Feb 18, 2026 Charter Review Committee

[CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

[00:00:04]

BUTTON. IT. IT'S 4:03 P.M. ON FEBRUARY 18TH, AND I'M CALLING THIS SCHEDULED TO BE FINAL CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER. AND WITH US WE HAVE ROBERT OWEN, OUR SECRETARY MARK DOUGLAS, JEN GRUNWALD, GENE HARRIS, VICE CHAIR, AND MYSELF, LINDA AIRD.

AND WE ALSO HAVE CHARLES WEST, OUR CITY MANAGER, WHO CITY COUNCIL, LEE, WHO IS CITY STAFF LIAISON, AND PAUL PRINCE, CITY COUNCIL LIAISON. AND DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM CITY STAFF? YOU ALL ARE DOING A GREAT JOB AND I APPRECIATE IT. AND HOPEFULLY THIS IS YOUR LAST MEETING. OKAY. BEST COMMENT OF THE DAY SO FAR. OH THANK YOU, MR. PRINCE. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL. I DID SUGGEST AN EMAIL TO YOU ALL THAT IT'S YOU'RE ON THE AGENDA FOR TOMORROW NIGHT AT CITY COUNCIL. AND I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT DECISION, WHICH I THINK, MADAM CHAIR, YOU'RE PLANNING TO GET TO ANYWAY. ARE YOU READY FOR THAT COUNCIL SESSION TOMORROW? THE COUNCIL MEETING TOMORROW IS A PRETTY FULL AGENDA. AND SO I SUSPECT THAT THE MAYOR WILL NOT THROW TOO BIG OF A FIT IF YOU DECIDE TO DEFER. BUT YOU'RE ON THE AGENDA SO WE CAN DO IT TOMORROW IF THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. THANK YOU. SOUNDS LIKE A. NO. YOU'RE MISINTERPRETING IT COMPLETELY.

[II. CONSENT AGENDA]

[III.1. Discussion and possible action on Articles XIII 8.015. ]

DOES ANYONE WANT TO BEGIN THAT DISCUSSION? THAT IS CHANGED IN HERE? YEAH, THERE IS NO 815 IN MY PACKAGE. OH WAIT OH WAIT. NO, NO THIS EIGHT. IT'S ON PAGE 31. AND IT'S IT STARTS AT LINE 856.

OKAY. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO START THIS DISCUSSION. AND THAT IS THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THE CHARTER THAT WAS NOT HERE BEFORE. AND IT SAYS NO APPOINTEE MAY SERVE ON MORE THAN ONE OF THE QUASI JUDICIAL BODIES, WHICH ARE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION. THE CITY CODE PROVIDES THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE AN OVERLAP. THE CITY ORDINANCE. THERE WAS A RECENT ORDINANCE PASSED, AND IT PROVIDES THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE AN OVERLAP, BUT IT DOES GIVE DISCRETION TO THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL THAT IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY FEEL THAT THEY NEED TO HAVE AN OVERLAP, THAT GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY, THE DISCRETION TO DO SO. SO I AM VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF LEAVING THE DISCRETION OF ON OCCASION, IF THE CITY COUNCIL BELIEVES THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OVERLAP, I BELIEVE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT PREROGATIVE, BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY THINK IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION. SO. THAT'S THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT. YEAH. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU

[00:05:01]

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE AND WE HAVE DIFFERENT PEOPLE, WHICH WE WILL ON THE COUNCIL AND DIFFERENT THINGS, AND SOMEONE. PUTS PEOPLE ON VOA AND PLANNING AND ZONING ON, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ON THE SAME, THE SAME PERSON ON THE SAME BOARDS TO SKEW RESULTS. THAT CAN HAPPEN IF IT'S LEFT TO THE DECISION OF COUNCIL. ROBERT. WELL, LET ME JUST SAY, WOW, WOW, YOU ARE HOT. BACK OFF. OKAY.

