[H1. 2025-008 Review Chapter 1 (“Incorporation and Boundaries”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action.]

THE FIRST REGULAR AGENDA ITEM IS H12025008 REVIEW.

CHAPTER ONE INCORPORATION AND BOUNDARIES OF THE HOME.

RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS.

CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS THERETO AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

ALL RIGHT WITH THAT? WE HAVE A SLIDE UP HERE.

ARE YOU GOING TO BE KIND OF SETTING US OFF? THANK YOU. YEAH, YEAH.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. IT'S GOOD TO SEE EACH OF YOU AGAIN. IT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO THAT WE KICKED THIS OFF. SO GOOD TO SEE A LOT OF THE SMILING FACES AGAIN.

SO YOU KNOW, LAST, THE FIRST MEETING WAS REALLY A KIND OF AN INTRODUCTION INTO THE HOME RULE CHARTER. THE PROCESS, THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

TODAY, WE'RE KIND OF IT'S THE FIRST MEETING INTO THE ACTUAL SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS OF THE CHARTER. WE'RE STARTING WITH CHAPTER ONE ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO CHAPTER TWO HERE IN A MINUTE. SO REALLY, I HAVE A, A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION JUST KIND OF OUTLINING THE SECTIONS IN CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO. REALLY, I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO SAY.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND BE A RESOURCE AND POINT OF REFERENCE FOR YOU GUYS.

SO REALLY, IT'S JUST TO KIND OF DIVE INTO CHAPTER ONE AND THEN CHAPTER TWO KIND OF ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, GET THOUGHTS? A LOT OF DIALOG, A LOT OF DISCUSSION.

SO IT WAS JUST KIND OF ONCE AGAIN, HERE'S AN OVERVIEW DURING CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO TODAY. AND THEN WE STILL HAVE CHAPTERS THREE THROUGH 15 TO DO AT SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS. SO JUST DIVE INTO CHAPTER ONE.

AND THE FIRST, FIRST THREE SECTIONS ARE UP ON THE.

YEAH, SORRY, I JUST WANT TO JUMP IN AND JUST KIND OF SET A PRECEDENT AS WE ARE ACTUALLY DIVING INTO THE SPECIFIC CHAPTERS FOR THE HUNGER CHARTER.

I'VE GONE AND REQUESTED AND WE HAD THIS TOPIC COME UP, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S IN THE, IN THE KNOW AS TO WHY THESE THINGS MAY COME UP, BUT I'VE REQUESTED THAT YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, AS WE'RE GOING INTO THESE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION ANY ASPECT THAT MAY BE BENEFICIAL FOR US TO CONSIDER WHEN WHEN MAKING THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE HOME RULE CHARTER. SO I'D ASK THAT THAT THE CITY STAFF MR.. LOWRY. ATTORNEY LOWRY.

I'M SORRY. AS WE KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THAT THEIR GOAL IS NOT TO TELL US WHAT TO DO.

BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE AWARE OF SOME FRICTION POINTS.

RIGHT? AND, AND I'VE STATED BEFORE IN MY BACKGROUND I AM RESPONSIBLE IN MY DAY TO DAY JOB OF TAKING EXPECTATIONS FROM THE BUSINESS AND THEN CREATING A PRODUCT.

RIGHT. AND I CAN'T CREATE THE PRODUCT IF YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT THE PRODUCT NEEDS TO DO AND WHAT IT NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE. AND THESE GUYS KNOW BETTER THAN MOST PEOPLE WHAT THOSE ISSUES ARE. AND I WANT TO KIND OF SAY THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE'S 21 OF US. SO JUST BECAUSE THEY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT HAS TO

[00:20:03]

MAKE IT TO THE CHARTER.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S HOW WE SAFEGUARD THAT. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE PUSHING AN AGENDA. THEY CAN BY ALL MEANS TELL US.

HERE'S AN AREA TO LOOK INTO.

HERE'S SOME THINGS THAT I'VE SEEN IN OTHER CITIES. BUT WE STILL GET TO MAKE THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD MAKE IT INTO THIS CHARTER. SO I JUST WANT TO KIND OF SET THAT PRECEDENT THAT YOU GUYS WILL MAKE HERE, RECOMMENDATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING I REQUESTED.

BUT PLEASE FEEL EMPOWERED TO AGREE OR DISAGREE.

THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS.

THANKS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. KIND OF TO HIS POINT, I'M.

I'M HERE KIND OF AS I'M NEUTRAL ON ALL THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.

I THINK MY MY TASK IS JUST TO, YOU KNOW, LIKE I MENTIONED LAST, LAST WEEK, A HOME RULE CITY CAN DO ANYTHING UNLESS WE'RE PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM DOING THAT. SO I'M JUST MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANYTHING THAT'S CONTRARY TO STATE LAW OR FEDERAL LAW. SO THAT'S AND THEN OBVIOUSLY ANY QUESTIONS? YOU GUYS HAVE YOU KNOW, I THINK JUST THE LAST COMMENT I'LL HAVE BEFORE WE OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR, FOR DISCUSSION IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW.

THE COMMITTEE IS DOING A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE CHARTER.

DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERY SINGLE SECTION HAS TO BE AMENDED. RIGHT. IT'S JUST GOING THROUGH TO SEE IF THERE'S POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN HOME RULE REVIEW COMMITTEES FOR OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WHERE COUNCILS SPECIFICALLY SAID, HEY, LOOK AT CHAPTERS ONE, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN. THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE.

I THINK COUNSEL KIND OF GAVE JUST AN OVERALL AN ASK TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE CHARTER.

SO JUST TO KEEP THAT IN MIND TO YOU, DON'T.

JUST BECAUSE WE'RE GOING THROUGH EVERY SECTION DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERY SECTION NEEDS TO BE AMENDED NECESSARILY.

SO THAT'S THE LAST THING I'LL SAY.

THANKS, GRANT. ALL RIGHT.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID THE FIRST CHAPTER INCLUDES THE WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST SECTION, WHICH IS THE PREAMBLE SECTION 101.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I NEED TO READ THAT FOR EVERYONE.

EVERYONE, I'M PRETTY SURE HERE CAN READ IT FOR THEMSELVES.

I WOULD, YOU KNOW, OPEN IT UP TO ANYONE THAT MAY HAVE ANY INPUT.

AS TO THIS, THIS SECTION, I'LL SAY FOR MYSELF, I FEEL THAT THIS IS PRETTY COOKIE CUTTER TEMPLATE TYPE OF JARGON THAT UNLESS THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS.

