[3B. Present and receive input regarding the Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant Program 2022 Annual Action Plan (30 minutes)]

>> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT, OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 3 B PRESENT AND RECEIVE INPUT REGARDING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 2022 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, THEN WE HAVE WHAT'S HER NAME?

>> SUSAN? JILL >> JILL. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

GOTCHA. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY, AND I WANT TO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE, OUR PRESENTATION IS NOT AS EXCITING AS ANIMAL SHELTER AND WE HAVE NO CUTE CAT SLIDES. BUT I'M JOEL CARROLL AND I'VE BEEN WORKING HUD PROGRAMS SINCE 1982 AND WORKING WITH THE CITY OF ROWLETT'S PROGRAM SINCE 2006. I WORK ON A WEEKLY AND SOMETIMES DAILY BASIS WITH SUSAN, AND WE'RE GLAD TO BE HERE AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NEXT YEARS' ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE HUD FUNDS THAT YOU RECEIVE SO, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO

[00:30:04]

REALLY PRESENT THIS INFORMATION AND THEN ALSO TO RECEIVE INPUT REGARDING OUR PROPOSED DRAFT ANNUAL ACTION PLAN. THE CDBG STANDS FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVOLVEMENT BLOCK GRANT AND IT'S $265,000, AND IT IS PROVIDED TO ROWLETT BECAUSE OF AN AN NEWLY GRANT ALLOCATION, SO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO IN AND APPLY FOR THE FUNDS EVERY YEAR, HUD TAKES YOUR INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR DEMOGRAPHICS, AGE, AND CONDITIONS OF YOUR HOUSING AND OTHER FACTORS AND APPLIES IT TO A FORMULA AND THAT'S WHAT DETERMINES HOW MUCH YOU GET EACH YEAR. IT'S AVAILABLE TO BE USED FOR A WIDE VARIETY OF ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES, AND WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT DURING THIS PRESENTATION. BASICALLY, THE FUNDS HAVE TO BE USED TO MEET ONE OF THE THREE NATIONAL OBJECTIVES, THE FIRST ONE BEING THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO DIRECTLY ASSIST A LOW-INCOME PERSON. OR IT COULD BE USED TO PREVENT OR ELIMINATE BLIGHT OR IT COULD BE USED FOR AN URGENT COMMUNITY NEED SUCH AS A DISASTER RELIEF. THE CHART ON THE RIGHT, YOU COULD SEE THE INCOME ELIGIBILITY PIECE IS PACED ON A PERCENT OF THE DALLAS AREA HUD METRO, 2022, BEING A HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN SIZE, WHICH IS BASED ON THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME WITHIN THE AREA IS $97,400, FOR EXAMPLE, A FAMILY OF FOUR, COULD EARN UP TO $77,900, IF WE WERE DOING AN ACTIVITY WHERE THEIR HOUSEHOLD HAD TO ACTUALLY BE LOW-INCOME. THE GRANT, THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT EXPENDITURE TYPES, ONE IS THE ADMINISTRATION COST, PUBLIC SERVICES AND OTHER ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES, THERE ARE CAPS ASSOCIATED WITH ADMINISTRATION AND HUD ALLOWS THAT NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE GRANT CAN BE USED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. HUD ALSO ALLOWS THAT UP TO 15% CAN BE USED FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. PUBLIC SERVICES WHAT THOSE MONEYS COULD PAY FOR IS FOR THE OPERATIONAL EXPENSE OF PROGRAMS, USUALLY, PROVIDED BY A SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION, OR A 501C-3 NON-PROFIT, AND THIS IS A LIST OF THE TYPES OF SERVICES THAT CAN BE PROVIDED. I WILL SAY THAT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE YOU GOT TO REALIZE THAT IF THEY'RE A RECIPIENT OF THE CITY, THEN THAT ORGANIZATION HAS TO MEET ALL OF THE CDBG AND THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS JUST AS THE CITY DOES. AND IT MEANS THAT THE CITY HAS TO MONITOR THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL. AND THEY COULD BE A FAIRLY LARGE EFFORT WHEN IT COMES TO THAT. IN THE PAST, THE CITY, AT THE MAXIMUM THAT WE'VE FUNDED IS TWO ORGANIZATIONS EACH YEAR. OTHER ELIGIBLE PROJECT TYPES WOULD INCLUDE HOUSING PROGRAMS, DEMOLITION, THIS WOULD BE A DILAPIDATED WAY CAN'T STRUCTURES, PERHAPS, COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION, BUSINESSES LOCATED IN A LOW-INCOME OR A BLIGHTED AREA, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CODE ENFORCEMENT, WHICH COULD ONLY BE DONE IN LOW-INCOME AREAS OF THE CITY. AND THEN PUBLIC FACILITIES.

