Feb 01, 2024 City Council

[1. CALL SESSION TO ORDER]

[00:00:18]

MEETING FOR THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024. WELL, .

>> YES, PASTOR BOBBY PRUITT. >> PASTOR BOBBY PRUITT. NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

>> FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR OUR CITY . SO BLESSED TO LIVE IN HUTTO. WE THANK YOU FOR THESE MEN AND WOMEN AROUND THIS TABLE. WHO SACRIFICIALLY SERVE THIS CITY. I PRAY YOUR BLESSING ON THEM AS THEY SEEK TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT, AS THEY SEEK WHAT IS BEST FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS , AS THEY SEEK WHAT IS BEST FOR THE FUTURE . LORD, I PRAY THAT YOU WOULD BLESS THEM AND THEY WOULD EXPERIENCE THAT IN THEIR BUSY PERSONAL LIVES AND JOBS AND FAMILIES.

THAT YOU WOULD BLESS THEIR MARRIAGES AND THEIR CHILDREN . LORD, I PRAY THAT YOU WOULD USE THEM TO BE A BLESSING FOR HUTTO. WE ASK FOR YOUR WISDOM, A SPECIAL MEASURE OF IT THIS EVENING AS THEY DO THE BUSINESS OF THIS CITY THAT YOU WOULD GUIDE THEM , THAT YOU WOULD DIRECT THEIR STEPS. LORD, WE ARE THANKFUL THAT YOU ARE SOVEREIGN OVER ALL THROUGH

CHRIST OUR LORD. WE PRAY. AMEN. >> 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. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE,

TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE. >> NEXT WE HAVE PROCLAMATIONS .

[5.1. Black History Month Proclamation]

INAUDIBLE ] WITH THE PROCLAMATION. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO OTHER BRIAN OR

DANA READ THE PROCLAMATION. >> NO THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

>> THE PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING BLACK HISTORY MONTH. WHEREAS THROUGH BRAVERY, PERSEVERANCE, FAITH AND RESOLVE BLACK AMERICANS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO SHAPING THE ECONOMIC, CULTURAL, SPIRITUAL , AND POLITICAL DEVELOPED OF AMERICAN LIFE . OFTEN IN THE FACE OF PREJUDICE AND HARDSHIP. AND WHEREAS THEIR FIGHT FOR EQUALITY REPRESENTATION AND RESPECT MOTIVATES US TO CONTINUE WORKING FOR A MORE EQUITABLE AND INCLUSIVE FUTURE FOR EVERY AMERICAN. AND WHEREAS, SINCE FAIRBURY 1926 A WEEK TO CELEBRATE BLACK HISTORY WAS INITIATED BY AMERICAN HISTORIAN CARTER G WOODSON. AND WHEREAS, IN 1976 THE WEEK WAS EXPANDED TO BLACK HISTORY MONTH AND RECOGNIZED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. AND WHEREAS, BLACK HISTORY MONTH IS AN OCCASION TO REDISCOVER THE ENDURING STORIES OF BLACK AMERICANS ANY OF WHOM LIVED TO THE SCORCH OF SLAVERY, SEGREGATION, RACIAL PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION. AND WHEREAS, BLACK HISTORY MONTH IS A TIME TO COMMEMORATE LIKE AMERICANS CONTRIBUTION TO CHARACTER, CULTURE AND ECONOMIC LIFE OF OUR STATE AND NATION. AND WHEREAS BLACK HISTORY MONTH IS A TIME TO HONOR BLACK AMERICANS HARWICH WISDOM -- HERE WISDOM AND PATRIOTISM THAT HAVE GIVEN PEOPLE OF ALL BACKGROUNDS THE CONFIDENCE AND COURAGE TO PURSUE THEIR OWN DREAMS. AND WHEREAS, THE OBSERVANCE OF BLACK HISTORY MONTH FOCUSES ATTENTION ON A PERSISTENT NEED TO COMBAT RACISM AND INJUSTICE OF ALL TYPES AND BUILD A SOCIETY THAT LIVES UP TO ITS EAGLE TERRY AND I ADLS.

[00:05:10]

>> WOULD ANYONE FROM THE D&I LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? I WAS HERE FOR THE MARTIN LUTHER KING PROCLAMATION . WE ARE JUST SO HAPPY , JACK AND MYSELF, ATTENDING ON THE COMMISSION. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY AT THIS POINT WE HAVE OPENINGS ON THE COMMISSION. I THINK WE HAVE FIVE. WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MY PEOPLE INVOLVED. I THINK WHAT WE ARE REALLY SAYING IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PROBABLY A MORE DYNAMIC PART OF THE CITY AND OUR PLANS AND WHAT WE ARE PLANNING TO DO IS A GOAL THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE INVOLVED AND CAN SEE OUR INVOLVEMENT AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO HELP WHAT IS HAPPENING AT ANY TIME FOR DIVERSITY AND EQUITY AND INCLUSION OF HUTTO ITSELF. THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THIS. SOON WE WILL SEE OTHER THINGS FROM THE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION COMMISSION AS WE GO

FORWARD IN 2024. >>

>> DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO --

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BETHANY HOFFMAN. I'M HERE AS A MEMBER OF THE BLACK FAMILIES OF HUTTO PUBLIC SUBGROUP DEDICATED TO SOCIAL ACTION. ON BEHALF OF THE BLACK FAMILIES OF HUTTO ORGANIZATION WE DECLINED THIS PROCLAMATION DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF THE MAYOR NOT ALIGNING WITH OUR VALUES AND OUR DEDICATION TO UPLIFTING BLACK HUMANITY. WE ENCOURAGE THE CITY OF HUTTO TO NOT SIMPLY WRITE PROCLAMATIONS, BUT TO ACTUALLY ACT IN WAYS THAT VALUE AND SUPPORT ALL CITIZENS. THANK

YOU. >>

[6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS]

CITY MANAGER CUMMINGS . >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, THE ROGER -- RECORD, JAMES R, CITY MANAGER. A COUPLE OF ANNOUNCEMENT FOR TONIGHT. THE TRIAL DERBY IS COMING UP ON SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3RD FROM 9:00 TO NOON. WE HAVE AN ADVERTISING ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA, BUT THE POND AT RAIN BOARD IT GETS STOCKED WITH RAINBOW TROUT. YOU, YOUR KIDS, YOUR GRANDKIDS, WHOEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING GO OUT THERE AND FISH FOR FREE. AND JUST CATCH SOME RAINBOW TROUT.

IT'S A GOOD TIME. THERE WILL BE PRIZES AND IT'S FREE FOR ALL AGES. IS JEFF IN THE AUDIENCE? I DON'T THINK EVEN HAVE TO HAVE YOUR FISHING LICENSE TO DO THIS. I THINK THAT'S TRUE. YOU DON'T. YOU DO? OH. OKAY. WELL, ARE POLICE OFFICERS WILL BE OTHERWISE BUSY, BUT I CAN'T

>> TO THE PARTS -- PARKS AND WILDLIFE FOLKS. BUT IS SUPPOSED TO RAIN. WHERE GOING TO BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THE WEATHER , BUT WE WILL KEEP UPDATES ON FACEBOOK AND THE SPECIAL EVENTS CALENDAR ON THE WEBSITE. WORLD HIPPO DAY IS COMING UP. YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE VALENTINE'S DAY ON YOUR CALENDAR, BUT THE NEXT DAY AFTER IS FOR HIPPOS. AND TO SHOW HOW MUCH YOU ADORE THEM. LOVE YOUR HONEY FIRST AND THEN LOVE YOUR HIPPO . WORLD HIPPO DAY IS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15TH

[00:10:03]

WARRANT ROUNDUP. TODAY ARE APRIL 1ST , WHICH IS APRIL FOOLS' DAY, BUT THIS IS NOT AN APRIL FOOL'S JOKE, TODAY DRAPER FORCED HUTTO MUNICIPAL COURT IS OFFERING A WARRANT REDUCTION PROGRAM ALSO KNOWN AS A WARRANT ROUNDUP.

ESSENTIALLY, THE COURT IS TRYING TO CLOSE OUTSTANDING CASES WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE ARREST. ANYONE WITHOUT -- ANYONE WITH AN OUTSTANDING CASES ENCOURAGED TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO POTENTIALLY REDUCE THEIR FINES AND OR CLEAR THEIR WARRANTS. FOR THE NEXT TWO MONTHS YOU CAN CONTACT HUTTO COURT AND ARRANGE MAKE AN IN-PERSON PLEA OF GUILTY OR NO CONTEST AND YOU WILL ENTER AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROSECUTOR , WHICH MAY INCLUDE REDUCING YOUR CITATION OR FINES. ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT THE COURT RIGHT AWAY ON SATURDAY , FAIRBURY 10TH HUTTO POLICE OFFICERS WILL BE CALLING AND VISITING PEOPLE WITH WARRANTS TO PUBLICIZE THE AT THE OPPORTUNITY AND HOPEFULLY AVOID THE NEED FOR REST.

DETAILS FOR THE WARRANT ROUNDUP, GO TO HUTTO TX.GOV AND CHECK OUT THE COURT WEBSITE. OKAY. TONIGHT, LIKE MOST FIRST MEETINGS OF THE MONTH, WE GET TO INTRODUCE , THE PRIVILEGE OF INTRODUCING OUR NEW EMPLOYEES. TONIGHT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF NEW EMPLOYEES TO INTRODUCE TO THE PUBLIC. AND TO THE COUNCIL. IF YOU WOULD COME UP AS I CALL YOUR NAME AND READ A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR BIO. FIRST, PLEASE HELP US WELCOME TO TEAM HUTTO, KRISHNA GARZA BIGGER. --

BAKER. >>

>> KRISHNA IS JOINING AS A BUSINESS RESOURCE SPECIALIST IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SHE HAS A BB IN SPORT EVENT ENTER IS A MANAGEMENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO. AND A MASTER OF SCIENCE AND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS. PREVIOUS TO HER ROLE WITH THE CITY OF HUTTO AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPED SHE WORKED IN HIGHER EDUCATION FOR FIVE YEARS THE MAJORITY OF HER EXPERIENCE LEADING A STUDY ABROAD PROGRAM FOR TOP-TIER BUSINESS SCHOOLS AND TO GERMANY, PORTUGAL, CHILE, FRANCE AND JAPAN. HER EXPERIENCE ALSO EXTENDS TO MARKETING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION. KRISHNA SAYS THAT SHE LOOKS FORWARD TO SUPPORTING TEAM HUTTO AND OUR PARTNERS IN INNOVATIVE WAYS.

NEXT , HELP ME WELCOME TO TEAM HUTTO CASEY ALLEN.

>> AS OUR RECREATION COORDINATOR AND PARKS AND RECREATION.

SHE'S A SKILLED EVENT PLANNING PROFESSIONAL WITH A ZEST FOR LIFE . SHE IS KNOWN FOR HER DYNAMIC APPROACH TO CREATING UNFORGETTABLE EXPERIENCES FOR ALL AGES AND ALL WALKS OF LIFE. HER STRONG BACKGROUND IN EVENT MANAGEMENT SHINES THROUGH IN EVERY PROJECT SHE TAKES ON. HER MOST RECENT ROLE AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL MIDLAND COUNTY FAIR SOLIDIFIED HER REPUTATION AS AN EVENT PLANNER AS WELL. IN ADDITION, CASEY RECENTLY EARNED THE PROCEDURES CREDENTIAL OF CERTIFIED FESTIVAL AND EVENT EXECUTIVE.

TONIGHT HE'S NOT ABLE TO BE WITH US, BUT THE NEXT 20 INTRODUCE IS KYLE TRAN. KYLE IS JOINING THE TEAM HUTTO AS A PURCHASING SUPERVISOR IN FINANCE. HE LEAVES HIS ACCOUNTABLE AND -- HIS WORK PHILOSOPHY WHICH HAS HELPED REPAIR HIM FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OPPORTUNITY IN THE CITY OF HUTTO. OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS KYLE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO MANY ASPECTS OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND IS CONFIDENT HE WILL LIKEWISE GREATER POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE CITY OF HUTTO'S SUCCESSES AND EFFECTIVENESS. HIS EXPERIENCE IS IN PROCUREMENT AND BUSINESS AND ADMINISTRATION, BOTH IN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS. NEXT WE WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE STEPHEN LOPEZ. I DON'T KNOW IF STEPHEN IS HERE OR NOT.

STEPHEN? OKAY. STEPHEN IS JOINING US , TEAM HUTTO IN THE STREETS AND DRAINAGE AS A FIRST LEVEL TECHNICIAN . STEVENS MOTIVATED AND PROFESSIONAL INDIVIDUAL WITH OVER 10 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN CUSTOMER AND PUBLIC SERVICE. IN ADDITION TO HIS SIX YEARS IN THE MILITARY EXPERIENCE AND HIS BACHELORS DEGREE IN KERNEL JUSTICE MUST EVEN IS A RESIDENT OF HUTTO AND IS EAGER TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONAL CUSTOMER SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY LOVES. ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE HAVE WELCOME HELP ME WELCOME TO TEAM HUTTO:REVERT OFF.

>> JOINING US AS A POLICE OFFICER. HE HAS JOINED HUTTO POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH FIVE YEARS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPERIENCE.

WAS BORN AND RAISED IN LAREDO, TEXAS AND WENT ON TO ATTEND TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SAN ANTONIO BEFORE HE BEGAN HIS LAW ENFORCEMENT CAREER AT THE AGE OF 18. THACKERAY FIRST SERVED AS A DETENTION OFFICE FOR THE GILLESPIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. WHO WENT ON TO SERVE THEM MAINE ARE PLACED UPON AS PATROL OFFICER AND MOST RECENTLY THE BURNET COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AS A DEPUTY SHERIFF. ZACHARY HOLDEN INTERMEDIATE TEXAS PEACE OFFICER LICENSE AND HE IS 18 COLD CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR BUT HE'S ALSO TRAINED AS A MENTAL HEALTH OFFICER, HOSTAGE NEGOTIATOR, ADVANCED ROADSIDE IMPAIRED DRIVING ENFORCEMENT AND ALERT ACTIVE SHOOTER LEVEL

[00:15:01]

MILTON. >>

>> ALL RIGHT. NOW HELP ME WELCOME JACK JOHNSON TO TEAM HUTTO. ALSO JOINING US AS A POLICE OFFICER. JACK MOVED TO AUSTIN AS A CHILD IN THE 1980S. IN THE LATE 90S HE STARTED HIS LAW-ENFORCEMENT CAREER WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AS A JAILER. HE ATTENDED AND GRADUATED THE BASIC PEACE OFFICER ACADEMY STARTED WITH THE ROUND ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT IN 2000.:WORKED AS A PATROL OFFICER, FIELD TRAINING OFFICER AND AS A SERGEANT. HE WITH ROUND ROCK POLICE DEPARTMENT AFTER SERVING OVER 23 YEARS AND JOINED HUTTO. HE HOLDS A MASTER PEACE OFFICER LICENSE AND IS A GRADUATE OF THE FBI LEAD A TRILOGY PROGRAM. HE HAS BEEN HAPPILY MARRIED TO TISH FOR OVER 26 YEARS AND THEY HAVE TWO ADULT CHILDREN. WELCOME OFFICER JOHNSON. ALL RIGHT. LAST ONE FOR TONIGHT, NOT A POLICE OFFICER, SABRINA MANNING.

SABRINA IS JOINING TEAM HUTTO'S OUR SENIOR ACCOUNTANT IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT. SHE WAS BORN AND RAISED IN SOUTH TEXAS IN HARLINGEN. SHE EARNED A BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION FINANCE DEGREE FROM UT PAN AMERICAN, NOW KNOWN AS UT RGB. IN 2014 SHE START WORKING FOR THE CITY OF HARLINGEN AS AN ACCOUNT WAS PROMOTED TO SENIOR ACCOUNTANT IN 2017. SHE SAYS THAT WORKING FOR THE CITY WHERE SHE LIVES WAS ABSOLUTELY THE BEST FEELING AND NOW THAT SHE IS IN HUTTO SHE'S HAPPY TO BE DOING IT ONCE AGAIN. THIS IS OUR TEAM FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY. SO, HAPPY TO HAVE YOU GUYS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. FOR YOUR LOVED ONES THAT MAY HAVE COME TO SUPPORT YOU. WE CELEBRATE YOU RIGHT NOW.

CONGRATULATIONS. >>

[7. PUBLIC COMMENT]

CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. WHEN A CALL YOU NAME YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO

>>. THE LIGHT WILL BE GREEN WHEN THERE'S 30 SECONDS LEFT IT WILL GO TL AND THEN WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP IT WILL GO TO RED. FIRST WE HAVE ROBIN SUTTON.

>> HEY, Y'ALL. IT HAS BEEN A WILD SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE.

25 YEAR RESIDENT OF HUTTO, TEXAS. I TOOK A VACATION AND THERE HAS BEEN THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING THAT I CANNOT JUST KEEP MY MOUTH CLOSED ABOUT. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT THIS PODIUM IS NOT TO BE USED FOR PERSONAL TAX. I PRAY THAT NO ONE HAS TO, NO ONE THAT IS BRAVE ENOUGH TO SIT IN THOSE SEATS HAS TO ENDURE WHAT I WENT THROUGH OR WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WENT THROUGH. AT THIS PODIUM. COUNCILMEMBER THORTON, I HAVE BEEN VULNERABLE TO YOU IN THOSE CHAIRS AND YOU HAVE BEEN VULNERABLE TO ME. I HOPE THERE'S NOBODY AGAINST YOU THAT WILL DIG INTO YOUR PAST LIKE THEY DUG INTO MINE. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO JOB PERFORMANCE , CAME ON. I ALSO PRAY THAT THOSE SITTING THOSE TEARS WILL HAVE THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE TO CALL POINT OF ORDER IF SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE IS SAID AT THIS PODIUM. BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT CAMPAIGN SEASON IS. RIGHT? OKAY. NOW THE WORK SESSION. THAT WAS A HARD WATCH FOR ME.

[00:20:02]

IT WAS AS IF YOU ALL WERE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT WAS AS IF Y'ALL DIDN'T HAVE AN AGENDA IN FRONT OF YOU, YET Y'ALL JUST LET MIKE LEAD IT AND STEER IT AND DRIVE IT AND VIOLATE TOMA . NOBODY SAID A WORD. NOT OUR CITY MANAGER, NOT OUR ATTORNEY, NOT ANY OF OUR CITY LEADERS. LET IT HAPPEN. THERE IS SOMETHING I LEFT FOR YOU, MIKE, WITH OUR CITY SECRETARY ABOUT -- SORRY. WE TALKED ABOUT IT MANY TIMES ABOUT , ANYWAY. I WILL THINK ABOUT IT. ANYWAY I GOT OFF ON A WHOLE NEW TANGENT.

OH, GOD. ANYWAY. SO, THE BIG THING. THE RULING THAT CAME

OUT FROM >>> ON 111. I COULDN'T BE HERE, BECAUSE I HAD A VERY IMPORTANT DATE THAT NIGHT WITH MY NEPHEW. AND THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT HAS BEEN STIRRED UP WITH MY EX-HUSBAND, WHICH I THINK KIND OF CAME OUT OF SOME OF THE STUFF WITH ELECTION. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WAS A HARD READ. AND THERE WAS A FACE OF HUTTO THAT WAS SHOWN THAT DAY BASED ON THE READING OF THAT RULING AND THE FACE OF HUTTO WAS YOU. THAT WAS YOUR FACE. THAT WASN'T THE CITY OF HUTTO . IT WAS YOUR FACE , MIKE SNYDER. AND IT WAS GEORGE HYDE

PHASE. >> THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE

BETHANY HOFFMAN. >> WE DID RECEIVE SEVERAL COMMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT IN OUR PACKET. JACOB BRUNER, MASTERS, MARJORIE DEAN, CURTIS KELSEY , JEFF EBNER , ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY COUNSEL IN OUR

[8.1. Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Updates and Presentations]

>> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. CITY ENGINEER. I THINK WE KNOW WE DO THIS FIRST MEETING EVERY MONTH, SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO THE UPDATES FOR THE MONTH. FM 6060 SOUTH AT U.S. 79, WE SENT OUT A MEMO TO YOU ALL ABOUT THIS ONE. THE PROJECT IS NOW KIND OF IN A HOLDING PATTERN . AS WE WERE WORKING THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS WITH TXDOT WE GOT TO 100% PLAN SUBMITTAL. THEY KIND OF CHANGED DIRECTIONS ON IS A LITTLE BIT . SAID, WE ARE WORKING TO THAT PROCESS WITH THEM AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PATH FORWARD IS.

ASHES ON THE MEMO, THEY'RE ASKING US TO ADD A SECOND SIGNAL TO THE DESIGN. WHICH WE HAD ORIGINALLY SUGGESTED AND THEY SAID NO TO. AND SO, NOW WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. SO, THAT'S WHY THIS ONE IS ALL IN RED. WE ARE PENDING COORDINATION, WHAT'S NEXT . I WISH I COULD TELL YOU. WE NEED TO HAVE MORE MEETINGS WITH TXDOT AND SEE WHAT THEY COME BACK WITH. WE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM THIS WEEK . I POINTED OUT THAT WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING THEY HAVE ASKED US TO DO. WE HAVE UPHELD OUR END OF THE AGREEMENTS IN EVERY WAY, SHAPE AND FORM. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS UNFAIR FOR THEM TO COME TO US AT THE 11TH HOUR , 59TH MINUTE AND ASK US TO MAKE THIS CHANGE. I HAVE SUGGESTED THAT IF THIS IS THE PATH THAT THEY WANT TO CHOOSE THAT THEY NEED TO BE ON THE HOOK FOR THE REDESIGN COSTS AND THE ADDITIONAL COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION. THEY ASKED US TO RESUBMIT THE MODELS AND EVERYTHING THAT WE HAD CEMENTED TWO YEARS AGO THAT LED TO THIS CONVERSATION . WE HAVE SENT IT OVER TO THEM ALREADY. THEY ARE REVIEWING IT. BUT I'M WAITING ON THEM TO RESPOND BACK AND TELL US WHAT THEIR ULTIMATE DECISION IS. ALL THE INFORMATION I HAVE, THIS IS ALL HAPPENING REAL-TIME. I HAD A MEETING WITH THEM THIS WEEK AND THAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE. UNFORTUNATELY, NO GOOD NEWS .

[00:25:04]

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR STANCE TOWARD TXDOT ON THAT. CR 137 FM 1660. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE . THIS ONE IS NOT AS BAD AS -- I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS ARE AWARE OF IT. IN THE CONTRACT THAT WE WORDED TO GARVER IN 2022 WE HAD A 30% DESIGN, 60% DESIGN, 100% DESIGN AND THEN BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES. AS YOU ARE ALL VERY WELL AWARE, LAST SUMMER TXDOT KIND OF SLOWED US DOWN ON THIS ONE, BECAUSE THEY WERE SAYING WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO A ROUNDABOUT. I WORKED WITH HIM AND WORKED WITH THEIR AREA OFFICE AND THE DISTRICT OFFICE TO SHOW THEM ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE DONE. THEY BASICALLY SAID WE COULD DO A ROUNDABOUT. BUT NOW THEY'RE ASKING THAT WE DO , WE HAVE ALREADY'S SENT THEM 60% DESIGN REVIEWS . NOW THEY'RE ASKING FOR US TO DO A 90% DESIGN REVIEW , WHICH IS NOT IN OUR CONTRACT, NOT ON OUR RADAR. THAT IS GOING TO SLOW THIS ONE DOWN AS WELL. I'M TRYING TO PUSH BACK ON THAT ONE. I HAVE LIMITED POWERS TO PUSH BACK ON THEM. I DON'T KNOW THE FULL IMPACTS ON THIS ONE YET. I'M STILL WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS. THAT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT IS LOOKING LIKE IT MIGHT GET SLOWED DOWN A BIT. IT WILL BE A DRASTIC SLOWDOWN. I WILL SAY THAT. PROBABLY IN NEXT MONTH TO THE SCHEDULE. IT WON'T BE , LIKE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. BUT I WANTED TO PUT IT ON YOUR RADAR THAT IT WON'T NECESSARILY BE EXACTLY WHEN I TOLD YOU IT WAS GOING TO BE.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, FOR PEOPLE THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING NOW AND MIGHT NOT BE WATCHING HOURS FROM NOW WHEN WE GET TO THE OTHER ITEM THAT PEOPLE KNOW, EMERGENCY REPAIRS ARE HAPPENING INDEPENDENT OF THAT. THAT IS FIXING THE ROAD IN A MORE PERMANENT WAY, REBUILDING IT, EXPANDING THE INTERSECTION. THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DELAYED RIGHT NOW . BUT THE REPAIRS ARE GOING HAPPEN INDEPENDENTLY OF THAT.

>> TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS. THIS ONE WAS ALREADY STARTED IN 2022 BEFORE THE FREEZE HAPPENED, WHICH CAUSED THE ASPHALT TO BUCKLE. SO THAT REPAIR , THAT'S A LATER ITEM IN THE AGENDA AND IT'S COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THIS PROJECT. CR 132, OVERPASS AT U.S. 79. WE DO HAVE 30% DESIGN IN PROGRESS . THIS IS ANOTHER ONE WE ARE IN COORDINATION WITH TXDOT. NO DELAYS ON THIS ONE YET, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY REAL TIMELINES . WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET AN OVER THE SHOULDER TYPE REVIEW SET UP WITH TXDOT , SO THAT WE CAN WALK THROUGH 30% DESIGNS AND THEY HAVE BEEN READY SLOW TO RESPOND TO US.

BUT WE ARE PUSHING ON THEM. I A CONVERSATION WITH GARVER THIS WEEK. AND MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO THEM THAT I NEED THEM PUSHING ON TXDOT AS HARD AS I AM. AND ALSO REACHED OUT TO THE AREA ENGINEER TO ASK HIM IF HE COULD HELP SPEED THINGS UP. SO.

FINALLY, A GREEN ONE. THE SIGNAL WARRANT , WE GOT THAT REPORT. A SIGNAL IS WARRANTED HERE AT THIS INTERSECTION . THE OTHER THING THAT I DID IS I WENT AHEAD AND SENT THE SIGNAL WARRANT REPORT TO THE COUNTY , BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT OUR CITY LIMIT MAP TWO LEGS OF THE CENTER SECTION OR IN THE COUNTY AND TWO LEGS ARE IN THE CITY. I HAVE HAD CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COUNTY ENGINEER. HE DID PROVIDE AN EYE AWAY THAT I DIDN'T HAVE THAT BASICALLY SAID WHEN THE COUNTY DID THE UPGRADES TO COUNTY ROAD 108 , THE CITY'S PART OF THE ILA AS WE WOULD TAKE OVER MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF THE ENTIRE INTERSECTION. HE DIDN'T FORESEE ANY ISSUES WITH US PUTTING A SIGNAL THERE, SINCE FOR THEIR PURPOSES THAT'S OUR INTERSECTION ANYWAY. BUT HE SAID HE WILL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT I NEEDED TO BE AWARE OF IN THE REPORT. THAT ONE IS MOVING FORWARD.

COORDINATING WITH THE COUNTY JUST MAKE SURE I COVERED ALL MY BASES. BUT IT IS WARRANTED. WE HAVE MET, I THINK THREE OF THE EIGHT TYPICAL TRAFFIC WARRANTS . WE ARE COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED IN PUSHING FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN TO PUT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THAT LOCATION. THAT'S IT FOR THE UPDATES. THAT'S NOT IT FOR ALL UPDATES, BUT THE DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL IS FOCUS ON TRANSPORTATION UPDATES AT THE REGULAR MEETINGS AND THEN BRING ALL THE UPDATES FORWARD. WITH THAT I WILL

STOP. ANY QUESTIONS? >> QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL?

>> THANKS, MATT, FOR ALL YOU'RE DOING WITH TXDOT. I GOT TO IMAGINE IT'S NOT THE COMPANY CONVERSATION. I GOT TO IMAGINE IT'S SUPER FRUSTRATING. I CAN'T IMAGINE GETTING SO FAR TO BE TOLD, A LET'S RETHINK THIS. I DO APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF PROJECTS THAT PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING TO

[00:30:04]

>> TO BE -- TO BE COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT IT'S A LITTLE EASIER FOR ME, BECAUSE I GET TO MAKE YOU GUYS THE BAD GUYS AND SAY THEY'RE GOING TO SKIN ME ALIVE IF I GO BACK AND TELL THEM WE CAN DO THIS. I GET TO MAKE YOU GUYS THE BAD GUYS.

>> THAT'S FINE WITH ME. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD SHARE, SHARE FRUSTRATIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER, IN TERMS OF PROGRESS ON A NUMBER OF THINGS. IT APPEARS, I MEAN I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM OTHER CITIES THE ISSUES WITH TXDOT. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT OUTSIDE LOOKING IN THERE SOME SORT OF COMMUNICATION GAP BETWEEN WHERE GOING DOWN THE ROAD FOR TWO YEARS , THEY HAVE SOME STAFF TURNOVER. IT ALWAYS APPEARED LIKE WE ARE NOT COMMUNICATING WITH NEW PEOPLE, HEY, HERE'S ABOUT WE ARE GOING. ARE YOU GUYS OKAY? MAYBE WE HAVE DONE THAT AND MAYBE WE HAVEN'T. WE ARE SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR AND PLANS. AND DESIGN TO HAVE FREQUENTLY OUR PROJECTS , FOR WHATEVER REASON IN OUR CITY GETTING BLOWN UP BY TXDOT AND WE ARE HAVING TO START OVER. IT SEEMS LIKE WE GOT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO HAVE SIT DOWNS, GO ABOVE THE AREA ENGINEER, BUT EVERYTHING KEEPS BEING DELAYED. AS HE TOLD THE CITY MANAGER, MOST OF THE PUBLIC IS EXTREMELY RUTHLESS. THEY JUST DON'T CARE. THEY WANT HOT ASPHALT HITTING THE GROUND AND THEY WANT CURBS.

THEY WANT SEVEN OF US , THE CITY MANAGER AND WHO EVER HE HAS ASKED HIS STAFF TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THROUGH WITH TXDOT AND GET ALONG WITH THE COUNTY , FIGURE OUT HOW TO COORDINATE THINGS . ALL I CAN SAY IS WHATEVER WE ARE DOING WE HAVE TO FIGURE SOMETHING ELSE OUT, BECAUSE WE ARE DELAYING ROADS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BUILT FIVE YEARS AGO. I DON'T KNOW WHO ALL'S FAULT IT IS. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY REALLY CARES, WE JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO WITH TXDOT AND US ALL ON BOARD AND STOP SPENDING MONEY JUST REDESIGNING. THAT'S

JUST MY OPINION. >> MAYBE TXDOT SHOULD STOP PUTTING THEIR NEW PERSONNEL ON HUTTO PROJECTS. MAYBE WE WON'T

HAVE THAT PROBLEM. >> THANKS, MATT.

[8.2. Chamber of Commerce Quarterly Update (Joe Gonzalez)]

>> NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 82, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE QUARTERLY

UPDATE. >> GOOD EVENING. HOW ARE Y'ALL

DOING? >> GOOD .

>> NICE TO SEE YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY ASKING EVERYONE HERE , HAVE A NICE TIME AT THE GALA?

>> YES . >> IT WAS GREAT .

>> GOOD JOB. >> I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE HERE WHO ATTENDED. THE CITY COUNCIL , MANY OF YOU WERE AT THE GALA. I WANT TO EXTEND A BIG HUGE THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING. WITHOUT YOU GUYS WOULDN'T HAVE A GALA OF THIS NATURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HOPE TO SEE YOU AT THE NEXT ONE. REST ASSURED, WE WILL START PLANNING FOR THAT ONE VERY SOON. IN REFERENCE TO THE GALA, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN -- EXCUSE ME, MY VOICE IS A LITTLE HORSE -- I WOULD LIKE TO STATE SOME OF THE NUMBERS WE CAME UP WITH AFTER THE GALA. WE HAD ROUGHLY ABOUT 350 GUESTS, ATTENDEES . WE HAD ROUGHLY ABOUT 21 SPONSORSHIPS. I CAN SAY THAT WE HAD A VERY GOOD AUCTION. THAT AUCTION REALLY HELPED US TREMENDOUSLY ON THAT NIGHT. IT'S REALLY GOING TO HELP US GOING INTO THE FUTURE , FINANCIALLY. WE THINK EVERYBODY WHO DID ANTICIPATED THERE .

I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF ANYBODY BOUGHT ANYTHING OR BID ON ANYTHING, BUT THERE WERE SOME VERY NICE THINGS TO BID ON. WE ARE VERY HAPPY AND VERY PROUD WE WERE ABLE TO AT LEAST GET THAT TO YOU AND HOPING PEOPLE WENT HOME HAPPY WITH SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE PRESENT. IN REFERENCE TO THE CHAMBER ITSELF, I WILL START OFF LIKE I ALWAYS DO WITH OUR MEMBERSHIP. OUR MEMBERSHIP ROUGHLY TODAY, THIS IS OUR LAST QUARTER COMING INTO JANUARY, IS ROUGHLY AT ABOUT 325 . WE HAVE HAD A NET GAIN OF 17 DURING THIS TIMEFRAME, WHICH IS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE. WE ARE GOING TO WORK ON THAT NUMBER, BASED ON THE MOMENTUM. WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO GO FORWARD THIS YEAR AND STRESS IF YOU DIFFERENT THINGS TO GAIN MORE MEMBERSHIPS ENROLLED IN THE CHAMBER. ALSO, GET OUR TEAM OUT AND ABOUT. YOU MAY SEE US OUT THERE QUITE A BIT IN THE PUBLIC, IN THE COMMUNITY, GOING OUT TO BUSINESSES. ONE, ASKING FOR FEEDBACK. TWO, TRYING TO GET NEW MEMBERS. REALLY TRYING TO GET THEM INVOLVED IN 2024. WE SEE THIS WOULD BE A PRETTY LITTLE YEAR BASED ON WHAT WE DID IN 2023. WE ARE REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO 2024 AND SEEING WHAT WE CAN DO WITH MEMBERSHIP . AS ALWAYS, THE CHAMBER IS ALWAYS KNOWN FOR EVENTS. THIS LAST QUARTER, LIKE MANY OF THE OTHER QUARTERS BEFORE, WE HAD A PRETTY ROBUST TIME. ROUGHLY DURING THIS TIME DURING OUR EVENTS WE HAD AT

[00:35:02]

WE HAVE SEEN A VERY CONSISTENT NUMBER WHEN IT COMES TO OUR WEBSITE TRAFFIC. THE WEBSITE ITSELF , THE VISITORS THAT ACTUALLY VISITED THE WEBSITE HOVERED AROUND 20,000, ROUGHLY, GIVE OR TAKE. REMAINED PRETTY STRONG ON THE DIRECTORY SEARCHES AS WELL AT 15,000. THE VIDEOS ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE INCREASE. WE ARE HOVERING AROUND 10,000, 10,500. WE ARE SEEING SIGNIFICANT INCREASES THERE.

THE MAIN THING IS CONSISTENCY. WE ARE HAPPY TO SEE THERE'S PEOPLE STILL GOING BACK TO THOSE NUMBERS IN THE LAST QUARTERLY MEETING TO THIS QUARTERLY MEETING, THEY ARE STILL GOING TO THE WEBSITE. THEY'RE STILL INTRIGUED . THEY ARE STILL LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, LOOKING TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CHAMBER, BUT ALSO THE CITY. IN REFERENCE TO OUR UPCOMING PLANS, WE HAVE DONE QUITE A BIT IN THE LAST QUARTER IN THE LAST YEAR. WEEK ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON EVENTS. THIS YEAR WE ARE GOING TO HAVE BASICALLY THE SAME EVENTS . WE MAY ADD ONE OR TWO IN THEIR JUST TO SEE HOW THOSE WORK OUT. WE ARE PRETTY EXCITED TO TRY TO GO INTO A DIFFERENT AREA TO SEE HOW THE PUBLIC WILL REACT , COMMUNITY, AND JUST TO SEE IF WE CAN GET MORE PEOPLE OUT AND ABOUT. IN THE CITY OF HUTTO. WE WILL BE WORKING ON THAT GO MAINLY WE WILL BE WORKING ON OUR WEBSITE ENHANCEMENTS. AS I MENTIONED IN THE LAST QUARTERLY MEETING, WE DO HAVE , AND WE WILL INFORM YOU OF THIS, WE HAVE THREE EMPLOYEES NOW. GOING FROM 2 TO 3. WE ARE GROWING. THE 30 EMPLOYEES GOING TO HELP US DRAMATICALLY WHEN IT COMES TO EVENT PLANNING AND ALSO TECHNOLOGY. WE ARE LOOKING OUT ON THE ENHANCEMENT, I DID MENTION THIS THE LAST TIME, MEMBER ADVERTISEMENTS. GIVING MEMBER THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO IN AND ADVERTISE ON THE WEBSITE THROUGH THE CHAMBER. ALSO, A MEMBER MAP. ONE OF THE THINGS WE FOUND IS THAT A LOT OF INQUIRIES THAT COME IN , THEY CAN SEE WHERE THE BUSINESSES ARE AND SEE THE ADDRESS, BUT PHYSICALLY THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT BUSINESS IS. WE ARE GOING TO CREATE A MAP ON THE WEBSITE WHERE YOU CAN JUST GO FIND THE BUSINESS, CLICK ON IT AND THEN YOU WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT LOCATION IS. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE WILL BE WORKING ON IN 2024. OUR NEXT MAJOR EVENT WILL BE THE CRAWFISH FESTIVAL. WHICH WILL BE APRIL 13TH, 2024. THAT'S OUR NEXT BIG ONE. BE LOOKING OUT FOR SOME NEW INFORMATION ON THAT AS WE START TO PREPARE FOR THAT.

LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I HAVE MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, OUR LEAD HUTTO PROGRAM. I CAN SAY , BEING PART OF THIS, WE LAUNCHED IT ON JANUARY 10, 2024. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD TWO SESSIONS.

OUR FIRST SESSION PRESENTER WAS MR. MIKE SNYDER . WE WANT TO THANK HIM FOR BEING A PRESENTER AND A PARTICIPANT.

AND FORMER MAYOR MIKE FOWLER WAS THE PRESENTER IN OUR SECOND SESSION. THOSE SESSIONS WENT VERY WELL. I WILL SAY THAT WE HAVE 18 PARTICIPANTS IN THIS YEAR'S PROGRAM. WE WERE SHOOTING FOR 15. WE HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE. WE HAVE THREE MORE IN AT 18. LIKE I SAY, ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE NOTICED

[00:40:05]

I BELIEVE IS GOING TO BE RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM. THAT WILL BE FEBRUARY 13TH FROM 4:00 TO 6:00. MR. JAMES EARP WILL BE OUR PRESENTER FOR THAT SESSION. AND I BELIEVE HE HAS RECEIVED AN EMAIL INVITING EACH ONE OF YOU TO THAT SESSION. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT, OR IF YOU HAVE SEEN IT, IF YOU PLAN TO ATTEND THESE RSVP. IT'S, THIS IS GOING TO BE A NICE ONE. WE HAVE INVITED OTHERS TO ATTEND THIS EVENT AS WELL. THE EVENT IS FROM 4:00 TO 6:00. THE FIRST 30 MINUTES IS NETWORKING. WE DO SERVE SNACKS AT 4:30. WE DO A LOT OF NETWORKING. WE WANT OUR PARTICIPANTS TO GET TO KNOW WHO EVERYBODY IS IN THE ROOM. GET TO HAVE THAT TALK WITH EACH OTHER AND GET A FEEL FOR WHAT'S GOING ON. WHAT THEY LEARNED THE LAST SESSION, THE PREVIOUS SESSION, ET CETERA. THAT WILL BE SOMETHING WE HAVE HERE AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT EVENT. WITH THAT SAID, AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE REALLY STRIVING FOR CONSISTENCY. WE HAVEN'T MET THAT. DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I'M FREE TO ANSWER.

>> QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL . >> THAT SESSION WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL IS INVITED, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE SEEN INVITE YET. WHEN IS IT? TUESDAY FEBRUARY 13TH?

>> FEBRUARY 13TH, RIGHT HERE. 4:00 TO 6:00. I KNOW SHE SENT IT OUT. IT WAS A GROUP, SO I'LL MAKE SURE ALL THE CITY COUNCIL

MEMBERS WERE ON THAT. >> I MAY HAVE RECEIVED IT, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. THANK YOU. 'S BACK ANYTHING ELSE?

>> THANKS, JOE. APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP HERE EACH QUARTER.

[14. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

>> THANKS, APPRECIATE IT. >> I LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE UP THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. IF YOU WOULD BE SO KIND, IF WE PULL ANYTHING CAN WE TAKE THAT UP LATER?

>> SURE. ANY A JACKSON'S -- OBJECTIONS FROM COUNSEL TO DO CONSENT NEXT? HEARING NONE, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS ANYONE

WISHES TO PULL? >> I WOULD LIKE TO PULL 1411.

>> MAYOR, SEVEN LIKE TO ASK THAT 14 TO GET BOLD AND

RESCHEDULE. >> PULLING 14 TO.

>> PULLING 14 ONE AND 14 THREE. 'S. HEARING NONE OTHER WANT TO APPROVE 14 FOUR, 14 FIVE, 14 SIX, 14 SEVEN, 14 A,

NINE, 10, 12, 13, AND 1414. >> SO MOVED.

>> THANK YOU. >> SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION OR ANYTHING WITH THE ITEMS? I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

>> ARE WE GOING TO TAKE THOSE UP LATER?

>> THEY ARE PART OF IT BEING APPROVED.

>> GOT YOU. >> 14- 4:, I DO WANT TO VERIFY THAT WAS A CONTRACT WE SAW ON THE PACKET, THAT RIGHT? FOR

THE CLEANING SERVICE? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS ATTACHED.

>> BECAUSE OF ANOTHER CONTRACTUAL ISSUE THAT SUPPOSEDLY I WAS BEING LED TO BELIEVE BY AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY THAT ALL CONTRACTS HAVE TO , THE PERSON THAT ASKING FOR THE CONTRACT HAS TO BE ASKED IF IT'S OKAY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE IT. DO YOU KNOW, DID WE ASK THIS PARTICULAR VENDOR IF IT WAS OKAY FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE THEIR CONTRACT?

>> I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO LEGAL ON THAT TO SEE. DO YOU

KNOW? >> I KNOW OF NONE.

>> MAYOR, -- THAT'S MORE OF A PUBLIC THING.

>> AND WE CAN BUILD THAT INTO OUR ONGOING PURCHASING PROCEDURES AS WE ARE MENDING THEM. JUST TO MAKE THAT AS A PART OF THE REQUEST THAT FOLKS, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFY THAT AT THE

BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS. >> THEY ARE ASKED TO IDENTIFY ANY CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT THEY DON'T WANT INCLUDED . THAT'S THE PROCESS. THE STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS TYPICALLY ARE NOT ASKED. BECAUSE SOME OF THESE ARE BID PACKAGES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN OUT IN THE PUBLIC.

>> THAT SEEMS STANDARD. ON 14-SIX I JUST WANT TO VERIFY,

[00:45:01]

>> 14-6 IS EXCEPTING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS. I'M

SORRY, WHICH ONE? >> MY 14 SIX MUST BE DIFFERENT. OH, YES. THAT'S WHY THAT IS. I HAVE A DIFFERENT

PRINTOUT OF THE AGENDA. >> 600,000 IN PLAN REVIEWS.

WONDERING WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT HIGHER WE DO AT SOME POINT DOESN'T MAKE , CAN A PERSON BE HIRED THAT CAN DO $600,000 WORTH OF WORK? CHEAPER?

>> WELL, YEAH. I HEAR YOU. >> I'M JUST THROWING OUT

TRAN05 >> THE SHORT ANSWER IS THAT FLEXES US UP TO SOMETIMES AS MANY AS 10 TO 15 OTHER INSPECTORS THAT ARE WORKING IN THE CITY AT THE SAME TIME.

IT'S NOT JUST ONE PERSON DOING ALL THAT WORK. THE COST IS DIRECTLY PASSED THROUGH TO THE FOLKS REQUESTING THE

INSPECTIONS. >> A QUICK, ON 14 SEVEN, 14 EIGHT. THOSE ARE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS. WHEN WE DID THIS FOR DURANGO WE ACCEPTED THE ROADS AND ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS.

AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT IF WE ACCEPT THESE THAT THESE WERE BUILT, THEY WERE BUILT TO PLANS AND THAT WE DON'T HAVE ISSUES LATER ON WHERE THEY WERE BUILT INCORRECTLY, YET WE HAVE ACCEPTED THEM. THAT'S ALL I HAD.

>> I HAD A QUESTION ON 14 SEVEN AND 14 EIGHT. SIMILAR TO THAT.

EXCEPTING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS WHERE WE HADN'T ACTUALLY RECENTLY, THAT CAME TO LIGHT AFTER THE FACT WHERE IMPROVEMENTS WERE SEPTAGE BUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DONE WEREN'T ON THE LIST, SO THEY WERE NEVER CHECKED. DID WE PUT ADDITIONAL REVIEWS IN PLACE ON THESE SPECIFICALLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CHECKED EVERYTHING THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO, NOT JUST THE ONES THAT WE WERE GIVEN? AND IF WE HAVE THAT IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT PART OF THE REPORTING ON THESE WHEN YOU GET THEM?

>> GO AHEAD. >> YES. WE DO WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS AND GO OVER THESE ITEMS WITH THEM . WE HAVE POINTED OUT , SINCE WE HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH CERTAIN THINGS, LIKE PRIOR CITY ENGINEERS BEING ACCEPTED IN SOME OF THE CONSTRUCTION ITEMS WERE LEFT OUT THAT WE ARE WORKING MORE CLOSELY TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS DONE .

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE, I MEAN, THE FIRST TIME-OUT I UNDERSTAND IF WE JUST WENT AND DID THE EXTRA WORK. IF WE CAN MAKE IT A PART OF THE PROCESS OF SHOWING THAT WE DID THE WORK AND HAVING IT BE ON A REPORT, A THING THAT SAYS WE CHECKED ALL OF OUR PLAT REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS US THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY DONE. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD GOING FORWARD . 'S BACK ANY OTHER COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>>

[9.1. Conduct a public hearing regarding the creation of the Meadow Brook Public Improvement District (Sara Cervantes)]

MEETING ON 2/15. >> AND YOU ALSO DIDN'T WANT US TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT ON ANYTHING , RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. JUST HOPE -- JUST OPENING UP THE HEARING .

>> I GUESS WE WILL SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC AT ANOTHER MEETING

WHAT IT IS THAT'S GOING ON. >> CORRECT. WHERE TRY TO KEEP THINGS MOVING SIMULTANEOUSLY WHILE WE ARE DOING A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. WILL WANT TO KEEP SOME OF THE STANDARDIZED PROCESSES MOVING WHILE WE ARE WORKING SMOTHER DOCUMENTS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH. TRYING TO PREVENT DELAYING KEEP THINGS

GOING. >> THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED -- APPROVED AND THE NEXT STEP IS PUBLIC

HEARING. >> THIS ONE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED. YES. THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE, TYPICALLY, YOU WOULD HAVE YOUR PUBLIC HEARING, CREATE THE BID AND THE D.A.

WOULD ALREADY BE DONE THERE. IF WORD CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND CREATES A PIT IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR OWN POLICY BECAUSE THE IT IS NOT BEEN FULLY IMPROVED YET. WE HAVE BEEN KEEPING WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS TO KEEP THINGS GOING TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITIES. . WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:49 P.M.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO COME UP AND BEAK REGARDING THE MEADOWBROOK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE WE WILL MOVE ON . I GUESS

YOU GUYS WILL BRING IT . >> SO, IN YOUR MOTION, BECAUSE STATE LAW SAYS YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU ADJOURN

[00:50:01]

>> I THINK YOU MAKE A MOTION .

>>, IT'S A NOTE -- A MOTION? >> YEAH.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL

THE FEBRUARY 15TH MEETING. >> AND USE THE WORD ADJOURN .

THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES. THANK YOU.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND ? >> SECOND.

>> IN A DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE >>

[10.1. Consideration and possible action regarding possible appointments, re-appointments and/or removals to City Boards, Commissions, Task Forces, Economic Development Corporations, Local Government Corporations and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Boards, City Council Liaisons, and Area Government appointments]

>> THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY NAMES TO PRESENT AT THIS TIME. . ANYTHING ELSE FROM COUNSEL ON

[11.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-005 adopting the Hutto Schedule of Fees and Charges for Fiscal Year 2023/2024, by adding a Water Reservation Fee and consolidating fees and establishing costs and fees charged by the City of Hutto (First Reading) (Jeff White, Matt Rector, David Amsler)]

CHARGED BY THE CITY OF HUTTO. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. DAVID ANSWER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER, FOR THE RECORD. ALL THREE OF THESE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING TO THE FEE SCHEDULE TONIGHT OUR ADMINISTRATIVE IN NATURE. THE LUE. YEAR , PELL --. LUE IS ORDINANCE THAT YOU PASSED A FEW COUNCILMAN -- MEETINGS BACK. SAME WITH THE UPDATING RESIDENTIAL PARKLAND FEE AND THE LOVE FOR RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS . THAT CHANGE IS GOING FROM $800. DWELLING TO $2300. AND THE LAST ONE IS REMOVING CONFLICTING LANGUAGE IN THE FEE SCHEDULE BASED OFF THE ORDINANCE THAT UPDATED OUR

RIGHT AWAY PERMITTING. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> WITH THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER ZERO 2024 /005 AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>>

[12.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-025 adopting the City of Hutto Pump and Haul policy; Authorizing the City Manager to enter into Pump and Haul Agreements (Sara Cervantes)]

AGREEMENTS. >> MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, THIS ITEM 12.1 IS ESSENTIALLY ADOPTING A POLICY THAT PROVIDES A PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK THROUGH WHICH THE CITY CAN EXECUTE , PUMP AND HALL AGREEMENTS. PUMP AND HALL IN A NUTSHELL . I'M SURE THAT RECTOR CAN HELP ME OUT IF THERE'S ANY DETAILS THAT I'M LIVING OUT HERE, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A SERVICE THAT FACILITATES THE REMOVAL OF WASTEWATER AND DISPOSING IT TO WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS WHEN THOSE CONNECTIONS ARE NOT COMPLETED YET. SO, THIS TYPE OF INCIDENT MIGHT COME UP IN SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE SOME SORT OF PROJECT ONGOING AND ARE WASTEWATER CONNECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CIP PLAN ARE MATCHING UP RIGHT AROUND THERE , ABOUT THE TIME THEY'RE GOING TO BE OPENING. THIS IS TO FACILITATE NOT HAVING ANY DELAYS, IF YOU WILL. AND ALLOWING THOSE DEVELOPERS TO KEEP MOVING. IT'S DEFINITELY A TEMPORARY MEASURE. OUR DEVELOPERS ARE THE ONES WHO ASSUME ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED . THERE WILL DEFINITELY BE A FEASIBILITY REVIEW, IN TERMS OF REVIEWING THE TIMING OF THE AGREEMENT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT CITING AGREEMENTS WHERE PUMP AND HALL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR AN EXTENDED TIME.

>> MY ONE QUESTION IN THE CONTRACT, IT LOOKS LIKE, IS IT SAYING THAT ALL OF THEM WILL EXPIRE JULY 31ST OF 2025?

[00:55:03]

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT SECTION SHOULD HAVE EXPIRATION LISTED AS THE DATE UPON WHICH THEY ARE ABLE TO CONNECT TO OUR CITY IN THE STRUCTURE.

>> SARAH, IT'S IN THE DEFINITIONS, WASTEWATER COMPLETION . THE DATE WAS JUST FILLED IN RATHER THAN IT BEING

LEFT BLANK. >> RIGHT. I'M JUST CURIOUS, NOW YOU HAVE A DATE THING TRAN05

>> THAT SHOULD BE AN OPEN-ENDED DATE, DEPENDING ON -- THAT'S PROBABLY A RESIDUAL TYPOGRAPHIC ERROR.

>> SO, -- >> IS ON DEFINITIONS

ATTACHMENT B. >> YEAH. RIGHT THERE. 'S BACK SARAH, YOU SAID THE DEVELOPERS ASSUMES COST FOR THIS . DO THEY ALSO ASSUME FINDING THE PROVIDER OR IS THAT ON THE

CITY? >> CORRECT. NO. THEY ASSUME PROVIDING -- THE PROVIDER AND THE CITY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO

BE THAT PROVIDER. >> OKAY.

>> IF THERE IS NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL WE WILL OBTAIN A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM .

>> I MAKE A MOTION , WITH THE CORRECTION OF REMOVING THE

DATE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. FOR CLARIFICATION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE COMPLETION.

>> THE EXPIRATION DATE ON PAGE 56 .

>> YEAH. >> OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? OR THIS MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.'S BACK

>> MOTION -- MOTION PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU, SIR.

[12.2. Consideration and possible action relating to Resolution No. R-2024-031 approving the Olander Farms Development Agreement between Keith Alan Olander, Karen Ann Olander, Janet Lynn Olander Barnard, Timothy Edward Barnard, Brian Anthony Barnard, Elizabeth Barnard Davis, and Hutto-40 LLC and the City of Hutto and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement (Sara Cervantes)]

>> NEXT WE HAVE CONSIDERATION FOR POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO -- APPROVING THE OLANDER FORMS DEVELOPED AGREEMENT BETWEEN KEITH ELLEN OLANDER, KAREN OLANDER, JANET OLANDER, BERNARD TIMOTHY EDWARD RENARD, BRIAN ANTHONY BERNARD, ELIZABETH BERNARD DAVIS AND HUTTO -- 40 LLC IN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TRAN05

>> IT'S THE REQUEST OF STAFF THAT THIS BE PUSHED TO THE FEBRUARY 15TH COMMITTEE MEETING.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE AGREEMENT

YET. >> CORRECT.

>> IF WE COULD PUSH IT >> THAT'S THE ONLY REASON

STAFF WANT TO PUSH IT? >> YES. CORRECT. FOR AMPLE

TIME FOR REVIEW. >> WE DID RECEIVE THE AGREEMENT, BUT NOT IN TIME FOR COUNSEL TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW IT. WE WOULD LIKE TO RESCHEDULE THAT FOR THE 15TH.

>> WITH NO OBJECTIONS WILL SCHEDULE THAT FOR THE 15TH.

[12.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-013 regarding Ad Valorem Tax Exemptions for Licensed Childcare Facilities (Mayor Mike Snyder)]

IN DOING FURTHER RESEARCH THERE IS ACTUALLY FOR. TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM YOU HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RISING STAR PROGRAM WITH TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION. OUT OF THOSE 31 THERE WAS FOR THAT WOULD ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM. ONE OF THOSE IS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS .

REALLY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE. AT THIS TIME. THE VALUE OR ASSESSED VALUE WAS $2.9 MILLION. WE RECEIVED $12,320 IN TAX REVENUES IN 2023. WE DO REALIZE THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ARE ASKED AT THE JANUARY 4TH MEETING. WE DID TRY TO GET THOSE ANSWERED THROUGH THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, BUT THEY ARE NOT READY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES WITH THE EXEMPTIONS YET. WE WILL STAY IN CONTACT WITH THEM UNTIL WE CAN GET THOSE ANSWERS. WHEN WE DO WE WILL BRING IT BACK AGAIN.

>> UNTIL THOSE ARE ANSWERED WE CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIOUS DO THIS, BECAUSE WE COULD SCREW UP BILLION-DOLLAR DEALS . WE JUST NEED, UNTIL WE GET THOSE ANSWERS . THANK YOU.

[01:00:05]

>> I THE QUESTION. WHEN IS THE LAST TIME WE CAN PASS THIS IN ORDER FOR IT TO HIT THE TAX, WHATEVER -- IS AT THE TAX VALUATIONS IN APRIL IT HAS TO BE FIGURED OUT BY?

>> YEAH. >> WE HAVE MAYBE UNTIL THE LAST MEETING IN MARCH FOR A RESOLUTION.

>> I GUESS MY TWO CENTS ON THIS IS THAT THE FISCAL IMPACT IS UNKNOWN, JUST BECAUSE THE COUNTY CAN'T GIVE US THAT INFORMATION. I AM VERY HESITANT TO DOING THIS. I THINK THAT MAYBE WAITING NEXT YEAR MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE. I KNOW THAT THE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN SAID LIKE, HEY, WE WANT TO DO THINGS THAT ARE NOT AUSTIN. I UNDERSTAND AUSTIN HAS DONE THIS AND WAS THE FIRST CITY TO IMPLEMENT THIS TAX REBATE FOR CHILDCARE FACILITIES. AND I GUESS WE CAN MAYBE WAIT TO SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT IN THEIR CITY BEFORE IT IMPACTS OUR CITY. AND JUST KIND OF GIVING US THAT BUFFER TO SEE HOW IT GOES. OBVIOUSLY, GETTING THE INFORMATION FROM THE COUNTY . THAT DOES CALCULATE OUR TAXES.

I THINK WOULD BE GREAT TO STILL HAVE SOME LANGUAGE BROUGHT TO US, BUT I'M STILL HESITANT TO FISCAL IMPACT .

YOU KNOW, I GUESS JUMPING RIGHT INTO IT.

>> THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS AS WELL. I APPRECIATE STAFF REACHING OUT TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND TRYING TO GET ALL OF THOSE ANSWERS FOR US TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION, BUT JUST WITH THE NEWNESS IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT PREMATURE TO DO SOMETHING SO SOON . I TEND TO AGREE WITH

COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR ON THAT. >> I WOULD SAY I'M NOT READY TO ACT ON THIS TONIGHT, BUT I'M NOT GIVING UP ON THE YEAR YET. I THINK WE HAVE SOME TIME TO GET SOME ANSWERS AND FIGURE

OUT IF WE CAN DO IT THIS YEAR . >> IF WE CAN GET SOME SOLID

ANSWERS. >> AND IT ALSO TAKES TIME. IF WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT SOMEBODY CIRCUMVENTING IT, IT TAKES TIME FOR THEM TO CIRCUMVENT IT. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO PROBABLY DO IT THIS YEAR. WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO IT IF WE WANTED TO. THE EXEMPTION IS SOMETHING ELSE WE NEED TO FIND OUT ABOUT, LEGALLY.

>> I APPRECIATE STAFF TRYING TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE, EVEN WITH THROW-IN IN THE CURVEBALLS OF THE INAUDIBLE ]. THOSE ARE POSSIBILITIES. SERIOUS

CONCERNS. >> ALSO WANT TO PUT IT IN PLACE ARE YOU ABLE TO REPEAL IT OR IS IT PERMANENT?

>> THAT'S A VALID QUESTION. THAT DOES APPLY.

>> IT'S GIVING THE CITY A MUNICIPALITIES AUTHORITY TO DO IT. WE CANNOT DO IT OR WE CAN DO IT AND TAKE IT AWAY.

>> SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T . >> DON'T GIVE UP. SEE WHAT YOU CAN FIND BY MARCH. I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER THORTON.

I'M NOT GIVING UP ON THE YEAR WE HAVE A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE THE IMPACT IS $12,000. SO. I GUESS, THEORETICALLY YOU CAN HAVE 27, 27 FACILITIES ALL THE SUDDEN HIT THE HIGHER LEVEL OF REGULATION FOR THEIR DAY CARE AND THAT NUMBER COULD GO UP. MAYBE WHEN WE COME BACK WITH THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING MAYBE WE CAN HAVE WHAT THE FISCAL IMPACT WOULD BE IF ALL 31, I GUESS 30 TRAN05

>> THERE'S ONLY THREE. >> I WILL CLARIFY. RIGHT NOW THERE'S 31 FACILITIES. AS I UNDERSTAND IT. 4:ARE CERTIFIED.

ONE IS NOT IN THE CITY. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS FOR THE ONES THAT ARE NOT CERTIFIED, SHOULD THEY BECOME CERTIFIED AND BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR THIS OR WITH THAT FINANCIAL IMPACT BE, AS WE PASS THIS . I DON'T WANT TO PASS IT BASED ON $12,000, I WANT TO PASS IT BASED ON WHAT HAPPENS IF EVERYBODY GETS CERTIFIED, JUST SO WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION.

MAYBE WE JUST MOVED TO THE FIRST MEETING IN MARCH. THAT WAY WE HAVE TIME TO GET BACK. WE HAVE EXTRA TIME, SINCE WE STILL HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION .

>> APPROXIMATELY $92,000. QUICK MATH. WE WILL SAY UNDER

100. >> IF EVERYBODY IS GOING TO GO

FULL FORCE. >> IT COULD BE BETWEEN 50 AND

100% . WE SAID THAT ALREADY. >> DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON

THIS ONE? >> I'M JUST GOING TO ECHO PRETTY MUCH WHAT ANYBODY ELSE SAID. I FOR THIS AS LONG AS WE CAN LIMITED TO JUST THESE AND IS NOT GOING TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE CITY BY GIVING THE BENEFIT TO SOMEBODY WHO REALLY SHOULDN'T BE GETTING IT. I LIKE THAT WE HAVE THE 50%. FOR

[01:05:03]

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING BACK, HOPEFULLY THIS YEAR.

>> I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING IF MORE DAY CARES JOIN THE PROGRAM, BECAUSE PART OF THE GOAL IS TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO MAKE AFFORDABLE DAY CARE AVAILABLE. THAT WOULD BE A LOT

OF THE REASON FOR DOING THIS. >> ALL RIGHT, MARCH 7TH.

[13.1. Consideration and possible action relating to Charter Review Commission Final Report of Recommendations for Charter Amendments (Legal) (Part 1 of 2)]

>> NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 13.1. CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS. . DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THE CLICKER? THE CLICKER IS OVER HERE, BUT I COULD DO IT FOR YOU IF YOU'D LIKE. . MAYOR COUNCIL, DOROTHY PLUMB LOW, CITY ATTORNEY, FOR THE RECORD. WE HAVE THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS . I SENT THEM OUT TO COUNSEL. I RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE, SO I DID A QUICK POWERPOINT TODAY. THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WAS TO HAVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS FOR FOUR DISTRICTS AND TWO AT-LARGE. THE MAYOR ELECTED AT LARGE. IF YOU MAKE THIS CHANGE WE WOULD MAKE CONFORMING CHANGES TO THE REST OF THE CHARTER THAT COUNCILMEMBER THORTON POINTED OUT. AND THAT'S IN YOUR REPORT. DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THESE ONE AT A TIME ? THERE'S ANOTHER UNLIMITED TWO 301 THAT HAS BEEN

PROPOSED. >> I THINK WE WILL JUST TAKE THEM ONE BY ONE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS? BECAUSE I'M JUST NOT IN FAVOR OF PURSUING THIS ONE. I WOULD RATHER JUST MOVE ON. IF WE WANT TO VOTE ON THAT, ON

WHETHER WE PURSUE? >> SO WE JUST TO QUESTIONS ON IT AND THAT I WILL OBTAIN EMOTION AND I WILL JUST TRY TO

KNOCK THEM OUT FAST . >> I MAKE A MOTION TO KILL THIS

, MOTION TO DENY THIS. >> JUST MOTION TO TAKE NO

ACTION ON THIS ONE. >> MOTION TO TAKE NO ACTION ON

THIS ONE. >> MEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THORTON. TAKING NO ACTION. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING THEM, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE .

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON . >>

>> MOTION -- MOTION PASSES 7-0.

>> THIS IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROPOSED FOR SECTION 301, COUNSEL TO HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS, SEVEN COUNCILMEMBERS. EACH COUNCILMEMBER SHALL OCCUPY A PLACE ON THE COUNCIL NUMBERED ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN. THIS CHANGE IS THAT THE MAYOR WOULD BE ELECTED FROM THE COUNCIL INSTEAD OF ELECTED AT LARGE. THE MAYOR WILL BE ELECTED IN THE SAME

MANNER AS THE MAYOR PRO TEM. >> QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE?

>> THE OTHER THING WAS THE MATCH TERMS WOULD CHANGE FROM 2 TO 3. YOU SKIPPED OVER THAT. THAT'S A BIG CHANGE.

>> CHANGING TERM LIMITS TO BE MAX THREE FOR ALL PLACES .

>> IF YOU WANT TO MAYOR THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF FOUR AND THE COUNTLESS TWO. SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE AND JUST GO THREE

FOR EVERYTHING. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. IS A

QUESTION TIME? I'M SORRY. >> QUESTIONS FIRST.

>> OH YEAH, SORRY. I HAVE TO GET USED TO THIS AGAIN. SO, IF WE DO IT THIS WAY, SO OUR MAYOR PRO TEM GETS ELECTED EVERY TIME WE HAVE AN ELECTION. IS THAT CORRECT? THEN DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE MAYOR GETS ELECTED EVERY TIME WE HAVE AN

ELECTION? >> RIGHT. AND THEN IF THE AMENDMENT PASSES THAT WE ELECT THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND IF THIS PASSES THE MAYOR, AND THERE'S A RUNOFF, THEN YOU WAIT UNTIL THE RUNOFF TO ELECT THOSE TWO POSITIONS. THAT WOULD BE

CONSISTENT. >> RIGHT, BASICALLY, THE COUNCIL CHOOSES THE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM AFTER THE COUNCIL IS SEATED AFTER EACH MAY ELECTION.

>> OR RUNOFF. >> RIGHT. ONCE A NEW COUNCIL

IS SET. >> DEPENDENT ON YOUR PLACE YOU

[01:10:02]

TERMS. >> SO THE CITY OF TAYLOR -- TAYLOR CURRENTLY DOES IT THIS WAY. AFTER EACH MAY ELECTION ONCE EVERYONE IS SEATED TO HAVE AN ACTION TO SAY, OKAY, WAS GOING TO BE MAYOR THIS YEAR . WHO IS GOING TO BE MAYOR PRO TEM THIS YEAR. AND THEN THEY DO IT FOR THAT YEAR. THEY DO IT AGAIN ANNUALLY IS HOW THEY DO IT.

>> HOW WOULD THIS PROPOSAL DEFINE PLACE SEVEN AND HOW THAT FITS INTO TERM LIMITS AND EVERY THING ELSE?

>> THIS WOULD ALSO CHANGE THE TERM LIMITS TO THREE YEARS FOR

EVERYBODY. >> THREE TERMS .

>> I'M SORRY, THREE TERMS . >> THREE THREE YEAR TERMS .

>> FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE BEEN ON ONE , IF YOU GOT ELECTED THIS MAY YOU ARE ALREADY ON TWO, SO YOU'LL BE ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR A THIRD ONE. SAME THING WITH THE MAYOR AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM, HAVE BOTH ALREADY BEEN ELECTED TWICE . SINCE IS NOT TIED TO A MAYOR TITLE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU CAN BE MAYOR TWICE OR COUNCILMEMBER TWICE . YOU HAVE BEEN THREE, SO MIKE HAS BEEN ELECTED TWICE AND HE STILL HAS ONE MORE TIME THAT HE CAN RUN FOR PLACE SEVEN. YOU ARE JUST SWITCHING THEM.

>> IS JUST THE TECHNICAL TERMINOLOGY, RIGHT? YOU PUT A PLACE SEVEN AND THERE'S NO MAYOR ON THE COUNCIL ANYMORE.

SO IF HE WANTED TO TRY TO RUN A THIRD TIME YOU WOULD HAVE SOMEBODY SAYING, WELL NO, THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS. THAT WAS IN PLACE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE

IMPACTED. >> JUST MAKE SURE YOU

UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS . >> JUST SAY TRANSITIONS TO

PLACE SEVEN ON THE BALLOT. >> AND IT WOULD BE IMPLEMENT IT IN THE YEAR 2025. WE WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THE CITIZENS ARE VOTING ON IN THE CHARTER AMENDMENT, HOW IT'S IMPLEMENTED. WE WILL HAVE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHT

TO THIS. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WILL OBTAIN EMOTION. I MAKE A MOTION TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT WITH THE CHANGE TO SAY THAT MAYOR WOULD TRANSITION TO PLACE SEVEN WITH THE THREE-YEAR TERM LIMITS.

WHATEVER OTHER QUALIFYING CHANGES TO CONSIST WITH THE CHARTER TO BE UPDATED IF THIS WERE TO PASS AS ONE BALLOT

AMENDMENT. >> AND WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER

CLARK . >> IS THIS OUR LAST TIME DISCUSSING THIS OR DO WE HAVE ONE MORE TIME?

>> WE WILL PREPARE AN ORDINANCE WITH THE ACTUAL CHARTER.

PROPOSITION BUT I ALWAYS PREPARE AN UPDATED CHARTER WITH IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN THERE. AS EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS. SO THE VOTERS CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE VOTING

ON. >> AND WE HAVE TO DO THAT ON

THE 15TH, CORRECT? >> CORRECT OR YOU WOULD HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING NEXT WEEK. THOSE ARE YOUR OPTIONS.

>> IS OR ANYTHING THAT STOPS US FROM GOING MAXIMUM OF TWO TERMS? OR WOULD IT HAVE TO BE A MAXIMUM THREE?

>> WELL, IT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT, RIGHT?

>> ILLEGALLY, DO WE HAVE TO DO THREE OR CAN WE DO TO? I KNOW ONCE YOU START MESSING WITH PLACES AND STUFF YOU START GETTING TO WHERE TWO YEARS, TWO-YEAR TERMS DO SOMETHING , THREE-YEAR TERMS DO SOMETHING ELSE.

>> WELL, AND THEN PEOPLE RUN IN DIFFERENT PLACES. THIS HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER CITIES WHERE I HAVE BEEN LEGAL COUNSEL. AND MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT WELL, I MOVED OVER HERE TO PLACE FOR INSTEAD OF PLACE SIX, SO MY TERM LIMITS START OVER. THAT HAS GONE TO COURT AND THE COURTS UPHELD THAT.

>> BUT WE HAVE A PROVISION IN OUR CHARTER THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T RUN FOR ANOTHER SEAT . YOU CAN ONLY RUN FOR YOUR OWN SEAT. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE A YEAR OFF AND THEN YOU CAN RUN AGAIN. BUT THEN THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT SEAT, BUT YOU WOULD START OVER. YOU HAVE HAD THAT YEAR BREAK ANYWAY .

>> BUT IF WE SPECIFY PLACE SEVEN IS TRANSITION FROM THE MAYOR SEAT I THINK IT WOULD STILL CONFORM WITH THAT, HE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO RUN FOR PLACE SEVEN, FOR EXAMPLE, IF

IT WERE TO PASS . >> I THINK THE YEAR OF ONLY APPLIES TO MAYOR, THEM RUNNING FOR COUNSEL. COUNCIL SEATS YOU CAN SKIP AROUND AND GO FROM 1 TO 2.

>> KNOW. YOU CAN CHANGE. YOU CAN ONLY GO FROM COUNSEL TO RUNNING FOR MAYOR. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE YOU CAN JUMP DIRECTLY

. >> BUT WE ARE NOT DOING THAT

ANYMORE. >> RIGHT. BUT I CAN'T GO RUN FOR PLACE THREE. I HAVE TO LEAVE AND THEN RUN FOR PLACE THREE AFTER BEING OFF COUNSEL. THAT'S WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS.

[01:15:02]

>> YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO BE JUMPING ALL OVER PLACES. BUT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, STUFF LIKE THAT HAPPENS AND THEN IT

GETS CHALLENGED. >> BUT IF THE CHARTER SAYS WE CAN'T THAT'S A PROTECTION AGAINST THAT CHALLENGE, RIGHT?

>> WELL, YOU WOULD HOPE SO. >> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS A COURSE HAVE ALREADY FOUND TRAN05

>> SOME COURTS IN THE NORTH TEXAS AREA . PEOPLE HAVE JUMPED AROUND AND DONE VARIOUS THINGS IN ORDER TO AVOID TERM LIMITS APPLYING TO THEM. I WAS APPOINTED AND ONLY SERVED A YEAR, SO THAT YOUR DIDN'T COUNT.