LET ME JUST SAY, FIRST OF ALL, I APOLOGIZE FOR CREATING THIS CONFUSION. WHEN WE APPROVED ARTICLE EIGHT AT THE LAST MEETING AND I WAS GOING THROUGH AND TABULATING AND PUTTING IT TOGETHER INTO THE FINAL DOCUMENT, IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT WE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION ON THE NO CROSSOVER RULE, WHICH WE HAD DISCUSSED EARLIER. SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS CONSENSUS TO HAVE IT. AND SO WHEN I DRAFTED EIGHT, I WENT AHEAD AND THREW IT IN BECAUSE, QUITE FRANKLY, IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR ME TO TAKE IT OUT TONIGHT THAN FOR US TO GO. OH, BY THE WAY, WE MEANT TO HAVE THAT IN LET'S DRAFT SOMETHING. SO THAT'S THE REASON IT'S HERE, AND THAT'S WHY I CALLED IT OUT, THAT, HEY, THIS IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE ALREADY VOTED ON FOR EIGHT.

FULL DISCLOSURE. IT IS TRUE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY KIND OF CODIFIED THIS PROCEDURE.

BUT THAT COULD BE UNDONE. SO I THINK PUTTING IT IN THE CHARTER HAS MERIT. I COULD GO EITHER WAY, BE PERSUADED EITHER WAY. I JUST DID NOT WANT TO OVERLOOK IT AS A TOPIC THAT WE HAD ENGAGED EARLY ON, BECAUSE I DIDN'T BRING IT UP IN MY NOTES WHEN WE WERE ON EIGHT. MARK, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT WHERE THERE MAY BECOME A SITUATION WHERE AN OVERLAP IS NEEDED, CAN YOU THINK OF ONE OR GIVE AN EXAMPLE WHERE THAT MIGHT BE THE CASE? YEAH, BECAUSE WE DO WE WE DON'T HAVE THE LUXURY OF REALLY HAVING A HUGE POOL OF CANDIDATES, ESPECIALLY FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IT'S VERY IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A VERY FOR EXAMPLE, FOR EXAMPLE, I WAS APPOINTED TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THESE LAST FOR THE LAST YEAR. AND THIS YEAR I DIDN'T APPLY FOR IT, BUT I WAS APPOINTED TO IT BECAUSE THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH CANDIDATES.

OKAY. SO THE PERSON WHO APPOINTED ME JUST ASSUMED THAT I WOULD SERVE. AND TO GENE'S POINT ABOUT THAT, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WITH NEW COUNCIL PEOPLE, THEY MAY CHOOSE TO APPOINT DUAL TO DUAL BOARDS WITH THE INTENTION OF SWAYING THINGS. I AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS TO CAST ASPERSIONS, BUT YOU DON'T THINK THAT PAUL WOULD DO THAT, RIGHT? AND YET PAUL IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE ONES WHO BROKE THE UNWRITTEN POLICY OF ALL THOSE YEARS OF NOT DOING A DUAL APPOINTMENT. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT IT WAS YOU AND CHARLENE THAT DID IT? IT WAS BECAUSE WE HAD HAD AN UNWRITTEN POLICY FOR YEARS THAT YOU NEVER HAVE DUAL APPOINTMENTS, BUT IT WAS AN UNWRITTEN POLICY. AND THEN WHEN KATHY CAME AS AN APPLICANT, YOU AND CHARLENE BOTH WANTED HER, AND YOU AND YOU AND CHARLENE BOTH APPOINTED KATHY KOZA. AND ROY WAS JUST HAVING FITS ABOUT IT. BUT THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED. AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT WITH THE INTENTION OF HAVING SWAYING THE TWO BODIES. THEY DIDN'T DO IT WITH THE INTENTION OF HAVING INFLUENCE. THEY BOTH WANTED THIS CANDIDATE AND AND I DON'T I WOULDN'T SAY IT WORKED OUT BADLY. SO THAT'S THAT'S HOW IT CAME ABOUT. AND WHILE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE COULD BE A PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD IN NINE YEARS, WE HAVEN'T HAD A SITUATION WHERE SOMEBODY ON BOA HAD TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM A HEARING BECAUSE IT WAS THEY WERE HEARING A CASE THAT PNC HAD DENIED, AND THAT WOULD BE THE SITUATION, WHY SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES. SO WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT IN NINE YEARS. SO IT'S NOT. ANYWAY. YEAH. DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT? WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY SHE'S RIGHT. AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT CASE IS THAT BOTH AT THE TIME I WAS THE

[00:10:07]

AND DO WE CURRENTLY HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS CROSSOVER? PROBABLY NOT, BECAUSE IT'S CODIFIED IN AN ORDINANCE, CORRECT. WELL, IT'S A NEW ORDINANCE. IT'S BRAND NEW.

