNNECESSARY CONVERSATION FOR THEM TO HAVE. I THINK WE COULD PUT IT IN THE CHARTER AND SAY, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION RIGHT NOW, TODAY, AT THIS LATE HOUR, WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO DO THE MATH AND TELL YOU WHAT WE RECOMMEND OUR NUMBER TO BE. SO I DON'T WANT A NUMBER ANYWHERE NEAR OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WE JUST LEAVE IT TO FILL IN THE BLANK, AND WE LET THEM DO THE MATH AND THEN COME UP WITH THEIR OWN NUMBER. SO THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO DEFEND REDUCING OUR NUMBER, WHICH WE DON'T BELIEVE IN OR HAVE ANY MATH BEHIND ANYTHING. I'M TRYING TO I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER HAVING TO DEFEND SOMETHING FROM A CITIZEN IS A VALID REASON TO NOT PUT A PERCENTAGE IN THIS. I MEAN, THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO
[01:00:02]
HAVE TO DEFEND A LOT OF WHAT, OF WHAT WE MAY RECOMMEND AND WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO WANT TO CHANGE. SO THIS ISN'T LIKE GOING TO BE THE ONLY ITEM THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEFEND IF SOMEBODY BRINGS IT UP AS A CONSIDERATION. AND WE ARE A BODY OF FIVE PEOPLE AND. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME YOUR RATIONALE AND RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHY IT SHOULD BE 10% HERE TODAY? THAT'S A GOOD POINT. WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THAT. EVEN WHEN THE MAYOR MADE HIS COMMENTS, HE HE INFERRED THAT IT WAS AN ARBITRARY CHOICE, THAT IT COULD BE 10% OR IT COULD BE 5%. HE DID HE DID SAY IT COULD BE ANY ANY PERCENT. I THINK HE HAD TO PICK A NUMBER WHEN HE PUT THIS TOGETHER. JUST LIKE WE HAVE TO PICK A NUMBER WHEN WE WHEN WE PRESENT THE RECOMMENDATION, I DISAGREE. WE'RE NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO ACTUALLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL AS TO WHAT THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE. WE DON'T HAVE THE FACTS AND FIGURES TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, SO HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY VOTE ON AND SUPPORT A NUMBER THAT WE'VE GOT NO MATH BEHIND? WE HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF BEING THE MAYOR HIMSELF, TO YOUR POINT, SAID IT COULD BE A FLUID NUMBER. WHY ARE WE GOING THROUGH THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS OF DEBATING ABOUT PUTTING A NUMBER IN THERE WHEN WE COULD PUT A PLACEHOLDER IN TBD AND LET THE COUNCIL FIGURE IT OUT WHEN THEY HAVE MORE TIME TO SORT IT OUT? EXCELLENT. EXCELLENT POINT. I DO HAVE A QUESTION. DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW THE STATE AND OR COUNTY COMES UP WITH THEIR ANNUAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS? YOU KNOW, TWO YEARS AGO I THINK WAS IT TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS AGO, BASICALLY THE STATE HAD THE RAINY DAY FUND AND THEY GAVE IT ALL INTO TAX REFUNDS OR LOWER TAXES FOR A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. SO THAT OBVIOUSLY THEY OBVIOUSLY CHANGED THEIR STANDARD RATE AND HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FROM THAT YEAR. AND THEN IT CHANGED AGAIN LAST YEAR OR WHATEVER IT IT CAUGHT UP. SO I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AS A WHOLE AT THE STATE OR THE COUNTY LEVEL. HOW THAT'S DETERMINED. BUT I THINK IT IS FLEXIBLE TO YOUR POINT. THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IS IS NOT A PERCENTAGE RATE. IT'S A PART NUMBER, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS 100,000, UP TO 140,000 OR 40,000 THE UP TO 2000. BUT IT IS A FIXED AMOUNT. IT'S NOT A PROCEDURE. WHAT THE MAYOR SAYS IS WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION BASED UPON A PERCENTAGE OF THE APPRAISED VALUE. SO THAT WOULD BE A FLOATING NUMBER CALCULATED FOR EACH PROPERTY. IT'S NOT A HARD NUMBER OF 15,000, 20,100. SO AGAIN. MY POSITION IS I YOU KNOW I'M OKAY WITH PUTTING IT IN THE CHARTER. I'M NOT OKAY WITH RECOMMENDING AN AMOUNT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE MATH TO RESPONSIBLY DO THAT. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO INSIST ON PUTTING A PERCENTAGE IN THERE, I'M A NO VOTE. MAYBE I'LL VOTE IT, BUT I'M A NO VOTE. IF WE CAN'T DEFINE THAT NUMBER, BETTER TO LEAVE IT BLANK FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DEFINE IT BETTER. NO, I'M WILLING TO MAKE THAT CONCESSION TO MAKE THAT A TBD TO BECAUSE I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. I WOULD BE ALL OVER.I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. AND THAT IS THE APPRAISED VALUE. IS THAT VARIOUS VALUE? DETERMINED BY COUNTY? RATES? YES. I'M QUITE CERTAIN TCAT DOES THAT IN TERMS OF THAT CHANGES OF COURSE.