>> I THINK THAT IS CONTEMPLATED IN OUR CHARTER TOO. IT'S ONLY , THE WAY I REMEMBER READING IT IS YOU'RE LIMITED TO TO FULL THREE-YEAR TERMS. BUT IF YOU SERVED A PARTIAL TERM THAT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD YOUR TERM LIMIT. FOR INSTANCE, I WAS ELECTED IN 2019 TO A ONE-YEAR TERM TO FILL THE REMAINDER OF SOMEONE ELSE'S TERM BUT I WAS ELECTED TO MY OWN TERM IN 2020 AND THEN AGAIN IN 2023. SO, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE I WILL SERVE FOR SEVEN YEARS, RIGHT? BECAUSE I

GOT THAT BONUS . >> ARE WE ADDING LANGUAGE? IS THIS ALL IN ADDITION OR IS THIS TAKING AND AMENDING LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE? BECAUSE SOME OF THIS, I'M NOT READING THIS TO BE AS WE ARE JUST GOING TO ADDED TO THE EXISTING

CHARTER. >> KNOW. YOU WILL HAVE TO AMEND YOUR EXISTING CHARTER TO CLARIFY YOUR NUMBER SELECTION AND TERM. IT WILL BE UNDER THAT SECTION. AND WILL BE THESE

CONCEPTS. >> RIGHT NOW IT'S LIKE REGULAR TERMS ELECTED. LIKE, YOU WERE ELECTED FOR PLACE THREE. YOU ARE FULLY ELECTED ONE TERM FOR MAYOR, SO YOU HAVE ONE MORE THIRD TERM IN A ROW AVAILABLE IF WE WENT TO THE TERM LIMIT THING. NOW IT WOULD BE MAYOR WHERE YOU CAN DO TO ON THAT AND YOU HAD YOUR ONE PLACE THREE OUT THERE, RIGHT? IT WOULDN'T BE, OH, YOU HAVE ANOTHER TERM TO BE ABLE TO BE MAYOR, SO YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL FOR 12 YEARS. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT SO NOBODY GETS SCREWED AND GOING

FORWARD IT'S ALWAYS THREE. >> I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY IN THE LANGUAGE AND JUST SAY, HEY I HAVE , BY THE TIME I GET BACK TO RE-ELECTION I HAVE SERVED ONE TERM. IF I GET MY TWO EXTRA RUNNING AGAIN THAT WOULD BE THE THREE. AND THEN EXPIRING , SO PLACE SIX EXPIRES ON THIS DATE . AND THEN AFTER THAT , LIKE THAT PART OF THE CHARTER JUST FIZZLES OUT. I DON'T KNOW. LIKE A SUNSET EXPIRATION DATE ON OUR TERMS.

RIGHT? >> WE DON'T EVEN NEED HOURS.

>> SO IT'S VERY CLEAR. OR IF THIS HAPPENS, SAY I'M RUNNING IN 2025 THEN I'M GOING TO START MY FIRST TERM .

>> NO. NO. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS SAYING. IT DOESN'T

RESET FOR EVERYBODY. >> IS NOT A RESET.

>> WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? >> NO. THE LANGUAGE IN THE TERMS SAY YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVE ALREADY RUN RUN -- ONE AND IF YOU GET RE-ELECTED THAT WOULD BE HER SECOND .

>> I THINK CLARIFY LANGUAGE COULD BE ADDED TO SAY THIS IS DOES NOT, YOU KNOW, THE PREVIOUS TERMS COUNT AGAINST THE TERM LIMITS. IS NOT RESETTING EVERYBODY'S TERM

LIMIT IT >> YEAH. THERE WE GO. LIKE A

BLANKET STATEMENT, I THINK. >> YEAH. BEING ELECTED IN A GENERAL ELECTION, NOT A SPECIAL ELECTION YOU ARE AROUND

THREE GENERAL ELECTION TERMS. >> RIGHT. WE HAD WEIRD STUFF HERE WHERE YOU COULD RUN FOR MAYOR AND YOU SWITCHED OVER.

IT'S JUST THREE GENERAL ELECTIONS. EVERYONE UP HERE HAS EITHER BEEN ELECTED FOR ONE OR TWO GENERAL ELECTIONS. THEY

WOULD ALL GET ONE MORE . >> THE LANGUAGE THAT IS USED IS TWO CONSECUTIVE FULL TERMS.

>> THERE YOU GO. I THINK FULL TERMS IS GOOD. YOU COULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED ON A REGULAR ELECTION. IT'S STILL A REGULAR ELECTION WHERE YOU COULD HAVE BEEN ELECTED FOR ONE YEAR, POTENTIALLY. THAT'S DIFFERENT.

>> PERSONALLY, I DON'T LIKE EITHER OF THESE CHANGES . I LIKE THE PUBLIC TO SING THEIR MAYOR. VERSUS A COUNSEL CHOOSING A MAYOR. I THINK IT'S BETTER TO MAKE THE PUBLIC -- LET THE MAYOR TAKE THE CHOICE. IF WE ARE PUTTING EITHER OR BOTH OF THESE ON THE BALLOT I THINK THEY SHOULD BE SPLIT AND IT SHOULD BE DO YOU WANT THE COUNCIL TO CHOOSE THE MAYOR OR THE PUBLIC TO CHOOSE THE MAYOR? AND DO YOU WANT TO KEEP IT TO TERMS OR TAINTED TO THREE? AND IF YOU CHANGE TO THREE YOU PUT IN THE LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT GOING FROM COUNSEL TO MAYOR IS STILL A TOTAL OF THREE, WHETHER YOU HAVE

SWITCHED POSITIONS OR NOT. >> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THE REASON WHY THIS WAS PROPOSED TO BE TOGETHER IS

[01:20:01]

IF YOU WANT TO RUN AGAIN, YOU CAN RUN AGAIN.

>> TECHNICALLY, 11 IF YOU DID A PARTIAL.

>> YEAH. >> YOU WANT TO PREVENT THE PARTIAL AND JUST MAKE IT FULL TERMS. AND THEN YOU WANT TO COME IF THIS PASSES, YOU WANT TO SAY THAT IF A TERM WAS SERVED, FORMERLY SERVED AS MAYOR, THAT WOULD COUNT.. IF

WE JUST DID THAT TRAN05 >> THE OTHER WAY TO DO IT IS JUST 2025 EVERYTHING RESETS. WHATEVER TERM LIMITS YOU HAVE SERVED LAST TIME DOESN'T COUNT GOING FORWARD. THAT'S

ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT. >> IF WE DID THAT AND JUST DID IT FOR TWO THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER DURING, THERE'S ONE SITTING AREA THAT DOES IT THIS WAY. I DON'T KNOW OF A ANY OTHER CITY THAT DOES

IT THIS WAY . >> CONGRESS DOES IT. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PICKS THEIR SPEAKER EVERY YEAR. IT'S NOT CRAZY. .

SO WE START OVER. >> THIS REALLY WASN'T VETTED THROUGH THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE. THERE IS ANOTHER POINT THAT MAY BE THIS IS SOMETHING TO LOOK AT. BY YOUR CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE NEXT TIME. SPOKE WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS THERE'S ONE CITY THAT I KNOW OF THAT THIS IS HOW THEY OPERATE. THE REST OF THE CITIES THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO PICK WHOEVER THEY WANT YOU GET INTO THESE ISSUES OVER TIME AND WHETHER PEOPLE LIKE ME OR NOT YOU SHOULD BE UP TO THE PUBLIC, WHOEVER IS THE MAYOR. SO, THE PUBLIC DETERMINES THAT.

WHEN WE START DETERMINING THINGS LIKE THAT, WHO IS GOING TO BE THE FACE OF THE CITY OR WHATEVER, THERE'S ALSO A CITY OUT THERE THAT THE MAYOR DOESN'T EVEN VOTES. SO, I THINK THAT'S ODD TOO. HOW TO RUN A MEETING AND YOU ARE OUT DOING WHATEVER AND YOU CAN SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT, BUT THEN WHEN IT COMES TIME TO VOTE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO VOTE? THAT'S A PRETTY COOL GIG THERE. BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CITIES IN OUR AREA, THEY HAVE SIX COUNCILMEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC DETERMINES WHO THE MAYOR IS. I THINK WE START MONKEYING WITH THAT , TO ME WE ARE DOING IT MORE BECAUSE THERE IS PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIKE ME. BUT I THINK THE PUBLIC SHOULD DETERMINE THAT, NOT THREE PEOPLE.

>> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. I JUST THINK THE BODY BEING ABLE TO PICK WHO IS THERE CHAIR FOR THEIR MEETING FOR ONE YEAR, I LIKE THAT. IT'S ALSO HOW EVERY LEGISLATIVE BODY FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, YOUR BODY EVERY YEAR OR TWO YEARS THEY ELECT --

>> UNLESS YOU ARE THE SENATE . >> HOW DOES THAT WORK FOR US? THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, HOW DOES THAT WORK? THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE WORKED ONE TIME WITH THE DEMOCRATS AND THEY KICKED HIM OFF. IT BECOMES WHEN YOU DO IT THAT WAY , DOES IT NOT BECOME MORE OF A POLITICAL THING ?

>> YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CHANGE IT MIDYEAR. . YOU JUST CHANGE IT THE NEXT YEAR. IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE BEING IN WHATEVER POSITION YOU HAVE TO PLAY POLITICS, NOT REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE. NOW YOU REPRESENT WHATEVER THE COUNCIL WANTS TO MAKE SURE YOU GET THAT POSITION. IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN YOU SAY , THIS IS I GUESS MY STATEMENT. WHEN YOU REFERENCE HOW WELL THIS WORKS IN THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE TEXAS SENATE AND THE TEXAS HOUSE, I JUST SEE CHAOS AND DYSFUNCTION AND NOTHING GETTING DONE. IF WE WANT TO TRY THAT OUT HERE AND LET THE PUBLIC DETERMINE I'M ALL FOR IT, BECAUSE THEN WHEN THE PUBLIC SAYS WE WANT IT THEN WE DO IT. IF THEY SAY WE DON'T WANT IT THEN WE HAVE TO SUCK IT UP AND WAIT THREE MORE YEARS. I JUST WOULDN'T REFERENCE HOW CONGRESS OR THE UNITED STATES IS DOING IT THERE IS VERY FEW PEOPLE THAT THINK THAT IS WORKING WELL.

>> THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES THAT, I THINK. DOTTIE, SO, THIS WAS BROUGHT TO US BY THE CHARTER COMMISSION. BUT IT WASN'T VETTED TO THE CHARTER COMMISSION? . THIS IS WHAT I SENT OUT THE EMAIL AND I ASKED EVERYBODY ON COUNSEL TO MAKE

[01:25:03]

LIKE TWO OR THREE VOTED FOR IT AND THE MAJORITY VOTED NO. IT TO GET THROUGH -- GO THROUGH. THAT DOESN'T MEAN COUNSEL

DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT . >> SO IT WAS VETTED THROUGH THE COMMISSION, BUT IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE IT TO US. THAT CORRECT .

>> COMMISSION SAID NO, SO WHY ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF THIS?

>> I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE BODY, WOULD BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD ALL OF THESE PEOPLE COMPLAIN THAT THEY DON'T LIKE, THREE YEARS IS A LONG TIME TO HAVE THIS PHASE. I LIKE THIS ANNUAL BASIS TO SAY THIS IS THE COUNCIL PICKING THE PERSON THAT WILL CHAIR THEIR MEETING. EVERY OTHER FUNCTION IN OUR CITY DOES IT THAT WAY. WE SET A CHAIR AND DEVICE CHAIR FOR EVERY BOARD AND COMMISSION. THEY WANT, FOR THAT YEAR WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, WHETHER THAT'S A EDC, PNC, DIVERSITY AND CLINICAL -- AND INCLUSION, REPORTING PICKS THERE CHAIR AND VICE PAIR. NOW WOULD. THE MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M JUST SAYING WE DO IT IN EVERY INSTANCE EXCEPT ONE POSITION. IT MAKES SENSE THE LEGISLATIVE BODY SHOULD PICK WHO TEARS THE MEETING FOR THE YEAR. I WANT TO SEE IF THE VOTERS WANT TO DO THAT. IF THEY DON'T THEY DON'T, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S WHY IT'S A CHARTER CHANGE, NOT BY WE DO IT BY COUNSEL POLICY

OR SOMETHING. >> GET A GOOD IDEA TO BRING IT TO THE VOTERS. PUT IT ON THE BALLOT. LET'S LET THEM DECIDE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER WILL CUT WANTED ME TO LET YOU KNOW IT WAS HER THAT DID THE SECOND, NOT KOLAR.

>>, DID I SAY THAT? I WROTE DOWN WILCOCK.

>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I WILL JUST SAY, I KIND OF LIKE THE IDEA OF IT, BUT I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE VETTED A LITTLE BIT MORE. THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON HERE HOW IT WOULD WORK AND ALL OF THIS KIND OF STUFF. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MAYBE GO THROUGH THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ONCE IN THREE YEARS OR WHENEVER WE DO IT JUST TO KIND OF HAVE THEM FULLY VET IT AND SAY HERE IS ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS AND HERE IS HOW THE WORDING WOULD NEED TO BE.

>> BUT THEY DID VET IT, THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID. THEY DID VET IT, IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE IT TO US.

>> CAN I BRING UP RICK TO TALK ABOUT IT? IT WAS RICK'S , BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS EXACTLY .

>> RICK HUDSON. I'M ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. I AM NOT THE CHAIR OR THE VICE CHAIR. I'M JUST THE ONLY ONE PRESENT TONIGHT. SO, THIS DID GET LOOKED AT BY CHARTER REVIEW. NOT EXACTLY AS IS. WE DID NOT HAVE THE THREE TERMS OF THREE YEARS, BUT WE DID HAVE THE KEEPING IT THE SAME AS EVERY OTHER BOARD AND COMMISSION IN THE CITY WHERE THE VICE CHAIR AND CHAIR ARE NOMINATED BY THAT COMMITTEE OR BOARD. AND THAT WAS, ESSENTIALLY THE MOTIVATION BEHIND IT.. LET'S GET COUNSEL AND THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ON THE SAME SHEET. IT DID NOT GO FORWARD. IT WAS, I THINK 2-5. TWO IN FAVOR, FIVE AGAINST . I DON'T HAVE MY

NOTES IN FRONT OF ME. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO, AGAIN, I THINK THE CONCEPT, I KIND OF LIKE THE CONCEPT OF IT. I LIKE , I HAVE SEEN HOW THE CITY OF TAYLOR WORKS AND HOW THAT COUNSEL WORKS TOGETHER AND THEY SEEM TO HAVE A PRETTY COHESIVE COUNSEL. IT SEEMS TO WORK WELL FOR THEM. REALLY, WHAT IT REALLY BOILS DOWN TO IS THE WAY OUR CHARTER IS WRITTEN TODAY. ALL SEVEN OF US HAVE THE SAME POWERS WE HAVE THE SAME DUTIES. WE HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS, OTHER THAN JUST THE MAYOR IS A SPOKESMAN WHO RUNS THE MEETING. AND HE HAS NO MORE AUTHORITY THAN I OR ANYONE ELSE DOES. I GUESS HE IS KIND OF THE CEREMONIAL HEAD , READS THE PROCLAMATIONS. EVEN NOW THE MAYOR INVITES ALL THE COUNCIL UP . REALLY, IT'S WHO'S GOING TO RUN THE MEETING FOR A YEAR.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS EITHER A VETTED A LITTLE BIT MORE, RUN THROUGH THE CHARTER COMMISSION AGAIN AND SEE IF THIS CHANGE MAKES IT TO WHERE THEY WANT TO DO IT, BUT I'M NOT READY TO DO THAT THIS YEAR. PERSONALLY.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING THEM,

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >>

[01:30:03]

>> MOTION FAILS. 3-4. >> SO, COMPENSATION , WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS TO CHANGE THE CHARTER TO MATCH THE CONSTITUTION, SO THAT COUNSEL CAN RECEIVE A SALARY TO , FOR THE MEMBERS OF COUNSEL THAT MIGHT BE EMPLOYED BY THE STATE.

CONSTITUTIONAL THING. >> CONSTITUTION AND THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS. >> QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE?

>> I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOOD. THIS IS WHEN I THOUGHT THEY GOT COMPLETELY RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WAS

ACCEPT THIS AS PRESENTED . >> SECONDED .

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CLARK , SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER

THORTON . >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT. DON'T SLOT ME. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT THAT WE ADD A SECOND QUESTION .

THE QUESTION BEING , SHOULD THE COUNCIL RECEIVE A SALARY? AND THEN IF, THEN THIS BE WORDED, IF THE ANSWER TO THAT BECOMES YES THEN ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT GOING THIS WAY? I THINK IN MY OPINION, WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, THAT'S MY AMENDED -- AMENDMENT AND I WILL TELL WHY.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT AMENDMENT.

>> WE NEED TO WAIT FOR A SECOND TO DISCUSS IT.

>> I WILL SAY A SECOND, JUST TO UNDERSTAND IT.

>> OKAY. WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS IS WE ORIGINALLY HAD NO COMPENSATION CHARTED, BUT WE HAD A WORD SHALL. WE HAD A HUGE DEBATE OVER THE WORD SHALL IN ANY ORDINANCE PAID OURSELVES. AND THAT THE PUBLIC DIDN'T LIKE THE WAY WE WERE DOING THAT, SO THEN WE BROUGHT IT TO THE PUBLIC AS I WOULD TERM IT, WE ASKED THE PUBLIC, DO YOU WANT IT PAID THROUGH THE CHARTER OR THROUGH ORDINANCE? WE HAVE NEVER EVER REALLY ASKED THE PUBLIC, SHOULD WE EVEN GET PAID? IN MY MIND WE SHOULD JUST ASKED THAT QUESTION, SHOULD WE GET PAID? IF WE DO GET PAID WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CALL A SALARY, NOT

COMPENSATION. >> I'M STILL CONFUSED .

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND . >> CAN YOU BREAK IT DOWN?

>> IT'S NOT THAT I WANT US TO NOT BE PAID, I WANT THE PUBLIC TO DETERMINE MY SHOULD WE BE PAID?

>> MY BIG THING ON THAT WAS OUR REMEMBER WHEN THAT DEBATE HAPPENED AND THE CHARTER COMMITTEE REVIEW AND EVERYTHING. THEY CAME UP WITH THE NUMBERS AND PUT IT OUT THERE, BECAUSE THEY SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T WANT THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME KEPT TRYING TO PUSH NO PAY OR WHAT THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE. THEY SAID, LET'S JUST MAKE IT RESET IT AND LET THE VOTERS PUT THIS AMOUNT IN. THAT'S WHY. ONCE AGAIN, TRYING TO MAKE IT , APPEAR ON THE DAIS THAT'S WHY I DON'T SUPPORT THE MOTION. WE HAVE A NUMBER THERE THAT WAS JUST PUT IN THREE YEARS AGO .

>> SO WE DID GO TO THE VOTERS ON THE AMOUNT.

>> DID. >> WELL, NO. HE DOESN'T LIKE THE WAY IT WAS DONE, BUT HE DID GO TO THE VOTERS FOR THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY AND IT PASSED .

>> THAT PART IS TRUE. WE ASKED THEM HOW DO WE GET PAID? ORDINANCE OR THROUGH CHARTER? WE DIDN'T ASK SHOULD WE GET PAID, WE JUST SAID YOU WANTED TO DO IT THROUGH ORDINANCE OR THROUGH THE CHARTER? SO THE PUBLIC OVERWHELMINGLY SAID CHARTER. THE PART WE MISSED IS WE HAVE NEVER ASKED THEM HAD -- SHOULD BE EVEN GET PAID? IF THEY SAY YES THAT'S GREAT, WE GET PAID. IF THEY SAY NO WE ARE WORKING FOR FREE. SOME OF US WORK FOR FREE AND SOME OF US DON'T IT'S NOT TO CREATE A FIGHT, IS TO CREATE A QUESTION THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE STILL HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO VOTE ON. BECAUSE WE HAVE KIND OF WORDED THINGS, IN MY OPINION, WE HAVE AWARDED THINGS A CERTAIN WAY TO GET A CERTAIN OUTCOME. WE ARE GOING TO GET PAID, HOW DID ONE US TO GET PAID? THE SCHOOL BOARD WORKS FOR FREE. OTHER CITIES WORK FOR ONE DOLLAR. THE CITY OF BELTON WORKS FOR ONE DOLLAR A YEAR. OTHER BIGGER CITIES DON'T GET A SALARY AT ALL. OR A COMPENSATION OR WHATEVER THE TERMINOLOGY IS.

THAT'S ALL I'M LOOKING FOR. TO ME THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION TO THE PUBLIC. WE SHOULD NEVER, IF WE ARE REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC, I BELIEVE IT AT THIS, WE SHOULD NEVER BE AFRAID TO ASK THE PUBLIC IF WE ARE WORTHY OF THEIR TAX DOLLARS.

AT ANY POINT IN TIME WHEN WE THINK WE DON'T NEED TO ASK THAT QUESTION I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. AGAIN, TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S POINT, I HAVE NEVER BEEN A FAN OF GETTING PAID.

THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL THING. >> MY FEELING ON IT IS I DISAGREE WITH THE MAYOR. I FEEL LIKE THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED TO THE CITIZENS AND THEY ANSWERED. IF THEY DIDN'T WANT

[01:35:01]

IN MY OPINION, I THINK IT WAS AFTER I KNOW WE DISAGREE, BUT

THAT'S MY STANCE ON IT . >> I DISAGREE ON THAT POINT.

>> WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING OUR RULES.

>> YOU CAN TALK UNTIL EVERYONE ELSE HAS TALKED .

>> BUT THE ROLES DON'T SAY I CAN'T ASK YOU A QUESTION. THEY

SAY I CAN'T MAKE STATEMENTS. >> EVERYONE NEEDS TO TAKE THEIR

TURN. >> I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT POINT, BECAUSE IF THEY HAD SAID NO ON THAT BALLOT QUESTION THEN THE CHARTER WOULD HAVE REMAINED SAYING THAT WE SHALL BE PAID. IT JUST WOULDN'T HAVE SAID HOW MUCH AND LET THE TO THE COUNCIL JUST TO DETERMINE ITS OWN PAY. THERE WAS NEVER A QUESTION OF SHOULD THE GET PAID OR NOT? THAT WAS NEVER AN OPTION THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE VOTERS. IT'S, THEY'RE GETTING PAID DO YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT AS IT IS OR DEFINE THE NUMBER? THE QUESTION OF IF THEY SHOULD GET PAID OR NOT HAS BEEN NOT AS ON THE CHARTER PROVISION. THE PROBLEM I HAVE TONIGHT IS I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO THAT. HOW YOU DO A CONDITIONAL THING WHERE ONE THING AND ANOTHER THING AND IF ONE PASSES ONE THING HAPPENS . WHAT HAPPENS IF BOTH PASS? I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD DO THAT. THAT'S A PROBLEM.

>> THAT'S BAD. >> THE OTHER THING IS I REMEMBER WHEN THIS WENT TO THE CHARTER BEFORE. I WASN'T ON THE CHARTER REVIEW, BUT I WAS RUNNING FOR THE SPECIAL ELECTION THAT YEAR. AND THE WHOLE REASON IT EVEN CAME UP WAS BECAUSE COUNSEL KEPT HAVING MOTION TRYING TO TAKE IT TO ZERO. THE IDEA WAS FINE, WE WILL PUT IT TO THE VOTERS AND THEY WILL SAY YES OR NO. EVERY SINGLE MEETING EVERYTHING THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT IN THE PUBLIC AT THAT TIME WAS RELATING TO BEING PAID. AND IF, SO I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN , MAYOR PRO TEM 'S POINT. YOU HAVE TO TAKE WHEN IT WAS VOTED WHAT WAS GOING ON, WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION IN THE CITY AT THE TIME IT WAS VOTED. THE CLAIMANT WASN'T IN THERE AND PEOPLE WEREN'T AWARE AND THEY WEREN'T KNOWING ABOUT THAT AT THAT TIME IS NOT LOOKING AT WHAT IT WAS IN THE STATE WHEN THAT ACTUALLY ELECTION AN ACTUAL VOTE OCCURRED THREE YEARS AGO. SO. THAT'S MY POINT.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ROUND ONE?

>> AROUND ONE. >> PUTTING ON THE AMENDMENT.

>> ROUND TWO, THE QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU, WHICH I THINK COUNCILMEMBER THORTON KIND OF ANSWERED WAS, IN YOUR MIND HAVE THE VOTERS VOTED DOWN THE QUESTION OF SHOULD WE BE PAID THROUGH CHARTER , HAD THEY VOTED THAT DOWN HOW WOULD WE THEN , WOULD WE STILL BE PAID, IN YOUR MIND?

>> THE VOTERS COULD THEN COME TO HEAR, IF THE OVERWHELMINGLY VOTED THAT DOWN WHAT I WOULD ENVISION IS OVERWHELMINGLY THEY WOULD COME HERE AND SAY IT'S IN YOUR POWER, YOU NEED TO TAKE YOUR PAY DOWN TO ZERO OR I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR YOU NEXT TIME. THIS IS MY WILL, THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO. I WASN'T GIVEN THE OPTION TO SAY CAN YOU GET PAID IN THE CHARTER AMENDMENT YES OR NO , BUT THE CHARTER NOW SAYS YOU SHALL BE PAID, I WANT THAT SHELL TO BE A DOLLAR OR

WHATEVER. >> WE DISAGREE. I'M READY TO VOTE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CONVINCE ME AND I'M NOT GOING

TO CONVINCE YOU. >> I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU. I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU AND YOU SAID I HAD TO WAIT FOR A SECOND ROUND. ARE RESPECTFULLY SAID OKAY .

>> AND I ANSWERED IT. >> WHAT WE STILL HAVE GONE PAID IF WE ASKED THEM SHOULD WE GET PAID BY CHARTER AND THE PUBLIC VOTED NO, WOULD WE STILL GET A PAYCHECK?

>> YES. THROUGH ORDINANCE. >> AND THEN WHO WOULD DETERMINE THAT PAYCHECK? HAD THEY VOTED NO WHO WOULD DETERMINED THAT

AMOUNT OF THE PAYCHECK? >> THE COUNCIL.

>> THE LAST QUESTION IS HOW HAVE WE GIVEN THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE GET PAID OR IF WE GET PAID OR HOW MUCH WE GET PAID?

>> I JUST EXPLAINED IT. THEY ARE GOING TO COME UP, I DID, THEY DO THAT AND WE VOTE AGAINST THEM ALL THE TIME.

>> OKAY. BUT THERE IS ELECTIONS.

>> HAVE A COUPLE MORE MINUTES, BUT THE WAY I WOULD FIX THIS , SHOULD THIS PASS, IS THAT INSTEAD OF THE WAY WE'VE GOT THE SALARY THAT'S GREAT, THE QUESTION WOULD START WITH WHATEVER. SHOULD THE COUNCIL BE PAID A SALARY? IF THEY ARE PAID A SALARY -- I WOULD CHANGE IT AND SAY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO LIMITATION IMPOSED BY STATE LAW AND IF THEY VOTE NO WE NO LONGER GET PAID A SALARY. IF THEY SAY YES WE GET PAID. RIGHT NOW WE ARE ASKING HIM AS I READ IT, IT SAYS CAN WE CHANGE IT FROM COMPENSATION TO SALARY? I'M JUST SAYING,

[01:40:01]

TO. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, DOTTIE.

SO, SAY THE VOTERS WHEN THEY GO, IF THIS IS PUT ON THE BALLOT AND THE VOTERS GO TO THE POLE AND THEY ARE NOT QUITE AWARE OF WHAT THIS MEANS . LIKE FIRST TIME SHOWING UP, I HAVEN'T DONE MY HOMEWORK ON THIS PROPOSITION AND THEY ARE JUST, LIKE WHAT , I'M GOING TO VOTE NO. WHAT IF THIS GETS TAKEN DOWN? HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THIS POSSIBILITY?

>> IF THEY VOTE NO ON THIS THERE IS NOTHING TO STOP THE COUNCIL FROM PASSING AN ORDINANCE

>> THAT'S NOT TRUE, DOTTIE. THE ONLY THING IS THAT IT SAYS COMPENSATION , THE SUM OF $500 AND THE SUM OF $400. WHAT YOU DO WHEN YOU EDUCATE THE PUBLIC IS THIS IS A FIX TO CONFORM THIS LANGUAGE WITH STATE LAW. THIS WOULDN'T TAKE AWAY PAY IF

THEY VOTED NO . >> LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT I MEANT IF YOU PUT THAT TO THE VOTERS , THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE THAN WHAT THE MAYOR IS SAYING. HE IS SAYING SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE SALARY SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND STATE LAW? THAT WOULD BE WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON. IF THEY SAY NO THEY ARE TELLING YOU YOU SHOULDN'T RECEIVE A SALARY. WHAT I'M SAYING IS DOES THAT PREVENT YOU FROM PASSING AN ORDINANCE GIVING YOURSELF A SALARY?

>> NO. IT DOESN'T. WHICH IS WHY WE NEED IT THE WAY IT IS.

TO BE IN THE CHARTER. >> RIGHT.

>> SHOULD WE RECEIVE A SALARY SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATE LAW IN THE SUM OF ONE DOLLAR. . THAT WOULD

MAKE IT CLEAR. >> THAT I WILL AMEND MY AMENDMENT. IT SAYS THAT SHOULD WE RECEIVE A SALARY SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY STATE LAW, THE SUM OF ONE DOLLAR FOR ATTENDANCE AT EACH REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THAT WOULD FIX YOUR CONCERN ABOUT DOING WHATEVER.

>> ARE YOU WANTING TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE -- I DON'T THINK THAT AMEND IS ALLOWED. YOU'RE CHANGING THE ENTIRE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. YOU ARE NOW MAKING AN AMENDMENT THAT IS SO SIGNIFICANT THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY NEGATING WHAT THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS. YOU CAN DO

THAT. >> I AGREE.

>> THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THIS WITH THIS CHANGE.

>> YOU ARE TRYING TO COMPLETELY NEGATE THAN THE MOTION ENTIRELY, WHICH YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO .

>> HE'S TRYING TO OFFER IN A MEMO TO THE AMENDMENT.

>> NO. >> DID HE GET A SECOND TO HIS

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? >> I DON'T KNOW. PROBABLY NOT.

AMENDMENT? >> DID YOU SECOND ?

>> I SURE DID NOT. >> I DID NOT DO THE ONE

DOLLAR. I DID GATHER A MEMO. >> DID ANYBODY ON COUNSEL

SECOND THAT MOTION? >> I THINK IT DIED .

>> HOLD ON. COUNCILMEMBER THORTON SECONDED IT.. OH, HE

DID? >> IS THAT A LEGAL AMENDMENT

IN YOUR LEGAL OPINION? >> I THINK YOU CAN VOTE ON THAT AND THEN YOU WOULD VOTE ON, IT WOULD , YES . YOU HAVE CHANGED

THE WHOLE TRAN05 >> YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO

THAT. YOU JUST SAID THAT. >> HERE IS MY QUESTION. THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THIS AS PRESENTED.

>> CORRECT . >> THE CURRENT AMENDMENT IS TO TOTALLY CHANGE THIS AND SAY, NO, I DON'T WANT TO DO ANY OF THAT. WHAT I WANT TO DO IS HAVE A WHOLE TOTALLY DIFFERENT MOTION THAT SAYS SHALL COUNSEL BE PAID A DOLLAR? THAT'S NOT

AMENDMENT. >> IF THE MOTION FAILS THAT

COULD BE MADE . >> CORRECT. IF THE ORIGINAL

MOTION FAILS . >> I WILL RESEND IT AND WE WILL GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AS APPROVED. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WE NEED TO DO TO TYPIFY THIS?

>> YEAH. >> AS PRESENTED. SECONDED BY

COUNCILMEMBER THORTON. >> WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST MOTION?

SPEAK BOTH OF THEM? >> THE OTHER ONE, TO YOUR POINT, MY FIRST AMENDMENT DRAMATICALLY CHANGES THE ITEM,

RIGHT? >> IT ALLOWS IT TO GO BACK TO

COUNSEL. >> I JUST RESEND THEM ALL. AS

PRESENTED . >> BACK TO NORMAL.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER

THORTON. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE? PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.'S BACK --'S BACK --

>>

[01:45:05]

>> NOW I MAKE A MOTION TO MAKE IT SAY THAT THE QUESTION

TRAN05 >> WE PASSED. YOU CAN ONLY DO

IT IF IT FAILS. >> WE DID IT .

>> YOU JUST THAT I HAD TO WAIT.

>> IF IT FAILED, MIKE. YOU'RE DONE.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO RECALL THE ITEM WE JUST HAD. YOU GUYS ARE KILLING HERE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO BE A PUBLIC

HAVING THE BOW. >> WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE

VOTES. >> POINT OF ORDER. POINT OF

ORDER, MAYOR. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO RECALL.

>> THERE'S A POINT OF ORDER. YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE POINT

OF ORDER. >> WHAT IS YOUR POINT?

>> YOU ARE IMPUGNING THE INTEGRITY OF EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COUNSEL WHO DID NOT BUT WITH YOU JUST NOW. I DON'T

APPRECIATE THAT. >> OKAY.

>> JUST TOLD US WHY WE VOTED THE WAY WE VOTED AND WE SAID -- YOU SAID THE REASON WE VOTED THAT WAY IS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC TO HAVE A SAY IN WHAT WE ARE DOING. I ASK

FOR AN APOLOGY. >> OKAY. I'M GOING TO MAKE A

MOTION TO RECALL ITEM 3.04. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> OF RECALLING THIS BECAUSE I COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WAS LET THAT ONE GO .

>> MAY I TALK? EVERY TIME I TALK YOU GOT SOMETHING TO SAY, A COUGH OR SOMETHING. JUST LET A MAN TALK FOR THREE MINUTES AND I WILL LET YOU TALK OKAY? I MISUNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WE VOTE ON THIS ONE, WE CAN'T CHANGE IT, WE WILL DO A SEPARATE VOTE. PARDON ME FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING. OKAY? I'M NOT GOING TO APOLOGIZE, BECAUSE I'M ASKING FOR A SIMPLE VOTE AND EVERYBODY WANTS TO CREATES CHAOS IN AN EFFORT TO NOT HAVE A VOTE THAT I'M ASKING FOR A VOTE . VOTE HOWEVER YOU WANT, BUT STOP CRITICIZING ME ON EVERY SINGLE THING I'VE YOU . CRITICIZE THE ARGUMENT . MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT, BUT CRITIQUING ME ON EVERYTHING DOESN'T BOTHER ME, IT JUST MAKES YOU LOOK BAD. WHAT I'M WANTING IS TO MAKE A MOTION AND DOTTIE, TELL ME HOW TO DO THIS, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO TO THE SKI AGAIN. I JUST WANT TO HAVE A MOTION TO ASK THE PUBLIC, SHALL THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVE A COUNSEL -- SALARY SUBJECT TO LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY STATE

LAW. >> HE HAS MADE A MOTION TO

RECALL. >> WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT .

>> I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO

ASK . >> MAYOR, POINT OF ORDER.

>> I'M SORRY, COUNSEL, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO WHAT HE TOLD

ME TO SHUT UP. >> MAYOR PRO TEM DOES IT VERY

WELL. >> FOR POINT OF VERIFICATION, I DID NOT ASK FOR AN APOLOGY FOR YOU BEING ABLE TO RECALL AN ITEM. I DID NOT APPRECIATE THE INSINUATION THAT YOU SAID OF WHY WE VOTED THE WAY WE VOTED. CLARIFICATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS ON RECALLING THE ITEM OR DISCUSSION. I'M JUST VOTING TO RECALL THE ITEM. HEARING NONE.

SAY SOMETHING. I THINK TO SAY THAT SOMEBODY WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT ON AN ITEM, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN DISCUSS IT. SO, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE LET'S PROPOSE IT AND VOTE ON IT AND MOVE ON. I DON'T KNOW

WHY WE HAVE TO SHUT IT DOWN. >> POINT OF ORDER. EVERY TIME SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING YOU DON'T LIKE YOU ARGUE WITH

THEM. >> LET THE MAN TALK. HE HAS THREE MINUTES. ACTUALLY, HE HAS FIVE MINUTES. LET HIM TALK FIVE MINUTES AND THEN I WILL GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES. I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU. HE SAYS SOMETHING YOU DON'T AGREE WITH YOU ARGUE WITH HIM. YOU JUST ARGUE ALL THE TIME. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO START USING THE TIMER OVER HERE. PLEASE.

>> SOMEONE HAS A DIFFERENT IDEA THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE MOTION IT MIGHT BE A BETTER IDEA. IF PEOPLE, IF THE COUNCIL LIKES IT GREAT, BUT IF YOU CAN'T OFFER SOMETHING AS A CHANGE AND DISCUSS IT AND IS JUST ROLLED COMPLETELY OUT OF ORDER THAT NOBODY CAN HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE IDEA AND IS THE FIRST PERSON TO MAKE A MOTION THAT GETS TO SET THE DIRECTION.

THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT I SEE. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE JUST DON'T HAVE A QUICK DISCUSSION. I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS. WE CAN VOTE AND MOVE ON. THIS IS TAKING MORE TIME BY ARGUING OVER TRYING TO PREVENT HAVING A DISCUSSION

ABOUT THIS TOPIC. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

CAN I TALK NOW? >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. 'S BACK THE POINT WAS WHETHER YOU ARE GOING TO RECALL THE MOTION.