AND THAT'S MY $0.02. AND I WILL CONCEDE TO ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS ANY INPUT.

LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE INPUT.

THANK YOU. GRANT. YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS SOME, LIKE, BOILERPLATE LANGUAGE KIND OF STUFF BUILT IN HERE.

IS IT POSSIBLE, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF TIME AND EFFICIENCY, TO IF WE GET TO A SECTION THAT IS JUST THAT WHICH FEELS LIKE THIS PREAMBLE PROBABLY IS THAT YOU CAN KIND OF GIVE US A HEADS UP AND SAY, GUYS, THIS IS BOILERPLATE.

IT'S LEGALLY BINDING. IT'S GOOD.

IT'S SOLID. I, YOU KNOW, RECOMMEND THAT WE JUST MOVE ON TO SOMETHING MORE MEATY. YEAH. NO, THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

I WANT EVERYONE I WANT EVERYONE TO GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT ALL THE PROVISIONS. RIGHT.

I WILL CHIME IN. I MEAN, REALLY, THE FIRST THREE SECTIONS ARE PRETTY BOILERPLATE. I MEAN, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN SOME MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE A PREAMBLE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LENGTHIER THAN WHAT PRINCETON HAS.

BUT IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO LEGAL.

I MEAN, IT'S BOILERPLATE.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED IN MY IN MY OPINION.

SO I WOULD SAY. SECTIONS 1.01 THROUGH 1.03 ARE ARE RELATIVELY.

I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT MUNICIPALITIES AROUND THE AREA, THEY HAVE ALMOST IDENTICAL LANGUAGE TO WHAT PRINCETON HAS HERE.

YEAH. AND WOULD THERE BE ANY ADVANTAGES TO THE CITY TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, EVEN IF IT'S MINOR TWEAKS BASED ON THINGS THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES OR YOUR OWN THOUGHTS AND YOUR OWN EXPERTISE? NO. THEY'RE THE FIRST THREE SECTIONS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S WORTH, LIKE I SAID, WORTH DISCUSSING AND. NOT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. I PUT A RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE ZERO THREE.

THE LAST SENTENCE OF CITY ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHALL KEEP AN CORRECT MAP OF THE BOUNDARIES AND LIMITS OF THE CITY.

I THINK THAT SHOULD BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST.

AND. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I'M TRYING TO READ AND TALK THE SAME TIME CAN BE DIFFICULT.

ALL RIGHT, SO THE LAST THE LAST SENTENCE IN THAT PARAGRAPH, THE CITY SECRETARY SHALL KEEP A CORRECT MAP OF THE BOUNDARIES OF LIMITS TO THE CITY.

KEEPING MAINTAINING IS ONE THING.

MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IS ANOTHER. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT PARAGRAPH THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE READILY.

I CAN WRITE THAT UP. HOWEVER, WHATEVER LEGAL EASE YOU MIGHT SUGGEST DOWN THERE. BUT YEAH, IT SHOULDN'T IT SHOULDN'T REQUIRE FOIA ACT SUBMISSION TO GET A COPY OF

[00:25:05]

THE BOUNDARIES. AND I ALSO THINK THAT THOSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS IF IT'S IN OUR CITY INSTRUCTIONS IN SOME PLACE OR NOT, BUT I THINK THOSE BOUNDARIES SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE ANY EXPECTED REVISIONS, EDIT DATES, THOSE KIND OF THINGS, SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHEN WE'RE EXPECTING TO HAVE CHANGES AND WHEN A CHANGE IS MADE.

I'M SURE THERE'S A REALLY EASY WAY TO WRITE THAT, BUT.

FOR IS IT GRANT? YEAH.

IN THE PREAMBLE, WOULD THERE BE A LEGAL ADVANTAGE TO NOT JUST MENTION THE STATE OF TEXAS, BUT ALSO ANY AUTHORITY THAT'S BEEN GRANTED TO US, EITHER BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE? I DON'T KNOW IF THE COUNTY HAS ANY AUTHORITY OVER THE CITY, BUT TO MENTION THOSE BECAUSE THERE COULD BE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, SOME CONFLICT BETWEEN POSSIBLY THOSE.

I DON'T SEE ANY ADVANTAGE OF ADDING ANYTHING MORE THAN JUST THE STATE OF TEXAS.

YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY FEDERAL LAW TRUMPS STATE OF TEXAS AND THEN TEXAS LAW WOULD TRUMP THE CHARTER IF THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY IS, IS SUFFICIENT. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, LIKE I SAID, IT'S VERY, VERY COMMONPLACE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR FOR OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AS WELL.

IT'S A VERY VALID POINT AND GOOD QUESTION. I JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE AS IS, IS, IS SUFFICIENT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

AWESOME. THANKS, RYAN. SO LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING.

JUST TO BE SURE, I KNOW THAT THAT THE A LOT OF THIS IS GOING TO BE BOILERPLATE.

I WANT I DO WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE, YOU KNOW, AS THIS MEETING IS GOING TO BE PUBLIC FACING, THAT WE ARE GOING PAST EACH SECTION, EVEN IF WE SAY WE'RE GOOD AND THEN WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT. I DON'T WANT THE CONVERSATION OR THE PERSPECTIVE TO BE THAT.

WE JUST KIND OF RAN OVER SOMETHING AND DIDN'T ADDRESS IT AND GAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THAT. SO I DO NOTE THAT DAVID HAD A RECOMMENDATION FOR SECTION 1.03.

DAVID, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, I KNOW YOU ALREADY OUTLINED THAT.

WHEN WE GET BACK TO THAT, IF YOU COULD JUST BRING THAT BACK UP. AND WHAT I WOULD ALSO ASK IS THAT IF SOMEONE MAKES A RECOMMENDATION YOU KNOW, THAT ISN'T I WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE A SUPPORT TO THAT.

SO LIKE, LET'S MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT.

AND THEN SOMEONE SECONDED AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A VOTE TOWARDS IT.

SO THAT WAY WE CAN ENSURE THAT COLLECTIVELY WE'RE PUSHING FORWARD THE ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED AS A MATTER OF RECORD.

SECTION 602 OF THE CITY SECRETARY'S REQUIREMENTS.

ITEM TWO SAYS MAINTAIN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS AND FILES OF THE CITY.

I THINK THAT IMPLICATION IS THROUGHOUT.

WE DON'T NEED TO ELABORATE OR PUT WORDS IN WHEN WE SEE COHESION THROUGH THE THROUGH THE DOCUMENT. SO I AGREE WITH THAT.

