[00:00:01] VIRTUAL. SHE IS IN THERE. MUST BE CHECKS ALL THE TIME. IS 430. I'LL NOW CONVENE THIS MEETING [ CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL] OF THE OF THE CITY LAGO VISTA CITY COUNCIL. I HAVE A QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS UP HERE. EVERYBODY BUT COUNCILOR VAN S, BUT SHE IS GOING TO BE VIRTUAL AND BE JOINING US SHORTLY. WE [Additional Items] WILL START INITIALLY ACTUALLY WITH CITIZEN COMMENTS. I DO HAVE MISS LINDA AIRED. HELLO EVERYONE. I WANTED TO SAY THAT I OBJECT TO THE PRODUCT OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE BEING CONSIDERED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ITS MEETINGS IN PUBLIC, PUBLISHED ITS WORK PRODUCT THROUGHOUT THE MONTHS ONLINE AS IT WENT ALONG, AS IT ADOPTED CHANGES TO THE EXISTING CHARTER. EVERY STEP OF THE CHARTER REVISION WAS POSTED TO THE CITY WEBSITE, AND THE WORK PRODUCT AS A WHOLE WAS SUBMITTED MONTHS AGO. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS COUNCIL WERE ASKED TO POST THEIR POSITIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE ISSUES. THE COUNCIL EVEN HAD A DISCUSSION BOARD TO ADDRESS THE CHARTER TOPICS AND REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS. WHENEVER A LEGAL QUESTION AROSE, IT WAS ASKED THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL LIAISON AND ANSWERED IN PUBLIC THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL LIAISON. THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ARE VERY FEW. THE EXCEPTIONS, AS I READ THEM, DO NOT INCLUDE THE CITY ATTORNEY STATING AS A BASIS FOR A CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC EXECUTIVE SESSION. I DON'T WANT TO SPEND YOUR TIME AND MONEY MAKING RED LINES ON THINGS YOU DON'T WANT. SO MY REQUEST THAT THIS BE DONE ON THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, REVIEW IT AND THEN PUT IT ON THE NEXT EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR SOME DIRECTION, DIRECTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SAVE HIS TIME. AND THE CITY'S MONEY IS APPROPRIATELY DONE IN AN OPEN MEETING. I AM DISCONCERTED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS ASKING FOR TIPS TO SAVE HIM. TIME TO BE GIVEN IN AN EXECUTIVE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC SESSION. PLEASE CONSIDER HOLDING ALL OF YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE CHARTER REVISION IN AN OPEN PUBLIC ON THE RECORD MEETING. AS THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE CONDUCTED THEIR REVISION. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I HAVE MR. GENE HARRIS. MY NAME IS. MY NAME IS GENE HARRIS. I'LL START BY SAYING THERE IS NO COLLABORATION DONE HERE. I TO OBJECT, IT'S TO ECHO A LOT OF WHAT LINDA SAID. EVERYTHING THAT WAS DONE ON THE CHARTER WAS DONE IN THE PUBLIC VIEW. AND WHERE THEY COULD HEAR IT, WATCH IT. NO ONE EVER CAME. BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. AND TO SAY IT'S DISAPPOINTING, DISCONCERTING, WHATEVER, THOSE ARE KIND OF MILD EXPRESSIONS OF MY DISAPPOINTMENT AND DISCONCERTED THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT OF THE CITY THAT GOVERNS HOW THE CITY IS RUN IS BEING TALKED ABOUT IN SECRET AND MAY OR MAY. WELL, I'M GOING TO GO OUT ON A LIMB AND SAY EVERYTHING THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION IS NOT GOING TO COME OUT TODAY. MAYBE IT WILL. MAYBE I'LL BE SURPRISED. I'LL NEVER KNOW. BUT JUST SAYING, WHEN IT COMES TO THE LAW OF THE LAND, IF YOU WILL, OUR CONSTITUTION THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER IN PUBLIC SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC. [II. EXECUTIVE SESSION] THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'LL CONVENE IN A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION CONSULTATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING LEGAL QUESTIONS, ADVICE RELATED PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENT UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER FOLLOWING REVIEW BY LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, S TIME IS 513. WE ARE RECONVENING [III. ACTION ON EXECTUIVE SESSION ITEMS (action and/or a vote may be taken on the following agenda items)] FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION INTO OPEN SESSION. WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING ONE ITEM DISCUSSION. INTERACTION CONCERNING LEGAL QUESTIONS AND ADVICE RELATED TO PROPOSED UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER. FOLLOWING REVIEW BY LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION OUT HERE. I GUESS I WILL START WITH BRAD. DO YOU WANT TO DO A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? YEAH. WELL, THERE ARE SOME THERE WERE SOME LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS AND QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE NATURE OF BALLOT PROPOSITIONS AND HOW THAT WORKS. AND SO THAT WAS DISCUSSED BACK THERE. HAPPY TO DISCUSS WHATEVER OF THAT. THE COUNCIL WANTS TO OUT HERE IN OPEN [00:05:05] SESSION. I'VE ALSO WE DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT. WE PROVIDED INITIALLY SOME LEGAL COMMENTS THAT WE PROVIDED TO Y'ALL. THERE'S DISCUSSION ABOUT SHARING THAT PUBLICLY. AND THEN I HAVE MORE SPECIFIC SUBSTANTIVE EDITORIAL TYPE OF COMMENTS THAT I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SHARE WITH Y'ALL YET. I'M STILL IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON THAT, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE THOSE TO YOU KIND OF HERE. AND THEN AS SOON AS I'M FINISHED WITH THE DOCUMENT, PROBABLY TONIGHT OR TOMORROW, SEND THAT DOCUMENT OUT AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME OF WHAT WE HAVE WITH YOU HERE SHORTLY, BUT I'LL OPEN IT UP TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO INTO THAT. MR. PRINCE, I THINK IT JUST. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE THE NUMBER OF BALLOT MEASURES TOPIC. RIGHT. WHICH WAS WHAT WE MOSTLY SPENT TIME IN THERE AND, AND THE THE COUNCIL, I THINK CONSENSUS WAS WE WERE HOPING TO HAVE A SINGLE BALLOT MEASURE AROUND THIS, ALTHOUGH AS WE DISCUSSED IT MORE, WE GOT FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY FROM THAT CONSENSUS ON SINGLE BALLOT MEASURE BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME WE FELT LIKE THERE WERE SOME SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT MIGHT BE MORE CONTROVERSIAL WITH CITIZENS, AND IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO BREAK THINGS DOWN INTO MORE THAN ONE BALLOT MEASURE. AND SO THERE WAS SOME, YOU KNOW, GOOD FLAVOR OF THAT DISCUSSION. CITY ATTORNEY DEFINITELY EXPRESSED A STRONG OPINION OF HIS CONCERN. THAT SINGLE BALLOT MEASURE MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC, AND THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE BALLOT MEASURE IN ORDER TO, TO, TO MEET HIS, HIS GUIDANCE ON, ON THAT. AND OTHERS MAY HAVE MORE, YOU KNOW, TO SAY ON THAT. BUT BUT I THINK THAT WAS THAT WAS THE MAJORITY OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED BACK THERE WAS WHAT, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY HOW MANY BALLOT MEASURES IS THE RIGHT NUMBER OF BALLOT MEASURES WITH, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY SAYING SOMETHING ON THE ON THE THE LINES OF, YOU KNOW, 27 IS WAY TOO MANY. 1ST MAY BE TOO FEW. YOU KNOW, WHERE WHERE CAN WE COME DOWN AND WHAT'S THE RIGHT, THE RIGHT ANSWER. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'LL HIGHLIGHT WAS, MR. OWEN, YOU HAD AT MY REQUEST, ACTUALLY PUBLISHED SOMETHING THAT WAS WHICH WERE THE MORE CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS THAT CRC DID VERSUS THE ONES THAT WERE EITHER UNANIMOUS OR, YOU KNOW, ONE DISSENTING VOTE. I THINK THAT'S HOW YOU PUT IT TOGETHER. AND ONE OF THE THOUGHTS THAT WAS EXPRESSED WAS, WELL, MAYBE THE THINGS THAT WERE UNANIMOUS OR NEARLY UNANIMOUS COULD BE, YOU KNOW, LUMPED TOGETHER. AND SO WE'LL SEE, WE'LL SEE WHERE THAT ENDS UP. BUT THAT'S A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION IS THAT WE HAD BACK THERE WAS HOW TO DO THAT. WE DID NOT YET GET INTO ANY DISCUSSION OF PARTICULAR TOPICS AND WHETHER WE WERE IN FAVOR OF THEM OR NOT. AND OTHERS ON COUNCIL MAY WANT TO ADD OR CLARIFY ON TOP OF THAT. I THINK THAT WAS A FAIR RECAP OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. AND IF WE WANT, WE CAN GET INTO BRAD'S OTHER ITEMS. AS WE DO, WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE TO BE ABLE TO RELEASE, OR WE CAN. YEAH. YOU WANT A MOTION ON THAT? YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO AHEAD AND RELEASE THE INFORMATION THAT BRAD GAVE US OUT TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT THEY CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE WORK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DEFINED. I'LL SECOND THAT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. I THINK MAYOR PRO TEM I THINK NOW YOU JUST HAVE TO HIT IT ONCE AND IT'LL STAY ON INSTEAD OF HOLD IT. OH, NICE. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT. ANY SPECIFIC ITEMS ANYONE WANTED TO BRING UP BEFORE BRAD PULLS HIS UP? ALL RIGHT, BRAD, I'LL TURN IT BACK TO YOU WHEN YOU'RE READY. OKAY. SO I GUESS COUNCIL, IF YOU WANT TO START. KIND OF ON THE WITH THE CHART THAT WE PROVIDED, WHICH IS A BROAD KIND OF OVERVIEW OF SOME, JUST SOME, SOME, SOME BIG ISSUES TO, TO THINK ABOUT. LET ME. I'M SORRY, JUST BE EASIER IF I DO IT THIS WAY. PUT UP ANOTHER ANOTHER SCREEN HERE. THAT WAY I CAN SEE TWO THINGS AT THE SAME TIME. JUST MAKING SURE THAT I'M ON THE RIGHT THING, THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT I HAVE OPENED HERE IS FROM AN EMAIL THAT YOU SENT TO COUNCIL, AND THE DOCUMENT TITLE IS LAGO CHARTER CHANGES. YES, SIR. DOT DOC X OKAY. YES, SIR. AND CHARLES, ARE WE BROADCASTING? I DON'T KNOW, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO [00:10:08] FIGURE OUT. OKAY. YEAH, WE DO NEED TO STAND IN HERE. PLEASE. HE JUST WALKED OUT. WHAT I'M AFRAID OF. DO YOU WANT ME TO CALL HIM? YOU HAVE TO CALL ME. PLEASE LOG IN AND GO TO MEETINGS. NOT WORKING. I'M ASSUMING WE ARE BROADCASTING BECAUSE THE CAMERAS ARE ON, BUT GO TO MEETING IS NOT WORKING BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET IT TO WORK SO WE CAN GET. ROBERT IS. MR. ROBERT IS INDICATING HE'S WATCHING IT, SO IT'S OKAY. THE WEBCAST IS HERE. OKAY. GO TO. OKAY. I THINK THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR BRAD TO GET STARTED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO IF Y'ALL ARE LOOKING AT THE LARGO CHARTER CHANGES COMMENTS, THE FIRST ONE RELATES TO ANNEXATION AND THE DEFINITION OF ANNEXATION. THE SUGGESTION WAS THAT YOU FOLLOW THE LEGAL DEFINITION OUT OF CASE LAW. FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO VERSUS BERNIE CASE. AND ANNEXATION IN THE PROPOSED CHANGE WAS MEANS THE FORMAL ACT BY WHICH THE CITY INCORPORATES LAND WITHIN ITS DOMINION, SAN ANTONIO VERSUS BERNIE DEFINES ANNEXATION AS MEANS THE FORMAL INCORPORATION OF TERRITORY INTO MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES. THAT PROBABLY A WORTHWHILE EDIT THAT YOU'D WANT TO MAKE IN THAT. AND, AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE AS WE GO ALONG IS THAT SOME OF THESE ARE ALSO. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T PEOPLE DON'T LIKE LEGALESE, BUT SOMETIMES THERE ARE MAGIC WORDS THAT YOU NEED TO USE. AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES. MR. BRENNAN, JUST A SUGGESTION FOR MY PURPOSES, BRAD, AS YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THESE, MANY OF THEM TO ME SEEM LIKE THE THAT YOUR TEAM IS SUGGESTING WORDING CHANGES IN ORDER TO BE MORE LEGALLY ACCURATE OR, YOU KNOW, HAVE HAVE MORE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE WITHOUT ANY CHANGE TO WHAT THE CRC SEEMED TO BE INTENDING IN THEIR PROPOSAL. THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT. AND SINCE WE'RE GOING TO PUBLISH THESE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH EVERYONE IN DETAIL, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN JUST HIGHLIGHT, YOU KNOW, IN THIS THIS SECTION, THE CRC RECOMMENDED THIS. WE HAVE SOME LANGUAGE PROPOSED FOR THAT AND THEN GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT TOO. AS COUNSEL YOU GOOD THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE ONE UNLESS YOU WANT IT TO BE. I MEAN, I CAN I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO ASK ME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT Y'ALL THINK ARE THE MOST RELEVANT ONES. I MEAN, SO YOU I'D SAY, YEAH, COUNSEL, IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC ONES, RAISE YOUR HAND AND LET'S GO TO THOSE ONES. MR. CHHABRIA. SO YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT THE DEFINITIONS ARE PRETTY, PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY. WE'RE JUST, WE'RE BRINGING IT INTO COMPLIANCE AND IT WOULD BE LESS CHALLENGING. BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN 3.07 E AND THEN ALSO 3.12. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE SO WE'RE THROUGH THE DEFINITION SECTION. THERE WERE NO QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE DEFINITIONS. THOSE ARE ALL JUST TO BRING DEFINITIONAL LANGUAGE WITHIN EITHER REFERENCED EITHER WITHIN BY STATE LAW OR FOR EXAMPLE, CASES THAT HAVE ADDRESSED THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND THOSE ARE ALL FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THREE POINT LET'S SEE, 3.07 E LET ME GET TO THAT SECTION. AND I'M MOSTLY JUST DOING THIS FOR FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S GOING TO BE ON ON AND THAT'S NOT PRESENT HERE FOR THE EXPLANATION. AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THIS PUBLISHED AS WELL. 3.07 LISTS A PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM COUNCIL. LET ME MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT SECTION HERE. SO. YEAH, THIS WAS A THIS WAS A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD EDIT, WHICH WAS TO THAT IF YOU ARE SUSPENDED BY A FORMAL ACTION OF COUNCIL [00:15:06] BECAUSE OF DISCIPLINARY MEASURE, THAT IT DOESN'T COUNT AS AN ABSENCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF COUNTING ABSENCES. SO IF YOU HAVE SO MANY ABSENCES, YOU'RE YOU CAN ALSO BE REMOVED. BUT IF YOU'RE SUSPENDED, YOU'RE NECESSARILY ABSENT. SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE A DOUBLE WHAMMY. SO THAT WAS THE ONLY CLARIFICATION REALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DIDN'T COUNT AS A, AS AN ABSENCE FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND THEN YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT 3.12. YEAH. REGARDING QUORUM. LET'S SEE. SO FOR THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE THAT YOU SUGGESTED. YEAH. SO LET'S SEE. OH YEAH. SO THE WAY THAT IT WAS, I'VE GOT, I'VE GOT THIS IN MY NOTES FOR THE MORE SPECIFIC VERBIAGE TO PERHAPS CHANGE OR ADDRESS. SO THE, THE WAY THAT IT IS WRITTEN, IT COULD BE INTERPRETED THAT IF THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM ARE ABSENT, THAT THE REST OF COUNCIL CAN'T FORM A QUORUM. BUT THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, IF YOU WOULD STILL HAVE FIVE MEMBERS WHO WOULD CONSTITUTE A QUORUM. AND SO THAT WE WANTED CLARIFICATION. WAS IT REALLY THE INTENT FOR THERE TO ONLY BE A QUORUM IF THE MAYOR OR THE MAYOR PRO TEM WAS PRESENT AS ONE OF THOSE MEMBERS? OR COULD THE REMAINING FIVE MEMBERS FORM A QUORUM? BECAUSE UNDER STATE LAW, CLEARLY THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE FOR. YEAH. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A QUORUM, THE WAY THAT WE SIT IS THAT ANYTHING MORE THAN FOUR. SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED THIS CLARIFICATION SO WELL, AND AND THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE AMBIGUITIES. THAT'S ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR CHARTER AND STATE LAW UNDER FOR, FOR, FOR TOMA PURPOSES, A GATHERING OF ANY FOUR WAS, IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED A QUORUM FOR TOMA PURPOSES. BUT UNDER YOUR CHARTER, YOU'RE CHARTER PROVIDES THAT. ONE OF THOSE FOUR. AN INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT NEEDS TO EITHER BE THE MAYOR OR THE MAYOR PRO TEM. SO, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WANT TO AVOID IS, IS A IS AN ARGUMENT THAT, WELL, THE FOUR OF US, WE'RE NOT THE MAYOR, WE'RE NOT THE MAYOR PRO TEM, BUT WE WERE TOGETHER AND WE WERE DISCUSSING CITY BUSINESS. SO THEREFORE WE'RE NOT A QUORUM. WELL, UNDER STATE LAW YOU WOULD BE A QUORUM. SO JUST TO JUST TO CLEAR UP THAT AMBIGUITY, BECAUSE AS YOU READ IT RIGHT NOW AND THIS IS STILL EXISTING IN YOUR CURRENT CHARTER, I MEAN, THAT'S THIS IS A CARRYOVER FROM THE CURRENT CHARTER SO THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. SO THAT'S WHY I QUESTIONED IT, BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION WAS THAT FOUR CREATES QUORUM. AND THEN. MAJORITY VOTE ON THAT. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE HERE. SO TO ME THIS ONE IS PRETTY CLEAR. AND YOU WERE ONE OF THEM. THERE'S TWO THINGS THAT YOU CALL OUT HERE, BRAD, IN YOUR NOTES. ONE IS IF THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM ARE ABSENT, A QUORUM CAN STILL HAPPEN. THE MEETING CAN STILL HAPPEN, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, THAT'S NUMBER ONE. AND THEN NUMBER TWO, IN THE SCENARIO WHERE THERE'S LESS THAN FOUR MEMBERS ON COUNCIL DUE TO VACANCIES, COUNCIL STILL HAS TO BE ABLE TO LEGALLY MEET. AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOUR PROPOSAL IS EVERYONE, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S LESS THAN FOUR, IF EVERYONE IS THERE, THAT THAT MAKES A LEGAL MEETING QUORUM. YEAH. I MEAN, IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST A MAJORITY, RIGHT? BUT BUT BEYOND THAT, YES. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH. FOUR RIGHT. SO THERE'S JUST TWO CORNER CASES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE THE INABILITY OF COUNCIL TO EVEN MEET THAT YOU'RE COVERING IN THIS PROPOSAL. THAT'S THE IDEA I THINK. RIGHT. AND THERE ARE ONLY AND THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, STATE LAW PROVIDES THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH LESS THAN A FOUR PERSON QUORUM CAN MEET TO CONDUCT VERY LIMITED BUSINESS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CANVASING OF AN ELECTION OR THE ADJOURNMENT OF A MEETING. AND I MIGHT BE FORGETTING ONE MORE, BUT BUT THOSE ARE SET OUT IN STATE LAW AND THEY'RE VERY, VERY LIMITED. ONE I DID IN THE DEFINITIONS. WANT TO DISCUSS REAL QUICK ON YOUR BOND PETITION? YES. SO THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES OF YOUR LEGAL SUGGESTION IS THAT A BOND ELECTION IS AUTOMATICALLY REQUIRED FOR ISSUANCE OF AD VALOREM BONDS. THUS, THERE IS NO NEED FOR AN ELECTION TO UNDO AN ELECTION THAT AUTHORIZED THE BONDS IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND THEN DOWN HERE, YOU'VE CHANGED THE BOND PETITION TO CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION PETITION. YOU KNOW, IT'S MY PROPOSAL THAT WE MAKE ALL CEOS GO TO THE VOTERS AT SOME POINT. SO IF THAT WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CHARTER PROPOSALS, WOULD WE NEED THIS SECOND PARAGRAPH THAT YOU PROVIDED HERE? AND SHOULD WE JUST RELY ON WHAT YOU SAID IN THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES? [00:20:02] IF I'M CREATING AN ELECTION FOR A CEO, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A PETITION OF A CEO. IS THAT WHICH SECTION NUMBER ARE YOU LOOKING AT? SORRY, THE DEFINITION. IT'S IN THE DEFINITIONS OF BOND PETITION. GOVERNMENT CODE 1251001. AND IT'S KIND OF A LARGER QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, AS WE TRY TO PUT DIFFERENT PROPOSALS TOGETHER, THERE MIGHT BE A COUPLE THAT CONFLICT. HOW DO WE UNIFY THOSE? SO LATER ON, WE DECIDE THAT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE ALL CEOS GO TO A VOTE OF THE VOTERS. SHOULD WE COME BACK TO THIS CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION PETITION AND REMOVE IT? WELL, YEAH. SO, I MEAN, I THINK I THINK ONE OF THE ISSUES IS LET ME PULL UP MY NOTES AS WELL. HANG ON ONE SECOND. HERE WE GO. SO I THINK ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD WAS, WAS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, CEOS AND BONDS ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNDER THE LAW AND THEY HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. AND SO IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS SOME CONFLATION BETWEEN THE TWO IN THE PROPOSAL AND. SO I GUESS WHAT'S THE QUESTION AGAIN THEN? I'M STILL. SO MY QUESTION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY ADDRESSING HERE IN THIS SECTION. SO YOU WERE TRYING TO CLEAN UP WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE BOND PETITION. AND SO IN DOING SO, YOU CHANGED IT TO A CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION PETITION, WHICH MADE ME WONDER, ONE OF MY LATER ON PROPOSALS THAT YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO YET IS THAT I WOULD LIKE ALL CEOS TO GO TO A VOTE OF THE VOTERS. AND IF WE WERE ALL TO AGREE THAT UP HERE AND PUT THAT IN THERE, WOULD WE NEED TO COME BACK TO THIS SECTION AND JUST EVEN REMOVE THIS PETITION? BECAUSE ACCORDING TO YOUR FIRST PARAGRAPH OF YOUR LEGAL SUGGESTION, IT SAYS, IF THERE'S ALREADY AN ELECTION TO AUTHORIZE BONDS, THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE AN ELECTION TO UNDO IT BECAUSE VOTERS ALREADY GOT TO HAVE A SAY ON IT. RIGHT? CORRECT. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO VERIFY, IS THAT IF WE WERE TO AGREE LATER ON ABOUT DOING THAT, SHOULD WE EVEN NOT EVEN HAVE THIS, THIS SECTION? YEAH. I MEAN, YES, YES. SO, SO THE, I THINK THE POINT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A REMOVE A REDUNDANT ELECTION REQUIREMENT, THAT'S UNNECESSARY BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BY STATE LAW, YOU ALREADY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS FOR GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ANYWAY. CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION CAN BE ISSUED WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. BUT IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT. YOU CAN. BUT IT IT'S I MEAN, IT'S UNUSUAL TO DO SO. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANYONE ELSE WHO DOES THAT. BUT I MEAN, DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T DO IT. MAYOR. YES. MR. RELATED QUESTION OR COMMENT THAT I THINK WHERE YOU'RE GOING, WHICH MAKES SENSE, IS A BOND PETITION WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY COME ABOUT FOR, FOR A, A BOND WHICH COUNCIL HAS ISSUED THAT WAS NOT VOTER APPROVED. RIGHT. AND, AND SO TO ME, THE LANGUAGE HERE COULD BE CHANGED TO ALIGN WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE BOND PETITION MEANS THE PROCESS FOR CITIZENS VOTING ON A BOND WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY COUNCIL THAT WAS NOT APPROVED BY VOTE OF CITIZENS. AND THEN IF IN THE FUTURE, IF IN ANOTHER PART OF THE CHARTER, WE SAY WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE CEOS TO ALSO BE VOTED ON, THEN WE CAN STILL HAVE THIS DEFINITION AND WE'RE CLEAN. AND THAT BACK TO THE THING OF MAKING SURE WE DON'T HAVE DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN DIFFERENT PIECES OF THE. SO IF WE WANT TO SEPARATE THOSE TWO, WE CAN MAKE. MAKE THIS DEFINITION, I THINK, INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER CEOS ARE VOTED ON OR NOT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD CHANGE TO IT. YEAH, BECAUSE IT'LL JUST BE A SMALL PACKAGE OF THINGS THAT WOULD STILL BE OUT THERE PENDING THAT YOU COULD HAVE A PETITION TO. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I DIDN'T THINK THAT COUNCIL COULD APPROVE ANY AD VALOREM BOND WITHOUT IT GOING TO ELECTION. YEAH, NOT AD VALOREM. WE'RE TALKING JUST COS COS. BUT OUR [00:25:04] CEO BONDS ARE GUARANTEED BY AD VALOREM TAXES. SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT DEFINITION MEANS. YOU CAN HAVE A REVENUE BOND. YEAH. OUR EXISTING CO BONDS. YEAH. OUR OUR EXISTING ARE ALL GUARANTEED BY AD VALOREM TAXES. AND TO STAY ON THIS DEFINITION. IS THERE ANY STATE LAW ABOUT THE PERCENT OF THE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS? IS THIS FIVE THE THE FLOOR OR CAN YOU GO ANY LOWER THAN THAT? YOU KNOW, AS THE CITY GROWS, THAT 5% GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER. IF WE WANTED TO MAKE IT 3%, DO WE HAVE THAT ABILITY? I THINK THAT SET FORTH IN STATE LAW. THE QUESTION, THOUGH, IS YOU CAN'T MAKE IT. YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT HIGHER. THE QUESTION IS, CAN YOU MAKE IT LOWER, MORE RESTRICTIVE? AND I THINK YOU CAN AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION, YOU CAN. BUT I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT SECTION OF THE TAX CODE TO VERIFY THAT BECAUSE. I MEAN, THAT IS THE GENERAL RULE. BUT I JUST I NEED TO READ THAT SECTION OF THE TAX CODE TO SEE IF IT IF IT WHAT THAT LANGUAGE IS. LET'S SEE. OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM, THIS IS A SIMPLE ONE, BUT I AM NOT JUST GOING INTO FURTHER EXPLANATION. ON 4.05, THE ADOPTION OF CODE. YOU KNOW, YOU DO HAVE IN THERE WHAT THE C OR C RECOMMENDED. BUT THEN IT SAYS MOST CONSTRUCTION CODES ARE ADOPTED BY REFERENCE AND IT SAYS THE LANGUAGE AND THEN STOPS. WAS THERE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THAT PARTICULAR SECTION THAT GOT LEFT OFF? BRAD. IT'S ON LOOKS LIKE IT'S LIKE THE ONE FOR PAGE 4 OR 5 AND IT'S 4.05. ADOPTION OF CODE. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT. LET ME SEE. I WAS QUESTIONING BECAUSE MOST OF YOUR STUFF SAYS SUGGESTED LANGUAGE. AND THIS ONE JUST SAYS THE LANGUAGE AND STOPS. YEAH, THAT WAS A THAT'S AN ERROR. I JUST I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT. LET ME SEE. WHY AM I. HERE? BUT. SO I THINK I THINK SO I THINK WHAT THEY WERE GETTING AT IN THIS ONE IS THAT. WHEN YOU SAY AN LINKED ON THE CITY WEBSITE AND MADE IT IN A PUBLIC FORM TO ALLOW. SO THE LINKAGE, I THINK IT'S I THINK WHERE WE WERE GOING WITH THAT ONE IS THAT THE LINKAGE TO THE INTERNATIONAL CODES ON THE CITY WEBSITE, THOSE ARE. YOU HAVE TO PURCHASE. SUBSCRIPTIONS TO THOSE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN LINK THEM IN THERE. USUALLY WE. IN THE CITY CODE ITSELF, WHEN YOU GO TO MUNICODE OR WHATEVER IT IS, IT SAYS YOU'VE ADOPTED THE 2024 IPMC. WE KEEP COPIES OF THAT HERE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN PROVIDE A LINK TO IT IN THE CITY CODE AS AN ACTIVE LINK BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHTS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS AND THAT KIND OF THING. THAT WAS THE QUESTION. I DON'T THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT IS INTENDED HERE, IS THAT IN THE CODE YOU ONLY SEE A REFERENCE TO IT. AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO SEE IT, THEY COME HERE TO GET A COPY TO, TO CHECK, LIKE CHECK OUT A COPY BASICALLY, AND REVIEW IT. SO I DON'T KNOW, CHARLES, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE A LINK TO THE ACTIVE CODE OR NOT. I JUST DON'T KNOW. I THINK WE HAVE TO PURCHASE THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULD SHARE IT THROUGH OUR WEBSITE. NO, WE CAN'T SHARE IT. I THINK WE CAN MIGHT GET AWAY WITH PUTTING A PDF VERSION UP ON THERE, BUT I'D PROBABLY STILL BE PUSHING THE LIMITS WITH ICC OVER THERE. YEAH. THAT'S SO SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE REFERENCE TO THE LINK. YOU KNOW, A HYPERLINK IS WHAT'S UNUSUAL AND AND POSSIBLY NOT PERMISSIBLE. IS THERE. IN PARTICULAR TO LOOK AT THAT. YOU SEE ME PROCESSING WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A BRAD QUESTION OR THIS IS A CHARLES AND JORDAN [00:30:04] QUESTION. WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE WE'VE GOT OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES AND WE CURRENTLY ALREADY HAVE ADOPTED INTERNATIONAL CODES. SO WHAT ARE WE DOING RIGHT NOW TO MAKE THOSE AVAILABLE? IS IT WE ARE JUST KEEPING COPIES IF SOMEONE WANTS IT. IF THEY WANT TO REVIEW A COPY, THEY CAN COME TO CITY HALL AND REVIEW A COPY. I DON'T HAVE A WAY FOR THEM TO CHECK A COPY OUT, BUT WE CAN PRODUCE A COPY THAT THEY CAN SIT DOWN AT THE TABLE AND LOOK AT ALL THEY WANT TO. YEAH. AND THAT'S COMMON FOR I MEAN, THAT'S COMMONLY HOW THAT IF SOMEONE WANTS TO REVIEW IT, THEY COME TO THE CITY, THEY LOOK AT THE CITY'S COPY OF IT, OR THEY GET THEIR OWN. AND I THINK WHERE WE WERE GOING WITH THAT WAS THE LANGUAGE. THE REST OF THE SENTENCE SHOULD READ THE LANGUAGE ON LINE 462, I GUESS, AND LINKED ON THE CITY WEBSITE SHOULD BE REMOVED. YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S COMMON TO SAY REFERENCED AND MADE PUBLIC IN A FORM TO ALLOW THEM. BUT THE LINKAGE PART, THE HYPERLINK PART IS NOT WHAT WE CAN'T DO THAT. I, I'M ACTUALLY DONE WITH THE LIST. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS QUESTIONS ON THE LIST ABOUT THAT. NOBODY ELSE IS. OKAY. YEAH. SO, SO THAT FOR YOU CRC MEMBERS, THAT LIST WAS PRETTY SHORT, RIGHT. AND IT WAS ALL ABOUT SOME LEGAL LANGUAGE IN A FEW PLACES THAT THAT THERE WERE RECOMMENDED ATTORNEY CHANGES. OH YEAH. SO WHO'S THAT? LIKE I SAID, I'VE GOT, I'VE GOT OTHERS THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH. YEAH. ONE. JUST MY THOUGHT SUGGESTION ON MAYBE A PROCESS THAT WE CAN FOLLOW IS THAT WE HAVE, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD TO START KICKING AROUND. WHAT ITEMS DO WE FEEL SHOULD HAVE THEIR OWN SEPARATE LINE ITEM ON VOTE? RIGHT. AND, AND, AND THEN THE REST OF THE CHANGES, THE MANY CHANGES, SOME SUBSTANTIAL AND SOME, YOU KNOW, JUST TYPO FIXING KIND OF THINGS. ARE WE COMFORTABLE WE COUNCIL COMFORTABLE BEING IN A SINGLE VOTE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN KIND OF GET TO SOME CONSENSUS ON THE COUNCIL SIDE, THAT MAY HELP BRAD WITH HIS, YOU KNOW, ANALYSIS OF CAN THAT KIND OF CATCH ALL? DOES THAT CATCH ALL WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF TOPICS IN IT MAKES SENSE, OR DOES HE RECOMMEND THAT WE NEED TO BREAK IT DOWN, DOWN FURTHER? I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. BUT IF YOU ALL LIKE THAT PROCESS, I THINK THAT THE, THE LIST OF CLOSE VOTES AND ALL, YOU KNOW, CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO IT. AGAIN, I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT NOW. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT IT RIGHT NOW, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A CHANCE ON THE COUNCIL, ON THE FORUM, THE CRC FORUM, THERE IS A THREAD WHICH MR. OWEN INITIATED CALLED SPLIT VOTES REQUESTED BY COUNCILOR PRINCE. AND THERE'S JUST COUNCIL COUNTING THEM QUICKLY. THERE'S, I DON'T KNOW, 7 OR 8 MAYBE. AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD ONE TO REVIEW FOR SURE. IN ADDITION TO THE SPLIT VOTES, THERE MAY BE SOME THAT WE THINK ARE. WHILE IT MAY HAVE BEEN UNANIMOUS OR NEAR UNANIMOUS FROM CRC, WE MAY THINK ARE SO IMPORTANT THAT THEY NEED TO BE CALLED OUT FOR CITIZENS. SO TO ME, THE NEXT STEPS ARE FOR US AS COUNCIL TO GET STARTED ON THAT THAT DISCUSSION. AND YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO WEIGH IN ON ANY OF THEM HERE, BUT CERTAINLY THAT WOULD BE MY MY TAKE ON PROCESS. AND AND THEN I'LL INVITE RESPONSE TO THAT. I HAVE ONE MORE SPECIFIC QUESTION FOR BRAD, BUT I'LL HOLD OFF ON THAT TO SEE IF ANYBODY. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. AND THEN JUST A TECHNICAL ASPECT. I JUST LEARNED IF YOU'RE LOGGED INTO THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND YOU TRY TO OPEN A LINK, IT'LL HAVE AN ERROR SCREEN. BUT IF YOU LOG OFF THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND OPEN IT, IT'LL OPEN. OH IT'S INTERESTING. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A COMPUTER PROBLEM OR IT IS A COMPUTER PROBLEM. STAN'S WORKING ON GETTING IT FIXED. I HAD AT MY HOUSE OR SOMETHING THAT WAS CAUSING HAPPEN. SO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THIS. MR. THIS MR. BENFIELD, JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, ONE OF THE TOPICS OF DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD BACK IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN TOUCHED ON, BUT I THINK IS RELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION THAT MR. PRINCE IS DISCUSSING HERE IS SOME OF US, PERHAPS NOT ALL OF US, WERE [00:35:06] UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PURPOSE OF DOING THE FULL REWRITE IS THAT THE CHARTER COULD THEN BE PASSED IN ONE VOTE, RIGHT. INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, MR. OWEN, YOU GOT UP ON JUNE 5TH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND YOU DID A VERY LENGTHY PRESENTATION OF ALL THE DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS THAT WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE A VOTE. AND IT WAS IN THE 20S, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS AT THAT MEETING WHEN THE DISCUSSION WAS, WELL, LET'S JUST DO A FULL REWRITE, RIGHT? WHAT WE'VE LEARNED IS THAT'S LIKELY NOT CAPABLE. IT'S LIKELY NOT POSSIBLE. WE PROBABLY CAN'T DO THE CHARTER REVIEW IN ONE VOTE OR NOT. THE CHARTER REVIEW, THE CHARTER APPROVAL IN ONE VOTE. THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE LIKELY WOULDN'T WANT TO VOTE ON ANYWAY IN ONE VOTE, LIKE TERM LIMITS OR. HOW LONG SOMEBODY SERVES. MAYBE WE WOULD BREAK THOSE OUT INTENTIONALLY. SO YOU END UP WITH 5 OR 6, BUT WE MAY STILL END UP WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF ADDENDA OR LIKE PETITIONS. RIGHT? AND SO ONE OF MY FEARS AND WE THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT IS THAT I QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT THE CRC WOULD HAVE MADE SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU HAD IF YOU HAD KNOWN THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE A LA CARTE AND, AND VOTED 20 DIFFERENT TIMES, BECAUSE THE SCENARIO BECOMES INSTEAD OF A YES OR NO VOTE ON THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. NOW IT BECOMES A SCENARIO WHERE THESE THREE MIGHT GET APPROVED. THESE 3RD MAY NOT GET APPROVED, AND IT COMPLETELY DISRUPTS THE ENTIRE FLOW OF THE OF THE DOCUMENT. RIGHT. AND SO THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I MIGHT INHERENTLY SUPPORT IN WHAT YOU RECOMMENDED, BUT ACTUALLY MAY COME BACK AND SAY, I DON'T RECOMMEND THAT WE MAKE THAT CHANGE OUT OF FEAR THAT THAT PARTICULAR LINE ITEM WOULD BE REJECTED, AND THEREFORE IT WOULD CAUSE IT WOULD CREATE CHAOS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE DOCUMENT. RIGHT. AND SO TO MR. PRINCE'S POINT, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT, IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL DOCUMENT, BUT WE MAY NOT BE WILLING TO ACCEPT. I MIGHT NOT BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS OUT OF FEAR THAT THIS GOT APPROVED, BUT THIS DIDN'T GET APPROVED. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? RIGHT. SO I JUST WANTED TO BE, YOU KNOW, CLEAR ON THAT PARTICULAR. AND THE OTHER THING I'LL JUST SAY IS I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY ON COUNCIL THAT, YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL ALWAYS HAS THE RIGHT TO GO BACK AND BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND GET LEGAL ADVICE. BUT I ALWAYS FIND IT TO BE THE INTEGRITY OF THE COUNCIL, ALWAYS WANT TO DISCLOSE AS MUCH AS WE CAN IN PUBLIC. AND THAT WAS JUST TO ADDRESS MAYBE SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT I THINK WE ALWAYS WANT TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT, THAT I THINK THERE ARE SOME DECISIONS THAT ARE HAVE TO BE MADE ON SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD OR COULD PROCEED FORWARD, AND THEN WE MIGHT JUST END UP WITH 20 DIFFERENT PETITIONS. YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS MENTIONED. I DON'T KNOW HOW APPROPRIATE IT IS. BUT MISS CHAVARRIA HAD DID SOME RESEARCH ON WAYS THAT POTENTIALLY MAYBE WE COULD GET IT DONE IN ONE VOTE OR TALK TO THAT. YEAH, PLEASE DO SO. I HAD SHARED WITH A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WHEN I WENT TO THE TML CONFERENCE, A CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH MR. MIKE MARTIN, WHO'S THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, REGARDING BALLOT LANGUAGE AND WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHOULD WE DECIDE TO DO THIS ALL IN ONE BALLOT MEASURE? FOR SMALLER CITIES? IT HAS BEEN DONE. LIBERTY HILL, PRINCETON, IOWA COLONY, SOME ARE SOME OF THE MORE RECENT ONES. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S CITIES THAT HAVE ADOPTED OR THEY'RE JUST NOW, YOU KNOW, BECOMING, YOU KNOW, MUNICIPALITIES. AND SO OF COURSE, THEY HAVE TO ADOPT AN ORIGINAL CHARTER. FOR US, IT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE A CHARTER. AND SO THERE WAS A CHANCE THAT WE COULD BE CHALLENGED LEGALLY, THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY JUST SOME WAY TO CIRCUMVENT, YOU KNOW, GOING THROUGH AMENDMENTS. AND AND SO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS MENTIONED. AND I, YOU KNOW, ASKED I SAID, WELL, IF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, YOU KNOW, LOOKS AT OUR BALLOT LANGUAGE, DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S, YOU KNOW, EXPLAINED ENOUGH OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE REPERCUSSIONS? THEY SAID, WELL, YOU GOT SEVEN DAYS TO SEND IT BACK TO YOU WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEN YOU CAN REWRITE IT AND SEND IT BACK TO HER. AND IF AFTER THE SECOND TIME THEY DON'T LIKE IT, THEY CAN ACTUALLY MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE SHOULD BE, OR IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO BE EVEN PUT ON THE BALLOT. SO THERE ARE CITIES THAT HAVE DONE IT AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED LEGALLY. BUT AS OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS TOLD US, IS THAT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT CAN'T HAPPEN. AND THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS ON THERE THAT IF WE PUT IT ALL ON ONE, WE RUN THE RISK OF IT NOT PASSING AT ALL. THERE'S THERE'S SIGNIFICANT CONCERN ABOUT THE TERM LIMITS ON THERE. AND SO IF IF WE GET VOTERS THAT SAY, ABSOLUTELY NOT, THAT ONE THING COULD CHARGE LIKE, YOU KNOW, CAUSE US TO WAIT ANOTHER TWO YEARS TO GET IT BACK ON THE BALLOT. SO THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO SEE 18 BALLOT MEASURES OUT THERE, OF COURSE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET THEM DOWN AS MANY AS WE CAN. BUT IT'S [00:40:05] GOING TO TAKE SOME WORK. SO BUT JUST TO SAY THAT IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED, THAT WOULD BE LYING. IT HAS HAPPENED. THERE'S SEVERAL CITIES ACROSS TEXAS THAT HAVE DONE IT. IT IS NOT THE NORM, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN UNCHALLENGED. THEY'VE WENT AHEAD AND DONE IT AND THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, GOT THE LANGUAGE TAKEN CARE OF. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT LAGO VISTA WERE AN OUTSKIRT OF AUSTIN. YOU KNOW, THERE'S COULD BE ANYBODY NEW HERE CAN CHALLENGE THAT. THERE'S A VERY SHORT WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO DO IT. WE WERE TOLD THAT IT'S TEN DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S 30 TO 45 DAY WINDOW FOR THE STATE TO RESPOND TO THAT. BUT WE RUN THAT RISK. DO YOU MIND IF I JUST FINISH? SURE. SO THE ONLY OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO SAY IS, YOU KNOW, YOU SEE SOME OF THESE DEFINITIONS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND IT WAS MY IT WAS THE IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION, I BELIEVE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS CONSENSUS. I FELT LIKE THERE WAS MAYBE CONSENSUS IS THAT IF THERE HAD TO BE A REWRITE OF SOMETHING TO MAKE IT MORE LEGALLY SOUND OR MORE COHESIVE TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, THAT LEGAL WOULD TRY TO REWRITE IT. BUT IF THERE WAS EVER AMBIGUITY ON WHAT THE INTENTION OF WHAT THE CRC WAS TRYING TO DO, THAT WE WOULD SEND THAT BACK TO THE LIAISON TO GET CLARIFICATION FROM THE CRC TO MAKE SURE, EVEN THOUGH WE MAY BE CHANGING IT IN THE WORDS, THE GOAL IS NOT TO CHANGE THE INTENT OF WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE WHAT YOU WHAT YOU APPROVED. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET IT BUTTONED UP IN A WAY THAT IT'S LEGALLY SOUND. AND DID YOU HAVE A AND I WOULD JUST SAY ALONG THIS PROCESS, IF THERE'S EVER SOMETHING THAT YOU FEEL LIKE IS CHANGING THE INTENT, I THINK YOU SHOULD BE VERY VOCAL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. MR. OWEN, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? THANK YOU ALL. AND JASON, LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON. JUST A COUPLE QUICK COMMENTS. AS THE KIND OF THE SPOKESPERSON VOTED ON BY THE COMMITTEE. I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID, ADAM AND AMANDA, PARTICULARLY WITH THE NUMBER OF BALLOT PROPOSITIONS. I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU ALL IN THE PACKET PRESENTED LAST JUNE. AND I THINK AGAIN MORE RECENTLY. IF NOT, I CAN DIG IT UP FOR YOU. THERE WAS AN ANALYSIS ON THE NUMBER OF PROPOSITIONS AND WHERE THE VOTERS FALL OFF, AND I BELIEVE IT WENT UP TO 15 BALLOT PROPOSITIONS AND THE VOTERS HANDLED IT JUST FINE. SO, YES, WHEN WE DID THE REWRITE, IT WAS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OR THINKING LOGIC THAT. IT WOULD BE ONE SHOT, ALL OR NOTHING. BUT I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WASH OVER A COUPLE OF ISSUES. I WOULD SAY THE BIG THING ON LINKAGE IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO PEEL THINGS OUT AND VOTE ON THEM INDIVIDUALLY. INITIALLY, WHEN WE DID THE REVIEW, WE WERE DEBATING TERM LIMITS AND TERM EXTENSIONS, AND THE PRIORITY FOR US AT THAT TIME WAS GET THE EXTENSIONS THROUGH AND LEAVE LIMITS OFF THE BALLOT AND COME BACK TO THAT ANOTHER TIME. NOW THAT THEY'RE ON THE SAME CHARTER WITH THE REWRITE, I WOULD SAY IF YOU PULL THOSE TWO PIECES OUT, THOSE TWO PROBABLY NEED TO BE LINKED, BECAUSE WHAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE IS THE WORST OF BOTH WORLDS, WHERE THEY SAY, HELL NO TO THE EXTENSION. AND OH, BY THE WAY, YES, WE WANT THE LIMITS. IT'S KIND OF LIKE ONE OR THE OTHER. WITH REGARD TO THE QUORUM, IT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE MAYOR AND OR THE PRO TEM. AND WHAT WAS OUR INTENT BEHIND THAT? IT WAS ABSOLUTELY OUR INTENT TO REQUIRE EITHER THE MAYOR OR THE PRO TEM TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER TO HAVE A LEGITIMATE QUORUM TO TRANSACT BUSINESS. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN TO TRANSACT BUSINESS. SO YOU HAVE CERTAIN EDGE CASES AND THINGS THAT ARE FINE, BUT THE CURRENT CHARTER REQUIRES THE PRESENCE OF EITHER THE MAYOR PRO TEM OR THE MAYOR FOR QUORUM. WE DEBATED THAT AT LENGTH, AND ULTIMATELY WE LANDED THAT. YES, AT THE END OF THE DAY, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO BE THE KEEPER OF THE MEETING. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO FACILITATE THE MEETING. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO MAKE THE CALL ON MOTIONS, POINTS OF ORDERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND SO WE FELT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE HAVING A MEETING TO TRANSACT BUSINESS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, YOU NEED A DEDICATED LEADER, NOT JUST FOR, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, RANDOM COUNCILORS COMING TOGETHER. AND WHILE HAVING A TECHNICAL LEGAL QUORUM FOR THE STATE AND PERHAPS EVEN AN ILLEGAL WALKING QUORUM, DEPENDING UPON HOW YOU COME TOGETHER, WE FELT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE TRANSACTING CITY BUSINESS, THAT THE PRESENCE OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM OR THE MAYOR IS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED FOR THE FAIR CONDUCT OF THE MEETING. SO THAT WAS A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT CAME TO MIND WHILE I WAS HEARING YOUR RECAP. THE FINAL DEFINITIONS ABSOLUTELY MAKE THE DEFINITIONS LEGAL. YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT LAWYERS. WE TOOK OUR [00:45:01] BEST STAB AT IT, DID OUR RESEARCH. BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE DRAFTED THAT'S WRONG, WE WE SAID, BRAD WILL CATCH IT AND WE PUT IT THROUGH. SO YES, PLEASE CORRECT OUR WORK THERE. AND NO PROBLEMS OR OFFENSE TAKEN BY BY US ON THAT REGARD. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. PRINCE. A COUPLE OF FOLLOW ON QUESTIONS. ONE ONE FOR YOU, ROBERT. SO ON, ON ON THE QUORUM. I THINK MY MY THINKING ON THE LANGUAGE THAT WE WERE JUST HAVING IS AVOIDING A SITUATION WHERE TWO PEOPLE, NAMELY THE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM, ESSENTIALLY HAVE A POCKET VETO THAT CAN PREVENT COUNCIL FROM MEETING. AND SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME WAY FOR COUNCIL TO MEET. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE THE PEOPLE WHO RUN A GOOD MEETING RUN THE MEETINGS. AND SO IF IT JUST MEANS, OH, WE CAN'T MEET THURSDAY, LET'S MEET, YOU KNOW, ON MONDAY INSTEAD, I'M WITH YOU. SO MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO HANDLE THERE. BUT I DO THINK THERE IS A CONCERN THAT YOU CAN GET A SITUATION WHERE FIVE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL ARE AT ODDS WITH TWO WHO HAPPEN TO BE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM, AND IT JUST SHUTS EVERYTHING DOWN. THAT'S WHERE WE WERE JUST TRYING TO AVOID A SITUATION WHERE NOBODY'S IN CHARGE AND EVERYBODY'S A CHIEF. YEAH. AND WHAT GETS DONE. SO IT'S A GOOD POINT. I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE ACCOUNT. I'D LIKE TO. MR. WEST, I'M SORRY. WHAT I HAVE SEEN IN SITUATIONS LIKE THAT WHERE YOUR MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM WEREN'T WEREN'T AVAILABLE, THEN THE DUTY FELL TO THE MOST SENIOR COUNCIL PERSON. THAT'S BEEN PRETTY COMMON IN OTHER CITIES. AND I THINK EVEN IN SOME CHARTERS. NO, WHAT THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IS AND WHO'S IN CHARGE IF THERE IS A MEETING. YES. THAT'S A FAIR, FAIR ADDITION. YEAH. THERE'S THERE'S TYPICALLY A PROCESS FOR THAT LINE OF SUCCESSION, IF YOU WILL, SO THAT IF THE MAYOR ISN'T AVAILABLE, THE MAYOR PRO TEM, THE MAYOR PRO TEM ISN'T AVAILABLE. THEN THE THEN TYPICALLY, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE THE MEMBERS WHO CONSTITUTE A QUORUM FOR THE PURPOSES OF THAT MEETING, ELECT A TEMPORARY MAYOR PRO TEM WHO IS THE PRO TEM FOR THAT MEETING JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF, YOU KNOW, ADMINISTRATION. SO THAT'S WHAT I'VE SEEN HAPPEN IN THE PAST. YEAH. I WAS JUST GIVING YOU OUR BACKGROUND, OUR PERSPECTIVE AND OUR INTENT. HELPFUL. SO WHEN I SAY SENIOR, I DON'T MEAN THE OLDEST, I JUST MEAN WHOEVER THE LONGEST SERVING. IN THIS CASE, I'VE MADE IT PUBLICLY KNOWN THAT I'M BOTH THE OLDEST AND THE LONGEST SERVING. SO YEAH, I'M SORRY, DID YOU COMMENT ON THAT TOPIC? I WAS ACTUALLY JUST GOING TO MENTION THAT IN, IN THAT LITTLE BOX TO THE RIGHT, HE ACTUALLY INCLUDED THAT SAYS WHEN THE. IT SAYS IN SUCH INSTANCE, THE FIRST ITEM AT THE MEETING WILL BE THE APPOINTMENT OF A PERSON TO SERVE AS CHAIRPERSON FOR SAID MEETING. SO THAT THAT KIND OF FILLS YOUR CONCERN. AND THEN OF COURSE, IF Y'ALL WANT TO DO THE, YOU KNOW, MOST SENIOR, THAT'S FINE AS WELL. BUT I THINK THAT THAT THE THE INTENT IS STILL KEPT THERE. AND, AND WE'RE, WE'RE INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, IF WE COME TO 5 OR 4, WE CAN STILL MEET THE FLOOR STILL. MISTER PRINCE'S A DIFFERENT SUBJECT. SO, BRAD, WHEN THE CRC WAS DISCUSSING TERM LIMITS, THEY ALWAYS DISCUSSED IT AS IF IT WAS A NUMBER OF TERMS. AND THEREFORE THERE WAS THIS LINKAGE BETWEEN OUR TERMS TWO YEAR OR THREE YEARS. THE QUESTION I ALWAYS HAD, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO THROW A MONKEY WRENCH IN THEIR DISCUSSION, SO I DIDN'T EVER RAISE IT TO THEM. WAS CAN TERM LIMITS BE EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF YEARS OF SERVICE? SO IT BECOMES INDEPENDENT OF THE THE LENGTH OF TERM. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE IF WE SAID, YOU KNOW, A TERM LIMIT WOULD BE NINE YEARS, THEN THAT MIGHT IF TERMS WERE THREE, THAT WOULD BE THREE TERMS OR TERMS WERE TWO. THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, FOUR AND A HALF TERMS AND YOU COULDN'T GET ELECTED. THE FIFTH DOES A DOES A TERM LIMIT HAVE TO BE NUMBER OF TERMS VERSUS CALENDAR YEARS? IT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A CASE THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THAT, BUT WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS THAT BY DEFINITION, ONCE SOMEONE HAS BEEN ELECTED TO THE OFFICE, THEY ENJOY ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THAT OF THAT OFFICE, WHICH INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, A THREE YEAR TERM, WHATEVER THE LENGTH OF THE TERM IS. AND SO IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO WRITE IT IN SUCH A WAY SO THAT VOTERS UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY'RE ELECTING THIS PERSON INSTEAD OF A THREE YEAR TERM. YOU ONLY GET TO SERVE TWO OF THEM. I MEAN, THAT I WOULD FIND VERY CHALLENGING TO DEFEND IN COURT. HONESTLY, I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT HAPPEN BEFORE, BUT I JUST AT FIRST BLUSH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REALLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE HOW DO YOU THEN DEFINE THE LENGTH OF A TERM? RIGHT. IT'S GOING TO BE DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER OR NOT I'VE BEEN ELECTED TWICE BEFORE OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, TWICE BEFORE. AND SO THEN I'M ONLY ELIGIBLE FOR A PORTION OF THIS LAST TERM. AND THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE NECESSARILY ALSO CREATING THE NEED FOR AN UNEXPIRED TERM TO BE FILLED, WHICH MIGHT REQUIRE A RUNOFF, WHICH CAUSES WHICH THERE'S COME WITH COSTS AND SO FORTH. SO I UNDERSTAND. LET ME REWARD MY QUESTION. TO ME, IT SEEMS VERY SIMPLE THAT THE LANGUAGE COULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE, A PERSON IS INELIGIBLE FOR OFFICE IF THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY SERVED EIGHT OR [00:50:07] MORE YEARS IN OFFICE. AND THEN ALL OF THOSE, THOSE CONCERNS YOU HAD SEEM LIKE THEY GO AWAY. WHAT HE'S SAYING IS INELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE INTO IT. IF YOU SERVE SEVEN AND A HALF, YOU COULD END UP SERVING NINE AND A HALF. YEAH, BUT YOU JUST COULDN'T GO INTO IT WITH MORE THAN EIGHT, RIGHT? YEAH, EXACTLY. SO I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THAT'S A I'D HAVE TO, I, I, I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU COULDN'T DO THAT. BUT BY THAT SAME TOKEN, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. I'VE NOT SEEN THAT KIND OF A LIMITATION BEFORE. BUT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE ELECTION CODE, YOU KNOW, MEMORIZED, BUT UNLESS THAT WERE PROHIBITED BY STATE LAW, CERTAINLY YOU COULD ADOPT THAT IN YOUR HOME RULE CHARTER. I CAN'T I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I DON'T I'M CERTAINLY NOT AWARE THAT THAT IS A PROHIBITION IN STATE LAW. AND I WOULDN'T ASK YOU TO TO DO A DEFINITIVE ANSWER ON THE FLY, BUT I'M JUST SUGGESTING MAYBE THERE'S A WAY WE CAN ELIMINATE THE CONCERN OF THE LINKAGE BETWEEN THE LENGTH OF TERMS AND THE LIMITATION ON TIME OF SERVICE. YEAH. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT SOMETHING OUT. I JUST WAS LOOKING. LIBERTY HILL WAS A GENERAL LAW CITY UNTIL 2024 RIGHT NOW ADOPTED. AND THEY WENT TO HOME RULE. RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU ADOPT YOUR HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, IT IS ADOPTED AS AN UP OR DOWN. IT'S NOT SENT AS PROPOSITION, RIGHT. THAT WAS NOT A GENERAL. YEAH. IT WENT FROM GENERAL TO HOME. RIGHT. SO BUT THAT WAS NOT AN ADOPTION OF A OF A CHARTER REPLACING A PRIOR CHARTER. RIGHT. IT WAS NOT IT WAS A BRAND NEW CHARTER. YEAH. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS LOOKING AT THAT WAS LIKE THERE WAS SOME THAT WERE AND SOME THAT AREN'T. AND I THINK YOUR MICS OFF. MR. ABRAHAM OH MY MIC. I'M SORRY. I SAID YES. I WAS LOOKING AT THAT TOO WHEN I WAS BRINGING THAT UP IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, THAT, THAT THAT WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT HE HAD GIVEN ME AS HAD GIVEN ME AS AN EXAMPLE. BUT THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHERS RUNNING BACK ALL THE WAY TO 2013. SUNNYVALE, IOWA COLONY IS FAIRLY NEW. JUSTIN. LAVON, GARDEN RIDGE, WOLFORD, BERKSHIRE. BUT SOME OF THESE WERE. THEY WENT FROM GENERAL TO HOME, AND THEN THE. YEAH. SO THEY HAD TO REACH THE 5000 INHABITANT INHABITANTS TO BE ABLE TO MEET THAT CRITERIA, TO BE ABLE TO DO IT. AND SO IT WAS IT'S DO YOU HAVE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ADOPTING A COMPLETELY NEW HOME RULE CHARTER OR AMENDING THE EXISTING CHARTER OR A NEW COMPLETE ADOPTION AND NOT IT HAS TO BE DIFFERENT ENOUGH THAT IT CAN'T BE MISCONSTRUED AS JUST A AMENDMENTS TO IT. SO I THINK WE REPRESENT SUNNYVALE. I'M LOOKING AT THEY THEY APPEAR TO HAVE ADOPTED THEIR FIRST HOME RULE CHARTER IN 2013. YEAH. AND PRIOR TO THAT, THEY WERE ALSO GENERAL LAW. YEAH. AND THEY HAVE SINCE THEN ADOPTED A NEW, I BELIEVE, A NEW HOME. THEY AMENDED IT IN 2019, ACCORDING TO THIS. BUT I DON'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF THE AMENDMENT. IF I MIGHT JUST JUMP IN. I MEAN, I THINK THE RIGHT ANSWER IS, IS IF WE CAN GET THE BLESSINGS OF THE STATE, GREAT. IF WE CAN'T, I THINK YOUR RECOMMEND, JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY DID SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS RIGHT. YOU KNOW, AND I AND I THINK YOUR ADVICE HAS BEEN SOUND. AND IF WE CAN, I MEAN, AND SO I MEAN MY THE. SO I'VE ALSO GOT SOME INFORMATION ON THIS. THE SECRETARY OF STATE PROCESS, RIGHT. THAT WHAT THAT WHAT THAT IS SO. UNDER UNDER 273 OF THE ELECTION CODE, EITHER THE CITY OR A, AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR A VOTER OF THE CITY CAN SUBMIT A PROPOSED A BALLOT PROPOSITION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF OR OF THE CITY ORDERING AN ELECTION. THE SECRETARY HAS SEVEN DAYS TO REVIEW IT, AND IF THEY DON'T FLAG IT AS DEFECTIVE, THEN IT IT YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T APPROVE IT. BUT IT'S EITHER IS IT DEFECTIVE OR NOT? DOES IT PROVIDE IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF, OF THE MEASURE ITSELF. IT'S JUST DOES THIS MEASURE PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO THE VOTERS TO, FOR THE FOR THE SUBJECT? AND DOES IT PUT THEM ON NOTICE OF WHAT YOU ARE ASKING THEM TO VOTE FOR OR AGAINST? IF THE SECRETARY OF STATE, QUOTE UNQUOTE APPROVES IT, THEN. THE THE CITY IS. NOT PROTECTED FROM. ATTORNEYS FEES IF IT'S CHALLENGED. SO YOU YOU KNOW, SO [00:55:07] IT PROVIDES SOME IT PROVIDES SOME MEASURE OF PROTECTION TO THE CITY, BUT IT DOESN'T PREVENT A CHALLENGE. I MEAN, IT'S JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. A VOTER COULD STILL CHALLENGE IT IN AN ELECTION CONTEST CONTEXT BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW THAT RIGHT UNDER THE ELECTION CODE. BUT YOU YOU SHIELD YOURSELF FROM PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY'S FEES. IF THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS GIVEN IT THE THUMBS UP. THANK YOU, MR. OWEN. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY YOU'RE TOUCHING ON WHY WE FEEL LIKE TERM LIMITS AND TERM EXTENSIONS NEED TO BE LINKED AND ON THE SAME BALLOT PROPOSITION TO KIND OF AVOID THIS WHOLE THING WITH RESPECT TO DOING IT BY YEARS. THAT WAS SOMETHING WE LOOKED AT. SHOULD IT BE TIME BASED VERSUS TERM BASED? WE LANDED ON TERMS AGAIN, THINKING IT WOULD ALL BE ALL ENCOMPASSING. SO PLEASE DO KEEP IT ON THE SAME PROPOSITION IF YOU DO PULL IT OUT. THE THE WAY YOU PHRASED EIGHT YEARS AND THEN YOU'RE DONE. I WOULD JUST CAUTION YOU THAT WE, WE INSERTED THE WORD CONSECUTIVE IN TERMS VERY PURPOSEFULLY SO THAT SOMEONE WHO DOES GET TERM LIMITED OUT AND THEY CAN LAY OUT. AND IF THE VOTERS WANT THIS PERSON BACK, THEN THE VOTERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THAT PERSON BACK. SO YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE IF YOU DO SWITCH IT TO YEARS, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A HARD CAP ON THE YEARS, AND THE VOTERS NEVER CAN BRING BACK SOMEBODY THEY LIKE WHO GETS TERM LIMITED OUT. MAKE SURE YOU MAINTAIN THAT WORD CONSECUTIVE. YEAH, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. THANK YOU FOR FOR THAT. SO THE INTENT, YOUR YOUR CONVEYING OF THE INTENT WAS THAT IF A PERSON HIT THEIR TERM LIMIT, THEY BASICALLY HAD TO SIT OUT FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME, BUT THEY COULD COME BACK AND BE ELECTED AGAIN EFFECTIVELY WITH NO LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF TOTAL YEARS THEY COULD SERVE DURING THEIR LIFETIME. NO LIMITATIONS ON THE TOTAL. YOU JUST EVERY THREE TERMS YOU'D HAVE TO SIT OUT. BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO WRITE A CHARTER WHERE WE WOULD DENY THE VOTERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING BACK SOMEBODY THEY LIKE, THAT THEY RESPECT, HONOR, AND WANT TO SERVE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. BEFORE I LEAVE, I'M LOOKING AT THE CLOSE VOTES, AND WITH THE CURRENT COMMITTEE OF FIVE, ONE OF THE CLOSE VOTES WAS EXTENDING TO THREE YEAR TERMS. YES. AND AND SO THERE WAS A 3 TO 2 VOTE. AND THE WORDING HERE IS IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMITTEE VOTED 3 TO 2 TO KEEP THE PREVIOUSLY RECOMMENDED THREE YEAR TERMS. RIGHT. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS FIVE AND YOU ALL THREE HERE HOPEFULLY WILL COLLECTIVELY REMEMBER THE PREVIOUS FIVE AND THE FIRST PASS. DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER THE THREE YEAR TERMS WAS UNANIMOUS OR WAS A CONTENTIOUS CLOSE VOTE? WHEN I DID THE SEARCH AND PULLED OUT THE TWO, THREE AND THE THREE TWOS, THAT DIDN'T COME UP. OKAY, SO MY LOGIC AND I CAN CONFIRM IT IS IT WAS EITHER UNANIMOUS OR FOUR ONE. OKAY. I MY RECOLLECTION VAGUELY IS THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOUR ONE. I THINK WE HAVE THE DISSENTER OVER HERE. YES. MY RECOLLECTION IS IT WAS FOUR ONE BUT IT WASN'T TWO, 3 OR 3 TWO. OKAY. BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET PICKED UP IN MY SEARCH. OKAY. THANK YOU. UNLESS I DID A TYPO. WAS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? IF IF I ASKED SOMETHING ELSE. I'VE ALREADY FORGOTTEN WHAT IT WAS. SO IT'S A GOOD ANSWER. THAT WAS IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK WE'RE GOOD. ANYTHING ELSE ANY MEMBERS WANT TO BRING UP? BRAD, IS THERE ANYTHING PRESSING THAT YOU WANTED TO BRING UP? WELL, IF IF YOU. I GUESS IF I CAN GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE THAT I'M WORKING ON RIGHT NOW JUST TO GET SOME DIRECTION, I THINK I WOULD I WOULD FIND THAT HELPFUL BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE JUST RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I'M, YOU KNOW, THE RECOMMENDATION IS WHAT IT IS, BUT IF IT'S IF WE'RE UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT Y'ALL WANT, THEN GETTING SOME FEEDBACK WOULD BE HELPFUL. LET'S SEE. SO JUST IN SECTION 1.01, WE'RE GOING TO FIX THE LANGUAGE IN THERE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A VERB. SO WE'LL WORK ON THAT AND WE'LL GET THAT TO YOU. BUT ON SECTION 2.03 ON EMINENT DOMAIN THERE THERE'S EITHER A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR OR WELL, THERE IS AT LEAST A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO A QUESTION THAT WE HAVE WHICH IS IT SAYS THE CITY SHALL NOT. AND THEN THERE'S TWO COMMAS. USE THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE LAND THAT'S OWNED BY A PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND THAT IS DEDICATED AND USED AS A PARK LAND FOR USE AS A CITY PARK. SO THE DOUBLE COMMA WAS SOMETHING [01:00:01] REMOVED FROM THERE THAT IT DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE COMMAS DIDN'T GET TAKEN AWAY. OR WAS IT JUST A, YOU KNOW, AN ACCIDENTAL DOUBLE COMMA. BUT AS WRITTEN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION ON A PARK CONDEMNATIONS WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. SO WHAT IF THERE'S AN EMERGENCY OR PUBLIC SAFETY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YOUR CHARTER PROHIBITS YOU FROM DOING IT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. SO, YOU KNOW, WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU NEVER WILL. BUT IN THE, IN THE IN THE CONTEXT OF AN EMERGENCY OR PUBLIC NECESSITY, IF YOUR CHARTER PROHIBITS IT, THEN YOU CAN'T DO IT. SO JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. MISTER PRINCE, I BELIEVE, BRAD, THE, THE BACKGROUND BEHIND WHAT'S IN OUR CURRENT CHARTER WAS THERE WAS A, A UNDERLYING CITY FEAR GOING ON THAT THE CITY CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME. AND THIS IS EVEN BEFORE I WAS ELECTED, THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME WAS GOING TO GO GRAB LAND FROM THE POA IN ORDER TO MAKE IT A CITY PARK. AND THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN OUR CURRENT CHARTER. NOW, WHETHER IT'S ACCURATE, ACCURATELY CONVEYS IT OR NOT, IS SAYS THE CITY SHALL NOT TAKE APART FROM THE POA TO MAKE IT A CITY PARK. IT DOESN'T SAY SHALL NOT TAKE PARK