ROWLETT HAS TRADITIONALLY FUNDED PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND THIS WOULD BE FOR THE ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE LISTS THAT YOU SEE, THE STREETS, PARKS, WATER SEWAGE, AND THAT TYPE OF THING. THIS IT MAP SHOWS IN THE GOLD AREAS, THE LOW-INCOME CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED LOW-INCOME AREAS BASED ON HUD'S INFORMATION. HUD DEFINES IT IN ROWLETT BEING CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS WITH A MINIMUM OF 34.46% LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. SO, YOU COULD SEE THAT YOU ARE RESTRICTED WHEN IT COMES TO FUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THOSE PROJECTS WOULD NEED TO BE LOCATED IN THOSE GOLD AREAS. HUD DOES REQUIRE THAT A CITY WOULD HAS TO CONDUCT PUBLIC MEETINGS EACH YEAR TO SOLICITITY INPUT REGARDING WHAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS ARE, AND TO CONSIDER WHAT THE FUNDING ALLOCATIONS COULD BE, WE'VE HELD TWO PUBLIC MEETINGS BACK ON JUNE 30TH, THE 3RD, AND THE FINAL PUBLIC MEETING WILL BE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST THE 2ND. THIS SLIDE WILL SHOW YOU THAT

[00:35:03]

THE PROPOSED ALLOCATION WOULD BE FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES THAT THE FUND AMOUNT OF $171,811 IS RECOMMENDED FOR TRACEY TRAIL. WE'VE PREVIOUSLY USED PRIOR YEAR FUNDS FOR TRACEY TRAILS AND THERE'S AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE AND WE RECOMMEND TO FULLY FUND IT WITH CDBG BECAUSE OF THE EFFICIENCIES OF DOING THAT. FOR PUBLIC SERVICES, WE BUDGETED THE MAXIMUM CAP OF 15% FOR TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROGRAMS, ONE BEING CRIME PREVENTION, WHICH IS BASICALLY AN AFTER-SCHOOL OR AN OUTREACH PROGRAM WHICH ALLOWS OFFICERS TO HAVE SOME POSITIVE INTERACTIONS WITH YOUTH. AND THEN, ALSO, FOR TTHE SALVATION ARMY FOR $30,000, AND THAT ASSISTS LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITH MORTGAGE OR RENT, AND UTILL ITYS AS WELL. AND WE ALSO BUDGETED $52,865 FOR ADMINISTRATION. AND THE NEXT STEPS IS TO RECEIVE COUNCIL DIRECTION AND CONSENSUS TO PROCEED WITH THE ALLOCATIONS FOR NEXT YEAR'S PROGRAM TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ON AUGUST THE 2ND AND THEN WE PROVIDE THAT PLAN TO HUD NO LATER THAN AUGUST THE 16TH.

AND I'LL BACK UP A BIT, MINOL DID I GO IN THE WRONG DIRECTION? I THINK THAT YOU HAD SOMETHING

TO SAY ABOUT THE BUDGET. >> NO WORRIES, JUST TO RECAP ON THE BUDGET, COUNCIL, LAST YEAR, WE DID BRANCH OUT WITH THE PUBLIC SERVICES THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT, AND IF YOU RECALL WE CREATE ADD CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM AND THAT WAS ABOUT $23,000. SO, BASED ON THAT, IT IS A GOOD PROGRAM, IT IS WORKING. IT IS NEW FOR US, BUT, UM, THE ALLOCATIONS THUS FAR AND THE DRAWDOWNS THUS FAR IS ABOUT $1,000, AND SO WE'RE FINE TUNING THE PROGRAM AND THAT'S WHY THIS YEAR YOU'LL NOTICE WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $9,600 (INDISCERNIBLE) WITH THE 23 THAT WE ALLOCATED LAST YEAR, BECAUSE THIS HELPS US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS THAT WE HAVE TO DO AND HOW THAT'S DRAWNOUT WHICH MEANS HOW WE PAY FOR THESE SERVICES, BECAUSE CDBG HAS RIDGED CRITERIA. IF WE HAVE REDUCED THAT COST AT THIS TIME, I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD MAY BE IN 2023, WE'LL HAVE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER FINE-TUNE AND REFINE, WHERE WE MAY BE ABLE TO ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL FUND. BUT, AT THIS TIME AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE CHIEF AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD STARTING POSITIVITY FOR US. SALVATION ARMY, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THIS PUBLICLY, THEY HAVE BEEN A GREAT, GREAT, PARTNER TO WORK WITH, THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY NEED TO DO, MAKING SURE THIS IRCONTRACT ARE PER HUD REQUIREMENTS AND CURRENTLY, AS WE STAND WITH THEM, THEY ONLY HAVE $17,000 LEFT FROM LAST YEAR. SO, THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THEIR MONEY VERY, VERY WELL. THE EFFICACY IN THAT PROGRAM IS REMARKABLE. AND SO, WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THEM AS A PARTNER AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE $30,000, THERE, FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES, WE ARE IN THE POSITION TO COMPLETELY FUND IT WITH CDBG FUNDS. WHEN IT COMES TO REPORTING MORE CDBG ON THIS TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE, WE HAVE TO MEET VERY STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS, AND SO IT DOES TAKE A LITTLE LONGER, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE IN A POSITION TO CLOSE THE LOOP ON THIS, SHOULD THERE BE A CONSENSUS TO FOLLOW THIS TYPE OF CONCESSION. OPEN TO QUESTIONS OR ANY DISCUSSION THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> I DIDN'T CATCH, YOU SAID SALVATION ARMY HAD HOW MUCH LEFT?

>> FROM THE LAST PROGRAM, $17,000. >> $17,000?

>> $1,700. >> I DON'T KNOW WHY I SAID THOUSAND. I WAS SURE THEY WERE

DRAWING DOWN SO RAPIDLY. >> OKAY. >> WELL, THOSE ARE PREVIOUS

PLAN YEARS, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT $30,000 NOW. >> IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE HEAT

RIGHT NOW? >> RIGHT. SO. >> NOW, THIS IS, AGAIN, THIS

DISCUSSION IS FOR NEXT YEAR. >> NEXT YEAR. >> AND ARE Y'ALL AWARE OF WHAT

SALVATION ARMY PROVIDES? >> YES. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

[00:40:05]

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY IT FOR THE PUBLIC, UTILITY BILLING ASSISTANCE, THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF WHAT THEY DO FOR US. AND, I MEAN, JUST LAST WEEK, I REFERRED SOMEBODY TO SALVSALVATION ARMY BECAUSE THEY WERE REQUESTING ASSISTANCE, AND IT'S A GREAT PROGRAM FOR US.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: CRIME PREVENTION, CAN YOU SPEAK ON ARE THERE ANY RESULTS THAT YOU HAVE TO SHARE ON THAT? WHAT ARE YOUR OFFICERS THINKING?

