Jul 24, 2025 City Council Special Meeting

[I) Call Meeting to Order and Roll Call]

[00:00:07]

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. THE TIME IS 631. TODAY IS THURSDAY, JULY 24TH. AND I'M GOING TO CALL THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER. WILL THE CITY SECRETARY PLEASE CALL ROLL? MITCHELL HEIZER HERE. RESO PRESENT. ZUNIGA. PRESENT. HARRIS HERE. MCKINNEY HERE. I'M HERE. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. UP NEXT IS CITIZEN COMMENTS. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO COME UP TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE CITIZEN COMMENTS.

IT IS NOW CLOSED. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WHAT? OPEN? OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO. ALL RIGHT. SO. OH, YES. WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT. FIRST UP, WE HAVE STAFF REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS. ITEM ONE

[1) Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding potential items to include for Charter amendments to be included in a Special Election on November 4, 2025.]

[00:05:03]

CORRECT. WE JUST I WOULD LIKE TO GET AN IDEA OF HOW COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD ON ALL OF THESE, BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO PUT IT FOR VOTE ON AUGUST 5TH. AND I HAVE TO DRAFT ALL OF THESE PROPOSITIONS BEFORE THEN. SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION ON THE ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ACTION ON OR POTENTIALLY TAKE ACTION ON, ON, ON THE FIFTH. YOU CAN CERTAINLY HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING TOO IF YOU NEED MORE. THERE'S A LOT HERE AND WE RECOGNIZE THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLEXITY HERE. SO IF YOU NEED MORE TIME, WE COULD HAVE ANOTHER SPECIAL MEETING AND COME BACK

[00:10:04]

BUT WHAT I NOTICED THAT WITH, WITH MR. LANGLEY AND HIS GROUP IS THAT WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT FINALIZING A BUDGET BUDGET AT THE END OF AUGUST LIKE WE DID BEFORE. WE'RE TAKING OUR TIME ALL THE WAY THROUGH SEPTEMBER, WHICH GIVES US A COUPLE MORE WEEKS TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THINGS. WE'RE NOT IN A RUSH TO GET THINGS DONE BY SEPTEMBER 1ST. I KNOW I NOTICED THAT, SO THAT HELPS. THERE. I THE ONLY AGAIN, THE ONLY REASON WHY I HAD BROUGHT THOSE QUESTIONS. BECAUSE IN THE EVENT OF SOMEBODY HAVING TO RESIGN FOR HEALTH REASONS OR FOR JOB DISPLACEMENTS OR WHATEVER THAT CASE IS, HOW WOULD WE HOW WOULD WE FILL THAT VOID IF IT'S TO WHERE THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDS A SIX PERSON, DO WE HAVE AN ELECTION? I RESPECT THEIR CHOICE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE CONTROVERSY AND THE CONFLICTS THAT THEY HAVE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE IT IT'S A NO WIN SITUATION BECAUSE IF I APPOINT SOMEBODY OR WE BRING SOMEBODY UP FORWARD THAT WE THINK THAT MIGHT DO A GOOD JOB, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO DISSECT AND THEIR THEIR HISTORY, THEIR PERSONNEL HISTORY, AND IT COULD JUST LEAD TO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF DRAMA ON THAT SINCE WE WANT TO PREVENT THAT, OBVIOUSLY. BUT I THINK IF THIS IS WHAT THE COMMISSION IS WANTING TO PROPOSE, THEN, AND IF IT MEANS THAT WE HAVE A SIX PERSON LIKE WHAT ROBERT'S SAYING, WE CAN GET THROUGH IT.

WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE WE TAKE OUR TIME ON OUR VOTES AND GET ALL THE INFORMATION AND WE CAN GO THROUGH. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THERE'S A SUPERMAJORITY OF IT'S GOT TO BE A52 VOTE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT OR FIVE 1 OR 4 ONE. I MEAN, HOWEVER WE LOOK AT IT AGAIN, IF SOMEBODY IS OUT AS WELL, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT THAT IF SOMEBODY IS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING WHERE WE ONLY HAVE FIVE PEOPLE ON THE DAIS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THAT. BUT I THINK I THINK WE COULD BE OKAY. MR. HEIZER, I THINK WE SHOULD BE OKAY ON THIS. OKAY. I'M FINE.

COUNCIL MEMBER ZUNIGA, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE? SO DO WE MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ONE OR. WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR FROM THE COUNCIL, FROM A CONSENSUS, THE CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL. AND MAYBE THAT'S THE QUESTION. IS THE CONSENSUS ON THE VACANCY CONSIDERATION THAT YOU GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE. I'M OKAY WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHARTER. THEN WE CAN BRING THAT FORWARD ON THE FIFTH. I RECKON I GO WITH

[00:15:02]

SO YOU GET A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TIME, BUT NOT THE FULL THREE. IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO CONSIDER, YOU COULD DO. MAYBE, YOU KNOW, 4 OR 5 TERMS. YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU BROUGHT UP SOMEBODY RUNNING, BEING ON COUNCIL, RUNNING FOR MAYOR AND THEN COMING BACK TO COUNCIL. I, I KIND OF LIKE NOT BEING ABLE TO DO THAT. I THINK ONCE YOU'VE BEEN COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU'VE GONE TO MAYOR. GOING BACK TO COUNCIL, I THINK I DON'T KNOW, IT JUST IT IT JUST FEELS LIKE YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN A LOT TO YOUR CITY AND TO COME BACK AND SERVE ON THE COUNCIL. I DON'T KNOW, BUT THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES. I MEAN, YOU JUST YOU JUST NEVER KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE WORLD. I KNOW WE'RE A LARGER CITY NOW, BUT I THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD AN ALL WOMEN'S, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE. AND, YOU KNOW, ALL THE MEN WERE OFF FIGHTING. YOU JUST NEVER KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS. SO I'M KIND OF I KNOW WE'RE A LARGER CITY NOW, MORE PEOPLE TO PULL FROM. BUT I THINK IF I HAD ANY CONSIDERATION, IT'D PROBABLY BE THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COME BACK AFTER BEING A MAYOR. SO YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THREE TERMS AS EACH, BUT MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT YOU COULDN'T SERVE FOR MAYOR AND THEN RUN FOR COUNCIL AFTER. CORRECT. MICHAEL, HOW MANY TERMS HAVE YOU SERVED LIKE YOU'RE TERMED OUT AFTER THIS UPCOMING YEAR? RIGHT. I'M TERMED OUT AFTER 27. YES. SO I WON A SPECIAL ELECTION IN 2020.

AND BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MISS KIRKLAND, YOU HAVE TO SERVE A FULL YEAR BEFORE IF YOU SERVE A FULL YEAR AND THEN YOUR ORIGINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION DATE WAS THE FOLLOWING YEAR OF 21. IF YOU SERVE MORE THAN 12 MONTHS, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A FULL TERM. IF YOU HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION. IT'S ACTUALLY THE LAST SENTENCE ON THE SLIDE. A PERSON ELECTED TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED TERM OF ONE YEAR OR LESS WILL REMAIN ELIGIBLE TO SERVE THREE TERMS. SO IF YOU'RE UNEXPIRED, TERM WAS MORE THAN A YEAR. YEAH. SO YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE I WOULD BE I WOULD BE TERMED OUT IN IN 27. SO UNDER THIS THE SUGGESTION ANYONE WHO TURNS OUT AFTER THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS ON COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO SIT OUT A YEAR AND THEN, THEN THEY COULD RUN FOR MAYOR OR THEY COULD RUN FOR COUNCIL AGAIN. YEAH, BUT THE KEY IS YOU HAVE TO BE ELECTED. SO IT'S NOT GUARANTEED I'M GOING TO BE ON THERE. AND SO BUT BUT I UNDERSTAND A DIFFERENT CONCEPT ON THIS IS THAT, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS AGO MY MENTALITY OF COUNCIL WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN I AM NOW. SO WHO'S TO SAY IN THREE YEARS I MAY HAVE THE SAME MENTALITY ON THAT END? SO I THINK BY DOING THIS, IT MAY BE A WAY THAT THE COMMITTEE IS SAYING THAT IT'S NOT JUST SAYING THAT THE PERSON WASN'T DOING A GOOD JOB, IT'S SAYING THAT IT'S GETTING YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW NEWER IDEAS BECAUSE OUR, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE HUSTLE, BUT YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE CHANGE.

AND OUR AND OUR CITY IS CHANGING AND YOU NEED TO HAVE NEW IDEAS. YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT CHANGE IN IN ANY BUSINESS, ANY JOB, ANY POSITION AND ANY, ANY AND OF COURSE, WITH POLITICS, THE WAY THAT THE, THE, THE WORD GOES WORLD GOES IN A SENSE. SO I CAN UNDERSTAND FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THAT, YOU KNOW, HAVING TERM LIMITS GIVES OTHER PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, OH, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME PERSON RUNNING AGAIN. IT GIVES THAT PERSON AN IDEA TO WHERE, HEY, WE CAN BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH NEWER IDEAS ON THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF Y'ALL FEEL.

I MEAN, I'M, I'M KIND OF OKAY WITH THIS IN THE WAY. WE'VE ALREADY GOT TERM LIMITS. SO THAT'S ONE THING TO THINK ABOUT. THIS ISN'T ADDING TERM LIMITS. THIS IS REDUCING THE TERM LIMITS THAT ALREADY SET. SO THAT'S WHAT IT SO THEY'RE ALREADY TERM LIMITS. SO NOW IT'S TRYING TO SEE HOW WE SET THE TERM LIMITS. THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS YOU KNOW IT'S GREAT TO HAVE GREAT NEW IDEAS. BUT IT'S ALSO GREAT TO HAVE EXPERIENCE. AND I KIND OF FEEL LIKE THIS MIGHT TAKE

[00:20:05]

THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE BECAUSE I THINK ONCE YOU'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL, YOU'VE BEEN MAYOR, THERE'S NO REASON OF GOING BACK. IT IS TIME TO LET SOMEBODY ELSE COME IN AND ON THE COUNCIL LEVEL, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GROW AND BECOME MAYOR ONE DAY. SO I I'D REALLY DISCOURAGE SOMEONE BEING MAYOR, COMING BACK TO COUNCIL, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TIME FOR THE NEXT PERSON TO GROW AS A COUNCIL MEMBER AND GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO RUN FOR MAYOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS, I AGREE THAT I LIKE TO HAVE THE VOTERS HAVE THE OPTION, YOU KNOW, IF THEY FEEL LIKE SOMEBODY HAVING SERVED NINE YEARS AND THEN RUNS FOR MAYOR, IF THEY FEEL THAT THAT PERSON SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED MAYOR BECAUSE OF THE TIME THEY'VE SERVED, THEN THEY THEY WILL NOT ELECT THEM. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE MAYOR SERVING ON COUNCIL THREE YEARS AND THEN SERVING AS MAYOR FOR THREE. THAT'S A LONG TIME. A LOT OF PEOPLE, VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO DO THAT. MANY YEARS DEVOTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, EVERY TERM THE CITIZENS HAVE AN OPTION TO ELECT A DIFFERENT PERSON. AND WE DON'T LOSE THE SOMEBODY THAT IS POTENTIALLY A REALLY GREAT MAYOR BECAUSE THEY'VE SERVED THREE YEARS ON COUNCIL. I MEAN, WE COULD JUST LOOK AT MAYOR MITCHELL SERVING WHAT I THINK HE SERVED A FULL YEAR AND THEN RAN TWO TERMS FOR MAYOR. SO UNDER THIS NEW RULE, HE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO RUN FOR REELECTION IN 2023, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST THE ONLY ELECTION, I BELIEVE, THAT HE WON WITHOUT GOING TO A RUNOFF AGAINST THREE OTHER CANDIDATES. SO I THINK, LIKE IF THERE IS AN EXAMPLE TO HOLD UP IS TO, YOU KNOW, THE VOTERS MAKING THE DECISION LIKE THAT PROBABLY WOULD WOULD BE IT. I'M FINE WITH THE NOT COMING BACK TO COUNCIL. I'M COOL WITH THAT. YEAH. THE OTHER ONE I JUST DON'T LOVE. OKAY. WELL I ALSO DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF DISCOURAGING PEOPLE FROM SERVING ON COUNCIL BEFORE THEY RUN FOR MAYOR. CORRECT. I CAN TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS KNOW I'VE I'VE PAID ATTENTION FOR A LONG TIME. I SHOWED UP TO MEETINGS FOR A LONG TIME BEFORE I, I SAT ON THIS CHAIR AND THE LEARNING CURVE FOR ME, EVEN IN THE SIX MONTHS, HAS BEEN DRAMATIC. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW MUCH STEEPER IT IS FOR A MAYOR WHO'S NEVER SAT IN THE SEAT BEFORE. YEAH, YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS ONE. IF WE WANT TO JUST LEAVE IT AS IS. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S THE CONSENSUS I'M HEARING. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE ON UNLESS SOMEBODY OBJECTS. MICHAEL, ARE YOU GOOD? YEAH, I JUST I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS BROUGHT UP A GREAT POINT. YOU KNOW, THE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE VOTERS DO DECIDE, RIGHT? NO. I ALSO WANT TO ECHO THAT THE VOTERS DO DECIDE IN EVERY ELECTION CYCLE, RIGHT,

[00:25:05]

I'M FINE LEAVING IT AS IS AS WELL. YEP, YEP. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

PROPOSITION C IS TO DO WITH ATTENDANCE AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. THIS REFERENCES BOTH SECTIONS 3.06 AND 3.09, AND THE INTENT WAS TO ADD SOME CLARITY AS TO WHEN MISSING THREE COUNCIL MEETINGS WOULD QUALIFY AS MISCONDUCT BY COUNCIL MEMBER, BECAUSE CURRENTLY THE CHARTER SAYS IF YOU'RE ABSENT FROM THREE CONSECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETINGS, THAT'S CONSIDERED MISCONDUCT.

AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW WHEN WE DID THE CANVASING OF THE ELECTION, WE HAD THREE MEETINGS ON THE SAME DAY, AND IF SOMEONE WAS JUST SICK THAT DAY OR OUT OF TOWN THAT DAY, IT SEEMED A LITTLE BIT INTENSE FOR THAT TO BE MISCONDUCT OF OFFICE. AND SO THE SUGGESTION FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WAS TO SET THAT AS THREE MEETINGS HELD ON THREE MEETINGS HELD ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS. AND IT ALSO ADDED SOME LANGUAGE REGARDING THINGS THAT COULD QUALIFY AS GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO MISS A MEETING, SUCH AS ILLNESS, DEATH IN THE FAMILY, PRE-PLANNED VACATION, AND THE MEETING WAS SCHEDULED AFTER YOU SCHEDULED YOUR VACATION, THAT SORT OF THING. AND THEN THE CHANGE TO 3.09 SIMPLY TAKES THOSE THAT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE INFORMATION AND REFERENCES BACK TO IT, SO THAT IN 3.09, WHICH REFERENCES FORFEITING YOUR SALARY IF YOU MISS A MEETING, IT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT IF YOU HAVE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO MISS THE MEETING, YOU DO NOT FORFEIT YOUR SALARY FOR THAT MEETING. I'VE GOT NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THESE. YEAH. SOUNDS GOOD. ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON. OKAY. PROPOSITION D, NUMBER OF VOTES. I'M NOT SURE THIS CHANGE IS NECESSARY THE MORE I'VE LOOKED AT IT, BUT WHAT? WHAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING HERE IS REMOVING THIS LANGUAGE THAT SAYS FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES ARE NEEDED FOR THIS WHOLE LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS. AND JUST SAYING THAT FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES ARE ALWAYS NEEDED. I'M HAVING TROUBLE THINKING OF SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FALL INTO ORDINANCE, RESOLUTION, ACTION, MATTER, ISSUE OR MOTION. SO WE COULD PROBABLY LEAVE IT. IT WAS JUST VERY WORDY. AND IT WAS I WAS SOMEBODY MIGHT TRY TO ARGUE THAT, OH, YOU ONLY NEED THREE VOTES IF THERE ARE ONLY FIVE PEOPLE PRESENT. AND IT'S NOT ONE OF THESE THINGS. BUT AGAIN, I CAN'T THINK OF SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ONE OF THOSE THINGS. SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS? I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY NOW THAT I'VE LOOKED AT IT AGAIN. OKAY. ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON PROP D? NO. LEAVE IT AS IS. COUNCIL MEMBER ZUNIGA. WELL, I GOT SOMETHING. I GUESS WE ALL HAVE AN EQUAL VOTE, SO NOT UNDERSTANDING THE MESSAGE I GOT. I THINK IN SOME CITIES THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF VOTES REQUIRED TO PASS AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION VERSUS JUST A REGULAR MOTION. AND SO I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS TRYING TO DO. BUT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE THEY ADDED THE WORD MOTION AS WELL.

AND SO I THINK INSTEAD OF DELETING EVERYTHING, THEY ADDED MOTION. AND SO NOW IT'S STILL

[00:30:03]

SO WE'RE AT SIX PEOPLE, THREE WOULD BE A MAJORITY. SO WE COULD NEVER DO A MAJORITY. IT WOULD STILL BE IF YOU HAVE FIVE PEOPLE RIGHT. THERE WOULD BE A MAJORITY. YOU'D STILL HAVE TO HAVE FOUR UNDER THE CHARTER. AND THAT'S CURRENTLY HOW IT WORKS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOUR FOR EVERYTHING, NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE HERE, UNLESS IT'S A SUPERMAJORITY. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE MORE. THAT'S RIGHT. BECAUSE THIS IS THE WAY WE CURRENTLY DO IT. I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S A NECESSARY CHANGE. COUNCIL MEMBER MCKINNEY, YOU LOOK WELL PERPLEXED. YEAH. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS. LIKE WHAT WHAT THE COMMISSION WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. WE SUGGESTED THAT POTENTIALLY A MINUTE ORDER MIGHT NOT BE ONE OF THESE THINGS, EXCEPT THAT WHEN WE PASS A MINUTE ORDER, WE MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE MINUTE ORDER. AND SO THE MORE I THINK ABOUT IT, THE MORE I GO, WELL, THAT'S A MOTION THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE FOUR VOTES. I THINK THAT'S HOW WE GOT THERE WAS WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS TERM MINUTE ORDER. IT'S LIKE, WELL, MINUTE ORDER IS NOT IN HERE. BUT AGAIN WHEN WE WHEN WE PASS ANYTHING WE SAY, I MOVE TO APPROVE. IT'S ALWAYS A MOTION. WELL I THINK WHAT MAYBE SOME CLARITY THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO EXPRESS THAT THE MAYOR IS ONLY ONE VOTE, JUST LIKE ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WHAT SEEMS LIKE TO BE RESONATING. BUT HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT CLEAR? DO YOU MAKE THAT CLEAR WITH THIS AMENDMENT? I DON'T THINK THIS AMENDMENT CLARIFIES ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE MAYOR. IT WAS REALLY JUST SUPPOSED TO BE IN AN EVENT WHERE WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE AND A MAJORITY IS THREE, POTENTIALLY THREE, BECAUSE IN SOME CITIES, IF IT'S A MOTION AND YOU HAVE FIVE OUT OF SEVEN, YOU CAN PASS A MOTION ON THREE. AND BUT YOU CAN'T PASS AN ORDINANCE ON THREE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOUR TO PASS AN ORDINANCE. SO JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT'S IN YOUR CHARTER. OUR CHARTER JUST LISTS EVERYTHING OUT. INSTEAD OF SAYING ALL ACTIONS REQUIRE FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES, WHICH WOULD BE CLEANER. BUT AGAIN, DO WE NEED TO TAKE IT TO THE BALLOT TO BE A LITTLE BIT CLEANER OR NOT? THE ONE THING I'LL SAY ON THIS IS ALL I CAN SEE THIS ACCOMPLISHING IS SLOWING DOWN GOVERNANCE, BECAUSE WE MIGHT NOT HAVE THE PROPER NUMBER OF VOTES.

OR IS THIS TRYING TO DO THE OPPOSITE OF THAT? THIS IS TRYING TO REQUIRE FOUR VOTES FOR EVERYTHING. YEAH. IF YOU WANTED TO CHANGE IT, WE COULD DO THAT. GOVERNMENT MOVES SLOW ENOUGH AS IT IS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE CHANGING ANYTHING TO ALLOW FOR IT TO MOVE MORE SLOWLY, BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET SOMETHING PASSED, BECAUSE SOMEONE YOU KNOW IS OUT OF TOWN FOR A WEDDING ANNIVERSARY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT SEEMS SILLY. I MEAN, WE HEAR FROM PEOPLE ALL THE TIME WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW SLOW GOVERNMENT MOVES, WHETHER IT'S MUNICIPAL, COUNTY OR FEDERAL.

LIKE, LET'S LET'S NOT RAISE THE BAR TO MAKE THE PASSAGE OF OUR DECISIONS OR FUTURE DECISIONS GO INTO EFFECT MORE SLOWLY. THAT THAT'S ALSO LIKE WHEN WE'RE DOING FIRST AND SECOND READINGS.

CORRECT. THAT'S LATER IN THE AGENDA OR IN THE CHARTER. AND WE'LL GET TO THAT. I'M SORRY. I MAY BE JUST LOOKING AT IT RIGHT AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AND VOTES AND ALL THAT. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S OKAY. WE ONLY HAVE FIVE. RIGHT. FOR CLARITY CURRENTLY IMAGINE A SCENARIO WHERE WE ONLY HAD FIVE. RIGHT. WELL WE HAVE A QUORUM IN FIVE. AND THEN YEAH, WE PASS THINGS WITH THREE VOTES FOR CLARITY. EVERY SINGLE THING WE DO CURRENTLY REQUIRES FOUR VOTES. RIGHT? I ACTUALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF FOUR BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO COMPROMISE MORE TO GET THAT FOURTH VOTE SOMETIMES. AND IT IT MAKES IT NUMERICALLY. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THOSE. SO EVERYONE HAS TO, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS IT, COME TO SOME AGREEMENTS. AND WITH THREE IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S TOO SOME THINGS COULD BE PASSED ON WITHOUT MAJORITY. RIGHT. I THINK WHAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WAS TRYING TO DO HERE, AND IT IS PROBABLY MY FAULT BECAUSE I BROUGHT IT UP GOING, THIS IS SO MANY WORDS, AND ALL THEY REALLY WANT TO SAY IS THAT ALL VOTES TAKE FOUR, ALL ACTIONS TAKE FOUR VOTES. I THINK WHAT THEY REALLY WANTED TO TRY TO DO IS A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT ISN'T AN ISSUE, A MATTER, AN ACTION OR A MOTION. AND SO CURRENTLY EVERYTHING REQUIRES FOUR VOTES. AND WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO WAS JUST SAY EVERYTHING REQUIRES FOUR VOTES. SO I THINK IT'S A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? I GUESS THAT'S WHERE MY CONFUSION WAS COMING FROM, WAS LIKE, HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT? YEAH, I DON'T LIKE I SAID, WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT AT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, AND WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS CLEANER AND CLEARER, AND I WAS TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING THAT COULD FIT THERE. AND I WAS LIKE, WELL, TECHNICALLY, THIS DOESN'T SAY A MINUTE ORDER REQUIRES FOUR VOTES. BUT THEN AGAIN, A MINUTE ORDER REQUIRES A MOTION OR AN ACTION OR OR IT'S A MATTER. SO IT'S STILL FALLS IN THERE. SO LEAVE IT AS IT IS, I THINK LEAVE

[00:35:05]

YES. WHAT WE'RE DOING. EXACTLY. I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT. I'LL BE GOOD WITH THAT. IT'S A GREAT CHANGE. AND JUST. YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH IT. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON. PROPOSITION F, FINANCE DIRECTOR. THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMISSION HERE IS CURRENTLY UNDER THE CHARTER. THE DISMISSAL OF THE FINANCE DIRECTOR MUST BE CONFIRMED BY CITY COUNCIL BY FOUR VOTES. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING CHANGING THAT TO FIVE VOTES, AND ALSO REQUIRING FIVE VOTES TO CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, WHO WOULD THEN BE RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER AND BROUGHT TO COUNCIL FOR CONFIRMATION. THE COMMISSION THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNCIL TO BE MORE INVOLVED IN THE HIRING OF THE FINANCE DIRECTOR BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT POSITION. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S AN ARGUMENT HERE THAT WE'RE SLOWING DOWN HIRING PROCESSES AND POTENTIALLY KIND OF GETTING INTO THE LAND. THAT'S USUALLY THAT USUALLY BELONGS TO THE CITY MANAGER. AND SO THAT COULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO MANAGE EMPLOYEES. YES. I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M DOING IS PROVIDING PROS AND CONS. I'M NOT TAKING A POSITION ON THESE JUST SO. IF JUST BECAUSE I SAY IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT'S WHAT I AGREE WITH. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET YOU TO SEE BOTH SIDES. IF YOU GO THIS WAY, REMEMBER THIS COULD HAPPEN, RIGHT? YEAH. WELL, I WOULD ASK WHO ON THIS DAIS OR ON THAT SCREEN OVER THERE HAS THE EXPERIENCE TO VET CANDIDATES TO BE A FINANCIAL FINANCE DIRECTOR? NO. YEAH. NOT ME. WHAT ABOUT YOU? NO, BUT. BUT I COULD SEE THE RECOMMENDATION. YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME SOME VALIDITY IN HAVING, I GUESS, MORE, MORE POWERS TO THE COUNCIL TO BECAUSE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR IS A KEY IS A KEY KEY ROLE, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE SURE THE BUDGET'S RIGHT. PROJECTS ARE PAID FOR. SO ARE ALL OF OUR DIRECTORS IN KEY ROLES. BUT BUT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR MANAGES THE TREASURY. I JUST DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER SOMETHING SO INTEGRAL TO THE FUNCTIONALITY OF GOVERNMENT. THAT, TO ME, PROVIDES OPPORTUNITIES TO. YOU KNOW, CREATE LEVELS OF PRESSURE AROUND THIS EMPLOYEE WHEN WE NEED STRAIGHT INFORMATION FROM THIS EMPLOYEE. SO I JUST I DON'T THINK IF WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE DECISIONS LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER TOBIAS WAS SAYING FOR, FOR FUTURE COUNCILS AND PEOPLE WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SERVE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE PURVIEW OF THE DECISIONS WE MAKE. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A LITTLE OVERREACHING. WELL, I THINK THAT THERE'S ALWAYS LIKE SOME FEAR OF LIKE FINANCE DIRECTORS OR PEOPLE GIVING COUNCIL INFORMATION BECAUSE MAYBE THEY DON'T WANT TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE IN A LOT OF DEBT AND MAYBE WE SHOULD NOT SPEND THIS, OR MAYBE THIS IS NOT A GOOD SPENDING AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET AN ANSWER BECAUSE THERE'S INTIMIDATION. THERE COULD BE THAT. SO I THINK WHAT THE COMMISSION IS TRYING TO FIND IS JUST THAT LET COUNCIL HAVE MORE FREEDOM TO, YOU KNOW, OR KIND OF CREATE A SAFETY AROUND A