YEAH I DO. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE TAKE TOO LONG TO, TO TO DO THE WORDS. THANK YOU.

DID YOU HAVE SOME OF THAT. NO, I MEAN I, I, I TEND TO AGREE WITH MR. POWELL AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ALSO TO WHERE ALL THE OFFICIAL MAPS AND BOUNDARIES AND LIMITS OF THE OF THE CITY.

IT'S ALL PUBLIC. IT IS ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK EVEN A LOT OF IT'S CURRENTLY ON THE CITY WEBSITE AS WELL.

SO IT'S YOU KNOW, VERY READILY ACCESSIBLE.

CERTAINLY CAN. AND THERE MAY BE INSTANCES WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE DRAFTING THIS FROM SCRATCH, WE MAY WANT TO GO IN AND ADD SOME AREAS. BUT YOU GOT TO THINK, IS IT WORTH, PUTTING FORTH A FORMAL AMENDMENT AND PUTTING IT TO THE VOTERS TO.

YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE LIKE THERE'S INSTANCES THAT IF I WERE DRAFTING IT FROM SCRATCH, I MIGHT SAY, YOU KNOW, PUT LANGUAGE IN THERE SUCH AS UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT SECTION OF THE CHARTER SHOULD NECESSARILY GO BACK TO THE VOTERS. RIGHT? BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S HOW THE CHARTER WORKS FROM, FROM THE GET GO. BUT NO, THAT'S I THINK TO MR. POWELLS POINT, I THINK THE DUTIES OF THE CITY SECRETARY IN CHAPTER SIX KIND OF COVER THAT.

BUT YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY HE'S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION IF THEY IF THEY WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO 1.03.

OF INFORMATION, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT CAN WE MAYBE ADD JUST FOR UNIVERSALITY, THE CITY SECRETARY AND OR DESIGNEE?

[00:30:04]

OH, I GUESS I'M TALKING FOR ME.

THIS QUESTION IS FOR THE ROOM, I GUESS. OR DAVIS. SO SOMEBODY CAN CLARIFY FOR ME. OH. SORRY. I'M TRYING TO TRY TO CHIME IN.

THAT'S NO WE THAT WE COULD DO THAT.

I THINK SOME OF THE DUTIES OF THE CITY SECRETARY CAN BE DELEGATED.

RIGHT? CITY SECRETARY, YOU KNOW, HAS ALL THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. SOME OF THEM ARE DELEGATED TO, YOU KNOW, DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY, ETC..

SO I WOULD SAY THAT SAME, YOU KNOW, SAME AS FOR A CITY MANAGER, RIGHT. THE CITY MANAGER IS IN CHARGE OF OVERSEEING THE BUDGET, RIGHT? BUT WE DO HAVE A FINANCE DIRECTOR. SO I THINK IT'S KIND OF AKIN TO YOU COULD PUT YOUR DESIGNEE IN THERE, BUT I THINK JUST HAVING CITY SECRETARY, IT'S ALREADY IT ALREADY COVERS THAT POSSIBILITY. YEAH. JUST FOR CLARITY, ON MY END FOR THE CURRENT CITY MAP OR BOUNDARIES AS A CITIZEN.

HOW DO I GO ABOUT REQUESTING THAT? WHERE IS THAT FOUND NOW? YEAH, YOU CAN YOU CAN MAKE A PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUEST.

I DO BELIEVE IT'S ALSO IT SHOULD BE POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.

I THINK WE HAVE HAVE LINKS ON OUR WEBSITE.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE BOUNDARY LIMITS CITY LIMITS, ETC.. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THOSE YOU KNOW, READILY ACCESSIBLE ON THE WEBSITE.

SO I DO BELIEVE IT'S ALREADY ON THE WEBSITE, BUT I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO MAYBE CITY STAFF.

YEAH. YEAH, I THINK WE CAN.

WE CAN DEFINITELY CONNECT WITH YOU AND HELP YOU GET THAT INFORMATION, POST TO HRC MEETING. SO WITH THAT, I WANT TO I WANT TO KIND OF GET US BACK ON TRACK HERE. I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE AROUND 103.

AND BY ALL MEANS, WHEN WE LET'S LET'S START AT 101 AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY MOTIONS THERE.

IF NOT, THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT.

IF THERE'S NO MOTIONS THERE, THEN WE'LL MOVE TO 103.

AND IF DAVID STILL WANTS TO MAKE HIS HIS MOTION, THEN WE CAN KIND OF CONTINUE ON FROM THAT FORMAT.

YOU KNOW, SOMEONE CAN SEND IT AND WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION IN REGARDS TO SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP HERE. SO WITH SECTION 1.01, THE PREAMBLE, OR ARE THERE ANY MOTIONS FOR ANY RECOMMEND RECOMMENDED CHANGES THERE? GOING ONCE TWICE. MOVING ON.

ALL RIGHT. SECTION 1.02 INCORPORATION.

ANY MOTIONS FOR RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THAT SECTION? ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON RIGHT NOW INTO SECTION 1.03.

ANY MOTIONS FOR CHANGES IN THAT SECTION? BASED ON THE CONVERSATION WE JUST HAD.

SECTION SIX DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY CONTEXT WHERE IT REQUIRES THE SECRETARY TO BE PUBLIC.

AS I STATED BEFORE, I THINK A REQUIREMENT TO SUBMIT A FOIA REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION IS WHEN IT COMES TO BOUNDARIES, THE STATE OR THE CITY IS EXCESSIVE, AND I RECOMMEND AND MAKE AVAILABLE UPON MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST.

AS AN ADDITION TO THAT LAST LINE.

I HAVE I HAVE A QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO WHAT DAVID JUST PROPOSED.

DOES THE CITY WHO IN THE CITY IS CURRENTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HANDLING PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS? YEAH. SO THE CITY SECRETARY IS THE DESIGNATED PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.

OF COURSE, WITH A LARGE GROWING CITY LIKE PRINCETON, WE GET TONS OF OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS EVERY DAY.

SO THERE'S THERE'S STAFF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A RECORDS CLERK AND POLICE DEPARTMENT. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT STEPHANIE, A DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY, HELPS OUT AS WELL, BUT BUT BY LAW, THE CITY SECRETARY IS THE DESIGNATED PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.

SO SHE ONCE AGAIN KIND OF HE OR SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION REQUEST.

SO IS IN SECTION 6.02, AS JIM POINTED OUT.

AM I MISSING THAT THAT THAT IS NOT ONE OF THE LISTED DUTIES.

BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME AS A POINT OF COHESION, IT'S WE CAN PUT IT INTO 1.03.