>> WE FEEL LIKE, THE PROGRAM'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL. WE FUMBLED AROUND A BIT IN THE BEGINNING, TRYING TO FIND OUR FIT IN THE COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND MAKING THOSE CONTACTS, AND WE SETTLED ON THE DOWNTOWN SECURITY. WE THOUGHT AT FIRST, THAT WOULD BE A GREAT FIT FOR RESOURCE OFFICERS, BECAUSE A LOT OF ISSUES DOWNTOWN WERE DUE RELATED. A COUPLE OF MONTHS INTO IT, AFTER SUBMITTING TIMESHEETS, WE FOUND OUT THERE FINANCE THAT THAT'S ELIGIBLE FOR THE CDBG MONEY BECAUSE THEY'RE FUNDED BY GISD, SO, I DON'T KNOW THE WORKINGS OF THAT. SO, WE PIVOTED FROM THERE AND STARTED TO USE OUR POLICE SERVICES OFFICERS, OUR TWO PART-TIME MOTIONS THAT WE HAVE. SO THEY TOOK ON THE BULK OF THE DOWNTOWN SECURITY. THE ONE THING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, TRANSFER A POSITION TO THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO EXPAND THEIR ROLE FOR DOWNTOWN SECURITY AND MORE CONSISTENT WITH A MODEL THAT ONE OF OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES USE FOR THAT TYPE OF ASSIGNMENT. SO, THEY HAVE NOR FLEXIBILITY IN STAFFING. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DEDICATE MORE RELIABLY TO THE DOWNTOWN SECURITY PROGRAM. AND, UM, IT WOULD HELP THEM TO GROW THEIR GOAL (INDISCERNIBLE) SO, AND I BELIEVE, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, BUT, I BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD ALSO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR MOST IF NOT ALL THE CDBG TO FUND DOWNTOWN SECURITY, SO, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO FUND IT OUT OF THOSE TWO HALF FPES, AND

TRANSFER (INDISCERNIBLE) >> (INAUDIBLE).

>> THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS ARE PAID GISD, IS GISD WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO SIT IN THIS OR

WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO (INAUDIBLE) >> THAT SOUNDS COMPLICATED.

>> FIRST OF ALL, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SURE HUD IS COMFORTABLE WITH IT, AND THE GISD, OF COURSE, AND I KNOW THAT GISD MAY BE A RECIPIENT OF SOME FEDERAL FUNDING AS WELL. SO IT MIGHT

CAN CONSIDERED DOUBLE DIPPING INTO THE POT. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, GISD PAYS FOR 9/12THS, FOR SEVEN AEN ME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THEN THERE'S THREE OR FOUR THAT THEY PAY 100% FOR. THAT WAS THE LAST TIME THEY ASKED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS AND THEY

OFFERED TO PAY 100% OF THAT. >> I REALLY WANT TO PUT MY STAMP OF APPROVAL ON THE TRACEY TRAIL ALLEY, I HAD A RESIDENT REACH OUT TO ME ABOUT THE ALLEY AND SAID IT WAS IN TERRIBLE CONDITION, AND SO, THE TRACEY TRAIL ALLEY HAS A GREENBELT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT. AND THERE'S ANOTHER ALLEY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET AND THEY WATCHED OUT OF THE BACK WINDOW AS THE OTHER ALLEY WAS REPAIRED AND REPLACED AND THEIR ALLEY WAS NOT. SO, IT'S GOOD

THAT WE'RE DOING THAT. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WE APPRECIATE Y'ALL. >> SO, WE WILL BE COMING FORWARD FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE SAME ALLOCATIONS AT OUR NEXT MEETING IN AUGUST.

[3C. Discuss a possible Charter Amendment Election for May 2023. (20 minutes)]

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: GREAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU Y'ALL.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 3C, DISCUSS A POSSIBLY CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION FOR MAY 2023, DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WHO'LL

BE PRESENTING? >> I WILL BE PRESENTING. AT LEAST, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PRESENTATION HERE. BUT, I WILL ASK COUNCILMEMBER GALUARDI CHIME IN AT A COUPLE OF POINTS AS

WELL. >> HE WILL. >> SO, FORTUNATELY, I THINK WE BOUGHT BACK EXTRA TIME WITH THAT ACTED ITEM RUNNING SHORT, BUT WE DO WANT TO MOVE THROUGH THE SLIDE SHOW QUICKLY, THE ITEMS WE'RE PRESENTING ARE ALREADY IN THE PACKET. SO, HOPEFULLY THOSE

[00:45:04]

HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT AS WELL. WHAT I'M PROPOSING AS A PART OF OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS IS TO LOOK INTO A CHARTER ELECTION IN THE MAY ELECTION THIS COMING YEAR. AT MINIMUM, WE COULD HAVE A CHARTER ELECTION EVERY TWO YEARS, HAVING HAD ONE IN MAY OF 2021, WE'RE ELIGIBLE TO HAVE ONE AGAIN IN MAY OF 2023. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS AS WE SEE THEM. AND THE CITY ATTORNEY MIGHT WEIGH IN ON THIS IF WE'VE INTERPRETED THE CHARTER INCORRECTLY, BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT AS A COUNCIL WE COULD TAKE CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO THE VOTERS WITHOUT APPOINTING A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, AND THAT'S ONE OPTION, AND THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO CREATE A CHARTER OPTION REVIEW TO RECOMMEND ACTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO PUT OUT FOR THE PUBLIC ON THE BALLOT.

