Nov 07, 2023 Special City Council

ALRIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

IT'S TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7TH.

TIME IS NOW 6:00 PM.

[COUNCIL RECOGNITION]

I'M GOING TO SWITCH THE ORDER HERE.

I KNOW IT SAYS PUBLIC COMMENTS, BUT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO TO COUNCIL RECOGNITION, WHICH IS A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING NOVEMBER 5TH THROUGH 11TH AS NATIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER APPRECIATION WEEK IN THE CITY OF BEDFORD.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE PROCLAMATION, AND THEN I'LL HAVE CHIEF.

LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE SOME MEMBERS OF OUR ANIMAL SHELTER TO COME UP.

AND I HAVE WE HAVE A FURRY FRIEND IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL, SO WE'LL HAVE THEM TALK IN MOMENTARILY.

SO LET ME START HERE WITH OUR PROCLAMATION.

SO IT SAYS, WHEREAS ANIMAL SHELTERS ACT AS SAFE HAVENS FOR HOMELESS, LOST AND ABUSED ANIMALS, PROVIDING THEM WITH COMFORT AND CARE.

AND WHEREAS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF PETS AND PET OWNERS NEED HELP OF ANIMAL SHELTERS EVERY YEAR.

AND WHEREAS ANIMAL SHELTERS HELP BOTH ANIMALS AND PEOPLE IN MANY WAYS BY RETURNING LOST PETS TO THEIR OWNERS, ENFORCING ANIMAL CONTROL LAWS, RESCUING INJURED AND ABUSED ANIMALS, EDUCATING THE PUBLIC, AND MATCHING UP FAMILIES WITH NEW ANIMAL COMPANIONS.

AND WHEREAS, ANIMAL SHELTER EMPLOYEES LIKE PUBLIC SAFETY RESPONDERS MUST RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, KEEPING ANIMALS AND HUMANS SAFE FROM HARM.

NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE KNOWN THAT I, DAN COGAN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BEDFORD AND THE CITY COUNCIL DO HEREBY PROCLAIM NOVEMBER 5TH THROUGH 11TH, 2023 AS NATIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER APPRECIATION WEEK IN THE CITY OF BEDFORD.

MAYOR. WE'VE GOT A SPECIAL GUEST FOR YOU.

WE HAVE REN FROM THE SHELTER THAT WANTED TO COME IN AND SHOW YOU OFF THE GOOD WORK THAT THEY DO UP THERE, SO.

ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS JUST PART OF OUR CREW THAT WORKS UP THERE.

THEY DO A FANTASTIC JOB.

SO IF YOU GUYS WOULDN'T MIND, CAN WE GET A PICTURE WITH REN.

GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOUR CREW. SO YEAH.

SO JOSE, ALEX AND [INAUDIBLE] ARE THREE OF OUR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS.

WE HAVE A NEW ONE THAT WILL BE STARTING SOON AND WE MARK COULDN'T MAKE IT.

HE IS ONE OF OUR KENNEL TECHS UP THERE, SO THEY DO A FANTASTIC JOB.

IF YOU'VE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO COME BY THE SHELTER AND MEET THEM, PLEASE DO.

THEY DO AN AMAZING JOB UP THERE.

SO OF ADOPTING OUT THESE GREAT ANIMALS AND GETTING THEM UP.

AND REN IS UP FOR ADOPTION.

IF ANYBODY IS LOOKING FOR A GREAT DOG, HE HAS LOTS OF ENERGY.

SO IF YOU NEED A DOG WITH ENERGY AT HOME, HE'S THE ONE FOR YOU.

SO. ALL RIGHT.

[INAUDIBLE] . ARE YOU READY? THREE.

TWO. THREE.

ONE. TWO. THREE.

PERFECT. OH, WOW.

THAT'S THE BEST MOMENT EVER.

I THINK WE GOT IT, YOU GOT IT? THANK, YOU GUYS.

[INAUDIBLE] . THOSE ARE THE FUN VISITORS WE GET.

LOVE IT. OKAY, SO NEXT ON OUR AGENDA, PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IT LOOKS LIKE NOBODY SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON.

UNDER NEW BUSINESS, WE HAVE CONSIDERED RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO REJECT THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE OF

[1. Consider a resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to reject the guaranteed maximum price of $13,306,581 to construct a visual and performing arts center on the site adjacent to the Old Bedford School. ]

AND WE HAVE PROJECTS MANAGER GARY JOHNSON.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, TOMORROW MARKS MY THIRD ANNIVERSARY WITH THE CITY OF BEDFORD IN THE POLICE CHIEF ROLE INITIALLY, AND THEN THIS.

AND EVERY TIME BEFORE I'VE COME TO YOU, I'VE BEEN ABLE TO BRING GOOD NEWS.

UNFORTUNATELY, AS YOU'VE READ IN YOUR PACKETS, I DON'T HAVE THAT GOOD NEWS TONIGHT.

AS WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DESIGNING AND WITH BRW ARCHITECTS AND STEELE FREEMAN CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS, AND THEY WORK DILIGENTLY TO DESIGN A FACILITY THAT WOULD BRING IT WITHIN THE THE BUDGET ALLOWED.

WE WORKED ON FUNDRAISING AND WE TRIED TO SEE WE KNEW WE HAD SOME REAL CHALLENGES IN GETTING IT DOWN INTO THE BUDGET.

AND WE FIGURED, WELL, IF WE CAN DO SOME FUNDRAISING AND RAISE SOME MONEY THAT WAY, THAT WE COULD HELP COVER COSTS THAT WERE EXCEEDING OUR EXPECTATIONS.

[00:05:03]

WE HAD A LOT OF INTEREST, A LOT OF PEOPLE EXCITED ABOUT IT, BUT NOT MATCHING IT WITH THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS.

THAT WOULD GIVE US THE MONEY WE WOULD NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO WE PUT IT OUT THERE.

STEELE FREEMAN PUT IT OUT THERE, NEGOTIATED WITH CONTRACTORS, WITH SUBCONTRACTORS, AND BASICALLY CAME IN WITH THAT.

WE WERE HOPING FOR A CONSTRUCTION BUDGET OF 10 MILLION.

WE ALREADY KNEW WE WERE PROBABLY GOING TO BE AT ABOUT 11, BUT AGAIN, WE WERE HOPING ON FUNDRAISING AND BEING ABLE TO COVER THAT EXTRA MONEY.

BUT IT CAME AT 13, THREE.

AND THEN WHEN YOU ADD IN THE SOFT COST, YOU'RE JUST SHY OF 15 MILLION.

SO I HAVE HERE TONIGHT STEELE FREEMAN AND BRW BOTH.

I'D LIKE THEM TO SAY A FEW WORDS, TALK ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION MARKET, WHAT THEY ARE SEEING, MAYBE AN EXPLANATION, CAUGHT US ALL OFF GUARD.

THEY WERE THINKING 11.

MAYBE BRW WAS THINKING MAYBE A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT I THINK.

AND IT JUST CAME IN 20% HIGHER THAN WE EXPECTED.

SO WITH THAT, WHO WANTS TO START? WITH BRIAN. NOBODY WANTS TO GO.

I KNOW THIS IS.

BRIAN HENNINGTON WITH STEELE FREEMAN.

EVENING BRIAN. GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE BRINGING YOU SOME BAD NEWS TONIGHT.

THE MARKET POST COVID IS IT'S TOUGH IN THE CONSTRUCTION WORLD.

I WANT TO REASSURE YOU THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM.

THAT'S CENTRAL JUST TO BEDFORD.

WE WORK WITH MANY MUNICIPAL CLIENTS.

WE'RE SEEING THIS ACROSS THE BOARD WHERE PRICE INCREASES AND THE MAGNITUDE OF 20 TO 30% ARE HITTING PROJECTS.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF FACTORS TO THAT.

ONE OF THOSE IS TIME.

IT'S TAKING MUCH LONGER TO GET PRODUCTS TO THE SITE, WHICH INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF TIME WE'RE THERE, WHICH INCREASES THE COST OF THE OVERALL BUDGET.

MANY OF THE COMPONENTS, ELECTRICAL, AV COMPONENTS, ROOFING, THE PRICES ARE JUST HIGHER THAN THEY WERE PRIOR TO COVID.

AND WE'VE WE WERE HOPING THAT WE'D SEE SOME PRICES COMING DOWN, BUT WE'VE NOT SEEN THAT ACROSS THE MARKET.

WE HAD OVER 200 BIDS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, WHICH IF WE GET OVER 150 BIDS, WE THINK WE'VE GOT A GOOD MARKET CROSS-SECTION.

WE HAD 204 QUALIFIED BIDS FOR THIS PROJECT, AND STILL HAD THE NUMBER OF 13 THREE THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.

IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'D BE GLAD TO DO MY BEST TO ANSWER THEM.

YEAH, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY NOT GOOD NEWS THAT WE LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE WE HAD OUR BUDGET OF 10 MILLION AND HOPING TO GET IT TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT. SO YOU'RE SEEING THIS ACROSS THE BOARD.

OTHER MUNICIPALITIES.

THEY'RE JUST NOT ABLE TO GET TO THAT POINT.

SO WHEN DID THIS ALL BEGIN.

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE WANTED TO GET TO A CERTAIN BUDGETED AMOUNT.

RIGHT? I WOULD SAY 21 AFTER COVID AND WE'VE.

JUST SEEN STEADY INCREASES SINCE THEN.

AND YOU'RE CORRECT.

WE'RE SEEING BUDGETS THAT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED ACROSS VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES, AND THEY'RE JUST COMING IN LOWER THAN WHAT THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE COMING IN AT.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD ISSUE AT THE MOMENT.

SO THIS PRICE FOR I GUESS, WITH SOFT COSTS AND EVERYTHING THAT WE GOT TO WAS A LITTLE UNDER 15 MILLION.

DID WE INITIALLY WERE WE TAKING ANYTHING OUT TO GET THERE JUST TO THAT NUMBER? ABSOLUTELY. WE HAD AN EXTENSIVE VALUE ENGINEERING EFFORT.

I HATE THAT WORD. I DO TOO, BUT IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE WILL TASK OUR SUBS WITH, DO YOU SEE A WAY TO DO THIS MORE EFFICIENTLY? AND WE'LL TAKE THOSE OPTIONS.

WE'LL RUN THROUGH THEM. WE WILL CONFER WITH THE ARCHITECTS AND WITH GARY HERE ABOUT ARE THESE THE RIGHT CHANGES TO MAKE TO THE PROJECT? WHAT IS THE COST IMPLICATION? WHAT COULD WE SAVE THERE? AND WE HAD 20 OR 30 ITEMS THAT WE WENT THROUGH.

IT'S REALLY TOUGH TO GET THE AMOUNT WE NEEDED OUT OF THE PROJECT.

WE PUT OUR EFFORT INTO IT AND A NUMBER OF THE VE ITEMS WERE ACCEPTED.

BUT WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT THE SAME 13, 3 THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.

SO WE HAD TO CUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT JUST TO EVEN GET TO THIS NUMBER.

YES. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, OKAY AND THIS IS THE NUMBER WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING IS WHAT COULD BE PROVIDED THAT WE COULD BE PROUD OF IF WE WERE TO FUND IT FOR THE CITY AND STILL IT WOULD STILL MEET THE NEEDS.

YES, MAYOR. THAT'S A VERY GOOD DESCRIPTION.

THERE'S OBVIOUSLY AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE COULD TAKE, SAY, THE AV PORTION AND BRING IN A LOWER QUALITY RANGE OF EQUIPMENT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD PROVIDE THE SERVICE THAT YOUR RESIDENTS ARE LOOKING FOR OR THAT EXPECT FROM YOUR COUNCIL.

[00:10:01]

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? COUNCIL MEMBER GAGLIARDI? THANK YOU MAYOR. SO I WAS ON THIS ON THE COMMITTEE WHEN IT STARTED, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT IT'S ENDING LIKE THIS WHEN DURING SOME OF THE ORIGINAL THE DRAWINGS OF THE BUILDING, I MEAN, SOME OF IT WAS REALLY NEAT.

THE THE ELEVATOR ON THE BACK WITH THE NATURAL STAIRCASE THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND ON THE OTHER SIDE.

AT ONE TIME, I DON'T, I CAN'T EXACTLY PIN DOWN WHEN IT WAS CUT, BUT THE ONE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING OPENING TO THE LAWN AND JUST SORT OF ACTIVATING THAT WHOLE SPACE.

AND I WAS REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.

I MEAN, ALL THE PROGRAMS WE DID TOGETHER.

AND SO IT IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT ONCE YOU WHEN THE VALUE ENGINEERING GRANT BROUGHT UP, I WAS LIKE, WELL, YOU'RE TAKING AWAY ALL OF THE SPECIALISTS OUT OF THE BUILDING. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE JUST HAVE A WE HAVE FOUR WALLS IN THE MIDDLE OF A FIELD.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

I LOVE BUILDING BUILDING BEAUTIFUL BUILDINGS ALSO AND WHEN THE MARKET AND THE BUDGET DON'T ALIGN, UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE IN THE POSITION LIKE WE ARE TODAY. COUNCIL MEMBER FARCO? OH BRIAN.

I'M IN A CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY.

I'M IN ACOUSTICS, NOISE AND SOUND CONTROL.

YES, SIR. WE'VE WORKED WITH YOU GUYS ON SEVERAL PROJECTS.

WE'RE STARTING TO SEE THE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS.

9 TO 12 MONTHS, EVEN 18 MONTHS OUT ON EQUIPMENT RIGHT NOW.

SO EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID IS TRUE.

WE'VE SEEN COSTS GOING UP.

WE'VE SEEN DELAYS ON JOBS RIGHT NOW THAT ARE AND YOU'VE GOT JOBS THAT ARE GOVERNMENT AND HIGH MANUFACTURING THAT ARE REQUESTING THAT MATERIAL A LITTLE QUICKER THAN THE OTHER JOBS.

RIGHT TOO, THAT ARE MONOPOLIZING THAT RIGHT NOW.

YES, SIR. THERE'S OTHER INDUSTRIES THAT TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER US.

SO EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS CORRECT.

AND WE'RE LOOKING AT ANOTHER 10% COST RAISE COMING UP HERE IN THE NEXT 3 TO 6 MONTHS.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER STEVES? GARY, I JUST BRW GAVE US THREE OPTIONS.

ORIGINALLY ONE WAS FOR 8.4, THEN NINE AND THEN 10 MILLION.

AND WE WENT WITH THE HIGHEST 110 MILLION.

BUT EVEN AT THE 8.4 THAT WOULD BE WELL OVER 10 MILLION WOULDN'T IT? I MEAN THAT'S? YES. WELL ONCE YOU PUT SOFT COSTS IN WITH THE SOFT COSTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, SO NO MATTER WHAT OPTION WE WOULD HAVE CHOSE, IT STILL WOULD BE OVER THE WHAT WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT, 10 MILLION? TRUE AND WHAT THEY THOUGHT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD FOR THAT 8.4 IS NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO WHAT WE COULD BUILD FOR THAT.

NOW THE WAY IT THE WAY IT CAME OUT AND PRICES, IF YOU LOOK AT TODAY'S BALLOT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE BONDS THAT THEY'RE ASKING THE VOTERS TO APPROVE CLOSE TO $1 BILLION HERE IN HEB.

IT'S SAME WAY OUT IN NORTHWEST SCHOOL DISTRICT.

AND ALL THAT'S DOING IS PUTTING A WHOLE BUNCH MORE CONSTRUCTION ON THE MARKET.

AND THE SUBCONTRACTORS HAVE PLENTY OF WORK, AND THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN SHARPENING THEIR PENCILS BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE WORK THAN THEY CAN KEEP UP WITH.

AND THAT'S THE PRODUCT OF OVERALL IN THIS COUNTRY, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.

THE ECONOMY IS SLIPPING A LITTLE BIT.

BUT HERE IN NORTH TEXAS, IT'S STILL A VERY STRONG ECONOMY AND A LOT OF WORK OUT THERE FOR THE SUBCONTRACTORS.

BUT I HAVE ANDREW WITH BRW HERE, WHO WE WENT THROUGH THOSE PROCESSES WHERE WE DECIDED WE HAD IF WE WERE GOING TO BUILD THIS, WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DO AWAY WITH THE OPENING GLASS AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO AWAY WITH THE ELEVATOR, JUST TRYING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO GET IT WITHIN A BUDGET, BUT STILL HAVE A FUNCTIONING PERFORMING ARTS CENTER WHERE YOU COULD GO AND ENJOY A PERFORMANCE AND YOU COULD ENJOY THOSE THINGS.

BUT WHAT WE HAVE NOW TO GET IT DOWN INTO WITHIN THE BUDGET, WE WOULDN'T HAVE, IN OUR OPINION, OUR COLLECTIVE OPINION, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A CENTER THAT WOULD SERVE THE COMMUNITY LIKE THE COMMUNITY WOULD EXPECT THAT YOU GUYS WOULD EXPECT AND BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO WALK INTO YOUR FACILITY AND GO, HUH ? [INAUDIBLE] YOU WANT THEM.

THEY HAVE TO BE IMPRESSED WHEN THEY COME IN.

AND IT'S DOWN TO THE POINT WHERE IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE ON THAT BUDGET.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

YEAH, I THINK A LOT OF US ARE FEELING THAT SAME WAY.

YOU KNOW, FOR ME, AS SOON AS I HEARD VALUE ENGINEERING AND AS SOON AS I HEARD THINGS BEING TAKEN OFF, THAT'S NOT WHERE I WANT TO BE.

I WOULD WANT SOMETHING IF WE BUILD IT, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND TAXPAYER MONEY ON IT THAT THE TAXPAYERS COULD BE PROUD OF IT.

SURE. AND NOT ONLY IS IT GOING TO MEET THE NEEDS, BUT EXCEED THOSE NEEDS GOING FORWARD.

SO YEAH, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WOULDN'T SUGGEST US JUST TO DO, YOU KNOW, ON A WHIM AND JUST TO GET IT UP AND HAVE FOUR WALLS.

THAT'S NOT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT RIGHT.

IN MY OPINION. COUNCILMEMBER FARCO?

[00:15:01]

15, 16 RANGE? FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS, THAT'S NOT SOFT COSTS.

NOT SOFT COSTS. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE 17 FIVE WITH SOFT COSTS AND YEAH I GUESS 17.5 TO 18.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE? ANDREW, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? MAYOR, COUNCIL APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.

IT WAS A PLEASURE.

DEVELOPING THE VISION FOR THIS PROJECT.

THE MONTHS OF HARD WORK THAT WE PUT INTO THIS.

IT IS KIND OF SAD TO SEE IT GO.

UNDERSTAND? I THINK WE DESIGNED A VERY MODEST BUILDING, BUT IT WAS VERY IMPACTFUL.

AND I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE VISION FOR THIS PROJECT WAS TO BE A CATALYST AND BE IMPACTFUL FOR THE CITY.

WE DID LOOK AT SOME OPTIONS TO DO A SMALLER FACILITY.

I THINK FROM THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE A FEW YEARS AGO, THAT RANGE OF 200 SEAT AUDITORIUM OR A 200 SEAT FACILITY WAS KIND OF THE SWEET SPOT THAT WOULD DRAW IN VISITORS AND PATRONS AND STILL GENERATE THE REVENUE THAT THE FACILITY NEEDED.

SO A LOT OF THOUGHT WENT INTO HOW BIG THE FACILITY WOULD BE.

WE DESIGNED SOMETHING ABOUT AS EFFICIENT AS WE COULD.

WE CUT OUT SOME SPACES THAT WE DIDN'T REALLY NEED, SO WE DID OUR BEST TO TRY AND MAKE THIS FALL WITHIN THE BUDGET.

AS WE MENTIONED, WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF ITERATIONS OF TRYING TO REDUCE THE SCOPE WHILE MAINTAINING THE VISION FOR THE PROJECT, AND IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN THIS TIME.

[INAUDIBLE] I KNOW YOU GUYS WORKED HARD ON THIS, AND YOU DID EVERYTHING THAT YOU COULD TO GET US TO A POINT WHERE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXECUTE THIS.

SO I DO WANT TO THANK YOUR TEAM FOR THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS AND GETTING US TO THIS POINT, DESPITE THE BAD NEWS THAT YOU'RE GIVING US HERE TONIGHT BUT THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS AN ACTIONABLE ITEM.

SO ENTERTAIN ANY KIND OF MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, I GUESS APPROVE THE DENIAL.

YES. OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. OKAY, I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER SABOL.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

ALRIGHT AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY SIX, ZERO.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

NEXT UP ON THIS IS OUR I GUESS, WHERE WE GO FROM HERE FOR THIS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER.

[2. Discussion and seek Council direction on the next steps for the planned Performing Arts Center project.]