JUST ORDINANCE JUST TOOK EFFECT AT THE VERY END OF OF 25. AND SO WE DID HAVE CROSSOVER. JEAN AND I WERE CROSSOVERS. AND SO WE WERE ASKED TO RESIGN I DON'T KNOW IF JEAN RESIGNED I DIDN'T RESIGN. AND WE ACTUALLY HAD MORE CROSSOVER THAN THAT BECAUSE THERE WERE THERE WERE SOME MEMBERS WHOSE TERM ENDED ON PLANNING AND ZONING WHO ALSO HAD BEEN ON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

SO THERE WERE AT LEAST THREE, MAYBE FOUR PEOPLE WHO WERE SERVING BOTH PLANNING AND ZONING AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UP UNTIL THIS, THIS YEAR. AND AND THEN THERE WERE TWO WHO WOULD HAVE CONTINUED HAD WE NOT PASSED THE BRAND NEW ORDINANCE TO DISALLOW THAT. BUT I THINK NOTHING NEFARIOUS ABOUT IT. I MEAN, IT WASN'T THERE WAS NO. IT'S JUST IT'S JUST REALLY IN RECOGNITION OF THE REALITY OF THE CANDIDATE, THE APPLICANTS THAT THE CITY HAS HISTORICALLY HAD. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WITH MORE PEOPLE COMING INTO TOWN, WE'LL HAVE MORE, YOU KNOW, MORE, MORE APPLICANTS. BUT YEAH, I WOULDN'T YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T MEAN TO SUGGEST ANY NEFARIOUSNESS ON ANYBODY'S PART, BUT I THINK. I THINK BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD GOOD COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT IN THE FUTURE THAT ORDINANCE CAN GO AWAY. SO I THINK WE'VE, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY, WHAT YOU BOTH SAID TO ME PROVES TO ME MORE THE POINT THAT IT SHOULD BE IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBERS COME AND GO, ORDINANCES COME AND GO. THE CHARTER. YEAH, KIND OF. BUT IT'S MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO CHANGE A CHARTER THAN IT IS TO CHANGE AN ORDINANCE. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR LEAVING IT IN THE CHARTER. JUST SO YOU KNOW, MY POSITION.

YEAH, I'M KIND OF LIKE WHAT ROBERT SAID, BUT I'M MORE ON THE I'M MORE LEAVE IT IN. OKAY.

WELL, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TODAY IS THAT I THINK THAT WE REALLY SHOULD TRY TO HOLD THIS MEETING IN A WAY THAT WILL GIVE US THE, THE, THE FINAL RESULTS BY, BY 6:00 TONIGHT, AS WE HAD PLANNED. AND SO GIVEN THAT, I SEE THAT THERE'S A SEEMS TO BE A CONSENSUS ON THIS, EVEN THOUGH I'M VERY MUCH NOT IN FAVOR FOR PURPOSES OF GETTING THIS MEETING DONE EFFICIENTLY, I WONDER IF WE ARE READY TO TAKE A MOTION ON THIS. JEAN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE KEEP ARTICLE EIGHT, SECTION 01.5 IN THE CHARTER AS WRITTEN. IS THERE A SECOND MARK? A SECONDED ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR A ALL AGAINST OKAY.

NAY I SAW HER, BUT SHE. OKAY. SO WITH THAT WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR FIRST DISCUSSION. ITEM 4 TO

[III.2. Discussion and possible action on Articles XI in final Charter version presented on the Charter Review Committee (CRC) Discussion Board]

[00:15:06]

SUBSEQUENT COMMENTARY ON THE BOARD HAS NOT BEEN INCORPORATED YET. AND I KEPT CHECKING THE BOARD RIGHT UP UNTIL THE TIME I LEFT BECAUSE I, I KNEW IT WAS COMING IN. SO ON ARTICLE 11. I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER AN ARTICLE 11. WHAT WAS CHANGED? I KNOW THAT ALL OF MY COMMENTS I HAVE SUBMITTED, ALL OF MY COMMENTS, HAVE BEEN UP TO DATE AND ARE SUBMITTED. WHAT'S IN OUR PACKET OR HANDOUT IS 11. INCLUDES ALL THE CHANGES THAT WE HAD IDENTIFIED BUT DID NOT TALK ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING. JEAN, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YEAH. THE PROBLEM IS YOU GO TO 11 ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND IT'S NOW 12. YES. THIS THIS ARTICLE AT THE TIME WE WERE DISCUSSING IT WAS ACTUALLY TEN. SO IF YOU GO TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD, YOU NEED TO LOOK AT ARTICLE TEN.