THIS IS DIRECTLY OUT OF THE CHARTER AND YOU'LL NOTICE THE BOTTOM HIGHLIGHTED LINE, THAT SAYS "NO MORE OFTEN THAN ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS", AS WELL. OKAY, WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE ON.

SO, AS FAR AS THE TIMELINE GOES, THE CHARTER WAS LAST AMENDED IN THE MAY 1ST, 2021, ELECTION. WE WERE CONSIDERING APPOINTING A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IN AUGUST OF 2022, POTENTIALLY COMING OUT OF THIS MEETING AND RECEIVING CONSENSUS ON THAT FROM COUNCIL. AND? JANUARY 2023, WE WOULD LOOK AT THE CHARTER POSITIONS AND THEN HOLD AN ELECTION ON MAY 6TH OF 2023, THAT WOULD BE A ROWLETT UNIFORMED ELECTION, WHERE WE WOULD HAVE THREE COUNCIL SEATING UP FOR ELECTION AND POTENTIAL CHARTER ELECTIONS AS WELL. THE PROPOSED SCOPE OF THE ITEMS WE HAVE HERE ARE LISTED IN ORDER AS THEY APPEAR IN THE CHARTER. WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THEM IN ORDER AS WE SEE FOR PRIORITIZATION, AND AS FAR AS BEING MOST IMPORTANT TO LEAST IMPORTANT. SO, WE'RE ACTUALLY STARTING WITH THE 04 WHICH IS THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE AND THE

POTENTIAL REMOVAL OF A MUNICIPAL JUDGE. >> AS THE CURRENT STATE AS YOU SEE IT, OUR CHARTER SAYS THE REMOVAL OF TERMINATION OF A JUDGE ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, WHEN I LOOKED THAT UP EARLY THIS YEAR, GIVEN THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAD EARLIER THIS YEAR, I DISCOVERED THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY FOR A CHARTERED CITY. THE STATUTES POINT TO THE CITY CHARTER AS A MEANS TO REMOVE A JUDGE. AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CHARTER, THEN IT GOES BACK TO, I THINK IT'S TITLE 5 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCESS. SO, COUNCIL DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAD BEFORE WAS HAMSTRUNG, THEY HAD NO ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF A JUDGE. AND I LOOKED INTO THE FUTURE, AND THERE WAS EVENTUALLY A RESOLUTION FOR THAT BUT COUNCIL WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACT FOR EXPEDITIOUSLY. AND THE OTHER THING IS HAVING THE POWER TO REMOVE A JUDGE IF THEY NEED TO, I THINK, CREATES AN INCENTIVE FOR THE CITY JUDGE TO, I WOULD SAY, ACT MORE INCLUSIVE. AND BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT. WITH THE CITY. AND THAT COULD LEAD TO OUTCOMES YOU DON'T DESIRE TO HAVE. SECTION 30.0005, TEXAS STATUTE SAYING FOR THE REASONS STATED FOR THE REMOVAL OF JUDGES IN THE CHARTER OF THE MUNICIPALITY REFERRING TO THE CHARTER CITY, SO, THAT GIVES US EXPLICIT PERMISSION TO DO THIS.

I HAVE VETTED THIS WITH DAVID, SO, WE CAN D D D D D D D D D D >> THANKS, AND I'LL GO TO THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS IN THE CHARTER, 3.14, MEETINGS OF CITY COUNCIL AND THE PROPOSAL HERE IS TO CHANGE OR TO CONSIDER A CHANGE THAT WOULD ALLOW A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE CALLED BY THREE COUNCILMEMBERS. CURRENTLY, THE CHARTER IS STATED THAT FOUR MEETINGS OF THE COUNCIL, OR FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL CAN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING, HOWEVER, THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD MAKE THAT HAPPEN IS WITH A QUORUM, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE OUTSIDE OF A PUBLIC MEETING. SO, WE FELT A GOOD COMPROMISE TO THIS WOULD ALLOW A MEETING TO BE CALLED BY THREE COUNCILMEMBERS IN THE EVENT THAT ONE NEEDED TO BE CALLED. THE NEXT ITEM IS 3.09 WHICH IS CITY COUNCIL VACANCIES AND ATTENDANCE. SO, ESSENTIALLY, IT WOULD CONSIDER THE INCLUSION OF SPECIA MEETINGS IN ADDITION TO REGULAR MEETINGS AS ABSENCES UNEXCUSED.