SO WITH THIS ONE, I GUESS I'M GOING TO KICK IT OVER TO OUR CITY MANAGER.

BEFORE I DO THAT THOUGH, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, THIS PROJECT'S BEEN YEARS AND YEARS IN THE MAKING FROM THE 2017 BOND THAT PEOPLE VOTED ON AND PART OF THAT BOND WAS FOR USE OF THE ARTS.

AND SO THIS BUILDING HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSION FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW.

NO ONE COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED COVID.

NO ONE COULD HAVE ANTICIPATED THE INFLATION THAT WE'RE SEEING.

AND SO THAT COST IS NOW JUST OBVIOUSLY BEEN INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY.

BUT WHEN PEOPLE ASK IF THERE IS A NEED, THERE ABSOLUTELY IS.

ONE OF THE STUDIES FROM THE HUDDLESTON GROUP THAT HE MENTIONED WAS THAT PEOPLE WANTED TO SEE THIS HERE IN THE CITY, THEY SUPPORTED IT.

THEY SAY THEY NEEDED SOMETHING OF A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER.

AND SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY QUESTION THAT THERE'S INTEREST OF IT HERE IN THE CITY.

BUT NOW I GUESS WE HAVE TO CHART A PATH FORWARD.

SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO SEE CITY MANAGER JIMMY STATHATOS TO GO AHEAD AND WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU COUNCIL.

NOW I AGREE, I'M JUST I THINK WE REALLY DODGED A BULLET BY HAVING BUILT GENERATIONS PARK WHEN WE DID, OR ELSE WE'D BE HAVING THE SAME DISCUSSION ON WHAT TO CUT OUT AFTER WE ALREADY HAD TO CUT STUFF OUT FROM JUST SOME OF THE ISSUES.

BUT THAT BEING SAID, WE'VE BEEN BECAUSE OF THE CHARGE.

WE'VE BEEN FOCUSED ON DELIVERING THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AT THAT LOCATION WITH THAT SCOPE.

LIKE YOU SAID, I DO THINK THAT STUDY ABSOLUTELY DEMONSTRATES THERE'S A NEED.

THE STUDY WAS DONE BEFORE I GOT HERE, BUT IRONICALLY, MY PRIOR EMPLOYER, THE TOWN OF FLOWER MOUND, ALSO USED THAT SAME CONSULTANT TO DO A STUDY.

SO THEY'RE VERY THEY'RE THE WHO'S WHO OF THOSE TYPES OF STUDIES.

AND SO TO ME THE NEED IS IRREFUTABLE.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF IF YOU ALL WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MEETING THAT NEED.

BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE IS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYONE FEELS, QUITE FRANKLY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME TIME, STAFF AND MYSELF TO LOOK AT

[00:20:04]

THERE ARE SOME RESTAURANT VENUES THAT HAVE A MUSICAL VENUE AS PART OF THE BUSINESS PLAN, SO I THINK THE SKY'S THE LIMIT, I REALLY DO.

BUT AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN SO FOCUSED ON THIS LOCATION, SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO GET OUTSIDE THE BOX, SO TO SPEAK.

BUT REALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT OBVIOUSLY IT'S UP TO COUNCIL, SO WE'LL DO WHATEVER YOU ALL WANT.

BUT THAT'S WHAT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MAYOR.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT HAVE SOME TIME A FEW MONTHS.

BUT ANYWAY A FEW MONTHS TO GO OVER THE DIFFERENT POSSIBILITIES AND ALSO WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT INTERESTS ME IS WHAT YOU SAID IS PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.

THIS COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT AS WELL.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I'M IN SUPPORT OF HAVING A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, FINDING A WAY TO DO THAT, YOU KNOW, FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WAY, I THINK IS THE WAY FORWARD.

AND SO IF YOU SAY A COUPLE A FEW MONTHS, THEN SO LET'S SAY WE SAY BY MARCH.

YES, SIR. I THINK MARCH WOULD BE AMPLE TIME.

AMPLE TIME? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT GIVING STAFF SOME TIME TO COME UP WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS AND A PATH FORWARD.

COUNCIL MEMBER FARCO? TWO QUESTIONS.

ONE IS HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE LEFT FROM THE BOND? YOU KNOW, OFFHAND, I DON'T HAVE THE LATEST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, INTEREST.

I THINK IT'S AROUND 4.5 MILLION.

YEP. OKAY.

AND THE FACT THAT THE BOND WAS FOR PARKS, IF WE DID A PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WITH A COMPANY, WE CAN'T USE THAT BOND MONEY.

WE'D HAVE TO REISSUE NEW BOND MONEY OR A NEW BOND.

IS THAT TRUE? NO, THE THOUGHTS THAT I HAVE, WE COULD ABSOLUTELY USE IT.

YEAH. I MEAN, IT WOULD BE VERY EASY TO DO.

IT WOULD JUST BE A MATTER OF HOW IT WAS STRUCTURED.

AND TO GIVE YOU ONE OF THE COMMON WAYS IT'S BEEN DONE, IF YOU WILL, IS IF YOU DO A PUBLIC AND I KNOW YOU KNOW WHAT PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS ARE, BUT IF YOU DO A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AND YOU HAVE A DEVELOPER THAT HAS TO DO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DELIVERABLES FOR A TRACT, AND PART OF THAT IS PARK LAND, OPEN SPACE, WHAT HAVE YOU, THEN WE COULD USE THE CITY FUNDS TOWARDS SOME OF THOSE AMENITIES, AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO USE MORE OF THEIR FUNDS FOR THE CENTER. OKAY. AND OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

BUT YEAH, I CAN TELL YOU WE WILL NOT PRESENT ANY OPTIONS THAT AREN'T A LAWFUL USE OF THAT MONEY.

AND CANDIDLY, WE ALSO HAVE ARPA FUNDS THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT.

IT'S NON-BINDING. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT ALLOCATING.

SO IT MIGHT BE A MATTER OF WHAT WE COME BACK.

WE WON'T EVEN NEED THE PARK FUNDS.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN GET THE MOST BANG FOR OUR BUCK.

NOT LIKE HEY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A NEW CREDIT CARD WE'RE GOING TO GO MAX OUT.

WE REALLY WANT TO BE CREATIVE AND STRATEGIC.

SO THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME. COUNCIL MEMBER GAGLIARDI.

SO I'VE SAID THIS A FEW TIMES, AND I'LL JUST MENTION AGAIN THAT THERE ARE MANY DETAILS BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE SPENT ON OBVIOUSLY, PARK LAND.

BUT YOU KNOW, I'D LOVE TO SEE IT, OBVIOUSLY NOT JUST FOR PERFORMING ARTS, BUT ALSO MAYBE FOR VISUAL ARTS.

SO I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY LATELY WE'VE HAD KRISSI BROUGHT IN MULTIPLE EVENTS THAT BROUGHT A LOT OF POSITIVE LIGHT ON THE CITY AND A LOT OF NEWS CHANNELS AND WHATNOT AND WHAT IF WE CREATED A SPACE OR HAD A SPACE THAT ALLOWED MORE OF A PERMANENT OR A ROTATING, YOU KNOW, FEATURES THROUGH IT? AND IT WOULD BE EVEN BETTER IF WE COULD USE THAT TO ACTIVATE OR TO GENTRIFY AN OLDER PART OF THE CITY.

LIKE. AND I'M GOING TO USE THE OFFICIAL TERM, THE NORTH POINT CORRIDOR.

IS THAT RIGHT.

THAT IS THE OFFICIAL SO BROWN TRAIL SOUTH OF THE FREEWAY.

SO WE'RE TURNING POINT IS AND I THINK THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL THERE.

AND AND AGAIN LIKE I MEAN I DON'T KNOW AGAIN ALL OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT GETS ANY OF US SENT TO JAIL.

SO BUT I THINK IT'S A REALLY BIG OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO NOT ONLY DO SOMETHING FOR THE ARTS, BUT TO ALSO MAYBE, YOU KNOW, ACTIVATE UNDERPERFORMING AREAS OF THE CITY.

YES, SIR. ANYWAYS.

THANK YOU.

SO COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

SO, CITY MANAGER STATHATOS I KNOW.

SO THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES WITH OUR PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN TERMS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE USE OF FUNDS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

BUT I THINK SOMETHING WE ALSO HAVE TO CONTEMPLATE IS THE ONGOING STAFFING AND RUNNING THE FACILITY.

AND GIVEN THAT WE HAD CHALLENGES WITH FUNDRAISING, I THINK THE IDEA OF GETTING A CAPITAL CAMPAIGN TOGETHER WASN'T JUST NOT ONLY TO

[00:25:09]

AND THE FEEDBACK FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANTED THIS IS THEY DON'T JUST WANT A BUILDING, THEY WANT IT RUN LIKE A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER.

SO THAT'S MY IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER STAB AT THIS OR WE LOOK AT THAT, I HOPE THAT WE'RE CONTEMPLATING THE ONGOING STAFFING AND MAINTENANCE OF SUCH A FACILITY.

YES, COUNCILMEMBER.

WE WERE, WE WE HAVE BEEN AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.

WE HAD THE BULK OF THE STAFF FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER WE ALREADY HAD ON STAFF AND SO THAT HELPED MITIGATE A LOT OF THE OVERHEAD.

BUT ABSOLUTELY.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF A PUBLIC PRIVATE.

WE THINK THAT THE ONGOING COSTS.

SO WE'LL DEFINITELY BE SENSITIVE TO THAT.

ABSOLUTELY. WE DON'T WANT TO RECOMMEND ANYTHING THAT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER SABOL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

IN THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK WHAT WE'RE MISSING IS THAT.

A PERFORMING ARTS CENTER OR A VISUAL ARTS CENTER IS ALSO A REVENUE GENERATOR FOR THE CITY AND.

IT'S PROBABLY WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THE BOND PACKAGE.

YEARS AGO, IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, A PARK IS GREAT FOR THE RESIDENTS AND EVERYTHING, BUT IT REALLY ISN'T A REVENUE GENERATOR.

IT IS SOMETHING FOR THE RESIDENTS TO ENJOY.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE CITY AND I THINK THIS WAS RAY CHAMPNEYS DREAM, WHAT, 6 OR 7 YEARS AGO, THAT IF YOU BUILD SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN COME AND SPEND MONEY IN YOUR CITY, IT TAKES SOME OF THE TAX BURDEN OFF OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.

SO I THINK THAT WHAT MR. STATHATOS RECOMMENDS US DOING IS SOMETHING LESSER THAN WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED WITH BRW.

BUT I DO THINK IT'S AN ANSWER TO AT LEAST HELPING OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

IT ALSO SHOWS THAT WE HAVE FAITH IN OUR CITY.

IT WILL GIVE US NOTICE.

IT WILL HELP US REVITALIZE.

IT WILL HELP US REINVIGORATE OUR CITY.

AND THE PROPERTY VALUES WILL CONTINUE TO GO UP BECAUSE OF THIS FACILITY.

AND I'LL TELL YOU, WHEN I RECEIVED THE BAD NEWS FROM MR. STATHATOS AND GARY, I STARTED TO LOOK ONLINE AND I SAID, I LOOKED UP AND I SAID, UNIQUE PERFORMANCE CENTERS.

I PUT THAT IN THE SEARCH LINE.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST ONE THAT APPEARED WAS OURS.

IT WAS OUR FACILITY.

IT SHOWED THE BEAUTY OF THE FACILITY AND IT LOOKED LIKE IT ALREADY HAD BEEN BUILT.

WELL, A TEAR CAME TO MY EYE BECAUSE I THOUGHT, OH, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO GET THIS, ARE WE? IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE AND I.

I'M INTERESTED BECAUSE WE ASKED.

THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INTERESTED IN THE FACILITY TO FUND IT.

AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER ASKED THE PEOPLE THAT PLAY TENNIS, PICKLEBALL, BASEBALL, OR ANY OF THE OTHER, OTHER TYPES OF ACTIVITIES IN OUR CITY TO FUND THE FACILITY.

SO I WILL SAY THAT THEY INTERVIEWED LIKE 50 PEOPLE.

AND THOSE 50 PEOPLE, ALL WERE ENTHUSIASTIC.

AND IT BROUGHT BACK THE DAYS IN 2017 WHEN WE HAD THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THEY ALL STOOD UP AND THEY ALL CAME FORWARD AND SAID, WHERE'S THE PERFORMING ARTS? AFTER ALL, THERE WERE THREE ARTS ORGANIZATIONS IN THE PARK, THREE.

AND IN SIX YEARS WE'VE DONE NOTHING FOR THE ART ORGANIZATIONS EXCEPT FOR SHUN THEM.

THAT IS HIGHLY IRREGULAR FOR MOST CITIES AROUND THE METROPLEX.

MOST PEOPLE HONOR THEIR ARTS GROUPS AND I REALIZE THAT THIS IS A LOT OF MONEY.

BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BRINGING THE ECONOMIC BUSINESS TO US, I THINK THIS IS AN AVENUE FOR US TO DO SO.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP, I THINK EVEN WHEN IT CAME TO PARKING LOTS AND ENTRANCES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, LANDSCAPING, I'M NOT EVEN SURE THAT WAS IN THE QUOTE THAT WE WERE GIVEN WITH THE 15 MILLION.

IF IT WAS, IT WAS MINIMAL.

SO EVEN IF WE SUPPLIED THEM WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN THEY WERE TO BUILD THE FACILITY AND WE HAD NO CHARGE OF IT, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TOO. BUT I THINK THAT FOR THE LONG RUN, AND NOT EVEN FOR MY AGE GROUP, I'M WAY TOO OLD.

I THINK IN ORDER TO KEEP THIS, THIS TOWN, AND I THINK WE'VE OBSERVED THIS WITH THE HEB ISD BOND, WE HAVE TO HAVE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE AND NEW

[00:30:07]

WE'RE JUST NOT KEEPING UP WITH THE TIMES.

AND WE'VE ALREADY GOT THAT CRITICISM EVERYWHERE.

YOU KNOW, THAT WE'VE LOST.

WE'RE BEHIND EULESS, WE'RE BEHIND HURST.

SO I THINK THAT IF WE COULD KEEP THIS GOING AS A COUNCIL, I THINK IT WILL BEHOOVE US TO DO THIS.

AND PEOPLE 20 YEARS FROM NOW WILL SAY THAT COUNCIL KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING, AND WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT WE WERE DOING.

NEVER GO BACK.

SO THAT'S MY OPINION ON IT.

THANK YOU COUNCIL ON THE TABLE, I REITERATE THAT AS WELL.

I THINK THE PUBLIC DOES NEED TO KNOW IS THAT OF ALL THE FACILITIES, WE WENT TO THEM TO HELP FUND IT.

WE DIDN'T DO THAT FOR ANY OF THE OTHER ONES.

SO I THINK THAT'S JUST A SHOW, A SIGN THAT WE ARE LITERALLY DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN TO MINIMIZE THAT BURDEN OF ON TO THE TAXPAYERS TRYING TO DO THIS RESPONSIBLY, FISCALLY, RESPONSIBLY, IN A FISCAL RESPONSIBLE WAY.

ANOTHER THING THAT YOU MENTIONED WAS HOW IT SPURS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

AND WE HAD A THIRD PARTY WHO'S DOING OUR MASTER PLAN, AND WE ASKED THEM, WE SAID, WHAT TURNS OVER AREAS OF THE CITY THAT MAY BE BLIGHTED, OR WHERE YOU HAVE PROPERTY VALUES THAT ARE BELOW AVERAGE FOR THE REST OF THE CITY, BLIGHTED AREAS OF THE CITY.

AND THE ONE THING THAT CAME BACK TO AND THEY SAID, WELL, IT'S THE ARTISTS.

IT'S INTERESTING. THAT'S WHAT HELPS CHANGE OVER CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY.

ARTISTS WILL COME IN.

IT BRINGS MORE ATTENTION TO THAT, THAT AREA OF THE CITY AND THEN ECONOMIC PROSPERITY.

THEN SOON FOLLOWS AFTERWARDS.

SO TO YOUR POINT, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

I THINK THIS DOES IT IS NEEDED FOR THE CITY IF WE WANT TO SEE MORE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

I STAND BY THAT.

SO I'M HOPING THAT WITH THIS NEW ENDEAVOR, HOPEFULLY WITH THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OR WHATEVER AVENUE THAT WE CHOOSE, THAT WE CAN GET THIS DONE, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME COMING AND EVERY OTHER SINGLE GROUP HAS BEEN REPRESENTED THAT LOST.

WHEN WE TORE UP BOYS RANCH, WE TORE UP ALL THOSE BUILDINGS.

WE'VE GIVEN IT BACK.

WE'RE AT LEAST IN THE PROCESS OF GIVING IT BACK TO ALL THOSE DIFFERENT GROUPS.

THE ONES THAT WERE MISSED WERE THE ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND THEY'RE STILL WAITING.

SO THAT'S WHERE I STAND.

ALRIGHT. ANYBODY ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SO, JIMMY, DO YOU HAVE YOUR? DO YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE FROM US? NO, SIR. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S FEEDBACK AND WE'LL BE READY.

THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, SO NEXT UP WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER.

[3. Discussion on amendments to the City Charter.]

SO OUR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

THAT WAS DONE.

COUNCIL APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY FOUR DIFFERENT ONES.

I SUGGESTED THAT WE HAVE THE SPECIAL MEETING SO THAT WE CAN GO INTO DETAIL OF SOME OF THE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS COMMISSION, BECAUSE THEY MAY NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR US TO HAMMER OUT SOME ISSUES.

AND SO WE HAVE SOME TIME HERE TONIGHT TO DO THAT.

I'D LIKE TO, HOW I'D LIKE TO DO THIS SO THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE HAVE VARYING OPINIONS ON CERTAIN ISSUES HERE, WHAT I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO DO AND AGREE UPON IS THAT I'LL START WITH THE PROPOSITION.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THE PROPOSITION OF HOW IT IS OR THE TOPIC, AND THEN WHAT I'D LIKE FOR US TO DO IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS TO ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY, I WOULD LIKE EACH COUNCIL MEMBER TO AT LEAST SAY A WORD BEFORE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER HAS A SECOND TERM.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE GETS HEARD BEFOREHAND BEFORE WE, ONE COUNCILMEMBER OR TWO COUNCILMEMBERS START MANIPULATING THE CONVERSATION.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS HEARD AND GETS THEIR QUESTIONS OUT, AND THAT WE DO IT IN AN ORDERLY FASHION.

SO I'LL START HERE WITH THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.

PROPOSITION NUMBER ONE FOR THIS ONE, THIS IS ABOUT SECTION 2.04 COMPENSATION.

THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MENTIONED THAT THE MAYOR OF BEDFORD.

WELL, FIRST OFF, THEY STRUCK OUT COUNCILMEMBERS SHALL SERVE WITHOUT PAY OR COMPENSATION PROVIDED.

INSTEAD, THEY ADDED, THE MAYOR OF BEDFORD SHALL RECEIVE A MONTHLY STIPEND IN THE AMOUNT OF $300 PER MONTH, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL RECEIVE A MONTHLY STIPEND IN THE AMOUNT OF $200 PER MONTH.

ADDITIONALLY, THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO A REIMBURSEMENT OF NECESSARY EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES WHEN APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL.

SO THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THAT WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT FOR ME.

I'M JUST GOING TO GO RIGHT OUT AND SAY IT WITH THIS ONE.

I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS, ONLY FOR THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF NEEDS IN THIS CITY, AND THAT'S

[00:35:05]

SO JUST FOR ME IN THIS CONVERSATION, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ITEM, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR ANYBODY ELSE, IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, YOUR OPINIONS GO AHEAD.

COUNCILMEMBER FARCO. YES, AND THIS IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AND FOR JIMMY.

ALSO, WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS A LEGAL CHALLENGE WITH DISMISSAL OF CHARGES AGAINST THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE OR FROM OUTSIDE ENTITIES, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PAID MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY OR THE CITY STAFF.

SO THIS WOULD SAVE SOME BURDEN.

I'M NOT FOR THIS.

I MEAN, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT LIKE $15 OR TEN OR EVEN A DOLLAR BECAUSE THEN WE BECOME A PAID EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY, AND THAT HELPS US IN THE LONG RUN, SAVE MONEY FOR THE CITY.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT, THERE ARE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED AMONG THAT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A PAID EMPLOYEE.

SO EVEN IF IT'S NOMINAL $1 $5 PER MONTH, WE DO HAVE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND OTHER CITIES THAT JUST REFUSE TO ACCEPT IT, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE CONSIDERED AND PAID EMPLOYEE UNDER THE CHARTER, THEY ARE COVERED BY THOSE IMMUNITY PROVISIONS.