AND WE APPROVED ARTICLE TEN ON CONSENT AT THE LAST MEETING. SO IF THIS IS IF 11 IS NOW ARTICLE TEN FROM THE LAST MEETING, WE'VE ALREADY OFFICIALLY APPROVED IT. YEAH. THAT WAS MY RECOLLECTION AS WELL THAT WE HAD ALREADY APPROVED THIS ONE. SO I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT IT BEING ON THE AGENDA AGAIN TODAY, BECAUSE WHAT WE DEFERRED LAST TIME WE WERE CALLING ARTICLE 11 WAS ACTUALLY NOW ARTICLE 12 SINCE WE INSERTED A NEW FLOOR. OKAY. I WOULD SAY WE'VE ALREADY ADOPTED 11. IT'S ALREADY INTO THE THIRD FINAL DRAFT THAT WE CAN DISPENSE WITH FURTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY. SO. AGENDA. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

[III.3. Discussion and possible action on Articles XII in final Charter version presented on the Charter Review Committee (CRC) Discussion Board ]

[00:20:01]

SO EVERYTHING I CAPTURED FROM YOUR FEEDBACK UP UNTIL NOON YESTERDAY IS IN THAT THOSE ATTACHMENTS. OKAY. AND SO I AM STILL MY POSITION IS STILL THAT WE NOT REQUIRE A COMP PLAN AND THAT WE NOT ADDRESS A FLUME IN THE CHARTER. IS THAT THE ONLY ISSUE THAT WE'RE DOWN TO, OR ARE THERE OTHER ISSUES THAT PEOPLE HAVE LEFT ON THAT, ON THAT ONE? AND AND THAT SEEMED TO BE THE ONE THAT WAS THAT WAS WRITTEN ABOUT THE MOST. DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, LEAVING THE COMP PLAN OUT OR IN AND THE FLUME OUT OR IN ON THE CHARTER? I'M JUST GOING TO SAY ONE MORE TIME THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COMP PLAN IN BOTH AUBRY AND ROCKPORT, ALTHOUGH THEY IMPLEMENTED IT DIFFERENTLY. OUR CURRENT COMP PLAN IS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE. IT IS A CODE. IT IS AN ORDINANCE AND A CODE THAT COULD BE CHANGED OR COMPLETELY ELIMINATED AT THE WHIM OF SOME FUTURE COUNCIL. THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, I BELIEVE SECTION 213 DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT WE EVEN HAVE A COMP PLAN, BUT IF WE HAVE ONE, THE ORDINANCES ARTICLE OR CHAPTER AND THE SUBDIVISION CHAPTER GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE FACT AND DIRECT COUNCIL EMPLOYEES TO GIVE DEFERENCE TO AN EXISTING COMP PLAN. SO MY WHOLE THING IS WE HAVE ONE NOW. YES, IT'S CREATED BY ORDINANCE. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A VERY REMOTE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE MIGHT DECIDE, YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS COMP PLAN IS IN THE WAY OF OUR DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE JUST GOING TO KILL IT.

I'M OUTGOING, MY COUNCIL SEAT, AND I WANT TO GO BUILD APARTMENTS ALL UP AND DOWN LOMAN. SO LET'S GET RID OF THE COMP PLAN. THAT'S A REAL POSSIBILITY, NOT A PROBABILITY.