IN THE EVENT THAT WE HAD A REGULAR MEETING, A SPECIAL MEETING AND A REGULAR MEETING,

[00:50:01]

AND A COUNCILMEMBER WAS NOT THERE FOR ALL THREE MEETINGS, COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER REMOVAL OF THAT COUNCIL MEMBER. AND NOTHING WOULD CHANGE IN RECORDS TO THE NUMBER OF INSTANCES IN WHICH THAT WOULD HAPPEN, SO, THERE ARE THREE CONSECUTIVE SPECIAL OR REGULAR MEETINGS WITHOUT BEING EXCUSED AND IF YOU'RE ABSENT FOR SIX CONSECUTIVE REGULAR OR SPECIAL

MEETINGS, YOU'LL BE DEEMED TO FORFEIT IT AT THAT POINT. >> SO, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE PACKET, I DIDN'T SEE THE CONSECUTIVE. SO, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THREE CONSECUTIVE

ABSENCES? >> CORRECT, AND IT'S UNEXCUSED. >> AND WHO PROVIDES THAT

AUTHORIZATION, HOW DOES THAT WORK? >> TYPICALLY, HOW IT WORKS IS THAT YOU WOULD NOTIFY THE MAYOR THAT YOU PLAN ON BEING ABSENT, AND THAT'S, I BELIEVE THAT'S

WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE EXCUSED. >> IT'S MORE OF A -- IT'S NOT SEEKING AN APPROVAL, IT'S PROPER

NOTIFICATION IN BEING ABSENT? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: RIGHT, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS, PROPER

NOTIFICATION. NOT SOMETHING THAT IF YOU DISAPPEAR. >>

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> AND THIS WOULD BE ON -- >> IT'S PROPER NOTIFICATION?

>> YES. >> AND YOU ALSO HAVE TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE FOR EMERGENCIES.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YEAH, IF YOU JUST DISAPPEARED, AND NOBODY COULD GET AHOLD OF YOU.

>> AND YOU'RE OFF DRINKING PINA COLADAS. >> IF WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY, AND IF I OR ANYONE ELSE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET AHOLD OF THE MAYOR, ON EMERGENCIES.

>> BUT, YOU COULD SHOW THAT AFTER THE FACT. >> YOU WAIT UNTIL YOU SOLVE THE

EMERGENCY, COME BACK AND LET US KNOW. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: AS LONG AS

YOU DON'T SEND ME A PHOTO OF YOU DRINKING A PINA COLADA. >> I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU HAVE THESE KINDS OF PROVISIONS ARE PEOPLE THAT STONEWELL. PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP

AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A QUORUM AND YOU CAN'T CONDUCT A MEETING. >> AND I'M SURE WE'VE ALL BEEN AWARE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN UVALDE, AND THAT PARTICULAR COUNCILMEMBER DID NOT SHOW UP TO THREE CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS, AND THEREFORE HE VACATED HIS SEAT. SO, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO

CONSIDER AS WELL. >> SO -- >> BUT THAT WAS --

>> I WOULD SAY -- >> WHERE? >> UVALDE.

>> WHAT DOES A COUNCILMEMBER HAVE TO DO WHAT WHAT HAPPENED IN UVALDE?

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THE INCIDENT IN UVALDE, HE WAS, THE CHIEF COMMANDER DURING THE SHOOTING.

>> THE COUNCILMEMBER WAS? >> HE WAS ELECTED TO COUNCIL, BUT YEAH, HE HAD BEEN THE CHIEF

OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE. AND WAS ELECTED. >> LET ME MOVE ON.

>> MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS? >> CORRECT. CORRECT. I'LL

TURN IT OVER TO BRIAN TO LOOK AT THIS ONE AS WELL. >> IN OUR LAST CHARTER ELECTION WE MADE A CHANGE TO THE SECTION IN THE CHARTER AND ALLOWED THE CHIEF JUNEL TO APPOINT THE CLERK AND MUNICIPAL COURT, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE NEXT PARAGRAPH AND THE STATUTES IT SAID THAT THE ORDER SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE COURT'S RECORD ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT THE CHARTER WAS COMPLICIT IN THE STATE LAW IN THAT CASE. I NEED TO BRING THAT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. RIGHT NOW, IT SAYS IN THE CHARTER, THE JUDGE APPOINTS THE CLERK, THE STATUTE SAYS THAT THE COUNCIL PASSES AN ORDINANCE IN A PROCESS BY WHICH A CLERK IS APPOINTED AND SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL. IF WE INDEED FIND OUT THAT OUR CURRENT PROCESS IS

COUNTER TO STATE LAW, THEN WE NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE. >> AND DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT

IS COUNTER TO STATE LAW? >> IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE CHARTER ELECTION IS CONSIDERED

AN ORDINANCE AND THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW. >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.

I HAVEN'T SEEN A PROVISION. >> AND OH, I THINK WHAT WE DISCUSSED WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT WAS, BECAUSE IT SAYS HERE, THE PURPOSE OF THE CHANGE WAS CHECKS AND BALANCES, AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD MAKE THE CHIEF CLERK OR CITY EMPLOYEE, A PARTNER, REPORTING TO THE CITY. AND THAT WAY, BECAUSE, WHAT WE WERE TAL TALKING ABOUT IS THAT THE CLERK IF THEY WERE APPOINTED BY THE JUDGE, THEY ARE DISINCENTIVIZED TO GO AGAINST THE JUDGE ON ANYTHING OR TO REPORT ANY WRONGDOING.

>> THE STATE STATUTE DOES EXPLICITLY THEY THAT THE CLERK PERSONNEL PERFORM THEIR DUTIES

UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE JUDGE. >>

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> THE JUDGE ASSIGNS THE DUTY? >> ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THELAS

[00:55:06]

CONSIDERING IS ALLOWING THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ITSELF TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW. AND FORTUNATELY OR UNFORTUNATELY, YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT SERVED ON THE MOST RECENT CHARTER REVIEW, AND WE FOUND THAT WE WERE LIMITED ON WHAT WE COULD AND COULD NOT REVIEW, AND SO, WHILE WE FEEL IT'S FIT FOR COUNCIL TO GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS, MOST CERTAINLY, WE FEEL IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION ITSELF TO IDENTIFY DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY PUT FORWARD FOR A VOTE.