I, I THINK THAT THE REASON THAT YOU CAN SAY THAT IS BECAUSE IF IT TALKS ABOUT AND IT DOES, THE QUALIFIED RESIDENCE HOMESTEAD, ALTHOUGH IT'S THE COUNTY THAT DETERMINES THE QUALIFIED RESIDENCE HOMESTEAD. ANYBODY CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE. AND THE RESIDENCE
[01:05:11]
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AND VOTER PROTECTION ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER WITH THE. AMENDMENT ADDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE CITY RESIDENCE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION SHALL BE NO LESS THAN TO BE DETERMINED PERCENT OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE QUALIFIED RESIDENCE. SO DO YOU WANT TO AMEND YOUR MOTION TO SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED AT 9.01? SURE. OH. IS THERE A SECOND? SORRY. SECOND. AND I DO HAVE A DISCUSSION. WOULD IT BE PRUDENT TO NOT EVEN COMMIT TO A PERCENT? THE AMOUNT OF THE CITY RESIDENCE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION SHALL BE TBD OF THE APPRAISED, I GUESS OF THE APPRAISED JUST TBD REALLY, BASED ON THE APPRAISED VALUE OF QUALIFIED RESIDENCE. OBVIOUSLY, I DON'T KNOW IF THE PERCENTAGE IS HAS VALUE OR IF, LIKE I SAY, A HARD NUMBER IS BETTER FOR THEM TO DETERMINE. SO JUST A THOUGHT. AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING I'M JUST JUST ASKING IF THAT'S IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD WORK BETTER. OR SHOULD WE JUST ASK THE PERCENT OF THE APPRAISED VALUE? I'M KIND OF LEANING OVER 2% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE, BECAUSE WE JUST WERE TALKING ABOUT THE APPRAISED VALUE. IT'S GOING TO GO UP AND DOWN. IF SOMEONE WHO WANTS OR ANYONE WHO WOULD WANT A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION GIVEN BY THE CITY IF THE APPRAISED VALUE GOES DOWN AND HOMESTEAD IS DOWN, SO THEY MIGHT. SAY. WELL, I THINK, I THINK I GOT IT. SO IF YOU SAY YOU HAVE A $400,000 HOUSE AND YOUR 10%, 10% IS YOUR EXEMPTION, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE $40,000 FOR ONE YEAR. LET'S SAY IT DROPS WAY DOWN TO THREE $300,000. NOW THAT 10% IS ONLY A $30,000 EXEMPTION. SO YOUR EXEMPTION GOES DOWN ON IT'S GOING TO GO UP OR DOWN ALONG THE WAY WHERE IF YOU PUT A HARD NUMBER IN THERE, THAT'S GOING TO BE $50,000, PERIOD. THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE REGARDLESS OF ITS VALUE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SOUNDS OR NOT, BUT LIKE YOU SAY, IT'S IT IS WHAT IT IS FOR RIGHT NOW. I THINK AS LONG AS WE GET THE FILL IN THE BLANK, THAT'S WHAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT TO ME. THAT WAS THE MOTION THAT SECONDED. AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT GOING ON RECORD OF MAKING A FIRM RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHAT IT SHOULD BE, I'M OKAY. IF COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE LATITUDE AT SOME POINT IN THEIR REVIEWS TO CHANGE IT FROM A PERCENT TO A HARD NUMBER SO DESIRED. OKAY, ARE YOU READY TO TAKE A VOTE? THE DISCUSSION IS CONCLUDED. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY, THEN THAT IS UNANIMOUS. WE'LL[V.5. Discussion and possible action on Article VII and committee assignment methodologies.]
MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ARTICLE SEVEN. AND COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGIES. I THINK WE SHOULD FIRST. LOOK, I'LL JUST I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.SHOULD ANY DISCUSSION ON ARTICLE SEVEN. INCLUDING ANY DISCUSSION ON THE COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGY. COMMENT I WOULD MAKE, IS THAT AT THIS POINT WE HAVE NOT. DETERMINED
[01:10:29]
TO INCLUDE A BOARD OF ETHICS. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT ON THIS. SHOULD THERE BE ONE? IF SO, HOW IS IT APPOINTED? WHAT SHOULD ITS CHARTER MANDATE COVER? SO THIS IS KIND OF THE ZERO HOUR ON THAT. JUST AS AT LEAST FROM FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, PART OF THE MOTIVATION OF WANTING TO INCLUDE THE THE NEW PROPOSALS, PARTICULARLY ON THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN THE CHARTER RECOMMENDATIONS, IS SO THAT COUNCIL WILL BE WOULD THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DISCUSS IT.THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERATION TO ME ON WHY I WOULD WANT TO PUT A RECOMMENDATION IN THIS ARTICLE THAT THE THAT THE COUNCIL ESTABLISHED A BOARD OF ETHICS, AND MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE IT FLESHED OUT IN GREAT DETAIL, BUT I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE CHARTER LIST. MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD GO BACK TO THE WHEN I POSTED IT IN DECEMBER FOR A PROPOSED SECTION 7.06. AT THE TIME, THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE NOTICE THERE WERE SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HERE WHO WERE VERY. WHO WERE VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF PUTTING SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER, GIVEN THEIR EXPRESSED OBSERVATION THAT THE COUNCIL THEMSELVES WAS RELUCTANT TO HANDLE SOME ETHICS ISSUES AND THAT THIS MIGHT.
REQUIRE THEM TO DO SO. LOOKING BACK. THERE WAS SOME PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT YOU WANTED TO ADD ABOUT APPOINTMENT ONLY THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE DEMONSTRATED THEIR CIVIC INTEREST. I GOT A LITTLE BIT OF PROBLEM WITH PUTTING THAT IN THE CHARTER, BECAUSE NUMBER ONE, IT SHOULD BE TABLE STAKES, THAT THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WOULD DO. AND NUMBER TWO, I DON'T KNOW HOW HOW TABLE STAKES AUTOMATIC. AND SECONDLY, YOU COULD OPEN UP QUESTIONS AS QUESTIONING JUDGMENT AND PUTTING PEOPLE WHO GET APPOINTED. WELL COUNSEL OKAY. PROVE THEY HAVE CIVIC INTEREST. WELL HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT. PROVE THEY HAVE KNOWLEDGE. WELL WE'RE GOING TO GIVE EVERYBODY A POP QUIZ. SO I THINK THIS JUST WE SHOULD TRUST THAT COUNCIL IS ONLY GOING TO APPOINT THE PEOPLE WHO IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST, GIVEN THE POOL OF APPLICANTS THAT THEY HAVE, AND NOT PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHARTER THAT COULD BE OPENED THEM UP TO FURTHER PROTESTS DOWN THE LINE. WELL, IT IS IN THE ORDINANCE. IT IS IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, CODE OF ORDINANCES. THAT LANGUAGE. GOOD. THEN THAT'S WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE ORDINANCE. AND THEN JEAN HAD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT USING WORDS LIKE COTERMINOUS AND DUPLICITOUS. I DON'T REALLY HAVE STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT EDITING THOSE, BUT IF WE WANT TO GO BACK TO 706, EDIT OUT DUPLICITOUS AND EDIT COTERMINOUS, WE HAVE A STARTING POINT THERE. AND THEN MARK, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU MADE A COMMENT THAT YOU'RE ON BOARD AND YOU MADE ANOTHER COMMENT GIVING THE REASON WHY YOU'RE ON. DO YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT? NO. IF IF WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT 706, AS WRITTEN BY ROB ROBERT, I'M ALL FOR IT. I. GIVEN THE AMENDMENTS OKAY, REMOVING THOSE COUPLE OF TERMS. I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE LANGUAGE ABOUT THE APPOINTMENTS. AS IT'S STATED IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO THE