[00:40:01]

YEAH. SO INSTEAD WE GET THAT NEWS FROM THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, AND THEN WE PUT IT ON HIM OVER THERE. IF IT'S WHAT WE DON'T LIKE TO HEAR. YEAH, LOOK AT THE TITLES. DIRECTOR. MANAGER. OKAY.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CITY MANAGERS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS. WE HAVE DIRECTORS. WE HAVE ADMINISTRATORS FOLLOW THE GUIDELINE OF WHAT THEIR TITLES ARE ON THAT END. BECAUSE YES, WE ARE THE ONES WHO VOTE FOR THE MANAGER. WE ARE THE ONES WHO VOTE FOR THE CHIEF OF POLICE. BUT WHAT I THINK DOCTOR HARRIS IS SAYING IS THAT THE DIRECTOR FITS IN THE LINE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ROLE ALREADY, CORRECT? YES. THEY FIT IN THIS CATEGORY TO WHERE YOU LOOK AT OUR, IN OUR, OUR OUR TREE ITSELF, OUR CITY TREE, WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR HEAD COACH, ASSISTANT COACH, DEFENSIVE COACH. THAT'S HOW I ALWAYS LOOK AT THINGS. I LOOK AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE SOMETIMES, BUT YOU LOOK AT WHO'S THE KEY ROLES ARE THE FINANCIAL DIRECTOR. WE CAN ASK, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO STRAIGHT TO THE HEAD COACH RIGHT THERE ABOUT THE FUNDING. WE CAN GO STRAIGHT TO THE COACH THERE ABOUT THE ROADS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN IF WE START GETTING INTO THAT MIX, SEVEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE SEVEN DIFFERENT OPINIONS. IF WE GO STRAIGHT TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR ON THAT. IN OTHER CITIES, DO THEY HAVE FINANCE DIRECTOR THAT COUNCIL DOES THIS WITH? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF? NO. SO WHAT WAS THE INTENT THEN OF THE COMMISSION TO BRING THIS? IS IT BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION I GOT OUT OF THE COMMISSION WAS A STORY OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN KYLE MANY YEARS AGO THAT SOMEHOW INVOLVED A CITY MANAGER, A FINANCE DIRECTOR, AND THEY DIDN'T REALLY TELL ME WHAT WAS HAPPENING. BUT ESSENTIALLY THE CITY MANAGER WAS RESIGNED IN LIEU OF TERMINATION. AND THEN THE FINANCE DIRECTOR WALKED OUT, AND THEY WANTED MORE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGER AND THE FINANCE DIRECTOR. THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS TO HAVE COUNCIL APPOINT THE FINANCE DIRECTOR ALTOGETHER. AND THAT SEEMS LOGISTICALLY DIFFICULT TO ME BECAUSE THE CITY MANAGER PRESENTS THE BUDGET THROUGH THE FINANCE DIRECTOR. AND SO IF THEY'RE COMPETING, THEN WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE TWO COMPETING BUDGETS. ULTIMATELY, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION THOUGHT THIS WAS A COMPROMISE THAT WOULD ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE COUNCIL CONTROL. YEAH, RIGHT. I MEAN, THE PROCESS NOW IS, HEY, BRIAN, I WANT TO SPEAK TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, RIGHT. AND HE SAID, OKAY, SO I FEEL FREE TO GO AND SPEAK TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND ASK QUESTIONS AND FIND OUT ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE BUDGET, WHAT'S GETTING PAID FOR. SO THAT'S THE PROCESS NOW, RIGHT? I MEAN, IS THERE A DIFFERENT PROCESS? NO, THAT'S TECHNICALLY RIGHT. HE'S SUPPOSED TO ESCORT YOU TO THE OFFICE. NO, BUT I MEAN, BUT SINCE WE DON'T HAVE STAFF EMPLOYEES AS COUNCIL, WE GO TO THE CITY MANAGER, SAY, HEY, BRIAN, I'D LIKE TO TALK TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR ABOUT THESE TOURS OR ABOUT THIS PROJECT, OR SEE WHAT'S THERE. YES, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER STAFF MEMBER THAT YOU NEED TO GET INFORMATION FROM. SO WE WORK THE SAME WAY WITH THE FINANCE DIRECTOR THAT WE DO WITH ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE IN THE CITY. IF YOU NEED INFORMATION, IT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING FROM 4 TO 5 VOTES. I MEAN, IT'S REALLY KIND OF THE CENTRAL POINT. AND I THINK THE APPOINTMENT WAS THE 4 TO 5 VOTES AND ADDING THE APPOINTMENT AND THE APPOINTMENT, I WILL TELL YOU, YOU KNOW, IT'S COUNCIL'S PLEASURE OF HOW YOU HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE IT. IT'S UNUSUAL. THAT'S AN UNUSUAL PROVISION. THE COUNCIL HAS THE CITY MANAGER THAT REPORTS DIRECTLY TO YOU, AND THE COUNCIL HAS THE PLEASURE OF HIRING AND FIRING THE CITY MANAGER, AND THAT'S THAT'S THE ULTIMATE CONTROL FOR THE STAFF. SO IT'S A BIT UNUSUAL. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT BEFORE. AND THE OTHER FOUR CITIES THAT I'VE WORKED IN, I'M NOT SAYING IT DOESN'T EXIST SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT IT IS UNUSUAL. BUT. IT'S AGAIN, THAT'S THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO YOU. SO WE WANTED TO BRING IT TO YOU AND JUST GIVE YOU THAT, THAT, THAT INFORMATION TO SEE

[00:45:03]

CITY MANAGER VERSUS CITY COUNCIL, BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME PROVISIONS THAT WERE A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED, CONFLICTING. I THINK IT WAS THIS SECTION WHICH I DIDN'T PUT IN HERE. SO I'LL HAVE TO GO LOOK AT WHAT IT IS AND THE NEXT AND THIS IS 4.04 OR. YEAH. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE WAS 4.05. AND THEY'RE ARGUABLY INCONSISTENT. SO THE IDEA WAS TO REMOVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT SEEMS TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO REQUIRE DUTIES OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES THAT ARE NOT APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL, WHICH IN 4.05 FALLS TO THE CITY MANAGER. YEAH. FOR EXAMPLE, IT DIDN'T GIVE EXAMPLES. IT SAID CITY COUNCIL MAY NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS CHARTER, WHICH IS WHERE I GOT CONFUSED BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE CHARTER THAT SAYS THEY CAN'T REQUIRE OTHER AND FURTHER DUTIES OF ANY APPOINTED OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE WHOSE DUTIES ARE PRESCRIBED HEREIN AND MAY DEFINE. AND SO IT GOT LET ME THINK THAT IT MAY BE TO WHERE IT'S LIKE COUNCIL MEMBERS CANNOT GO IN DIRECT STAFF TO DO THINGS WITHOUT CITY MANAGER. RIGHT. LIKE I CAN'T GO UNTIL SOMEBODY TO GO AND MOW OVER THERE OR WHATEVER WITHOUT GETTING AUTHORIZATION OR JUST CONTACTING, GOING STRAIGHT TO THE CHIEF ON THAT. WE CAN'T TELL THE STAFF WHAT TO DO. YEAH, THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE CHANGE WAS TO MAKE IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, AS IT IS IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE CHARTER, THAT THAT'S THE WAY THIS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. OR IF I SEE SOMEBODY THAT'S MOWING THE GRASS AND, WELL, HEY, WHEN YOU'RE DONE THERE, CAN YOU GO OVER HERE? I TO GO STRAIGHT TO BRIAN AND SAY, BRIAN, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A WAY WHAT'S THE SCHEDULE LIKE? AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ANY OFFICER YOU APPOINT, YOU CAN YOU CAN TALK TO THOSE OF US THAT YOU APPOINT.

BUT THE IDEA IS TO NOT MANAGE THE REST OF THE EMPLOYEES. SO IS THIS ALSO SAYING THAT WE COULD CHANGE JOB DESCRIPTIONS? THAT IS KIND OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. YES. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE CHARTER. I DO NOT LIKE THAT. OKAY. YEAH. I LIKE THE IDEA OF A HARD SEPARATION BETWEEN COUNCIL AND STAFF AS FAR AS AND THAT'S WHAT PROP G IS TRYING TO DECIDE.

YEAH. WE'RE TRYING TO GET YOU TO A CLEAR SEPARATION BETWEEN COUNCIL AND STAFF THAT WORKS.

I'M DEFINITELY GOOD WITH THIS CHANGE. I REMEMBER THAT ONE. HAVE WE HAVE WE HAVE WE EVER HAD INSTANCES, I GUESS, IN THE PAST WHERE MAYBE A COUNCIL MEMBER TRIED TO DO THIS? I'M THINKING IN A BAD PAST, BUT AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN HERE, I THINK THE CITY MANAGER HAS ALWAYS WE'VE ALWAYS GONE THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER. WE DO GO OUT AND PARTICIPATE IN EVENTS WITH CITY EMPLOYEES, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY GIVES DIRECTION. I THINK WE HAVE GOOD CONVERSATIONS OUT THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S EVER DONE GIVEN DIRECTION. BUT. I'M GOOD WITH PASSING IT. I JUST DON'T THINK WE NEED TO. BUT IF THE FUTURE WE GET, A COUNCIL MEMBER DECIDES THEY WANT TO BE TELLING STAFF WHAT TO DO, I GUESS IT WOULD BE A GREAT LIKE MICHAEL SAID, HAVING SOMETHING TO PREVENT THE FUTURE. I MEAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING CARE OF FUTURE COUNCILS AS WELL. SO I'M GOOD WITH THIS ONE IF WE WANT TO PASS IT. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD. PROPOSITION H IS ON ONE READING ORDINANCES, WHICH I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER WAS TRYING TO TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER. THE COMMISSION HAD TWO SEPARATE CHANGES TO THIS, WHICH WOULD BE IN DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER. THE FIRST CHANGE WAS TO ADD TO THE SECTION THAT REFERS TO THINGS THAT CAN BE CURRENTLY PASSED ON A SINGLE READING, INCLUDING ANYTHING THAT RECEIVES SEVEN VOTES TO ADD APPROVAL OF ORDINANCES, CALLING AND CANVASING ELECTIONS. BECAUSE CALLING AND CANVASING ELECTIONS ARE BOTH MORE OR LESS MINISTERIAL DUTIES, THEY HAVE TO GET DONE, AND SOMETIMES IT'S TRICKY TO TRY TO SQUEEZE IN A SECOND MEETING. TO CALL AN ELECTION BEFORE THE ELECTION DEADLINE. AND IT'S PARTICULARLY TRICKY WITH CANVASING, BECAUSE TECHNICALLY, UNDER THE LAW, THE QUORUM FOR CANVASING IS TWO. AND SO WE DO CANVASING BY RESOLUTION, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK LATER. RIGHT NOW, I'D RATHER DO IT BY ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S CLEANER. YEAH, YEAH. THE SECOND RECOMMENDED CHANGE WAS TO EMERGENCY ORDINANCES. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A REALLY RESTRICTIVE PROVISION ON EMERGENCY ORDINANCES, AND THEY CAN ONLY BE EFFECTIVE FOR 60 DAYS. THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS TO OPEN THAT UP A LITTLE BIT AND ALLOW ORDINANCES THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR ACTUAL EMERGENCIES FOR SOME SORT OF CATASTROPHIC SITUATION TO BE FINALLY PASSED WITH FIVE VOTES ON ONE READING WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK IN 60 DAYS. IT'S NOT AN EMERGENCY IF YOU HAVE TO BRING IT BACK, RIGHT? THE ONLY EMERGENCY ORDINANCES I COULD FIND THAT THE CITY'S PASSED IN THE PAST FEW

[00:50:01]

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I, I ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT BAD CHARACTERS, RIGHT? YOU WORRY ABOUT SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS LOOPHOLE. AND WE'VE SEEN ENEMIES TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LOOPHOLES BEFORE. SO I'D LOVE TO SEE SOMETHING COME BACK. SOME PARAMETERS PLEASE. I'LL BRING YOU WHAT I PROVIDED TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ON THE FIFTH. AND THEN IF WE WANT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ADD THEM IN AT THAT MEETING. THANK YOU.