>> AND YOU HAVE ONE PERSON WHO SERVED ON THE CHARTER COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY, MANY YEARS AGO, HE FOUND THE SAME THING, THAT COUNCIL BASICALLY SAID "THIS IS WHAT WE WANT YOU TO PRESENT TO

US." >> AND SO, HERE ON OUR LAST SLIDE REALLY IS WHAT IS FOR DISCUSSION AND THAT IS IS THERE A CONSENSUS TO HOLD CHARTER ELECTION IN 2023 AND IF SO, IS COUNCIL IN FAVOR OF APPOINTING A CHARTER REVIEW OR TAKING IT DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS IF THAT'S A PROVISION OF THE CHARTER AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. AND IF WE'RE IN FAVOR OF A CHARTER REVIEW, WHAT PROCESS SHOULD WE USE TO DO THAT AND SHOULD THERE BE ANY OTHER ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW, THE LIST OF GENERALLY SPEAKING WE'RE LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS ON IF YOU WANT TO HOLD A CHARTERED ELECTION, IF SO, HOW DO WE WANT TO GO ABOUT IT?

>> BEING A CHARTER ELECTION, THEY ALWAYS WILL. >> OH, YOU MEAN IN TERMS OF

APPOINTING A CHARTER COMMISSION? >> OKAY. >> EITHER WAY, IT WOULD STILL

GO TO A VOTE. >> I KNOW. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I HAVE

QUESTIONS, BUT DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? >>

(INDISCERNIBLE). >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, A CHANGE APOSITIVITIE APOSITIVITIED -- APPOINTED BY THE CITY MANAGER CONCERNS ME, THE REASON WE CHANGED IT TO BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE IS THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE IS LIKE A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THE DECISION ON WHO THEY WANT TO BE WORKING WITH, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, IT IS THEIR COURT. AND, IF COUNCIL IS SEEING AN ISSUE WITH THE COURTS, THEN, I THINK THAT THE OTHER SOLUTION REGARDING THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE COUNCIL TO REMOVE A PRESIDING JUDGE, SOMEWHAT SOLVES THAT PROBLEM IF WE WERE SEEING AN ISSUE THERE.

SO, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THE COURT CLERK TO BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE. BECAUSE -- AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE OF SHOULD THE BASICALLY SHOULD THE EXECUTIVE APPOINT SOMEBODY TO THE ADDITIONAL BRANCH? IN THIS CASE, BRIAN APPOINTING A COURT CLERK TO THE COURT SYSTEM THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH ON A DAILY BASIS.

AND SO, THAT'S JUST MY CONCERN WITH IT. AND NOW, I DO ALSO HAVE CONCERNS WITH WHAT YOU H SAID, AND I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. SO, IF IT DOES SAY IN STATE LAW THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE BY CITY MANAGER OR CITY

COUNCIL. >> IT SAYS CITY COUNCIL SHALL PROVIDE ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE CLERK. SO, I THINK THAT WE NEED A LEGAL OPINION OF THE CHARTER WHICH SAYS IT'S APPOINTED BY A JUDGE, IF THE CHARTER MEETS THAT CRITERIA, SO, WE MAY HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE AND THEN PASS IT SEPARATELY TO DO THE APPOINTMENT.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, VERMON JUST TEXTED ME, SAID THAT SECTION 38-6 OF OUR CODE SAYS THE CITY MANAGER APPOINTS THE CLERK, THE CHARTER SAYS, THE JUDGE APPOINTS. SO, THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY THERE. SO, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO SEEK CLARIFICATION, LIKE YOU SAID,

BEFORE WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT. >> SO, MAYOR, JUST TO YOUR POINT, UM, WHEN WE WENT, WE'VE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS, AT ONE POINT THERE WAS CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD DO THIS THROUGH THE CHA

[01:00:02]

CHARTER ULTIMATELY WHAT THE CITY DECIDED TO DO WAS TO REMOVE AN EXCEPTION THAT ROWLETT WAS UNDER WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER CITIES THAT THOUGHT THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE STAFF WOULD FALL UNDER STATE RULES AT THAT TIME. SO, I'M GOING TO REENFORCE WHAT THE MAYOR IS SAYING, IF THE PRESIDING JUDGE IS THE ONE THAT IS GOING TO RUN THE COURT, THEN, I THINK THEY SHOULD APPOINT THE CLERK. I DO THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA, WHAT YOU WERE SAYING LIKE, ON, YOU KNOW, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE, HOW YOU HIRE AND HOW YOU REMOVE SOMEONE IS VERY, VERY, IMPORTANT. SO, THAT'S JUST A THOUGHT FOR ME, BECAUSE IT IS AWKWARD FOR IF I WERE TO BE THE ONE DOING THE APPOINTING, BUT

THEN THOSE PEOPLE DON'T WORK FOR ME. >> WELL, AND THE STATUTE REALLY PUTS THE ONUS ON COUNCIL. WE PROVIDE FOR DEPUTY CLERKS, OFFICERS, OTHER PERSONNEL.

OTHER PERTINENT PERSONNEL, PRESIDING JUDGE, REQUIRED FOR THE HIRING, SUPERVISION AND REMOVAL OF AUTHORIZING -- SO, IT PUTS A LOT OF THE ONUS ON COUNCIL TO ACT BY ORDINANCE.