FROM THE P O FOR VALID REASONS. AS YOU'RE AS YOU'RE SUGGESTING. AND I THINK IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, AND MR. OWEN WILL CAN JUMP UP AND CORRECT ME THAT THAT THAT INTENT WAS KIND OF WHAT CARRIED THROUGH WITH THE TO, TO BASICALLY NOT CHANGE THE INTENT. I'M SAYING NOT INTENT ON THAT. MR. OWEN. YEAH, NUMBER ONE, IT ISN'T OUR CURRENT CHARTER. WE DEBATED ABOUT EDITING IT, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE ERRANT COMMA. THINGS THAT. BUT COUNCILOR PRINCE IS SPOT ON. AT ONE POINT WE HAD A DRAFT THAT ACTUALLY SAID, YOU SHALL NOT. TAKE IT AT ALL. PERIOD END. WE DON'T NEED FOR USE AS A CITY PARK. AND WE STRUCK THAT OUT AND THEN THOUGHT BETTER OF IT AND SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE WOULD BE A NEED FOR A POWER STATION OR SOMETHING THAT SERVES A GREATER PUBLIC GOOD. SO WE PUT THAT PHRASE ABOUT FOR USE AS A CITY PARK BACK IN. OKAY. SO IT'S VERY NARROWLY FOCUSED THAT YOU CAN'T GRAB POA. AND THIRDLY, THE REASON WE LEFT IT IN, QUITE FRANKLY, IS WE THOUGHT WE TOOK IT OUT. THAT WOULD BE A SHOWSTOPPER AND A KILLER FOR THE CHARTER GETTING PASSED AT ALL. GIVEN THE SIZE OF OUR PO AND THE VOCALITY OF THAT GROUP ABOUT PROTECTING THAT PARKLAND, IF YOU TRY TO TAKE THAT PHRASE OUT NOW THAT IT'S BEEN PUT IN, I THINK YOUR CHARTER GOES DOWN IN FLAMES. YEAH, AND I 100% AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THERE WOULD BE A NUMBER OF CITIZENS WHO WOULD SAY, I GET IT. I SEE WHAT CITY COUNCIL IS DOING. THEY'RE TRYING TO SNEAK AROUND AND GRAB OUR CITY, OUR PUBLIC, NOT NOT, BUT JUST I JUST, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE PUTTING LIMITATIONS. BUT ANYWAY, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING WE I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT BACKGROUND, BUT YEAH, BUT YEAH, BUT THE BACKGROUND WOULD BE THAT THE INTENT IS ONLY TO LIMIT IT SO THAT THE CITY DOESN'T GRAB A PO PARK TO MAKE IT A CITY PARK. OKAY. AND THE LANGUAGE NEEDS TO CHANGE TO, TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THAT. THAT WAS THE INTENT. OKAY, OKAY. JUST A REMINDER THAT WE DO HAVE BUILDING AND STANDARDS IN 18 MINUTES. OKAY. LET ME GO THROUGH SOME OF THE LET ME SEE. SO THERE WAS A, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF, THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS OF THE TERM LIMITS ON. 3013011 BULLET SAYS AN APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM SHALL NOT COUNT AS AN ELECTED TERM. AND THE NEXT BULLET SAYS ANY TERM, WHETHER SERVED AS MAYOR OR COUNCIL, THAT IS NOT FULLY COMPLETED, SHALL COUNT AS A FULLY ELECTED TERM. SO A COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINTED MID-TERM, WHO THEN SERVES THE REMAINDER AND THEN RUNS FOR AND WINS A FULL TERM, IS THAT ONE TERM OR TWO TERMS? AND SO NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR. I MEAN, WHATEVER YOU WANT IS FINE, BUT IT'S NOT UNDER THAT SCENARIO, WHICH IS IT? SO I WE JUST NEED SOME DIRECTION ON THAT ONE. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE TERM LIMITS WOULD WOULD WORK. I THINK, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL, WHEN YOU COME IN MIDTERM SOMEWHERE, YOU GET APPOINTED IN. THEY DON'T COUNT THAT AS A FULL TERM. AND I WOULD SAY YOU SHOULD STICK TO WHAT THE MODEL IS THAT'S ALREADY OUT THERE. BUT YEAH, AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. BUT WE JUST WE MAY NEED TO ADD SOME CLARIFYING LANGUAGE IN THAT TO MAKE SURE. SO BECAUSE THE TWO, THOSE TWO BULLETS DON'T NECESSARILY ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR SCENARIO. AND SO UNDER THAT SCENARIO, THEY COULD CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. SO IF IF THE [01:05:02] COUNCIL'S, YOU KNOW, DESIRE IS, IS TO UNEXPIRED, YOU KNOW, FULFILLING AN UNEXPIRED TERM DOESN'T COUNT. YOU KNOW, IF IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW GERALD FORD, HE COULD, YOU KNOW, SERVE TWO MORE TERMS AFTERWARDS THEN THEN THAT'S FINE. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR. MAYBE ANOTHER BULLET POINT OR SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THERE. IF THAT'S YOUR IF THAT'S YOUR WISH. MR. ON. TO CLARIFY THE INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE, ANYBODY THAT IS APPOINTED TO FILL AN EMPTY SEAT, SO TO SPEAK, THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS A TERM. OKAY. IT'S VERY SPECIFICALLY ELECTED TERMS WITH REGARD TO SEE THAT TERM COUNTS, BECAUSE IF SOMEONE DOESN'T FULFILL THEIR TERM, THEY EITHER A RESIGN OR BE WAS REMOVED. AND SO FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW, THAT COUNTS AS A TERM. YOU CHOSE NOT TO FINISH IT OR YOU WERE REMOVED. IT COUNTS AS A TERM, BUT COMING IN AND FILLING IN AS AN INTERIM. NOW, THAT DOESN'T COUNT. YEAH, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK THE QUESTION WAS BECAUSE IT JUST SAID ANY TERM. SO SO THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE, YOU KNOW, ANY TERM ANYWAY. SO I THINK I'VE GOT A NOTE HERE. I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT WE JUST NEED TO ADDRESS THAT ANY TERM. THAT'S NOT A. FULFILLING AN UNEXPIRED TERM OR SOMETHING. I'M NOT SURE YET. I'LL FIGURE I'LL THINK OF IT. BUT ANYWAY, THAT I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INTENT IS. NOW, MISS CHAVARRIA, I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT FOR CLARIFICATION. SO IF WE HAVE TO, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE WOUND UP COMING INTO A SPECIAL ELECTION AND SAY THERE'S 18 MONTHS LEFT IN SOMEBODY'S TERM, THEY'VE THEY'VE VACATED THE TERM. IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL TO APPOINT AT THAT AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE IT'S TOO LONG OF A TERM LEFT, AND IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A SPECIAL ELECTION. NOW, WOULD THAT CONSIDER BE CONSIDERED A TERM, OR IS THAT STILL CONSIDERED A PARTIAL TERM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REALLY GOING IN FOR TWO YEARS. YOU MIGHT GET THEM IN FOR A YEAR, BUT THEY'VE BEEN ELECTED. IF YOU WERE ELECTED. BUT ARE YOU ELECTED FOR THAT? WELL, SO BUT THE THE FIRST BULLET SAYS AN APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM SHOULD NOT COUNT AS A TERM. SO. SO I THINK I MEAN, I THINK UNDER YOUR SCENARIO, IT HAS TO BE A YOU KNOW, YEAH. SPECIAL ELECTIONS TO FULFILL UNEXPIRED TERMS DON'T COUNT AS A TERM. WOULD THERE BE ANY WAY THAT WE COULD MAYBE PUT THAT CLARIFYING LANGUAGE IN THERE, LIKE REGARDING SPECIAL ELECTION? THAT PART, THAT PART WASN'T. WE COULD I MEAN, WE COULD SAY. TRYING TO THINK OF WHETHER OR NOT WOULD IT ALWAYS BE A SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL AN EXPIRED TERM? LET ME THINK. I'M GONNA HAVE TO LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT. I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE THE WAY THE SECRETARY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE ELECTIONS ARE, IF THERE'S STILL SAY, THERE'S 16 OR ONLY SIX MONTHS LEFT IN THAT, AND WE THEN WE CAN APPOINT. BUT IF THERE'S IF THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME, IT HAS TO BE. YEAH, IT'S I THINK IT WAS A YEAR, I THINK. BUT BUT THE QUESTION I'M ASKING MYSELF IS WHETHER OR NOT THE. AN ELECTION TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM IS NECESSARILY ALWAYS A SPECIAL ELECTION. AND I GOT TO SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT THE STATUTE LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF ME AND THINK OF THE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, BECAUSE I DON'T YOU COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN BEFORE THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, AND THEN WE JUST THROW IT BACK ON THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. IT'S NOT A SPECIAL. YEAH. SO SO LET ME LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT. BUT I, I THINK I THINK KNOWING THAT REALLY THE QUESTION WAS WHAT COUNTS AS A FULL, FULLY COMPLETED TERM? AND SO THE ANY TERM JUST NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY. CLARITY. MR. BENNEFIELD YES, SIR. IS THERE ANY VALUE IN HAVING A DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, BEFORE BRAD AND HIS FIRM SPENDS A LOT OF TIME GOING THROUGH AND EVALUATING ALL THESE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, IS THERE ANY VALUE IN HAVING LIKE A WARP CONSENSUS ON THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS SO THAT, YOU KNOW, BRAD DOESN'T SPEND 30 MAN HOURS OR GOING DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE, AND THEN THERE'S NOT EVEN CONSENSUS ON COUNCIL FOR US TO DO THAT. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, COUNCIL, SINCE YOU'VE MADE THE CHART, THE FIRST CHART THAT'S GOING TO BE SHARED PUBLICLY, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS THIS. I WANT TO FINISH THIS LIST OF, OF QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THAT I'VE GOT THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE DIRECTED TO THE LANGUAGE AND SO FORTH. I CAN, WHEN I'M WHEN IT'S COMPLETED, I CAN SEND IT TO YOU. IT'S VERY SPECIFIC. IT DIRECTS YOU RIGHT TO THE SECTION NUMBER AND WHAT A COMMENT IS OR WHAT OUR QUESTION IS. AND THEN IF YOU WANT, IF IT'S THE WILL OF COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, SHARE IT TO YOUR DISCUSSION BOARD. AND THAT WAY EVERYONE CAN COMMENT ON IT AND YOU CAN SEND ME COMMENTS OR, YOU KNOW, COME TO CONSENSUS OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO GO DO IT. BUT THAT WAY EVERYBODY CAN SEE [01:10:01] WHAT THESE COMMENTS ARE. AND SO YOU UNDERSTAND THERE'S NOTHING I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY STATE SECRETS IN HERE. SO, I MEAN, I CERTAINLY DON'T MIND DOING IT, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU ALL BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL ADVICE AT THIS POINT. MR. PRINCE, I AGREE, MR. MANFIELD. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE MR. BULLOCK AND STAFF HAVE DONE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WORK. AND FOR HIM, I THINK WHAT I HEAR HIM RECOMMENDING IS, LET ME JUST BUTTON UP WHAT I'VE ALREADY DONE, ESSENTIALLY, PUBLISHED THAT. BUT GOING BEYOND THAT, PROBABLY WE NEED TO COME TO CONSENSUS ON DO WE WANT TO PUT THREE YEAR TERM LIMITS ON THE BALLOT OR NOT THREE YEAR TERMS ON THE BALLOT? DO WE WANT TO PUT TERM LIMITS AND GO THROUGH THE LIST AND SAY, WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT WE HAVE CONSENSUS. YES, WE WANT IT ON THERE. AND AT THAT POINT THEN, AND FRANKLY, I THINK ALSO WE PROBABLY SHOULD SAY WE THINK THESE ONE OR THESE THREE ARE ONE TOPIC AND SHOULD BE THEIR OWN BALLOT MEASURE AND WORK THROUGH WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE INDIVIDUAL BALLOT MEASURES THROUGH THE DISCUSSION BOARD ON COUNCIL. AND THEN ONCE WE'RE THERE AND SAY, WE WANT ALL OF THESE CHANGES IN ONE BALLOT MEASURE, AND WE WANT WE'RE PROPOSING THESE 6 OR 12 BALLOT MEASURES, THEN WE NEED THEM TO DEEP DIVE ON IT. PROBABLY NOT UNTIL THEN. YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T THINK MOST OF THESE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THAT DEEP DIVE. I MEAN, MOST OF IT'S JUST MINOR STUFF. AND THERE'S JUST I KNOW WE'RE RUNNING UP ON TIME. THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF OTHERS THAT I WANTED TO MENTION TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT. ONE OF THEM IS UNDER 312. THE VOTING AND ABSTENTIONS SHALL BE TREATED AS A NO AND RECORDED AS A NO. AND THE MINUTES. SO THE PROBLEM IS THAT THAT COULD CONFLICT WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. 171 ON. BECAUSE IT IT PUTS IN THE MINUTES A PUTTING A MEMBER TAKING A SUBSTANTIVE POSITION ON SOMETHING THAT THEY THAT THE STATE LAW SAYS THEY SHALL RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM. SO I WANT YOU ALL TO THINK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE AN ABSTENTION MEANS I'M NOT PARTICIPATING. RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL NEED TO THINK ABOUT. AND I THINK IT MIGHT BE PROBLEMATIC OR POTENTIALLY PREEMPTED THE WITH CHANGING ORAL MOTIONS TO TWO MINUTES OR MINUTE ORDERS, BUT ANOTHER ONE THAT YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT IS. THE DEGREE TO WHICH DEPARTMENT HEADS REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL. YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THAT. I MEAN, IF IT'S A COUNCIL MANAGER, THE DEGREE TO WHICH YOU ALL ARE INVOLVED AT THAT LEVEL OF OF DAY TO DAY OPERATIONAL CONTROL, THERE WAS ALSO A FIVE MAJORITY, FIVE VOTE SUPERMAJORITY TO HIRE A FIRE CITY MANAGER. BUT WHAT WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IF YOU GO TO THREE YEAR TERMS, THEN IF YOU'VE GOT FOUR, YOU KNOW, FOR ANY POSITION LIKE THAT, THEN DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A FOUR MAJORITY? UNABLE TO TAKE ACTION? THAT'S AGAIN, A A POLICY CONSIDERATION. YOU HAVE YOU OVER YOU RESTATE THE NEPOTISM AND I DON'T IT CLOSELY TRACKS IT. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S IDENTICAL TO CHAPTER 573. SO WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT. THERE WAS PERHAPS A MISMATCH ON. REFERENDUM PETITION THRESHOLDS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. LET'S SEE. THE BOARD OF ETHICS PROVISION THAT HAS TERMS CONCURRENT WITH COUNCILS WHO NOMINATE OR NOMINATED BY COUNCIL MEMBER. YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT, BECAUSE TYPICALLY THOSE ARE STAGGERED SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ETHICS MEMBERS WHO ARE APPOINTED BY THOSE COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, SO THEY'RE NOT RUNNING CONCURRENTLY WITH THOSE SAME COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO THEY MAY BE ASKED TO OPINE ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE COMMITTED SOME ETHICS VIOLATION. AND SO IF THOSE TERMS ARE STAGGERED FROM THE APPOINTING MEMBER, THEN THERE'S MAYBE A BETTER PUBLIC PERCEPTION THAT THERE'S NOT SOME INFLUENCE. ON THAT ONE. I THINK THAT IN MY MIND, THAT'S WORTHY OF HIGHLIGHTING FOR ALL OF COUNCIL. I THINK, NUMBER ONE, THE QUESTION OF DO WE WANT TO PUT UP FOR CITIZEN VOTE? SHOULD WE HAVE A BOARD OF ETHICS OR NOT? THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. AND THEN IF WE DO WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE VOTE, WHAT DO WE WANT TO PROPOSE AS THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS? AND I KNOW CRC HAD VERY LONG, EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS ON THAT. IT'S NOT A TRIVIAL TOPIC AT ALL. SO I [01:15:04] THINK IT WARRANTS A LOT OF THOUGHT. AND THOSE ARE THOSE ARE REALLY POLICY DECISIONS. YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT LEGAL. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I'LL DRAFT WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DRAFT, BUT YOU NEED TO GIVE US DIRECTION ON WHAT Y'ALL WANT ON THAT OR NOT. YEAH. I THINK BACK TO MR. BANFIELD'S POINT OF PROCESS. I THINK WE SHOULD ALL BE GOING TO THE DISCUSSION BOARD AND START OPINING ON SOME OF THESE THINGS ON THERE. SO WE KNOW, WHAT DO WE ACTUALLY WANT TO INCLUDE AND KEEP GOING FORWARD? MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING IN HERE THAT WE DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS TO KEEP IN THERE. YEAH. SO I THINK THE WHOLE EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN GIVEN, ALL RECOMMENDATIONS, THE WHOLE DRAFT CHARTER THAT YOU HAVE IS OPEN GAME TO GET ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. AND LET'S START GOING THROUGH IT NOW. MY INTENTION OF TALKING TO CHARLES IS TO TRY TO HOLD THE CHARTER MEETINGS AND SPECIAL MEETINGS JUST SO WE CAN FULLY FOCUS ON IT, AND WE'RE NOT PACKING IT INTO ANOTHER 3 HOURS OR 4 HOURS OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. AND WHAT WE CAN DO WITH DISCUSSION WITH YOU ALL IS, DO YOU WANT THESE SPECIAL MEETINGS TO STICK TO, YOU KNOW, THREE CHAPTERS OF THE CHARTER LIKE THE CRC DID? OR DO YOU WANT TO COME I GUESS I WILL GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING IF YOU START DIVING INTO IT ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD. I THINK WE'LL HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING IF WE NEED TO BREAK IT UP, OR YOU GUYS MIGHT. WE MAY ALL GO THROUGH AND SAY WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH ONE AND TWO. THAT'S THAT WAS THAT'S WHAT WAS GOING TO BE MY SUGGESTION, BECAUSE THERE'S SEVERAL THAT I'VE LOOKED AT ALREADY ON THE BREAKDOWN THAT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THEM. BUT THEN THERE WAS 1 OR 2 CHAPTERS THAT I'M LIKE, OH, THAT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE A RED FLAG RIGHT THERE. OKAY, SO I'LL MONITOR THE, THE BOARD AND THEN WE'LL SEE. THAT'S HOW WE'LL DO THE AGENDA. MR. PRINCE IS A PROCESS QUESTION. SO WE COULD EASILY GET INTO A SCENARIO WHERE THERE'S COMMENTS ON COMMENTS AND RABBIT TRAILS OFF OF IT. AND WE COULD HAVE ONE POST THAT THAT GAINS A LIFE OF ITS OWN. I'M, I'M INTERESTED IN HOW CAN WE ORGANIZE OUR DISCUSSIONS SO THAT IT'S, IT'S CLEAN AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN FOLLOW IT MUCH LESS CITIZENS, RIGHT. AND MAYBE THE THOUGHT THAT I HAVE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IS MAYBE WE SHOULD ORGANIZE THREADS ON THEIR BY SECTIONS, RIGHT? SO WE'LL HAVE A SECTION ONE THREAD, WHICH MAY NOT HAVE MUCH CONTENT AT ALL, FRANKLY. WE'LL GET TO SECTION 3 OR 4 AND WE'LL HAVE TONS OF COMMENTS ON THAT. BUT IF NOTHING ELSE, MAYBE WE JUST LIMIT OUR THREADS TO SECTION BY SECTION SO IT CONTAINS. THERE MAY BE SOME CASES WHERE THERE'S CROSSOVER BETWEEN SECTIONS, BUT I THINK THOSE HOPEFULLY WILL BE PRETTY LIMITED, IF ANY. AND I THINK TO CARRY THAT FORWARD AND STAN MAY KILL ME TO KEEP IT OFF OF OUR OTHER COUNSEL. TO YOUR POINT, WE MAY HAVE OTHER TOPICS POP UP IN THE COUNCIL THREAD AND IT'LL START INTERMINGLING WITH THE CHARTER. MAYBE WE HAVE A SEPARATE BECAUSE THERE'S A CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE FORUM. MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE A COUNCIL CHARTER REVIEW ONE AND WE KEEP EVERYTHING IN THERE BROKEN OUT, AS YOU SAID, AS A SEPARATE AS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION BOARD. YES, I LIKE THAT IDEA. AS LONG AS I MAKE IT EASIER TO TELL STAN. LET'S SEE WHO'S THE CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT ABOUT THREE MINUTES BEFORE THE BUILDING STANDARDS NEEDS TO GET GOING. YEAH, THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT I'LL MENTION, JUST REAL QUICK, JUST SO YOU GUYS HEAR IT FROM ME NOW, IS WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF RESIDENT OR RESIDENCY, PROVING IT THAT THERE'S A REFERENCE TO FEDERAL TAX RETURNS. BUT THOSE ARE CONFIDENTIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW. SO, YOU KNOW, WE TYPICALLY IT'S VOTER REGISTRATION IS I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT IT IS. SO I'M GONNA MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT ONE AS WELL. THERE'S, THERE'S OTHER COMMENTS, BUT MOST OF THEM ARE. YOU KNOW, WE TOOK A VOTE TONIGHT TO PUBLISH THESE, AT LEAST THE ONES THAT WE HAD. DO YOU THINK THAT EXTENDS TO WHAT HE'S GOING TO SEND US? I WOULD LIKE IT IF YOU WOULD PROBABLY YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO SEND THIS TO YOU PROBABLY TOMORROW. I'LL BE FINISHED WITH IT TOMORROW. AND SO YOU COULD JUST VOTE NOW TO MAKE THAT PUBLIC. AND THAT WAY THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, IF POSSIBLE. I SEE HEADS NODDING. OKAY. I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE DOCUMENT THAT BRAD WILL PROVIDE TO US TOMORROW IS ALSO MADE PUBLIC. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION FOR THE MAYOR. PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. BUT I HAVE A CLARIFYING QUESTION. BUT BOTH THE DOCUMENT WE RECEIVED TODAY AND THE ONE THAT HE'S GOING TO SEND US, WILL THOSE JUST BE INCLUDED IN A PACKET FOR OUR NEXT MEETING OR HOW HOW WILL WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO MAKE THOSE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE? I HAD THOUGHT THEY MIGHT BE SHARED TO YOUR DISCUSSION BOARD, BUT YEAH, OKAY, I'LL I'LL HAVE THEM PLACED ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD, BUT ALSO EMAIL THE EMAIL FROM BRAD. I WILL FORWARD THAT EMAIL TO THE CRC COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. OKAY. I HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND TO ANY DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. IS THERE ANY MORE BUSINESS? HEARING NONE. WE ARE * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.