BUT IF THE CITY SECRETARY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS, NOT JUST THE MAP, THEN MAYBE WE ALL NEED TO WAIT AND TO NOTE THAT AND WAIT UNTIL WE GET TO SECTION SIX AND MAKE A CHANGE THAT REFLECTS THAT IN THE ACTUAL DUTIES, AND NOT HAVE TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE IN 1.03 TO AVOID.

SURE. YEAH. THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD IDEA, TOO.

AND THERE'S CERTAIN THERE'S THAT'S AN EXAMPLE TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH CHAPTER ONE, THERE MAY BE WE MAKE THE IDEA MAY COME UP,

[00:35:03]

AND THEN IT MAY BE MORE APPLICABLE IN CHAPTER SIX. OR, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE THOSE, THOSE COME UP. THAT'S A THAT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. AND I THINK I'LL MAKE NOTE OF THAT.

WHEN WE GET TO CHAPTER SIX WE CAN LOOK AT EXPANDING THOSE DUTIES OF THE CITY SECRETARY.

THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. SO I'M WILLING TO TABLE MY MOTION.

IF WHEN WE GET TO SECTION SIX, WE CAN COVER IT THERE. YEAH.

FOR THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST, IS THERE A FEE SCHEDULE OR HOW DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH IT COST FOR EACH REQUEST? YEAH. SO THE FEES THAT THE CITY IS ABLE TO CHARGE, THAT'S DICTATED BY THE STATE.

THE CITY, REALLY, IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE REQUEST.

HOW MANY RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS ARE INVOLVED? SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CHARGES BASED ON RATES SET BY THE STATE? YEAH. THANKS, GRANT. ALL RIGHT.

SO JUST TO KIND OF CONFIRM MR. YOST HAS STATED THAT HE WILL TABLE HIS MOTION AT THIS TIME.

DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A MOTION FOR SECTION ONE? SORRY. SECTION 1.03. BOUNDARIES AND LIMITS.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO.

THE NEXT SECTION WE HAVE LISTED HERE.

LET ME MAKE SURE I'VE GOT MY PAGE RIGHT.

103. JUMP STREET TO 105.

IS THAT RIGHT? 104 IS MISSING.

ON ON. MAYBE I HAVE THE FULL ONE HERE.

THE PAGE. I HAVE HAD IT MISSING.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO IS AT THE BOTTOM.

I SEE IT. THANK YOU. YEAH.

ALL RIGHT. SECTION 1.0 FOR ANNEXATION AND THIS ANNEXATIONS.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR EMOTIONS FOR THIS SECTION AND FEEL FREE TO TAKE TIME TO READ OVER IF YOU NEED TO. IT'S ON THIS.

IT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE. I HAD THE SAME ISSUE. THE THE TITLE OF THE HEADER OF IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST PAGE.

YEAH, IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM.

QUESTION FOR GRANT. IS THIS ONE OF THE TEMPLATES THAT IT CHANGES OR IS IT'S WROTE SO THAT IT DOESN'T SUPERSEDE WHATEVER'S DECIDED IN STATE BECAUSE THE ANNEXATION LAWS WRITE LIKE SB 20, SB TWO, I BELIEVE DETERMINES HOW AND WHAT WE CAN DO WITH ANNEXATION.

IT'S NOTHING WE CAN PUT IN THE CHARTER TO CHANGE THAT, RIGHT? YEAH.

YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. I DID ON THE ONE OF THE PRINTOUTS OF THE YOU GUYS HAVE A TON OF PRINTOUTS IN FRONT OF YOU, SO I APOLOGIZE. WE'RE KILLING A LOT OF TREES.

THERE'S THERE'S FOR SECTION 1.04.

I DID HAVE A RECOMMENDATION. ONCE AGAIN, IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION. Y'ALL CAN WAD IT UP AND THROW IT AWAY. OR IF YOU WANT ME TO PROVIDING MORE CONTEXT, I CAN. SO I HAVE IT LISTED IN THE NOTES SECTION ON THE SIDE.

SO ADDING THIS IS FOR, FOR DIS ANNEXATION.

SO REDUCING THE CITY'S CORPORATE LIMITS TO ADD AT THE VERY, VERY END. THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY SUCH ANNEXATION BY THE CITY SHALL NOT CAUSE AN AREA ANNEX TO BE ENTIRELY SURROUNDED BY THE CITY.

SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THERE'S NO DIS ANNEXATION THAT WOULD LEAVE AN ISLAND OR A POCKET OF AREA THAT'S NOT INCORPORATED AND SURROUNDED BY INCORPORATED AREAS.

UNLESS THE COUNCIL HAS TO HAVE A FINDING ON THE RECORD THAT IT WOULD BE THE SURROUNDING AREAS IN PUBLIC INTEREST, THERE ARE INTEREST INSTANCES WHERE WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DIS ANNEX, MEANING WHERE THE CITY JUST BLATANTLY FAILS TO PROVIDE MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO THAT AREA.

IN THAT INSTANCE, THEY CAN PETITION AND THEN EVENTUALLY GO TO THE DISTRICT COURT. SO IN THAT INSTANCE, WE WOULD THERE'S A CHANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD HAVE AN AREA THAT'S SURROUNDED BY YOU KNOW, INCORPORATED AREA, BUT THAT'S ONLY IF THE CITY DOESN'T SERVE THE AREA.

I THINK THE THE INTENT BEHIND THAT LIKE I SAID, IS TO NOT HAVE POCKETS WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES, BUT THAT'S JUST A RECOMMENDED EDIT.

IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT.

OH, YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE THAT? NO, SIR.

EXACTLY. WELL, I APOLOGIZE, APPARENTLY IT DIDN'T PRINT OUT ON THE PAPER, SO I'M READING. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE.

SEE WHAT I'M SAYING ON THE RECOMMENDED EDIT ON THE SIDE? OKAY, I GUESS IT JUST DIDN'T COPY WHEN IT PRINTED OFF, SO I CAN I CAN REPEAT THAT OR EXPLAIN IT, BUT LIKE I SAID, IT'S JUST A RECOMMENDATION. I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE. JUST AS I'M GOING THROUGH, I WAS KIND OF ASKED TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF AREAS THAT MIGHT BE YOU KNOW, TOPIC OF DISCUSSION.

[00:40:04]

THAT'S ONE THAT I THOUGHT OF.

BUT I CAN EXPLAIN IT OR I CAN READ IT OFF AGAIN IF NEED BE.

GRANT, I WAS GOING TO SAY I DON'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE READING HERE.