AND I THINK SOMEHOW WE HAVE GOTTEN SIDEWAYS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SO, THE SECTION 38-6 OF OUR CODE OF THE ROWLETT CODE OF ORDINANCE DOES STATE THAT THE CITY MANAGER APPOINTS THE CLERK. OUR CITY CHARTER SAYS THAT THE JUDGE APPOINTS THE CLERK. STATE LAW SAYS COUNCIL APPOINTS BY ORDINANCE. SO, I JUST ASKED VERMON THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE CHARTER AT ALL, AND WE SHOULD UPDATE THE ORDINANCE. SO, REALLY, WE SHOULD BE TAKING ANY LANGUAGE OUT THAT SAYS WHO HIRES THE COURT CLERK, BECAUSE STATE LAW SAYS IT SHOULD BE DONE BY ORDINANCE NOT BY CHARTER. SO, THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST PATH.

>> YES. >> MAYOR IF I MAY, THAT'S ALL GOOD DISCUSSION AND I'M GLAD THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER NOW. WE ARE STILL LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS ON WETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH THIS, AND BASED ON THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER. THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW WE WANT TO MOVE

FORWARD? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ON THE OTHER TOPICS, OR THIS TOPIC?

>> JUST IN GENERAL. NOT NECESSARILY ON ANYONE TOPIC, BUT IF EAR AMEANABLE TO HOLDING AN

ELECTION IN MAY. >> I'M AMEANABLE TO IT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO CLEAN UP THAT MESS, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DISCUSS THE SCOPE OF REVIEW. I'M ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CODIFYING THAT THE SHORTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS THE SCOPE OF THE SHORTER REVIEW. I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CODIFIED. I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE OUR SCOPE OF REVIEW, NOT SCOPE OF REVIEW, BUT THAT THE CHARTER COMMISSION CAN RECOMMEND ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, I JUST GET NERVOUS ABOUT CODIFYING THIS, BECAUSE THAT MEANS THAT WE HAVE TO, AND WE HAVE THOUGH CHOICE.

>> I THINK IF WE ORDER THE ELECTION. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I MEAN, IINK THIS THAT COUNCIL SHOULD BE PROVIDING A SCOPE OF REVIEW BUT ALSO ALLOWING THE LEANANCESY TO

ALLOW CHANGES TO COUNCIL BUT NOD TO CODIFY THAT. >> THE QUESTION IS FUTURE COUNCILING, WE COULD SAY WE WILL DO THAT, BUT WILL FUTURE COUNCILING DO THAT?

>> I THINK THAT ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. WE ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THEY ELECTED US. I DON'T WANT TO PUT US INTO A BOX, UM, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TOMORROW OR NEXT YEAR OR 10 YEARS LOOKS LIKE. SO, TO CODIFY THAT TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW THAT CHARTER COMMISSION TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OF THE CHARTER, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT COUNCILS ARE RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE AND THEY'RE ELECTED TO BE, TO MAKE THAT PART OF THE SCOPE OF REVIEW, THAT THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION DOES GET TO DETERMINE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED IN THE CHARTER.

>> I'VE SOME NOTES THAT I'VE WRITTEN DOWN, I HAVE THE SAME THING IN MIND THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE ABLE TO ORDER TO LOOK AT THE SCOPE. AND I THINK WHAT WAS ON OUR MIND WAS IN ADDITION TO THAT, IF THE COMMISSION FINDS OTHER THINGS WHICH ARE RELEVANT, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING

[01:05:05]

THAT BACK. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: ABSOLUTELY, THAT'S COMMON SENSE AND WE

SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE BEEN ALLOWING THAT. >> A BLANK STATEMENT, DOES THAT GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO GO BEYOND THE SCOPE, BECAUSE IT SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL

DEFINE THE SCOPE. >> IT SALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO LIMIT.

>> IF YOUR CONCERNED, THAT ANY FUTURE COUNCIL CAN CHANGE THAT BACK.

>> WELL, THE CHARTER, THEY CAN, THEY COULD DO A CHARTER ELECTION BUT THEY COULDN'T WOULDN'T THE

RECOMMENDATION. >> THEY COULD IF THEY WANTED TO.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I DON'T WANT TO -- BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO ALLOW THAT

FLEXIBILITY. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: WE NEED TO LET THE CHARTER REVIEW

COMMISSION TO FIND THE LANGUAGE TO DO THAT. >> OR THE SCOPE?

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YEAH, BECAUSE SHALL IS "YOU DON'T HAVE A CHASE.

>> THAT'S A BIG WORD." >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: BUT, I THINK THAT WE COULD WORDSMITH IT IN A WAY THAT GIVES COUNCIL THE RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE SEMENT FLEXIBILITY. SO, OVERALL, I THINK THESE ARE GOOD SUGGESTIONS AND I'M ALL FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CHARTER REVIEW AND

POTENTIAL ELECTION IN MAY, 2023. >> UTILIZING THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION?

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YES. >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. >> OKAY. WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, UM, LAURA, WHAT WOULD OUR NEXT STEPS BE IN ORDER OF APPOINTING A CHART ARE REVIEW

COMMISSION? WE MAY NEED GUIDANCE ON THAT. >> WELL, WE NEED NAMES AND THEN IT COULD BE DONE AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. SO, IN THE PAST, COUNCIL HAS PROVIDED A LIST OF NAMES, PEOPLE THAT THEY WOULD RECOMMEND TO SERVE, CHECKING WITH THOSE PEOPLE FIRST TO SEE IF THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED. AND THEN, UM, FINE TUNING THAT LIST, AND WITH

COUNSEL'S CONSIDERATION AT AN UPCOMING MEETING. >> WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY E-MAIL YOU A LIST INDEPENDENTLY, AND YOU WOULD COLLATE THAT LIST

TOGETHER. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YEAH, EVERYBODY PUTS IN THEIR TOP

THREE. >> SO, THE TOTAL NUMBER IS HOW MANY? I FORGET.