AMY. PROPOSITION I THIS IS ANOTHER ONE WHERE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK IS NEEDED. THE CURRENT 5.02 PROVIDES THAT CHARTERS ARE ON, OR THAT THE GENERAL ELECTION IS ON TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER. THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THAT TO SPECIFICALLY REFER TO THE NOVEMBER UNIFORM ELECTION DATE, I GUESS, IN CASE IT'S EVER NOT ON A TUESDAY. BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THE TUESDAY IN NOVEMBER IS THE GENERAL ELECTION DATE, OR IS THE UNIFORM ELECTION DATE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES? AND IT ALSO REMOVES SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT THE TRANSITION ELECTION SCHEDULE FROM WHEN WE STARTED DOING A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS.

SO WE SET THE SCHEDULE. SO THEY WANTED TO REMOVE THE, THE LANGUAGE THAT SHOWS HOW THE TRANSITION WAS DONE AND THEN JUST PUT IN THIS IS HOW WE DO IT CURRENTLY. SO ONE AND THREE ARE ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME. TWO FOUR INCHES THE MAYOR ARE ELECTED AT THE SAME TIME. THOSE ARE THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH ANY OF THOSE CHANGES. IT'S JUST IF WE'RE TRYING TO PRIORITIZE THIS, MAYBE ONE THAT'S LESS HIGH ON THE SCALE. I, I'M FINE WITH THAT. I GUESS I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'D HAVE TO. WHY WOULD WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE IF WE'RE GOING. YEAH, LET'S. IT MAKES SENSE. CHANGE IT. 26 BALLOT PROPOSITIONS COULD COULD BE A LOT FOR VOTERS. OKAY. AND WE NEED AN APPROVAL OF THIS. BUT I SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO MAYBE WE LEAVE THIS AS A MAYBE AND WE CAN DECIDE IF WE HAVE TOO MANY PROPOSITIONS AT THE END. OH YEAH. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. YEAH. BECAUSE WE CAN PRIORITIZE THEM. YEAH. WE'VE WE'VE ELIMINATED A COUPLE SO FAR THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE. SO. PROPOSITION J POLLING PLACES. SO THIS REMOVES THE AFFIRMATIVE REQUIREMENT THAT CITY HALL ALWAYS SERVE AS A POLLING LOCATION. AND PART OF THE THOUGHT BEHIND THAT WAS IF CITY HALL IS JUST UNDER CONSTRUCTION THAT WEEK AND WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE FALCON ROOM, AND NOW WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SQUEEZE POLLING LOCATIONS INTO OTHER PARTS OF THE BUILDING, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT IN A DIFFERENT CITY BUILDING. SO THE IDEA WAS TO SAY THAT A CITY BUILDING WOULD BE A POLLING PLACE WITH PREFERENCE FOR CITY HALL IF IT'S AVAILABLE. IF CITY HALL IS NOT AVAILABLE, WE COULD DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT. YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INTENT IS. I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT. LOOK, HONESTLY, VOTERS ARE USED TO. GOING TO THE VOTE. THE LOCATIONS THEY'RE USED TO GOING. AND I'VE SEEN IT IN ELECTION AFTER ELECTION WHERE IF THERE'S A PLACE THAT'S NOT OPEN, THEY THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE TO GO. IT'S KIND OF HARD. IT KIND OF DISCOURAGES PEOPLE WANTING TO VOTE OR TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO VOTE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A PROVISION SAYING THAT IF SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE BUILDING, CITY HALL, THEN WE COULD GO TO PLAN B. BUT REALLY I WANT TO BE AN EMPHASIS AT CITY HALL IS THE VOTING LOCATION THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE FAMILIAR WITH? IT'S GOING TO BE

[00:55:07]

AND SO WE ADDED THIS LANGUAGE THAT A THAT PREFERENCE IS GIVEN TO CITY HALL WHEN IT'S AVAILABLE. IT SAYS A PREFERENCE, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BINDING ENOUGH. I THINK THAT'S WHAT KIND OF WORRIES ME. I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S BINDING ENOUGH. IF I MIGHT ADD, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO NEW BILL. WE HAVE TWO NEW BUILDINGS THAT WE CAN STILL USE NOW. WE CAN HAVE THE REPUBLIC FOR REPUBLIC DRIVE, AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY CENTER OVER THERE OFF DAISY. SO LET'S NOT LIMIT JUST CITY HALL AS FAR AS VOTING LOCATIONS, WE HAVE TWO NEW BUILDINGS THAT WE CAN START UTILIZING FOR POLLING PLACES. SO AS MUCH AS WE HAVE INSTILLED IN EVERYBODY'S MINDSET THAT CITY HALL IS THE PLACE TO GO, THAT IS PROBABLY WHAT ANOTHER REASON WHY WE LOOKED AT LOOKING AT OTHER FACILITIES THAT THE CITY COULD UTILIZE AS VOTING PLACES. SO NOW IT'S NOT ONLY WE HAVE CITY HALL, BUT IN FUTURE ELECTIONS OR IN THE NEXT YEARS OR SO WHEN THESE BUILDINGS ARE UP AND RUNNING, WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE POLLING PLACES THAT WE CAN UTILIZE. WE HAVE USED OTHER POLLING PLACES, BUT CITY HALL HAS LIMITATIONS, YOU KNOW, AND USING LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER TOBY SAID, USING ANOTHER 1ST MAY BE A BETTER OPTION THAN USING CITY HALL FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. WHEN THE ELECTION TURNOUT IS LARGE, WE GET WE AT ONE POINT HAD A LINE AROUND THE BUILDING. EXACTLY. NO PARKING. AND IF WE HAD HAD AN OPTION TO NOT USE CITY HALL, I THINK THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER PLACES. SO I CAN SEE A PREFERENCE FOR CITY HALL. AND WE GENERALLY KNOW IF THE ELECTION IS GOING TO BE HEAVILY UTILIZED OR NOT. AND THE OTHER ASPECT IS, IS WE CAN'T WE CAN'T ALWAYS RELY ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO USE THEIR FACILITIES AS WELL, BECAUSE WE INTERRUPT THEIR SERVICES AND THEIR AND THEIR, THEIR SCHEDULE. SO IT'S JUST AGAIN, I'M LOOKING AT THIS LONG TERM GUYS AS FAR AS WHAT WE HAVE HERE. AND WE MAY MEET. I'M GOOD WITH USING OTHER LOCATIONS BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE THREE OTHER BUILDINGS. BUT I KNOW WHAT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE IS THAT PEOPLE ALREADY KNOW CITY HALL. THEY KNOW THAT THERE'S A PLACE TO GO THERE, AND THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS DISCOURAGE VOTER TURNOUT, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE CREATURES OF HABIT, RIGHT? THEY, THEY, THEY, THEY'RE USED TO COMING HERE. AND IF WE HAD ANOTHER LOCATION, I'M GOOD WITH THAT, ADDING ANOTHER LOCATION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PRESERVE THE CITY HALL FOR THE MAIN LOCATION, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE USED TO IT. AND ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT OUR VOTER TURNOUTS. I MEAN, ANY CHANGE COULD REALLY HURT THAT VOTER TURNOUT. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT BECAUSE I'VE SEEN IT. I'VE BEEN OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, SEEING THE POLLS. I WATCHED THE NUMBERS. EVERY ELECTION, I LOOK AT THE VOTING SITES AND I CAN I CAN TELL YOU WHEN I'M LISTENING TO PEOPLE IN THE LINES, I CAN HEAR THEM WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGE OR JUST A LITTLE CHANGE. IT KIND OF DISCOURAGES THEM. SO I, I'M GOOD WITH USING OTHER LOCATIONS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BIG TURNOUT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE BIG ELECTIONS, WHETHER THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, STATE OR FEDERAL. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STILL ALWAYS HAVE THAT ONE PLACE PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH AND AT CITY HALL AVAILABLE, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON. YEAH, THAT'S TRUE, THAT'S TRUE. BUT TO COUNTER ON DOCTOR HARRIS'S POINT, DOCTOR REED, MR. RIZZO, IS THAT WE HAVE OTHER FACILITIES WE CAN USE. YES, CITY HALL CAN BE A MAIN AREA, BUT LIKE SHE STATED, THERE'S A LONG LINE THAT GOES ACROSS. SO WHEN YOU SAY IT DISCOURAGES VOTERS, THAT COULD BE IT. SO LET'S LOOK AT IT IN THE MIND OF THE VOTERS. IF THERE'S OTHER POLLING LOCATIONS THAT COULD BE CENTRALIZED, I SUPPORT I SUPPORT THE OTHER VOTING LOCATIONS. WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. THAT'S WHY I SAID I SUPPORT THE OTHER VOTING LOCATIONS. YEAH, OPENING UP MORE VOTING LOCATIONS IS IMPORTANT.

GETTING VOTING LOCATIONS NEAR THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA IS REALLY IMPORTANT AS WELL. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP CITY HALL NUMBER ONE PRIORITY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE USED TO IT. AND BUT I WANT TO JUMP IN HERE THIS ROBERT, THIS IS NOT THIS ISN'T AN AND OR SITUATION. THIS IS IN THE EVENT THAT CITY HALL IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR FLOODED, THAT WE THEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO NOT USE IT IN, IN FAVOR OF A LOCATION THAT IS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR FLOODED, BUT TO THE POINT THAT YOU GUYS ARE. I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT IF WE AS OUR CITY GROWS, WE CAN, LIKE COUNCILMEMBER TIBBETTS WAS SAYING, WE DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON

[01:00:03]

SO LIKE, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. BUT THAT'S NOT THIS ITEM. THIS ITEM IS JUST IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE IT, RIGHT? YEAH. I MEAN, THE IDEA I'M GOOD WITH IF IT'S NOT AVAILABLE AND THEN POTENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE IF IT'S NOT THE BEST LOCATION ANYMORE. BUT I THINK THAT I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS WANT THAT PART ON THE TABLE. I THINK YOU JUST WANT IF IT'S NOT AVAILABLE. YEAH, THERE'S SOME THERE'S NOT AVAILABLE. THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT COMING TO CITY HALL AND VOTING. I LOVE COMING HERE TO VOTE. SO I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY WE NEED TO NOT VOTE HERE ANYMORE. BUT IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHERE THIS CANNOT BE UTILIZED, THEN WE NEED THE FLEXIBILITY ON, YOU KNOW, EVEN ON SHORT NOTICE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. OKAY. I'M GOOD. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. AS LONG AS IT'S AN EMERGENCY. I'M DEFINITELY ON KEY WITH DOING THAT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S LET'S MOVE FORWARD. AND WE CAN LOOK AT THAT LANGUAGE ON THE FIFTH. AND LET US KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

PROPOSITION K IMPACTS THREE DIFFERENT SECTIONS RELATED TO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS. THE IDEA IS TO CLARIFY IN A FEW PLACES THAT DON'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO CAN TAKE ACTION RELATED TO SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS ARE VOTERS IN THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE IN SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT ELECTION ARE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN SIGN A RECALL PETITION FOR A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT MEMBER HAVE TO LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT, AND WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT PERSON MUST CONTINUOUSLY LIVE IN THAT DISTRICT WHILE SERVING. YEAH. SO IS THERE IS THERE A CHANGE HERE THAT ONLY THE RECALL CAN ONLY HAPPEN BY VOTERS UNDER THE CURRENT RECALL PROVISION? THE SAME REQUIREMENTS APPLY FOR EVERYBODY UP THERE, WHETHER YOU'RE SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT OR AT LARGE, YOU HAVE TO GET A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE VOTERS CITYWIDE TO SIGN. AND SO IN THEORY, IF PEOPLE IN DISTRICT TWO DON'T LIKE THE DISTRICT SIX REPRESENTATIVE, YOU COULD GET ENOUGH VOTERS OUT OF DISTRICT TWO TO SIGN A RECALL PETITION. AND THAT MIGHT BE VALID AGAINST DISTRICT SIX REPRESENTATIVE, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE CAN VOTE FOR HIM. SO THE IDEA WAS TO STOP THAT. YEAH, BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN. IT CAN CURRENTLY HAPPEN. SO THE IDEA WAS TO SAY YOU'D HAVE TO GET THAT MANY THAT PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS OUT OF THAT DISTRICT TO SIGN. SO IF IT'S I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT LET'S SAY IT'S 5% OF THE VOTERS, YOU THEN HAVE TO GET 5% OF THE VOTERS IN DISTRICT SIX TO SIGN, AND THEN A 5% SIGN IN DISTRICT SIX. THEN THE PEOPLE IN DISTRICT SIX CAN VOTE. SO THAT WOULD DROP FROM GETTING 5% OF 65,000 TO GETTING 5% OF MAYBE 20,000. RIGHT. BUT THOSE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN VOTE FOR YOU. SO THAT WAS THE IDEA. THIS THIS CHANGE SEEMS EQUITABLE.