YOU CAN'T THEN DISCUSS SOMETHING IF IT'S NOT EVEN BEING RECALLED. BY ORDER WE NEED TO VOTE IF YOU CAN REOPEN IT UP AND DISCUSS IT. THAT'S ALL I WAS TRYING TO SAY. NOW SAYING, IF MOST PEOPLE WANT TO COME, IF THEY VOTE AS A MAJORITY OF COUNSEL TO -- AFTER WE ALREADY JUST VOTE FOR

[01:50:02]

>> CAN I HAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES? I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS RECALL MOTION, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DIVE DEEP AND EVERYBODY CAN BE ON OR OFF THE RECORD . ON MONEY OR MONEY OR NO MONEY. I'M NOT AFRAID TO TAKE THAT VOTE. WE WILL SEE IF IT PROGRESSES THE RECALL MOVING FORWARD. BUT I WILL BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THAT, SO WE CAN HAVE THE CONVERSATION. AND THEN HAVE THE OFFICIAL VOTE,

IF IT MAKES IT TO THAT POINT. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE RECALL OF THE ITEM MOTION? HEARING NONE,

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >>

>> MOTION FAILS 3-4. I THINK WE'RE READY FOR THE NEXT ONE.

>> THIS IS A MAYOR PRO TEM THIS WAS CHANGE, SO THAT IF THERE'S A RUNOFF THEN YOU ELECT THE MAYOR PRO TEM. . AFTER THE RUNOFF. . I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. . ALL RIGHT. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE .

>>

7-0 . >> THE NEXT ONE IS FOR PETROVA'S OFFICE. THIS MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT THE CONVICTION OF A CRIME IS. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT MORAL TURPITUDE NOT BEING CLEAR ENOUGH , SO THE ACTUAL OFFENSES IN THE TEXAS PENAL CODE UNDER BRIBERY AND CORRUPT INFLUENCE IS LISTED THERE. . I DON'T SPEND MUCH TIME LOOKING THROUGH THE TEXAS PENAL CODE. IT'S NOT USUALLY RELEVANT TO MY LIFE. HOPEFULLY, IT REMAINS THAT WAY. SO, IS THERE , ARE THESE VERY STABLE NUMBERING'S THAT DON'T REALLY CHANGE? ANYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT ANY TIME IN LEGISLATURE, BUT WHEN WE START CALLING THINGS OUT BY SECTION NUMBER THEN I WORRY THAT THIS LEGISLATURE GOES AND CHANGES SOMETHING AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE A CHART OF THAT OUT OF DATE WITH DAYLONG WE CAN CHANGE IT UNTIL THE MINIMUM TIME TO CHANGE THE CHARTER, WHICH COULD BE THREE YEARS IN THE FUTURE.

>> WE COULD ADD AFTER CHAPTER 36, BRIBERY AND CORRUPT INFLUENCES AS MAY BE AMENDED. AND THEN THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF , IF ANY OF THESE WERE AMENDED. THESE HAVE BEEN ON THE

BOOKS FOR A WHILE . >> I WOULD IMAGINE MOST OF THEM DON'T CHANGE. WE WOULD ONLY LIKE FULLY -- LIKELY, HOPEFULLY, BE SOMETHING THAT WAS DEFINED IN THE FUTURE RATHER THAN TOO MANY MODIFICATIONS HERE. IF WE GET AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT I THINK IT WOULD AT LEAST HELP TRAN05

>> COVER UP IF ANY OF THEM WERE AMENDED.

>> YELL. >> DOTTIE, SHOULD WE SPELL OUT WHAT IS MORAL TURPITUDE? WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF CRAZY STUFF HAPPENED ON HIS COUNSEL THE LAST FOUR YEARS AND THINGS HAVE COME UP. I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE ASKED BEFORE, LIKE, SURELY THAT'S A VIOLATION OF MORAL TURPITUDE. THAT I DON'T KNOW .

KIND OF A WORD OF ART. SOMETIMES IT'S THE OBVIOUS THINGS, STEALING, LYING , BUT THERE IS A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS WHERE THE CASES HAVE FOUND , CRIMINAL CASES HAVE FOUND MORAL TURPITUDE . TO TRY TO LIST EVERYTHING GETS REALLY HARD. TO TRY TO MAKE , THERE'S NO REAL STANDARD DEFINITION IN THE CRIMINAL LAW FOR THAT. IT'S PRETTY MUCH DISHONESTY .

>> I THINK THE KEY WORD IS YOU HAVE TO BE CONVICTED OF SOMETHING IN A COURT OF LAW. I THINK THAT MAKES IT KIND OF A

[01:55:04]

CRIME. >> YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE CONVICTION AND SAY DOES THAT MATCH THE CASES, TALKING ABOUT

MORAL TURPITUDE. >> IS A CRIMINAL COURT, DIVORCE

COURT, FAMILY COURT? >> THIS IS ALL CRIMINAL. IT WOULD BE IN A CRIMINAL COURT . YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN ACTUAL CONVICTION. AND THEN YOU WOULD BE , IT'S SUBJECT TO THIS AUTOMATIC REMOVAL PROVISION.

>> WHERE OUR NATION GOING -- IS GOING THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT I THINK ARE MORAL TURPITUDE THAT'S NOT A CRIME ANYMORE. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE?

>> NO, SIR. >> WANT TO OBTAIN A MOTION FOR

IT? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> I SECOND.

>> DID YOU WANT THAT WITH THE ADVISER, THE UPDATE THAT DOTTIE RECOMMENDED THAT SAYS AS UPDATED IN THE PENAL CODE?

>> AS AMENDED, I THINK YOU SAID .

>> AMENDED IN THE PENAL CODE. >> YEAH.'S BACK SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THORNE. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>>

>> THIS SECOND PART OF AN AMENDMENT TO THIS IS TO. UP THE PENALTIES IN SECTION 13 09B , PENALTIES OF THIS CHARTER. THAT WAS ALSO AMENDED TO INCLUDE ALL YOUR PROHIBITIONS THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR, WHAT'S IT CALLED? ANTIDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE. 13 09B PROHIBITIONS IS A SLIDE THAT'S GOING TO BE LATER ON, BUT IT COVERS ALL THE GROUPS THAT WE ADDED TO THAT ORDINANCE, THE ANTIDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE. DISABILITY , AGE, NATIONAL ORIGIN, FAMILIAR STATUS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, TRANSGENDER, GENDER IDENTITY OR GENDER EXPRESSION. IT MADE IT CLEAR IN THAT PROHIBITION SECTION THAT NO PERSON CAN DO IT, INCLUDING ELECTED AND APPOINTED EMPLOYEES OR VOLUNTEERS. SO THOSE ARE THE 1309 . AND THAT CAME INTO THIS PARTICULAR

SECTION . >> I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THIS LEGAL CASE , WOULD THAT TECHNICALLY NEED TO BE IN THIS JUDGMENT THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED DISCRIMINATION? EVERY SINGLE COUNCILMEMBER THAT HAPPENED AT THE TIME THAT OFFENSE OCCURRED, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ON APPEAL, YOU HAVE A CONVICTION, WOULD THAT MEAN EVERYONE OF THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY AND VACATED?

>> THIS CAN APPLY TO A PERSON. IT'S GOING TO, WHETHER YOUR

ELECTED OR APPOINTED. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> SO, IF , IF IT IS AN ACTION IT'S GOT TO BE A FINAL

JUDGMENT. IT CAN'T BE . >> MY QUESTION IS, IF WE PUT THIS IN PLACE AND LET'S SAY WE LOST THE APPEAL WHO WOULD BE

AFFECTED? >> I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND PREDICT , LEGALLY WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN .

>> I'M JUST SAYING, IN THE FUTURE IF THERE WAS SOME ACTION THAT A COUNCIL TOOK THAT WAS DEEMED BY A COURT TO BE DISCRIMINATORY IN NATURE WITH THIS LINE BEING ADDED HERE, WITH THAT MEAN THE ENTIRE COUNSEL THAT WAS STILL ON

CANCEL TRAN05 >> IT WOULD APPLY TO THE ELECTED INDIVIDUALLY. THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN HERE. .

>> CAN WE SEE 1309 B, SINCE THIS PLAYS INTO THIS ? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN CLICK A LITTLE BIT FORWARD. . JUST FOR VISUAL.

>> DOTTIE, WHAT DID YOU DO? GOING FORWARD? BAKE 13.09.

[02:00:12]

>> FORWARD. >> SORRY, I'M DOING IT TOO.

>> OKAY. >> TWO THOUSAND MEMBER CLARKS POINT, THE WEIGHT I'M WRITING THIS IS EVEN A PERSON, IF SOMEONE IS A CITY MANAGER TO TERMINATE SOMEONE AND THAT PERSON CLAIMED AGE, SEX OR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION DUE TO THAT TERMINATION, AND THEN THE COURT FOUND THE CITY LIABLE FOR THAT THEN WOULD WE THEN HAVE TO TERMINATE THE CITY MANAGER?

>> OR LET'S SAY YOU DID A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IS THAT CONSIDERED THAT YOU THEN ADMITTED NOT AT FAULT BUT THEN THAT WOULD ALSO APPLY? BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE TO A NAMED

INDIVIDUAL REMOVED FROM OFFICE. >> THE APPOINTED PERSON IN THE PENALTIES WILL JUST APPLY TO THE APPOINTED AND ELECTED

OFFICERS. >> I THINK THIS IS JUST DEFINING ANY PERSON. JUST CLARIFYING IT.

>> I KNOW WHAT THIS ONE IS. >> WHAT THIS ONE DOES IS TAKES THE PROHIBITIONS IN 1309 AND USES THEM TO REMOVE THE PERSON

FROM COUNSEL -- FROM COUNSEL. >> CAN YOU GO TO 306.

>> I WILL COOK FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WILL CLICK FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> IF I READ THAT RIGHT 13.09 ONE DOESN'T PROVE YOU ARE CONVICTED BUT IT JUST SAYS SOMEBODY SAYS YOU HAVE DONE IT.

PROHIBITIONS. ANYONE THAT IS ELECTED, APPOINTED THAT IS AN EMPLOYEE OR VOLUNTEER, THEY CAN'T BE APPOINTED TO OR REMOVED FROM OR FAVORED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WITH RESPECT TO ANY ELECTED OR APPOINTED CITY POSITIONS.

>> THAT IS THE PROTECTION OF THEM. AND THAT IS INCLUDING

VOLUNTEERS. >> SO GO FORWARD TO PART B. YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANYONE WHICH IS FINE.

>> THE NEXT ONE. >> SO THE PENALTY. IF YOU DID ANY OF THOSE THINGS, IN PART ONE. THE PENALTY SAYS THEY SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION FOR A POSITION OF FOUR YEARS. MY QUESTION IS WHAT DETERMINES THAT THEY WILL IMMEDIATELY FORFEIT THE OFFICE AND POSITION THE PERSON HOLDS. MY QUESTION IS --

>> AND THEN TO APPLY THIS TO THE COUNCIL THAN THE COUNCIL WOULD REMOVE THAT PERSON AND THAT PERSON WOULD FORFEIT THEIR

OFFICE. >> RIGHT. BUT IN THE OTHER MORAL TURPITUDE AND CONVICTED OF A CRIME IN A COURT.

SOMETHING THIS DOESN'T SAY HOW YOU DETERMINE IT HAPPEN. IS IT JUST A DISK ON EMPLOYEE THAT IS FILED A COMPLAINT AND WE PAID OUT AND NOW THAT HAPPENED SO YOU NEED TO BE REMOVED. THIS

IS A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. >> IT WILL BE UP TO THE COUNCIL TO DETERMINE HOW TO APPLY IT TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS.

>> WITH EMILY HANDS BE TIED IF YOU MADE THAT CHARTER CHANGE YOU ARE PROPOSING. YOU WOULD MERELY SAY MUST REMOVE THE PERSON. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY -- I'M DETERMINING WHAT DETERMINES THAT YOU VIOLATED IT.

>> IT WOULD BE WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE. THREE.06. THERE

YOU GO. >> PERFECT. ONE MORE.

>> SO THE ACTION HAPPENS IN THE 13.09 AND THE PENALTY IS THAT

[02:05:06]

>> SO THE QUESTION I HAVE I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS, WHAT IS THE TRIGGER BECAUSE IT'S A COMPLAINT, AND ACCUSATION. BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING IS SOMEONE COMES UP AND JUST SAYS, YOU DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME AND THEY FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION AND THEN WE GO WELL, YOU ARE GONE. THEN THEY FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND WE SAY, YOU ARE GONE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE'S NO CONVICTION PROCESS. THERE IS NO MOVING THROUGH A SYSTEM. NO INVESTIGATION. DOESN'T EVEN SAY A COMPLAINT.

IT JUST SAYS IF DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BUT HOW YOU DETERMINE THAT. I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD AGREE WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DISCRIMINATION BUT SOME SORT OF PUNISHMENT WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION THING. LIKE YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.

NOT SAYING WHERE THERE IS DUE PROCESS IN THIS.

>> THIS IS NOT IN THE CURRENT CHARTER PROVISION. IT JUST LIST THE FOUR REASONS YOU CAN FORFEIT YOUR OFFICE WHICH IS YOU FAIL TO MAINTAIN THE QUALIFICATIONS BOUND BY FIVE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO VIOLATE ANY OF THE EXPRESSED PROHIBITIONS OF THIS CHARTER. SO THAT IS WHY THEY CHANGED.

THESE ARE PROHIBITIONS THAT >> CLARIFYING WHAT THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE CHARTER ARE.

>> RIGHT. >> WHICH ARE WHAT?

>> THAT IS WHERE IT SAID VIOLATION. THEY PUT THE WHOLE

DISCRIMINATION -- >> THAT'S WHEN YOU GO BACK TO

13.09. >> DISCRIMINATION, RACE AND

RELIGION. >> WHO DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENS.

WHAT'S THE TRIGGER POINT? DO YOU PAY OFF A SETTLEMENT OR IF YOU HAD A COMPLAINT OR THE ACTUALLY FILED A LAWSUIT AND

GET A FINAL ORDER. >> IT'S JUST AFFIRMATIVE VOTE BY THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IF THEY THINK YOU DONE THAT IN THE FIVE

COUNCILMEMBERS VOTE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST

HAVE AN INVESTIGATION. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

THERE'S ENOUGH ACCUSATIONS THAT WITHOUT SOME SORT OF DUE

PROCESS, -- >> SO THAT WAS THE REASON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT AN EXPRESS PROHIBITION IN THE CHARTER IS. AND WE GO BACK TO 13.09 A.

>> I GET THERE'S A PROHIBITION BUT THEN HOW DO YOU DETERMINE

IF WHAT OCCURRED. >> IT'S UP TO THE FIVE MEMBERS

OF THE COUNCIL. >> SO DODY, CAN YOU STARTED FROM SQUARE ONE. WHAT IS THIS? EXPLAIN THIS TO SOMEONE THAT IS NOT FOLLOWING ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING.

START TO FINISH, WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE.

>> THE CURRENT CHARTER HAS A PROVISION THAT FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL CAN'T REMOVE A COUNCILMEMBER FOR VIOLATING ANY EXPRESS PROHIBITION OF THIS CHARTER. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE DECIDED THAT IN 13.09 THAT IS TITLE PROHIBITIONS THAT THEY WOULD ADD THE ANTIDISCRIMINATION LANGUAGE FROM YOUR ORDINANCE AND THEN CLARIFY THE PENALTY PROVISION AND WHO IT APPLIES TO. AND THEN IN THIS FORFEITURE OF OFFICE SECTION WHERE IT SAYS VIOLATED EXPRESS PROHIBITIONS SITE SECTION 13.09. SO THAT IT IS CLEAR.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> AND IT WOULD STAY -- IN MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE GOING FORWARD FROM THE DATE OF ADOPTION ASSUMING IT PASSED ON MAY 2024. RIGHT SO THE WAY THIS WEIRD THING IS IS LIKE WE HAVE THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT FINAL BUT WENT FINAL AFTER A 25 MINUTE PREEXISTED BEFORE MAY OF 24, WHAT HAPPENS? FOR EXAMPLE, LET ME PUT IT ANOTHER WAY. SOMEBODY FILED AN EEOC CLAIM OR SOMETHING TO AN OFFICER OF THE CITY. AND IT WAS AN APPEAL IN

[02:10:03]

>> I WOULD HESITATE TO TALK ABOUT THE ONGOING CASE.

>> I'M NOT. >> BECAUSE IT'S CURRENTLY GETS THE CITY. NOT AGAINST ANY INDIVIDUAL WHICH IS WHAT THIS PROVISION APPLIES TO. YOU CAN'T JUST TAKE THAT JUDGMENT AND SET UP LIGHT TO ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WERE INVOLVED IN

THAT CASE. >> NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT CASE.

THINGS. WE HAD INDIVIDUALS THAT FILED EEOC COMPLAINTS WERE THEY NAMED A PERSON AND WE PAID THOSE AND SETTLED THOSE AND

HEARD THEM. >> BECAUSE THEY WERE SETTLED,

YOU COULD NOT USE THAT. >> MY QUESTION WAS, ASSUME YOU HAD ONE AND HAD SETTLED IT BUT IT WAS FROM BEFORE THE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE PASSING CUT WOULD GO BACK OR JUST GO FROM THE

DATE FORWARD. >> ANYTHING YOU DO IN YOUR CHARTER CANNOT BE APPLIED AS A RETROACTIVE DATE OF. THAT'S A

CLEAR LEGAL -- >> I JUST WANTED THAT

CLARIFICATION. >> ANOTHER CONCERN IS I DON'T SEE WHAT TRIGGERS THE ACTION. WE HAD A PERSON CLAIM AGE DISCRIMINATION AND THE WAY I READ THIS IS ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS MAKE A CLAIM AND WE WILL SIT HERE AND TAKE A VOTE ON IT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS FAIR BECAUSE THEN THAT OPENS UP -- YOU WOULD BE AFRAID TO DO ANYTHING INSIDE THE CITY HALL OR OUTSIDE THE CITY BECAUSE YOU NEED ONE ACCUSATION AND THEN THE CITY MANAGER, WHERE HE DISCOVERED HE WOULD FALL INTO THIS AND WE CAN SAY HE'S NOT DOING GOOD JOB BUT THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN ONE PERSON COMES UP AND MAKES A COMPLAINT AND WE SAY WELL, SORRY, YOU ARE GONE. AND HE DIDN'T EVEN GET A CHANCE OR A COUNCILMEMBER OR A MAYOR DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO AT LEAST LIGHT, HERE WHAT THE ISSUE WAS WHERE THE OTHER SIDE OF STORY BECAUSE NONE OF THAT IS IN HERE.

>> IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY OF THE DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS WRITTEN IN HERE. AND IN ORDER TO PULL EVERYTHING IN, THAT WOULD TAKE

MORE STUDY ON THIS ONE. >> MY LAST CONCERN IS THE CITY OF BEE CAVE HAD AN ISSUE SORT OF LIKE THIS WHERE THEY HAD A DIFFERENT PROHIBITION AND YOU CAN'T DIRECT EMPLOYEES. AND I THINK IT WAS THE MAYOR DURING THE COVID-19 SENT OUT AN EMAIL.

THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF OR WORKING FROM HOME, AND SENT OUT AN EMAIL SAYING YOU GUYS NEED TO COME TO WORK. AND SO THAT WAS TAKEN AS A DIRECTING EMPLOYEE SO THE COUNCIL REMOVE THAT PERSON BUT THEN THEY WENT TO COURT AND CAME BACK AND THAT WASN'T IT. YOU CAN'T REMOVE A PERSON FOR THAT. SO AT LEAST THERE THEY HAD SOME SORT OF DUE PROCESS FOR LACK OF BETTER TERM. FOR ME ON THIS, I THINK WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE FOR DISCRIMINATION. THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME SORT OF PENALTIES FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND HAVE THEM TO REMOVE OFFICE WE NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF --

>> IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE ETHICS REVIEW, COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE CHARGES AND AN INVESTIGATION.

>> THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF PROCESS, OTHERWISE YOU ARE

AT THE WHIM -- >> THE WAY YOU FIX IT IS RIGHT BEFORE THE 13.09 B USE A SUBJECT TO RECOMMENDATION OF FINDINGS FROM THE ETHICS REVIEW BOARD. BECAUSE IT'S EXPANDED EVERYTHING THEY CAN LOOK AT. SO BY TYING THAT, THEN YOU PUT IT THROUGH BACK OUT TO THE CITIZENS TO SAY YEAH, WE REALLY DON'T WANT THIS INNER CITY AND YES WE DO FIND SOMETHING ERRANT. AND IF THE COUNCILPERSON OR WHOEVER REALLY DISCREET, THEN THEY ALWAYS HAVE A CIVIL CASE TO FILE A SUIT AND THEN WE COULD GET OUR CHARTER CHANGED BASED ON THAT. BUT AT LEAST YOU GOT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT JUST AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING YOU ARE GONE. BECAUSE WE GOT THIS EEOC COMPLAINT OR

SOMETHING. >> YET, I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE HOLES HERE. THE CITY MANAGER MAY HAVE TO DISMISS SOMEBODY ON STAFF AND THE LIKELIHOOD WHEN SOMEONE GETS DISMISSED OF HAVING AN EEOC COMPLAINT IS FAIRLY HIGH. YOU DON'T WANT TO IGNORE VALID COMPLAINTS BUT YOU DON'T ASSUME JUST BECAUSE YOU GOT A COMPLAINT THAT IT IS VALID.

THEY ALL HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT INDEPENDENTLY AND IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT TRIGGERS AN ACTION TO FIRE SOMEBODY IN THE CITY BECAUSE A COMPLAINT WAS FILED AGAINST THEM. THE OTHER

[02:15:10]

>> AND IT WOULD HURT US KEEPING POLICE OFFICERS HERE. AS SOON AS IT HAPPENED ONE PERSON WE WOULD HAVE A BIG PROBLEM.

>> THEN YOU JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. YOU WOULD STILL HAVE IN YOUR CHARTER THE PROHIBITIONS. THE 13.09 THAT YOU CAN USE. BUT YOU WOULD REQUIRE SOMETHING MORE THAN THIS AUTOMATICALLY

IMPOSING THE PENALTY. >> RIGHT.

>> SO THIS WOULD BE -- IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS ONE PARTICULAR NOT TO ACCEPT THIS RECOMMENDATION. BUT TO ACCEPT THOSE. WE ALREADY VOTED ON THOSE.

>> OKAY. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE NO ACTION ON CHANGING -- I DID HAVE ONE OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTION. SORRY.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THIS ITEM WHICH IS CHANGING THREE POINT 06 B TO IMPOSE PENALTIES FROM 13.09.

>> I WILL SECOND. >> I WILL SECOND IT SO WE CAN HAVE COUNCILMAN CLARK'S QUESTION.

>> WE GOT A MEMO FROM YOU EARLIER TODAY RELATING TO NUMBER 4. AND SO I WANT TO KNOW IF THIS OPENS UP A QUESTION WE NEED TO HAVE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE BECAUSE WE HAD AN ISSUE WHERE SOMEONE WENT TO THE RESTROOM AND WENT AHEAD AND CALLED ABOUT AN BASIN YOU'RE FINDING YOU SAY OH, THAT MEANS THEY DIDN'T ATTEND THAT MEETING. AND THEN YOU COULD VERY QUICKLY GET TO YOU MISSED FIVE MEETINGS BASED ON THAT READING WHICH IS AN OVERREACH OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF IT. IF IT'S NOT AND THAT THE LEGAL READING, FINE. THEN MAYBE WE NEED TO FIX THE LANGUAGE HERE SO IT IS NOT THEN THAT CONCLUSION IS REACHED. IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> POINT OF OLDER POINT OF ORDER BECAUSE THE MOTIONS BUT TAKE PENS OUT AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COMPLETELY

DIFFERENT ITEM. >> THAT IS A PENALTY. THAT IS

FROM 3.0 6B. >> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TAKING PART OF THE PENALTY LANGUAGE OUT AND NOT MAKING A CHANGE.

AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT WHICH IF I WAS JUST EDUCATED THAT IS DRAMATICALLY CHANGES WHAT WAS THE TERM INADEQUATELY THAT IT DRAMATICALLY CHANGES THE MOTION. SO WE CAN'T DO THAT. SO THE MOTION RIGHT NOW, AND WAS HE RESCINDS IT AND THEN WE START OVER AGAIN. THE MOTION IS TO TAKE OUT AND OPPOSED TO PENALTIES IN 13.0 9B IN THE

CHARTER. >> WHICH IS WHY YOU SAID SECONDED AND DISCUSSED. INSTEAD OF JUST RESENDING IT WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION TO DO WITH WITH PART NUMBER FOUR. IF YOU REMOVE ALL THE PENNIES AND THAT'S WHAT PASSES THEN WE MOVE PAST 3.0 6B. I'M TRYING TO AVOID THE RECALL.

>> THE REASON I MADE THE MOTION BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S VERY UNCLEAR WHAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE IF THIS PASS. IT'S REALLY NEBULOUS. AND IT GIVES ME PAUSE TO PASS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EFFECT WILL BE. SOME BROUGHT UP THE U.S. CONGRESS. SO LET'S PASS IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

[LAUGHTER] I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. LET'S PASS IT AND READ

IT LATER. >> IT HAPPENS UP HERE TOO.

>> SO THAT IS WHY MADE THE MOTION. BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T -- I CAN'T SEE WHAT THE EFFECT WILL BE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE OUR LEGAL COUNSEL REALLY DOESN'T KNOW EITHER.

>> WELL, IT'S SOMETHING I CANNOT PREDICT. WHAT IF THIS AND WHAT IF THAT? THERE IS NO WAY I CAN ANSWER THAT.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? REMOVE THAT REDLINE

RIGHT NOW. >> PLEASE COME UP.

>> WAIT, WHAT IS MOTION? >> THE MOTION IS TAKING NO ACTION ON THE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS WHICH WOULD BE TO JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. IT WON'T HAVE AN AMENDMENT.

>> THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON AYE,

[02:20:05]

COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER, AYE. MOTION PASSES 7-0.

>> NEXT IS WARM CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDED FOR

MEMBERS CONSTITUTE A QUORUM. >> WAIT, I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WE DATED TO TAKE NO ACTION OR NOT ADOPT THE COMMITTEES CHANGES RECOMMENDATION IN 3.01. THEN WE TOOK A MOTION TO ADOPT AND IT FAILED THE OPTION I DID FOR 3.0 AND. SO WE TOOK NOT TO VOTE THE CHARTING REVISION FOR 3.04.

>> YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE ONE BEFORE?

>> YES I'M TRYING TO MAKE A MOTION ON 3.04 BUT I THOUGHT WE WOULD JUST VOTING NOT TO ADOPT WITH THE CHARTER COMMITTEE PUT FORWARD BUT THEN CAN WE PUT FORWARD ONE WE WANT?

>> HOLD ON A SECOND. WE LITERALLY JUST HAD THIS.

>> NO, THAT IS NOT THE SAME. >> JUST ALLOW THE MOTION.

>> I'M FINE. >> IT IS KIND OF INCONSISTENT.

THROUGH THIS WEIRD >> MAYOR YOU ARE THE CHAIR OF THE MEETING. SO LET'S DO THIS.

>> ONE ANY ITEM IN THIS CHARTER THAT WE WANT TO DEBATE AND TALK ABOUT, WE SHOULD DO THAT. IF WE ARE HERE UNTIL 4:00 A.M. WE NEED TO DO THIS. I'M COMPLETELY OKAY WITH THAT.

>> CAN WE RECALL 3.0 6B, PLEASE.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> DO WE HAVE TO RECALL A SECTION. THIS IS NOT AN AGENDA ITEM. THE AGENDA ITEM IS CHARTER REVIEW SO WHY DO WE HAVE TO RECALL A SECTION ON HERE WHEN WE JUST VOTED NOT TO TAKE ACTION ON ONE CHANGE. WHY CAN'T WE PROPOSE ANOTHER CHANGE TO THAT SECTION.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO.

>> THERE IS NOTHING SAYS YOU HAVE TO RECALL. BUT THAT WAS

PROCEDURAL BEFORE. >> THAT WAS USED BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I THINK YOU WERE TOLD YOU HAD TO USE. TO RECALL IT IF

YOU WANT TO VOTE ON. >> NO, I THINK YOU JUST

RECALLED. >> WHAT I WAS TOLD WE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING SO SAID THE ONLY THING I CAN DO THEN IF I CAN DO ANYTHING IS WHAT I WENT AND DID IS WHAT COUNCILMEMBER CLARK WANTS TO DO. WE HIT AN ITEM AND I WANT TO HIT A DIFFERENT LINE. SO I WAS TOLD I COULD DO THAT BECAUSE WE ARE DEVOTED ON.

SO THEN I SAID OKAY, THE ONLY MEASURE I KNOW IS I WILL RECALLED THE ITEM SO THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.

>> I THOUGHT THE DIFFERENCE WAS WE ADOPTED THE ENTIRE LANGUAGE.

TAKING NO ACTION ON SOMETHING, BUT THEN YOU WANT IN YOUR NEXT MOTION TO CONSIDER ANOTHER CHANGE, LET'S AGREE TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPENED SO SOMEBODY CAN MAKE THEIR MOTION.

>> THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE HERE. BEFORE WE TOOK ACTION AND HE

REDID. >> IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? ACTION BECAUSE WE VOTED ON IT.

>> SO WHAT IF -- WHAT IF WE WANT TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT -- WE APPROVE THE CHANGE BUT WE APPROVE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT AND WE ARE TOLD WE CAN'T MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO OFFER THAT BECAUSE IT CHANGES IT. SO HOW DO WE DO THAT?

>> I TRIED TO JUST MAKE >> WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS CHANGE SOMETHING NOT IN THE RECOGNITION SO IF WE APPROVE THAT RECOMMENDATION THEN YOU'RE SAYING WE COULD READDRESS THAT? THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WE WANT TO CHANGE SOMETHING THAT WASN'T EVEN RECOMMENDED THEN I AM FINE DISCUSSING IT. WE

SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. >> GOING FORWARD, MAKE YOUR

MOTION. >> OKAY.

>> SO BASED ON YOUR MEMO FOR NUMBER 4 --

>> THIS IS THE ONE I SENT OUT DURING THE MEETING?

>> YES. >> BASICALLY SHE WAS SAYING THAT IT IS CONSIDERED A FAILURE OF ATTENDING A MEETING IF YOU MISSED A BOAT WHILE YOU WERE IN THE MEETING.

>> UNDER ROBERTS RULES. >> SO THEREFORE YOU GO TO BATHROOM AND NOW YOU WERE NOT PRESENT FOR THAT MEETING WHICH MEANS YOU COULD HIT YOUR FIVE JUST BECAUSE YOU WENT TO THE BATHROOM IN FIVE MEETINGS IN ONE VOTE.

>> EVEN IF BY DOCTOR'S ORDERS DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE

BATHROOM. >> THE MEMO THAT WENT OUT TONIGHT TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ROBERTS RULES BECAUSE THAT WAS A QUESTION ASKED TO US. WHAT DOES YOUR CHARTER COVER ON ABSENCES , LEAVING THE DAIS. A SERIES OF QUESTIONS THAT WAS ONE PART OF IT. THE SECOND PART IS, IT'S LOOK AT ROBERTS RULES AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY. UNDER ROBERTS RULES, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ALTER THE RULES AT ANY TIME. SO IF YOU HAVE A DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT LEGAL MEMO AND WHAT ROBERTS RULES SAY, YOU CAN CHANGE THAT. SO LET'S FOCUS ON THESE CHARTER

[02:25:03]

PROVISIONS. >> MY QUESTION IS, DO WE NEED TO CHANGE IT IN THE CHARTER TO FIX IT OR YOU ARE SAYING DO

ROBERTS RULES? >> DO ROBERT RULES.

>> OKAY. >> I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE WE

ARE AT. >> CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE? THANK YOU. QUORUM. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED NOT FIVE AND A LOT OF IT IS BASED ON SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAD DURING COVID-19. PROBLEMS WE HAD WHEN THE STATE LAW SAYS IF YOU ARE GOING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE BY VIDEO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A QUORUM. FOR US WE HAVE TO HAVE FIVE IN THE ROOM BECAUSE OF THE CHARTER. THIS WAS SOMETHING TO MATCH THE WORM UNDER STATE LAW. THE QUORUM UNDER STATE LAW.

>> I THE QUESTION ON THE PARAPHRASE AS A STATEMENT.

BECAUSE IT WILL LEAD TO A RECALL AS A QUESTION. I READ ALL THE STUFF THAT COMES OUT OF TML. THERE WAS A CASE WHERE FOUR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN HOLTON CITY WERE RECALLED. AND ACCORDING TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, GA 0175 LEFT ONLY TWO COUNCIL SEATS OCCUPIED. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCLUDED THAT BECAUSE OF MUNICIPAL ARE CHARTER OF CITY REQUIRES A QUORUM OF AT LEAST FIVE MEMBERS ON THIS CASE, OF ITS COUNSEL, THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CITY CANNOT CONVENE A QUORUM UNTIL AT LEAST THREE BITS BY VACANCIES ARE FILLED BY SPECIAL ELECTION IN MAY. I READ THAT AND I SAID WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY NUMBER IN HERE BECAUSE WERE GETTING READY TO LOWER THE BAR ON RECALL AND HYPOTHETICALLY IF WE SAY FOUR OR FIVE OR FOUR 43 MEMBERS OF COWS ARE RECALLED DUE TO AN ACTION, THEN WE CAN EVEN CONVENE FOR 90 DAYS UNTIL A SPECIAL ELECTION IS CALLED AND EVERYBODY IS DONE. IT MADE ME THINK IF WE SHOULD EVEN HAVE A NUMBER IN HERE. AND SHOULD IT BE IN THE COUNCIL PROTOCOLS THAT SAID SO WE DON'T RUN INTO A POTENTIAL A BUNCH OF PEOPLE GETTING RECALLED.

>> I THINK THE STATE LAW FOR OPEN MEETINGS SAYS A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL HAS TO MEET IN ORDER TO CONVENE A MEETING. IN COURT IF THERE WERE FIVE OF YOU THAT WOULD BE THREE. IF THERE IS SEVEN THEN IT'S FOUR. SO, I THINK THIS ALIGNS YOUR QUORUM

REQUIREMENT WITH STATE LAW. >> THE QUESTION IS IN THERE A PROVISION ELSEWHERE IN THE CHARTER THAT IF THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH MEMBERS IN THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY CAN MEET FOR ONLY THE PURPOSE OF APPOINTING MEMBERS TO REACH THE POINT WHERE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO OTHER BUSINESS?

>> UNDER VACANCIES? >> YEAH, I THOUGHT THERE WAS

SOMETHING IN THERE THAT >> I REMEMBER THAT.

>> WHEN EVERY DISC THAT YOU SAY, FOUR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL CONSTITUTES A QUARTER BUT IF COUNSEL IS ONLY FIVE PEOPLE NOW, THE WAY GREG ABBOTT'S OPINION WAS THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE FOUR OF YOUR FIVE PRESENT BECAUSE TWO ARE NO LONGER THERE BECAUSE THEY GOT RECALLED. SO ANYWAY, I BRING THAT UP I REMEMBER READING THAT. AND HAD THAT AS A NOTE FOR THIS. I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT WHERE TWO PEOPLE CAN JUST MEET AND HAVE ACTIVE. WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT DRAMATICALLY INCREASING THE ODDS OF A RECALL.

>> I THOUGHT -- >> WE NEED TO FIND IT IN THE CHARTER. I SEEM TO REMEMBER WHAT COUNCILMEMBER THORTON SAID. IF FOR SOME REASON YOU GO DOWN TO TWO MEMBERS AND YOU LOSE FIVE MEMBERS THROUGH RECALL OR TRAIN DERAILMENT OR SOMETHING. THEN THOSE TWO CAN MEET TO APPOINT ENOUGH TO WHERE YOU HAVE A QUORUM. ISN'T THAT IN THERE?

>> IT IS BECAUSE YOU CHANGED YOUR TERMS TO FREE YOUR TERMS. YOU CAN ONLY APPOINT FOR THE VACANCY IF THERE IS THE ONE

YEAR. >> LESS THAN ONE YEAR. BUT THERE'S MORE THAN THAT. YOU HAVE TO CALL A SPECIAL ELECTION. THE ISSUE IS, WHEN YOU ARE REMOVED FROM OFFICE UNDER RECALL, I BELIEVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INDICATES THAT YOU FORFEIT YOUR OFFICE. SO YOU ARE UNABLE TO SERVE. EVEN IN A

HOLDOVER CAPACITY. >> RIGHT.