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: SEVEN. THAT GIVES ENOUGH ROOM THAT IF THERE ARE DUPLICATES OR OTHER PEOPLE WHO DIE NOT TO -- NOW, WE COULD, AND I KNOW LAURA WILL BE STARING AT ME MEAN FOR THIS, BUT WE COULD OPEN UP A TEMPORARY APPLICATION, LIMITED-TIME APPLICATION FOR IT. SO THAT ANYBODY CAN APPLY, BUT, THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A BURDEN. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO INTERVIEW.

>> WELL, WE'RE IN A WORK SESSION, SO WE CAN'T DID I SOMETHING RIGHT NOW. BUT SHOULD

WE PUT THAT OUT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I THINK THAT WE SHOULD, I THINK WE SHOULD PUT

OUT THAT APPLICATION. >> I THINK, MAY'S IS LONG TIME FROM NOW, BUT YOU HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE IN FEBRUARY TO CALL THE ELECTION. SO, IT IS NOT MUCH TIME.

>> RIGHT. >> SO, THAT'S OUR TIMELINE AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT APPOINTING

A CHARTER COMMISSION IN AUGUST. WHICH IS LITERALLY DAYS AWAY. >> WOW, WE DON'T HAVE TIME FOR

AN APPLICATION. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. >> SO, MAYOR, I'LL DEFER TO YOU ON THE PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH FOR US PUTTING OUT NAMES OR SEEKING

APPLICANTS OR WHATEVER. >> LAURA, CAN YOU SEND COUNCIL, LIKE, SELECT YOUR TOP THREE, AND, YOU KNOW, BY THIS DATE, AND, HAVE THEY ARE NAME IN THE CONTACT INFORMATION? THAT WAY IN LAURA NEEDS TO REACH OUT TO THEM, THEY'RE REACHABLE. AND I GUESS, AT A FUTURE MEETING, WE MAKE THAT, I MEAN, I GUESS, WE COULD TRY TO SHOOT FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN AUGUST TO MAKE THE SELECTION. SO, I WOULD SAY THAT WE NEED TO GET ROLLING ON THAT PRETTY SOON.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD NEED A WORK SESSION TO GO OVER THE LANGUAGE. OR DO YOU WANT TO GO

STRAIGHT TO THE MEETING AND POINT THEM WITH THE DOCUMENT? >> RIGHT NOW, WE JUST HAVE

IDEAS, WE HAVE NOT DEFINED THE CHARGING DOCUMENT. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: I WOULD SAY THAT THE THREE OF Y'ALL, SINCE YOU CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA, GET WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ASOLIDIF

[01:10:12]

THE IDEAS SO, THAT WHEN WE APPOINTMENT THE CHARTER COMMISSION, SOME OF THE LANGUAGE

HAS BEEN NAILED OUT. >> YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING TO DECIDE

SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOUR CHARGE IS TO THOSE FOLKS. >> AND CREATE THE COMMISSION.

>> YEAH. SO -- COUNCIL IF I MAY, SINCE WOVE A FEW MINUTES LEFT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDED TO THE SCOPE AS TO THE DEFINITION OF THE WHAT THE CHARTER COMMISSION HAS LOOKED AT IN THE PAST IS TERM LIMITS, COUNCIL COMPENSATION, DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY, WE LOOKED AT TERMS OF OFFICE, CHANGES, POTENTIAL CHANGES THERE, SO, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE LOOKED AT IN THE MOST RECENT ELECTION, OBVIOUSLY, THE ENTIRE CHARTER IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU PROPOSE, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO SHARE

THAT, SINCE WE'RE OPERATING AS A INFORMAL COMMITTEE. >> ONE ITEM THAT I WOULD NEED LEGAL INTERPRETATION IS THE INCONSISTENCY OF LANGUAGE, IN SECTION 604, TAXES AND TAXATION, IN NO EVENT SHALL THE CITY HAVE AT POWER TO LEVEE AN AD VALOREM ON THE CITY TAXES PROPERTY (INAUDIBLE) IT SOUNDED INCONSISTENT TO ME. SO, I THINK THAT A LEGAL INTERPRETATION

WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. >> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CHARTER DOES IS LOOK FOR THE

INCONSISTENCIES, AND THE TYPES OF THEM. >> WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTES TOO. AND Y'ALL ARE FREE TO REACH OUT TO BERMAN, I THINK HE WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

IT'S THE BILL ABLE HOURS. >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? ANY OTHER INPUT,

COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU Y'ALL VERY MUCH. AND --

>> SO, THIS WAS IN FRONT OF ME, AM I DOING THE READING FOR THIS? >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: YES. YOU

DON'T HAVE TO. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM, BUT I JUST ASSUMED IT WAS HERE.

>> SO, YOU COULD HAVE MINE (INAUDIBLE). >> MAYOR MARGOLIS: THAT IS, WE DID KIND OF SAY, LET'S GO AHEAD WITH THIS PROCESS IN AUGUST, AND THE SECOND MEETING IN AUGUST, WE THEN TENDON SELECTIONING A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION. SO, I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.

[4. DISCUSS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

>> MAYOR MARGOLIS: OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THEN, COUNCIL, PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE CONSENT AGENDA, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION OR HAVE QUESTIONS ON? ALL RIGHT, THEN, I GUESS WE'LL TAKE A BREAK.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

4. DISCUSS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Jul 19, 2022 City Council Work Session

4. DISCUSS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item