NOW. THAT WAS THE THOUGHT AND THE REAL THE REAL THING THAT GOT I THINK THE COMMISSION WAS WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF PEOPLE IN A DIFFERENT DISTRICT RECALLING SOMEBODY WHO WAS NOT THEIR COUNCIL MEMBER THAT THEY WERE NEVER ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE. YEAH, YEAH. LIKE IF TOBIAS TOOK A VOTE THAT NEGATIVELY AFFECTED PLUM CREEK AND THEY WANTED TO PUNISH HIM, AND THAT WAS THE DECIDING VOTE, THEY COULD ESSENTIALLY WORK TO RECALL HIM. RIGHT? BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE THAN 5% OF OUR VOTERS IN DISTRICT FOUR OR DISTRICT TWO. AND SO IF THAT WAS THE CONCERN, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RECALLING THE COUNCIL MEMBER ARE PEOPLE WHO COULD VOTE FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBER. AND KEEP IN MIND THAT IT'S ONLY 5% OF THAT. SO IT'D BE 5% OF 20,000. IF THAT'S THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THAT, I CAN'T RECALL THE PERCENTAGES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I THINK IT MIGHT BE FIVE OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS VOTING AGE POPULATION. SO IT'S NOT 20,000. IT'S REGISTERED VOTERS TO REGISTERED VOTERS.

REGISTERED VOTERS. YEAH. REGISTERED VOTERS, THERE'LL BE A LOT LESS THAN. YEAH. SO YOU WOULD NEED A WHOLE LOT TO GET YOUR DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE RECALLED. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ACCURATE, COUNCIL MEMBER RIZZO, BUT YOU WOULD AT LEAST LIMIT THEM TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN YOUR DISTRICT, AS OPPOSED TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE OUTSIDE YOUR DISTRICT. RIGHT? OKAY, OKAY. I THINK I THINK WE'RE OKAY WITH THIS ONE. YES. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK THE COMMITTEE LOOKED AT IT AND THEY RECOMMENDED IT. I DON'T THINK IT SCARES ME IS THAT YOU GET SOME THAT WANTS TO TAKE OUT THEIR DISTRICT REP BECAUSE THEY MIGHT WANT TO BE IN THAT SEAT. SO THEY LET THEY DON'T NEED TO WORK AS HARD. THEY CAN GET LESS VOTES TO GET YOU OUT. THAT'S THE ONLY DRAWBACK ON IT. OKAY. I'M SEEING A CONSENSUS, I THINK, TO MOVE FORWARD. I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THIS. I'M GOOD WITH THIS PROPOSITION. L INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. THIS IS ONE THAT I

[01:05:02]

THE COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDED GIVING THE CITY SECRETARY 15 BUSINESS DAYS TO REVIEW INSTEAD OF 14 DAYS TOTAL. AND THEN IF THE CITY SECRETARY COULDN'T VALIDATE THE SIGNATURES, WE WOULD GIVE THEM 15 BUSINESS DAYS TO GO GET MORE SIGNATURES. AND THEN WE WOULD GIVE THE CITY SECRETARY SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS TO REVIEW THOSE SIGNATURES. SO 90 DAYS SEEMS APPROPRIATE BASED ON OTHER CITY'S STANDARD. YEAH. AND THAT COULD BE A TOTAL OF 105. RIGHT, RIGHT. IF THEY SUBMIT IT AND IT'S LACKING THEN THEY GET AN ADDITIONAL 15. AND BUSINESS DAYS, THE 15 DAYS ARE BUSINESS DAYS. SO THAT'S REALLY AN EXTRA THREE WEEKS, THREE WEEKS, THREE WEEKS APPROXIMATELY. WHAT'S THE CURRENT ALMOST FOUR MONTHS WORTH OF I THINK THAT'S TOO LONG. THAT'S THAT'S A LONGER TIME THAN WE THINK IT IS. YEAH. THIS IS A THIRD OF A YEAR CURRENTLY. IT'S THAT'S ALMOST HALF A YEAR. YEAH.

CURRENTLY IT'S 90 DAYS TO CIRCULATE 14 DAYS FOR THE CITY SECRETARY TO REVIEW. IF THE CITY SECRETARY CAN'T VALIDATE ALL THE SIGNATURES, THEY GET 14 DAYS TO RECIRCULATE. AND THEN WHEN THAT

[01:10:01]

I MEANT GOING WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, I THINK, IS APPROPRIATE. THE TIME TO REVIEW IS TO VALIDATE SIGNATURES. CORRECT? RIGHT. SO THEY SUBMIT AND THEN THE VALIDATION OF THE SIGNATURES BEGINS. AND THEN THEY CAN ACTUALLY GO BACK OUT AND GET MORE. RIGHT. SO AFTER WE AFTER THE CITY SECRETARY'S REVIEWED IT, IF WE SAY, HEY, YOU'RE 20 SIGNATURES SHORT, THEY GET 15 BUSINESS DAYS TO GO GET 20 MORE SIGNATURES. YEAH, THAT SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME GIVEN THE NUMBER OF SIGNATURES IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S GENERAL ELECTION. SO. I DON'T KNOW. THIS JUST THIS ISN'T PROPORTIONATE TO ANYTHING ELSE.

AND SO I JUST THINK THAT BUT LOOK, I'M NOT GOING TO DIE ON THIS HILL FOR MONTHS. JUST SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME. THAT'S A THIRD OF A YEAR. YEAH. I THINK LEAVING IT AS IS, I THINK WE'RE GOOD AS IS. I THINK IT'S ALREADY PRETTY CLEAR. WE HAVE THE 90 DAY. THEY HAVE THE 90 DAYS RIGHT NOW.

CORRECT. THIS JUST GIVES THE CITY SECRETARY 15 BUSINESS DAYS INSTEAD OF 14 DAYS RIGHT TO REVIEW. BUT THEN WE'RE ADDING DAYS TO THE OTHERS AS WELL, RIGHT? YEAH. THEY THOUGHT IF THEY GAVE OUR OFFICE MORE TIME TO REVIEW, THAT IT WAS ONLY FAIR TO GIVE THE PETITIONER MORE TIME TO CIRCULATE. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S MUCH MORE TIME. JUST ONE DAY IT'S IT WENT FROM 14 DAYS TO 15 BUSINESS DAYS, WHICH AGAIN IS APPROXIMATELY THREE WEEKS, EXCEPT THEY DON'T CIRCULATE THE PETITIONS ON BUSINESS DAYS. THAT'S TRUE. THEY CIRCULATE PETITIONS ON WEEKENDS. OKAY, I GET IT NOW. OKAY. I'M GOOD. ALL RIGHT. NO, I'M SAYING THAT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY JUST LIMIT THAT TO BUSINESS DAYS. SO IF YOU WANT TO TELL THEM THEY HAVE TEN DAYS INSTEAD OF 15 BUSINESS DAYS TO RECIRCULATE IT, THAT'S TEN DAYS. YEAH, I'M FINE WITH YOU'RE SAYING NOW IT IS 14 DAYS AND 15 BUSINESS IN OTHER. SO HOW MANY ADDITIONAL DAYS IS THAT ACTUALLY IN? IT'S A WEEK. IT'S AN EXTRA WEEK. FIVE BUSINESS DAYS PER WEEK. YEAH I MEAN A LOT OF CIRCULATING. RIGHT. SO THEY HAVE TO CIRCULATE A PETITION IS WEEKENDS. SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A LONG TIME BUT WORK SCHEDULE I'M FINE OKAY I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I THINK WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS ONE AS WRITTEN AS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE. OKAY. PROPOSITION M, RECALL THE RECOMMENDATION HERE FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WAS TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER COULD BE RECALLED DURING THEIR TERM FROM 3 TO 2, AND THE REASONING FOR THAT WAS THAT THE COMMISSION THOUGHT IT WAS LOGISTICALLY DIFFICULT TO EVEN EVEN GET THREE RECALL PETITIONS THROUGH PETITIONS THROUGH BECAUSE IT'S 90 DAYS TO CIRCULATE. YOU CAN'T DO IT WITHIN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OR THE LAST THREE MONTHS. IT WAS JUST WE'RE LOOKING AT BARELY OVER A YEAR, AND TRYING TO GET THREE RECALL PETITIONS THROUGH SEEMED DIFFICULT TO THEM, SO THEY THOUGHT TWO SEEMED REASONABLE. IT ALSO SEEMED LIKE ENOUGH TIMES, LIKE IF YOU'VE VOTED TWICE IN TWO YEARS TO NOT RECALL THE PERSON ADDING A THIRD TIME THEY THOUGHT WAS MAYBE TOO MUCH. YEAH, I AGREE WITH THIS ONE. YEP. CITY MANAGER APPOINTMENT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO PROVIDE CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THE CHARTER AND MAKE IT CLEAR IN EVERY SECTION THAT REFERS TO HOW THE CITY MANAGER IS APPOINTED, THAT IT REQUIRES FIVE AFFIRMATIVE VOTES TO APPOINT OR REMOVE THE CITY MANAGER. IN SOME SECTIONS IT SAYS FIVE AND SOME SECTIONS IT SAYS FOUR. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE FIVE. I MEAN, IT IS FIVE BECAUSE ONE OF THE SECTIONS SAYS FIVE. AND SO I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT IF YOU TRY TO FIRE A CITY MANAGER WITH LESS THAN FIVE, THEY'RE GOING TO POINT TO THE PROVISION THAT SAYS IT'S FIVE. SO. YEAH. THE POINT IS JUST TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT. PROPOSITION OH INTERNAL AUDITOR THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS

[01:15:03]

IT DID NOT INCLUDE OFFICE SPACE, EQUIPMENT, ANY OF THAT. IT WAS ANNUAL COSTS FOR STAFF. THANK YOU. OKAY. PROPOSITION P PLANNING COMMISSION TERMS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM IS TO ALIGN THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT A PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING COMMISSIONER CAN SERVE WITH THE

[01:20:04]

SURE. PROPOSITION Q WAS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY ADD SOME LANGUAGE TO THE DUTIES OF, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

SPECIFICALLY, THEY WANTED TO ADD THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY MAKE COMMENTS ON ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND ALSO AN AFFIRMATIVE PROVISION FINDING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY TAKE NO ACTION THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAW. I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH EITHER OF THESE CHANGES, BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK THEY'RE NECESSARY BECAUSE CURRENTLY THERE'S NOTHING THAT PROHIBITS THE PLANNING REVIEW, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FROM REVIEWING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKED TO DO. AND THERE'S THE REQUIREMENT TO NOT VIOLATE LAW IS ALWAYS APPLIED AND WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY. OKAY. BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH PUTTING ON THE BALLOT IF COUNCIL WISHES TO DO SO. I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT. OKAY. I AGREE WITH HER. WITH COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT EITHER. OKAY. IT'S NOT NECESSARY. I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT TO PUT TOO MUCH ON THAT BALLOT IN TERMS OF THE PROPS, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A MATTER OF PUTTING A LOT OF ITEMS ON THE BALLOT. IT'S A MATTER OF DOES THIS FIT WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD IS THAT THEIR PRIMARY POSITION IS TO GIVE COMMENTS TO THE CITY MANAGER ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS, VERSUS GIVING THE COMMENTS FROM WITHIN AND THE DEVELOPERS THEMSELVES. THEY MAKE THE VOTE TO RECOMMEND TO BRING TO COUNCIL. RIGHT.

BECAUSE WE'RE WE WOULD BE THE ONES THAT WOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON ON THAT. SO DO YOU KNOW THE REASONING WHY THEY FELT THAT THE PLANNING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN PROVIDE THEIR INFORMATION OR ASK QUESTIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER AHEAD OF TIME? IS IT JUST SO THAT WAY THEY CAN HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE PROPOSED AGREEMENTS ARE OR WHAT THEY'RE TRYING THE DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO DO? I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY SAID. I FEEL LIKE IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT TYPICALLY, PROJECTS WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ARE BROUGHT TO THE PNC TO REVIEW PODS, BECAUSE THE PODS ARE USUALLY RELATED, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE POD IS SPECIFICALLY IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S PURVIEW BECAUSE IT'S A ZONING ISSUE.

WHEREAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MAY HAVE SOME INFORMATION THAT DEALS WITH ZONING, BUT IT'S

[01:25:04]

I DON'T THINK THAT AIDS OR SHOULD BE FACTORED IN TO PLANNING AND ZONING RELATED DECISIONS. OKAY. PROPOSITION R, THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSITION R IS TO MOVE TO SECTIONS IN THE CHARTER THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN CHAPTER OR ARTICLE 11 TO ARTICLE 13, BECAUSE THEY FEEL WEIRD IN ARTICLE 11. ARTICLE 11 IS MOSTLY ABOUT UTILITIES AND FRANCHISES, EXCEPT FOR THE LAST TWO PROVISIONS, 1111 AND 1112, WHICH ARE ABOUT LEASE AND SALE AND CONTRACTS TO MANAGE CITY PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT INCLUDING UTILITIES, BUT ALSO INCLUDING PARKS AND SPORTS FACILITIES AND OTHER POOLS, THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT IF I WAS LOOKING FOR A PROHIBITION ON SELLING A CITY POOL, I WOULDN'T REALLY LOOK. IN THE ARTICLE TITLED UTILITIES AND FRANCHISES.

AND SO WE THOUGHT MAYBE THERE WAS A BETTER PLACE TO PUT IT. CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING ARTICLE 13, WHICH IS GENERAL PROVISIONS. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THAT I LIKE IT. I THINK IT WOULD BE CLEANER, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT A HIGH PRIORITY IF WE'RE TRYING TO PRIORITIZE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY CHANGING MUCH LANGUAGE. I MEAN, THIS IS CONFUSING TO US.

I'M GOING TO GUESS, AND IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE CONFUSING ON A BALLOT, BUT IS WHAT'S.

YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T REALLY SEE. I'M NOT AN ADVOCATE OF MAKING CHANGE JUST TO MAKE CHANGE. SO I HAVE NO PROBLEMS PUTTING THIS ONE TO THE VOTE. LET LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. I'M NOT GOING TO I DON'T. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE GROUP. I MEAN, I JUST DON'T WANT TO BRING A LOT OF CONFUSION. I MEAN, IT IS NOT EVEN CLEAR TO US. I THINK WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET IS ALPHABETICAL. THE ROMAN NUMERALS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT AND MAYBE NOT BE MIXED UP WITH NUMERICAL.

I JUST DON'T I DON'T SEE THIS YET AS WHAT IS WHAT THE INTENT IS. I THINK IF IT'S CONFUSING TO COUNSEL, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE SUGGESTION TO PERHAPS NOT INCLUDE IT RIGHT. RECONSIDER IT AT A FUTURE TIME TABLE THAT ONE PROPOSITION S CHARTER REVIEW OR SORRY ETHICS COMMISSION. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING MULTIPLE CHANGES TO SECTION 12.01, WHICH IS THE SECTION THAT DEALS WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION. THE FIRST CHANGE IS THEY WANT TO INCLUDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CODE OF ETHICS. SO THEY WANT THE CODE OF ETHICS TO INCLUDE CERTAIN PROVISIONS, INCLUDING A TRAVEL AND EXPENSE POLICY, WHICH WE CURRENTLY DON'T INCLUDE IN

[01:30:03]

RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE RECOMMENDING PUTTING IN LANGUAGE THAT REQUIRES YOU TO ADOPT IT BY ORDINANCE. AND THAT WAY YOU COULD CHANGE THE ORDINANCE AS INFLATION COMES IN. AND MAYBE $100 IS NOT WORTH AS MUCH AS IT WAS WHEN WE FIRST ADOPTED IT AS THE NOMINAL VALUE. MAYBE THE NOMINAL VALUE SHOULD BE $200, RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY'RE RECOMMENDING THE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THAT WAY IT IS FLEXIBLE FOR CHANGES IN VALUE. ARE THERE DOWNSIDES TO THIS? I MEAN, THE PRIMARY DOWNSIDE IS THAT WE HAVE TO GO DETERMINE WHAT NOMINAL VALUE MEANS, WHICH I THINK WE KIND OF ALL HAVE AN IDEA OF. OUR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE HAS A LIMIT OF, I WANT TO SAY $100, BUT JENNIFER CAN CORRECT ME. SO CURRENTLY WE PROVIDE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE OF ANY GIFT OVER $100 ANYWAY. AND THEN WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO REMEMBER TO CHANGE IT IF IT IF CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE AND WE FEEL LIKE IT'S NO LONGER SUFFICIENT. SO WE'RE ALREADY REQUIRING ANYTHING OVER $100 TO BE REPORTED ANNUALLY. YOU FILL OUT A FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER. DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS FILL THEM OUT AS WELL, AND WE ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT GIFTS OVER A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT. AGAIN, I THINK IT'S $100.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TOUCH IT. RIGHT, ROBERT? I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK WE NEED TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. I'VE NEVER RECEIVED A GIFT OVER $100. THAT'S KIND OF THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT, BECAUSE, LIKE, MAN WHO'S GETTING A GIFT? AND I WAS LIKE, I MEAN, I'M NOT GETTING ANY GIFTS, BUT WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? YEAH. SO WHAT? YEAH. THIS HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH. YEAH, THIS THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR AMY. JUST TO MAKE

[01:35:02]

SOMETHING I WOULD POINT TO HERE IS THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT CURRENTLY PROHIBITS US FROM CHANGING THE CODE OF ETHICS TO INCLUDE A SET DOLLAR AMOUNT LIMIT ON GIFTS, AND WE CAN DO THAT CURRENTLY. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE CHARTER TO MAKE US DO IT.

AND WE REQUIRE REPORTING OF ANYTHING OVER 100 ANYWAY. RIGHT? CURRENTLY, ANNUALLY SOME FORM.

YEAH, THAT'S A BIG THING THERE. THEY'RE REQUIRING IT SO THAT PEOPLE ALREADY KNOW AWARE IF SOMEBODY'S GETTING A GIFT OVER $100 AND IF IT'S EXTRAVAGANT GIFT AND THEY HAVE TO ANSWER THE VOTERS ON THAT. SO YEAH. JUST YEAH, OKAY. I'M GETTING A CONSENSUS. I'LL LEAVE THIS ONE ALONE. AND I GUESS, WHAT WERE THEY TRYING TO GET AT THAT YOU CAN GET ONE GIFT UNDER $100, BUT YOU CAN GET MULTIPLE GIFTS SINCE THERE'S NO LIMIT ON PER YEAR ON HOW MANY GIFTS THE COUNCIL MEMBER RECEIVES. I THINK THAT WAS THE CONSIDERATION ON ADDING AN ANNUAL LIMIT. SO IF YOU CAN ACCEPT A GIFT OF UNDER $100, MAYBE FROM ONE PERSON OR ONE ENTITY, YOU CAN'T GET MORE THAN $1,000 DURING THE YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YEAH. AND AGAIN, IF THAT'S SOMETHING COUNCIL LIKES, WE CAN ADD THAT TO THE CODE OF ETHICS LATER. YEAH, I THINK IT BELONGS IN THE ETHICS. RIGHT. BECAUSE I MEAN WE DON'T WANT SOMEONE JUST RECEIVING MULTIPLE GIFTS, YOU KNOW, SERVING OVER AND OVER. BUT SO MAYBE THAT'S JUST AN ETHICS THING OKAY. PROPOSITION U IS ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THIS WOULD BE AMENDMENTS TO TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CHARTER, 12.03 AND 12.04 AND 12.03. IT ADDS LANGUAGE THAT I ARGUED WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY BECAUSE CURRENTLY, 12.03 PROHIBITS ANY CITY EMPLOYEE FROM BEING A PARTY TO ANY TRANSACTION OR ANY CONTRACT WITH THE CITY. I HAVE REQUESTED AN EXCEPTION FOR EMINENT DOMAIN AND FOR ANY CONTRACTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE REST OF THE PUBLIC ON THE SAME TERMS. BECAUSE I AM AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF KYLE AND I LIVE IN THE CITY OF KYLE, AND I NEED TO PAY A WATER BILL, AND IF I NEEDED A CONTRACT RELATED TO THAT WATER BILL, I NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT VIOLATING THE CITY CHARTER. I ALSO WOULD ARGUE THAT IF THE CITY NEEDED TO EXPAND THE ROAD IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, AND THIS PROVISION APPLIED WITHOUT EMINENT DOMAIN EXCEPTION, I COULD ARGUE THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME TAKE THAT PORTION OF MY YARD FOR THE ROAD.

SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT EMPLOYEES WHO HAPPEN TO LIVE IN KYLE ARE STILL ABLE TO DO THE THINGS AS THE SAME AS THE OTHER RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN KYLE. AND THEN 12.04 WAS A CLARIFICATION ON THE RECUSAL PROCESS. WHEN YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND IT WAS TO PROVIDE THAT CONTRACTS THAT VIOLATE THE CHARTER PROVISIONS RELATED TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ARE VOID, WHICH A LOT OF OTHER CITIES HAVE IN THEIR CHARTER OR IN THEIR ETHICS CODE. WE CAN ADD THIS ONE. OKAY. YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THIS. GOOD WITH IT. I'M YOU KNOW, I WANT TO PROTECT OUR EMPLOYEES, TOO, AND MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE SAME PROTECTION THAT THE RESIDENTS. WE DON'T WANT TO PUNISH THEM FOR LIVING IN KYLE. WE ACTUALLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO LIVE IN OUR CITY BECAUSE THEY'LL CARE MORE ABOUT IT. OKAY, SO THAT'S PROPOSITION YOU. SO JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT 12.4, HOW DOES THAT WORK? I MEAN, IF SOMEONE HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT DIDN'T DISCLOSE THE ITEM PASSES AND THEN LATER IT'S FOUND THERE WAS A CONFLICT, HOW DOES THAT WORK? I MEAN, HOW DOES THAT VOID IF IT I MEAN, WHAT MAKES IT VOIDED THE AN ETHICS VIOLATION OR A LEGAL VIOLATION, IT WOULD BE A CONTRACT THAT VIOLATED THE CITY CHARTER. SO IT WOULD BE VOID LEGALLY AND ETHICALLY. ESSENTIALLY, THE COUNTERARGUMENT TO THAT IS THAT IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY RESULT IN LITIGATION AND PROBABLY EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE IF WE SAID, OH, WELL, THAT CONTRACT WAS VOID, NOW OUR CONTRACTOR IS LIKELY TO SUE US TO TRY TO ENFORCE THE CONTRACT.

IN MOST SITUATIONS, WHEN A CITY ENTERS INTO A CONTRACT THAT'S VOID BY LAW, THE COURT WILL FIND THAT THE CONTRACT WAS VOID BY LAW. BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS A GUARANTEE. YEAH, I THINK I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS IN THE AS YOU ALL SAID, THE BALLOT IS THIS RECOMMENDED TO GO TO

[01:40:06]

YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TYPICAL HIRING PROCESS THAT WE'D HAVE FOR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE. THAT'S CORRECT. WE DON'T WE DON'T WE DON'T GIVE ANY SPECIAL FAVORS FOR EX COUNCIL MEMBERS. CORRECT? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO KNOW.

THANK YOU. BRIAN, I DON'T I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS CHANGE. AND I ACTUALLY THINK IT SHOULD BE ZERO YEARS. I AGREE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE ZERO DAYS. ZERO DAYS. THANK YOU FOR BEING FOR BEING MORE CLEAR ON THAT. ONCE YOU'RE OFF COUNCIL, YOU'RE A REGULAR CITIZEN JUST LIKE ANYBODY ELSE, AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO APPLY FOR A JOB. I THINK IT'S. I CAN ATTEST TO BEING ON THE COUNCIL, BEING A REGULAR CITIZEN. THE YOU DEFINITELY HAVE THAT FEELING ONCE YOU'RE OFF THE DAIS. OKAY.

WHAT WAS THE OVERALL REASONING FOR THIS FROM THE COMMITTEE? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. DID THEY HAVE DID THEY DEMONSTRATE ANY EXAMPLES OF WHY THEY WANT TO LIMIT A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM APPLYING FOR THE CITY FOR TWO YEARS? IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR ANY POSITION. AFTER TWO YEARS OF BEING ON CITY COUNCIL, I THINK I THINK THEIR ENTIRE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY THAT PERHAPS THE FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER MIGHT GET SPECIAL TREATMENT, WHICH THE CITY MANAGER HAS JUST SAID THEY WOULD NOT, OR JUST THAT IT WHETHER THEY GOT SPECIAL TREATMENT OR NOT, IT LOOKS BAD, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY GOT SPECIAL TREATMENT. SO THAT CREATES THE APPEARANCE THAT SOMETHING BAD HAPPENED. SO IT LOOKS POLITICAL AND PERSONAL RIGHT ON THAT END.