PROBABLY. NOT EVEN LIKELY. BUT IT IS A POTENTIAL PROBLEM THAT COULD OCCUR IF WE DON'T CODIFY THE FACT THAT YOU WILL HAVE A COMP PLAN IN THE CHARTER. SO WITH THAT SAID, I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE. FRANKLY, WHETHER OR NOT WE RECOMMEND IT, IT'S GOING TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL ANYWAY. I WOULD RATHER BE ON THE LEADING SIDE OF RECOMMENDING THAT WE HAVE IT AND LET THEM TAKE IT OUT, AS OPPOSED TO. HOPING THAT THEY PUT IT IN. I THINK IT'S SO INTEGRATED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE MUNICIPAL CODE THAT FOR THEM TO TAKE IT OUT WOULD BE A MONUMENTAL UNDERTAKING, AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S FEASIBLE OR POSSIBLE. IT WOULD BE HORRIBLE. SO WHY EVEN ALLOW FOR THE POTENTIAL POSSIBILITY, HOWEVER REMOTE IT COULD BE, THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN AND THROW US INTO SUCH DISARRAY WHEN WE COULD MITIGATE AND HEAD THAT RISK OFF WITH A SIMPLE PARAGRAPH IN THE CHARTER. AND I'VE SAID MY PIECE, GENE. YEAH, I'M IN FAVOR OF LEAVING IT IN THERE BECAUSE IT GIVES THE CITIZENS A POSITION OF STABILITY AS FAR AS WHAT COULD HAPPEN WITHIN THE CITY AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENT GOES IN, YOU KNOW, YEARS AHEAD. MARK, I'M I'M ALSO INCLINED TO LEAVE IT IN STRONGLY, BUT I'M NOT 100% ON THAT. MAY I ASK YOUR REASONING FOR NOT INCLUDING IT? I KNOW YOU'RE YOU'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT IT, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD, LIKE A FUNDAMENTAL REASON FOR LEAVING OR FOR NOT PUTTING IT IN, BECAUSE WE HAVE WE HAVEN'T BEEN PUTTING IN ANY WE DIDN'T NEED. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO LOAD UP THE TO BE IN HERE. IT IS. IT. IT'S INTEGRAL PART CITY. IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN OUT. AND SO I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A REASON TO PUT IT IN THERE. AND THEN IF WE PUT IT IN THERE THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE THE DISCUSSION OF, WELL, HOW OFTEN SHOULD WE DO IT? IT'S REALLY EXPENSIVE TO DO THESE COMP PLANS TO, TO, TO REVISE THEM.

IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE AND VERY TIME CONSUMING ON THE PART OF, OF STAFF AND CITIZENS. IT'S EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING. AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO GET CAUGHT BY BY PUTTING A TIME LIMIT ON LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS OR AT LEAST EVERY FOUR WHATEVER.

I MEAN, I THINK IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE DISCRETION OF COUNCIL, BECAUSE I REALLY

[00:25:04]

AND TO CONSIDER THE EXPENSE OF IT, NOT ONLY IN DOLLARS, WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANT, BUT THE TIME INVOLVED FOR STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS. IT'S JUST ASTRONOMICAL. BUT DOES THAT NOT CHANGE WHETHER IT'S AN ORDINANCE, BY ORDINANCE OR BY CHARTER? NO. BUT IF. ONE I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYTHING IN THIS PARAGRAPH ABOUT FREQUENCY. RIGHT. I THINK IT JUST SAYS YOU WILL HAVE ONE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALIZE IT OR NOT, LINDA, BUT YOU'RE KIND OF MAKING THE CASE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE OF THE EXPENSE, THE HASSLE, THE TIME CONSUMING. THAT MAKES IT EVEN MORE CONCEIVABLE THAT A FUTURE COUNCIL COULD JUST PUNT IT AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, AND WE'RE JUST REVOKE THE WE'RE GOING TO REVOKE THE ORDINANCE AND BE DONE WITH IT. SO IN A WAY, YOU'RE KIND OF MAKING THE CASE HERE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CHARTER. MR. WEST, CHAPTER TWO 211 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. IF A CITY ADOPTS ANY TYPE OF ZONING REGULATIONS, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT IS PER STATE LAW. AND SINCE WE HAVE ZONING, WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHETHER OR NOT A CITY CHOOSES TO UPDATE ITS COMP PLAN EVERY FIVE YEARS, WHICH IS WHAT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE INDUSTRY. THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING BECAUSE MOST CITIES GET A COMP PLAN, THEY STICK IT ON THE SHELF AND IT COLLECTS DUST. AND THAT'S THE POINT. IF YOU WANT A BAG, ZONING REGULATIONS, BAG YOUR COMP PLAN AND THEN WE'LL LOOK LIKE HOUSTON. HOUSTON'S THE ONLY CITY I KNOW OF THAT DOESN'T HAVE ZONING. SO THERE'S OUR LITTLE DRAMATIC COMMENT. OKAY. AGAIN, IN THE INTEREST OF KEEPING THINGS MOVING, IT DOES SEEM THAT WE HAVE A CONSENSUS. AND SO DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION. MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE LEAVE IT IN, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES IT. SINCE WE HAVE ZONING ORDINANCES. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? MAY I ASK A QUESTION? I'M TRYING TO FIND THE LANGUAGE IN THIS PRINTED COPY IN FRONT OF US.