[01:15:01]
BOARD OF ETHICS, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, I THINK IT SHOULD APPLY TO I THINK IT SHOULD BE IN THE CHARTER. I THINK IT SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE THOSE FACTS BE CONSIDERED AT TIMES OF APPOINTMENT. OKAY, SO DELICIOUS IS NOT IN THERE, BUT COTERMINOUS. YOU'D RATHER SEE CONCURRENT OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY. SO YOUR YOUR POINT IS FAR AS THE LANGUAGE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS CIVIC INTEREST. IS THAT IS THAT THE PART THAT IN ORDINANCE.PRESSING THE BUTTON ON MY PHONE. IN PARTICULAR, ONE OF THE ONE OF THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE DEMONSTRATED AN ABILITY TO PREPARE, TO COME PREPARE TO MEETINGS AND TO PARTICIPATE IN IT PROFESSION, AND ALSO HAVE DEMONSTRATED CIVIC INTEREST AND KNOWLEDGE. AND I THINK YOU CAN ALWAYS SAY, IF YOU'RE MAKING AN APPOINTMENT THAT, WELL, SOMEBODY HASN'T DEMONSTRATED PREPARATION OR NOT BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER SERVED ON THE BOARD, SO IT CAN'T BE DETERMINED. AND SO THEN, THEN YOU CANNOT. SO SO THEN YOU'RE. YOU CAN'T SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME PREPARED. YOU CAN'T SAY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE CIVIC INTEREST BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED IT. BUT IF IF SOMEBODY HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY DON'T HAVE CIVIC INTEREST OR HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ON BOARD, THAT THEY DON'T COME PREPARED, I THINK THEN YOU HAVE A REASON TO NOT APPOINT THAT PERSON. AND I THINK TO APPOINT SOMEBODY WHO HAS DEMONSTRATED THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE, THAT SHOULD BE A CHARTER VIOLATION. BUT IF THEY HAVE BEEN, IF THERE HAS BEEN NO DEMONSTRATION THAT CAN BE EVALUATED, THEN OF COURSE YOU CAN APPOINT SOMEBODY BECAUSE THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO. WE'RE JUST ADDING MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO WEAPONIZE THE CHARTER, BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE GETTING INTO QUESTIONS OF JUDGMENT. AND WHAT CONSTITUTES DEMONSTRATING CIVIC INTEREST? WHAT CONSTITUTES, YOU KNOW, ATTENDANCE. IT'S TOO VAGUE. AND IT GOES EXACTLY WHAT THE MAYOR IS TRYING TO DO WITH THE WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. TAKE OUT THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR WEAPONIZATION, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, MAYBE WE SHOULD BREAK THIS DISCUSSION IN HALF, BECAUSE PRESUMABLY THIS LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE APPLYING IN THE BOARD OF ETHICS PROPOSAL, YOU WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE APPLIED TO ALL THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. SO COULD WE MAYBE, PERHAPS TO MOVE THIS ALONG, ADOPT A 7.06 BOARD OF ETHICS OR NOT. AND THEN WHEN WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGIES THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO ALL THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, THAT THAT PERHAPS WE CAN READDRESS THAT DISTINCTION. YES. GOOD IDEA. JEAN. WHAT ABOUT THE
[01:20:10]
IDEAS PUT FORWARD BY COUNCILOR PRINCE AS FAR AS HAVING THE LIAISONS FOR THE BUILDING STANDARDS AND PNC BE THE ONLY ONES OFFERING COMBINATIONS OF APPOINTEES FOR THOSE BOARDS? AGAIN, THAT'S WITHIN THE AGENDA TOPIC. ABSOLUTELY. BUT MY RECOMMENDATION IS, SINCE THAT IS GOING TO APPLY HOLISTICALLY TO ALL OF THEM, OR AT LEAST THE QUASI JUDICIAL IS, COULD WE RESOLVE A THUMBS UP OR DOWN ON A BOARD OF ETHICS AND THEN OPEN UP THE DISCUSSION ON THE BROADER DISCUSSION ABOUT ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGIES? AND IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO I WOULD BE UP FOR THAT BECAUSE THERE'S I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS AND I SEE ONE THING THAT JUST JUMPED OUT AT ME AND I REALLY KIND OF WENT, OH, SO YES. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON A BOARD OF ETHICS AS PRESENTED IN 7.06 ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, ELIMINATING.THE QUALIFICATIONS ETHICS. WELL. YES, I GUESS SO. ON THE SUBSECTION, WHATEVER F INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, UNDER STATE LAW, THE COUNCIL SHALL AUTHORIZE THE BOARD TO ISSUE ADVISORY OPINIONS, CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE. I DON'T REALLY LIKE TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE, BECAUSE WHEN ROBERT SAID, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING CAN BE WEAPONIZED THAT THROWS THE DOOR WIDE OPEN THERE. AND I MADE A COMMENT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD THAT IN GENERAL, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN OPPOSED TO OVERSIGHT BOARDS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT PEOPLE GET ON THERE WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE OVERSEEING. AND I USED MY BACKGROUND IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. YOU GET A CITIZENS COMMITTEE TELLING POLICE OFFICERS WHAT'S RIGHT AND WRONG. THEY DON'T. THEY'VE NEVER LIVED THE PRESSURES THAT POLICE OFFICERS WORK UNDER. THEY AREN'T REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE POLICIES OF EACH DEPARTMENT. SO FOR THEM TO. MICROMANAGE PARS, YOU KNOW, ACTIONS BASED ON NOTHING, YOU KNOW, PRACTICALLY AT TIMES. WELL, YOU KNOW, WE IT YOU COULD REMOVE THE PART OF IT, YOU KNOW, ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE AND CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS ON REFERRAL AND COMPLAINT FROM OFFICIALS OR RESIDENTS AND GATHERING EVIDENCE. THE REST OF. THE REASON I SUGGESTED THAT OR COPIED THAT LANGUAGE, I'M NOT SURE WHERE IT CAME FROM, WAS. SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE'VE OBSERVED MARCUS POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES, VIOLATIONS, LAPSES, THINGS THAT HAPPEN, AND THERE'S NO ACTION TAKEN. SO. IF THE BOARD OBSERVES SOMETHING, THEN THEY CAN PUT IT ON THEIR OWN AGENDA TO TALK ABOUT. HAVE THEY HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY THIS WAY AS FAR AS THE WEAPONIZATION GOES THAT'S GOING TO BE COMPLETED, WHETHER THEY CAN DO IT OF THEIR OWN INITIATIVE OR NOT? YES. THIS DOES OPEN THE DOOR FOR CITIZENS TO COME TO THIS BOARD AND WEAPONIZE FASHION. BUT THAT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO ACT ON THEIR OWN VOLITION, SHOULD. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS A REAL POSSIBILITY TO CREATE. THIS.