>> THAT COMES UP IN THIS TOO. >> SO THE QUORUM -- YOU WOULD

[02:30:06]

UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. >> SO WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO

MEET. >> IF YOU SAY, I BELIEVE THAT HAPPENED IN CARROLLTON, TOO. SIX OF THEM WAS RECALLED AND ONLY ONE WAS LEFT ON AND THEY HAD TO WAIT UNTIL THE SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL -- SO THEY COULD TRANSACT BUSINESS.

>> MAYBE THIS DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE MORE ON THE RECALL BECAUSE AGAIN TO ME WE LOWER THE BAR AND THEN ALL OF THE SUDDEN JAMES CAN'T SPEND ANY MONEY WITHOUT COUNCIL ACTION COULD YOU CAN'T MAKE A TOUGH DECISION SOMETIMES WITHOUT ANGERING PEOPLE. YOU MAKE A TOUGH DECISION AND PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT AND ALL OF THE SUDDEN FIVE OF US GET RECALLED AND I HEAR IT HAPPENS MORE OFTEN. AND THEN ALL THE SUDDEN JAMES OR THE CITY MANAGER IS SUPPOSED TO RUN A CITY FOR 90 DAYS WITHOUT ANY ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT TO ME SEEMS LIKE A COMPLETE CLUSTER. BUT MAYBE FOUR CAN WORK IN THAT SCENARIO BECAUSE YOU CAN'T APPOINT SOMEONE WITH ONE YEAR AND ONE MONTH LEFT POTENTIALLY AND MAYBE YOU HAVE THREE PEOPLE GO FOR SPECIAL ELECTION IN YOU MIGHT STILL GET THE FOUR.

>> I DON'T THINK THIS HURTS GOING TO FOUR AND IT STILL REQUIRES THE SOUP WERE FOUR BUDGET WHICH WOULD BE FIVE.

>> I THINK IT HELPS DEPENDING ON WHAT WE DO ON THE RECALL.

THIS ACTUALLY HELPS. >> THIS MAKES YOUR QUORUM REQUIREMENT CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW. IF YOU EVER DECIDE TO ONLY HAVE FIVE COUNCILMEMBERS, WE CHANGE THAT

TO THREE. >> IT WENT UP TO THE CITIZENS

AND FAILED. >> AND THIS IS THE THIRD TIME

AT LEAST WAS ON THE BALLOT. >> IT FAILED THE FIRST TWO

TIMES BUT >> I DON'T THINK THE OTHER TIMES IT SAID CONFORM TO STATE LAW. SO MAYBE WE HAD THAT IN THE LANGUAGE OR A DESCRIPTION OF IT.

>> IT'S UP TO THE VOTERS TO DECIDE. I DON'T MIND LETTING THE VOTERS MAKE A DECISION. BUT I'M SAYING THIS WILL BE THE

THIRD TIME IN A ROW. >> IN THE EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS IT WILL EXPLAIN IT'S CONFORMING TO STATE LAW.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 3.10 AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN CLARK SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE COME UP. COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON, AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER THORTON, AYE. COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, AYE. MAYOR SNYDER, I JIK. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON, AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOTT, AYE. COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER, I JIK.

MOTION PASSES 7-0. >> THE NEST IS THREE .12 VOTING. THE CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDED A VOTE AND IT'S NOT COMPLETE UNTIL ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE HAVE A VOTED EXCEPT FOR COUNCILMEMBERS WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 171 OF TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS ONE. SO, WE HAD A THING LAST THURSDAY WHERE A COUNCILMEMBER HAD TO LEAVE. BUT THEN WOULD WE NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TAKE ACTION BECAUSE AT WHAT POINT WOULD THEY NOW CONSIDER THEY NEVER ATTENDED THE MEETING? BECAUSE GRANTED, IT WAS NOT A REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING BUT BECAUSE THEY HONESTLY DIDN'T HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE BOAT SO I'M CURIOUS IF WE NOW CHANGE THAT AND ARE WE NOW START AND WE COULDN'T TAKE THAT ACTION LAST THURSDAY.

>> THEY WERE NO LONGER IN ATTENDANCE THEREFORE --

>> ROBERTS RULES -- >> HALFWAY THROUGH THE MEETING, I JUST GET REALLY SICK AND I HAVE TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL. SO, THE REST OF THE COUNCIL HAS A QUORUM AND THEY CAN STILL MEET AND VOTE BUT THEY WOULD VOTE WITHOUT ME.

THAT WOULD INVALIDATE AND THINK THAT RIGHT. YOU JUST MOVE FORWARD. ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS IS.

>> YOU NEED TO LOOK AT YOUR PROTOCOLS BUT IF YOU HAVE DELETED MEANING, YOU NEED TO STATE ON THE RECORD THAT YOU APOLOGIZE OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO SIT. BUT PUT ON THE RECORD THAT YOU ARE LEAVING. MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE LEAVING THE MEETING. OTHERWISE, PEOPLE START RUNNING SPECULATION ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON. SO IF YOU MAKE IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD, YOU LEFT THE MEETING THEN I DON'T THINK THAT APPLIES.

BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE IN ATTENDANCE.

>> OKAY. >> QUESTION. CHAPTER 171, DOES

[02:35:04]

OF HAS VOTED. >> I DIDN'T SEE THAT.

>> THIS DOES NOT PREVENT YOU -- I DON'T THINK ANYTHING IN YOUR CHARTER OR YOUR PROTOCOLS PREVENT YOU FROM ABSTAINING. WE HAVE ON THE CHAPTER 171 FORM A BOX THAT SAYS YOU ABSTAIN. YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE LEGAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST BECAUSE YOU DON'T MEET THAT STATUTORY REQUIREMENT BUT YOU MAY BE AFFILIATED AS PRESIDENT OF SOME NONPROFIT WHERE THE NONPROFIT IS COMING FOR THEIR ALLOTMENT OF MONEY. AND SO YOU WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC YOU WILL NOT VOTE ON THAT. SO, I DON'T THINK THAT PREVENTS THAT. AND ABSTENTION.

>> I GUESS, THE ONLY ISSUE WITH THAT IS THAT'S GREAT BUT YOU ARE HERE. 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WE HAVE THIS IN THE CHARTER AND THERE WILL BE ARGUMENTS OVER IT SAYING YOU HAVE TO VOTE. IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT SOMETHING, IT'S GREAT IF WE CAN PUT UNDERSTANDING ON PAPER.

MEMBERS PRESENT SHALL VOTE ON EVERY RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE EXCEPT WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. NOW THAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS NOT DEFINED WHICH WOULD TAKE IN THE RIGHT TO ABSTAIN BECAUSE YOU ARE AFFILIATED WITH A NONPROFIT OR SOMEBODY BEFORE YOU THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO PARTICIPATE THE BOAT ON BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO INFLUENCE.

>> YOU CAN ABSTAIN BY CHOICE, NOT BECAUSE -- THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIRES YOU TO FOR CERTAIN REASONS. BUT DOES IT ALSO SAY YOU CAN'T BY CHOICE DECLARE --

>> THAT IS YOUR CURRENT PRACTICE.

>> IS CURRENT BUT I'M WONDERING WHAT IT SAYS A LOT.

>> BECAUSE THIS ONE OVER HERE MEANS THE BOAT IS NOT COMPLETE UNTIL ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE HAS VOTED EXCEPT WITH THE ONES WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> ISN'T THAT ALREADY COVERED WITH A SENSE BEFORE IT WENT ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL VOTE.

>> IT SEEMS REDUNDANT LANGUAGE. I DON'T KNOW WHY. MAYBE YOU JUST ADD -- UNLESS THERE'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 171 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE FOR WHICH IT WAS STATED CONCISELY IN THE RECORDS.

>> OR YOU COULD JUST CHANGE THE WORD PRESENT TO IN ATTENDANCE.

ALL MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL IN ATTENDANCE SHALL VOTE.

>> RIGHT AND ADD THE 171 IN THE OTHER SENSE. IT JUST SEEMS

DUPLICATE. >> IN MY HEARING AND MOTION?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE TO SAY ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN ATTENDANCE SHALL VOTE UPON EVERY RESOLUTION ORDINANCE EXCEPT WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 171 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THE REASON FOR WHICH SHALL BE STATED CONCISELY IN THE RECORDS.

>> SECOND. >> ARE AT. COSMIC CLARK TECHNIQUE BY COUNCILWOMAN KOHLER.

>> PLEASE CALL THE BOAT. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON AYE..

HENSEL MEMBER JORDAN AYE.. COUNCILMEMBER CLARK AYE..

MAYOR SNYDER AYE.. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON AYE..

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. IT IS 20 INTEL 10 P.M. AND WE ARE MAYBE ONE THIRD OF THE WAY THROUGH THIS.

>> CAN WE GO QUICKER. THIS ORDINANCE ONE IS ONE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME. I RECOMMENDED ADDING THE CAPTION THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER WHEN REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT JUST DOING AWAY WITH DOING AWAY WITH THE NEWSPAPER. WE HAD DISCUSSION ON THAT LAST TIME.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT. >> SECOND.

>> DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE? >> JUST THAT AS I RECALL THIS ONE ALSO WENT TO THE BOATERS AND ALSO FAILED. SO I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE EDUCATE THE BOATERS ON WHAT IT MEANS AND HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON. I THINK WE

[02:40:02]

>> I THINK IT HELPS ADDING THAT IT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW TO

BE PUBLISHED. >> I WAS THE ONE THING. THEY MAY ALWAYS BE ARGUMENT. WE KEEP ASKING AND --

>> BY STATE LAW IT GIVES A CHANCE OF PASSING.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> 5.025 OF OUR OFFICE. WE ARE

JUST REMOVING -- >> WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT ONE.

>> PLEASE CALL THE BOAT. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON AYE..

COUNCILMEMBER THORTON AYE.. COUNCILMEMBER CLARK AYE..

MAYOR SNYDER AYE.. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON AYE.. COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT AYE. . COUNCILMAN OR COLOR AYE.. MOTION PASSES 7-0.

DON'T PLAY SHALL CONTINUE AFTER PIPER LOOKED UP OFFICE OF THE CITY THAT'S PREEMPTIVE BY STATE LAW. AND THEN THEY CHANGE THE FILING FEE TO 25 QUALIFIED VOTERS.

>> WHAT WAS IT BEFORE? 50? >> I THINK WAS. I THINK WAS

CONVOLUTED. >> IT WAS A PERCENTAGE.

[INAUDIBLE] >> MOVED TO PRESENT TO ACCEPT

AS PRESENTED. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECONDED THE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING ON, PLEASE COME UP. COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON AYE.. COUNCILMEMBER JORDAN AYE.. COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK AYE.. MAYOR SNYDER AYE.. PRO TEM GORDON AYE.. COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER AYE.. MOTION PASSES 7-0.

ONE HALF OF 1% AND JUST MADE IT 25 QUALIFIED MEMBERS.

>> OKAY. >> THE NEXT ONE IS RECALL

CHANGING FROM 20 TWO 10%. >> THIS IS A GOOD CHANGE AND IT MAKES IT EASIER AND MORE REALISTIC AND EASIER. I MOVE TO

PROVE THIS AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THORTON AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL

MEMBER CLARK. ANY DISCUSSION? >> I WANT TO SAY I DON'T THINK WE HAVE HIT ONE TIME 10% TURNOUT. SO THAT IS STILL YOU HAVE TO GET BASICALLY EVERYONE WHO VOTED IN ANY STATE ELECTION TO DATE WOULD HAVE TO AGREE IT

>> IT'S A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PEOPLE. AND IT WILL GROW OVER TIME AS POPULATION GROWS.

>> I GUESS I UNDERSTAND THAT THE NUMBERS ARE DRIVEN PEOPLE WHENEVER YOU ANALYZE THIS WHO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT, FOR ME CHANGING THIS AND LOWERING THE THRESHOLD, I JUST FEEL LIKE IF PEOPLE GO TO THE POLLS TO VOTE FOR SOMEONE, THAT MEANS SOMETHING THEY CAN ON ELECT THEM IN THE NEXT ELECTION. JUST LIKE THE PRESENT, IF YOU'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THINGS. THINGS OF THAT SORT. I THINK IT CAN ALSO CREATED FROM. I FEEL LIKE HAVING THIS CAN ALLOW PEOPLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT TO JUST RECALL EVEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON TO DO IT.

BUT JUST TO SIGN THIS PAPER AND YOU ARE A BOATER IN HERE IN THE CITY. SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSAL TO LOWER THE THRESHOLD. I THINK IT CAN GET OUT OF HAND. AND QUESTIONED THE

INTEGRITY OF ELECTIONS. >> I LIKE IT BECAUSE I THINK PERSONALLY 20% IS BASICALLY MAKES IT TO WHERE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO RECALL SOMEBODY ESPECIALLY WITH THE 45 DAY LIMIT AS WELL. YOU WILL GET 20% OF THE ENTIRE REGISTERED POPULATION WITHIN 45 DAYS, YOU WILL GET THOSE SIGNATURES THAT -- TO ME IT IS SO HIGH THAT IT BASICALLY MEANS YOU WILL NEVER RECALL ANYONE. BUT 10% SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME.

THAT IS A LOT. I THINK THAT IS 20,000 REGISTERED VOTERS. SO 18,000. SO 1500 SIGNATURES AND WOULD NEVER EVEN HAD THAT MANY SHOP AT AN ELECTION. IT SEEMS REASONABLE.

>> BUT IF YOU GET ON THE GROUND AND KNOCK ON DOORS YOU CAN MAKE

[02:45:01]

IT HAPPEN. >> ARE AT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. HEARING ON PLEASE COME ABOUT.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON AYE.. COUNSEL MEMBER CLARK AYE..

MAYOR SNYDER AYE. COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT AYE.

COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER AYE. MOTION PASSES 7-0.

>> THE SECOND RECALL IS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY SECRETARY. SO WHEN YOU TURN IN THE PETITION AND IT HAS TO HAVE A VALID REASON FOR THE RECALL, SO THE CITY SECRETARY WOULD CERTIFY THAT AND MAKE AVAILABLE COPIES OF THE PETITION BLANKS.

SO IT IS JUST REALLY CLARIFYING THE STEP THAT THE CITY SECRETARY HAS TO TAKE IN MAKING SURE THAT THE REASON FOR RECALL

IS A VALID REASON. >> DO WE HAVE VALID REASON LAID

OUT? >> WE HAVE NEVER GOTTEN A

PETITION FOR RECALL SO -- >> LET'S JUST RECALL EVERYONE

ON CITY COUNCIL. >> SO IS THAT THE CITY SECRETARY THAT DETERMINES WHETHER IT'S A VALID OR NOT?

>> I WANT TO RECALL COUNCILMEMBER SO IT'S A -- AND THEN THERE'S A BUNCH OF THINGS. OBVIOUSLY YOU WOULD REJECT THAT. IT'S NOT A VALID REASON TO RECALL. THAT'S ALL THIS IS DOING MAKING SURE IT'S A VALID REASON.

>> BUT IS IT HER DETERMINATION OR IS THERE LIKE SOME KIND OF DOCUMENT SHE CAN REFER TO TO SAY HERE IS THE ALLOWED REASONS. IT JUST SEEMS WEIRD TO ME THAT WE ARE GIVING SUCH POWER TO A CITY SECRETARY TO SAY I GET TO DECIDE IF THIS IS

VALID OR NOT. >> I BELIEVE THE WORD VALID IS YOURS. WE WERE LOOKING FOR A REASON. FOR RECALL. SO THE OBSCENITY EXAMPLE. BECAUSE EVERY OBSCENITY IN THE BOOK, THAT'S NOT A REASON. THAT IS JUST WORDS. WE WANT A REASON

FOR RECALL. >> BUT ANY REASON IS OKAY?

>> WE WANT A REASON FOR RECALL THAT IS CONTROLLED BY THE CITY SECRETARY SO THAT WHEN ANOTHER ONE COMES IN, WE DON'T HAVE -- BECAUSE HE'S WEARING GLASSES AND BECAUSE HE IS WEARING A

WATCH. >> SKIP OVER TO 6.04. THE RECALL MUST BE ADDRESSED DISTINCTLY AND SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS. AND IF THERE'S MORE THAN ONE GROUNDS SUCH AS VIOLATION OF ETHICS ORDINANCE, NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THIS CHARTER THIS CONDIMENT OR INDICTMENT OF CRIMES OF MORAL OPPORTUNITY CONGRESS IT WOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE EACH GROUND THESE ARE THE GROUNDS OVER HIPPIE DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST. BUT THAT IS EXAMPLES OF HOW YOU CAN GET RECALLED. IF THE CITY SECRETARY GET SOMETHING THAT IS I WANT TO RECALL SO-AND-SO BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE HIM. OR I THINK HE IS A BAD PERSON. OR THEY WRITE SOMETHING THAT REALLY ISN'T SPECIFICALLY STATING THE GROUNDS AND IT DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO MS. COM.MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. HERE'S THE GROUNDS. THAT SAID SECRETARY LOOK AT IT AND HAD A LEGAL QUESTION THAT SHE WOULD AS THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY WOULD LOOK AT IT AND SAY IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY STATED IN SECTION 6.04 AS

GROUNDS FOR RECALL. >> SO 6.04 GIVES THE DEFINITION

FOR 6.03. >> IT'S JUST ADDING, A SECOND STEP THAT SHE WILL CERTIFY AND MAKE SURE THAT WHEN SHE PRINT OUT THOSE PETITION FORMS FOR THE PEOPLE TO TAKE TO GET PEOPLE TO SIGN IT, IT IS JUST NOT A USELESS ACT. BECAUSE SOME COURT CASES, THE PERSON THAT WAS RECALLED CHALLENGES THE RECALL PETITION SAYING, IT WASN'T CORRECT.

>> IS THE REASON RICK PRINTED ON THE RECALL PETITION?

>> OKAY. SO I AM STAND OUT. SO THAT IT'S PRINTED ON THERE SAYING THIS PERSON IS PROPOSED TO BE RECALLED FOR THIS REASON AND SO WHEN THE PERSON IS GETTING SIGNATURES, THEY SEE

IT. >> THEY VIOLATED AT THE ETHICS ORDINANCE OR DIDN'T COMPLY WITH CHARTER PROVISION WHATEVER. THERE WAS MISCONDUCT TOWARD CRIMES OF MORAL TO

PRODUCE. >> ONE?. WE ARE TO HAVE IN THE CHARTER IF THEY WERE CONVICTED OF A CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE,

[02:50:03]

-- >> THE COUNCIL COULD REMOVE

THEM. >> WE ARE TO MOVE THEM SO THERE WOULD BE PETITION. IF THE COUNCIL STARTING THE JOB. OKAY.

>> MAYOR, CAN I BE RECOGNIZED?

>> I HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH BOTH ATTORNEYS IN THE TML REP ABOUT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM. THEY ALL HAVE ITEMS THEY HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF IN THE MORNING AND DUE TO THE LATE HOUR, THEY RESPECTFULLY ARE ASKING FOR US TO GO UPSTAIRS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION SO THEY CAN PARTICIPATE AND GIVE YOU THE REPORT OR TO RESCHEDULE TO THE NEXT MEETING. WHATEVER THEY CAN

DO EARLIER. >> YOU WANT TO GO UPSTAIRS FOR

A BREAK? >> YES I WOULD LIKE TO.

>> OKAY. >> WE WILL SAVE THIS ONE.

>> WILL CALL THIS -- JUST A RECESS.

>> HOW DO I DO THIS? WE ARE NOT RECESSING.

>> YOU ANNOUNCE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM.

>> WE WILL TABLE THIS ITEM TO LATER IN THE MEETING.

>> RIGHT. WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THAT DEWEY?

>> NOTE OBJECTION THEN WE TABLE AND MOVED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION

[15. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

>> NOTE OBJECTION THAT WE WILL TABLE THIS ITEM AND MOVED TO

EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ITEM 15.2. >> NO OBJECTION. MOVE ON TO ITEM 15.2. PURSUANT TO TEX AND GOVERNMENT RELATING TO CASE NUMBER 120 CVE 1210. OTIS STONES VERSUS CITY OF HUTTO FILED IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS. >> TIME IS 9:51 P.M.

ADD THAT. >> HOLD ON.

>> WE HAVEN'T -- WE ARE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AND NO ACTION TAKEN. NO OBJECTIONS FROM COUNSEL I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ITEMS 13.2 , 13.3. AND 14 ONE. AND TO GET AS MUCH STAFF

[13.2. Discussion and possible action on updates to personnel policies (Irene Talioaga)]

AND I'M NOT SURE IF IRENE IS STILL HERE. DISCUSSION UPDATES TO PERSONNEL POLICIES. THE ABSENCE OF IRENE I THINK THERE WAS A VERY GOOD GOOD STAFF ITEM IN TERMS OF WHAT THE ITEMS

WERE. >> MR. MAYOR, I BELIEVE IRENE LEFT HER STUFF AT THE DIRECTION OF CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT

THIS. >> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL BASED ON WHAT IS PRESENTED.

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> WE IDENTIFIED IN HOLIDAYS WHICH FOR ME WAS A CONCERN AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS. WE CHANGED 24 DAYS TO SEVEN DAYS -- 28 HOURS FOR EIGHT HOURS TO VOLUNTEER. AND ONE OTHER MINOR CHANGES.

>> GOVERNED BY STATE LAW. LONGEVITY.

>> THAT'S ALL I SAW. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED

FOR RESOLUTION -- >> THERE IS NO RESOLUTION.

>> MOTION BY COUNSELOR CLARK AND SECONDED BY COUNSELOR COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT. IMPROVING THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES AS PRESENTED. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT. HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE BOAT. COUNCILMEMBER CLARK AYE.

COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT AYE. MAYOR SCHNEIDER AYE.

[13.3. Discussion and possible action on spending $41,000 for the FM 3349 Bridge Beautification Project and directing staff to bring forward a budget amendment (Councilmember Amberley Kolar)]

AMENDMENT. >> THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THE FINANCE DIRECTOR. SO, WHERE TO START.

[02:55:05]

>> I THINK THIS WAS BROUGHT UP TO SEE THIS IS SOMETHING AND IT WASN'T BUDGETED BUT WE COULD FUND IT FROM THE INTEREST REVENUE EARNINGS MADE OVER BUDGET FOR THIS FIRST QUARTER.

THERE'S EXCESS OF 42,000 550 WHICH WOULD COVER THE ESTIMATE COST FOR THIS BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT. I GUESS IF THIS IS APPROVED AND A DESIRE TO GO THAT WAY THEN WE WOULD BRING IT BACK AS A BUDGET AMENDMENT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF I POSTED IT ON THE MESSAGE BOARD I GUESS BASIC BACK ON INFORMATION TO TAKE US BACK TO I GUESS HOW WE ARE HERE. BUT JUST WE OBVIOUSLY TALK ABOUT THIS BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT DURING THE BUDGET SEASON. EARLY ON IN THE NIGHT COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON ACTUALLY PROPOSED TO CUT THAT BUDGET. IT DID NOT PASS. HOWEVER AS THE NIGHT PROGRESSED AND WE MADE SOME CHANGES TO OUR BUDGET WE FOUND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD TO THEN CUT. SO WHENEVER WE WERE CUTTING, WE DID ACTUALLY THE INITIAL COST FOR THIS WAS $260,000. THAT WAS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. 260. I WENT BACK AND WATCH THE VIDEO.

MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON MADE THE MOTION AND I SECONDED IT TO REMOVE IT. THE 260,000 FROM THE BUDGET. AND ACTUALLY PASSED 7-0. SO WE ALL AGREED ON IT. OF COURSE WE PROBABLY DIDN'T LIKE WHAT WE DID AT THAT TIME BUT I AM GLAD THAT ACTUALLY DID THAT.

BECAUSE WE SAVED A LOT OF MONEY. WE COULD HAVE REALLY INFLATED OUR BUDGET ON THIS ITEM AND NOW THAT KIND OF TIME IS TICKING AND NOW WE HAVE ACTUALLY A RAW NUMBER THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO PUT FORWARD WHICH IS 41,000 TWO WELCOME TO HUTTO AND THANK YOU FOR VISITING HUTTO ON THE 3349 BRIDGE.

OBVIOUSLY OPEN TO DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. I THINK THIS IS GREAT THAT WE DID NOT JUST TAKE ON THE $260,000 AND WAITED IT

OUT TO THEN GET TO $41,000. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO COME FORWARD WITH A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO STAFF FOR

THIS UNIFICATION PROJECT. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNSELOR WILCOTT.

>> NOT TO DIRECT YOU TO BRING A BUDGET BUT TO APPROVE THIS EXPENDITURE AND IS THAT RIGHT? CHANGING INTO APPROVING IT AND BRINGING THE BUDGET FORWARD. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS?

>> I WANT TO SAY WE HAD A WORK SESSION BEFORE COMING INTO COUNSEL AND THIS IS BEAUTIFICATION'S AND RATED AS A HIGHLY IMPORTANT THING. REPORTED SOMETHING THAT THE CITIZENS TOLD US IN THE SURVEY THEY REALLY WANT. SO I THINK

IT'S A NO-BRAINER. >> AND IT'S UNDER BUDGET.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? >> I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT. I THINK IT'S OKAY TO SAY NO AT TIMES TO STAFF REQUEST SO THAT STAFF THEN DOES WHAT I WOULD SAY HERE A GREAT JOB TALKING TO THE COUNTY. TEX DOT SAID WE NEED SOME HELP AND I UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY IS OFFERED TWO MINING IN AND AGREE TO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK THAT ONE OF THE REASONS IT DRIVES A LOT OF MY VOTE COUNTRY TO THE GUY UPSTAIRS IS WHAT PEOPLE THE CITY SAY IS IMPORTANT AND NOT IMPORTANT. AND THAT IS WHAT I VOTE FOR SOME BIG TICKET ITEMS AND OTHERS I REFUSE TO VOTE FOR BECAUSE I'M SEEING IT. I AGREE IS THEY HAVE SAID THEY WANT IMPROVEMENTS AND THEY WANT TO SEE SOME OF THIS THAT GIVES HUTTO PRIDE AND $41,000 IS A SMALL PRICE COMPARED TO THE $90 MILLION BRIDGE THAT WE ARE BUILDING ON OUR OWN. THIS IS A SMALL PERSON SOMEONE ELSE'S BRIDGE. WE PAY $40,000 TO GET HUTTO IN THERE. ANYONE ELSE?

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER WALKER AYE.

MAYOR SCHNEIDER AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON AYE. COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER AYE. COUNCILMEMBER CLARK AYE. COUNCILMEMBER THORTON

[14.1. Consideration and possible action relating to Resolution No. R-2024-032 authorizing the City Manager to execute a change order providing for immediate repairs to County Road 137 (Matt Rector)]

[03:00:01]

>> I PULLED THIS TO UNDERSTAND. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM? MAKE SURE I HAVE THAT RIGHT.

>> THE MONEY IS COMING FROM THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND SO THE DOLLARS WE SET ASIDE FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE FOR THIS YEAR.

>> SOMEHOW WHEN I WAS READING THIS I THOUGHT WE WERE TAKING MONEY FROM 1660 AND CHANGE ORDERING THAT FOR THIS.

>> WE NOT TAKING MONEY FROM THAT PROJECT THAT WE ARE USING THE FACT THAT THAT CONTRACT IS ALREADY ACTIVE AND ADDING SCOPE TO HAVE JOE BLAND GO DO THE WORK AT 137.

>> THAT IS WHERE I WAS GETTING CONFUSED. WE'RE TAKING AN EXISTING CONTRACTOR THAT IS OUT THERE .

>> CORRECT. >> ADDING TO THE SCOPE OF THEIR PROJECT TO INCLUDE REPAVING THAT SEGMENT OF 137.

>> AND HOW ARE WE DOING THAT? >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> IS ON AS WE MAKE IT CLEAR IN THE TASK ORDER WHERE THE PAYMENT IS COMING FROM.

>> OKAY. >> WHEN WE DID OUR OTHER

RESOLUTION. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE 14.1 AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. SECOND BY WHO? >> MOTION SECONDED.

>> DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. >> LAST THURSDAY WE TALKED ABOUT WANTED STAFF TO COME BACK AND GET IT AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE AND FIND MONEY IN THE BUDGET BECAUSE OF THINGS NEED TO GET MAINTENANCE AND ITS PACIFICALLY TO FIX THE OTHER ROADS IN IMPROVEMENT REPORT DONE BY THE THIRD-PARTY AUDIT COMPANY. WE WANT THAT STILL TO COME FORWARD. IT'S INDEPENDENT OF EXECUTING THIS WORK DONE BUT WE DON'T WANT TO THEN NOT DO NOT DO OTHER MAINTENANCE . SOME OF THE PERSONNEL SAVINGS TO DATE IN THE STREET MAINTENANCE AND SEE IF I CAN ADJUST SOME OF THAT, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF WORK TO MAKE SURE THE PLAN CONTINUES TO BE EXECUTED. BUT I UNDERSTAND IT FULLY, THE CHARGE ON THAT.

COUNCIL? >> MAYOR, CAN I HAVE SOMETHING ? FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES? WE EXPECT CITY CREWS TO BE OUT THERE AS EARLY AS MONDAY. WE EXPECT THEM TO BE OUT THERE AS EARLY AS MONDAY TO BEGIN THERE IS A 10 DAY SCHOOL UP PERIOD FOR CONSTRUCTION SO THEY CAN COME IN TO ACTUALLY DO THE ASPHALT LAY DOWN. SO WITHIN 10 DAYS OR 15 DAYS THIS WHOLE PROJECT SHOULD BE WRAPPED UP AND COMPLETE WITH WORK

STARTING ON MONDAY. >> WHAT DOES SPOOL UP MEAN?

>> THERE IS A 10 DAY ACTIVATION PERIOD, MOBILIZATION PERIOD ACCORDING TO THEIR CHANGE ORDER, AND THEN AFTER THEY GET THE NOTICE TO PROCEED AFTER TONIGHT , 10 DAYS AND THEN AFTER THEY BEGIN WORK THEY WILL COMPLETE WORK WITHIN FIVE DAYS, THAT IS 15 DAYS TOTAL. SO WE ARE STARTING TO DO THE PRELIMINARY WORK AHEAD OF TIME SO THAT ALLOWS THEY WORK TO GET DONE QUICKER.

MINUTES. WE HAD THIS BUDGETED LAST YEAR TO BE REPAVED. A STAFF LOOKS AT IT AND COMES BACK AND SAYS THE BASE IS TRASH AND YOU NEED TO REDESIGN AND ALL OF THAT. MY COMMENTS THEN WERE, IT TAKES US FOREVER TO DO ANYTHING IN THE CITY. THE ROAD IS ALREADY TERRIBLE. WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND SPEND THE MONEY. MY CONCERN, MY FRUSTRATION IS NOT NECESSARILY WITH THE CITY MANAGER BECAUSE HE ONLY DOES WHAT WE TELL HIM TO DO.WE AS A COUNCIL SAID DON'T DO ANY WORK , LET'S GO REDESIGN IT WHICH TAKES UP TO TWO YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION AND SO I STILL DON'T THINK WE CAN AFFORD TO BUILD ALL THESE

[03:05:02]

YOU KNOW WHAT WASN'T THERE? A ROAD MAINTENANCE. ROADS, STREETS AND STREETS. I USED TO SAY ROADS, ROADS AND ROADS BUT I HAVE DONE A SURVEY. THAT IS ALL THAT PEOPLE CARE ABOUT HERE. SO MY FRUSTRATION IS THAT ANYTHING THAT WE DO IN THE CITY, IF IT IS A PARK OR A MONUMENT OR A WATER FOUNTAIN, ANYTHING THAT IS NOT GET US ON THE TRACK OF BUILDING A ROAD OR PAVING IT , WE ARE USING, AS I TOLD THE CITY MANAGER, WE ARE USING BANDWIDTH WE DO NOT HAVE, LIKE WHEN WE TRY TO BRING A GROUP IN FROM OUT OF THE MUD AND TRY TO BRING THEM IN AND BUILD THEM , ALL OF OUR ENERGY SHOULD GO TO CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. THE ROADS ARE LITERALLY FAILING AND CRUMBLING AND WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT ALL THIS OTHER STUFF, SO I'M GOING TO KEEP HARPING EVERY TIME SOMETHING COMES UP THAT IS NOT ROADS, STREETS OR STREETS. I WANT TO SEE A CONTRACT AT SOME POINT THAT COMES UP FOR THE NEXT FREEZE OR THE NEXT FLOOD COMES THROUGH WE DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM. THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS, I WOULD HAVE LIKED YOU GUYS ALREADY LAST THURSDAY OR FRIDAY MORNING TO PICK UP THE PHONE AND SAY I AM PRETTY SURE THIS IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS, GO AHEAD AND GET THE CLOCK STARTED SO THAT WE ARE MILLING THE ROAD ON A MONDAY AND PAVING ON A TUESDAY INSTEAD OF MILLING ON A MONDAY AND NOW WE ARE WAITING 10 MORE DAYS BECAUSE IT IS JUST -- THE FREEZE HAPPENED JANUARY 14 AND BY THE TIME THIS GETS FIXED IT IS A MONTH. AND WE HAVE TO MOVE FASTER. NOT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH ME, AND THAT IS FINE. BUT THE PEOPLE ARE JUST HOUNDING US ABOUT THE HUMMING NOISE AND ROADS , AND NOBODY IS COMPLAINING ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE HARDLY TO SPEAK OF BUT HUMMING AND ROADS. SO I TOLD THE CITY MANAGER I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO -- I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO EXPRESS MY FRUSTRATION.

THE LAST THING I WILL SAY IS WE ARE ONE THIRD OF OUR WAY THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR AND I SAID THE PEOPLE ARE EXTREMELY -- WHAT IS THE WORD? THEY BASICALLY DON'T CARE, THEY JUST WANT TO SEE HOT ASPHALT HITTING ROADS. IF WE DON'T GET MOVING IT IS GOING TO BE HALFWAY THROUGH THE YEAR AND WE HAVE NOT GOT ONE .2 BILLION. LET'S GET SPENDING ON THIS. WE ARE ALL WORRIED ABOUT WHERE IT IS COMING FROM AND WE ARE NOT SPENDING ANY. JUST THROW DOWN A PATCH OF ASPHALT SOMEWHERE .

I MEAN THERE IS A POTHOLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR LIKE THREE YEARS. I DON'T EVEN BOTHER TURNING IT IN BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THEM FILLING THAT POTHOLE BECAUSE I HAVE HAD TO DRIVE ON 137 SINCE THE FREEZE IN 21 AND I WOULD BE EMBARRASSED TO HAVE SOMEBODY FILL A POTHOLE ON THE STREET I LIVE ON WINDOWS PEOPLE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT. SO ANYWAY. MY TIME IS JUST ABOUT UP, BUT --

>> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK CITY STAFF FOR MOVING SO FAST ON THIS. I GUESS I GET THE MAYOR'S FRUSTRATION AND I SEE IT THROUGH A DIFFERENT LENS. HAVING THIS DONE IN A MONTH IS A PHENOMENAL FEET AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE HOOPS THAT YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH AND YOU HAVE DONE EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO SPEED THIS ALONG. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT GOVERNMENT MOVES SLOWLY AND THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO. YOU CANNOT GO AND ASK A VENDOR OR A CONTRACTOR TO GO KIND OF DO SOME PRE-WORK WITHOUT SOME KIND OF A CONTRACT OR SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT. I WOULD NOT WANT US TO DO THAT AND I WOULD NOT EXPECT A CONTRACTOR TO GO OUT AND TO START DOING WORK ON JUST A HANDSHAKE PROMISE. I HEARD THE MAYOR SAY TIME AND TIME AGAIN, STRONG CONTRACTS MAKE STRONG FRIENDS OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT AND WHEN WE NEED TO GET SOMETHING IN WRITING SOMETIMES IT TAKES LONG. SO I APPRECIATE THE CITIZENS PATIENCE WITH US. I KNOW THAT SOME ARE LESS PATIENT THAN OTHERS AND SOME KIND OF GET IT, BUT FROM MY VIEW AND MY STANDPOINT I REALLY THINK THE

[03:10:04]

PIVOT OFF OF EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING, EVERYTHING THAT YOU PRIORITIZED TO JUMP ON THIS WITH NO WARNING OF WHAT WAS COMING. THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH FOR PIVOTING AND BEING SO THOUGHTFUL IN THE WAY THAT YOU HANDLE DIFFERENT PROJECTS IN THE CITY THAT SUPPORT THE CITIZENS.