SO IF THE CHARTER ENTITLES YOU TO A NOMINAL SUM, YOU GET THAT IMMUNITY PROTECTION IF YOU CHOOSE TO ACCEPT IT OR NOT, THAT WOULD BE YOUR CHOICE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.

OKAY, SO, MR. MAYOR, I'D BE IN FAVOR IF IT WAS $5 AND NOT TO, ANY INCREASES WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE THROUGH THE CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS, BUT FOR LEGAL COST BENEFIT FOR THE CITY IN THE LONG RUN, I SEE THAT AS A BENEFIT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE SOMEBODY FOR $5 FOR MINIMAL IF WE WERE GOING TO DO IT.

OH, OKAY.

COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I THINK I NEED CLARITY FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY.

SO I GUESS I'M, YOU KNOW, WITH US NOT BEING PAID, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE LACK OF IMMUNITY PROVISION THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW AND, YOU KNOW, ALSO CLARITY ON THE COMMENTS THAT COUNCILMAN FARCO WAS SAYING THAT IT WOULD COST THE CITY MORE WITHOUT THAT PROVISION? CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT? RIGHT. SO UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT.

WHAT THAT ACT ENVISIONS IS THAT WE WANT THE LEGISLATURE, WHEN THEY HAVE WAIVED IMMUNITY FOR CITIES TO BE SUED OR RECOVER OR BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES.

THEY DON'T WANT THAT TO GO TOWARDS EMPLOYEES.

IF YOU'RE WORKING FOR THE CITY, THE LEGISLATURE HAS SET IT UP IN A WAY THAT SOMEONE WHO SUES THE CITY AND NAMES A CITY EMPLOYEE THE FIRST THING THAT OUR OFFICE OR WHOMEVER WOULD BE REPRESENTING THE CITY WOULD DO WOULD BE FILE A MOTION UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT TO SAY THEY'RE OBLIGATED UNDER THE WAY THE STATUTE IS SET UP TO ONLY SUE THE CITY. HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE NOT AN EMPLOYEE, YOU'RE NOT AFFORDED THAT PROTECTION.

SO WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FILE THAT INITIAL MOTION TO, SAY, REMOVE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T BE AN EMPLOYEE UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT DEFINITION.

SO THEN WE WOULD BE DEFENDING YOU ON ONGOING DEFENSE FOR THE LAWSUIT.

SO THAT'S WHERE THE ADDITIONAL MONEY TO DEFEND THE LAWSUIT WOULD COME IN IS WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REMOVE YOU.

ONE OF THE VERY FIRST MOTIONS THAT WE FILED THAT MIGHT TAKE A WHILE DOWN THE ROAD.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

MY ONLY CONCERN.

AND SO I SERVED ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION WHEN THIS WAS DISCUSSED.

AND I THINK OUR CITY ATTORNEY MENTIONED TO THE COMMISSION, THIS WAS A RATIONALE FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS.

BUT I DO HAVE A CONCERN OF LIKE HAVING ANY COMPENSATION.

GRANTED, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS TO BE A VOTE OF INCREASING IT.

IT JUST SETS THAT PRECEDENT OF, OH, WELL, TIMES HAVE CHANGED.

THEY SHOULD BE COMPENSATED MORE.

AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO OPEN THE DOOR TO CONTINUED INCREASES WHERE GIVEN WE HAVE ACTUAL NEEDS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES IN PARTICULAR.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M NOT AGAINST HAVING.

I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES.

[00:40:03]

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

COUNCILMEMBER SABOL? BUT WOULDN'T THERE BE A WAY TO WORD THAT SO THAT THERE IS NO INCREASES? AND IF IT HAS TO BE IN THE CHARTER, I MEAN.

IS IT EVEN? WOULD IT BE AN ORDINANCE OR A CHARTER? I MEAN, IF YOU SAID THAT COUNCIL WILL NOT BE PAID.

WELL, WILL BE PAID BECAUSE OF INSURANCE OR LAWSUIT? SO WITH ANY CHARTER AMENDMENT, ONCE IT'S IN YOUR CHARTER, IT WOULD REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE ELECTORATE TO CHANGE AND INCREASE THAT RATE.

GRANTED, IF YOU WERE TO PROPOSE A FUTURE CHARTER, YOU COULD TRY TO PUT LIMITATION LANGUAGE IN THERE.

BUT THE NEXT CHARTER ELECTION TO TRY TO RAISE THE RATE COULD ALSO STRIKE THAT SAME LIMITATION LANGUAGE WHEN YOU'RE.

SO YOU COULD ADD SOME LANGUAGE.

BUT THE CHARTER ELECTION TO TRY TO RAISE THE RATE COULD TRY TO REMOVE IT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND HOW I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN.

BUT MY PROBLEM IS I DON'T REALLY SEE WHAT THE FEAR IS.

SO IF, SAY, WE GET A DOLLAR EVERY MEETING AND WE PUT IT IN THE CHARTER.

SO THE FEAR THAT MISS DAWKINS HAS IS THAT WILL IT'LL BE INCREASED? AS CHARTERS ARE REWORKED EVERY TIME.

SO YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TAKE IT TO A VOTE EVERY TIME TO TRY TO DO ANY INCREASE.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO THE FEAR IS THAT FUTURE COUNCILS WILL SAY, I WANT $300 FOR THE MAYOR AND $100 FOR EACH COUNCIL PERSON.

CORRECT. SO IF A FUTURE COUNCIL WERE TO WANT TO DO THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT TO THE VOTERS.

SO THAT'S UP TO THEM.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS JUST WHAT WE BELIEVE.

AND IN THE FUTURE, I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHEN YOU WRITE A WILL AND YOU TRY TO CONTROL YOUR FAMILY FROM THE GRAVE.

SO I WOULD SAY, JUST DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO, AND LET THE FUTURE COUNCILS DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IN THE FUTURE.

AND EVERY TIME YOU HAVE TO GO TO EVERY TIME IT WOULD MAKE A CHARTER AMENDMENT, YOU'D HAVE TO DO A CHARTER REVIEW, WHATEVER.

SO YEAH, $1 FOR EVERYBODY, FOR EVERY MEETING, I GUESS.

OKAY. OH, WAIT ONE SECOND.

I'D LIKE TO GO AROUND AND ONCE EVERYONE GETS SOME SAY, I'LL COME BACK.

COUNCILMAN STEVES? THANK YOU.

MAYOR. UM, SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, SERVING ON COUNCIL, WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR OUR OWN ATTORNEYS IF WE WERE.

IS THAT CORRECT OR NO? NO, SO LONG AS YOUR INTERESTS WERE ALIGNED WITH THE CITY, THEN TML.

TML WILL, IRP WOULD COVER YOUR RISK [INAUDIBLE] INSURANCE WOULD COVER YOU.

YOU MAY HAVE A SEPARATE COUNCIL FROM THE CITY IF YOUR INTERESTS WEREN'T ALIGNED.

IF YOU DID SOMETHING THAT WAS CONTRARY TO THE CITY'S POSITION, YOU MIGHT HAVE YOUR OWN SEPARATE COUNCIL, BUT THAT WOULD BE STILL COVERED GENERALLY BY THE RISK POOL IF IT'S A CLAIM COVERED BY THE RISK POOL.

SO I'M NOT FOLLOWING, I GUESS WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US BEING PAID AS AN EMPLOYEE AND CURRENTLY IS NOT? SO IT'S THE COST OF THE DEFENSE TO THE LITIGATION.

SO NOT NECESSARILY TO YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL BUT TO THE SO AGAIN, IF YOU WERE SUED UNDER TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT, AS AN EMPLOYEE, WE CAN FILE A MOTION AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THAT LITIGATION TO HAVE YOU REMOVED FROM THE LAWSUIT.

IF YOU'RE NOT A PAID EMPLOYEE, WE CANNOT FILE THAT.

AND YOU MIGHT BE A NAMED DEFENDANT ALL THE WAY THROUGH TRIAL.

BUT AT NO POINT WOULD WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR OWN ATTORNEY, OR YOU WOULD SUGGEST US GETTING OUR OWN ATTORNEYS? YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO GET YOUR OWN ATTORNEY, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THE COST EITHER TO THE CITY IF IT'S NOT A COVERED CLAIM OR TO THE RISK POOL.

SO IT'S A MATTER OF TAKING THE CITY TAKING IT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE.

OKAY, SO WHAT WOULD BE THE AMOUNT? I MEAN, A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT DOESN'T SHOW IT'S SIGNIFICANT.

I MEAN, THAT'S AN ATTEMPT JUST TO THAT'S I MEAN ONE OF THE ATTORNEY PIERCE THAT VEIL I MEAN SAYING THERE'S CASE LAW AS LONG AS YOU'RE A PAID EMPLOYEE IS ALL THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE.

SO IF YOU'RE RECEIVING AN INCOME FROM THE CITY, SO YOU'RE RECEIVING A DOLLAR PER MONTH, A DOLLAR WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT.

THAT GET, YOU BECOME A PAID EMPLOYEE AT THAT POINT OKAY.

SO THAT WOULD, SO A DOLLAR A MONTH WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYEE.

YEP. YES. PAID EMPLOYEE.

AND SINCE THERE'S NO COLA TIED TO THAT, SO THAT WOULD BE EVERY TWO YEARS, A NEW COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AMENDMENT PROCESS.

[00:45:03]

THEY WOULD HAVE TO.

CORRECT. OKAY.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A DOLLARS, MONEY IS WELL SPENT, I BELIEVE.

YEAH. AND AGAIN THIS IS GOING TO THE VOTERS.

THIS WOULD BE ON THE AMENDMENT SO THE VOTERS COULD DECIDE ON THIS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

OKAY ONE SECOND, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SOMEONE WHO HASN'T SPOKEN YET.

COUNCILMAN GAGLIARDI, AND THEN I'LL DO ADDITIONAL.

WELL THANK YOU MAYOR. NO, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE NOMINAL PAYMENT TO POTENTIALLY SAVE THE CITY MONEY IN THE LONG RUN.

I MEAN, IT WAS, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT MAKES.

PLENTY OF SENSE. YOU KNOW, NO PUN INTENDED.

THANK YOU. I GOT A CHUCKLE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

COUNCILMAN FARCO, DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS? YES. OKAY.

SO BASICALLY, MICHELLE, WE COULD HAVE A COUNCIL AT THE NEXT TIME.

CHANGES IT ANYWAY TO NOT JUST FROM NOTHING TO WHATEVER.

SO ALL WE'RE DOING IS CHANGING IT TO A DOLLAR.

BUT AND YES, WE WOULD RECEIVE REPRESENTATION LIKE YOU'D SAY, IT'S JUST ADDITIONAL COST.

AND I THINK BRANT WAS SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT THEY CAN'T DO A MOTION TO DISMISS IF WE'RE NOT A PAID EMPLOYEE.

CORRECT. SO AND THEN GO AHEAD.

COUNCILMAN SAMUEL, I WILL TAKE A DIFFERENT STANCE ON THIS.

THE $300 AND $200.

YOU MIGHT GET MORE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN RUNNING FOR COUNCIL.

I AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT A POPULAR STANCE TO TAKE, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT COSTS, WHAT, 5 TO $7000 TO RUN FOR AN OFFICE, AND THEN YOU RUN FOR AN OFFICE THAT'S VOLUNTARY AND YOU SPEND AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME DOING IT.

SO FROM THE POINT OF VIEW, THAT AND I KNOW IT'S NOT A POLITICALLY POPULAR POINT TO TAKE, BUT I DO THINK ESPECIALLY THE MAYOR, HE WORKS ALL THE TIME.

SEVERAL COUNCILMAN RICH GOES TO EVERYTHING.

I DO THINK THERE IS SOME VALUE IN PAYING US.

SO JUST TO TAKE AN OPPOSITE POINT OF VIEW.

ABSOLUTELY. COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS? YEAH, I JUST I WANT SOME CLARITY.

SO I GET WHAT I THINK THE CONSENSUS, THE GROUP CONSENSUS IS LEANING TOWARDS THE NOMINAL AMOUNT.

BUT I GUESS I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE RISK OF LITIGATION.

SO WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF LITIGATION IF WE WEREN'T NOMINAL EMPLOYEES THAT I GUESS I KIND OF NEED AN EXAMPLE FOR IT TO BE MORE REAL THAN BE IN FAVOR OF A NOMINAL AMOUNT.

FOR EXAMPLE, THERE MIGHT BE AN INJURY IN A BUILDING, A CITY BUILDING THAT SOMEONE MIGHT TRY TO COME IN AND SAY, YOU ALL AS COUNCIL, SHOULD BE LIABLE BECAUSE YOU KNEW ABOUT IT AND DID AND DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO FIX THE ISSUE.

SO AND THEY NAMED EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF COUNCIL, AND WE COULD COME IN AND FILE A MOTION TO DISMISS, ASK THE COURT TO REMOVE ALL OF YOU.

NO LONGER HAVE YOU AS NAMED DEFENDANTS.

THEORETICALLY AVOID YOUR DEPOSITIONS, AVOID POTENTIAL DISCOVERY THAT COMES TO YOU AS INDIVIDUALS.

SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH BEING A NAMED DEFENDANT AND THEN IF IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO TRIAL, YOU MIGHT BE CALLED TO TESTIFY AND ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. SO IF WE CAN REMOVE YOU AS A DEFENDANT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN AVOID YOUR DEPOSITION.

IF WE CAN SHOW THAT IT'S NOT RELEVANT, WE CAN AVOID THE COSTS OF DISCOVERY AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH.

SO MY OWN I UNDERSTAND THE GOING, YOU KNOW, MAKING IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT MAKING IT A NOMINAL AMOUNT WOULD I THINK BE THE WAY FORWARD.

BUT YOU KNOW, JUST FOR THE RECORD FOR MINE, I DON'T FEEL I THINK WE'RE OPENING PANDORA'S BOX BY BEING PAID EMPLOYEES.

AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK EVENTUALLY THE CITY CAN GET THERE.

I THINK THAT EVENTUALLY, YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL BE PAID.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE TIME RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION.

BUT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE GROUP, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS AND MYSELF, I THINK WE'RE IN THE MINORITY IN THIS ONE.

BUT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE GROUP IS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE A NOMINAL FEE.

IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH A NOMINAL FEE OF $1 BEING PAID FOR EVERY COUNCIL MEETING? YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ONE THEN.

PUT THAT IN. OKAY.

[00:50:03]

LET'S SEE HERE WE HAVE.

MAYOR. MAY I ASK YOU SOMETHING? YES, PLEASE. IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU ALL WOULD CONSIDER CLARIFYING? MAYBE, LIKE EVERY REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING? I THINK WE SHOULD DO, THIS IS MY OWN OPINION.

IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A NOMINAL AMOUNT REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING, [INAUDIBLE].

A DOLLAR A MONTH? DOLLAR A MONTH? JUST WHATEVER IT'S, THAT WAY STAFF DOESN'T HAVE TO.

DOESN'T IT COST MORE TO WRITE A CHECK FOR A DOLLAR? I MEAN, SHOULD WE MAKE IT $5 A MONTH? HOW ABOUT JUST PAY A YEAR IN ADVANCE? CAN WE DO THAT? [INAUDIBLE] SO ALRIGHT, SO I'M GETTING A LOT OF PEOPLE TALKING.

I THINK TO MAKE IT THE MOST NOMINAL AMOUNT POSSIBLE IS THE WAY FORWARD, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

SO A DOLLAR A MONTH? ALRIGHT. LET'S GO AROUND.

HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THAT DOLLAR MONTH.

FINE. WELL, THOSE OF YOU IN FAVOR OKAY, I'M NOT HEARING ANYONE DOLLAR A MONTH, SO.

ALL RIGHT AND THAT AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT WILL GIVE US PROTECTIONS AS BEING A PAID EMPLOYEE.

OKAY. THAT'S INTERESTING.

OKAY. FOR $12.

OKAY. NO, I THINK WE HAVE CONSENSUS.

THERE'S NO VOTING THAT NEEDED, BUT I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ITEM.

AND THEN I GUESS GOING FORWARD, LEGAL WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND CREATE BALLOT LANGUAGE THAT WE WILL THEN APPROVE LATER ON BEFORE, AS WE DO IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP WE HAVE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 2.03 QUALIFICATIONS.

THE ONLY THING THAT WAS ADDED TO THIS AND I'LL READ IT AND I'LL JUST SPECIFY WHAT WAS ADDED.

SO THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SHALL BE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY WHO HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF THE CITY FOR AT LEAST ONE AND THEN THIS IS WHAT WAS ADDED CONTINUOUS YEAR AND THEN ADDED PRIOR TO BEING ELECTED.

AND THAT'S ALL THAT THEY'VE ADDED. SO A CONTINUOUS YEAR PRIOR TO BEING ELECTED AND SHALL HOLD NO OTHER PUBLIC OFFICE EXCEPT FOR THOSE ALLOWED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION OR STATE LAW. IF A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL SHALL CEASE TO POSSESS ANY OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS, OR SHALL BE CONVICTED OF A FELONY THE OFFICE, SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY BECOME VACANT.

SO THE ONLY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS ONE WAS TO CLARIFY.

IT LOOKS LIKE CONTINUOUS.

YOU HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY FOR ONE CONTINUOUS YEAR PRIOR TO BEING ELECTED.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS ONE.

SO THIS ONE GOES TO MICHAEL AS THE CITY SECRETARY, SINCE YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS AND ALL OF THAT, WOULD THIS MAKE THIS CLARIFY LANGUAGE FOR YOU THAT HELPS YOU OUT? THAT IS CORRECT, BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETIMES QUESTIONS ABOUT PEOPLE'S RESIDENCY, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEY LIVED, COULD THEY SAY, WELL, WE LIVED FOR ONE YEAR BACK, YOU KNOW, TEN YEARS AGO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS WOULD HELP.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FANTASTIC.

AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THIS WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

SO FOR ME, I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND START OFF.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK THIS IS KIND OF A NO BRAINER.

MAKES MICHAEL'S JOB EASIER.

SO GOING AROUND THUMBS UP, FROM EVERYBODY.

DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT, COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD COLOR IN THE DISCUSSION FROM THIS COMMISSION THAT WE WERE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT SIMILAR TO WHAT CITY SECRETARY WAS SAYING, OF HAVING CLARITY, LIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE LIVED HERE A YEAR BACK, BUT ALSO PEOPLE WELL, I LIVE SIX MONTHS HERE AND THEN FOUR MONTHS AND TWO MONTHS HERE.

DOES THAT EQUAL ONE YEAR? AND SO WE JUST WANTED IT TO BE CLEAR THAT IT WAS ONE CONTINUOUS YEAR, NOT MONTHS HERE AND THERE.

THAT MAKES MAILING IT ADDING IT TOGETHER.

GOT IT. FANTASTIC.

ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK I'M GETTING SHAKING HANDS.

ALRIGHT I THINK WE'RE GOOD ON THAT ONE.

SO THANK YOU COUNCIL ON THAT.

SO WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.

STAFF NEED ANYTHING ANYTHING CLARIFIED FOR THAT ONE? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT OKAY.

ALL RIGHT MOVING ON. THIS ONE WILL BE A THE NEXT ONE WAS A NEW SECTION WHICH WAS FORFEITURE OF OFFICE.

AND I'LL READ THIS NEW SECTION RIGHT HERE.

I'M JUST MAKING SURE.

ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE IT GOES INTO THE NEXT SECTION WHICH IS A PROCEDURE FOR EXPULSION OF FORFEITURE OFFICE.

I'M GOING TO JUST READ THE FORFEITURE OFFICE ONE.

IT SAYS A COUNCIL PERSON SHALL FORFEIT THEIR OFFICE IF THEY A IS CONVICTED OF A IN ANY COURT OF A CLASS A OR CLASS B MISDEMEANOR, OR 2, A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, OR B FAILS TO ATTEND THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL WITHOUT FIRST BEING EXCUSED BY THE COUNCIL.

THAT'S A LOT IN THAT ONE. SO THIS WOULD BE FORFEITING AN OFFICE BASED ON BASICALLY BEING CONVICTED OF A CLASS A OR CLASS B MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF MORAL TURPITUDE, OR THREE CONSECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETINGS.

SO FOR CLARIFICATION, I THINK WE NEED CLARIFICATION OF WHAT A CLASS A, CLASS B MISDEMEANORS ARE.

MAYBE SOME EXAMPLES.

CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.

[00:55:02]

SO CLASS A AND CLASS B ARE GOING TO BE DEFINED BY THE TEXAS PENAL CODE.

AND THEY WILL BE SPECIFICALLY LISTED.

WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO AVOID WITH SAYING CLASS A OR CLASS B ARE SPEEDING TICKETS.

VERY BASIC ASSAULT CHARGES WHERE I BRUSHED UP AGAINST JIMMY.

MY ELBOW HIT HIS AND HE WAS OFFENDED BY THAT TOUCH.