JUST GOT TO WEIGH THE PROS AND CONS OF HAVING ANOTHER AVENUE FOR WEAPONIZATION VERSUS HAVING AN AVENUE OF PEOPLE TO LODGE LEGITIMATE COMPLAINTS AGAINST BODIES THAT ARE NOT POLICING THEMSELVES. YOU KNOW, I'M OKAY WITH IT, AS EVEN THOUGH I SAID YOU COULD YOU COULD REMOVE THAT MOTION JUST FINE BASED ON THE LOGIC. YEAH. IT'S NOT A SHOWSTOPPER FOR YOU. I JUST SAW
[01:25:11]
THAT AND. HAVING, I DON'T KNOW, BIG BROTHER LOOKING OVER YOUR SHOULDER. IS THAT. IT DOES CAUSE HESITATION IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT FIELD ANYWAYS. AND I CAN SEE WHERE THAT COULD HAPPEN IN THIS SETTING AS WELL. I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE THERE IS POSSIBILITY OF ABUSE AND OTHER THINGS THAT THAT WAS OPPOSED TO, AND IT IT'S PRETTY HARD TO. PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER WHERE SOMEBODY WHO'S DETERMINED TO ABUSE IT CAN'T FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO IT. I DON'T DISAGREE, AND THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING I DON'T YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY VOTE NO ON THIS IF THAT WAS LEFT BECAUSE ANYTHING COULD BE ABUSED. YES, I AGREE. I'M I MOVE WE ADOPT IT AS WRITTEN. HERE. SECOND. SECOND BUT CHANGED THE WORD. COTERMINOUS TO CONCURRENT. ANY DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. HEY. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. I AM WILLING TO. STOP MY ADVOCACY FOR THE ORDINANCE. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LANGUAGE IN THE IN ALL OF THE BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. AND I'M WILLING TO START MY ADVOCACY ON THE BASIS THAT IT'S IT'S VERY UNUSUAL THAT SOMEONE WOULD MAKE AN APPOINTMENT THAT ISN'T OF SOMEONE WHO IS WHO DOESN'T SHOW CIVIC INTEREST IN PREPARATION AND KNOWLEDGE AND CONCERN. SO BECAUSE IT IS SO RARE AND SO UNUSUAL, I WILL. I WILL RESCIND MY REQUEST THAT IT BE INCLUDED IN THE CHARTER. COMMENT THAT I OR THE NOTE THAT I MADE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD REGARDING ARTICLE SEVEN, THAT THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION ESTABLISHING BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS IN 7.01. AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT ARTICLE SEVEN TITLE SHOULD BE BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS. NO, THAT'S A GOOD CATCH. AND I'M QUITE FRANKLY, I'M. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WHEN I WAS SEARCHING FOR IT, IT DIDN'T POINT THAT OUT TO ME OR I OVERLOOKED IT, BUT ABSOLUTELY.I AGREE WITH THAT. AND YOUR DRAFT COMMENTS. GETTING BACK TO 7.01 NOW. SO NOW WE HAVE 7.01 WHERE WE'RE POINTING, WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT'S IN PLACE TODAY WHERE THE LIAISON'S BASICALLY EMPANEL. AND I THINK EVEN COUNCILOR PRINCE'S CONVERSATION, THERE'S ONLY BEEN TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THEY HAVEN'T GONE 100% WITH IT'S A RUBBER STAMP. YOU DIDN'T YOU DIDN'T USE THE WORDS, BUT IT'S A RUBBER STAMP. SO NOW WE'VE CREATED A BOARD OF ETHICS THAT'S DIFFERENT. ACCORDING TO OUR RECOMMENDATION. AND EACH COUNCILOR IS GOING TO APPOINT SOMEBODY CONCURRENT WITH THEIR TERM. AND BASICALLY OWN APPOINTING AN INDIVIDUAL. SO NOW THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO LEAVE THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS AS IT IS NOW? AND AND THROW OUT SOME OTHER POSSIBILITIES IN THAT DISCUSSION? OR I KIND OF LIKE WHAT COUNCILOR PRINCE CAME UP WITH AND RECOMMENDED ON THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION, WHICH IS OKAY, LEAVE IT TO THE LIAISONS FOR THE ADVISORY STUFF, AND THEN HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE OR A PANEL OR LIAISONS FOR THE FOR
[01:30:03]
THE REGULATORY BOARDS. QUASI JUDICIAL BOARDS COME TOGETHER, AND THAT WAY THEY CAN RESOLVE THE WHOLE ISSUE OF NOT HAVING OVERLAP. AND. IT'S IT GOES BEYOND JUST ONE COUNCILOR APPOINTING, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE SAW IN THIS PAST YEAR, COUNCIL PRINCE HAD THE POWER TO APPOINT FIVE OF SEVEN AND POTENTIALLY SEVEN OF SEVEN IF YOU GUYS HAD MADE A DIFFERENT DECISION. SO.I KIND OF LIKE THAT. I WANTED TO JUST CALL OUR ATTENTION TO THAT POST THAT WE DID PUT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AS WE REQUESTED. THERE WASN'T ANY OTHER FOLLOW ON FROM OTHER COUNCILORS. SO IT KIND OF STANDS ON ITS OWN AT THIS POINT. AND THEN DRAW THAT BACK INTO THE DISCUSSION AROUND, GO BACK AND EDIT 701. YEAH, I, I GET THE POINT THAT IT'S KIND OF A RUBBER STAMP TYPE THING, BUT HAS THERE EVER BEEN REMOVAL FROM ANY OF THESE BOARDS? COMMUNITIES IN RECENT MEMORY OF REMOVAL AFTER SOMEBODY HAS ALREADY BEEN SEATED? I THINK LIKE HISTORICALLY, THERE HAD BEEN 1 OR 2 PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN NOT APPROVED. BUT I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S LIKE IN TEN YEARS. DO YOU RECALL, ROBERT? I MEAN, I THINK IT'S I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER. I, I KNOW I'VE HEARD OF IT, BUT I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER OBSERVING. I DON'T RECALL A FORMAL VOTE BY COUNCIL. I SEEM TO RECALL THAT WE HAVE. AROUND ATTENDANCE DISCUSSIONS, AND PERHAPS THE LIAISONS HAVE SOLICITED RESIGNATIONS. AND ACHIEVE BASICALLY THE SAME WITHOUT HAVING TO TAKE IT TO COUNCIL AND DO A FORMAL REMOVAL. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY, THEN, THAT THE EXISTING PROCESS WORKS RELATIVELY VERY WELL? I DON'T KNOW HOW HOW OFTEN WE ASKED FOR RESIGNATION, I, I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS DO WE IS IT IS IT A ARE WE LOOKING FOR, YOU KNOW, A SOLUTION THAT DOESN'T HAVE A PROBLEM? I THINK THIS PAST CYCLE DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTIAL FOR A PROBLEM WHERE VIA OPENINGS AND RESIGNATIONS ON A PNC, AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCILOR, BASICALLY EMPANELED ON THE JURY FIVE SEATS. WE LUCKED OUT. WE HAD A GOOD COUNCILOR THAT MADE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS, BUT WE CAN'T ALWAYS COUNT ON THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A GOOD COUNCIL MAKING RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS, INDEPENDENT AND INDIVIDUAL, AND THEN HAVE A COUNCIL WHO WILL OVERRIDE HIM IF THE DECISIONS AREN'T GOOD. WHEN YOU HAVE THIS RUBBER STAMP PROCESS. SO THAT'S THE I THINK THAT WE COULD HAVE HAD A BIG PROBLEM, DODGED A BULLET THIS TIME. WE WANT TO HOPE THAT WE CONTINUE TO DODGE THE BULLET IN THE FUTURE. OR DO WE WANT TO CODIFY SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE PROTECTIVE OF THAT? AND I KNOW COUNCILOR PRINCE RECOMMENDED IT ON THE BOARD, AND I EVEN THINK BACK IT'S BEEN POSITED BY OTHER COUNCILORS IN THE PAST THAT THAT THE QUASI JUDICIAL BOARDS SHOULD HAVE A LITTLE MORE ATTENTION AND THOUGHT GIVEN TO THEM THAN AN INDIVIDUAL LIAISON. IMPANELING. AND AND ALSO IN THE JUDICIAL BOARD, IF THERE IS A GROUP WHO IS MAKING MAKING CONSIDERATIONS AND MAKING TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENTS, THEY CAN DETERMINE WHO IS BEST SUITED FOR THE EITHER THE POOL OF CANDIDATES THAT CAN DETERMINE WHO IS BEST SUITED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I JUST HAPPENED TO LOOK AT MY EMAIL AND JIM GRUNWALD WAS ON THERE WAITING TO BE ALLOWED IN. AND IT STANDS NOT HERE OR SOMEBODY ISN'T HERE TO LET HER IN. SHE'S JUST SITTING THERE.
GOOD CALL. I HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN LOOKING AT EMAILS. THIS THIS CAME IN AT 335. AND SO IT'S AN HOUR LATER. MAYBE SHE'S GONE. YEAH. YOU'RE WATCHING JEN. SORRY. GIVEN THAT THAT
[01:35:40]
COUNCILMAN PRINCE DID MAKE A REALLY GOOD SUGGESTION ABOUT. THE THE GROUP CHOOSING, AND GIVEN THAT HE AND SHANE DID TOGETHER APPOINT THIS COMMITTEE. AND GIVEN THAT IT'S BECOME THAT THERE'S THAT THERE IS NOW AN AWARENESS OF THE FACT THAT ONE COUNCIL PERSON DID APPOINT FIVE AND MAKE AND COULD HAVE POSSIBLY APPOINTED SEVEN OF THE MEMBERS OF PMC. I THINK THAT MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO PUT ANYTHING IN THE CHARTER TO TO ADDRESS IT, BECAUSE NOW I THINK THERE IS AN AWARENESS AMONG AMONG COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE. SO. THERE'S THAT. YEAH. JUST TO CLARIFY, SINCE I WAS QUOTING COUNCILOR PRINCE THAT HE DIDN'T RECOMMEND IT BE IN THE CHARTER READ, HE RECOMMENDED THAT WE LEAVE IT TO ORDINANCE. SO I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THE IMPRESSION FOR ANYBODY WATCHING THAT COUNCILOR PRINCE WANTS IT RECOMMENDED TO BE IN THE CHARTER. THAT'S NOT THE CASE AT ALL. THAT THAT WAS MY EXTRAPOLATION OF HIS IDEA.AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S NOT UNIQUE. OTHERS HAVE PITCHED IT IN THE PAST AS WELL. GIVEN THAT IT COULD BE VERY WELL ADDRESSED IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE RATHER THAN IN THE CHARTER.
GIVEN. ALSO, NOT THAT NOT NOT THAT THIS HAS BEEN INFLUENTIAL, BUT GIVEN THAT THERE WERE NO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO GAVE ANY INPUT ON THAT, AND WE SPECIFICALLY ASKED COUNCILMAN COUNCILOR PRINCE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THERE IN ORDER TO GET INPUT FROM THE COUNCIL. AND NOBODY, NONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHICH, OH, NORMALLY PUT A THUMBS UP. SO I'M ASSUMING THAT SHE LIKES. SORRY, I WAS LOOKING FOR MORE THAN A THUMBS UP. OKAY. SO HOW DO YOU INTERPRET THE FACT THAT NONE OF THE OTHER COUNCILORS OFFERED COMMENTARY? TO BE CLEAR, WILL WILL THEY POLICE THEMSELVES WHEN IT COMES TO ORDINANCE, OR DO WE NEED TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER SINCE THEY SEEM TO, EVEN WITH RECENT REALITIES, NOT COMING, NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, MR. HALL, BUT AND NOT TO ASK YOU FOR ANY INFLUENCE. WHAT IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THIS AND THE METHODOLOGY THAT HAS BEEN USED UP TO NOW? WE'RE SELECTING APPOINTED PEOPLE TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. WELL, I MEAN, I DO THINK THERE SHOULD BE, ESPECIALLY FOR THE. THREE HE MENTIONED. AND THOSE ARE THREE VERY KEY COMMITTEES THAT HAVE AGREED TO IT, THINGS IN THE CITY. AND SO I YES, I AGREE, I THINK THAT THAT THESE TWO, TWO PEOPLE SHOULD BE WEIGHING IN TO, TO COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND I WAS TOO NEW AT THE TIME TO REALLY AND I DON'T RECALL WHETHER THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE MADE BY THE INDIVIDUAL CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CONTRIBUTED IN ADVANCE.