AND SO IS THIS LANGUAGE. SOMEWHERE IN THIS BLACK HIGHLIGHTED WHAT'S LABELED AS ARTICLE 12. NO, IT'S ARTICLE 12. AND THIS DOCUMENTS WHAT WE'VE APPROVED SO FAR. ARTICLE 12 IS ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY LABELED ARTICLE 11 BECAUSE THE THREAD STARTED IN THIS DOCUMENT. NO, NO, NO REALLY WHAT I'M ASKING IS THE MOTION ON THE TABLE TONIGHT IS ABOUT WHICH SECTION IN THE DOCUMENT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. OKAY. YEAH. I CAN'T FIND IT. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. IT'S NOT IN THAT ONE. AND THAT'S WHY THIS IS ALL BLACKED OUT BECAUSE 12 WAS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE THREAD ARTICLE 11, WHICH IS NOW 12, IT'S POSTED THERE. AND LIKE I SAID, NOON YESTERDAY IN POST 16, SECTION 12 12.14 IN THAT DOCUMENT. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT 2.17 26 CLEAN ART ARTICLE 12 FORMERLY 11. YES, YES. IT'S IT'S THE ONE THAT WAS POSTED NOON YESTERDAY OKAY. AND IT'S IT'S IT'S ARTICLE 12 FORMERLY 11, SECTION 12.14 OKAY. SO IT'S LABELED COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN PURPOSE AND EFFECT OKAY.

THAT'S A MOTION SHOULD REFLECT THAT. THANK YOU. AND DID SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION ON THAT OKAY. THAT WAS SECONDED. BUT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO PERHAPS AMEND THE MOTION I YOU YOU COULD POTENTIALLY JEAN IF YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I JUST SAID AND WHAT ROBERT JUST SAID, YOU COULD ACCEPT THAT AS CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION AND I THINK WE'LL BE FINE. OH, YES, I WOULD ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE THE WAY THERE'S LIKE THIS IS IN THREE DIFFERENT PLACES, DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT IN FACT, THE ONE I'M LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, WHICH OBVIOUSLY ISN'T THE LATEST OF THE MORE OF THE PAST VERSIONS, IT'S LISTED AS 12.13 COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN, SEMICOLON, PURPOSE AND EFFECT. AND IT JUST BASICALLY SAYS THE COUNCIL SHALL ADOPT, AMEND AND

[00:30:02]

BUT THE CONTENT OF THAT PARAGRAPH DID NOT CHANGE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION THAT WE'VE AMENDED TO CLARIFY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1214. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES. MY DISCUSSION IS NO. WE'RE ACCEPTING THAT FLUME THE FLUME LANGUAGE. AND AGAIN AND I. KNOW THAT WELL, NOT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT BECAUSE WE JUST HAD TO PAY ATTORNEYS TO TELL US THAT. AND EVEN WHEN THE ATTORNEYS TOLD US THAT, APPARENTLY THE PERSON THAT RECEIVED THE MESSAGE DIDN'T BELIEVE THE ATTORNEY. SO I DON'T HAVE A HEARTACHE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I THINK IT JUST CLARIFIES THE FACT THAT THE FLUME DOES NOT CREATE ENTITLEMENTS. AND MAYBE TWO, THREE, FIVE YEARS DOWN THE LINE, WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY ATTORNEYS TO TELL US THE SAME THING THAT WE THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS. OKAY. JEAN. YEAH. AND I WOULD JUST SAY IT'S IN THE CHARTER NOW THAT THE FLUME DOES NOT CREATE ENTITLEMENTS. SO PEOPLE AND WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY TO BACK THAT UP. SO I'M FINE WITH LEAVING IT IN THERE. OKAY. WELL IT'S IN THE MOTION. I'M JUST I'M JUST MAKING A POINT THAT IT'S BEEN ADDED TO THAT. AND I DID WRITE ABOUT IT PRETTY EXTENSIVELY ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, SO I JUST. SO, SO ALL IN FAVOR I, I. ALL AGAINST I NAY. YOU HAVE ME SO FLUSTERED ABOUT MY NAYS THAT PASSES 4 TO 1. I HAVE A QUESTION POINT OF ORDER ON DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS ARE TWO AND THREE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME? NOW TWO WAS REFERENCING THE FACT THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED IT LAST TIME, AND IT WAS ON THERE AGAIN. AND WE JUST KIND OF SKIPPED OVER 11. YEAH, BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD APPROVED IT. OKAY. ROBERT, IS IT CORRECT MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT THAT THAT DISCUSSION ITEM TWO IS ABOUT PREVIOUS DISCUSSION ITEM TWO IS ABOUT WHAT PREVIOUSLY WAS KNOWN AS ARTICLE TEN. NOW IS ARTICLE 11, WHICH YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER THREE IS ABOUT WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ARTICLE 11, NOW KNOWN AS ARTICLE 12, AND INCLUDES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DISCUSSION THAT YOU JUST HAD. OKAY, NOW WE CAN TAKE AN EASY ONE DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE

[III.4. Discussion and possible action on any final identified scrivener's errors, formatting, non-content related needed corrections in final Charter version presented on the Charter Review Committee (CRC) Discussion Board.]

SPELLING CONFIGURATION SHOULD BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE CHARTER. AND THEN LINE 241 ADD

[00:35:01]

RESPECTIVE IS NOT NECESSARY. AND THEN WE'RE UP TO 9.18, WHICH WOULD BE THE FIRST KIND OF. COMMENT. I THINK THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE PUTTING THE ABILITY SHOULD THE CHARTER, THE COUNCIL. SO DESIRE TO FUND A NONPROFIT. AND WE'D ALREADY APPROVED THAT. IT WAS ALREADY PART OF OUR APPROVAL OF THAT SECTION. SO I DON'T KNOW. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN WE'RE UP TO 1211. SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO 12. AND THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE POINTED OUT THAT THE. IT INCLUDES A PENALTY SECTION FOR THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.

AND I KIND OF DON'T NECESSARILY. THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE IN THE CHARTER WHERE WE CREATE A CRIMINAL PENALTY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EVEN LEGAL OR AND OR NECESSARY. BUT THAT'S ONE I THINK WE CAN COME BACK TO WHEN WE FINISH 12. WELL, I GUESS WE ARE DONE WITH 12. YEAH. WELL THEN I GUESS 12 IS NOT DONE. WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO CAN WE DO THAT. CAN WE LOOK AT. 1211 AND 1222. 1211 IS THE BRIBERY PROHIBITED. AND MARK YOU YOU'RE NOT SURE THAT'S NEEDED. BUT I TEND TO AGREE. WE HAVE STATE LAW. WE HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE BRIBERY A CRIME. BUT IT WAS IN THE CHARTER BEFORE. SO DO WE WANT TO TAKE IT OUT OR LEAVE IT IN? I DON'T HAVE REAL STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT IT. IT'S REDUNDANT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF REDUNDANCY IN HERE TOO, REGARDING STATE LAW. SO THEN THE NEXT COMMENT I THINK YOU KEYED ON, I DID TOO. IT'S NOW 12.12, PARAGRAPH TWO, WHERE IT CALLS OUT CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING THE POLITICAL ACTIVITIES SECTION. I JUST I LIKE MARK, I'M NOT SURE THAT TO THAT PARAGRAPH THAT CREATES A CRIMINAL PENALTIES IS REDUNDANT TO STATE LAW THAT PROBABLY ALREADY ADDRESSES THIS. I JUST I JUST DON'T HAVE ANY STRONG OPINION ON THIS EITHER WAY. SO I THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T COMMENT ON IT. I MEAN, I READ IT, IT'S SO I'LL SAY IT'S IN OUR CURRENT CHARTER. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE THE LEGACY OF IT BEING IN THERE, OR DO WE FEEL STRONGLY IT NEEDS TO COME OUT? I DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION, MARK. WELL, I GUESS I GUESS MY ONLY POINT WOULD BE IS, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE PENALTIES CHANGE? YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOCKED INTO WHAT WE WROTE, AND YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT UNTIL YOU CHANGE THE CHARTER. NOW YOU'RE IN CONFLICT WITH WHATEVER JUDICIAL PENALTIES ARE ON THE BOOKS. GOOD POINT. SO SO WOULD THAT WOULD IT BE LIKELY THAT SOMEONE WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DELETE THE PENALTY AMOUNT? I MOVE THAT WE DELETE THE PENALTY AMOUNT FOR THE REASON THAT MR. DOUGLAS JUST SAID. I'LL SECOND THAT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? DOWN LIGHTING UP AND THEN OH, THERE WE GO. ARE YOU JUST GOING TO DELETE THE $500? IS THAT IT? OKAY, ALL IN FAVOR I. UNANIMOUS. OKAY. BACK TO THE MESSAGE BOARD. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT ROBERT?