SO HE FILED AN ASSAULT CHARGE AGAINST ME.

THAT WOULD BE A CLASS C LEVEL ASSAULT.

SO IT GETS YOU AVOID SOME OF THOSE KIND OF NITPICKY CLAIMS THAT WE LIKE TO CALL THEM IN THE PROSECUTOR WORLD, AND SOME OF THE CODE VIOLATIONS WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS A CLASS A OR CLASS B MISDEMEANOR.

THOSE WOULD FALL UNDER CLASS C CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE.

THOSE ARE REALLY DEFINED BY CASE LAW.

BUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE FRAUD, THINGS THAT GO TOWARDS YOUR CHARACTER.

AND ARE YOU OR ARE YOU TRUTHFUL? BRIBERY, EXTORTION, THOSE TYPE OF OFFENSES ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE FOR THE CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE.

IS THAT I MEAN, IS THERE A CLEAR LEGAL DEFINITION FOR THAT OR IS IT FLUID BASED ON LITIGATION? SO SO COURTS ARE LOOKING AT WHAT CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE, WHAT WHAT ARE CONSIDERED THOSE SO THAT IT DOES CHANGE AS DIFFERENT CASE LAW COMES OUT.

YOU KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT HAS FAMOUSLY SAID, I KNOW IT WHEN I SEE IT ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS.

AND THAT'S KIND OF MORAL TURPITUDE CAN FALL INTO THAT.

BUT THERE ARE SOME VERY DISTINCT, LIKE I SAID, BRIBERY, FRAUD, EMBEZZLEMENT, THOSE TYPE OF OF CHARGES WILL FALL UNDER MORAL TURPITUDE, WHICH WOULD ALREADY BE COVERED BY EITHER FELONIES OR THE OTHER.

RIGHT? SO THERE CAN CERTAINLY BE A MIXTURE.

I DO BELIEVE WE MAY HAVE A LIST THAT HASN'T BEEN UPDATED IN THE LAST YEAR, BUT I THINK WE HAVE ONE AT THE OFFICE THAT WE COULD PROBABLY PROVIDE AS WELL.

BUT THIS IS PRETTY STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT YOU SEE THROUGHOUT CHARTERS IN TEXAS AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES FORFEITURE.

OKAY. SO DO YOU SEE A LOT OF CLASS A AND CLASS B FOR FORFEITURE IN A LOT OF CITIES THROUGHOUT TEXAS, THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED, WE SEE IN CHARTERS THROUGHOUT TEXAS, WHETHER YOU'RE SEEING SOMEONE BE CONVICTED OF THESE, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WE SEE FROM A LOT OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.

LUCKILY. YEAH. NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WITHIN THE CHARTER, WITH DIFFERENT CITY CHARTERS, ARE YOU SEEING THAT MANY CITY CHARTERS HAVE THIS PROVISION IN THERE WHERE IF YOU ARE CONVICTED FOR CLASS A OR CLASS B, CORRECT.

YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT WE ARE BEHIND THE CURVE WHEN IT COMES TO THIS AND NOT NECESSARILY BEHIND THE CURVE? IT JUST MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN UPDATED.

AGAIN, YOU I DON'T KNOW, LOOKING AT PAST ELECTIONS, IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN TRIED TO BE DONE BEFORE AND DIDN'T PASS OR DIFFERENT GROUPS HAVE JUST SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A MECHANISM TO REMOVE SOMEONE FROM COUNCIL IN THE CHARTER, THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE AS WELL.

SO I DON'T THINK YOU'RE BEHIND, BUT THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU SEE NOW THAT YOU NEED GOING FORWARD.

OKAY. AND QUICK QUESTION.

I THINK THIS GOES TO I GUESS THE BEST PERSON WOULD BE MICHAEL WELLS.

HAS ANYBODY ON COUNCIL BEEN CONVICTED OR BEEN CONVICTED AND FORFEITED THEIR OFFICE DUE TO A FELONY, OR RESIGNED BECAUSE OF A PENDING FELONY CHARGE? NOT THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND.

NO, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

QUESTIONS FOR LEGAL ON ANY OF THESE TOPICS.

COUNCILMAN SABOL I FIND IT UNUSUAL THAT WE SHOULD PUT WE HAVE A MISDEMEANOR AND MORAL TURPITUDE, BUT THEN WE STICK IN THERE THAT IF YOU MISS THREE MEETINGS, YOU'RE OUT.

CORRECT. IS THAT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO PUT IT? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE OTHER THE A, C, A AND TWO, ONE AND TWO ARE PRETTY IMPORTANT.

BUT CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL WITHOUT FIRST BEING EXCUSED BY COUNCIL, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S MISPLACED.

SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR CHARTER IF YOU CAN LOCATE SIMILAR THINGS.

SO I WON'T SAY THAT THEY'RE SIMILAR IN THE FACT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT CONVICTIONS AND ABSENCES, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HOW ARE WAYS THAT YOU CAN FORFEIT YOUR OFFICE. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S PLACED HERE.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE A, B AND C ARE ALL THE SAME TYPE OF ACTION.

IT'S BECAUSE THESE ARE THE WAYS THAT YOU CAN BE REMOVED, AND THAT WAY IT'S CENTRALLY LOCATED IN ONE POSITION, AND COUNCIL MEMBER OR MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN EASILY FIND WHAT ARE THE WAYS SOMEONE CAN BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

HOW WOULD I GO ABOUT BEING EXCUSED BY COUNCIL? SO I GET VERY SICK AND WHAT WOULD HAVE TO SPECIAL SESSION TO THROW YOU OFF.

SO SOME CITIES HAVE A STANDING AGENDA ITEM THAT SAYS COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENCE, AND THEY WILL TAKE ACTION AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO EXCUSE A MEMBER WHO HAS NOTIFIED THE CITY THAT THEY WON'T BE THERE FOR A CERTAIN REASON.

[01:00:01]

THEY LET US KNOW THAT THEY'RE SICK, AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ACTION AT THE END OF THE MEETING TO EXCUSE THEIR ABSENCE.

AND IT DOESN'T GO TOWARDS THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER SABOL, COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS.

THANKS, MR. MAYOR. I JUST AGAIN WANTED TO PROVIDE CONTEXT HAVING SERVED ON THIS COMMISSION OF THE RATIONALE OF THIS NEW SECTION, WHERE IT WAS SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION DOING RESEARCH WHERE WE HAD A, THAT WAS THE MISSION OF THE CHARTER REVIEW WAS TO IDENTIFY ITEMS TO BRING TO THE COMMISSION.

AND SO THESE THIS WAS A REVIEW OF OTHER CHARTERS AND OTHER CITIES IDENTIFYING LANGUAGE THAT OTHER CITIES MIGHT HAVE HAD THAT WE DID NOT HAVE. SO A REVIEW OF OTHER AREAS, OTHER CITIES IN THE METROPLEX SHOWED THAT THEY HAD SIMILAR LANGUAGE TO THIS.

FOR THE PART A, FOR PART B, THERE WAS JUST A DISCUSSION ABOUT, I GUESS, ON A PREVIOUS COUNCIL, THERE WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WAS VERY SICK WHO WOULDN'T RESIGN.

IT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT SPOT WAS HELD UNTIL THEY PASSED AWAY.

AND SO THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO JUST SAY, WELL, IF THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS ABLE TO SAY EXCUSE LIKE, I WON'T BE AT THE MEETING, THEN THAT WAS ONE THING.

BUT JUST WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO COME.

WE KNOW THEY'RE SICK.

THEY CAN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE ACTION.

SO THAT WAS A RATIONALE OF HAVING THAT, THAT THIS B SECTION OF WELL, IF THEY DON'T SHOW UP, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE.

WE MUST ASSUME THREE CONSECUTIVE COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS, THEY'VE ABANDONED THAT OFFICE.

AND SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO ASSUME THAT THEY FORFEITED THEIR OFFICE.

SO THAT'S SOME CONTEXT OF HOW THIS VERBIAGE SHOWED UP.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS.

APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION HOW WE GOT THERE.

COUNCILMAN STEVES. YES.

THANK YOU MAYOR. THE READING OF THIS, IT SAYS A COUNCIL PERSON SHALL FORFEIT THEIR OFFICE IF THEY IS CONVICTED IN ANY COURT. I CAUGHT THAT TOO.

OKAY. THAT JUST DIDN'T SOUND RIGHT.

A CLASS A OR A CLASS B MISDEMEANOR OR A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.

DO YOU KNOW ANY CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE THAT AREN'T CLASS A OR B, OR A FELONY? I'M SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW.

I COULDN'T TELL YOU.

I DON'T DO CRIMINAL WORK, SO I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE.

I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT'S REPETITIVE BECAUSE ABOVE WE'RE GOING TO RIGHTFULLY SO.

IF SOMEONE'S CONVICTED OF A FELONY, THEY'LL NO LONGER SEIZE TO HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A OF THE OFFICE WILL BECOME VACANT.

AND CLASS A AND CLASS B, CLASS A'S ASSAULT, FAMILY VIOLENCE, CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, STUFF LIKE THAT.

CLASS B IS TERRORISTIC THREATS, RIGHT? STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO I THINK WE'RE INCLUDING A KIND OF WORDY, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE MORAL TURPITUDE IN THERE OR ISN'T THAT COVERED ALREADY? AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE BREADTH OF THE CRIMES OF MORAL TURPITUDE AND IF THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, I.

I'M GOING TO CRY. MORAL TURPITUDE.

SEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD.

BUT THAT WOULD BE A FELONY, OR AT LEAST A CLASS A.

RIGHT. SO I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE IS AN ENTIRE OVERLAP, OR IF THERE HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DEFINED BY THE COURT THAT DOESN'T ENCOMPASS CLASS A OR CLASS B.

SITTING HERE TONIGHT, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

AND I'M WITH THE OTHERS ON HAVING THE FAILS TO ATTEND THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE IN THAT SECTION, AND I JUST THINK IT SHOULD BE IN A DIFFERENT SECTION AND A DIFFERENT PROCEDURE TO GO THROUGH THAT.

THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

YEAH. SO I'LL SAY MY PIECE ON THIS AND I'LL GO DOWN THE LINE FOR THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR ME FOR CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, BECAUSE THERE IS SOME FLUIDITY THERE, LEGALLY SPEAKING, WITH LITIGATION, I'M SUGGESTING WE COMPLETELY REMOVE THAT PART OF IT, BECAUSE I THINK IT MAY BE, AND IT'S ALSO REDUNDANT IF WE GO AHEAD AND TAKE A LOOK AT CLASS A OR CLASS B MISDEMEANORS.

IT'S ALREADY COVERED AT THAT POINT.

SO I DON'T LIKE HAVING CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE.

I THINK THAT THAT COULD BE A CATCH ALL FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, LEGALLY SPEAKING.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO OUR CHARTER, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE BLACK AND WHITE.

SO THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FOR THAT.

IF FAILS TO ATTEND THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS.

I THINK THERE MAY BE BECAUSE BECAUSE OF HOW YOU COULD HAVE AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA WHERE PEOPLE COULD BE EXCUSED.

[01:05:01]

I DON'T CARE THAT YOU'RE IN THE HOSPITAL, THAT IT COULD HAPPEN.

I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS A WAY TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS.

NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT AT ALL.

BUT AS FAR AS HAVING CLASS A OR CLASS B MISDEMEANOR, I THINK THAT IS FAIR.

OKAY. THAT'S MY STANCE.

WHICH ONE OF YOU GUYS WANT TO GO NEXT? COUNCIL MEMBER PARKER.

I'M GOOD. YOU GOOD ON? I AGREE WITH REMOVING THE MORAL TURPITUDE, SORT OF THAT AMBIGUITY.

AND IF A COUNCIL FINDS IT UNFORTUNATE ENOUGH TO BE INVOLVED IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE TO ACT ON THESE THINGS, I THINK A LOT OF US HERE COULD AGREE THAT WE WOULD LIKE THE MOST CLEAR DIRECTION POSSIBLE AND NOT MORAL TURPITUDE.

SO YES, CLASS A, CLASS B FELONY, YOU KNOW, PACK YOUR BAGS.

OKAY. SO YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF THAT. WHAT ABOUT? AND WE COULD.. CONSECUTIVE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING..

THAT'S STILL WEAPONIZING SOMETHING AND BUT I DO RECOGNIZE COUNCILMAN DAWKINS WITH A FORMER COUNCIL PERSON CHAMPNEY. I MEAN THAT A VERY UNFORTUNATE SERIES OF EVENTS AND BUT WE WHEN YOU SIT AT THIS DAIS, YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE WE REPRESENT ALMOST 50,000 PEOPLE AND THAT, YOU KNOW, ANYWAY.

SO THAT'S THAT I DO AGREE WITH IF WE JUST DON'T HAVE SOMEONE DOING SOMETHING IN THAT SEAT, THAT NEEDS TO BE A MECHANISM TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

BUT DO YOU FEEL THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THAT? NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY, OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER SABOL.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

IS A DUI A MORAL TURPITUDE AND A MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY? IT'S A MISDEMEANOR.

WERE YOU ASKING ME? WHO ARE YOU ASKING? LET ME LOOK THAT UP AND GET YOU AN ANSWER.

I DON'T KNOW. LET ME CALL THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

OKAY. THOMAS J.

HENRY. TEXAS.

CAN WE CALL THE TEXAS HAMMER? TEXAS HAMMER. OKAY, SO FROM WHAT I'M AT LEAST TAKING A LOOK HERE.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT WE WANT TO REMOVE THE CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE, AND ALSO THE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS, FAILING TO ATTEND THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR MEETINGS. WE FEEL THAT THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT SPOT FOR IT.

MAYBE WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, PUTTING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE AT ANOTHER TIME, BUT ALSO KEEPING CLASS A AND CLASS B ALL RIGHT.

AM I GETTING A CONSENSUS.

CAN YOU CONSENSUS AND GO AHEAD.

FIRST OFFENSE FOR A DUI IS A CLASS B.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE GOOD? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP THAT ONE PART TO PUT ON THE BALLOT, WHICH IS IF CONVICTED OF COURT OF A CLASS A OR CLASS B MISDEMEANOR, AND THAT'S IT.

ALL RIGHT. STAFF YOU NEED ANY MORE CLARIFICATION ON THAT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO THE FUND SECTION.

PROCEDURE TWO FOR EXPULSION OR FORFEITURE OF OFFICE.

NOW THIS ONE, PRETTY LENGTHY IN IN ITS ENTIRETY.

I'LL, I CAN GO AHEAD AND READ IT AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

SO COUNCIL SHALL EMPLOY THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE.

WHEN THERE IS AN ALLEGATION THAT A MEMBER OF COUNCIL HAS FORFEITED HIS OR HER OFFICE, OR IS SUBJECT TO EXPULSION FROM THE OFFICE PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THIS CHARTER, THE PROCEDURE SET FORTH HEREIN SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED WHEN A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL IS CONVICTED IN ANY COURT OF ONE, A FELONY OR TWO, CLASS A OR CLASS B MISDEMEANOR.

THE PROCEDURE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS A WRITTEN SWORN COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED BY THE MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESENTED TO THE MAYOR IF THE COMPLAINT IS MADE AGAINST THE MAYOR, THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE PRESENTED TO THE CHARGED MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL.

B, THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE BROUGHT FORWARD AT THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, SO THAT THE COUNCIL MAY DECIDE IF THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE FUTURE AGENDA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE.

THE MAYOR PRO TEM SHALL SERVE AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER IF THE MAYOR IS CHARGED BY COMPLAINT.

WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE PLACED ON THE FUTURE AGENDA AND THE COUNCIL SHALL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO THE COMPLAINT. THE INDIVIDUAL CHARGED BY THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF THE DATE SET FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO THE COMPLAINT.

AFTER CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF AT LEAST THREE FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL SHALL BE REQUIRED TO FINE THE CHARGED COUNCILPERSON GUILTY OF THE ALLEGATIONS AS CHARGED IN THE COMPLAINT, AND TO FIND THE COUNCILPERSON HAS FORFEITED HIS OR HER OFFICE, OR IS EXPELLED FROM HIS OR HER OFFICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THIS

[01:10:04]

IF A COUNCILPERSON FORFEITS HIS OR HER OFFICE OR IS EXPELLED FROM HIS OR HER OFFICE, THE COUNCILPERSON SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR REELECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR OFFICE OF TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF FORFEITURE OR EXPULSION.

THAT WAS A LOT IN THERE, GOING OVER A LOT.

I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR LEGAL ON THIS ONE.

SO MY FIRST BASIC QUESTION IS HAVING A VERY DETAILED PROCEDURE LIKE THIS.

IS IT COMMON IN CITY CHARTERS TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT IS DETAILED OUT THE WAY IT IS? YOU CAN SEE IT ONE OF TWO WAYS.

ONE IS TO ALLOW FOR FORFEITURE FROM OFFICE, WHICH YOU'VE GONE THROUGH, AND THEN HAVE A PROVISION THAT SAYS COUNCIL BY ORDINANCE SHALL ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR FORFEITURE FROM OFFICE AND THEN SET IT UP IN AN ORDINANCE.

OR YOU CAN DETAIL EVERYTHING THAT THE WAY IT IS HERE.

WE SEE IT BOTH WAYS.

SOME CITIES HAVE MOVED AWAY FROM HAVING A DETAILED PROCEDURE IN THE CHARTER, JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE PERHAPS FOUND IT INFLEXIBILITY THAT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW ALL THE PROCEDURES IN THE CHARTER. SOMETHING DIDN'T WORK, AND THEY SAID, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THIS PROCEDURE, AND WE CAN'T DO THAT IF IT'S IN THE CHARTER, IT'S IF WE NEED AMENDMENTS, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE.

SO IT DEPENDS ON SOME CITIES LIKE THAT, IT'S RIGID AND YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT AND YOU HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT'S WRITTEN THERE.

SO IT REALLY JUST DEPENDS ON THE COUNCIL AND YOUR PREFERENCE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO SEE IT HERE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO OFTEN SAY IS ONCE IT'S IN THE CHARTER, IT'S HARD TO GET IT OUT OF THE CHARTER.

SO THAT IS JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND IS ONCE IT'S THERE, IT'S IT IS HARD TO REMOVE IF YOU FIND THAT SOMETHING DIDN'T, DIDN'T WORK AS ANTICIPATED.

YEAH. THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S ALSO MY CONCERN WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS IS IF WE CONCRETE IT INTO THE THE CHARTER THAT IT IS IT IS IN THERE.

AND IF ANYTHING WERE TO CHANGE, LEGALLY SPEAKING OR OF ANY OTHER SORT, IT'S HARD TO CHANGE.

THAT BEING SAID, QUESTION FOR MICHAEL WELLS, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ON FILE RIGHT NOW FOR RULES OF PROCEDURE? AND I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT JUST FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ON FILE FOR RULES AND PROCEDURES OF REMOVAL OF A COUNCIL MEMBER? NO, SIR. OKAY.

SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OF THE SORT YET.

AND SO THIS I UNDERSTAND THE CHARTER.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK COUNCIL MEMBER DAWKINS THE PURPOSE FOR THIS.

I KNOW ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS, THE REASONS THAT WE HAD A CHARTER HAD TO DO WITH THIS ITEM AND COMING UP WITH A WAY IN WHICH, IN A PROCEDURE TO REMOVE A COUNCIL MEMBER.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ELABORATE.

YEAH. SO THE THE COMMISSION, I THINK THIS WAS ONE OF THE ONES WHERE THERE'S A SECTION, I THINK IT'S 2.11 THAT TALKS ABOUT REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, AND IT'S PRETTY VAGUE ON THE STEPS.

AND SO THERE WAS SOME SPURS OF INITIATION TO TRY TO GET THE COMMISSION TO MODIFY 2.11.

AND BASED ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THAT COMMISSION OR THE RULES WE ESTABLISHED, AND GOING THROUGH THE PROVISIONS, WE DISCUSSED IT TWICE.

WE COULDN'T COME UP WITH A WAY TO CHANGE THAT.

SO THIS WAS OFFERED AS A WAY OF AN ADDITION TO WHERE YOU HAVE 2.11, BUT THIS WOULD BE 2.12 OR 13 SPELLING OUT A PROCEDURE BECAUSE ONE DIDN'T EXIST.

AND WE HAPPEN TO HAVE RUN INTO THIS SEVERAL TIMES IN RECENT HISTORY.

SO THIS WAS, HEY, WE NEED TO SPELL OUT WHAT THESE RULES, WHAT THE STEPS ACTUALLY ARE.