AND, AND ANY INFORMATION IN ADVANCE. AND SO SO AGAIN, I, I, I'M NOT REALLY WELL QUALIFIED TO TO TO RESPOND TO THAT PART OF IT. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THOSE THREE VERY KEY COMMITTEES SHOULD BE. COUNCIL. SIX THINGS. YOU YOU MADE A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT BEING NEW, AND THAT IS
[01:40:03]
SOMETHING THAT I HAVE NOTICED IN THE PAST, BECAUSE COUNCIL PEOPLE USUALLY ARE ASKED TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS THE THE MEETING AFTER THEY ARE SEATED. SO A NEW COUNCIL PERSON WHO'S MAKING APPOINTMENTS, THE MEETING AFTER THEY'RE SEATED REALLY DOESN'T HAVE THE BACKGROUND THAT THAT THEY THEMSELVES WOULD WANT IN ORDER TO MAKE GOOD APPOINTMENTS. AND SO IF IT WAS DONE BY A GROUP AND THEY HAD THEY HAD OTHER. INPUT, I THINK THAT THAT THAT IS A STRONG POINT. AGAIN, I WOULD SAY, SHOULD IT GO IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OR IN THE CHARTER, WHAT DO YOU THINK? IT DEPENDS ON HOW HOW STRONGLY YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT. IT COULD GO ANYPLACE, I SUPPOSE, BUT I GUESS IT NORMALLY WOULD GO TO. WHETHER THAT'S TO RECOMMEND GENE. YEAH, I WOULD JUST. REFER TO THE BIBLE THAT SAYS THERE'S WISDOM IN A MULTITUDE OF COUNSELORS. AND I THINK HAVING. 2 OR 3 IN THIS CASE IS A SUGGESTION IS A GOOD IDEA TO COME UP WITH THE NOMINEES. ANY APPOINTMENTS FOR THOSE THREE CHORDS SPECIFICALLY? SO I DIDN'T DRAFT ANY LANGUAGE ON THAT. JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS THAT WE HAVE SAID. WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE IT UP TO COUNCIL TO DETERMINE, AND WE WANT TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE CERTAIN THAT THINGS ARE DONE A CERTAIN WAY, OR AT LEAST MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THINGS ARE DONE A CERTAIN WAY, THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD NOT SAY, ALTHOUGH I DO THINK IT'S PROBABLY MOST APPROPRIATE TO PUT THIS IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE TO DO, BUT MAYBE IT WOULDN'T GET IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IF WE DON'T MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE CHARTER AND THEN LET THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAY, HEY, IT DOESN'T BELONG IN THE CHARTER, BUT IT'S A GOOD IDEA. LET'S PUT IT IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT COUNCILMAN PRINCE'S RECOMMENDATIONS, THE WAY HE THE WAY HE WHERE HE POSITED IT ON THE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, WAS GOOD. I REALLY DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION EITHER WAY, WHETHER IT IS OR THE TEAM APPROACH THE THREE. WITH. RESPECT FOR. I YOU KNOW, I KIND OF DEFER TO PAUL'S COMMENT THAT THE THINGS THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED BY ORDINANCE.WHICH ARE THIS ONE, IS DIRECTED TO THE FACT THAT THE CRC MEMBERS LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT ORDINANCES CAN BE CHANGED AND COUNCIL. I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, I WOULD GO ALONG TO GET ALONG ON THIS ONE. AND IF WE LOOK BACK AND IT REALLY HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM, IT'S IT'S KIND OF REINVENTING. IT'S REALLY UNCHARACTERISTIC OF YOU, ROBERT, THAT, THAT. THAT, THAT, THAT YOU WERE GOING TO SPEAK A MINUTE AGO. I THINK I INTERRUPTED YOU. SO I WAS COMING BACK TO YOU. OH, NO, I THOUGHT YOU WERE JUST KIND OF INDICATING THAT. OH, I COULD GO EITHER WAY. IT'S I DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION. DOES ANYBODY CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? I DON'T SEE A STRONG CONSENSUS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I THINK WE JUST MOVE ON, I AGREE. MAKE ANY MORE FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS ON THAT? THEY'VE HEARD US. COUNCILOR PRINCE HAS HEARD US. I THINK THERE'S A REAL POTENTIAL FOR PROBLEMS AND LIABILITIES IF THEY LEAVE INSTRUCTION THE WAY
[01:45:05]
IT IS. HOPEFULLY THEY LEARN AND ADJUST THEIR ENABLING ORDINANCE ACCORDINGLY. IF YOU IF YOU BELIEVE THAT, I WOULD SUGGEST YOU MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT COUNCILOR PRINCE'S RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD VOTE FOR IT. I YOU KNOW, I WOULD VOTE FOR WHATEVER HE ASKED. I THINK ROBERT FEELS WELL, BUT HE DIDN'T RECOMMEND IT BE PUT IN THE CHARTER. BUT IT'S BEING DONE BY ORDINANCE, SO WE JUST MOVE ON AND IT BECOMES STATUS QUO. GIVEN THAT THERE IS REALLY NO OVERWHELMING DESIRE OR STRONG DESIRE ON THIS COMMITTEE TO MAKE A CHANGE, AND GIVEN THAT THERE WERE NO OTHER STRONG OPINIONS TO WHAT MR. PRINCE POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD LEAVE IT AS IS TO. SO RIGHT NOW, THE STICKING POINT OR WHATEVER STALL STALL POINT IS JUST THE LANGUAGE OF A MOTION SPECIFICALLY FOR PLANNING AND ZONING. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION, HOW IT WILL BE PUT TOGETHER. I THINK THE STICKING POINT IS WHETHER IT SHOULD BE, WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY A GROUP, OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE LIAISON TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENT. WELL, I WOULD I'LL PUT FORTH I WOULD I'M GOING TO NEED SOME HELP WITH THIS MOTION PERHAPS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A STAB AT THE MOTION. I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION, THOSE MEMBERS, NOMINEES AND APPOINTEES BE MADE BY THE COUNCIL LIAISONS FOR THOSE THREE COMMISSION BOARDS.COMMITTEES, WHATEVER. THOSE THREE BODIES. YES. JUST JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE OF THEM TOGETHER, DO YOU KNOW? RECOMMENDATIONS TO USE THE WORD JOINTLY AND SAY, IS HE A CITIZEN? YEAH, I'M OPEN TO ANY SUGGESTIONS ON THAT. BUT YES, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSIONS, THE COUNCIL LIAISONS FOR THOSE THREE BODIES, THOSE COUNCIL LIAISONS WILL JOINTLY FORM THE MEMBERS OF THOSE THREE BODIES. IS THERE A SECOND? YEAH. IS THERE A SECOND? MARKED. SECONDED. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? I UNANIMOUS. SEE IF I CAN DRAFT THE LANGUAGE AND INSERT IT IN AN APPROPRIATE PLACE AT 1.01. PLEASE LOOK FOR THAT ON THE DRAFT. I'M SORRY. SEVEN. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION
[V.6. Discussion and possible action on any identified Scrivener’s errors, suggested formatting and any other non-content related needed corrections in the entire final draft.]
AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ANY IDENTIFIED SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, SUGGESTED FORMATTING, AND ANY OTHER NON-CONTENT RELATED NEEDED CORRECTIONS IN THE ENTIRE FINAL DRAFT. I WOULD ADMIT THAT WHEN I MADE MY SUGGESTIONS ON SCRIVENER'S ERRORS, I DID MAKE A FEW THAT I THINK WERE MINOR. CONTENT RELATED CORRECTIONS IN THE FINAL DRAFT. AND HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THEM? THEY WERE POSTED ON THE ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. YES, I HAVE YOURS, I PRINTED IT, I ALSO PRINTED OUT JEAN'S FEEDBACK AS WELL. I CAN QUICKLY GO THROUGH[01:50:13]
THEM. SHOULD I DO THAT? WELL, I'M NOT SURE IT WARRANTS DISCUSSION. I ALL OF THEM. BUT THE REMOVE WHO RESIDED IN THE CITY. PAGE SEVEN. THAT WAS KIND OF AN IMPORTANT PART, BECAUSE I WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT. REMEMBER, WE HAD QUITE A LONG DISCUSSION ON THAT BECAUSE WE WE SAID WHEN WE GET THE WHEN WE GET THE WHEN WE GET THE LIST OF REGISTERED VOTERS FROM THE COUNTY, IT DOESN'T SAY WHO IS ACTUALLY RESIDING IN THE CITY AT THAT TIME, THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE PASSED AWAY ARE ON THAT LIST. PEOPLE HAVE MOVED AWAY ARE ON THAT LIST. SO THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE CAN DETERMINE WHO WAS ACTUALLY RESIDING IN THE CITY AT THAT TIME. SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS AT THE TIME I RECALL NOW. OKAY, OKAY, I'M WITH YOU IN THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE STUFF CHANGED IT, RIGHT? AND I MISSED IT IN THE DEFINITIONS THAT YOU MISSED THIS. YEAH, YEAH I DID I MISSED IT IN THE DEFINITIONS I GOT IT.I'M WITH YOU NOW OKAY. OKAY. AND I THINK THAT JEAN ALSO MADE A POINT OF THIS ON 1.01. WE'VE ALREADY BEEN INCORPORATED. SO WE WERE JUST CHANGING THE LANGUAGE TO SAY NOT HEREBY INCORPORATE BUT BEEN INCORPORATED. OR. OKAY. YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW.
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY INCORPORATED AS A CITY AS A COLONY. TEXAS MULTIPLE PHYSICAL LOCATION. GOT IT. SECTION 2.05. I MADE A COMMENT ON THAT, AND I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMEBODY CLARIFY WHAT WAS TRYING TO BE SAID, BECAUSE I MADE A SUGGESTION BASED ON WHAT I THOUGHT WAS TRYING TO BE. PUT FORTH. THE EXISTING LANGUAGE TO ME IS IT MAKES NO SENSE. THE THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COLLECT ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR THE COLLECTION OF PAVING, WHICH OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A TYPO ASSESSMENT AND FORECLOSURE CASES AS ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW. AND SO I SAID NOT KNOWING FOR SURE WHAT THAT'S SUPPOSED TO SAY. I SUGGEST THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COLLECT ATTORNEY'S FEES TO PAY THE ASSESSMENT IN FORECLOSURE CASES AS ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW. ALSO IN MY COMMENTS ON ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, THAT PAVING SHOULD POSSIBLY BE PAYING. TO SAY TO THE POWER TO COLLECT ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR THE COLLECTION OF PAYING ASSESSMENT. BUT I THINK IT'S FOR THE COLLECTION OR PAY NOT OF PAVING.
I THINK THAT WAS JUST A COPY PASTE ERROR WHERE WE GRAB THIS LANGUAGE FROM OR INSTEAD OF OF OR. YEAH, THAT MAKES BETTER SENSE. YEAH. I JUST I JUST MADE MY OWN VERSION BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO. HOW ABOUT JUST SIMPLY FOR THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS? FOR THESE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED ATTORNEY'S FEES? SO THAT'S WHY I LEFT IT IN THERE. BUT BASICALLY IT SAYS THE SAME THING YOU JUST SUGGESTED.
ROBERT, I BELIEVE THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COLLECT ATTORNEY FEES, ATTORNEY'S FEES TO PAY THE ASSESSMENTS IN FORECLOSURE CASES AS ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW. ONCE AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS TRYING TO BE EXPLAINED HERE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COLLECT ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE GO AFTER AN ASSESSMENT IN A FORECLOSURE CASE, THEN THE ATTORNEY FEES TO GO AFTER THOSE ASSESSMENTS IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GO AFTER. AT THIS POINT, IT'S WHAT DO WE WANT IT TO BE? I THINK I THINK THE COLLECTION. OF ASSESSMENTS MAKES SENSE. THE CITY SHALL
[01:55:01]
HAVE THE POWER TO COLLECT ASSESSMENTS. IN FORECLOSURE CASES AS ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW. IF WE'VE MADE AN ASSESSMENT AND IT GOES UNPAID, IT'S GOING INTO FORECLOSURE.THEN WE AND THEN WE PAY ATTORNEY FEES TO GO AFTER AND COLLECT THAT ASSESSMENT. WE WANT TO BE RECOUPED NOT ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ATTORNEY FEES AS WELL. SO THE CITY SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COLLECT ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. AND IF IT'S NOT ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, THE CITY ATTORNEY SHOULD FIGURE IT OUT.
I KNOW THE OTHER THING THAT I MADE A COMMENT ON WAS ON PAGE 16 THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND TOWN. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDS, BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE MENTIONED. YES. AND YOU COMMENTED ON THAT TOO. I THINK WE JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE THREE HAD TO INCLUDE THE MAYOR, OR THE MAYOR FOR ONE OF THE THREE HAD TO BE A MAYOR, A MAYOR AT THE TIME. SO THAT'S HOW I CHANGED THAT LANGUAGE. IS IT FOR SURE ONE OF THOSE THREE, OR IS IT DOES THERE HAVE TO BE FOUR OF THEM? THE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS I'M SORRY, IF I MAY, WHAT'S NOT CLEAR BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN SAYS IT'S THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR OR THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM, DURING THE ABSENCE OF THE MAYOR, SHALL CONSTITUTE A QUORUM. YES, I DID WRITE, INCLUDING THE MAYOR AND INCLUDING AND OR INCLUDING THE MAYOR. YEAH. SO SO SO YEAH, WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE ON THAT. SO IT HAS TO BE FOUR PEOPLE, AND ONE OF THE FOUR HAS TO BE THE MAYOR OR THE MAYOR. SO THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS OKAY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. THREE MEMBERS AND THE MAYOR, THREE MEMBERS AND OR THREE MEMBERS IN THE MAYOR. SO THE THE REASON I CHANGED IT WAS BECAUSE THE COUNCIL WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFINED AS INCLUDING MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM. THAT WAS THAT'S IN OUR DEFINITION. SO THE REASON I CHANGED IT TO SAY THE COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MAYOR AND INCLUDING THE MAYOR PRO TEM, WAS BECAUSE OF OUR DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL. I THINK, ROBERT, I WOULD AGREE WITH ROBERT ON THIS BECAUSE IT SAYS THREE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THE MAYOR, THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SO THREE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR ARE REQUIRED. OKAY. I SEE WHERE LINDA'S GOING. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO USE THE WORD INCLUDING, THEN I THINK IT SHOULD BE FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL BECAUSE THE COUNCIL BY DEFINITION INCLUDES THE NAME. SO YOU COULD SAY FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MAYOR OR THREE MEMBERS AND FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MAYOR PRO TEM IN THE ABSENCE. BUT I THINK THAT GETS MORE AWKWARD AND WORDY THAN THE WAY IT IS NOW. SAYING FOUR, WHICH INCLUDES A MAYOR OR MAYOR PRO TEM, GETS A LITTLE MORE AWKWARD. THIS SEEMS TO BE CLEAR TO ME. OKAY, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND WHY I BROUGHT IT UP. BECAUSE THE COUNCIL IS DEFINED AS INCLUDING THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM.