SO, SO SO MY COPY HAS IT.

I GUESS WHEN I SENT IT TO THE CITY, IT PRINTED OFF. STRANGE, SO I APOLOGIZE.

AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE IT ON THE SCREEN, BUT I CAN READ IT OFF AGAIN. NO, I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR EDIT AND SOMEBODY ELSE MAY WANT YOU TO READ IT, AND THAT'D BE GREAT BECAUSE I WANT TO FULLY UNDERSTAND IT.

BUT SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY, ANY LANDLOCKED. RIGHT AREAS.

AND WOULD THAT BE B, MAINLY BECAUSE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES EMERGENCY SERVICES WOULD BE DAMN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO SERVICE THAT AREA WITHOUT INFRINGING ON THE CITY OF PRINCETON IN SOME WAY.

CORRECT? YEAH, IT JUST COULD CAUSE SOME LOGISTICAL CONCERNS FROM, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SAFETY TO JUST ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND NO ONE WANTS A MUNICIPALITY THAT KIND OF THE SWISS CHEESE APPROACH.

THAT WAS JUST MY THOUGHT.

IT'S NOT A HUGE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, BUT AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH JUST SOMETHING THAT IS PRINCETON GROWS AND LAWS ARE CHANGING.

WE HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPERS, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO ANNEX THIS AND JUST KIND OF ADD EXTRA AND REQUIRE AN EXTRA FINDING OF COUNCIL IN ORDER TO ANNEX SOMETHING THAT WOULD LEAVE A HOLE IN THE CITY.

I THINK IT SOUNDS REALLY SMART.

AND IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONSIDER GRANTS. EDIT ON SECTION 1.04 FOR ANNEXATIONS AND ANNEXATIONS.

YEAH. CAN YOU RESTATE THAT VERBIAGE JUST FOR THE RECORD ONE MORE TIME? THANK YOU. CERTAINLY. AND ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS. SO THIS IS OUR FIRST MEETING WHERE WE'RE GOING ACTUALLY DIGGING INTO THE CHARTER. SO THE THOUGHT WAS ON THE NEXT AGENDA, ALL THESE EDITS THAT WE MAKE A MOTION AND APPROVE TONIGHT.

WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM AND ACTUALLY SEE THEM ON PAPER AND SO WE CAN VOTE TO APPROVE THEM.

AGAIN, WE'RE JUST KIND OF TONIGHT WE'RE MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE EDITS, AND THEN WE'LL PAPER IT.

AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN LOOK AT IT AGAIN AND THEN VOTE ON IT.

AND THEN AT THE VERY END OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS, VOTE ON THE ENTIRE CHARTER, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CHARTER TO SEND TO COUNCIL.

SO YOU'LL YOU'LL SEE ALL THIS, ALL THESE AMENDMENTS MULTIPLE TIMES.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE TONIGHT'S IS THE LAST TIME YOU'LL HEAR IT. I JUST WANT TO. I SHOULD PROBABLY SAY TO THAT FROM THE FROM THE GET GO, BUT YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO READ THE RECOMMENDED EDIT ONE MORE TIME.

SO IT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE VERY END OF SECTION 1.04 WHERE THE PERIOD IS.

YOU TURN THAT TO A COMMA AND JUST SAY, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT ANY SUCH ANNEXATION BY THE CITY SHALL NOT CAUSE AN AREA ANNEXED TO BE ENTIRELY SURROUNDED BY THE CITY, UNLESS THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS BEFORE COMPLETING THE ANNEXATION THAT THE SURROUNDING AREA IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW.

SO. THANKS, GRANT. YOU'RE WELCOME. SO YOU MADE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND.

MISS DAVID GRAVES. SO WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE FOR THAT ONE TO BE ADDED.

AND IF YOU WERE IN AGREEMENT, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND AND KEEP THEM RAISED.

I'D LIKE A POINT OF ORDER HERE. I THOUGHT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS ON THE FLOORS THAT WE WOULD PAY FOR ALL OF THESE BEFORE WE VOTED ON THEM. WE LOOK AT HIM, WE CAN VOTE VOTING TO ADD THEM AS A RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN WE'LL GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE AND THEN VOTE THEM FORWARD AGAIN.

SO YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SAY YOU DISAGREE OR AGREE.

IS THAT GOOD? SO SO IF WE CAN GET EVERYONE WITH A YES.

RAISE YOUR HAND AGAIN. ALL RIGHT.

NO'S. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO SECTION 1.04? ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON. SECTION 1.05 EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

I'LL GIVE YOU GUYS A SECOND TO READ OVER THAT.

IT'S A PRETTY LENGTHY.

IF YOU HAVE A MOTION. FEEL FREE TO MAKE A MOTION.

OR IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DISCUSS, FEEL FREE TO ADD YOURSELF TO THE QUEUE. I HAD A QUESTION REAL QUICK FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT OUR CURRENT ZONE BOUNDARY IS IN DISTANCE FROM CITY LIMITS?

[00:45:01]

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE EDGE OFF OF THE CITY LIMITS? IS THAT WHAT? YOU'RE RIGHT.

OKAY. YEAH. SO IT'S CURRENTLY DUE TO THE POPULATION OF PRINCETON.

IT'S TWO MILES. NOW, I WILL SAY, ONCE PRINCETON ECLIPSES OFFICIALLY 50,000, IT'LL EXTEND EVEN FURTHER OFF OF THAT.

SO. AND THAT IS ALL STATE LAW REGULATED.

THE DISTANCE OF THE EDGE.

SO CURRENTLY IT'S TWO MILES OFF OF THE CITY LIMITS.

SO AS, AS THE CITY, AS IF THE CITY ANNEXES LAND IN TO THE BOUNDARIES AND THE BOUNDARIES EXPAND. IT GOES IT'S TWO MILES OFF THE BORDER, SO IT COULD THEORETICALLY GROW AS YOU ANNEX IN.

BUT THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. IT'S TWO MILES.

SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION OF HOW THIS READS.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS OUR LAST CENSUS, WE HAD 17,000 CITIZENS.

THE NUMBER FOR 17,000 WAS BETWEEN 5 AND 25 IS A MILE.

AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE TWO. HOW DID WE GET TO TWO? AND I THINK IT WAS SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER OF 2023.

THE CITY PASSED A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT THE POPULATION WAS, I THINK, CLOSE TO 27,000.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO OFF THE CENSUS.

IT'S JUST WHEN YOU DETERMINE INHABITANTS, IT'S KIND OF A A GOOD FAITH NUMBER.