SO HERE IS AN OFFERING OF WHAT THE COUNCIL WOULD DO IF YOU HAD A COMPLAINT AGAINST A COUNCIL MEMBER OR THE MAYOR, AND HOW THE COUNCIL CAN ACT FROM THERE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

UM, SO FOR ME, I MEAN, THERE'S I MEAN, IT'S ALL LAID OUT HERE, YOU KNOW, IN ITS ENTIRETY FOR ME, I, I THINK IT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR US BECAUSE WE DO THIS WITH OUR ETHICS COMMISSION.

WE ESTABLISH AN ETHICS PROCEDURE THAT'S IN OUR CHARTER, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE CHARTER.

IT SAYS THAT WE WILL ADOPT AN ETHICS PROCEDURE BASED ON THAT.

AND SO I FEEL LIKE WITH THIS SHOULD BE DONE THROUGH ORDINANCE.

NOW WE COULD HAVE A NEW SECTION THAT SAYS COUNCIL WILL EMPLOY A RULE AND PROCEDURE FOR REMOVAL OF A COUNCIL MEMBER, AND THEN WE CAN THEN DO THAT BY ORDINANCE. THAT WAY IT IS EASILY CHANGED BASED ON THAT PROCEDURE GOING FORWARD.

BUT I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S DEFINITELY NEEDED, NO DOUBT.

IS THE CHARTER THE RIGHT PLACE FOR IT, WHERE IT WOULD BE CEMENTED IN THERE FOR A LONG TIME? I DON'T THINK THAT'S QUITE APPROPRIATE.

IN MY MY OPINION, I THINK THIS SHOULD BE DONE THROUGH ORDINANCE, BUT THAT THAT IS MY OPINION.

[01:15:06]

GO AHEAD. COUNCILMEMBER SABOL.

I QUESTION, SO WE JUST SAID IN THE LAST SECTION FORFEITURE OF OFFICE THAT THEY FORFEIT THEIR OFFICE BECAUSE OF A MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY.

SO WHY DO WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCEDURE IF THEY'VE COMMITTED A CLASS A, CLASS B MISDEMEANOR OR A FELONY? WHY DO THEY NEED, WHY DO WE NEED FORFEITURE OF OFFICE IN THERE? SO BECAUSE THEY AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT OR FORFEIT THEIR OFFICE.

SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS IN PLACE FOR CHARTER VIOLATIONS.

OKAY, SO IT NEEDS TO BE REWORDED THEN I GUESS, THE NEW SECTION.

BUT THEN THE OTHER THING THAT I FOUND IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS, PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN TO WEAPONIZE OUR CHARTER AGAINST COUNCIL PEOPLE.

SO I THINK THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDED TO THIS.

ONE WOULD BE, I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY THAT BRINGS A COMPLAINT SHOULD BRING IT TO ANYBODY BUT THE CITY SECRETARY.

AND THEN I THINK HE IN TURN SHOULD TURN IT OVER TO THE ATTORNEY.

THE ATTORNEY SHOULD DISTRIBUTE IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PERSON THAT IT INVOLVED.

THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE WHEN IT HAPPENED TO ME, THE MAYOR WAS PUT IN THE MIDDLE AND IT ALSO LENDED ITSELF TO POLITICAL SIDES.

SO I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER IF IT WAS CLEANER, IF IT WENT THROUGH MR. WELLS, THEN TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY DISTRIBUTE IT.

AND THEN THE COUNCIL PEOPLE ARE NOT INVOLVED AT ALL.

I ALSO THINK THAT.

IF WE, THE PERSON THAT IS THE ACCUSER SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY IDENTIFIED.

AND IF THE THE COLLECTION OF DATA IS NOT OF ANY VALUE, IT SHOULD BE THROWN OUT.

AND THERE'S NO WAY THE ACCUSER SHOULD REMAIN ANONYMOUS ON ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

OKAY. RICHARDSON HAS PUT IT INTO THEIR CHARTER, AND THEY'VE ACTUALLY SAID A GENERAL COMPLAINT LACKING IN DETAILS SHALL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES CONTAINED HEREIN, AND ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. SO I THINK THAT IN RICHARDSON'S CASE, THEY PROBABLY HAVE RUN INTO THIS TOO.

AND SO THEY'VE DECIDED TO PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, BECAUSE IN REALITY, HOW MUCH NUMBER ONE, HOW MUCH SHOULD IT HAPPEN? NUMBER TWO IS THAT IT PROBABLY DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN, BUT IF IT IS, IT'S EVERYBODY WOULD KNOW WHAT TO LOOK AT.

BECAUSE I REMEMBER WHEN THIS HAPPENED TO ANOTHER COUNCIL PERSON, NOT MYSELF.

WE LOOKED AND LOOKED AND LOOKED TO FIND THE INFORMATION AND IT NEEDED TO BE IN THE CHARTER.

IT REALLY DID NEED TO BE IN THE CHARTER.

I ALSO SEE.

I THINK. SEE CATHERINE.

I THIS THIS IS A QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

IF. COULD COULD THE EMPLOYEES BE ASKED TO SAY TO THE.

TO THE COUNCIL PERSON THAT THEY PREFER NOT TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

THEY PREFER THOSE QUESTIONS TO GO DIRECTLY TO YOU.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

BECAUSE THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUTTING EMPLOYEES IN THAT SITUATION ANYWAY, SO THAT WOULD BE VERY, THAT'S VERY TYPICAL.

BUT THEY TYPICALLY DON'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT TO A COUNCIL PERSON.

RIGHT, IT'S AWKWARD, AND THEN BUT THE EMPLOYEE WILL TYPICALLY FOLLOW UP AND LET ME KNOW AS A HEADS UP.

BUT IT JUST DEPENDS ON IF IT'S LIKE A QUICK ANSWER OR WHATEVER.

I MEAN, LIKE WITH OUR STAFF, IF SOMEONE IF YOU'LL ASK THEM A QUESTION OR SOMETHING, WE'RE FINE.

BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S POLITICAL OR IF IT'S OBVIOUSLY, HEY, WILL YOU DO THIS REPORT FOR ME ABOUT THIS VERSUS, HEY, HOW ABOUT THIS INFORMATION? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE STILL A RESIDENT, BUT THE THE KEY IS IF YOU, NOT YOU, BUT IN GENERAL START DIRECTING.

THAT'S WHERE AT LEAST FOR ME, THAT'S WHERE WE GET ANGST.

AND THIS THIS IS PROBABLY OFF TOPIC A LITTLE BIT.

I KNOW WHEN I CAME TO COUNCIL I WAS NOT GIVEN ANY TRAINING.

AND SO, WHEN THEY DID THE THE SEARCH ON MY BACKGROUND, THEY WENT ALL THE WAY BACK SIX YEARS.

SO COULD WE PUT A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS INTO THIS LIKE SAY A YEAR, TWO YEARS, AS OPPOSED TO GOING THROUGH YOUR WHOLE COUNCIL HISTORY? IT'S COUNCIL'S DISCRETION, THERE'S NOT A LEGAL STANDARD FOR HOW YOU WANT TO SET UP THIS PROCEDURE.

SO THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING YOU COULD DO.

I DO WANT TO NOTE ONE OF YOUR PRIOR COMMENTS WAS TO DESTROY INFORMATION.

[01:20:05]

SO THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO TO FOLLOW THAT RECORDS RETENTION POLICY.

BUT AS FAR AS LIKE PROCEDURES TO, TO EXPULSE EXPEL SOMEBODY, COULD IT ONLY GO BACK FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, LIKE FOR A YEAR? YOU COULD GATHER ALL THE INFORMATION THEY WANT, BUT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO CONSIDER A YEAR.

RIGHT. SO YOU YOU COULD BY YOUR CHARTER PROVISIONS LIMIT FOR WHAT TYPE OF BEHAVIOR AND HOW LONG SOMEONE CAN LOOK BACK AT THAT, THAT YOU CAN SET THAT IN YOUR CHARTER.

OKAY. BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT IT WAS REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE AT THE TIME AND ALL THE SITUATIONS, QUITE FRANKLY, THAT THE MAYOR HAD TO HE WAS INVOLVED.

HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN JUST BETWEEN PROFESSIONALS, REALLY.

AND THEN THEY COULD DISTRIBUTE IT TO REST OF COUNCIL.

SO I DO THINK THE WORDING NEEDS TO CHANGE HERE, THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE.

THE INFORMATION SHOULDN'T BE GIVEN TO A MEMBER OF COUNCIL.

IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY.

THE CITY SECRETARY THEN GOES IN FACT, THE RICHARDSON CHARTER IS VERY WELL WRITTEN, I WOULD SAY, JUST FROM MY RESEARCH.

SO ALL RIGHT, SO YOU LAID OUT BASICALLY YOUR OPINION, GO TO CITY SECRETARY, THE ATTORNEY, AND THEN THE ATTORNEY TAKES A LOOK AT IT AND PASSES OUT TO COUNCIL BECAUSE COUNCIL HAS TO BE AWARE. BUT IT SHOULD BE A PRIVATE ISSUE.

BUT I ALSO THINK THERE SHOULD BE NO HEM HAWING ABOUT WHO THE ACCUSER IS.

IN MAKING SURE THAT IT CAN'T BE ANONYMOUS.

IT CAN'T BE ANONYMOUS. IT HAS TO BE.

AND THEN YOU ALSO MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THE RICHARDSON ONE WITH GENERAL COMPLAINTS OR,, LACKING IN DETAIL, SHALL NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURES CONTAINED HEREIN.

OKAY. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE ATTORNEY CAME UP WITH IN MY CASE, IS THAT IT WAS VERY MINIMAL.

YOU KNOW, THE AND IT WAS PARTIALLY BECAUSE I HADN'T BEEN TRAINED, I HAD NO TRAINING.

AND I'LL TELL YOU, THE FIRST TRAINING I GOT WAS ROGER FISHER.

I EMAILED EVERYBODY SAID, OH, THANK YOU.

AND THE FIRST THING HE CAME BACK AND HE SAID, AMY, THAT'S A ROOKIE MOVE.

YOU CAN'T TALK TO EVERYBODY ON COUNCIL.

I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT.

SO I WOULD ADVOCATE ALSO FOR COUNCIL TO GET SOME TRAINING ON THESE RULES IN CASE SOMEBODY DOES WEAPONIZE OUR CHARTER, AND SO THAT THEY'RE AWARE THAT YOU CAN BRING BROUGHT UP ON CHARGES ON THIS, AS WELL AS BECAUSE YOU DON'T REALLY EVEN REALIZE IT.

I THINK SOME OF COUNCIL WAS EVEN SURPRISED THAT IF YOU EVEN TALK TO TWO EMPLOYEES IN A CERTAIN MANNER, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T TAKE THEM INTO OFFICE AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR.

EVERYTHING HAS TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER AND APPARENTLY EVEN PASSWORDS.

YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS PASSWORDS WAS ON MY THING.

I ASKED THE IT GUY TO GIVE ME A PASSWORD, BUT I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT TO MAKE IT SO THAT IT'S NOT AS EASY TO GO AFTER A COUNCIL PERSON..

AND WEAPONIZING IT. RIGHT? YEAH.

I MEAN, YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF CEMENTING IT THOUGH, INTO THE CHARTER? YES, I AM.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

UM, SOMEBODY ELSE, COUNCIL MEMBER STEVES.

YES. I THINK THE PROCEDURES NEED TO BE IN THE CHARTER BECAUSE THE PENALTY IS EXPULSION FROM THE OFFICE, SO AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REAPPLY.

NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REELECTION TWO YEARS.

SO I BELIEVE IT SHOULD STAY IN THE CHARTER.

I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SABOL ABOUT THE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS.

I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PUT YOUR NAME TO IT, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD STAY IN THE CHARTER OR BE PLACED IN THE CHARTER.

NOW YOU HAD COUNCILMAN SABOL HAD MENTIONED ONE YEAR.

THAT'S GOING AS FAR AS YOUR BACKGROUND, YOU WOULD..

THAT COULD BE USED FOR YOUR REMOVAL.

THEY WERE LOOKING FOR THINGS FOR ME.

THEY WERE LOOKING FOR THINGS THAT I WOULD HAVE TALKED TO INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES, LIKE I WOULD WRITE A MESSAGE TO ANDREA, OR I'D WRITE A MESSAGE TO MICHAEL AND NOT LET JIMMY KNOW.

SO THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR.

AND I'D BE WORRIED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT JUST MEANS LIKE, IF SOMEBODY'S COMMITTED A VIOLATION AND THEY WEREN'T CAUGHT FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON VIOLATIONS WHILE YOU'RE YOU'RE ON COUNCIL.

OKAY. I WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT AS LONG AS PEOPLE GET TRAINED.

BUT AT THE TIME THERE WAS NOBODY TO TRAIN US, YOU KNOW, AS THERE'S TRAINING GOING ON.

YEAH, FINE. BUT WE I CAME FROM THE TIME WHERE EVERYTHING WAS THE SKY'S THE LIMIT.

[01:25:01]

HE WOULD, HE WOULD.

AMANDA DID A LOT OF WORK FOR HIM.

I MEAN, THERE WERE THERE WERE.

AND IT WAS BECAUSE NOBODY HAD REALLY READ THE CHARTER, YOU KNOW, NOBODY HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT THIS IS THE WAY THE CHARTER WORKS.

IT IS IN STONE.

AND SO WHEN I DID IT, I THOUGHT, WELL, I'M CERTAINLY NOT DOING ANYTHING AS EXAGGERATED AS THAT.

SO I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING TO IT.

BUT IF IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT STATUTE OR IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO LOOK OUT FOR, THEN I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE CHARTER AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SPELLED OUT.

AND COUNCIL NEEDS TRAINING ON WHAT IS IN THE CHARTER AND WHAT WILL BE ACCEPTABLE FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL TO DO WHEN IT COMES TO OUR EMPLOYEES.

AND THERE WILL BE NO EXCEPTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

SO, WELL, REAL QUICK, I GOT TO GET YOUR OPINION ON A FEW THINGS.

SO BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP, SO JUST SO WE ARE GOOD FOR YOU WITH THE ANONYMOUS MAKING SURE THAT SOMEBODY CANNOT BE ANONYMOUS IN THAT. WHAT ABOUT THE PROCEDURE OF THE COMPLAINT GOES TO CITY SECRETARY, WHICH THEN GOES TO THE ATTORNEY FOR REVIEW AND THEN PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GO TO THE WAY IT'S ESTABLISHED IN HERE, WHERE IT GOES THROUGH THE MAYOR AND KEEP THE EMPLOYEES OUT OF THE CITY, EMPLOYEES OUT OF IT TO WHERE .. HOW IT'S AND IF THE COMPLAINT IS AGAINST THE MAYOR GOES TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT. AND ALL THAT GOING FORWARD.

OKAY. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

THANK YOU MAYOR OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO THERE'S A LOT HERE TO TO GO THROUGH.

SO IF ANYONE WANTS TO CHIME IN, COUNCILMEMBER FALCO.

YES, MR. MAYOR, I'M FINE WITH IT, WITH COUNCILWOMAN SABOL ON NOT BEING ANONYMOUS.

I'M FINE WITH THAT. BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT WE CAN APPROVE A ALMOST $100 MILLION BUDGET WITH A 4-3 VOTE.

IT SHOULD BE A 4-3 VOTE TO REMOVE ALSO BECAUSE IN THE PAST AND MICHAEL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A HISTORY OF THIS, WE'D HAVE COUNCIL PEOPLE NOT SHOW UP TO MEETINGS SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO VOTE ON, WE HAD A PROCEEDING IN YEARS AGO THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUOUSLY NOT SHOW UP.

SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT TO REMOVE THEM.

SO IF WE CAN APPROVE A BUDGET AT THREE, AT FOUR-THREE, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO REMOVE A COUNCIL PERSON AT FOUR-THREE.

THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE I HAVE.

THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU'RE GOOD WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.

ANONYMOUS. AND WHAT IS YOUR PREFERENCE FOR PROCEDURE? IS IT GOING TO THE MAYOR GOING TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

AND THERE'S NO LIMITATION ON ON TIME, NO LIMITATION ON TIME OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT, COUNCILMAN.

GAGLIARDI. WELL, I, SO I AGREE WITH THE NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

I MEAN, I GUESS I COULD SEE TRYING TO KEEP STAFF OUT OF IT, BUT.

YEAH, I MEAN, THAT COULD BE A CLEAN AVENUE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY OFFICE AND THEN TO THE ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, AND THEN DIRECTLY TO COUNCIL.

JUST THAT SORT OF KEEPS.

BECAUSE IN THOSE SITUATIONS, THE COUNCIL IS ALSO THE JURY.

RIGHT. SO IT IT'S JUST IT'S REAL STICKY WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE THE JURY, BUT YOU'RE ALSO SITTING IN ON THE VOTES.

SO I COULD SEE GOING EITHER WAY.

I COULD SEE GOING THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY OR GOING THROUGH THE MAYOR OR THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

BUT I ALSO I MEAN, I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN FARCO ON THE I MEAN, THE NO NEED FOR A SUPERMAJORITY.

YOU KNOW. OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE? SO YOU'RE OPEN TO BOTH AVENUES? BEFORE WE MOVE ON, LET ME AT LEAST TALK TO TO OUR CITY SECRETARY AND LEGAL BEFORE WE GO THERE.

FIRST, I'D GO TO LEGAL AID.

SO THIS PROCEDURE, IF IT WERE TO GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY AND THEN TO YOU FOR REVIEW, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS DONE? DO YOU HAVE ANY DISREGARD? SOMETIMES IT CAN BECOME STICKY TO SEND TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FIRST, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE YOUR EMPLOYEE AS WELL.

SO THERE WOULD BE SOME DISCONNECT IN THOSE TYPE OF SITUATIONS WHERE WE DON'T, HOW DO I WANT TO PHRASE THAT? YOU KNOW, WE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE GIVING AN ADVICE IF IT WAS THE ADVICE OF SHOULD THIS PERSON BE REMOVED OR NOT? I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO TO BE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

IF IT'S A DOES THIS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE AN EFFECTIVE AND VALID COMPLAINT?

[01:30:05]

SHOULD THIS PERSON BE REMOVED THAT.

NO, NO, I THINK WHAT IT IS IS JUST FOR REVIEW.

REVIEW. I THINK THE PROCEDURE IS FOR REVIEW PURPOSES AND THEN DISSEMINATING THAT INFORMATION.

SO LEGALLY THERE'S NOT IT'S HOW YOU WANT TO SET IT UP.

OKAY. NO QUALMS. ALL RIGHT.

YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT? I MEAN, THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD TO THAT IS FOR LIKE ETHICAL COMPLAINTS.

THOSE KIND OF COMPLAINTS WOULD BE FILED WITH MY OFFICE PER ORDINANCE.

ALTHOUGH I CAN TELL YOU IN MY EXPERIENCE, WE'VE NEVER HAD ONE, BUT THAT IS A PROCEDURE THAT IS IN THERE FOR ETHICAL COMPLAINTS.

SO FOR ETHICAL COMPLAINTS IT GOES TO YOUR OFFICE ANYWAYS? YES THAT'S CORRECT OKAY. ALL RIGHT OKAY.

THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM YOU YET.

I, I DON'T HAVE I AGREE WITH CHANGING THE THE THREE FOURTHS TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

I THINK THE RATIONALE FOR THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME WAS BECAUSE YOU'RE REMOVING FROM SOMEONE FROM OFFICE, YOU SHOULD HAVE A HIGHER BAR.

BUT I THINK COUNCILMAN FARCO HAS A GOOD POINT OF OTHER WEIGHTY THINGS.

WE JUST DO A SIMPLE MAJORITY, SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM ADJUSTING THAT.

AND I CAN GO EITHER WAY LIKE I CAN.

I SEE THE BENEFITS THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CITY SECRETARY MENTIONING THE ETHICS COMPLAINTS GO THROUGH HIM, THAT I SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT PROCEDURE WORKING.

BUT I YOU KNOW, SINCE I WAS INVOLVED IN WRITING THIS, I'M FINE WITH IT GOING TO THE MAYOR, TOO.

SO I'M OPEN TO THE CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FANTASTIC.

OKAY. SO LET'S GO, LET'S TAKE THIS KIND OF LINE BY LINE AND THEN GO FROM THERE.

SORRY IT'S TAKING SO LONG, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH ISSUE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE CONSENSUS.

THE FIRST FIRST ONE IS OUR PROCEDURE OF GOING FORWARD.

FOR ME, I'M GOING TO START AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES OF FIRST OFF, OBVIOUSLY, I THINK IT'S A CONSENSUS THAT WE WANT TO PUT THIS IN THE CHARTER.

THERE IS NOT A CONSENSUS WHERE WE WANT TO PUT IT A SOMETHING IN THERE THAT SAYS WE WILL ADOPT RULES AND PROCEDURES IN AN ORDINANCE.

SO I THINK I'M RIGHT THERE.