RIGHT. AND I DON'T THINK THEY REALLY DISCUSSED THE IDEA THAT THAT COULD LEAD TO NOT BEING ABLE TO HIRE THE MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR POSITIONS WHICH, WHICH I THOUGHT I WOULD TAKE IN CONSIDERATION. I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT NOW YOU'RE AN EMPLOYEE, SO YOU DON'T HAVE THE SAME LEVERAGE AS YOU DID AS A COUNCIL MEMBER. SO YOU ACTUALLY AS IF YOU WERE TO DO THIS TRANSITION, YOU ACTUALLY NOW ARE EMPLOYEE. SO YOU YOU IT WOULD BE A HARD CHANGE FOR A COUNCIL MEMBER TO GO TO AN EMPLOYEE, BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE AN EMPLOYEE. NOW YOU'RE BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU'RE USED TO TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO. SO IT'S YOU'RE ONE AND ONLY EMPLOYEE RIGHT NOW. THAT ONE AND ONLY EMPLOYEE IS NOW YOUR BOSS. SO THAT'S I JUST DON'T SEE A LOT OF COUNCIL MEMBERS WANTING TO DO THAT. AND BUT IF IT DOES HAPPEN, I MEAN, I GOT TO MAKE SURE THEY GO THROUGH THE RIGHT VETTING PROCESS. THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE HIRING PROCESS JUST LIKE ANYBODY ELSE. AND THEY'RE FOLLOWING ALL THE STEPS IN THE CITY IS DOING IT CORRECTLY. AND AS LONG AS THEY'RE DOING THAT, I'M I'M OKAY WITH THEM APPLYING. I UNDERSTAND FROM THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, UP HERE SAYING, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE LET'S SAY IN DUE TIME WHEN I RETIRE FROM MY, MY

[01:45:05]

YEAH. JUST TO JUMP IN ON I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMITTEE THAT REVIEWED THIS. I'M ALWAYS VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT MIGHT APPEAR LIKE AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY BECAUSE YOU START WALKING, YOU COULD WALK INTO THAT AREA. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU DO HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF BECAUSE WE APPROVE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR PROJECTS HERE. POSITIONS GET CREATED IN THE BUDGET. SO WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT THAT'S NOT JUST BEING DESIGNED FOR SOMEONE LEAVING THEIR TERM OF OFFICE. SO JUST TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE, IT IT DOES MATCH THE RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT IS THIS, A CITY EMPLOYEE OR OFFICER REPRESENTING OTHERS. IS THAT RIGHT? THE ETHICS THE ETHICS PROVISION LIMITS YOUR ABILITY TO REPRESENT SOMEONE ADVERSE TO THE CITY. SO IN FRONT OF THE CITY AS OPPOSED. RIGHT. I THINK I THINK THE CONSIDERATION WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE THE SAME, BECAUSE IF I'M A CITY EMPLOYEE, I'M CONSIDERED LIKE CONFLICTED FOR FAVOR OF THE CITY FOR TWO YEARS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN YOU LOOK AT A COUNCIL MEMBER COMING OFF AND WORKING FOR THE CITY, THEY WERE SERVING THE CITY, AND THEY'RE CONTINUING TO SERVE THE CITY VERSUS THEY'RE THEY'RE ACTING ADVERSE TO THE CITY. SO THERE THERE ARE GOOD ARGUMENTS, I THINK, ON BOTH SIDES. RIGHT? YEAH. AND I MEAN, LIKE SO LIKE THERE'S LIKE NON-COMPETE CLAUSES AND PRIVATE INDUSTRY, LIKE I CAN'T LEAVE MY JOB AND GO WORK FOR A COMPETITOR WITH FOR A YEAR. YOU KNOW, THAT'S SO THAT THE COMPETITOR DOESN'T DRAW ME.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS. BUT THIS I SORT OF SEE THE HOW WE FUNCTION AS COUNCIL IS WE DID OUR TIME AND THEN WE SHOULD HAVE THAT BUFFER PERIOD, YOU KNOW, SO THAT SO THAT THERE WAS NO, NO, NO ADVANTAGES, YOU KNOW, CREATED AS A COUNCIL MEMBER. SO ON THIS END, SHOULD WE LOOK AT INSTEAD OF TWO GOING WITH ONE. BUT THEN AGAIN THIS WILL BE IN THE CHARTER. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF ANY CHANGE HERE. AND I THINK THAT IF WE JUST HAD THE REAL CONVERSATION AS TO PROBABLY WHY THIS IS HERE, THE CONVERSATION MIGHT BE GOING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. THIS IS WE'RE.

LET'S NOT MAKE FEAR BASED DECISIONS BECAUSE THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO CRY FOUL AND SOMETHING THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF, OF ANYTHING FOUL THAT TOOK PLACE. AND I THINK THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT IS IN A BETTER SITUATION AND WE HAVE A BETTER POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORRECT. FOR THAT PARTICULAR COUNCIL MEMBER HAVING THAT POSITION. AND IF COUNCIL MEMBER TOBIAS DECIDES TO RETIRE THIS YEAR AND GO TO WORK FOR THE CITY AND CORRECTIONS, I WOULD NOT OR IN A LAW ENFORCEMENT POSITION, I WOULD WANT TO HAVE THE OPTION. I WOULD LIKE FOR OUR STAFF TO HAVE THE OPTION. I FEEL LIKE THESE THREE, AND AS LONG AS HE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS, WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE VETTING PROCESS AND WHAT MADE IT WAS AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW AS A CITY. IT'S AN EQUAL PLAYING FIELD. YOU HAVE TO APPLY, YOU

[01:50:04]

[01:55:03]

SO IF THAT POSITION IS OPEN TO YOU, YOU'VE HAD PROPRIETARY OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION NOT EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO OTHERS ON THE OUTSIDE. SO THAT'S THAT'S JUST MY, YOU KNOW, OPINION OF IT. IT MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT WAY, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS JUST TO HAVE A SAFEGUARD, A ONE YEAR PERIOD TO ME IS A REASONABLE SAFEGUARD. LOOK, I THE I HAVEN'T NECESSARILY BEEN ON BOARD WITH THE USE OF THE TERM PUNISHMENT UNTIL NOW. BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THEN IS THAT YOU ARE YOU WANT TO YOU WOULD RATHER DISCREDIT EXPERIENCE GAINED DURING THE TIME OF SERVICE FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, THAT BECAUSE YOU RECEIVED IT THROUGH AN ACT OF SERVICE, THAT THAT IS LESS VALID AND SHOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO USE AND ABLE TO IN ORDER TO OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT. EXPERIENCE IS GREAT, BUT YOU HAVE A YEAR. SO NO, THERE'S NO PUNISHMENT IN THAT. NO, I'M JUST SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THE EXPERIENCE IS AVAILABLE AFTER A YEAR. IF AFTER SOMEBODY LEAVES COUNCIL AND A POSITION OPENS UP FOUR MONTHS LATER THAT THEY'RE IDEALLY SUITED FOR, AND NOBODY IN THE AREA IS BETTER SUITED FOR THAT POSITION, THE CITY WILL BE BETTER OVERALL. IF THEY ARE IN THAT POSITION. YOU DON'T WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT. IF YOU HAVE THAT EXPERIENCE AND YOU'RE THAT QUALIFIED, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE HARD TO GET PICKED UP ANYWHERE. BUT IT ALL GOES BACK TO WHERE THEY MAY NOT HIRE YOU. YOU JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS HERE ON EMPLOYMENT, DOESN'T MEAN ANY COUNCIL MEMBER IS GOING TO GET THE JOB. THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS THAT IT'S A REQUIREMENT AFTER ONE YEAR AFTER SERVICE, A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THERE IS A POSITION AFTER ONE YEAR THAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN, THAT YOU CAN APPLY, THAT'S IT. YOU CAN APPLY. IT'S NOT SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE JOB. EXACTLY.

IT'S GIVING YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THAT. AND A LOT OF COMPANIES DO THAT. IF WE ARE IF WE ARE ALL IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE HAVE A FAIR AND TRANSPARENT HIRING PROCESS, THEN THIS CHANGE IN MY MIND IS DOING SOMETHING BASED ON FEAR OF THE ABSOLUTE UNKNOWN AND SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN A PROBLEM IN OUR CITY. SO. AND COUNCIL MEMBER MADE A GREAT COUNCILMEMBER HAS MADE A GREAT STATEMENT. RIGHT NOW HE SAYS THERE'S NO GUARANTEE YOU'RE GOING TO GET HIRED. I MEAN, YOU MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE. AND I GUARANTEE YOU THE BOARDS THAT DO THE HIRING AREN'T GOING TO PUT SOMEBODY IN THERE THAT'S NOT QUALIFIED, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT FALLS BACK ON THE CITY MANAGER. THE CITY MANAGER IS THE JOB OF THE CITY IS NOT GETTING DONE BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE IN POSITIONS THAT AREN'T QUALIFIED. WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY MAKE A CHANGE AT THE CITY MANAGER'S POSITION. SO I THINK THERE'S THERE YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER THESE JOBS ARE NOT GUARANTEED JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE A COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU STILL HAVE TO APPLY. YEAH. SO THAT'S ALL I'M STATING GUYS. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING IS THE REQUIREMENT TO APPLY, YOU KNOW, ONE YEAR AND JUST GO THAT. AND IF THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL DISAGREES WITH ME, THEN THAT'S THE MAJORITY RULES. YEAH ROBERT IT JUST LOOKS BAD. ROBERT I MEAN, I'M SURE YOU DO. GREAT. YOU KNOW, WORKING FOR THE CITY. I MEAN, YOU'RE THE GUY FOR THE JOB. I'LL SUPPORT YOU FOR IT, BUT IT JUST LOOKS BAD. AND I HAVE TO SAY IT LOOKS BAD. THAT'S IT. ARE WE. IS ANYONE CHANGED THEIR MINDS ON THIS ONE? NO, NO.

OKAY. SO. OKAY. PROPOSITION W IS ON CHARTER REVIEW. THE COMMISSION IS RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13.08. THIS WOULD CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT FOR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FROM EVERY FIFTH YEAR TO EVERY SIXTH YEAR. THIS IS SIMILAR TO OUR PLANNING COMMISSION ISSUE. THE CHARTER REQUIRES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW THE CHARTER EVERY TWO YEARS, AND REQUIRES A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION EVERY FIVE YEARS. AND AGAIN, THOSE NUMBERS DON'T REALLY WORK TOGETHER. SO THE IDEA HERE WAS TO PUSH THAT TO SIX YEARS, BUT THEY'RE ALSO ADDING LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SPECIFICALLY ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO APPOINT AN INTERIM CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. IF ON ONE OF THE OTHER TIMES WE'RE REVIEWING THE CHARTER, WE SEE SOMETHING THAT WE THINK WE WANT TO GET CITIZEN INPUT ON. THAT'S SO GOOD. I'M GOOD WITH THIS ONE. APPARENTLY I NAME TWO OF THESE W, WHICH IS ACTUALLY 27 BREVITY. THIS PROVISION WOULD REMOVE LONG AND

[02:00:07]

OKAY, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M FEELING ACROSS THE BOARD. LET'S MOVE ON. YEAH. PROPOSITION Z, THE PURPOSE OF THIS ONE IS TO ADD SOME CLARITY AROUND THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. OUR CURRENT PRACTICE IS THAT ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS IN THE CITY FOLLOW THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WHETHER THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BY LAW OR NOT. AND THAT IS IN OUR CHARTER. OUR CHARTER SAYS THEY WILL ALL COMPLY WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT WHEN WE'RE SAYING THEY'LL COMPLY WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, IF THEY'RE NOT TECHNICALLY SUBJECT TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, AND THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS AS IF THEY WERE, THEY'RE STILL COMPLYING WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO THOSE THINGS. SO THE IDEA WAS TO ADD SOME LANGUAGE SO THAT THEY WOULD BE HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, EVEN IF NOT REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.

AGAIN, THIS MIGHT BE A LOW PRIORITY ITEM, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING WE DISCUSSED. YEAH, LOW PRIORITY, BUT ALSO ON THE NON-BINDING I WAS ACTUALLY OKAY WITH GOING TO FIVE, BUT IT'S LOW PRIORITY OKAY. SO NEXT STEPS I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND WATCH ALL OF THIS AND PUT TOGETHER RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE CALLING THE ELECTION AND BRING IT BACK ON AUGUST 5TH. I DO RECOMMEND WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO GO WITH THAT ITEM, TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS THEY HAVE ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS. THANK YOU. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. THANK YOU AMY. THAT WAS A LOT.