AND I THINK THERE WAS A NUMBER OF REPORTS AND FACTORS THAT WENT INTO THAT 27,000 WHICH PUT US OVER THE 25 AND THEN BUMPED THE EDGE TO THE TWO MILES.

YEAH. SO TO THIS, TO THIS LINE WHERE IT SAYS, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW.

THE CITY ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS APPLY WITHIN THE CITY COURT TO TO DEFINE WHAT THAT IS. SO WE'RE NOT SAYING THE COURTS WITH TEXAS LAW.

WE'RE SAYING WE CAN SET AN ORDINANCE WHATEVER WE WANT.

DO YOU MIND REPEATING THAT LAST PART ONE MORE TIME? I DIDN'T. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE AT ONE POINT, YOU'RE SAYING BASED ON TEXAS LAW, WE'RE SETTING A NUMBER.

BUT TEXAS LAW WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE ONE MILE RIGHT NOW BY ORDINANCE.

WE SAID TWO MILES BECAUSE WE TOOK SOME CONSIDERATION OF THINGS BY THE LAW.

SO WHAT I WANT TO RECOGNIZE FOR ME AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED IS THE FACT THAT. WHAT'S PERMISSIBLE BY LAW ISN'T NECESSARILY WHAT THE STATE SAYS.

WE'RE WE'RE LEAVING A VAGUE STATEMENT IN THERE THAT WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT. SO I THINK THE WAY THAT READS, IT SAYS, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, OUR ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS APPLY IN THE TJ.

WE HAVE MUNICIPALITIES HAVE VERY LIMITED JURISDICTION IN THE TJ.

MOST I MEAN, THE MOST NOTABLE AUTHORITY WE HAVE IN THE TJ IS SUBDIVISION IN PLATTING.

IT'S JUST BASICALLY SAYING THAT OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS APPLY IN THE TJ TO THE EXTENT THAT THE LAW ALLOWS US TO.

SO LIKE I SAID, SUBDIVISION AND PLANNING AUTHORITY AND TJ WE CAN REGULATE NUISANCES AND POLLUTION SIGNS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT IT'S WE DON'T WE CAN'T REGULATE, YOU KNOW BUILDING SIZE OR HEIGHT OR THINGS LIKE THAT. WE HAVE I THINK THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY THAT SECTION READS.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT I.

SO I'M I GIVE A LITTLE I'M OPPOSED TO TAKING ON LIABILITY THAT CITY IS NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE WHEN WE WHEN WE TAKE ON A BOUNDARY LIMITS IN EXCESS OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO STATE, WE COULD SAY THREE MILES NEXT YEAR, RIGHT? SO WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT CONTROLLING ZONING BOUNDARIES IN, IN EXCESS OF WHAT OUR, OUR DOCUMENTED POPULATION IS, THAT PUTS OUR CITY AT A PLACE WHERE WE MAY OR MAY NOT TAKE ON FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS, RESPONSIBILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT EXTENDED RANGE.

AND. WELL. I JUST WANT EVERYBODY HERE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE SAYING WHEN WE SAY WE'LL TAKE ON. TO THE EXTENT OF THE LAW.

RIGHT. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT CITY COUNCIL BY ORDINANCE CAN SAY WE CAN HAVE FIVE MILES IF WE CAN FIND A STUDY TO RECOMMEND IT.

SO THAT WOULD PUT US IN A PLACE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO MONITOR OR MANAGE SUBDIVISIONS OUT TO WHATEVER THAT EXTENT IS.

I, I'M NOT A FAN OF TAKING THAT ON.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY ELSE FEELS ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S WHERE I MET WITH IT.

JUST TO CLARIFY. OH, SORRY.

IT MIGHT. MY TIMER. MY TIMER CLICKED ON.

IT LOOKS MY IS MINE. LIVE.

I'M SORRY. OKAY. YEAH.

IF YOU CAN GET IT OFF THE BACK.

[00:50:03]

THERE YOU GO. MY GOOD FRIEND, MR. CHAIRMAN. IT'S FINE. IT WAS EXCELLENT.

OKAY, GRANT. SO THE CITY DETERMINES WHAT THE ITJ IS.

IS THAT CORRECT? AS THAT'S ALLOWED BY LAW.

SO IT'S BASED ON POPULATION.

LET'S LET LET'S LET PEOPLE.

AND. SO THE SIZE OF THE TJ IS BASED ON POPULATION.

SO IF IT'S WITHIN WITHIN A CERTAIN IF WE'RE WITHIN A CERTAIN RANGE OF RESIDENCE THEN STATE LAW DICTATES HOW FAR THE TJ GOES.

SO WE'RE CURRENTLY WITHIN BETWEEN 2420 5050 THOUSAND.

SO THEREFORE TJ GOES TWO MILES OKAY.

AND THEN ARE WE REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT TJ.

WHEN YOU SAY THE RESPONSIBILITY.

IN OTHER WORDS THE LAW ALLOWS US TO HAVE X AMOUNT OF AREA THAT IS IN TJ.

DO WE HAVE TO ADOPT THAT JUST BECAUSE STATE LAW ALLOWS US THAT? BASICALLY WHERE I'M DRIVING TO IS SUDDENLY.

AT ONE POPULATION NUMBER.

I'M NOT PART OF IT. AT THE NEXT NUMBER I AM.

AND NOW I'M SUBJECT TO THE CITY RULES.

ALTHOUGH I'VE BEEN LIVING IN THE COUNTY.

DO I HAVE A CHOICE IN THAT, OR NO CHOICE AT ALL.

SO? SO THE ATJ IS AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED ONCE WE GET TO A CERTAIN POPULATION.

RIGHT THERE ARE NOW THERE'S METHODS.

AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT A COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA, YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THEM. THERE'S METHODS THAT THE STATE HAS PROVIDED FOR RESIDENTS TO REMOVE FROM AN TTJ. RIGHT.

SO IT'S JUST AS SOON AS YOU GET TO A CERTAIN POPULATION NUMBER, IT AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDS TO TWO MILES.

THEN EVENTUALLY THREE AND A HALF MILES.

THAT'S JUST THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

AND OF COURSE, UNLESS YOU ABUT ANOTHER MUNICIPALITIES CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OR TJ, THERE'S EVENTUALLY YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO EXTEND SO FAR UNTIL YOU KIND OF RUN OUT OF ROOM. BUT BUT YEAH, I MEAN, A CITY HAS A VERY LIMITED AUTHORITY IN AN ATJ. AND NOW THERE'S THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS FOR INDIVIDUALS IN TO BECOME PART OF AN TJ TO REMOVE OUT OF AN TJ.