NEXT FOR THE PROCEDURE, I'M GOING TO SAY IT HAS TO GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY AND THEN TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, ONLY FOR THE FACT THAT ETHICS COMPLAINTS GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY.

AND IT'S ALREADY A PRECEDENT WITH THAT.

I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

HOW ARE WE WITH THAT PROCEDURE FOR IT GOING TO [INAUDIBLE] COUNCILMAN FARCO.

WHAT ABOUT GOING TO THE MAYOR? THE MAYOR TAKE IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY AND THEN THE ATTORNEY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN FOR IT TO GET ON THE AGENDA ANYWAY.

IT HAS TO GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY AND THE ATTORNEY.

SO IF YOU BROUGHT IT TO THE MAYOR, THE MAYOR THEN BRINGS IT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY GETS VALIDATION, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE CITY SECRETARY ANYWAY, TO GET ON THE AGENDA OR WHATEVER WE HAVE TO.

IT'S NOT THAT.

I MEAN, I THINK IT'S JUST AT THE TIME, IT'S BEFORE THE CITY SECRETARY GETS INVOLVED AND OUR CITIZENS, OUR EMPLOYEES GET INVOLVED BECAUSE IT IS KIND OF A IT'S THEIR BOSSES.

I MEAN, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT PROCEDURE RATHER THAN THE OTHER WAY.

ON COMPLAINTS AGAINST OTHER THAN CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE COUNCIL.

THE THING THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS COUNCIL MEMBER GAGLIARDI KIND OF BROUGHT UP TO THE POINT IS THAT WE'RE THE JURY ON HERE.

AND SO WE STILL HAVE TO GET ADVICE FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY, THOUGH, BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD ON ANYTHING.

CORRECT. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I KNOW MAYOR BOYTER HAD A TERRIBLE TIME IN A FEW SITUATIONS BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN THREE I THINK HE HAD TO DEAL WITH, AND IT WAS UNCOMFORTABLE FOR HIM, AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON FOR THAT.

I THINK THAT HE TRIED TO KEEP A EVEN KEEL WITH IT, AND SOMETIMES IT WORKS AND SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T.

AND I REMEMBER WHEN IT HAPPENED TO ME, I TOLD HIM HE WAS OUT OF IT.

AND THAT WAS HELPFUL BECAUSE IT WASN'T IT WASN'T HIS DEAL.

BUT IF WE JUST GIVE IT TO MICHAEL, HE'S JUST THE MESSENGER.

HE'S THE COURIER.

AND THEN IT GOES TO THE ATTORNEY.

THERE'S NO REASON FOR ANY OF US AS ELECTED OFFICIALS WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS TO TOUCH THAT, TO TOUCH IT.

SO AND THEN WHEN IT IS JUST IF YOU DON'T MIND, IF IT IS PRESENTED, WHEN IT IS PRESENTED TO US, WE ALL SEE IT AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH I THINK THERE'S VALUE IN THAT, SEEING SOMETHING AT THE SAME TIME AND NOT HAVING ONE PERSON SEEING IT BEFORE ANYBODY ELSE, THAT'S THAT'S MY RATIONALE.

ALL RIGHT. SO, YOU'RE ALL BEING VERY QUIET NOW.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THE PROCEDURE. SO THE PROCEDURE FOR THIS ONE AS I GUESS THE QUESTION IS I UNDERSTAND COUNCILMAN FARCO'S OPINION.

SO DO WE WANT TO GO TO THE MAYOR OR CITY SECRETARY? OKAY. WHY DON'T WE ASK OUR STAFF.

[01:35:01]

BUT GO AHEAD. I DON'T REMEMBER IF WHO HAS ASKED ME.

SO ANYWAY, JUST SINCE Y'ALL ASK I REALLY THINK YOU SHOULD GO TO THE CITY SECRETARY.

AND HERE'S WHY. BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE NEGATIVE, I'M JUST LOOKING AT EVERY POSSIBLE SCENARIO.

SAY YOU HAVE A MAYOR THAT RECEIVES A COMPLAINT, JUST SITS ON IT, DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

THE COUNCIL DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER ONE OF YOUR PEERS, JUST ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS.

WELL, I HAVE TO WORK IN MY DIRECT REPORTS ULTIMATELY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE COUNCIL, AND THAT WAY IF IT GOES TO THE CITY SECRETARY, WE CAN MAKE SURE IT ALL GOES TO EVERYONE AT ONCE.

NOT SAYING, ANYWAY, I'M BELABORING THE POINT.

OBVIOUSLY WE'LL DO WHATEVER COUNCIL WANTS, BUT THAT TO ME THAT WOULD BE THE LEAST POLITICALLY AWKWARD WAY TO HANDLE IT FOR STAFF.

BUT AGAIN, WE'LL DO WHAT YOU GUYS WANT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

SO FOR PROCEDURE, GOING TO CITY SECRETARY AND THEN THE ATTORNEY FOR REVIEW GOT A YES NOD .

I'M GOOD. GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD GOOD, OKAY.

ALL RIGHT SO WE GOT THAT PART DOWN.

ALL RIGHT. NOW TO THE MORE INTERESTING PARTS.

THANK YOU ALL FOR THAT FOR FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

SO AFTER WE GET TO THAT POINT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT EVIDENCE AND COLLECTION AND SO FORTH.

FIRST OF ALL I THINK I DIDN'T HEAR ANYBODY SAY THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE.

IT SHOULD BE ANONYMOUS.

SO A PERSON WHO IS MAKING THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE NAMED.

YES. I'M GETTING ALL RIGHT.

GOOD. SO EVERYONE SHOULD BE NAMED ON THAT ALSO FOR COLLECTION OF INFORMATION, THIS IS FOR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

I DIDN'T GET A CONSENSUS ON THAT.

I COUNCIL MEMBER SABOL SAID ONE YEAR I HAD A FEW OVER HERE THAT SAID TO NOT HAVE ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AT ALL, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

SO I BELIEVE THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THAT.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD WITH THAT.

NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.

LET'S HEAR WHAT ELSE. OH, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY DURING THIS TIME PERIOD, THERE NEEDS TO BE A TIME FOR COUNCIL TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING, IN MY OPINION, AS IT'S STATED THERE, SO THAT THE ACCUSED HAS THEIR DUE PROCESS, IF YOU WILL.

I THINK IT'S ALREADY IN THERE.

I JUST WANTED TO CHECK.

THERE'S ONE THING THAT WE DID NOT DISCUSS.

EVERYONE MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER. OKAY.

LASTLY, WE GO TO A VOTE.

AND SO I HEARD WHETHER IT BE A JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY OR A SUPERMAJORITY.

SO THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO FOR THIS ONE.

SO WHAT IS OUR PLEASURE ON THIS ONE? SIMPLE. SIMPLE, SIMPLE MAJORITY, SIMPLE MAJORITY, SIMPLE MAJORITY.

SIMPLE MAJORITY. OKAY. SO SIMPLE MAJORITY FOR THAT ONE.

SO LET ME GO TOWARDS OUR CITY ATTORNEY LEGAL GOING THROUGH ALL OF THESE ITEMS. DID WE MISS ANYTHING, IN YOUR OPINION? NO. I THINK WE CAN DRAFT IT OFF THAT DRAFT AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S DUE PROCESS AND MAKING SURE THAT IT'S SOLIDIFIED IN THERE FOR THE PROCESS.

CORRECT. OKAY.

YES. YES. OKAY.

IN RICHARDSON'S THEY DO.

IT'S A REALLY WELL WRITTEN CHARTER.

TAKE A LOOK AT RICHARDSON'S.

BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON IS, IS BECAUSE I THINK ABOUT EVERYBODY INVOLVED.

AND IF IT FOR INSTANCE, I THINK THAT'S THE WAY WE HANDLED IT TOO, BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF A PERSONNEL ISSUE.

IS IT IMPORTANT FOR IT TO GO TO EXECUTIVE BEFORE IT COMES OUT IN PUBLIC, SO THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CAN EVALUATE WHAT THE ATTORNEY DISCOVERED? BECAUSE I THINK IT'S HARD TO AIR OUT ALL THOSE PROBLEMS WITHOUT GOING TO EXECUTIVE FIRST AND THEN BRINGING IT OUT.

THEY SUGGEST THAT THE ATTORNEY BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL IN EXECUTIVE, AND THEN IT COMES OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND THEN THERE'S A $200 FINE.

BUT I ALSO WONDER IF IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN EXPULSION IS NECESSARY, IF IT SHOULD BE A PENALTY PHASE. AND THEN, THE COUNCIL HAS SOME OPTIONS.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS YOU COULD CONSIDER IS TREATING IT LIKE A PERSONNEL MATTER, WHERE YOU CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT IT BE ALL DONE IN PUBLIC.

SO THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE AN OPTION.

YOU COULD ADD A DIFFERENT OTHER PENALTY OPTIONS THAT YOU CAN VOTE FOR EXPULSION.

YOU CAN VOTE TO REPRIMAND OR SANCTION OR SLAP THEIR WRIST.

YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT THOSE THINGS IN PLACE IF YOU FEEL THAT THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

[01:40:05]

THEY CAN ISSUE A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION, WHEN THE VIOLATION IS UNINTENTIONAL.

THEY CAN ISSUE A LETTER OF ADMONITION WHEN THE VIOLATION IS MINOR AND MAY HAVE BEEN UNINTENTIONAL.

THEY CAN ISSUE A REPRIMAND THEY CAN REMOVE FROM OFFICE AN OFFICER, THEY CAN PASS A RESOLUTION OF CENSURE.

SO I THINK IN THAT THE PERSON HAS BEEN ELECTED, MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXPEL THEM FOR EVEN THE MINOR, THE MOST MINOR OF CHARTER VIOLATION.

YOU SEE THEM THINKING IT, IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT BLACK AND WHITE BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

SO PROVIDING SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT WE PROVIDE OTHER IN ADDITION TO EXPULSION, IF THAT IS..

THAT COULD BE THE CASE IF IT WAS SOMETHING TERRIBLE.

YEAH. THAT AND AGAIN, THIS WAS KIND OF THE REASON WHY I INITIALLY SAID THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEND UP RULES AND PROCEDURE ORDINANCE SO THAT COULD BE CHANGED.

BUT IF IT IS IN HERE BECAUSE IT IS CEMENTED IN HERE, GIVING COUNCIL WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS GIVING COUNCIL DIFFERENT OPTIONS, DIFFERENT AVENUES FOR SENTENCING.

SENTENCING. OR SENTENCING OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SAY..

FOR OUR DOLLAR A MONTH JOB..

FOR OUR DOLLARS MONTH JOB.

SO PROVIDING THOSE AVENUES, COULD THAT BE SPELLED OUT IN THE CHARTER AS WELL IN THIS PROCEDURE? YOU COULD DO THAT IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO.

YEAH. THE DIFFERENT AVENUES THAT COUNCIL WILL COME UP WITH.

IT'S OWN PROBLEM WITH THAT.

NO PROBLEM, NO PROBLEM.

ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. OKAY.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

SO LET'S LET'S GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT AS WELL.

AND THEN ALSO WITH THE OTHER THING WAS MENTIONED WAS EXECUTIVE FOR ME, I THINK IT SHOULD BE GOING WHEN IT'S FIRST PRESENTED.

IT SHOULD BE PRESENTED IN EXECUTIVE TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE HEARING WOULD BE THE PUBLIC DUE PROCESS.

WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT. SO WHEN IT'S INITIALLY PRESENTED, IT SHOULD BE IN EXECUTIVE.

OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU COUNCIL ON THIS ONE.

THIS WAS A THIS WAS A ROUGH ONE TO GET THROUGH AND A LOT DIFFERENT COMPONENTS TO THIS.

SO LEGAL ATTORNEY WE'RE GOOD GOING FORWARD.

AND YOU CAN DRAFT THAT UP AND OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

OKAY, SO THAT'S ACTUALLY ALL OF THE ONES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY OUR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

WE DID OPEN IT UP FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SUBMIT DIFFERENT ONES, DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW BASED ON DIFFERENT TOPICS. AND SO ONLY ONE COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNCIL MEMBER SABOL, SUBMITTED SOME ITEMS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH.

SOME OF THESE WE ACTUALLY TOOK A LOOK AT ALREADY.

SO I'LL TRY.

AND AS I'M GOING THROUGH THIS, SUMMARIZE.

THIS FIRST ONE WAS A PROVISION TO BE MADE WHERE COUNCIL MEMBERS MAKE INQUIRIES OF DEPARTMENT HEADS OR EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING INFORMATION NEEDED BY THEM IN DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES.

LEGALS, GUEST TO SUMMARIZE THAT, I GUESS IT WAS LEGALS DEFINITION, IF YOU WILL, THAT THIS WOULD BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO PUT THAT INTO THE CHARTER, THAT WE COULD GO TO DEPARTMENT HEADS AND ASK FOR INFORMATION.

COUNCILMAN SABOL SIX IS YOUR ITEM.

ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT LEGALS? BUT I THINK IN THE PAST WE ALL HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF THAT.

SO I THINK IF IT'S THE CASE, WE CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE.

IF THERE'S NO LEEWAY.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO YOUR CHARTER DOES REQUIRE YOU TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER AND DIRECT YOUR INQUIRIES THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER AS CURRENTLY PROVIDED.

SO THIS AS NOTED, THIS IS PRETTY STANDARD THROUGHOUT TEXAS AS A REQUIREMENT.

JUST BECAUSE YOUR CITY MANAGER IS IN CHARGE OF THE EMPLOYEES AND YOU'RE, AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY, ARE THERE TO LEGISLATE VERSUS RUN DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS. SO WHEN YOU START CONFLICTING THE TWO, IT PROVIDES SOME INSTABILITY FOR FOR STAFF.

SO NO LONGER WILL LIKE I COULD NOT BRING LIKE A DEVELOPER TO ANDREA AND SAY ANDREA PLEASE WORK WITH THIS DEVELOPER.

YOU WOULD TAKE THAT TO JIMMY OKAY.

SO DON'T EVEN INVOLVE ANDREA HAS TO HAVE EVERYTHING, ALL INSTRUCTION GIVEN THROUGH JIMMY.

OKAY. AND CITY MANAGER JIMMY STATHATOS WOULD BE LIKE CHIMING IN THIS HOW YOU WOULD LIKE THINGS DONE.

YES, SIR. AND I THINK IT'S REALLY TO PROTECT EVERYONE BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBER SABOL TO USE YOUR EXAMPLE, SAY IT'S YOU WANT ANDREA TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER THAT'S GOING TO BUILD THE BEST FLEA MARKET IN THE WORLD, BUT THE REST OF THE COUNCIL IS NOT INTERESTED IN THAT TYPE OF DEVELOP.

I'M JUST TRYING TO PICK AN OUTLIER.

IT IT PROTECTS EVERYONE, I GUESS, AND IT MAKES IT TO WHERE IF I'M GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO MY BOSSES AND I NEED TO BE MADE AWARE OF ANY INQUIRIES.

[01:45:09]

I JUST WE HAVEN'T ROLLED LIKE THAT IN THE PAST, SO I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD INSTRUCTION FOR ALL OF US.

SO I MIGHT I MIGHT ALSO ADD AND THIS GOES TO STAFF TOO.

I THINK ANY NEW COUNCIL MEMBER NEEDS TO GO THROUGH TRAINING LIKE YOU MENTIONED, AND ALSO HAVE THE WISHES OF OUR CITY MANAGER.

I THINK OUR CITY MANAGER NEEDS TO SPELL THAT OUT, MAKING SURE THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS KNOW THE REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM SO THAT THEY CAN'T GO TO DEPARTMENT HEADS ASKING FOR INFORMATION LIKE THAT.

SO I THINK MAKING SURE WE HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE TO EDUCATE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THAT PROCEDURE, I THINK IS DESPERATELY NEEDED GOING FORWARD.

OKAY. I MEAN, TML HAS THAT, BUT WE ALSO HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT WENT TO TML AND STILL HAD ISSUES WITH OUR CHARTER.

SO NEXT, THE NEXT ITEM WE ACTUALLY COVERED.

SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SKIP THAT.

ANOTHER ITEM WAS CODE OF ETHICS.

SO IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE TOPIC WAS BROUGHT UP THAT WE SHOULD ADD TO OUR CODE OF ETHICS ESTABLISHED BY INTERNATIONAL CITY COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION.

THERE WERE SIX ITEMS IN THERE.

I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WE WANT TO EXPAND THAT OR NOT.

AND AGAIN, I'LL GO TO COUNCIL MEMBER SABOL SINCE THIS IS YOUR ITEM.

I JUST DID THE EMPLOYEES HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS THAT THEY GO BY THAT A HANDBOOK.

WELL, WE HAVE OUR PERSONNEL MANUAL THAT OUTLINES WHAT'S ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT'S NOT.

AND THEN, AS YOU MENTIONED, ICMA TCMA, MOST ESPECIALLY DEPARTMENT HEADS OR DIRECTORS HAVE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS THAT HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS IN THEM.

BUT WE DO HAVE THE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS THAT GOVERN BEHAVIOR IN THE WORKPLACE.

SEE, I KIND OF THINK THAT WE NEED TO ADD THAT TO OURS JUST FOR IF THE EMPLOYEES HAVE TO DO IT, WE HAVE TO DO IT.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TYPICAL.

IT'S ONE OF THOSE PROVISIONS THAT ONCE YOU PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, IT'S HARD TO MAINTAIN.

SO WE DO HAVE AN ORDINANCE.

COULD WE DO AN ORDINANCE? YOU DO HAVE AN ORDINANCE.

SO THAT'S REQUIRED AS PART OF 2.21 REQUIRES YOU TO ADOPT A CODE OF ETHICS ORDINANCE.

SO YOU DO HAVE THAT. AND THAT CAN BE AMENDED WHENEVER AS APPROPRIATE.

SO IF WE SEE A NEED FOR SOMETHING TO BE ADDED TO THAT CODE OF ETHICS ORDINANCE, WE WOULD JUST ASK SOMEBODY TO DEVELOP THAT FOR US.

CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU.

WHICH YOU COULD NOT DO IF YOU DID IT IN THE CHARTER WITHOUT AN ELECTION.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

LET'S GO AHEAD. LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON.

NEXT ONE IS THE WAY TO AMEND THE CHARTER, I THINK, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. COUNCIL MEMBER SABOL.

I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE.

I THINK THAT WAS YOUR MAIN CONCERN WAS IN.

I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS.

SO THE WAY THE CHARTER IS STATED IS THAT AFTER ANY KIND OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER, THAT COUNCIL WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AFTER FIVE YEARS AND TO DECIDE WHETHER AND IT'S THROUGH PUBLIC HEARING WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD AGAIN APPOINT A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

AND IF WE WERE TO DO SO UNDER THOSE REQUIREMENTS, IT WOULD BE 15 MEMBERS.

MY QUESTION TO LEGAL IS THAT IF WE ESTABLISH ANY KIND OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, LET'S SAY IT'S NOT AFTER THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE 15 MEMBERS? AS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE TO HAVE COMMISSIONS OF 15.

SO REGARDLESS, SO LET'S SAY THIS PASSES IN THIS YEAR, AND THEN LET'S SAY WE GET TO FIVE YEARS FROM NOW AND WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE SAY NO, WE DON'T NEED TO LOOK AT COUNCIL FOR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

BUT THEN EIGHT YEARS FURTHER ON WE GO.

YEAH, LET'S ESTABLISH ONE.

AT THAT POINT YOU WOULD HAVE A GROUP OF 15.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE 15. OKAY.

SO WHAT WE FOUND AND YOU KNOW WHAT, COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS, I THINK I'LL GET TO YOU BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN TALK ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE ON THIS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.

I THINK THAT HAVING 15 IS VERY CUMBERSOME.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S ME.

I THINK THAT HAVING YOU HAVE A LOT OF PERSONALITIES AND YOU'RE GOING THROUGH VERY THICK DOCUMENTS AND HAVING A LOT OF DEBATE, AND YOU CAN'T GET IT THROUGH AS MUCH. AND I THINK THAT IT IMPEDES THE PROGRESS DUE TO CONFLICTING PERSONALITIES.

DOES THAT MEAN YOU SHOULD HAVE GROUPTHINK? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

BUT I THINK THAT HAVING 15 JUST JUST MAKES THE PROCESS A LOT HARDER.

SO I'LL GO TO COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS.

WHAT DO YOU, SINCE YOU WERE A PART OF THIS PROCESS, WHAT IS YOUR TAKEAWAYS? WELL, THANKS, MR. MAYOR. SO, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION WAS ESTABLISHED BY 15 BASED OFF OF ALL THE APPOINTEES, BUT WE ACTUALLY ONLY HAD 11 ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING BECAUSE THERE WERE MEMBERS WHO WERE APPOINTED THAT NEVER SHOWED UP.