>> SO I THINK AS USUAL, I FALL SOMEWHERE BETWEEN I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING STAFF IS DOING TO GET THIS GOING AS FAST AS IT CAN BE DONE. I THINK YOU ARE DOING EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE. WE NEED TO DEVELOP A SYSTEM WHERE WE ARE ABLE TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS FASTER IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IT IS PRETTY DIFFICULT TO WAIT A MONTH ON A ROAD THAT HAS FAILED. SO WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS WE NEED TO SET UP SO THAT WE CAN RESPOND FASTER. THAT TAKES PLANNING AND THAT WILL NOT JUST HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY. I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO TO GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY SO THAT THE NEXT TIME SOMETHING HAPPENS WE ARE ABLE TO JUMP ON IT.

YOU KNOW, WITHIN A WEEK INSTEAD OF A MONTH.

LET'S GET THIS DONE AS QUICK AS WE CAN AND LET'S LEARN FROM IT AND TRY TO FIND A BETTER SYSTEM IN THE FUTURE.

>> YEAH, I GUESS FOR ME, THE STAFF HAS DONE GREAT IN TRYING TO GET THIS FAST TRACKED BECAUSE THIS LAST WEEK THE CITY MANAGER SAID IT IS GOING TO BE A 30 OR 45 DAY PROCESS AND WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERYTHING, BUT WHEN WE DID THE EMERGENCY ITEM , THEN THE CITY MANAGER OBVIOUSLY CAME UP WITH OTHER WAYS TO GET THIS DONE WITH A CONTRACTOR THAT IS ALREADY WORKING WITH THE CITY. APPRECIATE THAT, AND THEN GETTING IT DOWN TO ONE MONTH , I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR. I WISH THAT WE HAD SOMEBODY ON DECK THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE DOING WORK THAT IS ALREADY APPROVED TO WORK FOR THE CITY, AND WE CAN CALL THEM UP AND BE LIKE HEY, FIVE DAYS OR SEVEN DAYS. JUST NOT EVEN 10 DAYS, RIGHT? I DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU KNOW, EVEN SOMEONE WHO IS DOING WORK FOR US 10 DAYS IS -- BUT I GET IT. THEY HAVE TO MOVE THEIR CRUISE FROM POINT A TO POINT B. I DO WISH THAT WE HAD SOMEBODY ON DECK THAT WE COULD CALL UP AND THEY COULD BE LIKE HEY, WE WILL BE THERE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO THAT IS KIND OF WHERE I AM AT WITH THINGS. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING THIS DONE, BUT THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR PUSHING ON IT, AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE SMOOTH FOR SOME TIME. I AM AFRAID OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE ROAD AS WELL. I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT TOO. THERE IS A BIG POTHOLE THERE AND I GET THAT IT IS NOT AS BAD AS 1660 OR THE SOUTH ENTRANCE OF FARLEY. THAT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE DONE BUT I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT LIKE THE NEXT FREEZE. HOPEFULLY BY THE NEXT FREEZE WHEN THE SECOND HALF GETS CRUMBLED, WE WILL HAVE THAT CONTRACTOR ON DECK TO FIX THAT PART TOO.

COUNCILMEMBERS BROUGHT IT UP, BASICALLY WHAT Y'ALL ARE DESCRIBING IS KIND OF LIKE WE HAVE THE ROTATION LIST FOR ENGINEERS, BUT WE WOULD HAVE MASTER CONTRACTS FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE, FOR MATERIALS, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. THAT IS THE DIRECTION THAT WE ARE HEADING. UNFORTUNATELY, WE MISSED IT BY ABOUT TWO WEEKS. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE MEMO I SENT OUT ON THE 13TH OR 14TH OF DECEMBER, WE LAID OUT THAT WE WOULD BE BIDDING OUT THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS. THE MAIL AND OVERLAY WAS NOT EXPECTED UNTIL APRIL, BUT THAT WAS LAID OUT IN THE MEMO. BUT NEXT YEAR WE CERTAINLY WILL HAVE THAT DONE EARLIER IN THE SEASON, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROCURE MATERIAL. THAT IS THE ONLY THING GOING AGAINST US. WITHOUT A MATERIAL CONTRACT OUR OWN STAFF CANNOT DO THE WORK BECAUSE THE MATERIAL WILL COST MORE THAN 50,000 WITHOUT CITY COUNCIL, WITHOUT US COMPETITIVELY PROCURING IT AND CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING IT. NEXT YEAR

[03:15:02]

>> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT I HEAR ABOUT HAVING THOSE CONTRACTS ALREADY IN PLACE, SO LIKELY NEXT MEETING YOU WILL SEE SOME ADDITIONAL CONTRACTS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. PARTICULARLY THE MATERIAL SIDE FOR KIND OF THE HAVING THE IN HOUSE CREWS AVAILABLE TO DO SOME OF THESE KIND OF ON THE SPOT TYPE OF REPAIRS. SO HOPEFULLY THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL LOOK AT AND LOOK TO CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AS WELL.

FOR ME IT IS A PRIORITIZATION AND PROBABLY APPROVE. IF I HAD TO GUESS I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY LIKE $9 MILLION WORTH OF CONTRACTS AND STUFF IN THE FIRST MEETING OF THE FISCAL YEAR. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE NEXT YEAR WHEN WE ARE DOING THINGS, WE ALREADY HAVE A PLAN INSTEAD OF RUSHING TO GET EVERYTHING PUT IN THE BUDGET AND GET IT IN, CONTRACTS, YOU GUYS HAVE TO BE WORKING MORE THAN 40 HOURS A WEEK TO PUT ALL THAT TOGETHER BUT WE ARE NOT DOING SOME OF THAT STUFF UNTIL MAY, JUNE, JULY OR THE END OF THE YEAR. WE FOCUS AND WE HAVE THINGS READY TO GO TO WEAR AS SIDEWALKS COME UP AND ONE FAILS WE HAVE A GUY READY TO DO THAT INSTEAD OF -- WE ARE SO REACTIVE BECAUSE WE ARE SO FAR BEHIND WE ARE JUST GOING THROUGH ITEMS ONE THROUGH 10. THE PRIORITY IT MIGHT BE ITEM TWO, 4, AND 8 AND WE ARE JUST GOING THROUGH, SO I DON'T KNOW THE BEST WAY TO DO IT. IT IS IN DEVELOPMENT. I MEAN, YOU CANNOT ALWAYS START AT NUMBER ONE AND END UP AT NUMBER 20, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO SKIP TO NUMBER FIVE, BUT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT SOME OF THESE PEOPLE I MEAN, THEY CALL IT THE DMV DOWN THERE. THAT IS HOW BAD IT HAS GOTTEN. EVERYBODY WORRIES ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU KNOW IT IS AN EASY FIX IN MY MIND. IT IS A HARD FIX TODAY, IT WAS AN EASY FIX A YEAR AGO, AND THE LAST THING I WILL SAY IS I TOLD THE CITY MANAGER WE ARE EMOTIONAL PEOPLE UP HERE. WE ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS, WE DON'T HAVE THE EDUCATION, SO YOU GUYS HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET $500 MILLION IN ROAD PROJECTS BUILT TO WHERE WE CAN AFFORD IT, BUT THEN AT SOME POINT SOMEONE IS GOING TO HAVE TO TELL US THIS ROAD, WE JUST NEED TO BUY TIME, AND THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT GETS US THREE YEARS OR WATER YEARS AND THE ALTERNATIVE IS IT FAILS BUT WE CANNOT AFFORD, WE DON'T THINK YOU GUYS CAN AFFORD OR WANT TO AFFORD OR PUSH THIS YOU KNOW, $20 MILLION PROJECT OUT BECAUSE ASSUMING YOU WILL COME TO US AND TELL US THAT THERE ARE RUTS IN ED SCHMIDT AND THAT TELLS ME THE BASE IS GONE ON THAT ROAD. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO BUILD ALL OF THESE SO SOMETHING NEEDS TO HAVE A LAYER PUT ON AND WE ARE TELLING THE CITY MANAGERS YOU GUYS COME UP AND HELP US WITH THE DIFFICULT DECISIONS. LOOK, EXCHANGE HAS FIRE TRUCKS AND WHATEVER THEY WAY WE RECOMMEND YOU REBUILD THAT ROAD. THIS ONE OVER HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A BAND-AID ON IT AND COME BACK IN ANOTHER THREE OR FOUR YEARS AND THROW ANOTHER 300 GRAND AT IT. BUT THAT IS WHERE I THINK THAT YOU GUYS CAN PROVIDE US WITH THE MOST INFORMATION, BECAUSE EMOTIONALLY WE WANT EVERY ROAD DONE AND WE DON'T WANT TO PAY ANY INCREASE IN TAXES AND WE WANT EVERYTHING TO BE PERFECT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AT SOME POINT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT SOME ROAD JUST ISN'T GOING TO GET DONE. SO I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING, WE JUST HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE PRIORITIZATION SCHEDULE SO THAT YOU GUYS ARE NOT TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING AND THEN US, SOME OF US, ME, CRITICIZE ON WE ARE NOT GETTING NOTHING DONE BECAUSE YOU'RE SPENDING 40 HOURS A WEEK TRYING TO DO 25 PROJECTS. MAYBE WE NEED FOUR,

BUT ANYWAY. >> SO I AGREE WITH YOU IN PRIORITIZING ROADS AND SOMETIMES PATCHING THE ROAD MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA. 137 IS NOT THAT ROAD. THAT ROAD IS FALLING APART REALLY QUICKLY. EVERY TIME IT HAS BEEN PATCHED AND THEN IT FALLS APART. THAT ONE NEEDS TO BE REBUILT CORRECTLY AS SOON AS IT CAN BE. WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW IS NOT GOING TO LAST VERY LONG AND WE WILL NOT BY THREE YEARS WITH THIS PATCH. SO THIS IS NOT THAT ROAD. THIS IS A ROAD THAT NEEDS TO BE REBUILT AS SOON AS WE CAN AFTER THIS PATCH.

OTHERWISE WE ARE GOING TO BE BACK IN THE SITUATION AGAIN.

AND THEN AS FAR AS THE PRIORITIZATION OF THE CONTRACTS, I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DID HAPPEN, NORMALLY YOU DO NOT DO AN OVERLAY IN THE MIDDLE OF WINTER. YOU START UP IN THE SPRING. SO LEAVING THE CONTRACT OUT UNTIL THEN, IT DOES NOT ANTICIPATE AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, WHICH IS WHAT THIS CAME OUT TO BE. SO THAT WAS THE FLAW THERE. WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO USE THAT BUDGET.

WE LOOKED AT WHERE IT WAS PLANNED, AND THAT IS WHERE THE CONTRACTS WERE AIMED AT. SO I THINK YOU DID PRIORITIZE, IT IS

[03:20:03]

>> I DON'T THINK THERE WAS AN AMOUNT IN ANYONE'S MOTION.

>> DO THE OTHER ONE, DO THE 335 ONE.

>> WHICH EVERYONE GIVES US THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FLEXIBILITY IN CASE SOMETHING FALLS APART.

>> ALL I SEE IS -- AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE ADDING NOT TO EXCEED $333,000.

>> YOU OKAY WITH THAT COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR ? NOT TO EXCEED? OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MEMBER THORTON? >> MAYOR SCHNEIDER , MAYOR PRO TEM?

[14.2. Consideration and possible action of Resolution No. R-2024-011 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $277,087 with STR Constructors for Phase 1 of Fritz Park (P02-2023) (Matt Rector)]

>> YEAH, I WILL GIVE YOU MY COMMENTS NOW. POSSIBLE ACTION AND RESOLUTION 011 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE GMP OF $277,087 WITH SDR CONSTRUCTORS FOR PHASE 1 OF FRITZ PARK PO2 DASH TO A THREE. HERE IS MY COMMENTS. I CANNOT TELL ON THE INVOICE.

SOME OF THE COST JUST SAYS SEATING OR LIKE THERE IS A LETTER THAT TALKS ABOUT SEATING AND THEN I HAD A COMMENT FOR TEMPORARY IRRIGATION AND HOW IT ALL GETS WATERED AND THEN LATER ON AND SOME OTHER AMOUNT THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO GO WITH WHAT THE LETTER WAS THERE IS SEATING AND IRRIGATION. SO I WANT US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT FIGURED OUT SO THAT WE DO NOT GO OUT AND THROW A BUNCH OF SEED OUT IN APRIL AND IT IS 100 DEGREES AND THEN THERE IS NOTHING THAT COMES UP AND WE JUST -- WHAT THE AMOUNT WAS ANYWAY. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS, I THOUGHT AT ONE POINT THEY SAID IT WAS GOING TO TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES TO DO THIS, PHASE 1. MY WRONG ON

THAT? >> NO, MR. MAYOR, YOU ARE CORRECT. WHEN THEY WERE HERE THEY SAID IT WOULD TAKE APPROXIMATELY SEVEN WEEKS ONCE THEY HAD SET UP ALL THE EROSION CONTROLS AND WERE READY TO START.

>> BECAUSE THEY ARE CHARGING US FOUR MONTHS ON EVERYTHING. I DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOUR MONTHS OF A BATHROOM AND TRAILERS AND EVERYTHING FOR A SEVEN WEEK JOB. IF THEY CAN DO IT IN SEVEN WEEKS, THEY HAVE AN EXTRA WEEK, BUT FOR US TO PAY FOUR MONTHS, IT IS NOT MUCH MONEY, $30,000 OR SOMETHING, BUT THAT CAUGHT MY EYE. THE LAST ONE WAS, AND THIS GMP STUFF IS REALLY OUTSIDE OF WHAT I AM USED TO. THERE IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GMP -- LET ME -- I DIDN'T PUT WHERE THIS WAS. IT SAID THE GMP ON YOUR GUISES AGENDA REPORT , THIRD PARAGRAPH DOWN, IT SAYS THIS GMP, THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE IS FOR PHASE 1 WITH THE CMR PERFORMING LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL COST OF PROJECT. AND CONTINGENCY OF 10% IF UNUSED TO ALLOW FOR FUNDS TO BE ALLOCATED. SO THIS GMP IS $247,000 WE ARE SAYING, AND THAT IS LESS THAN 1% OF THE

TOTAL COST. >> YES.

>> MY MATH TELLS ME THAT IS A $20 MILLION PROJECT THEN, RIGHT

? >> THAT IS NOT CORRECT MATH.

IT CAN'T -- BECAUSE THE PROJECT IS NOT THAT MUCH.

>> IF YOU GUYS COULD LOOK AT THAT, BECAUSE I CAUGHT THAT.

ME AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAVE BEEN DEBATING AND I SAW THAT IN THE PLANS AND THEY SAID IT WAS LIKE $400,000 AND I'M CONFIDENT YOU CANNOT BUILD THAT FOR 400,000. SO I'M SCRUTINIZING EVERY TIME I SEE DOLLAR AMOUNTS BECAUSE I'M WAITING FOR ME TO BE WRONG OR ME BEING RIGHT AND GOING IT IS A LAKE, YOU CANNOT BUILD A LAKE FOR 400,000 OR SOMETHING.

[03:25:01]

>> ANYWAY. IF YOU GUYS CAN CHECK ON THAT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE I'M THINKING THAT NUMBER OUT TO BE SOMETHING WAY HIGHER THAN 1% TO GET US TO BE $10 MILLION PRICE TAG THAT EVERYBODY SAID IT WAS GOING TO COST. SO THAT IS MY ONLY -- INAUDIBLE ] ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO RESCHEDULING THIS? WE NEED TO TABLE TO A DATE THAT STAFF IS READY TO

BRING IT FORWARD. >> LET'S DO THAT BECAUSE I TOLD THEM IF THEY DID NOT HAVE THE CONTRACT BACK TO US THAT WE WOULD BRING THIS BACK IN APRIL. BECAUSE REALLY AT THIS POINT THERE IS NOT MUCH POINT IN DOING A PHASE I OR A PHASE 2.

IF THEY CAN SATISFY US AND GET IT DONE, WE WILL BRING IT BACK BUT IF NOT WE WILL HAVE IT WITH THE REST OF THE PROJECT.

>> LET'S NOT MESS AROUND WITH THE PROJECT THAT -- IT IS COMPLEX AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT HAS BEEN A MONTH OF WAITING FOR THEM TO CONSENT BASICALLY, SO

[14.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-026 authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with Dig Dug Construction LLC in the amount of $144,262.50 related to the Hutto Parke Sidewalk Repairs (O&M) (Rick Coronado)]

-- >> OKAY, SO WE WILL RESCHEDULE THE STAFF TIME.

THAT BRINGS US TO 14 THREE, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON OUR DASH 2024 DASH 26 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH BIG DOUG LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $144,262.50 RELATED TO THE HUTTO PARK SIDEWALK REPAIRS.

MY ONLY CONCERN IS I SAW THE SPECKS AND WE ARE USING AUSTIN, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS GOOD BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER SEEN AUSTIN SIDEWALKS FEEL LIKE THEY DO AND SO I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS FIXING THAT. WHEN WE DID OUR STUDY OF THE ROADS AT SOME POINT I BELIEVE COUNCIL SAID THAT WE WANT TO KNOW:TO DO A STUDY ON THE SIDEWALKS AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE EVER GOT THAT BACK, BUT THEN WE SAID WE WANTED PRIORITIZATION OF THE SIDEWALKS AND IF I LOOK AT THIS RIGHT, WE ARE HITTING THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I DON'T NECESSARILY MIND THAT, BECAUSE IT IS A FAIRLY SMALL AMOUNT BUT I'M WONDERING WHAT IS THE RHYME AND REASON, HOW ARE WE PICKING NEIGHBORHOODS AND ARE WE PICKING THE WORST SECTIONS OR ARE WE JUST KNOCKING OUT NEIGHBORHOOD BY NEIGHBORHOOD? WHAT IS THE PLAN?

>> SO RICK CORONADO, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. GOING TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION ABOUT WHEN WE ASKED FOR THE STUDY ON THE SIDEWALKS, THAT WAS MAINLY A GAP ANALYSIS, THAT WAS NOT PRIORITIZATION OF EXISTING -- THIS IS THE START, THIS PROJECT IS THE START OF THE REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS OF SIDEWALKS.

LAST YEAR WE PROBABLY SPENT ABOUT 10,000 IN JUST THE REPLACEMENT OF SIDEWALKS . THE GOAL THIS YEAR WAS TO REPLACE AT LEAST 1000 LINEAR FEET. IN THIS CASE IT IS ALMOST 2000 LINEAR FEET OF SIDEWALKS. THIS IS THE LAUNCH OF THAT. NOW TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT PRIORITIZATION, CURRENTLY WE ARE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE EXISTING SIDEWALKS THAT ARE IN SOME OF THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS AND SO OBVIOUSLY THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A WHILE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A CONTINUOUS PROGRAM, SO HERE IT IS ADA COMPLIANCE AND SIDEWALK REPLACEMENTS FOR AREAS THAT ARE NOT ADA COMPLIANT. THERE IS A LOT MORE NEED THEN THERE ARE RESOURCES, SO IT IS GOING TO BE A WORK IN PROGRESS UNTIL WE CAN GET A BETTER HANDLE ON HOW TO PRIORITIZE ADDITIONAL FUNDING . WE DO NOT HAVE AN ASSESSMENT OF ALL THE SIDEWALKS, SO THAT IS ONE OF THE GOALS THAT IS GOING TO BE MAINLY, THAT IS GOING TO BE AN INTERNAL FORCE RIGHT NOW TO IDENTIFY AREAS THAT HAVE HIGHER LEVELS OF CONCERNS OR COMPLAINTS FROM CUSTOMERS THAT ARE RECORDED AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS AS WELL. SO IT IS NOT A STUDY PER SE THAT WE HAVE PAID TO IDENTIFY THAT

YES. >> BEFORE YOU BECAME A PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR YOU PAID FOR A COMPANY THAT DID EVERY STREET IN THE TOWN AND THEY HAD THE CAMERA BUT THEY ALSO DETECTED THE SIDEWALKS. THAT IS THE REPORT THAT THE MAYOR IS REFERRING TO BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR PART OF THAT FROM THEM TO PRIORITIZE WHICH SIDEWALKS WERE THE WORST IN THE CITY AND THAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD BE USING IN YOUR REPAIR LIST. WE ARE SAYING IF YOU ARE NOT YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND GET THAT REPORT AND USE THE REPORT THAT WE PAID FOUR.

>> I THINK THEY DID SOME KIND OF LIKE CURB EVALUATION. IT WAS NOT ACTUALLY THE SIDEWALK. THEY DID NOT DRIVE THE SIDEWALK. IT WAS LIKE THE CURB . SO I THINK THAT IS ALL LIKE

TOTALLY DIFFERENT. >> YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE PRODUCT RESULT FROM THAT WAS THE GAP ANALYSIS, WHERE YOU DID NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS. MORE SO THAN THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALKS. SO THAT WAS AN ADDED SLIDE TO THAT FINAL REPORT, BUT IT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE CONDITION OF EXISTING SIDEWALKS.

FOR JUST GENERAL SIDEWALK REPAIR WAS 500,000 AND IT GOT

[03:30:02]

>> YEAH, THE PLANNING BETWEEN SIDEWALKS AND STREETS ARE KIND OF A CONTINUUM, SO RIGHT NOW THE PLANNING TO CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS IS KIND OF IN THE WINTER TIME FRAME AND TO YOUR POINT, SOME OF THE PLANNING FOR THE WARMER MONTHS IS AS EARLY AS SPRING AND THAT THEN CONTINUES WITH THE STREET REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS AS WELL. SO I HAVE HEARD THE FRUSTRATIONS, BUT WE ARE PLANNING. WE ARE JUST IN A DELAY WITH A LITTLE OF THE CHANGE AND IN PROCESSES AND PEOPLE, SO THAT IS KIND OF HELPING US TO READJUST AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE BRINGING TO COUNCIL.

THIS FOR THE PUBLIC TO KNOW, A LOT OF CITIES CHARGE YOU FOR YOUR SIDEWALK BUT ALSO FOR YOUR YARD IN THE CITY WILL REPLACE IT AND BILL YOU FOR IT. WE DO NOT DO THAT. THAT IS A CHANGE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY NOT KNOW AND THE OTHER ONE IS, A PERSON TO JUST LOOK AT THE SIDEWALK BY THE HIGH SCHOOL.

THE HIGH SCHOOL KIDS SAY IT IS SUNKEN DOWN PRETTY GOOD AND A PRETTY GOOD TRIP HAZARD. AND THAT IS WHY I WAS WONDERING HOW WE DETERMINE HOW ARE WE DETERMINING WHICH ONES BECAUSE IF KIDS SAY THIS ONE IS BAD I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS, BUT IT COULD HAVE EVER WORKED AND YOU THINK THAT IS BAD YOU ARE TO SEE THE ONE OVER HERE, BUT WE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING THE BEST THAT YOU CAN WITH THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE

BEEN GIVEN. >> I DO WANT TO ♪ OUT THAT WE WILL RECEIVE SAFETY CONCERNS FROM THE PUBLIC AND RESIDENTS, SO THOSE WILL BE SPOT REPAIRS. THEY MIGHT NOT BE YOU KNOW, A WHOLE LOT OF LINEAR FEET, BUT THEY COULD BE A CERTAIN SECTION THAT HAS FAILED AND WOULD HAVE A SAFETY ISSUE, AND SO THOSE I WOULD TAKE AND WE CAN INCORPORATE THOSE INTO THE MAINTENANCE.

REPORT AND SEND PICTURES SO I ASSUME THAT IS PART OF THE PRIORITIZATION YOU ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH.

THE CITY INSPECTED THE SIDEWALKS AND IF THE GAP IS OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT THEY TOLD YOU AS A HOMEOWNER THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FIXING IT. THEY GIVE YOU A LIST OF CONTRACTORS WITH A SET PRICE PER LINEAR FOOT, AND YOU HAD TO PAY FOR IT YOURSELF AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT IS MORE OF A QUESTION, HAVE WE LOOKED AT -- ARE WE HAVING ANY ISSUES WITH TREE ROOTS? THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WERE IT BECAME A LIABILITY THING WHERE IF YOU PLANTED A TREE TOO CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK AND THE SIDEWALK WAS HEAVING, THEN THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CITY'S FAULT IF PEOPLE ARE PLANTING TOO CLOSE TO SIDEWALK AND CAUSING'F WE LOOK OUT FOR OR NOT.

>> YEAH, SO MOST OF THE STREET TREES THAT ARE PLANTED BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE CURB, THEY ARE A PARTICULAR SPECIES THAT ARE MEANT TO HAVE DEEPER ROOTS, OR ROOTS THAT GENERALLY, IF THEY DO SURFACE CRAWL, THEY TEND TO DO OKAY WITH LIKE SOLID SURFACES ABOVE THEM. THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS OF COURSE ALL THE TIME AND THAT IS WHY THEY GET FIXED AND ADJUSTED.

IF SOMEONE JUST GOES IN PLANTS A TREE ON THEIR OWN AND IT CAUSES AN UPHEAVAL WE WOULD BE TALKING TO THAT PROPERTY OWNER DIRECTLY ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION.

BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JUST ITEMS FAILING AND THEN NEGLIGENCE.

AS PRESENTED.

THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

SCHNEIDER ? COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? THE MOTION PASSES

[14.11. Consideration and possible approval of Ordinance No. O-2024-007 to amend the Code of Ordinances (2020 edition, as amended), Chapter 3, Land Use Standards of the City of Hutto by amending Section 10.304.7, Industrial uses, and adding Section 10.308.18, Data Center, and amending Chapter 4, Site Design Standards, by amending Section 10.403.4, Building Envelope, Section 10.403.6 Bufferyard, and Section 10.405.9, Parking and Loading Space Number Standards (Second Reading) (Ashley Bailey)]

7-0. >> ITEM 14.11. CONSIDERATION FOR POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES 2020 EDITION AS AMENDED CHAPTER 3 LAND-USE STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF HUTTO BY AMENDING SECTION 10.0 3.7 INDUSTRIAL USES AND ADDING SECTION 10.308 .18, A DATA CENTER IN THE CHAPTER FOR SITE DESIGN STANDARDS BY AMENDING SECTION 10.40 3.4 , BUILDING ENVELOPE SECTION 10.40 3.6, BUT FOR YARD IN SECTION 10.405 NINE , PARKING AND LOADING SPACE

[03:35:01]

NUMBER STANDARDS. >> SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM WITH AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10.403.6 C4 THE BUFFER YARD, FOR THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE INDUSTRIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY TO CHANGE THE MINIMUM TO STATE WITH THE MINIMUM WITH GREATER OR EQUAL TO 1.5 TIMES THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE INDUSTRIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING OR 1.5 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE INDUSTRIAL USE.

THAT TO YOU IN AN EMAIL. >> IT IS BASICALLY TAKING THE CHANGE THAT WAS MADE IN SAYING ONE .5 TIMES THAT AMOUNT.

FOUR RESIDENTIAL. >> IT IS CURRENTLY -- ONE TIME

USE? >> WE WOULD JUST DO IT AS EQUAL TO 121.

>> SO 65 FOOT TALL BUILDING WOULD NOW BE 90 SOMETHING --

>> YEAH, IT WOULD BE ANOTHER 30 FEET.

A PROBLEM WITH ANY EXISTING PLACES? I'M CURIOUS WHERE WE HAVE A BUILDING THAT IS NOW OUT OF CODE? OKAY.

OF COMPLIANCE BUT IT WILL BE LEGALLY NONCONFORMING BUT I CANNOT THINK OF ANY OF THE NEWER INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL THEY ARE ALL 100 FEET PLUS. SO THERE MIGHT NOT BE BUFFER YARD STANDARD THAT INAUDIBLE ].

HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

SCHNEIDER, MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON? COUNCILMEMBER CLARK? COUNCILMEMBER THORTON? COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? MOTION

[13.1. Consideration and possible action relating to Charter Review Commission Final Report of Recommendations for Charter Amendments (Legal) (Part 2 of 2)]

ITEM 13.1, BACK TO ITEM 13.1, CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHARTER AMENDMENTS. 602 RECALL WAS THE LAST ONE WE HAD.

WAS LEFT IS WHETHER OR NOT COUNCIL WANTED TO VOTE TO INCLUDE THIS IN THE CHARTER AMENDMENT.

THINK THIS ONE IS CONTROVERSIAL, CAN WE LOOK AT THE NEXT ONE TOO AND MAYBE ON THE REST OF RECALL? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A REASON TO SPLIT RECALL.

>> THE NEXT ONE IS, WE JUST ADDED THE NEXT SLIDE , SIGN OR SIGNATURE THAT IS FROM STATE LAW, JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WHEN YOU SIGN THESE PETITIONS YOU HAVE TO PRINT YOUR NAME AND ACTUALLY DO A WET SIGNATURE. AND THEN THE NEXT RECALL IS A FORM OF THE RECALL PETITION. WE JUST ADDED THAT THE PETITION REQUIREMENTS ARE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 277 OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE BECAUSE SOME OF THE COMMENTS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT RECALL WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT SURE WHAT APPLIED. AND THAT APPLIES TO PETITIONS OUTSIDE OF THE STATED PROVISION IN THE ELECTION CODE. THE NEXT ONE, ARTICLE 6 RECALL . IT HAS TO BE CIRCULATED BY A QUALIFIED VOTER WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN A REGISTERED VOTER. A REGISTERED VOTER IS SOMEONE WHO REGISTERS TO VOTE AND IS ON THE COUNTY ROLES AND QUALIFIED MEANS THEY ACTUALLY MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS TO VOTE IN THE CITY, LIVE IN THE CITY. SO IT

IS A LITTLE DISTINCTION. >> YOU CANNOT BE FROM AUSTIN CIRCULATING THAT TO 75 AND THEN WE CORRECTED THE CITY SECRETARY NOTIFIES THAT OFFICER AND VERIFIES THE PETITION WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS. SO AFTER THEY TURN IT IN, SHE HAS 10 BUSINESS DAYS TO VERIFY ALL THE SIGNATURES. SHE JUST CAN'T TAKE 100 DAYS OR SOMETHING.

>> IS 10 BUSINESS DAYS REALISTIC FROM THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE OR IS IT GOING TO BE 15? I DON'T WANT TO PUT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE SO -- BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE YOU KNOW, 1800 SIGNATURES MINIMUM AND THEY PROBABLY GO OVER IN CASE SOME GET THROWN OUT SO WE ARE LOOKING AT 2000

[03:40:02]

VERIFY ALL OF THAT. >> WE DID HAVE

>> YEAH, WE ACTUALLY ASKED HER WHAT IS A REALISTIC TIME FRAME TO VERIFY 1800 SIGNATURES OR 3600 SIGNATURES, ETC. SHE SAID 10 BUSINESS DAYS SHOULD BE VERY DOABLE.

>> RIGHT. >> IT IS ALSO A PROCESS WHERE THE CITY ATTORNEY HELPS TOO WITH THE VERIFICATION PROCESS.

RECALL SECTION OR IS THERE ANOTHER SLIDE?

>> EXCUSE ME.

CLARIFICATION THERE WITH THE ELECTION CODE. BUT THAT IS IT ON RECALL I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT THE REST OF THE RECALL.

EXCEPT ALL THESE RECALL CHANGES AS PRESENTED.

>> SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. ACCEPTED AS PRESENTED

ON THE RECALL DISCUSSION. >> I THINK INCREASING THE TIME IS A GOOD STEP TO ALSO MAKE IT A MORE REALISTIC THING TO HAVE HAPPEN. I'M NOT AFRAID OF PEOPLE HAVING A LITTLE MORE TIME TO GET THE SIGNATURES TOGETHER. IT IS STILL A BIG JOB. IT IS A GOOD CHANGE TO ME.

VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER WILL CAUGHT? MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON MAYOR SCHNEIDER? COUNCILMEMBER THORTON? THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM WE HAVE CHANGED TO MATCH THE RECALL. SO INSTEAD OF 20% IT IS 10% AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE IS REFERENCING THE ELECTION CODE AND ALSO PRINTING AND SIGNERS SIGNATURE WHICH IS REQUIRED.

>> WE ACCEPT THE ARTICLE 7 CHANGES AS RESENTED.

>> APPROVING ARTICLE 7 CHANGES AS PRESENTED, DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION.

HEARING NONE, PLEASE -- >> COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT? COUNCILMEMBER CLARK? COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? COUNCILMEMBER THORTON? COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR?

>> THE MOTION PASSES 7-0. >> THE FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION. YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THIS BEFORE. THIS IS RESTRICTIONS ON THE CITY MANAGER FOR TRANSFERS OF FUNDS RELATED TO EMPLOYEE SEPARATION PAY.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

GORDON. APPROVING CHANGES TO ARTICLE 8 AS PRESENTED. ANY

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR? I WAS READING IT, SORRY. YOU GUYS ARE MOVING FAST. WE ARE READY.

COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT, COUNCILMEMBER CLARK? MAYOR PRO

TEM GORDON. >> MAYOR SCHNEIDER?

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. THIS NEXT SECTION , WE ARE DELETING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE TWO SIGNATURES BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE PRACTICE NOW. WE JUST DO THINGS ELECTRONICALLY. SO CHECKS OVER $5000 HAVE OR CHECKS -- IT IS THE TWO SIGNATURE REQUIREMENT. THAT LINE IS DELETED. FROM THE END

OF SECTION 811. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER IN THE

SECTION 8? >> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. MOVED TO ACCEPT. SECOND THE CHANGES PRESENTED.

'S MEXICAN 10 BY COUNCILMEMBER THORTON. DISCUSSION?

>> I DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSION AT SOME POINT ON HOW WE ORDER THESE FOR BALLOT PROPOSALS BECAUSE --

>> THEY WILL COME BACK NEXT TIME.

>> HOPEFULLY WE CAN CONSOLIDATE BECAUSE THIS ONE IS ALMOST LIKE KIND OF IN THE LEGAL CORRECTION REALM WHERE ALL THOSE ONES MAY

BELONG IN ONE BUT YEAH. >> WE CAN COMBINE IT, BUT THAT WILL BE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. THE SENTENCE THAT WAS ELIMINATED WAS TWO ORIGINAL SIGNATURE SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL CHECKS IN EXCESS OF $5000 AND THAT IS NOT OUR PRACTICE.

[03:45:01]

SO THE NEXT ONE, BONDS -- ANOTHER READING OF THIS AND NOT KNOWING ANYTHING, WALKING INTO A BOOTH AND NOT BEING ON CITY COUNCIL, I WOULD PROBABLY VOTE NO ON THAT ONE BECAUSE WHY WOULD WE WANT TWO SIGNATURES ON EVERYTHING, BUT AGAIN I THINK THAT WE NEED TO DO A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING WHY WE NEED THEM TO CONSIDER.

>> MAYOR SCHNEIDER? COUNCILMEMBER CLARK?

>> COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT? COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR? COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? MOTION PASSES 7-0.

BOND CONSUL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM ON THAT ABOUT THE BOND ISSUANCE AND SOME OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND THEN ALSO FOR SECTION 10.3 , THE CONFUSION IN HAVING THOSE DETAILS ON THE BALLOT THAT THE -- FOR THE BOND VOTER AUTHORIZATION.

>> TOOK NO ACTION ON THIS ITEM.

>> SECOND.

SECONDED. AND LIST THE MEMO. WHY IS THIS A BAD IDEA?

>> IT IS ALREADY -- >> IT IS A GOOD ONE. IT IS ALREADY LIKE TIMELINES ARE ALREADY SET. WITH -- I DON'T KNOW I GUESS CAN WE TALK ABOUT --

>> YES. >> I GET THE FIRST ONE, 10.02.

I DID NOT GET TO 10.03. >> THE VOTER DOES NOT KNOW INAUDIBLE ] IS AND FOR BOND COUNCIL AND THEN TO BE ABLE TO -- THEY GAVE HIM

>> AND IF IT WAS DELAYED, AND THE LANGUAGE THEY SAID THAT IN THE BOND LANGUAGE YOU DO NOT WANT TO SAY, YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE SO SPECIFIC AND SAY HEY, CAN WE GO OFF THE BOND FOR $50 MILLION FOR THE RESTRUCTURING OF 137 BECAUSE LIKE IT IS JUST NOT WISE WITH COUNCIL SAID IT IS NOT WISE TO WRIST -- RESTRICT YOURSELF BECAUSE IF ANYTHING HAPPENS YOU WANT TO HAVE THOSE BOND FUNDS FOR SAY A DIFFERENT ROAD.