OKAY. AND ANY THOSE PROVISIONS IN THE HOME RULE CHARTER OR THEY ARE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

SO. OKAY. I THINK THE PIVOT ON THIS IS THE POPULATION ACCEPTANCE OF THE POPULATION NUMBER BECAUSE AS HE POINTED OUT, THE CENSUS SAID 17,000, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 27 BY SOME OTHER MEANS.

AND SO AS RANDY IS POINTING, POINTING OUT THAT AFFECTS THE TJ, WHICH DO WE ACCEPT AND WHY? AND IT'S A LIABILITY ISSUE.

IT'S OTHER THINGS. BUT IF IT'S 17 IT'S 27 OR IT'S BETWEEN 25 AND 50 OR WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE. I THINK THAT'S THE PIVOT HERE.

YEAH, YEAH. THE LAST CENSUS NUMBER WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON JULY 1ST OF 2024 WAS 37,019. BUT I REALIZED THAT WAS A YEAR AGO.

THINGS HAVE CHANGED, YOU KNOW.

SO I I'M JUST WONDERING, HOW WOULD THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THEY CAN WITHDRAW FROM AN ETG IF THEY WANT TO? IS THAT CODIFIED, OR SHOULD IT BE CODIFIED IN THE HOME CHARTER, OR IS IT SOMEWHERE ELSE? IS IT IN STATE LAW? YEAH.

SO THAT'S STATE LAW. AND ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WE KIND OF DISCUSSED THIS A LITTLE BIT.

LAST MEETING. YOU CAN ONLY AMEND YOUR CHARTER ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS.

SO YOU WANT TO I MEAN, A LOT OF THESE THINGS ARE DICTATED BY STATE LAW. WE'RE SUBJECT TO MUNICIPALITIES SUBJECT TO STATE LAW.

ON THAT, IT WAS A SENATE BILL THAT WAS PASSED LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

AND THERE'S JUST KIND OF A TRICKLE EFFECT.

PREVIOUSLY, ONLY MUNICIPALITY COULD CONSENT TO REDUCING AN TJ, BUT NOW RESIDENTS CAN PETITION TO REMOVE ON THEIR OWN.

AND THAT'S JUST A THAT'S JUST A STATE LAW THAT WAS ADOPTED.

OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING SECTION 1.05? YES, SIR. OH, MARK, I'M I'M GOING TO APOLOGIZE.

I KNOW YOU WERE. YOU WERE WAITING IN QUEUE EARLIER. CAN WE LET HER IN AND MARK YOU RIGHT BEHIND HER? THANK YOU.

SO, GRANT, CAN YOU LET US KNOW?

[00:55:02]

I DON'T SEE ANY RECOMMENDED EDITS HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY.

BUT ALSO, WHAT WOULD BE THE POINT OF EDITING THIS, IF AT ALL, IF EVERYTHING IS ALREADY KIND OF SET OUT BY STATE LAW, RIGHT? IT'S ALL WE DECIDE.

HERE IS LET ME ASK THIS IN ANOTHER WAY.

IF WE RECOMMEND STRIPPING THIS LANGUAGE OUT, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT? NUMBER ONE, AND IF WE AMEND IT TO SAY, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, DAVID, THAT WE DON'T WANT THE LIABILITY OF WHATEVER'S HAPPENING IN THE TJ, I DON'T KNOW THE FULL CONTEXT OF HIS CONCERN.

WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADD SOME LANGUAGE LIKE THAT.

CORRECT. SO TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION, IF WE WERE JUST TO REMOVE SECTION 1.05, THEN WE WOULD JUST DEFAULT TO STATE LAW. I MEAN, THIS IS JUST ESSENTIALLY THIS IS JUST TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, RIGHT? IT SAYS TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, OUR ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS APPLY IN THE TJ.

SO IT'S IF WE REMOVE THAT THEN STATE LAW WOULD BE ABLE TO DICTATE WHAT WE CAN ENFORCE AN EDGE. SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT THIS THIS LANGUAGE IS KIND OF JUST REITERATING THE STATE LAW? IT'S JUST DUPLICATIVE IN NATURE AND LEAVING.

TAKE IT OR LEAVE. IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER. RIGHT. IT IS. AND MOST MUNICIPALITIES HAVE. I MEAN, I MEAN, ALMOST VERBATIM.

THIS THIS SECTION HERE.

IT'S JUST. YEAH, JUST CALLS THAT WE HAVE IN TJ AND THAT, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, OUR ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS APPLY IN TJ.

BUT IF, LIKE I SAID, IF WE WERE TO REMOVE THAT, THEN WE WOULD JUST DEFAULT TO STATE LAW, WHICH DICTATES TO, YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAVE PLANNING AUTHORITY IN THE TJ, THAT WE CAN REGULATE NUISANCES AND THAT IT'S VERY LIMITED, BUT THAT IT'S ALL A FUNCTION OF STATE LAW.

UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU.

OH I'M SURE YEAH. QUESTION FOR GRANT.

AS THE TJ EXPANDS BASED ON APPLICABLE STATE LAW, THE LIABILITIES AND EMERGENCY BENEFITS.

ARE THEY CONTRIBUTING TO THAT OR IS THAT COMING DIRECTLY FROM RESIDENTS WITHIN THE CITY OR COUNTY OR, YOU KNOW, CLARIFY FOR ME.

YEAH. SO WE YOU KNOW, AS WE KNOW AS YOU GUYS MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW.

FOR INSTANCE, RECENTLY, THE CITY YOU KNOW, CONSENTED TO THE MEMBERS IN THE VOTING IN THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT, RIGHT. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS ALL THE, THE FIRE POLICE, ETCETERA.

WE DON'T WE'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE THAT TO THE ITJ.

I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. YEAH.

OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SIZE IS DICTATED BY STATE LAW, AND WE CAN ADJUST IT BASED ON POPULATION GROWTH.

BUT THE EMERGENCY SERVICES, THE COUNCIL, THE MAYOR, LIKE, THEY CAN VOTE TO, TO ADD OR TO TAKE AWAY.

FROM THE ITJ OR FROM. SO WE WE DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SERVE THE ITJ WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES. SO, I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, THE, YOU KNOW, THE TJ IS THEY'VE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO, YOU KNOW, VOTE IN THE, THE SD ELECTION.

SO SHOULD THAT PASS THEN THE COUNTY WOULD PROVIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES TO THE TJ.

AND I JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION TOO, IS I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POPULATION, THE CENSUS.