THERE WERE MEMBERS WHO HAD TO WITHDRAW FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

[01:50:03]

AND THEN THERE WERE A FEW MEMBERS WHO WEREN'T THERE CONSISTENTLY, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE A PART OF THE 11 THAT WAS SHOWING UP.

BUT I MEAN, I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THE NUMBER.

IT WAS MORE IF IF WE KEEP THE NUMBER THE SAME.

THE COUNCIL HAS TO HAVE INDIVIDUALS IN MIND THAT KNOW WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THEM BEING THERE.

SO I DON'T THINK IT REALLY WAS A NUMBER THAT WAS AN IMPEDIMENT.

IT WAS JUST THE LACK OF DIRECTION WHERE, HEY, THE CHARTER IS WIDE OPEN, LET'S MAKE SOME CHANGES.

AND SO FOR A FUTURE CHARTER REVIEWS, THE COUNCIL HAS TO GIVE A BETTER DIRECTION, A BETTER CHARGE OF THE COMMISSION OF FOCUS ON THIS SECTION, FOCUS ON THIS SECTION AND PROVIDE AN OUTCOME FOR THE COMMISSION VERSUS THE NUMBER ITSELF OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. EXCELLENT.

SO, LIKE TO HEAR FROM ANYBODY ELSE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND WITH THE 15 PERSON? TO ME, I'M YES, MICHELLE IS A NO.

I'M FINE WITH AMENDING THE NUMBER, IT'S JUST I'M THE NEWEST COUNCIL PERSON, AND SO I THINK I CAN'T PUT WORDS OR YOUR THOUGHTS IF Y'ALL STRUGGLE TO FIND TWO PEOPLE TO APPOINT.

IT'S JUST IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 15, YOU KNOW, HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOOD THAT KNOW THE DIRECTION.

AND I THINK THAT THAT ADDS TO BECAUSE THERE WAS 15 IF THERE WERE TROUBLE, THERE WERE ISSUES ALREADY NOMINATING PEOPLE THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE.

RIGHT. SO THAT GOES BACK TO OUR BACK TO OUR NUMBER AND OUR DISCUSSION HERE.

SO COUNCIL MEMBER GAGLIARDI.

COUNCILMEMBER FARCO. COUNCILMEMBER FARCO.

YES, MR. MAYOR. I'VE SERVED ON IT YEARS AGO.

AND 15, I MEAN, IT'S I THINK COUNCILWOMAN DAWKINS IS CORRECT JUSTIFYING THE RIGHT TO, BUT WE'RE A CITY OF 50,000 PEOPLE, 15 PEOPLE WORKING OUR CHARTER AND OUR WORKING WITH OUR COUNCIL AND THE DIRECTION OF OUR COUNCIL, THAT SHOULD NOT BE HARD.

AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHOOSE TWO CAPABLE PEOPLE TO DO THAT.

I THINK THAT HAS TO BE THE DIRECTION WHEN THEY'RE BEING CHOSEN, IS THAT IT'S TWO PEOPLE THAT THAT UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INVOLVED IN, AND THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THE COMMITMENT. AND IF THOSE AREN'T THE PEOPLE THAT DO IT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO IT.

BUT 15 OUT OF 50,000, THAT'S NOT AN UNCOMMON NUMBER.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN STEVES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. YES, I BELIEVE I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER FARCO THAT I DON'T THINK 15 IS TOO OUTRAGEOUS.

I THINK IT COULD BE DONE.

AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAY, DEMOCRACY IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE EASY.

YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF MESSY.

AND WE DON'T WANT THIS CHARTER BEING CHANGED FRIVOLOUSLY.

THAT'S WHY WE CAN ONLY DO WHAT, EVERY TWO YEARS, I BELIEVE.

IS THAT CORRECT? WE CAN ONLY CHANGE IT EVERY TWO YEARS, BUT IT COMES UP FOR REVIEW..

EVERY FIVE.. BY STATE LAW, YOU HAVE A TWO YEAR LIMITATION.

TWO YEAR LIMITATION, RIGHT.

SO I PREFER TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER GAGLIARDI.

OKAY. SO YOU AGREE WE KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS.

YEAH I AGREE WITH THE 15.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S WE'RE EVENLY SPLIT HERE I THINK ON THIS.

SO I GUESS WE'LL JUST HAVE TO MOVE ON AND LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS WITH 15.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT. I JUST WANTED TO DO WITH THE DUTIES OF THE MAYOR.

AND IN SUMMARY, PRESIDING AT MEETINGS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND COUNCIL MEMBER SABOL, YOU SAID DELIVER A STATE OF THE CITY MESSAGE AND ACTUALLY OUTLINING THOSE.

IT WAS LEGALS SUMMARY THAT A LOT OF THAT PRESIDING OVER MEETINGS AND RECOGNIZES THE HEAD OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT PRETTY MUCH MET SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

THE ONE THAT PROBABLY WE DID NOT, FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, IS DELIVER A STATE OF THE CITY MESSAGE.

DO YOU MIND TALKING MORE TO THAT? I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT BE MANDATORY BECAUSE THAT SHOWS THE DIRECTION THE CITY WANTS TO GO EACH AND EVERY YEAR.

BUT I ALSO THE QUESTION I REALLY HAD FOR THAT WAS IT'S APPARENT AFTER SERVING UNDER A FEW MAYORS THAT THE MAYOR STILL HAS MORE RESPONSIBILITY.

THEY DO MORE.

I MEAN, THEY SIGN EVERYTHING.

THEY DO EVERYTHING. AND YET THERE'S STILL.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SAY IT.

THERE'S STILL SOME DISHEARTENING FEELINGS ON COUNCIL BECAUSE IF I'VE HEARD IT ONCE, I'VE HEARD IT A MILLION TIMES.

WE ALL HAVE ONE VOTE.

[01:55:01]

LEADER OF THE CITY AND I DON'T KNOW HOW COUNCIL IS, HOW COUNCIL EVER GETS THAT.

BECAUSE IT'S A JEALOUSY THING.

I BELIEVE IT'S A JEALOUSY THING.

LIKE, WELL, HE SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE HE'S MAYOR, BECAUSE I'M ON COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, THAT SORT OF STUFF.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE MAYOR DOES HAVE CERTAIN PRIVILEGE BECAUSE HE IS THE MAYOR.

IS THERE ANY WAY TO DO THAT IN THE CHARTER? I WILL NOT WEAR A TIARA OR A SASH, COUNCILMAN GAGLIARDI.

I WOULD HAVE TO BRAINSTORM WITH BRIN TO SEE IF WE COULD COME UP WITH SOMETHING.

YOU KNOW, IN GENERAL, YOU SEE, MAYORS ARE THE ONES WHO ARE ATTENDING, PERHAPS LIKE COG MEETINGS AND THOSE DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINGS AS THE FIGUREHEAD FOR THE CITY, BECAUSE YOU BUILD THOSE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MAYORS, YOU HAVE DIFFERENT MAYORS ORGANIZATIONS.

AND SO THAT'S JUST NATURALLY BUILT IN TO THE POSITION.

BUT AGAIN, I IF IT'S A PUT IT IN THE CHARTER SO THAT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN UNDERSTAND THAT ROLE, I WOULD HAVE TO BRAINSTORM IDEAS TO.. WELL AND I CAN REMEMBER COMING TO COUNCIL AND THAT WAS ALWAYS EMPHASIZED TO ME THAT I'M JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE MAYOR OR, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ALWAYS TOLD TO ME AND BUT OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE SEEN JEALOUSY POP UP HERE AND THERE OVER THE MAYOR GETTING TO DO CERTAIN THINGS OR WE'RE NOT INVITED TO EVERYTHING, OR DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? AND I THINK THAT IT MAY BE NOT.

MAYBE IT MAYBE NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE TRAINING INSTEAD OF MAYBE.

I WAS GOING TO SAY PART OF THAT IS UNDERSTANDING THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

AND THE REASON THAT NOT EVERYONE CAN BE INVITED TO EVERY SINGLE EVENT IS BECAUSE THAT CREATES A QUORUM AND AN ILLEGAL MEETING, EVERY TIME THAT YOU HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOW UP.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE CERTAIN DESIGNATED AND OFTEN THE MAYOR WILL ATTEND SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OR EVENTS TO LIKE WE JOKED ABOUT JAIL EARLIER, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP YOU AWAY FROM FROM THAT TYPE OF A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO COMES IN AND SAYS THERE WERE FOUR MEMBERS AT SUCH AND SUCH EVENT, AND THAT CREATED AN ILLEGAL MEETING SO THAT THAT IS A TRAINING UNDER..

CAN THE MAYOR ASK SO CAN THE MAYOR ASK US TO REPLACE HIM FOR EVENTS? I WOULD IMAGINE SO.

SO THERE'S NOTHING.

OKAY, SORRY.

TYPICALLY YOU ALL MAY KNOW THIS, BUT JUST FOR PUBLIC EDIFICATION, MAKE SURE WE ALL HAVE THE SAME INFO.

TYPICALLY PEOPLE WILL REACH OUT AND THEY'LL SAY, WE WANT THE MAYOR TO COME TO THIS OR COME TO THAT, OR THEY'LL SAY, JUST COUNCIL MEMBERS.

SO WE'LL OPEN IT UP. LIKE IF IT'S NORTHEAST LEADERSHIP FORUM CHAMBER STUFF, BUT MOST OF THE TIME THEY WANT THE MAYOR SPECIFICALLY TO CUT THE RIBBON AND THEN THE MAYOR, IT'S THE MAYOR'S RESPONSIBILITY OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

AND THIS I KNOW WITH MAYOR BOYTER, IT WAS ALWAYS LIKE, WELL, I ASKED SO-AND-SO TO DO IT AS THEIR DESIGNEE IF THEY CAN'T BE THERE.

AND THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE AT EVERY CITY I'VE WORKED FOR.

BUT BUT I DO KNOW THERE'S COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M NOT SAYING NECESSARILY HERE THAT THEY REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S UP TO THE MAYOR OR IT HAS BEEN UP TO THE MAYOR.

BUT ANYWAY. YEAH.

AND SEE, THAT'S I THINK IS UNCLEAR SOMETIMES I THINK ESPECIALLY IF WE HAVE MAYORS IN THE FUTURE THAT ARE WORKING AND THEY CAN'T JUST BE THERE, THEY'RE WORKING.

SO THEY WOULD DESIGNATE SOMEBODY TO GO.

BUT IT HAS TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL PART OF THE COUNCIL TRAINING.

I THINK THAT HAS TO BE POINTED OUT.

SO THERE ISN'T ANY JEALOUSY.

THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING TO GET AWAY FROM.

YEAH. EXACTLY. THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT TOO.

AND I'M TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM THAT AND, AND SHARING SOME OF THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES.

BUT I THINK THE CHARTER ALREADY GOES AHEAD AND LAYS THAT OUT FOR US, THAT HEAD OF GOVERNMENT AND FIGUREHEAD AND SO FORTH FOR MAYOR.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

OKAY. I THINK WE'RE IN CONSENSUS WITH THAT.

OKAY. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

LET'S SEE HERE, WE ALWAYS TOOK CARE OF THIS.

I BELIEVE THE PROCESS FOR COUNCILPERSON MOVE OFFICE OKAY, TOOK CARE OF THAT NEXT ONE.

ITEM SEVEN. THIS ONE IS CITY MANAGER RELOCATION TOPIC SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.

SO THIS IS HAVING TO DO WITH IN OUR CHARTER, SECTION 3.01 REQUIRES THE CITY MANAGER TO RESIDE IN THE CITY DURING THE TENURE.

ALTHOUGH HE OR SHE IS NOT, HE OR SHE NEED NOT BE A RESIDENT WHEN HIRED, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THERE.

SO BACK OVER MY QUESTION IS IF WE DROPPED, IF WE ASK IF THAT RULE SHOULD BE DROPPED ENTIRELY FROM THE CHARTER, COULD WE HANDLE THAT TOPIC IN THE CONTRACT? SO INSTEAD OF HAVING IT BE IN THE CHARTER, BECAUSE I CAN SEE IN THE FUTURE, AND IT PROBABLY WASN'T SUCH AN ITEM 20 YEARS AGO.

[02:00:02]

AND IF IF YOU AS A CITY ARE NOT WILLING TO PAY WHAT IT TAKES TO LIVE IN THAT CITY, THEN THERE HAS TO BE SOME ALLOWANCES TO WHERE YOU LIVE. SO MY THINKING IS BEDFORD HOPEFULLY WILL BE AT THAT STATURE SOMEDAY.

I'M KIDDING THAT.

BUT THERE'S ALSO A CONSIDERATIONS LIKE I REMEMBER WE HAD A POLICE CHIEF THAT HAD CHILDREN THAT WERE BLIND AND SO THEY HAD ESTABLISHED.

THE CHILDREN IN A BLIND SCHOOL, AND IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO STAY IN THAT SCHOOL, THAT SCHOOL AREA, SO THERE WOULD BE NO WAY HE WOULD MOVE HERE IF THAT WOULD HAPPEN TO A CITY MANAGER.

AND WE HAVE THIS IN OUR CHARTER.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS APPROPRIATE.

I THINK THAT WE LOSE THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A GOOD CITY MANAGER.

THE OTHER THING IS, I THINK WE SHOULD NEVER PUT A FINANCIAL BURDEN ON A CITY MANAGER TO MOVE HERE.

IF THE SALE OF HIS HOUSE OR THE SALE OF OR TO BUY A HOUSE IS A FINANCIAL BURDEN, BECAUSE I THINK NOW WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF WAYS TO COMMUNICATE.

IF IT'S BECAUSE OF THE TAXES THAT WE WILL COLLECT FROM HIM, IT'S MINIMAL IN THE BIG SCOPE OF THE THE THING.

AND I REALIZE THAT PEOPLE ARE KIND OF OPPOSED TO THIS, BUT I SORT OF THINK THAT IT'S WE'RE WE'RE FORCING THE CITY MANAGER INTO FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.

AND ARE WE BECAUSE WE WON'T ALLOW THEM NOT TO LIVE HERE.

ARE WE ELIMINATING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WE COULD GET TO APPLY SOMEDAY? I THANK YOU. SO IN THAT QUESTION THERE THAT I WANT TO KNOW AS WELL, CAN WE THEN GO GO AHEAD AND WRITE THAT INTO THE CONTRACT.

SO LET'S SAY WE TOOK AWAY THIS REQUIREMENT, BUT THEN WE WANTED TO ADD IT INTO JUST THE FORMALIZED CONTRACT IN THE LANGUAGE.

WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT. YES. YOU CAN NEGOTIATE A RESIDENCY TYPE OF STANDARD IN YOUR CONTRACT OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER MARCO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE I UNDERSTAND THINGS HAVE CHANGED AND YEARS AGO IT WAS DIFFERENT.

YOU KNOW, JUST WHEN WE WERE WHEN THE CHARTER STARTED, WE WERE A REMOTE CITY AND THINGS THAT HAPPENED.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE HAVE TO ESTABLISH A GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, BECAUSE IF, I MEAN, THE GUY CAN'T LIVE IN WEATHERFORD AND HE'S GOT TO BE SOMEWHAT CLOSE TO THE AREA TO GET HERE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.

I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE IN GRAPEVINE OR WHATEVER, CLOSE FLOWER MOUND, IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.

BUT I MEAN, THERE HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF GEOGRAPHICAL WITHIN A CERTAIN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA TO, TO TO BE THE CITY MANAGER. TO BE EFFECTIVE, YOU HAVE TO BE CLOSE BY.

IF YOU HAVE TO GET TO THE CITY.

I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE CELL PHONES.

I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE ZOOM IN MEETINGS AND THAT'S FINE.

BUT YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T LIMIT IT, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN IN BURLESON TRYING TO BE THE CITY MANAGER AND BEDFORD AND NOT HAVE TO COME IN TO BEDFORD AND TO DO THINGS. SO I'M FINE WITH IT.

I THINK I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW WITH THAT.

I THINK, JIMMY, YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB IN THAT.

BUT WHAT I, WHAT I DO, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF, OF GEOGRAPHICAL LIMITS IN THIS AREA.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

FOR, FOR ME ON THIS ONE, THIS THIS HAS TO DO WITH RECRUITMENT AS WELL.

I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO RECRUIT SOMEBODY AND ALSO WITH COUNCIL MEMBER PARKER WITH YOURS, YOUR COMMENT I UNDERSTAND HAVING A GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, BUT THE THING IS WITH THAT IS THAT THAT COULD BE WRITTEN INTO THE CONTRACT AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THE HIRING, HENCE THE COUNCIL AND MAYOR.

I WOULD HOPE THEY KNEW WHERE THIS CITY MANAGER WAS LIVING AND WHAT DIFFICULTIES IT WOULD BRING IF THEY WERE GOING FROM LIKE LET'S SAY, DENTON TO BEDFORD.

AND SO AND TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THEY HIRE A CITY MANAGER, I THINK WE'RE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO TO KNOW.

AND I THINK BEING A CITY COUNCILMAN OR OR WOMAN FOR THAT MATTER, WE WOULD KNOW WHO WAS QUALIFIED TO BE HIRED.

SO FOR ME, I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE IT UP TO THE COUNCIL TO PUT THAT IN THERE IN THE AGREEMENT AND LEAVE IT OPEN FOR THAT.

THAT'S MY SUGGESTION GOING FORWARD.

BUT ALSO MY SUGGESTION IS TO REMOVE THIS, THIS PORTION HERE BECAUSE IT HAS TO DO WITH RECRUITMENT.

AND IF WE WANT TO RECRUIT THE BEST, I DON'T WANT THAT IMPEDING IN ANY QUALIFIED CANDIDATE.

THAT'S MINE. MY $0.02.

COUNCILMAN STEVES. I KIND OF LIKE THE SECTION THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW.

IT SAYS WITHIN THE TENURE OF OFFICE.

SO THE CITY MANAGER WOULDN'T HAVE TO MOVE HERE IMMEDIATELY.

[02:05:01]

I MEAN, US SEVEN PLUS, THE CITY MANAGER WOULD MAKE EIGHT PEOPLE.

THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PEOPLE REQUIRED TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF BEDFORD.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO LIVE HERE IN THE CITY, AND IF FOR SOME REASON YOU DON'T THINK YOU KNOW, IT'S IF YOU RUN THE CITY, I THINK IT'S A PLACE WHERE YOU NEED TO BE LIVING.

SO I..

KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS. I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS, BUT I UNDERSTAND IN THE CONTRACT THAT IT'S JUST SOME POINT IN TIME.

CITY MANAGER WOULD HAVE TO LIVE IN THE CITY.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBER.

GAGLIARDI. SO I SEE THIS.

LIKE WE DID WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHERE WE EXPANDED IT FROM NOT JUST LIVING IN THE CITY, BUT TO LIVE IN THE COUNTY AS AS WE LIVE IN THIS SORT OF EVER WORLD, EVER EXPANDING METROPLEX OF 8 MILLION PEOPLE.

YOU KNOW, TIMES ARE VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHEN THE CITY WAS WAS FORMED DECADES AGO, WHERE IT TOOK YOU 30 MINUTES TO DRIVE TO THE NEXT TOWN, AND THERE WAS NOTHING IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO TOWNS. RIGHT.

SO AS WE'VE HAD THIS SORT OF SPREADING METROPOLIS AND I MEAN, I DO I MEAN, I WANT THE CITY MANAGER TO BE AND I THINK HE IS, I THINK JUST AS A REFERENCE TO MR. STATHATOS. I MEAN, YOU'VE BEEN A WINDFALL TO THE CITY, YOU KNOW, ALL THE THINGS YOU'VE DONE AND ALL THE PEOPLE YOU'VE BROUGHT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO THANKS ENOUGH THAT I COULD SAY.

SO IF I WAS SAID IF IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY YOU WANT PEOPLE TO LIVE IN THE CITY THAT YOU'RE OPERATING IN, BUT WITH THE CONNECTIVITY THE WAY IT IS, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN PUT IT IN A CONTRACT.

YOU DON'T WANT SOMEBODY LIKE, LIKE YOU SAY LIVING IN BURLESON OR WHATEVER AND WORKING REMOTE.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND THEN SO I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THEN WE'D HAVE TO PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN A CONTRACT THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T WORK REMOTE FOUR DAYS A WEEK.

YOU DON'T WORK REMOTE FOUR DAYS A WEEK OKAY.

SO YEAH.

SO I MEAN, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT IT TO LIMIT OUR APPLICANT POOL IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THE WORLD'S GROWN AND CHANGING.

SO SO WHAT I MEAN IS YOU SAY THAT YOU'RE OKAY WITH REMOVING THAT THAT ONE OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

AND COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS.

THANKS MR. MAYOR.