>> THERE ARE TOO MANY UNKNOWNS AND IF YOU DON'T GET THE MONEY AND USE IT IN THAT SPECIFIC TIME FRAME THAN THE LIVES

>> IF THE PROJECT IS TIED SO STRINGENT IN THE -- BOND PROPOSITION, AND THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT CHANGES OR SOMETHING CHANGES, THEN IT MAY INCREASE THE COST TO THE TAXPAYER IF THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED AND YOU HAVE TO CHANGE THE PROJECT.

BECAUSE HERE IN IS WHAT I'M HEARING. IF WE TELL THE PUBLIC WE NEED 50 MILLION IN BONDS FOR THESE FIBER PROJECTS, WE MAY CHANGE OUR MINDS AT A LATER DATE. IF WE DO THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE TIED DOWN TO DOING THINGS AND A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT I TALK TO SAY IF I VOTE TO PAVE LIVE OAK I WANT IT DONE AND IF YOU CANNOT GET IT DONE DON'T DO IT. AND I WOULD SAY DON'T ISSUE THE BONDS UNTIL YOU HAVE IT READY TO GO. WE WILL ACCUMULATE INTEREST WHILE WE ARE CHARGING THE TAXPAYER MONEY ON THE INS RATE. YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT YOU TOLD THE VOTERS YOU WILL DO AND LIKE I SAID WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME, PLAN BETTER.

INTO -- >> HERE IS THE MEMO, I HAVE SOME NOTES ON IT.

>> HERE IS WHAT I SAY, PLAN BETTER, DON'T TAKE OUT BONDS UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO USE IT. AND IF YOU HAVE TO BREAK THE PROJECT UP INTO TWO FIVE-YEAR CHUNKS, WE TOOK BOND MONEY OUT FOR PARKS AND WE BOUGHT , WE BOUGHT INCOME DEVELOPMENT LAND AND WE SPENT IT ON PARKS AND OTHER STUFF. WE HAVE A HISTORY OF NOT SPENDING MONEY THE WAY WE TELL PEOPLE WE ARE.

I UNDERSTAND IT MAY NOT BE THE EASIEST THING TO DO. BUT PEOPLE WHO PAY BIG-TIME MONEY HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CAREFUL HOW THEY DO THINGS. ALSO PUTTING IT ON THE WEBSITE.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE VOTING ON. THIS IS THE

PROJECT. >> BUT THEY CAN CHANGE IT .

THAT THEY CAN DO THAT. MY POINT WAS THAT THERE TIME IT INTO THE CHARGER SO NO FUTURE CHARTER CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT BOND

[03:50:06]

OUT LAST TIME WAS IS THERE A WAY TO MAYBE PUT IN THERE THAT IF WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITHIN FIVE YEARS THAT THE AUTHORIZATION WILL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE ?

>> I DON'T THINK BARD ADDRESSED THAT.

>> I DO NOT SEE THAT. IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO HAVE A CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON BONDS WHICH I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT TOO.

BECAUSE YEAH, I MEAN I WOULD BE OKAY IF THE AUTHORITY WAS TIME-LIMITED. SO THAT YOU ARE NOT FORCED TO ISSUE, BUT IF HE DID NOT ISSUE YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE THE AUTHORITY. I THINK THAT KIND OF ACCOMPLISHES SOME OF THE GOAL, NOT REALLY TOTALLY, BUT IT EVENTS US FROM GETTING IN A SITUATION WHERE HAVING TO ISSUE AND WE ARE NOT FINANCIALLY PRUDENT AT THAT TIME.

THEN. >> HOLD ON --

>> YOU HAD YOUR TURN. SO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE WHO DID NOT SEE THE MEMO, SO FIRST OF ALL, THE TWO EXAMPLES THAT THE MAYOR SHARED ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THIS I MEAN, THE PREVIOUS CITY MANAGER USED ROAD BONDS AND THAT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO EVER HAPPEN AND THIS WOULD NOT PREVENT, WOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THAT, EVEN IF IT WAS IN THE CHARTER, BECAUSE HE JUST DID IT AND WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO DO IT AND WE ARE AWARE THAT THE AG TOLD US THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED, BUT WHAT ARE TOLD US WAS THAT THE DANGER IF YOU GET TOO SPECIFIC ON THIS, HE SAID THAT IF YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY FLEXIBILITY TO SHIFT BOND MONEY BETWEEN VARIOUS PROJECTS IF CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE OVER TIME. AND SO IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT PREVENTS GOING FORWARD OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT YOU ARE NOT EXPECTING, IF COSTS COME IN HIGHER-THAN-EXPECTED, THOSE KIND OF THINGS WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM ISSUING THE BOND FROM DOING THAT. AND SO AND THEN IF A SITUATION OCCURS WHERE BONDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY FLEXIBILITY TO USE MONEY ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS LISTED FOR INSTANCE WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO USE THE MONEY TO BUILD THE SPINE ROAD WHICH WE DID. I MEAN, THAT WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO HAPPEN, SO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE APPROVED AS A COUNCIL WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO BECAUSE IT WOULD BE LIMITED. AND THEN YOU SAID WITH THE TYPICAL TENURE CALL ON MUNICIPAL BONDS THE CITY COULD BE IN A POSITION TO PAY DEBT SERVICE ON MONDAY THAT CANNOT BE ISSUED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND COULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE AND WASTEFUL. SO THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE TO WHERE SAY WE HAVE TO REPRIORITIZE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SPEND THE MONEY AND WE WOULD END UP COSTING THE TAXPAYERS A LOT OF MONEY. HE GOES ON IN A LOT OF DETAIL BUT BASICALLY HE LAID IT OUT CLEARLY AND VERY WELL AT LEAST TO ME THAT IT IS REALLY DANGEROUS IF YOU GET SO SPECIFIC THAT YOU REALLY LIMIT YOUR ABILITY TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT, WHAT MAY BE RIGHT IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU WERE SO SPECIFIC THAT YOU DO NOT SEE INTO THE FUTURE, YOU DID NOT SEE COUNTY ROAD 137 NEEDING TO BE REPAVED FOR INSTANCE, SO YOU ARE FORBIDDEN BY YOUR OWN RULES TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THOSE KIND OF CHANGES, AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATED THE MEMO. I THINK THAT EDUCATED ME A LOT ON WHAT I THINK IS APPROPRIATE AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO. THAT IS WHY I AM IN FAVOR OF IT. IT WAS REALLY HELPFUL TO TALK THROUGH AND HELP US APPROVE AND UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE DANGERS AND BEING SO SPECIFIC TO DO SOMETHING THAT MAY BE THE BETTER DECISION IN THE FUTURE.

>> WHAT HE MEANS WHEN HE IS TALKING ABOUT PHASES WITH A FAST GROWING COMMUNITY LIKE WE ARE FAST GROWING AND YOU HAVE PHASES YOU HAVE TO DO AND GET LOST IN ONE OF THOSE PHASES OR DELAYED AND THEN IT THROWS THE WHOLE PROJECT OFF IT THROWS YOUR TIMELINE OFF.

>> ROUND TWO.

[03:55:11]

SO I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT YOU MAY GET SO STRONG THAT FUTURE COUNCIL, WHICH WE WILL NOT BE A PART OF, THEY WILL BE LIKE THAT IS SO ONEROUS THAT ARE KNOW WHY ANYONE PUT THAT IN THE CHARTER.

AND THEN THEY WON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY. SO I WOULD CAUTION THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THE MOTION ON THE TABLE THAT WE DO TO NOT ADOPT THIS, MOVE FORWARD AND COUNCIL CAN THEN GO TO THE VOTERS AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE DONE. HE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE LANGUAGE AND GIVE AUTHORITY TO THE COUNCIL BUT UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS AROUND IT. SO THAT IS WHY YOU ELECT THE PEOPLE THAT YOU ENTRUST TO DO THE JOB AND DO AND SPEND THAT MONEY AS WISELY AS POSSIBLE FOR THE CITIZENS BECAUSE IT MATTERS.

JUST PASS THAT YOU CANNOT ISSUE GEOS OR SEALS WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL AND IF YOU DO YOU HAVE TO PAY IT OUT OF -- YOU CANNOT RAISE THE INS RATE AND HAVE TO PAY IT OUT OF THE SALES TAX OR

THE GENERAL REVENUE FUNDS? >> NO, I THINK THE LAW IS STILL THE SAME THAT THE VOTERS CAN BY PETITION FORCE IT TO -- THE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATIONS TO GO TO AN ELECTION, THAT IS STILL THE SAME, BUT I DON'T RECALL WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

REFERRING TO, IF MEMORY SERVES, THAT IF YOU SEND IT TO THE VOTERS AND THE VOTE FAILS, THE COUNCIL THEN CANNOT ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME. SO, HERE IS WHAT I HEARD THAT HIGHER COST MAY GET US IN TROUBLE AND WE COULD COME IN AT $12 MILLION AND IT TAKES WAY FLEXIBILITY. WE WOULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND WE CANNOT SEE INTO THE FUTURE. I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S STAFF CANNOT HANDLE YOUR ASKING FOR $100 MILLION TO BUILD ROADS AND WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT LATER. WELL, WHERE DID THEY COME UP WITH THE $100 MILLION AT? SURELY SOMEBODY IS GOING THIS ROAD HERE TO DO THIS MANY LINEAR FEET OR THE ESTIMATED COST AND THE ACCESS TO WHAT ENGINEERS DO. THERE WAS A BUCKET OF MONEY AND WE SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THIS ROAD INTERSECTION OVER HERE, WHICH THE BOND PEOPLE PASSED A BOND TO DO CERTAIN ROAD PROJECTS, AND NOW ARE NOT DOING SOME OF THEM BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO DO A SPINE ROAD INSTEAD. SO AS MUCH IS A REALLY LIKES TO SAY THAT, THEY VOTED FOR LIVE OAK AND 1660, LIMB OR LUPINE 79 OR 1660 79 NORTH, 1660 AND 79 SOUTH AND ONE OF THE VOTERS GOT, THEY GOT A RIGHT TURN LANE $70 MILLION GONE, THEY GOT A RIGHT TURN LANE AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF BROKEN PROMISES AND ALL THAT I HEAR IS, LET'S JUST VOTE NO AND WE WILL GO OUT THERE AND DO A SALES JOB, SO I THINK YOU COULD BE AFRAID OF WHAT THE VOTERS WANT, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE I WOULD RATHER THE CITY COME OUT AND IT IS A $20 MILLION ROAD AND IT COMES IN AT 15. THE OTHER 15 THEY CANNOT SPEND RIGHT NOW. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY DON'T OR GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL DOES NOT OVER INFLATE THE COST OF PROJECTS TO GET US TO VOTE FOR THEM SO THAT THEN THEY HAVE MORE MONEY TO SPEND, BUT WE ARE GOING TO DEBATE AND DEBATE ON THIS, BUT GOVERNMENT CONTINUES TO BE INEFFICIENT WITH OUR MONEY AND I THINK THAT HUTTO IS A POSTER CHILD FOR BOND MONEY. YOU ARE RIGHT, THERE ARE SOME THINGS REALLY FAR OUT THE REALM OF BEING DONE, BUT IT WOULD A LOT EASIER IF IT WAS HEY, THAT MONEY COULD ONLY GO TO LIVE OAK BUT INSTEAD WE DEBATE ARE WE GOING TO DO LIVE OAK? SHOULD WE DO LIVE OAK? WELL, IT WAS ON THE WEBSITE I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THAT. IT WOULD BE A LOT BETTER IF YOU HAD THE BOND MEASURE AND SAID YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO DO IT FROM 1660 THROUGH CITY HALL AND NOW GO GET IT DONE. INSTEAD WE HAVE DEBATES. BUT -- I DON'T PLAN ON WINNING THIS. ANYWAY -- ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? ROUND TWO? PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[04:00:05]

COUNCILMEMBER THORTON? COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON?

>> COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOTT? MAYOR SCHNEIDER?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON? >> MOTION PASSES 6-1.

BOARD AND COMMISSION. IT CLARIFIES THAT THE BOARD AND COMMISSION SHALL ELECT A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR EVERY OTHER YEAR HAVING THE SELECTION NO LATER THAN AUGUST 31 AND THE NEXT SLIDE IS CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR MUST BE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OR COMMISSION FOR WHICH THEY WILL SERVE AS CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND LOOKED BY THE BOARD MEMBERS OR COMMISSIONERS. EACH BOARD OR COMMISSION SHALL HAVE A TWO TERM LIMIT TO SERVING AS THE CHAIR OR VICE CHAIR AND CITY MANAGER CREATES THE ON BOARDING HANDBOOK FOR THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION.

SECTION 12.1. YOU WANT TO SEE ALL OF -- IS THAT EVERYTHING

ON THE LIPS >> THAT IS EVERYTHING ON 12.01. THE NEXT THING IS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUST TO CHANGE THEIR -- THE FORM REQUIREMENT IS FOUR.

>> AND THAT IS THE END OF THE SESSION? CAN YOU GO BACK TO -- YEAH, SO I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE HAVE PEOPLE APPOINTED TO THE BOARDS OF COMMISSIONS EITHER TWO OR THREE YEARS AND IT OVERLAPS BUT THEN BECAUSE IT SAYS SHALL ELECT. RIGHT NOW THEY DO IT EVERY YEAR. SO IF WE GO TO EVERY OTHER YEAR AND THEN THE PERSON LEAVES, IS THAT SOME TRIGGER THAT THEN THEY WOULD -- IS THAT SHALL THEY MUST DO IT AT THAT FREQUENCY OR A YEAR? SO I AM WONDERING WHY THE CHANGE BECAUSE I ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE WE SAY EVERY YEAR, SO WHY WOULD WE PUT IN SAYING EVERY OTHER YEAR IN THE CHARTER THAT IS FIRST IN WHAT IS IN OUR POLICY? EVERY YEAR AND THEN PART D OR WHEREVER I WILL STRIKE THAT OUT. AND I HAVE SERVED ON SEVERAL OF THEM. THEY WOULD SAY HE WANTS TO BE CHAIR BECAUSE THERE ARE CITIZENS THAT REALLY DO NOT WANT COMFORTABLE TO GET IN FRONT OF THE CHAIR MEETING.

AND IF COUNCIL HAS A PROBLEM THEY CAN ALWAYS REMOVE THAT PERSON. I KNOW WHY WE NEED TO HAVE THE CHARTER IF THAT IS GETTING ONCE AGAIN TRYING AND SO , I WOULD SAY, DON'T DO D AND A I DON'T THINK ANY OF IT IS

NECESSARY. >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY THE MAYOR. >> GO BACK TO THE FIRST PAGE .

AS COUNCILMEMBER CLARK SAID, THEY ELECT A NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR EVERY YEAR ALREADY SO EVERY OTHER YEAR MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. GO TO THE NEXT PAGE. SECTION C, I CANNOT FATHOM A CONDITION WHEN THAT WOULD EVEN HAPPEN. THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ARE ALWAYS -- IT IS LIKE YOU COULD HAVE THE CHAIR AS A MEMBER OF HPC OR SOMETHING? THAT JUST MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

I DON'T GET WHERE C EVEN CAME FROM. D, THEY ARE TERM LIMITED EVERY YEAR, IF THEY ARE NOT A GOOD CHAIR THAN THEIR FELLOW PEOPLE SAY WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE CHAIR ANYMORE, WE WILL TAKE YOU OUT IN THE NEXT YEAR AND THEN E, I DO NOT THINK WE NEED TO BURDEN THE CHARTER WITH E, WE COULD CERTAINLY GIVE DIRECTION TO THE CITY MANAGER THAT SAYS YOU NEED TO DO THIS, WE COULD PUT ANY POLICY HANDBOOK OR ELSEWHERE, I REALLY DO NOT SEE A NEED TO PUT IT IN THE ACTUAL CHARTER. IT IS LIKE MAKING MINOR CHANGES TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, YOU CAN

HANDLE A LOT OF THAT STUFF. >> THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT OF

WHEN I READ OUT THESE. >> WHAT ABOUT THE NEXT PAGE?

>> I SECONDED YOUR THING BECAUSE --

>> IT WAS THE WHOLE SECTION, IT WAS INCLUDING THE SECTIONS.

>> I SECOND YOU ON THAT BECAUSE TO ME PNC IS TOO IMPORTANT. I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE A MEETING MAN TO HAVE FOUR PEOPLE. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THEY ARE DOING TO WHERE TO ME IT IS ALMOST LIKE A COUNCIL, NEED TO HAVE THE WHOLE GROUP, AS MANY

OF THEM . >> DIDN'T WE SAY TO PUT FORTH TO THE COUNCIL TO DROP IT TO FOUR?

>> IT'S WE DID, IT MAKES A CONSISTENT BETWEEN COUNSEL.

>> WHAT IS IT TODAY? IT IS FIVE TODAY?

>> IT IS FOUR. WE ARE MAKING IT B FOR IMPLICITLY BECAUSE

[04:05:04]

>> LAST COUNCIL MEETING, COUNCILMEMBER CLARK ASKED, IS IT FIVE OR FOUR? IT IS FOUR. WE ARE PUTTING IT IN WRITING.

FOUR, WE ARE ALREADY DOING IT AT FOUR, THIS IS JUST

MEMORIALIZING IT. >> I WILL CHANGE MY MOTION TO NO CHANGES TO 12.01 AND ACCEPT CHANGES TO 12.04 AS PRESENTED.

>> OKAY. >> DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE,

PLEASE CALL THE BOAT. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON ?

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR?

>> 1040. >> MAYOR SNYDER?

>> AYE PER >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK? COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON? COUNCILMEMBER COMPTON?

>> NAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT.

>> AYE. >> I LOST COUNT, WAS AT SEVEN? MOTION PASSES, 6-1. THE ETHICS COMMITTEE IN THE FIRST SECTION , CHARTER READS NOW THAT YOU IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN THE ETHICS ORDINANCE , THEY WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT INCLUDES PROCEDURES FOR FILING OF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AND CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WAS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED IN CHAPTER 171 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, BUT TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 171 DOES NOT USE THE WORD PRIVATE FINANCIAL INTEREST, IT USES SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. AND THEN THEY WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR, YOUR ETHICS ORDINANCE APPLIES TO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS. AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE . IT TALKS ABOUT ENFORCE THE ETHICS ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, CITY COUNCIL SHALL AUTHORIZE THE BOARD AS FOLLOWS. THIS IS ALREADY IN YOUR CHARTER, THE COMMITTEE WANTED TO NUMBER IT SO THAT IT IS CLEAR WHAT THIS SECTION IS BECAUSE IT IS HARD TO READ. AT THE END OF YOUR CHARTER, YOU ALREADY HAVE A PROVISION THAT YOU CAN RENUMBER STUFF , I WAS JUST GOING TO POINT OUT THAT YOU CAN DO THIS WITHOUT THE CHARTER AMENDMENT.

SO THAT WILL NOT BE ON THE CHARTER ORDINANCE BALLOT. SO THAN THE NEXT ONE IS TAKING THE PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST AND USING THE WORD SUBSTANTIAL . ADDING IT TO, INSTEAD OF EMPLOYEE, IT IS APPOINTED OFFICIAL, THE EMPLOYEES HAVE THEIR OWN PERSONNEL POLICIES AND THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE ETHICS AND THAT IS LIMITED BY YOUR CITY MANAGER. SO THAT CLEARS THAT UP. AND THEN THEY ALSO ADDED THAT THEY REVIEW THE ETHICS ORDINANCE ANNUALLY. AND THEN I ADDED THE NEPOTISM POINTED OUT BY COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON LAST MEETING .

>> THAT WAS ME. >> SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, LAST MEETING, THAT THIS IS A STATE THAT OUR CHARTER CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW. WE ARE PREEMPTED ANYWAY. YOU COULD VOTE TO ACTUALLY REMOVE THIS FROM THE CHARTER.

>> I DON'T THINK IT HURTS IT TO BE THERE BUT MY QUESTION IS, YOU'RE CHANGING THE ORDERING? BECAUSE BEFORE IT WAS NUMBER C

AND NOW IT IS F. >> RIGHT, AT THE END OF YOUR CHARTER YOU HAVE A PROVISION THAT YOU CAN RE-LETTER, RENUMBER, CORRECT SPELLING ERRORS, DO ALL THIS STUFF. SO IN LAYING THIS STUFF OUT, AFTER THE BALLOT COMES BACK, WE WILL MARRY EVERYTHING UP PURSUANT TO THAT CHARTER AUTHORITY.

THE ETHICS CHANGES PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. ACCEPT AN ETHICS CARD AS PRESENTED, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR? COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT? MAYOR SNYDER? MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON? CANCEL NEVER?? COUNCILMEMBER

[04:10:02]

THORNTON? >> AYE .

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASHAS, 7-0. >> THERE IS ONE LAST ETHICS, WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS, THE PROHIBITIONS , BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THIS ONE

INDIVIDUALLY. AND THEN -- >> WHAT DID WE DECIDE ON THE

OTHER ONE? >> IF THE PENALTIES PART WE

HAVE TO FIX. >> THAN THE PENALTIES IS THE -- IT ALREADY READS THAT IF YOU VIOLATE THIS PROHIBITION , THAT YOU ARE INELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION TO A POSITION IN THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. AND THEN THEY CLARIFIED IF THE PERSON IS AN ELECTED OFFICER, OR HOLD AN APPOINTED POSITION OR IS AN EMPLOYEE OR CURRENT VOLUNTEER, THEY IMMEDIATELY FORFEIT THE OFFICE OR POSITION EACH PERSON HOLDS. SO, THIS LANGUAGE IS ALREADY IN YOUR CHARTER UNDER 1309 BE. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WANTED TO CLARIFY IT

. >> YEAH, BUT WE ARE ADDING IN -- GO BACK TO THE SLIDE. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, ONE MORE SLIDE. THAT IS WHERE WE GET INTO , WE ARE ADDING IN ALL THE THINGS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO NOT HAVE JUST EVERY TIME SOMEONE GETS ARRESTED, THERE IS A FALSE ACCUSATION, EVERY TIME SOMEONE IS MAD AT SOMEBODY AND WE DO NOTHING BUT FIRE EMPLOYEES AND VOTING OFF PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL. I THINK IS IMPORTANT WE SOMEHOW ADDRESS THIS STUFF AND I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS IN MY MIND, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CHARTER. AND IF IT IS, THEN I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PUT IT IN THERE BUT DO NOT HAVE A PENALTY. SO I THINK THAT IS MORE FOR AN ORDINANCE OR --

>> COULD WE PUT IT IN THE COUNCIL PROTOCOLS? COULD THAT

BE SOMEWHERE? >> YEAH.

>> AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF , YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF , FOR VIOLATING COUNCIL PROTOCOLS, YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF REPRIMAND OR PROHIBITION THAT HAPPENS IF YOU VIOLATE

COUNCIL PROTOCOLS? >> LIKE A PROCESS?

>> YEAH. I ACTUALLY THINK ALL THIS IS IN OUR COUNCIL PROTOCOLS, RMI NOT RIGHT HERE PUT HIM?

>> WE ACTUALLY DO NOT NEED IT HERE.

>> THAN THE PERSONNEL POLICY IS GOING TO, THAT IS GOING TO BE WHAT WE VOTE ON THAT, THAT IS WHAT JAMES HAS TO FOLLOW, THE

CITY MANAGER HAS TO FOLLOW. >> OR STAFF, YEAH.

>> YEAH, THE MORE WE CAN KEEP IT SIMPLE FOR THE NUMBER OF ITEMS ON THE BALLOT, THE BETTER.

>> YEAH. >> IN MY OPINION. AND NOT HAVE

A LAUNDRY LIST OF 20 THINGS. >> COULD WE HAVE SOMETHING IN HERE, THOUGH, THAT TALKS ABOUT PROHIBITIONS FOR VIOLATING COUNCIL PROTOCOLS? I MEAN, COULD YOU DRAFT SOME SORT OF

REVENGE OR -- >> YOU WOULD PUT THAT UNDER YOUR COUNSEL SECTION THAT VIOLATION OF THE COUNCIL PROTOCOLS SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF OFFICE, IS THAT WHAT

YOU ARE -- >> I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE REMOVAL OF OFFICE BUT, I AM SAYING, COULD YOU DRAFT LEGALITY FOR VIOLATION OF COUNCIL PROTOCOLS? THAT WE COULD CONSIDER TO PUT INTO THE CHARTER?

>> I DON'T OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IF I CAN DO THAT. I KNOW YOU CAN PUT IN YOUR COUNSEL PROTOCOLS ENFORCEMENT . YOU CAN PUT IN YOUR CHARTER THE COUNCIL PROTOCOL SHALL BE ENFORCED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT -- >> I FEEL LIKE THERE HAS GOT TO

BE SOMETHING STRONGER. >> YOU HAVE A RECALL PETITION, REALLY THAT IS IT. JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE TWO COUNCILMEMBERS MAY FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH SOMETHING AND FIGHT, YOU CAN'T THEN GO, OH, BUT YOU LOOKED AT ME SIDE EYES AND THAT IS DISCUSSING -- I INTERRUPTED EARLIER. THAT IS A VIOLATION OF COUNCIL PROTOCOL, LET'S REMOVE HIM.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK AND I HAVE BEEN ARGUING SINCE WE ARE

AN EDC. >> SINCE YOU ALL WERE ON THE

PLAYGROUND. >> THAT IS MY WHOLE THING, IS I DO NOT WANT TO -- I FOLLOW TIKTOK'S WHERE THERE ARE SOME CRAZINESS ON COUNCILS AND WE HAVE HAD OUR THINGS BEFORE. BUT

NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT -- >> THERE ARE CRAZIER COUNCILS,

[04:15:05]

YES. >> IF YOU GET TO A POINT WHERE EVERY TIME FOR PEOPLE OR FIVE PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE WHAT SOMEONE DID, LET'S SAY SOMEONE GETS ELECTED AND YOU DON'T LIKE THE PERSON , BUT THE PUBLIC ELECTED THEM, YOU'RE LIKE, HERE WE GO.

THEN YOU SIT THERE AND FIVE OF YOU GET TOGETHER, THE FIRST TIME ONE LITTLE THING, YOU VOTE THEM OFF, THEN WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN? THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE RECALLS AND JUST CHAOS WHEN SOMETIMES I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AND SAY, LOOK, I TALKED TO -- THE ONE THING I HOPE PEOPLE SAY IS THAT I TRIED MY HARDEST TO STICK TO THE LETTER OF THINGS WHETHER IT WAS GOOD OR BAD, ALL THE TIME. AND I AM LIKE, THAT IS WHAT THE RULES SAY, FOLLOW THE RULES. CHANGE THE RULES. BUT DO NOT VOTE PEOPLE OFF EVERY TIME SOMETHING DOESN'T GO RIGHT.

>> WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE PROTOCOLS, THEN? WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE PROHIBITIONS OR COUNSEL PROTOCOLS IF YOU JUST SAY, WELL, I MEAN, I AM NOT SAYING YOU VOTE PEOPLE OFF BUT, SO THERE IS NOTHING THAT HOLDS US ACCOUNTABLE?

>> AND TO THAT POINT, HOW CAN YOU REALLY POLICE YOURSELF? IF WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR UPHOLDING OUR OWN PROTOCOLS, HOW CAN WE POLICE OURSELVES? I DON'T THINK ANY OF IT REALLY

MAKES SENSE. >> NOT TO BRING UP A SORE SUBJECT BUT IT WAS THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL FELT THAT I HAVE VIOLATED THE PROTOCOLS AND I WAS REPRIMANDED AND WE GOT TO PUT AN AD IN THE PAPER IN THE TAYLOR PRESS FOR SAYING THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE THINK AT CERTAIN BANKS OR MAYBE THEY DO, MAYBE THEY DON'T, WE DID NOT FIGURE THAT OUT BUT THERE IS A PROCESS, IT IS ALL IN THE PROTOCOLS. AND I

MEAN, -- >> THAT IS A COOL STORY. SO, THERE IS NO , LIKE, THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN PUT FOR COUNSEL PROTOCOLS LIKE VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE

CHARTER? >> UNDER YOUR COUNSEL SECTION, YOU CAN PUT A VIOLATION OF THE COUNCIL PROTOCOLS SHALL CONSTITUTE WHATEVER YOU WANT YOUR REMEDY TO BE. EITHER REPRIMAND OR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE OR --

>> WITHHOLDING SALARY. >> YEAH, WITHHOLDING SALARY.

THAT IS A GOOD ONE. >> I NEED TO LOOK AT OTHER COUNCILS AND SEE WHAT THEY HAVE.

>> SO WE CAN HAVE IT COME BACK IN THE NEXT MEETING.

>> WE ARE GETTING TOO CLOSE TO THE END OF THE TIME.

>> WE COULD STILL HAVE IT COME BACK IN THE NEXT MEETING.

>> IT HAS GOT TO BE WRITTEN IN SOMETHING WE CAN PUT ON THE BALLOT AT THE NEXT MEETING, RIGHT? IT HAS GOT TO BE DONE.

>> FINAL BALLOT LANGUAGE FOR THE NEXT MEETING BUT IT IS SOMETHING YOU CAN ALWAYS PUT IN YOUR PROTOCOLS, AND GET IT TO WHERE IT IS VETTED AND THEN PUT IT ON THE BALLOT THE NEXT TIME.

>> THAT WAS A COOL STORY I WAS TRYING TO TELL, AS I THINK WE HAVE AN ENFORCEMENT AND WE CAN TAKE THE EXACT SAME ENFORCEMENT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON, ALREADY IN ACTION, WE CAN PUT IT IN THE CHARGER BUT WE ARE STARTING TO DUPLICATE A LOT OF THINGS WHERE WE HAVE ALL THIS AND SO THE REASON I GIVE THE

COOL STORIES IS BECAUSE -- >> IT WAS USED ON YOU.

>> WELL, THAT IS WHAT MADE IT COOL. BUT WE ARE SENDING THINGS TO THE BALLOT THAT ARE ALREADY --

>> THAT IS WHY I SAID, COOL STORY.

>> THEY ARE ALREADY IN PRACTICE SO EVENTUALLY WE ARE GOING TO STOP DOING A PERSONNEL POLICY AND IT JUST BE A CHARGER WITH

200 PAGES. >> I THINK THE ISSUE THEN WOULD BE, THOUGH, YOU NEED TO JUST STAY ON THE COUNCIL PROTOCOL BECAUSE WE ALSO CHANGED THE SEQUENCE OF HOW WE CONVERSATION AND RUN A MEETING , WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO, IF YOU DID THAT, THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY, WELL, IT IS IN THE PROTOCOL NOW, YOU HAVE TO WAIT THREE YEARS AND GO TO THE VOTERS TO CHANGE HOW YOU WANT TO RUN YOUR MEETING. THAT IS NOT A GOOD, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER REASON YOU HAVE FOR WHATEVER THING, I NEVER LOOK AT MAKING A CHANGE BECAUSE OF, LIKE I ALWAYS SAY, THE BODY TODAY, BUT WHAT WILL BE A FUTURE COUNSEL. I DON'T WANT TO HANDICAP A FUTURE COUNSEL FOR WHAT THIS COUNSEL THINKS TODAY BECAUSE WHO KNOWS IN FIVE YEARS WHAT THEY THINK. SO, YOU

KNOW. >> SO WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING RIGHT HERE WITH THE PROHIBITIONS?

>> YOU ARE ON THE PROHIBITION, YOUR CURRENT CHARGER FOR YOUR MAYOR'S CITY COUNCIL, THERE IS A PROVISION THAT SAYS IT HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST FIVE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE VIOLATED ANY EXPRESS PROHIBITION IN THIS CHARGER. SO YOU ALREADY HAVE A BROAD STATEMENT. SO WHATEVER YOU DO IN THIS PROHIBITION, YOU CAN USE THAT SECTION FOR COUNSEL TO TAKE ACTION. UNDER YOUR

CURRENT CHARTER. >> NO, BUT I WILL MAKE ONE.

>> I MOTION TO REMOVE 13.09. >> ARE YOU SAYING NO ACTION?

>> YEP, NO ACTION. >> SECOND.

>> COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT. SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK,

[04:20:02]

NO ACTION. A DISCUSSION? >> AND THEY GO BACK TO PAGE -- NO, ONE MORE, SORRY. I MEAN, I THINK SOME OF THE LISTS OF VARIOUS TYPES OF DISCRIMINATION IN THEIR ARE

STILL USEFUL TO ADD THERE. >> IT IS ALREADY IN THE CHARTER, THOUGH. IT IS ALREADY IN THE CITY ORDINANCES.

>> BUT WE ARE JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT, SO THE CHARTER IS THEN INCOMPLETE, REALLY. COMPARED TO THE CITY

ORDINANCES, I DON'T KNOW. >> THE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST YOUR CHARTER IS FOR SOMEBODY TO EITHER BE ABLE TO REMOVE SOMEBODY FROM COUNSEL , BECAUSE IT IS A PROHIBITION, OR A CITIZEN WOULD HAVE TO TAKE YOU TO COURT TO ENFORCE IT. SO YOUR ORDINANCES ARE MORE ENFORCEABLE THAN YOUR CHARTER.

FOR THE CITIZEN. >> BY THE WAY, THE DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE APPLIES TO HOUSING IN THE CITY. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO EVERYTHING. IT ONLY APPLIES TO VIOLATING SOMEBODY'S RIGHT TO BUY A HOUSE OFF OF THE MARKET.

IS HE HAS A HOUSE OUT THERE FOR SALE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THEY CAN'T BREAK THOSE RULES. THEY CAN'T NOT RENT AN APARTMENT TO SOMEBODY BECAUSE OF THOSE STATUSES. IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT DISCRIMINATION IN ANY OTHER PIECE , IT IS ONLY RELATED TO HOUSING. IT IS A VERY RESTRICTIVE ORDINANCE, SO WE DON'T HAVE IT AND AN

ORDINANCE. >> BECAUSE WE ARE BOUND BY -- IT IS KIND OF LIKE AN AUTOMATIC THING NOW FEDERALLY.

>> EVEN IT WASN'T AN ORDINANCE, IT IS IN FEDERAL LAW

SO -- >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IS A ANOTHER ONE TO PUT ON THE BALLOT THAT IS ALREADY ORDINANCE .

>> MY FEELING WITH THE ORDINANCE WAS THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO STATE SOME THINGS IN THE ORDINANCE EVEN IF THEY WERE IMPLICITLY COVERED BY FEDERAL LAW. I KIND OF FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT THIS ONE. THAT IS HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT.

>> GO BACK TO THE NEXT PAGE? IF WE LEAVE THAT THEN --

>> IF YOU DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING ON B, I AM OKAY WITH

THAT. >> HOW DOES B -- IT STILL WOULD APPLY TO EVERYONE WITHOUT DUE PROCESS EVENLY IT IS WRITTEN NOW. IS AS ANY PERSON WHO EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR WITH OTHERS WILLFULLY VIOLATE ANY PROVISIONS OF THE FOREGOING SECTION AND SECTION 1 SAYS NO PERSON SHALL BE APPOINTED OR MOVED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN RESPECT TO ANY CITY POSITION, IF YOU GOT A CASE AND IT SAYS RACE, , POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OR AFFILIATIONS, IT DOES NOT HAVE THE ADDITIONAL ONES YOU ARE SAYING BUT IT ALREADY HAS ALL OF THOSE WHICH WHEN WE GIVE OUR EXAMPLES OF AN EEOC COMPLAINT, THAT ALWAYS WOULD ALREADY APPLY TO AT LEAST RACE AND , IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO AGE AND , I MEAN, YOU'RE JUST OPENING UP MORE LAWSUITS POTENTIALLY. BY PUTTING IT IN THERE.

>> I SEE WHAT COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON IS SAYING, THOUGH. I

SEE THAT. >> IF WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT OPENING OURSELVES UP TO LAWSUITS THAT ARE FRIVOLOUS BECAUSE THE SECTION IS BROKEN, THEN THE MOTION SHOULD BE TO REMOVE THE SECTION, NOT TO LEAVE IT WITHOUT ANY EDITS.

BECAUSE EITHER IT IS FLAWED AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED AND IT IS INCOMPLETE AND COULD BE IMPROVED, IT TO BE BOTH, BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE IT, I STILL THINK WE SHOULD AUGMENT THE LIST AND MAKE THE LIST MORE COMPLETE.

>> I AGREE. >> DO WE SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE WHO VIOLATES PROVISIONS OF THE FOREGOING SECTIONS AS PRESENTED BY THE CHARTER REVIEW AND IS FOUND BY -- BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME DUE PROCESS.