[00:40:01]

BUT COME UP WITH SOMETHING OTHER THAN APPOINT A MINIMUM OF THREE MEMBERS AND NO MORE THAN SIX MEMBERS. MARK, I THINK YOU KNOW, THE SIX IS BIZARRE TO ME BECAUSE NOW YOU DON'T HAVE AN ODD NUMBER, SO YOU HAVE A POTENTIAL TIE ON ANY VOTE. SECOND POINT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT EVERY FIVE YEARS AS I READ IT, IT SAYS ROCKPORT, OR AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MECHANISM WOULD BE TO TO DO IT MORE OFTEN. IF THERE'S A REFERENDUM THAT, YOU KNOW, WOULD GO OUT TO VOTERS, SAY, AFTER TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS, BUT YOU CAN'T LET IT GO BEYOND FIVE YEARS. SO THAT'S HOW I READ AT LEAST FIVE YEARS. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS, IS THAT COUNCIL HAS TO DESIGNATE AN EMPOWERMENT COMMISSION OR A COMMITTEE AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS. OUR CURRENT CHARTER SAYS AT LEAST EVERY FOUR, WHICH I THINK IS TOO FREQUENT. QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK WE COULD PUSH IT TO FIVE. WE COULD PUSH IT TO SIX. SELENA'S GOT TEN, BUT FOUR JUST SEEMS TOO QUICK GIVEN ALL THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE. AND THEN WE GET AN ELECTION.

ELECTION HAPPENS IN NOVEMBER. THE NEW CHARTER GOES INTO PLACE IN 2027 AND THEN BOOM, 2030.

THEY'RE DOING ANOTHER CHARTER REVIEW. IT JUST SEEMS TOO MUCH. BUT THAT'S WHY I POINTED OUT YOU HAVE YOUR FINGER ON DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT? YEAH, I WAS JUST SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT I'VE A LONG TIME AGO I SAID SIX NEEDED TO GO AWAY FOR THE VERY REASON THAT YOU GET A TIE. AND I, I'M SORT OF THINKING, LEANING TOWARDS SEVEN PEOPLE FOR THIS JUST IT'S SUCH AN IMPORTANT TOPIC. AND HAVING SEVEN PEOPLE GIVES A BROADER SPECTRUM OF VIEWPOINTS TO HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH A PRODUCT THAT MORE PEOPLE IN THE CITY WOULD VOTE FOR. I REALLY LIKE THE RANGE OF THE 3 TO 6, BUT I'D LIKE TO CHANGE THE RANGE TO 3 TO 7. I CAN LIVE WITH 3 TO 7, BUT NOT 3 TO 5 OR 3 TO 6. OKAY, BUT 3 TO 7. I COULD VOTE FOR THAT. MARK 3 TO 7 INCLUDES THE NUMBERS FOUR AND SIX. YEAH, BUT CAN'T GET AWAY FROM THAT. YEAH, FIVE INCLUDES FOUR AND TWO. TRUE. I MEAN WE HAD RIGHT NOW THE CURRENT CHARTER SAYS 3 TO 6 AND WE'VE GOT FIVE. YEAH. YOU GET AWAY FROM IT BY GIVING A HARD NUMBER. PICK 1573 PICK ONE. THE RANGE IS THE PROBLEMATIC PART OF THIS. I SOMEWHAT DISAGREE. I THINK THAT IT IT'S IMPLIED WITH 3 TO 7 THAT IT'S AN ODD NUMBER. AND THAT WAY IF SOMEBODY LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW SOMEBODY DROPS OFF THAT IT DOESN'T STALL PROGRESS THAT COULD BE MADE OF, OKAY, WE HAVE TO GET ANOTHER PERSON AND THEN THAT PERSON LIKE KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE. YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF WENT WITH WHAT I MEAN, MARK AND I KIND OF SAID, LET'S GO OFF OF WHAT YOU GUYS ALREADY DID AND THAT WORKED OUT.

BUT IF YOU SOMEBODY DROPPED OFF, YOU HAD FOUR PEOPLE AND THEN YOU GET HAVE TO GO BACK AND GET

[00:45:03]