I GUESS I THIS WAS A PROVISION THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CHARTER REVIEW, AND I KNOW SOME OF THE THERE WAS NO RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHY THIS IS IN THE CHARTER IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHERE WE WANTED A CITY MANAGER WHO LIVES HERE, WHO, YOU KNOW, THE WHO'S PUTTING FORTH A DIRECTION.

AND THEY'RE JUST LIKE US AS COUNCIL MEMBERS WHEN WE VOTE FOR A BUDGET AND IT'S A TAX INCREASE, WE GOT TO PAY IN THAT TAX INCREASE BECAUSE WE ARE ENACTING POLICY THAT WE'RE AFFECTED BY.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE FOUNDERS OF BEDFORD FELT LIKE THE CITY MANAGER, WHO'S ACTUALLY THE EXECUTIVE OF THE CITY, THEY SHOULD DRIVE ON THE STREETS, SHOP AT THE GROCERY STORES IN THIS CITY, AND EXPERIENCE LIFE IN THE CITY WHILE THEY'RE RUNNING THE CITY.

SO I, I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO LIMIT OUR APPLICANT POOL.

SO I AM I WANT TO KEEP THE PROVISION IN BUT HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE, WHERE WE HAVE THE PRIMARY LANGUAGE.

YOU COULD LIVE HERE OR AND I THINK COUNCILMAN FARCO AND COUNCILMAN GAGLIARDI HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY STANDARDS OF BEING IN A RADIUS OR BEING WITHIN THE COUNTY, BUT I FEEL THE PRIMARY RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD LIVE HERE.

OKAY. SO AT LEAST HAVING THAT.

BUT YOU'RE OPEN TO EXPANDING THAT.

YEAH. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF REMOVING THE LANGUAGE ALTOGETHER.

OKAY. SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS MAJORITY IS INTERESTED IN CHANGING IT AND PERHAPS EXPANDING IT GEOGRAPHICALLY. SO AS IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IT COULD BE DURING TENURE.

THEY HAVE TO BE IN THE CITY, WHICH COULD BE AT ANY POINT.

SO IT'S REALLY NOT REALLY ENFORCEABLE AS IT IS.

I THINK THAT SHOULD REMAIN THE SAME.

IT CAN RESIDE IN THE CITY DURING THEIR TENURE.

NOW WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WHAT'S THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION.

AND THIS IS GOING TO BE A FUN CONVERSATION.

UM, SO PERSONALLY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE COUNTY BECAUSE WE ARE NORTHEAST TARRANT COUNTY.

IF WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF FORT WORTH, I WOULD I WOULD SAY BECAUSE YOU'RE GEOGRAPHICALLY YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE.

[02:10:02]

CORRECT. AND SO WHAT I'M OPEN TO HEARING MILES AWAY LIVING ACCORDING TO..

25 MILES 25, FIVE, 50, 50, 50.

IS WHERE YOU GOING TO GO? BIGGER. THAT'S FINE.

50 40 I, I MEAN THAT'S UP TO YOU.

SO. OKAY, SO JUST JUST VISITING JUST TO REITERATE WHAT COUNCILWOMAN DAWKINS SAID, LIKE YOU'VE GOT TO IF YOU'RE MANAGING THE CITY BACK IN THE DAY, YOU NEEDED TO LIVE THERE, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE NEXT CITY, THERE WAS NOTHING AND THEN ANOTHER CITY.

AND SO YOU HAD TO OPERATE WITHIN IN ORDER TO KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

BUT WITH CELL PHONES AND ALL THE WAYS WE CAN COMMUNICATE AND CAMERAS AND WHATNOT.

JUST AS A FUN FACT, WHEN I ORIGINALLY RAN FOR COUNCIL, PEOPLE ASKED.

WHERE I WORKED AND I SAID, I WORK AT THE ALBERTSONS.

AND THEY SAID THE ALBERTSONS, WHERE I SAID THE ALBERTSONS IN BEDFORD, AND THEY SAID THERE'S NOT AN ALBERTSONS IN BEDFORD.

SO THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN BEDFORD AND WHO DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME OF THE CITIES SOUTH OF THE FREEWAY, SOUTH OF THE FREEWAY.

SO THERE'S AN ALBERTSONS SOUTH OF THE FREEWAY.

SO, I MEAN, SO THE POINT OF THAT BEING IS YOU COULD LIVE IN THE CITY AND STILL NOT KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, RIGHT? YEAH. OR WHERE ALBERTSONS IS THAT OKAY.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OKAY. SO WE'RE STILL NOWHERE FOR MILES FOR HOW FAR OF AN AREA WE WANT TO GO TO.

GOOD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE NOTICED IS, LIKE, MISS DAWKINS AND I THINK RICH BOTH FEEL THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD LIVE HERE JUST TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE THEY'RE STATING.

AND SO I DON'T.

SO AS FAR AS THEIR, THEIR OPINIONS, I DON'T SEE HOW A RADIUS OF MILES IS GOING TO SATISFY THEIR, THEIR DESIRE FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO LIVE HERE.

WELL, COUNCILMAN DUNCAN SAID SHE WAS OPEN TO THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, BUT I GET IT.

I GET IT BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

BUT I WOULD GO WITH 30 MILES.

OKAY. AND SO IS THAT THAT'S THIS IS JUST AN ADDITIONAL LIKE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT WITHIN 30 MILES OR WITHIN THE TENURE OF OFFICE TO LIVE IN THE CITY.

YOU COULD EVEN, YOU COULD LEAVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN, BUT MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNCIL ADDRESSES IT EVERY TIME A CONTRACT IS WRITTEN THAT THEY HAVE TO.

MAYBE THE COUNCIL SOMEHOW HAS TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION THEMSELVES, EACH AND EVERY COUNCIL GOING FORWARD.

BECAUSE TO ME, I DON'T REALLY CARE WHERE JIMMY LIVES.

BUT THE NEXT COUNCIL MAY HATE IT.

THEY MAY SAY, OH NO, HE HAS TO LIVE HERE.

WELL, THAT GOES BACK TO WRITING THE CONTRACT.

YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT SHOULD BE.

IF RESIDENCY IS A PROBLEM FOR COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, MAYBE LEAVING IT MORE OPEN ON THE CHARTER.

COULD WE DO THAT? COULD WE LEAVE IT MORE THE QUESTION MORE OPEN? SO. I'VE NEVER SEEN IT DONE IN A WAY WHERE YOU JUST SAY THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE.

I, I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR A CHARTER PROVISION THAT SAYS CITY COUNCIL SHALL DETERMINE BY CONTRACT WITH EACH CITY MANAGER, JUST THINKING BROADLY WHEN IT COMES TO TO THE ELECTION TIME VERSUS A WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THAT THE CHARTER IS GOING TO REQUIRE FOR A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT OR REMOVING A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.

I WOULD ASK JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IF YOU DO CHOOSE TO PUT A MILE DETERMINATION, IS IT JUST SO WE CAN WE CAN SPECIFY THAT IF THAT'S THE WAY THAT YOU DECIDE TO GO.

YEAH. GOOD. I KNOW THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

I KNOW IT'S VERY AWKWARD. I KNOW YOU ALL ARE LIKE JIMMY.

HOW FAR DO YOU LIVE? YEAH.

WHAT'S YOUR ADDRESS AGAIN? NO. AND I'LL TELL YOU, I THINK FLEXIBILITY IS GOOD, BECAUSE IF IT'S OKAY, I KNOW IT'S BECAUSE THE DEAL IS OBVIOUSLY MOVING IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC AND THEN 8% INTEREST RATES.

I MEAN, BUT THE THING IS, I'LL TELL YOU, AND I DON'T MEAN THIS IN A COCKY WAY, BUT SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE MADE POSITIVE COMMENTS, YOU KNOW, TO ME, I FEEL LIKE WHAT WE'VE ALL COLLECTIVELY ACHIEVED RIVALS, WHAT OTHER CITY MANAGERS WHO LIVE IN THEIR CITY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED. AND SO BUT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, FROM CITY HALL TO MY FRONT DOOR, IT'S 19 MILES AND I CAN GET THERE IN 25 MINUTES.

SO IF I WAS CITY MANAGER OF DALLAS OR FORT WORTH, I KNOW I'M NOT.

I COULD LIVE IN PARTS OF THOSE CITIES AND BE FURTHER AWAY TO CITY HALL.

THAT BEING SAID, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AT SOME POINT FOR A CITY MANAGER TO LIVE IN THE CITY, OR AT LEAST FOR THE COUNCIL TO HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

[02:15:04]

THEY THEY DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT AND THEY HAVEN'T HAD A REQUIREMENT, AND THE CITY MANAGERS HAVEN'T LIVED THERE.

AND THE NEW CITY MANAGER FOR SOUTHLAKE DOESN'T LIVE THERE NOW.

ANYWAY, THAT BEING SAID, I DO THINK IT'S GOOD IF YOU ALL HAVE THAT ABILITY, BECAUSE I JUST THINK IT DOES INCREASE THE APPLICANT POOL.

AND IF YOU FEEL LIKE THERE'S A CITY MANAGER THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH TO WHERE IT'S LIKE, I DON'T CARE WHERE THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT AND LIKE LOOKING AT ME, I'M NOT EXACTLY SUPER SLENDER. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GETTING A LOT OF SALES TAX OUT OF ME.

SO BUT IF I LIVED IN AN APARTMENT, YOU WOULDN'T BE GETTING PROPERTY TAX.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, IN MY OPINION, THE BEST METRIC.

BUT I DO THINK IN A PERFECT WORLD, IT'S IDEAL FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO LIVE THERE.

I JUST THINK IT GIVES THE COUNCIL A LOT MORE AUTHORITY TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.

AND I'LL QUIT RAMBLING.

BUT 19 MILES FROM CITY HALL TO MY FRONT DOOR.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANKS. SO 18.

I'M JUST KIDDING. I'M JUST I KNOW.

BUT NO, NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY QUESTION.

THE AMOUNT OF VALUE THAT YOU BROUGHT THE CITY, JIMMY, FOR THE CITY.

AND YOU PROVING THAT WHEN I, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, THIS ITEM HERE.

NO OFFENSE TO YOU.

I'M NOT THINKING ABOUT YOU RIGHT NOW.

I'M THINKING ABOUT WHAT COMES AND WHO COMES AFTER YOU.

YES, SIR. AND I HOPE THAT EVERYONE UP HERE IS ACTUALLY NOT HERE.

AND I HOPE YOU STAY VERY LONG TIME.

BUT THE NEXT COUNCIL IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION OF WHO'S GOING TO FOLLOW IN YOUR FOOTSTEPS AND WHO'S GOING TO FILL THOSE SHOES.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET ENOUGH APPLICANTS TO DO SO.

SO THAT'S MY LOOK WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS ONE LOOKING AT THIS ITEM.

AND SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PROPOSE 30.

30 MILES, 30 MILES FROM SHE SAID TO WATCH OUT FOR THAT MILEAGE THING.

SO WE HAVE TO TELL HER WHERE FROM WHERE FROM CITY HALL.

CITY HALL. YEAH.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE KNOW THE BOUNDARIES? GOOD. SEE? HOW'S GOOD OLD BEDFORD SCHOOL? OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. CITY HALL. CITY HALL.

CITY HALL. 30 MILES.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY, I'M SEEING THAT.

SO THAT'LL BE LIKE THIS WILL BE IN KIND OF AN EITHER OR WITHIN TENURE, I GUESS.

WITHIN YOUR TENURE AS HIRED AS CITY MANAGER OR 30 MILES.

CAN WE DO THAT? HE'S 19. LET'S JUST MAKE 21.

OH. JUST ONE. JUST WITHIN 30. ALL RIGHT.

SO WITHIN 30 MILES.

SO SO TO CLARIFY, IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE 30 MILE LIMITATION WHEN YOU START, IS IT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S AN OR CAN YOU MOVE IN WITHIN YOUR TENURE SO THAT SO THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION WITH LEAVING THE TENURE AS AN OR OPTION.

THAT'S WHERE YOU PUT IT IN THE CONTRACT.

THAT'S WHERE YOU PUT IT IN THE CONTRACT.

YEAH. EXACTLY.

HOW TO WRITE THAT. SO AM I TAKING OUT THE TEN YEAR LANGUAGE AND JUST CHANGING TO 30 MILES FROM CITY HALL? AND HOW LONG WOULD YOU LIKE 30 MILES FROM CITY HALL DURING THE RENDERING? YEAH. SO YOU CAN APPLY.

YOU CAN APPLY IF YOU LIVE 31 MILES AWAY.

YOU SHOULD STILL APPLY FOR THE JOB.

YEAH, BUT YOU NEED TO MOVE A MILE CLOSER.

YEAH, A MILE AND A HALF, MAYBE.

OKAY. WELL. OR COULD YOU OR AT THE DISCRETION OF COUNCIL, COULD YOU PUT AT THE DISCRETION OF COUNCIL.

THEN THERE'S NO POINT.

THEN THERE'S NO POINT IN DOING IT.

THERE'S NO POINT IN DOING IT. I THINK WE'RE GOING DOWN A RABBIT HOLE HERE.

SO TO ESTABLISH RESIDENCY WITHIN 30 MILES OF CITY HALL DURING THEIR TENURE.

DURING THEIR TENURE. OKAY, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

I'M SEEING NODS, NODS, NODS.

COUNCIL MEMBER DAWKINS.

OH, THANKS, MR. MAYOR.

I JUST WANTED I MEAN, I'M OPEN TO THE FLEXIBILITY.

I JUST WANT IT TO BE STRESSED, LIKE WE WANT THEM TO MOVE TO THE CITY.

BUT JUST HAVING THIS 30 MILE PROVISION AS A FLEXIBILITY, I GUESS THAT COULD BE HAMMERED OUT IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL.

THIS STILL HAS TO GO TO THE VOTERS, CORRECT? IT DOES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE GOT THAT THEN.

ALL RIGHT. WE WERE NOT.

THERE WAS ONE MORE ONE LAST ONE, WHICH IS A PETITION FOR RUNNING FOR OFFICE, GATHERING PETITIONS.

OKAY, SO, ALICIA, OUR ATTORNEY TOLD ME THAT IT'S A DIFFICULT TO ASK THE STAFF TO DO THAT.

THAT WOULD BE YOU, MICHAEL, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO CONFIRM SIGNATURES.

I JUST I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS KIND OF BAD THOUGH.

WHEN WE HAVE PEOPLE RUN AGAINST US AND ALL THEY DO IS FILE AND THEN YOU DON'T SEE ANYTHING MORE FROM THEM.

I THINK IT'S EXPENSIVE FOR US TO RUN AN ELECTION FOR THAT.

AND I ALSO THINK THAT TO GET LIKE 25 SIGNATURES OUGHT TO BE THE BARE MINIMUM THAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO RUN FOR OFFICE.

[02:20:01]

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER.

DAWKINS. I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION.

I KNOW, AND WE CAN'T COMPARE OURSELVES TO FORT WORTH, BUT FORT WORTH DOES HAVE A PROVISION THAT EITHER YOU PAY A FILING FEE OR YOU GET THE SIGNATURES AND IT'S 22 TO 25, SO I DON'T THAT'S NOT THE VOLUMES OF PETITION SIGNATURES THAT MICHAEL HAS HAD TO GO FOR OUR LIQUOR PETITIONS.

AND THE OTHER ONE WAS THE BEDFORD COMMONS THING, SO AND USUALLY IN EVERY ELECTION IT'S 2 OR 3 OFFICES. SO THAT'S AT THE MOST 75 SIGNATURES YOU HAVE TO VALIDATE.

AND NOT TO SAY THAT I'M NOT TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE WORK, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A HIGHER BAR, LIKE POTENTIAL CANDIDATES SHOULD SHOW SOME COMMITMENT OF GETTING ENDORSEMENTS FROM RESIDENTS OR PAYING A FEE, BECAUSE OUR EVEN THOUGH WE DO A JOINT ELECTION, IT DOES COST THE CITY MONEY, RIGHT? SO I KIND OF DISAGREE WITH THE BURDEN, BUT I DON'T WANT TO PUT IT ON CITY STAFF.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY SECRETARY CAN WEIGH IN IF IT'S 25 SIGNATURES TO VALIDATE FOR A POSITION.

SO YEAH, BUT THIS ONE, I MEAN, JUST TO SUMMARIZE LEGAL'S VIEWPOINT, AND THIS IS IN SHORT, A PETITION REQUIREMENT CAN BE ADDED, BUT IT WOULD BE BURDENSOME ON STAFF TO VERIFY SIGNATURES.

AND IT WILL BE NEED TO PROVIDE ASSOCIATED TIMELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR THIS.

SO I THINK IT'S VERY COMPLICATED GOING FORWARD.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH. IF WE WERE TO DO, IT HAS TO BE EITHER A PETITION, BUT YOU HAVE TO ALSO HAVE A LIKE A YOU COULD EITHER BYPASS THAT BY HAVING A FILING FEE OR..

SO THE INVERSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A FILING FEE PROVISION LIKE LIKE YOU MENTIONED, FORT WORTH HAS YOU PAY THE FEE OR DO A PETITION.

THE ELECTION CODE ALLOWS FOR THAT BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT PEOPLE MAY WANT TO SERVE ON CITY GOVERNMENT, BUT MAYBE, PERHAPS CAN'T PAY A FILING FEE.

SO YOU WILL BY THE ELECTION CODE, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A.

IF YOU CAN'T PAY THE FEE, YOU CAN DO THE PETITION OPTION INSTEAD SO THAT IS A REQUIREMENT UNDER THE ELECTION CODE.

IF YOU WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REQUIRING A PETITION FOR ALL CANDIDATES, WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT HOW MANY DAYS THAT HAS TO BE TURNED IN.

HOW LONG DOES THE CITY SECRETARY HAVE TO REVIEW THOSE? THERE'S A WHAT DOES THE SPECIAL ELECTIONS LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE SPECIAL ELECTIONS ARE A WHOLE DIFFERENT TIMELINE.

NONE OF THAT IS SPECIFICALLY LAID OUT IN THE ELECTION CODE.

SO THAT WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY CHARTER.

SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF INFORMATION.

I UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF IT BECAUSE I KNOW WE GET A LOT OF GHOST CANDIDATES SOMETIMES.

BUT THEN ON THE FLIP SIDE, I LOOK AT IT AS WELL.

FOR ME PERSONALLY, I DON'T WANT TO DISENFRANCHIZE ANYBODY FROM RUNNING AT ALL.

IF THEY WANT TO RUN, PUT YOUR NAME ON IT AND RUN.

YOU KNOW, I DID THE SAME.

I WAS KIND OF I'LL BE HONEST, WHEN I PUT MY NAME ON, I WAS A NOBODY.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT MANY.

I MEAN, I KNEW MY NEIGHBORS. I KNEW A FEW PEOPLE.

I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET 25, YOU KNOW, I THINK I'D BE FINE WITH THAT.

BUT HERE'S THE THING IS THAT I WANTED TO ALLOW FOR PEOPLE THAT MAYBE ARE NEW, THAT WANT TO JUST CHANGE AND ARE SEEING THE WAY THINGS AND PEOPLE WHO PAY ATTENTION. AND BECAUSE BY RUNNING, I GOT TO KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE AND OBVIOUSLY I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE OF IT.

SO FOR ME, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PETITION AND REQUIRING IT AT THIS TIME.

ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT.

I'M SEEING NO, NO, NO PETITION, NO PETITION.

OH. WHAT'S THAT? NO, NO OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT SO MAJORITY ARE SAYING NO ON THAT ONE, OKAY.

SO FIRST OF ALL THAT IS THE END OF IT.

OF ALL THE ITEMS I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO STAFF.

THANK YOU, ALICIA, FOR BEING HERE FOR ALL THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE THREW AT YOU.

YOU'VE BEEN VERY GOOD.

COUNCIL, WE DID, I THINK WE DID AMAZINGLY HERE.

I KNOW THERE WAS SOME TOUGH CONVERSATIONS AND I KNEW IT TOOK A WHILE, BUT HOPEFULLY NOT TOO LONG.

BUT I DO WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR FOR THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND IT DOES DUE DILIGENCE TO OUR RESIDENTS AND SETS THE PATH FORWARD FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO MAKE THE DECISIONS ON THESE AMENDMENTS.

SO THANK YOU ALL FOR THIS.

THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE AT THE END OF OUR MEETING, SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

I'VE GOT A COUNCILMAN COGAN, I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

MAYOR COGAN, MAYOR COGAN.

OH MY GOD, MAYOR, I'M SO SORRY.

IT'S ALL RIGHT TO ADJOURN.

TO ADJOURN. ALL RIGHT.

DO I HEAR A SECOND? ALL RIGHT. SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWKINS.

ALL IN FAVOR? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

THE TIME IS 8:25.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.