[2) Consider directing the City Manager to include an additional $25,000 in the property improvement program for FY24-25.]

[02:05:02]

I'M GLAD WE HAVE THIS PROGRAM. DO YOU DO YOU KNOW RIGHT OFF THE BAT HOW MANY APPLICANTS APPLIED THIS PAST YEAR? SO WE HAVE AN ITEM AS FAR AS I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. I WILL SAY AUSTIN HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HAD KIND OF A RUNNING LIST ALREADY FOR THE HAYS COUNTY AREA. THEY REALLY KIND OF LINKED IT DOWN TO ELIGIBLE POTENTIAL PROPERTIES. AND KYLE, THEY DID SAY THAT THEY HAVE 33 STILL ON THE ON THE LIST THAT WOULD HAVE EXPRESSED OR WANTED SOME REPAIRS. SO THEY JUST KIND OF AGAIN, IT WAS A PILOT PROGRAM THIS YEAR. WE DID THREE HOMES. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY A NEED IN OUR AREA AND THEY ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE TO BE PARTNERS WITH US ON THIS IF WE'RE WANTING TO CONTINUE THE PROGRAM. SO WITH THE FIRST YEAR, WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO DO THREE HOMES. THIS IS YES, OKAY. SO THREE HOMES THIS PAST YEAR. AND THEN ALSO WAS DOES THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BE ABLE TO ASSIST WITH THIS, OR WAS THIS SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HELP OUT WITH THE PROGRAM AS WELL? AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION IS WHAT WOULD BE WHAT'S GOING TO BE OUR BUDGET AMOUNT FOR THIS UPCOMING YEAR FOR THIS PROGRAM? WELL, I'LL TAKE A SHOT AT THOSE.

SO FIRST OF ALL, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IS THAT OWNS PROPERTIES. AND THEIR THEIR MISSION IS TO TRY TO IMPROVE THOSE PROPERTIES AND TAKE CARE OF THOSE. THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE A PROGRAM LIKE THIS. THE BUDGET CURRENTLY IS $25,000. I THINK MR. HEISER'S REQUEST IS TO TAKE IT TO 50. AND THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT I SUBMITTED TO YOU JUST LAST WEEK OR EARLIER THIS WEEK THAT YOU'LL BE DISCUSSING ON SATURDAY, I'M RECOMMENDING TAKING THAT BUDGET FROM 25 TO $50,000 ON OCTOBER 1ST. SO THAT'S WHAT THE BUDGET IS GOING FORWARD. AND I THINK YOU HAD A THIRD QUESTION. YEAH, YEAH. THE THIRD ONE WOULD BE THAT IF WE DECIDE TO ADD ADDITIONAL $25,000 TODAY, WE WOULD HAVE TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT WITH OUR GENERAL FUND, CORRECT? NO, SIR.

WE HAVE EXISTING APPROPRIATIONS. WE DON'T BUDGET BY PROGRAM FOR AMENDMENTS. SO WE HAVE AN EXISTING APPROPRIATION THAT I THINK WE CAN FIND THAT $25,000 IN THE CURRENT BUDGET, IF YOU WANT TO SPEND IT ON THIS PROGRAM, IF THAT'S THE REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE FOR US, THEN OPEN IT UP FOR HOPEFULLY ANOTHER 3 OR 4 PROPERTIES. WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AND SEE HOW FAR THOSE DOLLARS COULD GO. SO WE HAVE 25,000, WHICH WE HAD IF WE ADD 25 NOW AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO ADD 50,000. SO THIS WOULD ACTUALLY GO FROM $25,000 PROJECT TO MAYBE 100,000. NO SIR. BE GOING FROM 25 TO 50 OKAY. AND THEN GOING FORWARD STARTING NEXT YEAR AND EACH FISCAL YEAR AFTER, MY PROPOSAL IS TO MAKE THAT 50,000 EACH YEAR. OKAY. SO 50 IF YOU DO THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE 50,000 THIS YEAR AND 50,000 NEXT YEAR. OKAY. BUT YOU'RE ALREADY BRINGING AN ADDITIONAL 25 IN OCTOBER. CORRECT. I'M RECOMMENDING IT. YES, SIR. SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT AS FAR AS ARE WE ADDING ADDITIONAL 25,000 TO THE 50,000 THAT'S COMING IN OCTOBER? NO, I

[02:10:02]

THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT THE POCKET WOULD BE. NOT THAT THE PROGRAM IS A BAD PROGRAM TO HAVE. IT'S JUST HOW DO WE STRETCH THE MONEY TO SO THAT IT TOUCHES MORE IMMEDIATELY NEEDED.

NOT THAT THESE ARE NOT NEEDED, BUT ESSENTIAL. YEAH. GREAT QUESTION. I THINK THE CITY'S ALWAYS CONTINUING TO LOOK AT PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE CAN. I THINK WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT TRULY DOING HOME REPAIR AND HELPING PEOPLE STAY IN THEIR HOMES, SADLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LIST OF ELIGIBLE WANTS AND NEEDS, THEY QUICKLY ADD UP TO TEN, 20,000 AND MORE. SO LIKE FOR THE FIRST HOME, I MEAN WINDOWS WERE BROKEN, SHOWER WAS BROKEN. QUITE A FEW THINGS. IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET INTO A HOME AND DO $500 REPAIRS WHEN THERE'S WHEN THERE'S THAT MUCH NEED AND THAT STRUCTURE TO MAKE IT KIND OF SAFE AND HABITABLE FOR THE RESIDENT THAT WAS LIVING THERE.

AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE WITH, WITH TWO OUT OF THE THREE HOMES THAT WE REALLY REPAIRED.

AND I WANT TO STRESS THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE TAKING CARE OF OUR ELDERLY COMMUNITY FIRST, AND THEN WE'RE TAKING CARE OF THOSE DISABILITY AS WELL. SO JUST NOT SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T

[02:15:04]

SO ALL OF THESE THREE HOMES MET THE INCOME ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE SET. AND TWO OF THE THREE HOMES THAT WERE REPAIRED UNDER THIS YEAR WERE OVER THE AGE OF 60 AS WELL. THAT KIND OF A TWO PART. GOOD TO HEAR. DO WE DO WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF WORK IS EXPECTED TO BE DONE ON THESE OTHER 33 APPLICATIONS? AND DO WE KNOW IF THE PRIOR PRIORITIZATION OF THE THREE THAT WERE DONE IS IT WAS THAT BECAUSE MAYBE THEY DEMANDED A LITTLE BIT MORE MORE WORK THAN THE OTHERS? I WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THEY ALL NEED ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL OF WORK OR. NO? OKAY. I THINK HONESTLY, SOME OF THEM ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE. I THINK WHEN TALKING TO HABITAT, THEY WOULD SAY IF THEY WERE RUNNING THE PROGRAM ON THEIR OWN AND WE DIDN'T KIND OF SET THOSE LIMITS.

THEY WOULD SAY, IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET IN AND OUT OF A HOME LESS THAN THAN 20,000. LIKE IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET TO MEET SOME OF THE, THE NEEDS THAT APPLICANTS ARE REPRESENTING WITH, WITH SOME OF THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND OR ISSUES FOR MOBILITY THAT'S REQUIRED ON THAT. WE REALLY KIND OF SET THAT PILOT PROGRAM LIMIT. AND THAT'S PARTLY WHY THEY I THINK THEY MATCHED SOME OF OUR, OUR MONETARY AMOUNTS ON, ON TWO OF THE THREE HOMES. AND IF IT'S HABITAT, ARE THEY GOING IN AND DOING THE REPAIRS WITH VOLUNTEERS AND THEY'VE DONATED MATERIAL OR ARE THEY GOING IN AND PURCHASING AND HIRING A CONTRACTOR? FROM THE INVOICES I'VE SEEN, IT'S MAINLY CONTRACTORS, REGISTERED CONTRACTORS THAT THEY'VE BEEN USING. YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE AIR CONDITIONING THEY DID ON ON ONE OF THE RESIDENTS, IT WAS A REGISTERED CONTRACTOR FOR THAT. I GUESS THE OTHER THING THAT. SORRY, MARK, I KNOW YOU'RE DONE. GO AHEAD. YEAH. WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE THE PROGRAM AND THEN WE INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR IT TO 50. BUT I ALSO LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER PROGRAMS WE HAVE IN. THERE'S A LOT OF NEED, RIGHT? THERE'S JUST NOT JUST NOT THE ONLY PROGRAM WITH NEEDS. WE'VE GOT THE WOMEN'S SHELTER, ANIMAL SHELTER, HOMELESS SHELTER, FOOD BANK. I MEAN, IT'S JUST LIKE, WHERE DO WE HAVE THE WHERE WERE WE LOOK AT CAPS MOVING FORWARD. THE NEED IS NOT GOING TO STOP. AND THE COSTS DON'T STOP. SO, YOU KNOW, IS IT OUR FUNCTION TO, YOU KNOW, KEEP BUILDING. WE WANT TO HELP AS MUCH AS WE CAN, BUT WE'RE TARGETING ONE. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS? I'VE ALWAYS SAID, CAN I TAKE OUR PRIMARY JOBS IS TO TAKE THE FINITE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES WE HAVE AVAILABLE. YOU TOLD ME THAT ONE TIME I HEARD YOU AND. AND APPLY IT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY TO OFFSET AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF NEED, RIGHT? WELL, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE WORLD TO SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS. WE JUST HAVE TO DO THE BEST WE CAN TO SOLVE THE MOST WE CAN WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT. RIGHT? I WOULD SAY JUST TO THE POINT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE COMPARING THIS TO THE WOMEN'S SHELTER, THE FOOD BANK. THIS SOLELY SERVES RESIDENTS OF KYLE. THE DONATIONS OR THE SERVICE AGREEMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS WITH VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. GO TO THE ORGANIZATIONS. IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT RESTRICTING OUR MONEY TO ONLY RESIDENTS OF KYLE. LIKE THIS IS A DIRECT BENEFIT TO PEOPLE WHO ARE IN NEED. AND, YOU KNOW, IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS LIKE THIS IS, WELL, I ASKED YOU THIS, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO MOVE MONEY FROM A PROJECT THAT HAS A LOT OF MONEY TO WHERE THESE OTHER PROGRAMS WOULD, WOULD NEEDS, WOULD BENEFIT FROM? YEAH. LOOK, I BECAUSE I CAN FIND MONEY IN SPORTSPLEX. MR. HEIZER AND IT'S A IT'S A VALID IT'S A VALID POINT FOR ME. YOU WANT TO HAVE A VALID POINT FOR ME TO BRING FOR THE FOR THE. IT'S A VALID POINT FOR ME TO BRING UP. HOLD ON, HOLD ON, HOLD ON. GUYS, ORDER FOR THE MOVING OF A TREE. WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY, THOUGH, IS, IS IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION FOR THE UPCOMING BUDGET YEAR IN THE PROCESS, OR WHERE THE FUNDS COME FROM, WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. BUT FOR THIS, THAT'S WHAT BREAKS MY HEART, IS THAT WE CAN MOVE A TREE FOR $2 MILLION, AND WE ARE HERE NITPICKING $25,000 IN REAL NEED. PEOPLE WITH REAL NEEDS. BUT YOU WE'RE NOT NITPICKING 25,000. WE'RE SAYING WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SEE WHERE OUR DOLLARS CAN. THE 25,000 CAN BE STRETCHED A LITTLE BETTER. OR, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALSO MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE VETTING AND WE'RE GETTING BETTER VETTING THING. WE'RE WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO INCREASE THE 25,000. WHAT WE'RE SAYING. WE JUST WANT SOME

[02:20:03]

[02:25:06]

AND THAT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND AS WELL. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING, I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT. WE WANT TO SEE THE PROGRAM EXPAND BECAUSE IT'S HELPING PEOPLE. WELL, I AM WITH YOU. WE GOT TO BE CAREFUL ON HOW MUCH WE EXPAND, BUT I'M OKAY WITH EXPANDING THIS. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE $25,000 FOR THE PROGRAM. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER RESO, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER TOBIAS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? YES, I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION ON THIS MOVING FORWARD TO THE BEFORE THE BUDGET. SO JUST MORE OF THE PARAMETERS ON ON THE PROGRAM AND SO WE CAN MAKE A REALLY GOOD DECISION. COME HERE. WHEN BUDGET SEASON COMES TO AN END. ALL RIGHT I WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THESE OTHER 33 APPLICATIONS AND WHAT ALL THEY THEY ENTAIL. CERTAINLY. THANK YOU FOR SPONSORING THE ITEM AS WELL. NO PROBLEM. WE ALL APPROVE THIS. SO THIS IS A GROUP EFFORT. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO. ALL RIGHT. THE CITY WILL NOW GO INTO

[V) Executive Session]