>> I DON'T DISAGREE THERE IS A FLAW IN THAT ARGUMENT, I AM JUST SAYING IF YOU'RE LEAVING IT IN, BASICALLY , SORRY, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE LIST AGAIN? SO WE ARE ADDING NATIONAL

ORIGIN. SO BASICALLY, -- >> AND DISABILITY.

>> RIGHT NOW IF NOTHING CHANGES AND IF YOU DISCRIMINATE BASED ON , THAT IS A PROBLEM, RIGHT? BUT IF YOU DISCRIMINATE BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS LITHUANIAN, THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM. SO THAT IS WHAT I DON'T LIKE, THAT THAT IS OKAY , AND I THINK THAT APPLIES ALL ACROSS THE BOARD THERE ON ALL THOSE DIFFERENT ONES. OH, YOU ARE DIVORCED? YOU ARE SCREWED, YOU'RE OUT OF HERE BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE DIVORCED PEOPLE. I AM REALLY, YOU KNOW, GUNG THAT MARRIAGE , YOU KNOW -- I MEAN -- THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF THINGS. A WHOLE LIST.

>> I SEE THAT. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT. NUMBER ONE IS, IT IS LIMITED TO APPOINTMENTS AND REMOVALS , IF WE AS A COUNSELOR REMOVE SOMEBODY FROM PNC BECAUSE THEY ARE LITHUANIAN, THAT IS PROHIBITED, IF WE ARE

[04:25:01]

EITHER ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE. >> YEAH, I DON'T HAVE A

PROBLEM. >> SO WHO MADE THE MOTION AND IS THERE A FRIENDLY MOVEMENT POSSIBLE HERE?

>> I THINK IT IS B. >> YEAH, THE B IS WHAT IS

THROWING ME OFF. SO, YES. >> TAKE NO ACTION ON 13 09B.

NO, BUT 13 09B AS IN THE ORIGINAL CHARTER IS STILL BROKEN. IT SAYS ANY PERSON WHO EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR WITH OTHERS WILLFULLY VIOLATES ANY PROVISIONS OF THE FOREGOING SECTION 1309, WHICH WE ARE JUST GOING TO ADD ALL THESE NEW DESCRIPTIONS, SHALL BE INELIGIBLE FOR A PAYMENT OR ELECTION TO POSITION IN THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND SUCH PERSON IS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME, THEY SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY FORFEIT THE OFFICE OR POSITION.

THAT THAT WOULD NOT APPLY TO ELECTED PEOPLE OR IS AN ELECTED PERSON CONSIDERED AN OFFICER? IT STILL DOES NOT PROTECT THE POLICE BECAUSE IT DOES SAY EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY.

SO, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW I DO NOT THINK IT AFFECTS THE ELECTED PEOPLE BECAUSE IT JUST SAYS AN OFFICER WHICH WOULD BE I GUESS THE EXECUTIVE STAFF AND CITY MANAGER, WHICH WE GAVE THE EXAMPLE IF WE HAVE TO TERMINATE SOMEONE AND THEY FIRE -- FILE A COMPLAINT WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO PROTECT HIM OR HER TO DUE PROCESS TO SEE IF THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE FINDING.

>> WOULDN'T YOU SAY TO NOT INCLUDE?

>> THEN THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN HAVING A PENALTY AT THAT

POINT. >> I THINK WE MIGHT BE OVER READING THIS BECAUSE OF THEY GOT THE CHARTER, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE CHARTER IT IS WEIRD, YOU'RE TAKING PARAGRAPHS, YOU HAVE THE FIRST ONE , WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE, ALL THIS MAKES SENSE, YOU ADD ALL THE IN THERE, NO PERSON, YOU CAN REMOVE PEOPLE BECAUSE OF WHO THEY ARE. TWO, NO PERSON WHO SEEKS PROMOTION, MONEY AND WHATEVER PROMISES, NUMBER THREE, NO CITY OFFICER, CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE SHALL ORALLY SOLICIT OR ANYTHING, OKAY, FOUR, NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY WHO RECEIVES COMPENSATIONS SHALL MAKE, SOLICIT OR BASICALLY WORK WITH SOMEONE ELSE. THERE YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY CANDIDATES, YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT BASICALLY EMPLOYEES, PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND HOW THEY RUN FOR OFFICE. THE PENALTIES ARE ALL ABOUT ANY PERSON PREVIOUSLY , WOULD BE INELIGIBLE. IF YOU ARE RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND YOU ARE WORKING WITH CITY STAFF TO RAISE MONEY , YOU WOULD THEN BE INELIGIBLE

FOR -- >> OF THE FOREGOING SECTIONS, 13 09A , I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THAT APPLIES TO THE

SECTIONS 13.0 9A. >> RATE, WHICH IS JUST THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO APPOINT OR REMOVE BASED ON WHO YOU ARE.

>> RIGHT, BUT MY POINT IS IF YOU REMOVE SOMEONE , THE CITY MANAGER REMOVES SOMEONE BECAUSE OF JOB PERFORMANCE AND THEY FAILED AN EEOC COMPLAINT OR WE AS A COUNCIL REMOVE SOMEONE FROM A BOARD AND THEN THEY FOUND SOME COMPLAINTS SAYING YOU REMOVE ME BECAUSE I WAS A WOMAN, NOT BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING ON THE BOARD, I AM NOT ATTENDING ENOUGH OR WHATEVER , MY POINT IS, THAN THE PENALTIES AND SAYS THEY WILL IMMEDIATELY BE REMOVED , THEY WILL BE INELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION. SO THAT IS MY PROBLEM, IS WHERE IS THE DUE PROCESS FOR ANY OF THOSE?

>> WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY, IF YOU'RE CONVICTED OF? IS THAT

WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? >> THAT IS WHAT I AM THINKING, JUST LIKE WE HAVE CRIMINAL, YOU HAVE TO BE CONVICTED OF AN ETHICS VIOLATION, WOULD THAT COME BY WAY OF COUNSEL BY A VOTE OF FIVE THAT HAS COME FROM CHARGES FROM THE ETHICS COMMITTEE FIRST TO COUNSEL BUT THEN ACCEPTED BY A SUPER

MAJORITY OF COUNSEL? >> YEAH, SO ONCE INVESTIGATED BY THE ETHICS COMMITTEE , AN INVESTIGATIONAL HAPPEN -- COME ON, LET'S DO SOME LEGALESE ON THAT LAST SENTENCE. UPON INVESTIGATION BY THE ETHICS COMMITTEE, AND --

>> ACCEPTED BY SUPER MAJORITY OF COUNSEL.

>> YES, PERFECT. >> LET ME THROW THIS WRINKLE IN

THERE. >> NO WRINKLES. I IRONED IT

OUT. >> IS GIVING THE CITY MANAGER THE ABILITY TO PAY A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WITH ANY EMPLOYEE UP TO 50,000 IF IT IS BUDGETED. AND SO POTENTIALLY, WE WOULD NEVER KNOW WHAT IS COMING. HAVING LIVED THROUGH SOME OF

[04:30:01]

OF, RIGHT? >> DOES COUNSEL NOT GET NOTIFICATION WHEN THEY GO TO THE ETHICS COMMITTEE?

>> ONLY ONE THAT WE PAY TAX DOLLARS WITH . THE REST OF

THEM, TML PAYS. >> SO COUNCILMEMBER , THE ETHICS ORDINANCE IS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS JURISDICTION OVER.

>> I NEVER READ THIS LIKE YOU BROUGHT UP , HE STARTED TALKING

ABOUT THIS . >> IS SO THEY CAN ACT ON ANY

REFERRAL OR ANY COMPLAINT. >> CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS.

>> IT ALMOST, TO ME, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE OUT THE A , BUT IF YOU HAVE VA, YOU NEED SOME SORT OF PENALTY. BUT I DON'T THINK THE PENALTY NEEDS TO BE IN THERE THE WAY THIS IS.

>> RIGHT, YEAH. SO I THINK IN B, THE WORD EMPLOYEE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED BOTH TIMES IT IS IN THERE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IN CHARTER WE ARE GOING TO FIRE AN EMPLOYEE DIRECTLY OUT OF THE CHARTER. IF HE WANTED TO HAVE OTHER LANGUAGE ABOUT HAVING THE CITY MANAGER, YOU KNOW, CONDUCT A REVIEW AND REPORT TO COUNSEL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT , BUT NOT TO SAY THAT IF AN EMPLOYEE VIOLATES SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE GETTING FIRED IN THE CHARTER, I THINK IS PROBLEMATIC.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE VOLUNTEERS IN THERE, THAT IS UP TO COUNSEL, WE COULD REMOVE THE VOLUNTEERS, RIGHT?

>> THAT IS THE OTHER THING, IMMEDIATELY FORFEIT, THE OFFICE NEEDS TO BE REFERRED TO COUNSEL FOR REVIEW OF THEIR CONTINUED SERVICE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT, YEAH. SOMETHING NEEDS

TO CHANGE. >> I DON'T EVEN THINK ELECTED EMPLOYEE NEEDS TO BE THERE BECAUSE IF IT IS REALLY EGREGIOUS THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE A RECALL PROCEDURE THAT IS NOW

10% AND YOU HAVE 75 DAYS. >> HOW ABOUT THIS? I THINK THE EMPLOYEE HAS TO STAY BECAUSE OF A, NUMBER FOUR. BECAUSE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR EMPLOYEE. THE ISSUE WE ARE HAVING IS WITH 1309 A1. RIGHT? BECAUSE -- THE REST OF THEM ARE VERY DEFINITIVE AND WE CAN FIND THAT OUT AND SO MAYBE DOTTIE COMES BACK WITH A WAY TO SEPARATE A FROM B AND MAKE TWO, THREE, FOUR GO WITH THAT AND ALSO HAVE IN THERE THAT UPON 316 INVESTIGATION OR SOMETHING THAT COMES UP.

>> MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE JUST TO INTED OFFICIALS , BECAUSE EMPLOYEES ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE TAKEN -- IF THEY ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, THEY ARE GOING TO BE FILING UNDER THE PERSONNEL POLICIES, THERE ARE PROCEDURES OR THEY CAN GO DIRECTLY TO THE EEOC, SO THEY HAVE THEIR REMEDIES ALREADY.

THE VOLUNTEERS TYPICALLY ARE SPECIFIC TO WHATEVER PROGRAM IS GOING ON, SO IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO APPLY THIS CHARTER PROVISION TO A VOLUNTEER. SO MY RECOMMENDATION ONLY APPLIED TO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS, LEAVE THE LIST OF PROHIBITIONS IN THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE ADDED THAT TO THE ORDINANCE AND PUT ALL OF THEM IN THEIR. THAT ARE CURRENTLY GROUPS OR PERSONS THAT YOU CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST , AND SO THEN THE NEXT ONE, THE PROHIBITION , B , 13 09B , JUST

MAKE IT -- >> CAN YOU MOVE 13.09 A4 , NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY HAD THAT HAPPEN IN THE CITY, CAN WE JUST MOVE THAT TO THE CITY MANAGER THAT THAT IS PROHIBITED FROM THE CITY MANAGER? AND THEN I THINK EVERYTHING FLOWS FINE, I THINK THAT IS WHAT IS GETTING US MIXED UP IS -- THEN WE CAN TAKE THE EMPLOYEE PART OUT OF THE PENALTY. AND WE CAN MOVE THE NO OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE, BECAUSE IF THE CITY MANAGER GETS INVOLVED IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS OF PEOPLE RUNNING FOR OFFICE, WE NEED TO HAVE A WAY TO GO, THAT IS A MAJOR VIOLATION, YOU CAN'T BE DOING THAT, YESTERDAY PACK IN HERE BUT MAYBE THAT GOES TO THE CITY MANAGER, THEN WE TAKE OUT THE EMPLOYEE MENTIONED OUT OF THE

[04:35:02]

>> I THINK THE VOLUNTEERING POINT WE CAN HANDLE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE IT TIED LIKE CHARTER. MY CONCERN IS, THOUGH, HOW DO WE NOT GET IN TROUBLE WHEN WE HAVE 50 PEOPLE THAT CAME UP AND HAS AN YOU DID SOMETHING AND LEGALLY THERE IS NOT A WAY -- BUT RIGHT NOW IT SAYS, OH, IT IS A PENALTY SO I AM JUST SAYING, I AM JUST TRYING TO --

>> LET'S LOOK AT THE PENALTY AGAIN BECAUSE THE FIRST PART OF IT , IF YOU DO THAT, THEN YOU'RE INELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT OR ELECTION. SO THAT IS EASY TO ENFORCE BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY DOES THAT AND THEN THEY TRY TO FILE FOR OFFICE , WITHIN THE FOUR-YEAR PERIOD OF TIME, YOU JUST DO NOT PUT THEM ON THE BALLOT. BUT THE SECOND PART --

>> BUT DOTTIE, HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY DID IT?

>> THAT IS WHAT I AM GETTING TOO. THE SECOND PART OF IT IS, IF THERE AN ELECTED OFFICER OR HOLDS AN APPOINTING POSITION, INSTEAD OF HE AND SEE SHE SHALL IMMEDIATELY FORFEIT THE OFFICE, YOU FORFEIT THE OFFICE UPON A CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE AS IN AN ORDER FROM THE ETHICS COMMISSION. YOU TIE IT TO THAT.

>> HOW ABOUT WE DO THIS? YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE OUR MINDS HERE. HOW ABOUT WE GIVE DOTTIE SOME MORE IDEAS, WE UTILIZE THE CHAT -- ONLINE CHAT MESSAGE BOARD, AND WE KEEP HITTING THIS, WE BECAUSE WE WILL BE UNTIL 2:00 ON THIS. ARE YOU

GUYS OKAY WITH THAT? >> OR YOU COULD JUST EMAIL ME.

KNOW IF WE CAN GO BACK TO 13.01 REAL QUICK. ARE WE ALLOWED TO BRING UP SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON THIS? DID WE DECIDE WE ARE

OKAY TO DO THAT? >> YEAH, BECAUSE ANYTHING --

>> WE ARE THE NEED TO CHANGE A CHARTER OR CHANGE AN ORDINANCE.

IT IS CALLED PUBLICITY OF RECORDS AND DURING NORMAL OFFICE HOURS, ANY PERSON OR ANY DULY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PRESS OR OTHER NEWS MEDIA SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXAMINE ANY SUCH PUBLIC RECORDS GOING INTO THE CITY AND SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE COPIES THEREOF. UNDER REASONABLE RULES. WE HAVE PASSED THAT SHE CANNOT MAKE COPIES OF OUR PERSONAL FINANCES, SO I THINK WE EITHER NEED TO ADJUST THE ORDINANCE OR ADJUST THIS DURING OUR ORDINANCE CONFLICTS WITH

THE CHARTER. >> WHICH SECTION IS IT?

>> 13.01. >> I SAY WE CHANGE THE ORDINANCE. BECAUSE I LIKE HOW IT IS WRITTEN. TRANSPARENCY,

OPENNESS. >> THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ORDINANCE WAS SO THAT THEY JUST ALL DIDN'T GET DUMPED ON FACEBOOK WITHOUT REDACTION OF YOUR KIDS NAMES AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND THAT IS WHY WE PUT THAT WHEN THERE, THAT THEY COULD SEE IT AS MUCH AS THEY WANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE, THEY HAD TO BE THERE IN PERSON. IF YOU MAKE -- ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS JUST SAY NOT THE FINANCIAL.

>> I AGREE, NO COPIES. >> I LIKE HOW IT IS IN THE CHARTER AND I THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE IT IN THE ORDINANCE. TO BE HONEST, I THINK THAT WAS A POLICY THAT WE DID NOT DRIVE OURSELVES. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION ON THINGS, THAT IT WAS JUST LIKE, WHAT DOES SOMEONE ELSE DO, WHAT IS ANOTHER CITY DO? AND READOPTED THAT. I VOTED NO ON IT, ACTUALLY. AND SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAYBE REVISIT THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT UNIQUELY OURS. THAT IS MY TWO CENTS.

>> I THINK IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN AND SHOULD BE REDACTED LIKE YOUR CHILDREN'S NAMES, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE A PICTURE OF THE VERSION THAT IS REDACTED, NOT JUST AN ORIGINAL

VERSION. >> THAT IS WHEN IT IS

REASONABLE RULES, RIGHT? >> THE WAY I READ IT TODAY, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO REDACT ANYTHING THE STATE LAW ALLOWS US TO REDACT AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NAME, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, EVEN ADDRESSES, PHONE NUMBERS, CAN ALL BE REDACTED. I AM JUST SAYING, OUR ORDINANCE WE PASSED HASN'T HIT THAT , I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TWO MORE MINUTES ON THIS BECAUSE THEY CAN COME TO NEXT MEETING AND WE CAN SAY, TAKE OUT A COUPLE WORDS AND DOTTIE IS DONE OR WE CAN SAY LEAVE IT AS IT IS, BUT I JUST WANT TO BRING UP THAT WE DO

HAVE A MAJOR CONFLICT. >> OR WE COULD PUT IT TO THE

VOTERS. >> SO MAYBE, DOTTIE, IF YOU COULD PUT A WORD COMING UP NEXT MEETING , CAN WE VOTE ON SOMETHING TWICE IN ONE MEETING WHEN IT COMES TO CHARTER? WE

[04:40:01]

CAN, RIGHT? >> NEXT TIME YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THIS IS THE ORDINANCE CALLING THE CHARTER , AMENDMENT

ELECTION. >> IT IS JUST A ONE-VOTE THING,

RIGHT? >> IF YOU CAN BRING SOMETHING BACK, THOSE THAT WANT THIS CHANGE, CAN JUST SEND YOU A COUPLE THINGS, WE CAN LOOK AT IT NEXT WEEK AND DO A QUICK

LOAD, YES OR NO. >> DO YOU WANT TO ADD THAT -- DO WE HAVE SOMETHING ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR THE WORK SESSION? ALREADY ON IT TIME. WE CANNOT BE LATE ON THAT ONE, RIGHT?

>> TECHNICALLY WE HAVE UNTIL THE END OF MARCH BUT IT WAS SCHEDULED FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN FEBRUARY.

>> IT MEANT, IF YOU WANT TO BE HERE UNTIL 2:00.

>> AUDIT, MAYBE WE HAVE OUR WORK SESSION THIS, AND THEN WE KICK THE AUDIT TO THE NEXT WORK SESSION.

>> OR HAVE THE AUDIT IN THE REGULAR MEETING AND JUST KEEP

IT SHORT? >> PRESENTATION, THE BEGINNING.

AUDITOR BE SURE WINDED EVER. BUT WE CAN TRY.

>> I REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT THIS ETHICS THING AND MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME DUE PROCESS AND THERE.

>> IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE DID THE AUDIT.

>> ARTICLE 14. >> SO THERE IS NOTHING ELSE, WE

ARE DONE. >> SORRY, I HAD ONE.

>> SORRY. >> SHOULD BE A QUICK ONE. 5.01, PARAGRAPH C, I REMEMBER THIS IS ONE THAT WAS ON THE LAST ONE THAT FAILED, IT SAYS THAT A CERTIFIED LIST OF VOTER REGISTRANTS WITHIN THE CITY WILL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED ON FILE IN THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE . IN PRACTICE IT IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE FROM THE COUNTY, THERE WAS NO NEED TO HAVE ON FILE AT THE CITY AS WELL BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS GET IT FROM COUNTY SO WE PUT THAT ON THERE AND IT FAILED, AND I THINK AGAIN, THAT WAS PROBABLY JUST ANOTHER ONE THAT WE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE WHY, BUT IT IS ALREADY AVAILABLE ELSEWHERE, IT IS EASILY FINDABLE. IT IS THE LOCATION OF EFFORT TO ALWAYS REQUIRE THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TO

HAVE A CURRENT COPY. >> IS THAT THE LAST CHARTER

ELECTION, JUST PULL THAT ONE? >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> OKAY, SO -- >> NOW WE GO TO EXECUTIVE

AGAIN, RIGHT? >> THAT IS HALFWAY RIGHT, WE ARE GOING BACK TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR A COUPLE ITEMS. BUT, IF THERE IS NO OBJECTIONS, --

>> ON THE FIRST ONE, YOU HAVE GOTTEN YOUR MEMO AND THERE WAS A RECOMMENDED MOTION, SO IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL QUESTIONS, YOU DON'T NEED TO GO TO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

>> YOU ARE READING MY MIND. >> DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> SO THERE IS THAT ONE AND THEN I WAS GOING TO SEE ABOUT

PULLING 15.3. >> YES.

>> NO OBJECTIONS? ALL RIGHT. AND THEN, UNLESS SOMEONE HAS ANYTHING TO BRING UP FOR 15.4? OKAY. SO THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, WE WILL JUST TAKE 15.1, 15.3, 15.4 OUT OF

EXECUTIVE. >> I WANT TO TAKE FOUR OUT OF

EXECUTIVE. >> WE CAN TAKE IT OUT.

>> CAN'T GIVE LEGAL ADVICE IN PUBLIC SO THERE IS NOTHING IN

15.4. >> THE PENDING LEGAL, I TRIED TO PUT EVERYTHING IN THE LEGAL OPINIONS, SO UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE LEGAL OPINIONS --

>> I'M OR HAVE A QUESTION OF A LEGAL THING BUT I AM NOT GOING TO GET AN ANSWER TONIGHT. UNLESS THERE IS AN OBJECTION, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT 15.4 COME OUT TOO. TO MATT GARD, NO OBJECTIONS, THEN WE WILL GO TO 16.1. HOW DO WE DO THIS? IF WE DON'T GO BACK THERE, THEN AM I GOING TO READ 15.1 AND

THEN WE ACT ON IT? >> JUST GO DOWN TO THE ACTION

ITEMS. >> OKAY, 16.1.

>> 16.1, THEN TAKE A , YOU KNOW, ANY KIND OF MOTION YOU

[16. ACTION RELATIVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION]

WANT TO MAKE ON 15.1. >> 16.1, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS, IS THERE

ANYTHING FOR 15.1? >> I WOULD ASK THAT YOU MAKE THAT MUCH OF THAT WAS RECOMMENDED IN THE MEMO.

>> I'M GOING TO PULL THAT UP.

[04:45:10]

AMENDMENT. >> I WILL PULL IT UP. YOU GUYS

FINDING IT? >> NO, I AM STILL LOOKING.

>> I REMEMBER IT. >> WHAT DAY YOU SENT IT,

DOTTIE? >> I THINK IT WAS JUST

YESTERDAY. >> MAYBE IT WAS THROUGH

ANGELA. >> THE MOTION IS --

>> OH, THERE IT IS. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON HAS IT.

>> THE MOVE THAT THE CITY AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ACQUIRE THE PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EASEMENT RIGHTS NECESSARY FOR THE GLENWOOD INTERCEPTOR WASTEWATER PROJECT FROM PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AMOUNT AS FOLLOWS. LENNAR HOMES AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 23,002 2647. AND S AND H GEN X INVESTMENTS LLC FOR AN AMOUNT

NOT TO EXCEED $80,947. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? HEARING ON, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK? >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT? MAYOR SNYDER? MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON? COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR? COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON?

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. THEN WE HAVE IF THERE IS ANY ACTION FOR RECEIVED LEGAL ADVICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION RELATED TO MACHINE GREEK AND THE THEATER MANAGEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND

DIRECTORS . >> THE CITY ISSUED THEIR NOTICE OF TERMINATION LETTER, THE DIRECTORS OF CHAOS SENT IN AN EMAIL ASKING FOR A 30 DAY EXTENSION.

>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION. AND THEN WE WILL SECOND. OKAY. MOTION DIES.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO EXTEND THE APPROVAL OF 30 DAYS AS

REQUESTED. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. HOWARD, DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

>> THE ROADS ARE BEING TORN UP, WE ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING ELSE

RIGHT NOW. >> THE ONLY REASON I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE EXTENSION IS BECAUSE I DO NOT KNOW , JAMES, DID EVERYBODY GET THAT OR WAS THAT JUST WHAT THEY SENT ME?

>> THE EMAIL, I THINK WE ALL GOT IT.

>> WITH THE PROPOSAL? >> I DON'T THINK I DISTRIBUTED IT, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER WHO GOT IT, WHO DID AND PICK

>> SOMEHOW I GOT SOMETHING, THEY SAID YOU WANT TO SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT THIS, AND IT WAS ALMOST PRETTY MUCH WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE. THEY STILL WANTS 20% OF ALL REVENUE THAT IS BROUGHT IN , IT IS NOTHING REMOTELY TO WHERE WE ARE HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BECAUSE IN MY MIND, I DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO COME TO HUTTO AND PAY SOMEONE WHO IS DOING NOTHING , AND THEN THEY WANT TO PROVIDE SECURITY AND PORT-A-POTTIES FOR OTHER PEOPLE AS SOME KIND OF MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT AND I AM GOING, THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE, ONE OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE ACTUALLY HAD EVENTS FALL OUT IN HUTTO DUE TO FEES AND THE WAY THIS THING HAPPENED LAST YEAR, SO FOR ME IT IS NOT ABOUT THE ROAD, IT IS A MATTER OF IF THESE GUYS WANT TO BRING EVENTS HERE, THEY CAN MAKE MONEY. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE COUNSELED, I THINK I WAS TOLD BY ONE OF THE CITY STAFF MEMBERS LAST THURSDAY THAT IF THEY GO BEYOND THE 60 DAYS, IT HAS TO GO BACK OUT FOR BID. I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS MORE PRUDENT FOR US FOR THE PEOPLE TO BRING IT OUT TO BID AND HAVE OTHER OFFERS, AND THAT IS FOR SOMEONE WHO SPENT 60 DAYS WORKING TO HAVE THE SAME AGREEMENT THEY HAD BEFORE BUT THAT IS JUST MY VIEW.

>> I DON'T MIND HAVING THE 30 DAYS BUT WE JUST GOT THIS EMAIL AND HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO LOOK AT IT BUT I WANT TO LOOK AT THEIR PROPOSAL AND COMPARE IT TO THE CONTRACT WAS. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT

IT YET. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

[04:50:01]

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. MAYOR SNYDER.

>> NAY. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON, COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT .

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES, 6-1.

>> YOUR GIVING THEM THE 30 DAY EXTENSION, THAT WILL RUN OUT MARCH 14TH THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE MARCH 22ND TO

SPRING BREAK, TYPICALLY -- >> NO, IT IS NOT. SPRING BREAK IS MARCH 14TH. I FORGOT TO SAY IN YOUR MOTION, BECAUSE IT FALLS AND THEY'RE GOING TO CONSIDER IT AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM IN A LETTER , IT IS GOING TO TERMINATE UNLESS THEY GET THE PUZZLE IN ON THAT DATE SO THE COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER IT AT THEIR MARCH 21ST MEETING.

>> 30 DAYS WAS -- WHEN IS THE SIXTY-DAY HIT NOW?

>> FEBRUARY 13TH. >> IT WOULD BE MARCH 7TH THAT WE NEED TO HAVE IT FIXED, RIGHT? OTHERWISE IT IS GOING TO

-- >> YOU COULD SAY GET IT IN WITHIN THE 30 DAYS AND THEN THE CONTRACT WILL NOT TERMINATE SO YOU CAN CONSIDER IT ON THE 21ST.

>> BUT IF WE HAVEN'T VOTED TO EXTEND IT AND HOW DOES IT NOT

START? >> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET

IT BY MARCH 7TH THEN. >> THAT IS A MONTH FROM NOW IS

THE WAY I LOOK AT IT. >> THAT IS MORE THAN A MONTH

FROM NOW, YEAH. >> THAT IS WHY I AM LOOKING AT IT LIKE WE ARE GIVING THEM 30 DAYS TO GET IT BACK TO US FROM TODAY'S THE SECOND, AND THE SEVENTH. REALLY IT HAS TO BE BACK BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE IN THE PACKET BY THE FOURTH. IS

ESSENTIALLY A MONTH. >> WE WILL PUT ALL THOSE DETAILS IN THE LETTER SO THAT IT IS CLEAR, THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING SO YOU CAN CONSIDER IT ON THE SEVENTH, OTHERWISE IT

TERMINATES ON THE 14TH. >> CORRECT.

>> YEAH, BECAUSE HONESTLY WE WOULD NOT WANT TO GO BACK THERE BECAUSE OF THE ONE SOMEBODY TO COME IN , WE HAVE TO GO OUT AND BID IT. THE SUMMER IS GOING TO BE OVER BY THE TIME THEY ARE STARTING TO BRING ANYBODY IN TO DO ANYTHING THERE.

>> ONE LAST SHOT. >> 15.4, RECEIVED LEGAL ADVICE RELATED TO PENDING LEGAL REQUESTS, POTENTIAL CLAIMS, PAIN MEDICATION, POTENTIAL LITIGATION AND CITY COUNCIL LEGAL REQUESTS. HERE IS MY LEGAL REQUEST. NEXT MEETING, I WILL ASK TO HAVE THE MEMO RELEASED, BUT WE GET THE MEMO ON JANUARY 31ST, 2024 AT 11:22 A.M. STILL TALKING ABOUT THE MAYOR. AND IT IS GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE, HERE IS MY LEGAL QUESTION. THE CODE HAS ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY IN THAT A PUBLIC SERVANT COMMITS AN OFFENSE WITH THE INTENT TO HARM, INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY MISUSES GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, SERVICE AS PERSONNEL OR ANYTHING OF VALUE OR POSSESSION BY VIRTUE OF THE PUBLIC SERVANT'S OFFICE. MY QUESTION IS, AT WHAT POINT , IF I FEEL LIKE I AM BEING

HARASSED, AT WHAT POINT THE -- >> CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

>> THAT IS FINE. >> THE OTHER ONE IS OFFICIAL OPPRESSION, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT ONE. THERE, A PUBLIC SERVANT ACTING UNDER THE OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT COMMITS AN OFFENSE IF THEY INTENTIONALLY DENY OR IMPEDE ANOTHER IN THE EXERCISE OR ENJOYMENT OF ANY RIGHT, PRIVILEGE, POWER OR IMMUNITY KNOWN AS CONDUCT IS UNLAWFUL. PEOPLE ARE MAKING AN ATTEMPT , I CAN'T EVEN GO OUTSIDE AND SAY I AM THE MAYOR OF HUTTO WITHOUT SOMEONE GETTING LEGAL, AND WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS, I WANT TO KNOW AT WHAT POINT EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO INVESTIGATE ME, OR ANYBODY ELSE IF THEY THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG. IF WE ARE JUST USING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO HARASS , WHAT I VIEW IS ALMOST A HARASSMENT, YOU DON'T LIKE ME, THAT IS FINE. BUT I HAVE AN ABILITY TO DO A JOB, I AM FOLLOWING THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION, THE STATE OF TEXAS LAWS, IT -- IF SOMEONE HAS AN ISSUE TAKE IT UP WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY OR THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL BECAUSE OTHERWISE -- >> THE OFFICIAL IMPRESSION, IF ANYBODY IS -- IF YOU ARE COMPLAINING THAT YOU ARE BEING OPPRESSED BY WHATEVER ACTIONS , THAT IS CLASS B MISDEMEANOR, YOU GO TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING

-- >> I AM GOING TO THE AG BECAUSE 3905 SAYS I CAN GO TO THE AG AND I AM NOT SAYING I AM TAKING A SIDE ON HIS FIGHT BUT HE KNOWS WHAT IT IS LIKE TO BE HARASSED, HE SAYS. SO MAYBE HE WOULD FEEL LIKE, I CAN'T BELIEVE THE CITY ATTORNEY IS CONTINUALLY BEING ASKED , OKAY, HE SAID HERE, CAN YOU DO THAT? HE PUT THE MAYOR HERE, HE PASSED OUT A MERE BUSINESS CARD, IS THAT OKAY? I WANT TO KNOW AT WHAT POINT DOES IT BECOME TO WHERE WE ARE

[04:55:02]

>> THE WAY YOU -- YOUR AGREEMENT WITH THE LAW FIRM IS, WE REPRESENT THE CITY AND THEN WE DO NOT HAVE IN OUR AGREEMENT THAT ONLY ONE PERSON ASKS US LEGAL QUESTIONS. EXCUSE ME.

>> IS MY ATTEMPT TO ASK AND VERIFY THAT THAT WAS TRUE OR NOT, WE MAY HAVE TO GO OTHER ROUTES.

>> I HAVE ONE, CAN WE GET AN UPDATE, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A WHILE, ON -- AND I KNOW WE WILL HAVE THE NAMES, THE CASSAVA? COULD WE GET AN UPDATE WITH THE PEOPLE HANDLING THAT? IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE HEARD ANYTHING. I CAN TELL YOU IN THE COURT RECORDS, THERE ARE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTS THAT THEY ARE GOING THROUGH AND THEY ARE STILL IN THAT PROCESS, SO YOUR UPDATE IS GOING TO BE PRETTY MUCH THE

SAME. >> THAT IS I WANTED TO KNOW,

-- >> I WILL PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

[17. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS]

>> ANYTHING ELSE FOR 16.1? GENERAL COMMENTS FROM CITY

COUNCIL . ANYTHING THERE? >> I JUST WANT TO RISK EVERYONE A HAPPY GROUNDHOG DAY AND HOPEFULLY THIS DOES NOT TURN INTO A GROUNDHOG DAY THE MOVIE.

>> I WANTED TO THANK EVERYONE FOR REACHING OUT WHO WAS CONCERNED ABOUT MY FAMILY THIS PAST WEEK, I DID LEAVE THE SPECIAL CALLED MEETING LAST WEEK BEFORE IT ENDED BUT IT WAS FOR A FAMILY EMERGENCY, NOTHING NEW BUT I AM DISAPPOINTED IN THE MAYOR FOR PUTTING OUT THAT I HAD SOME SORT OF FAMILY EMERGENCY, CREATING A BASELESS RUMOR.

ABOUT MY FAMILY ON SOCIAL MEDIA, IN THE FUTURE I WOULD APPRECIATE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY SORT OF CONCERNS SUCH AS THE MAYOR, THEY WOULD JUST REACH OUT TO ME PERSONALLY INSTEAD OF STARTING RUMORS ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

>> ANY OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS FROM COUNSEL?

>> FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? >> THAT ONE CAN PROBABLY BE MARCH OR APRIL. 17, FUTURE ADDITIONAL RESCHEDULE MEETINGS AS ALLOWED BY HUTTO CITY CODE SECTION 1.0 2.033 ADDITIONAL AND RESCHEDULE MEETINGS . WE ALREADY TOOK CARE OF THE FOURTH OF JULY ONE. I KNOW SEVERAL OF YOU ALL RESPONDED TO THE REQUEST FOR WHICH DATE YOU ARE AVAILABLE. BUT THAT WOULD BE A SPECIAL MEETING FOR MARCH. FRIDAY AND/OR SATURDAY, IT

DEPENDS. >> THERE WAS ANY REQUEST THAT

CAME THROUGH. >> I THINK ONE OF THE FACILITATORS , WE GOT CALENDAR DATES FROM THEM SO NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO COORDINATE WITH YOU ALL. I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT

ONE OUT. >> THERE IS A SECOND EMAIL? I

DON'T REMEMBER A SECOND ONE. >> THERE IS ONE TONIGHT BECAUSE

-- >> THIS IS FROM DAVID.

>> ONE OF THE FACILITATORS INSTEAD OF THE 15TH IS

AVAILABLE ON THE 16TH. >> FUTURE MEETING, SATURDAY,

8:00 A.M. >> IS ALREADY SCHEDULED.

>> THAT IS WHAT WE ALL KNOW.

>> I ALREADY LET THE CITY SECRETARY KNOW FROM WHEN THEY

FIRST PROPOSED THE DATE. >> SATURDAY, 8:00 A.M. UNTIL

WHAT? >> WAS AT 8:00 OR 9:00?

>> IT IS AT 9:00. >> IT IS NOT HERE, IT IS AT

NADINE JOHNSON, ISN'T IT? >> GOOD TO KNOW, THANK YOU.

>> I BRING IT UP BECAUSE ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE RUNNING LATE.

>> AND WE LOOK AT MAYBE THE 23RD FOR THE EXECUTIVE?

>> IT REALLY DEPENDS, THE AVAILABILITY OF THE FACILITATOR. THEY HAVE OTHER CLIENTS THEY ARE WORKING WITH THIS TIME OF YEAR TOO. I THINK IT IS NOT THE 16TH, HE NEEDS TO GET BUMPED UNTIL APRIL. OR WE FIND ANOTHER FACILITATOR.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT, WE WILL END THE MEETING, WE'LL A JORN AT 12:57 A.M. ON

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.