I HAVE TO SAY, YES, I HAVE, AND I'M SORRY ABOUT THIS, BUT I HAVE A VERY HARD STOP AT FIVE WHEN WE WHEN WE DECIDED TO HAVE THIS SPECIAL CALL MEETING, I SAID, YOU KNOW, WE STARTED AT THREE BECAUSE I. I CAN LEAVE AND TURN IT OVER TO JEAN IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE ON OR WE HAVE WE CAN SAY THAT SOME OF THESE COMMENTS, THEY ARE POSTED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND MAYBE WE CAN JUST. YEAH. WELL, NUMBER ONE, FIRST OF ALL, FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU'RE CORRECT, JEAN, I DIDN'T INCLUDE THE MOMENTS. THERE'S AN OVERSIGHT ON MY PART, WHICH I WAS GOING FOR A CLEAN COPY THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE COUNCIL AND WE CAN DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT LINE NUMBERS.
BUT YEAH, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL, I GUESS, INCLUDING LINE NUMBER TWO. I'VE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK HERE, AND I APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE MY EYES MISS STUFF. AND EVEN GOING BACK TODAY, PARAGRAPH ALIGNMENT AND STUFF LIKE THAT, I FOUND MORE THAN I AM. SO WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST FOR THIS ITEM IS IF WE TAKE NO ACTION THAT I DIGEST AND INCORPORATE THE NON-CONTENT ITEMS THAT YOU POINTED OUT COMMAS, PARAGRAPHS, GRAMMAR, CLARITY AND PRODUCE ANOTHER DRAFT WHICH WOULD ALSO INCLUDE. THE DECISIONS THAT WE MADE TONIGHT. THE ONE THING THAT. SO
[02:00:03]
CAN WE DISPENSE WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM? BECAUSE I DO WANT TO GET BACK TO CONTINUED DISCUSSION. POSSIBLE ACTION ON ARTICLE. I THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NINE. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON NINE WE NEEDED? I'M CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO AGENDA ITEM ONE THAT WE SKIPPED.YOU'RE RIGHT. IT IS 11. 11 IS WE HAVE IT WAS 11 BY INTENTION. SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT 11. YEAH.
WE HAVEN'T FINISHED 11. SO BY NOT GETTING TO 11 TONIGHT, WITH OUR DELIVERY DATE IN JEOPARDY.
YOU KNOW, WITH THE STUFF WE'RE DEALING WITH, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AS MANY MEMBERS HERE AS POSSIBLE. BUT IF THE DECISION IS TO GO WITH THREE, WE'LL GO THROUGH. MARK, WHAT IS YOUR OPINION? HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WOULD TAKE TO GET THROUGH? I MEAN, IF WE WHAT WILL BE 11 NEXT WEEK, KEEP IN MIND WILL BE ACTUALLY 12 AND WE'RE INSERT FOR RIGHT. IF WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF GOING BACK AND REOPENING AND RELITIGATING PRIOR DECISIONS AND, AND I CAN POST A DRAFT UP TOMORROW FOR ALL THE CONTENT AND THE DRAFT AND EVERYTHING FROM ONE THROUGH.
WHAT WILL BE 11 IS FINAL. YOU GUYS CAN GIVE ME FEEDBACK TO EDIT THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, AND THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO EDIT AFTER THE NEXT WEEK'S MEETING IS 11 ITSELF, WHICH I CAN DO ON THE FLY. WE CAN DELIVER IT TO COUNCIL THE NEXT, BUT I WOULD HATE TO TELL COUNCIL PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK. IF WE WANT TO REOPEN AND RELITIGATE A BUNCH OF ITEMS OR DISCUSSION ON 11, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO SORT OUT. I THINK THAT IF WE ARE ALL WILLING TO MAKE A COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO WHAT ROBERT POST ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS, THAT WE CAN GET IT ALL DONE AND AND THEN HAVE A WORTHWHILE FINAL MEETING NEXT WEDNESDAY, BECAUSE 11 IS NOT GOING TO BE THAT NO. 11 IS NOT THAT CONTROVERSIAL. NO, IT'S NOT SO.
THAT WOULD BE MY ASK. THE ONCE I POST UP ANOTHER DRAFT THAT WE PAY REAL CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT WILL BE 12 AND ALL THE SCRIVENER ERRORS, FORMATTING STUFF. CALL IT OUT AND LET'S NOT WAIT UNTIL THE DAY BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, BECAUSE THEN THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN HASH IT OUT AND DELIVER TO COUNCIL WHEN WE MEET ON A WEDNESDAY. MY INTENTION, MY HOPE, WAS TO HAVE A FINAL DRAFT THAT WE GIVE A THUMBS UP ON. AND OH, BY THE WAY, HERE'S THE PRESENTATION.
WE GIVE THE THUMBS UP ON THAT AND WE SPEND NEXT MEETING TALKING ABOUT CONTENT FOR THE PRESENTATION AND AFTER THE CHARTERS WRAPPED. BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE AT. MARK, I DISTINCTLY REMEMBER WE GOT THROUGH PART PART OF IT. I DON'T REMEMBER HOW FAR WE GOT.
SO HOW MUCH REALISTICALLY HOW MUCH IS LEFT OVER. THERE'S VERY THERE'S VERY LITTLE. AND IT'S NOT A CONTROVERSIAL CHAPTER. SO OKAY THEN IF THAT IS THE THE CONSENSUS THAT I AM GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.