SO THE, THE EXTENDING THE TJ TWO MILES.

THAT'S THE STATE LAW SAYS INHABITANTS.

IT'S NOT NECESSARY. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO OFF THE CENSUS. RIGHT.

THERE'S IT'S JUST A GOOD FAITH DETERMINATION THAT WE THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE OUR POPULATION TO BE BECAUSE THE CENSUS DOESN'T COME OUT.

YOU KNOW, IT TAKES TIME TO COME OUT AND YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE ALL KNOW 27 SOMETHING THOUSAND RESIDENTS OR INHABITANTS IS IS EVEN ON THE LOW SIDE. I THINK WE'RE FAST APPROACHING THE 50,000, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THAT STATE LAW IS VERY SPECIFIC.

IT SAYS INHABITANTS AND CITIES DETERMINE WHAT THEIR INHABITANTS ARE.

JUST JUST TO CLARIFY MY UNDERSTANDING HERE, GRANT, IS THAT THIS IS WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY FOR LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SAME EMERGENCY SERVICES WHEN NOT REQUIRED TO SERVICE THE ATJ.

BUT CURRENTLY WE DO PROVIDE FIRST RESPONDER SERVICES.

SO THE SAME SERVICE THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED BY FIRE AND POLICE IN WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS IS THE SAME STANDARD THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED IN THE ATJ IF THOSE SERVICES WERE PROVIDED.

YEAH. I MEAN, ANYWHERE WE ARE OBLIGATED AND OR REQUIRED,

[01:00:01]

YOU KNOW, CONTRACTUALLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SERVICES, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE IT, YOU KNOW, THE SAME STANDARD ACROSS THE BOARD.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S MUTUAL AID CONTRACTS WITH THE COUNTY, ETC., OR OTHER AREAS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS.

BUT THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT STANDARDS WITH MUTUAL AID.

BUT IF WE'RE, LIKE I SAID, BOUND BY LAW OR BY CONTRACT TO PROVIDE SERVICES, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE PROVIDING SERVICES EVENLY ACROSS THE BOARD.

IF THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION, IN SOME WAYS IT DOES, BUT IT READS IT SAYS TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE CITY'S ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS APPLY BOTH WITHIN THE CITY'S CORPORATE BOUNDARIES AND WITHIN ITS EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

AS DAVID POINTED OUT, THIS COULD BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT THE CITY IS TAKING ON THE LIABILITY FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN THE ITJ.

IT'S NOT EXACTLY CLEAR, SO WE WANT TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF IF THIS JUST APPLIES TO THE SERVICES WE PROVIDE TO THE ETG, OR WHEN WE'RE IN THE ETG, WE'RE GOVERNED BY THE SAME REGULATIONS AS WE ARE IN THE CITY, BUT IT IS NOT PUTTING AN EXTRA BURDEN ON THE CITY IN THAT IT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ITJ.

IT'S JUST SAYING WHEN SERVICING THE ETG, THE SAME LAWS APPLY AS WITHIN THE CITY, BUT THE BURDEN OF THE ETG IS NOT BEING BORNE BY THE CITY.

SO I GUESS I CAN I CAN TRY TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THIS IS ALL THIS IS A GREAT DISCUSSION.

SO LIKE I SAID, THE CITY HAS SUBDIVISION OR PLANNING AUTHORITY IN THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND ALSO IN THE TJ. SO WHAT THIS IS SAYING WITH SECTION 1.05 IS SAYING THAT THE CITY'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS APPLY EQUALLY IN THE TJ AS I DO THE CORPORATE LIMITS BECAUSE STATE LAW ALLOWS IT TO APPLY IN THE TJ.

ATJ. SO TO THE EXTENT STATE LAW ALLOWS A REGULATION ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TO APPLY IN TJ, IT WILL APPLY EVENLY ACROSS THE BOARD.

THANK YOU. YOU SAID THAT WAY BETTER THAN I DID.

ALL RIGHT. THE THE WAY THAT THIS IS WRITTEN, IT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TEXAS STATE LAWS, SECTION 42 AS DEFINING WHAT THE ITJ IS AND THE THINGS WITHIN THE TJ THAT WE'RE ACCOUNTABLE FOR AS THE CITY.

WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY YOU CAN'T BUILD SOMETHING OBSCURE WITHIN OUR ITJ WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL. BUT THIS DOESN'T SAY.

THAT THIS SAYS THE ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS APPLY IN THE CITY AND TJ.

SO. AND I'D ALSO CHALLENGE YOU ON THE POINT WHERE YOU SAY THAT OUR EGO AUTOMATICALLY EXPANDS ON OUR INCREASE IN POPULATION.

I BELIEVE THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR THE BOARD TO OR REQUIRES US TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE TO ADD THAT NUMBER. SO.

DID YOU DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND? I MEAN, I'M NOT I'M NOT SAYING YOU HAVE. YEAH I YEAH I FEEL LIKE I, I MEAN, I GUESS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE I FEEL LIKE I'VE EXPLAINED IT, BUT I I MEAN, WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE.

POTENTIALLY WE CAN TAKE A STAB AT AS FAR AS THE EXPANDING THE TJ.

BUT LIKE I SAID, IT'S ALREADY DEFINED BY STATE LAW.

IF THAT'S THE CONCERN, POTENTIALLY MAYBE WE CAN TAKE A STAB AT THAT.

I, YOU KNOW RANDALL GRANT.

SO WE HAVE 48,000 PEOPLE.

THE COUNTY APPROVES A SUBDIVISION OR A PROJECT.

OKAY. THE NEXT YEAR WE HAVE 51,000.

THE ITJ IS NOW EXTENDED OVER THAT PROJECT, AND IT DOES NOT MEET THE CITY ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS AS DICTATED VERY GENERICALLY IN THAT SECTION 1.05, WHEN IT SAYS THE CITY'S ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS.

MY ASSUMPTION AS A PERSON IN THE PUBLIC WOULD BE ALL ORDINANCES.

ALL RESOLUTIONS. SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE 20 STORY BUILDING THEY WANT TO BUILD IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT, YOU KNOW, IS RURAL FARMING? AND, YOU KNOW, I'M OBVIOUSLY EXAGGERATING HERE, BUT THE COUNTY APPROVED IT, AND THE CITY WOULD HAVE NEVER APPROVED THAT.

WHAT HAPPENS NOW? SURE.

[01:05:02]

WELL, THAT I MEAN, IT WOULD.

THAT WOULD BE VESTED, RIGHT? BUT ALSO WE CAN'T. IN YOUR EXAMPLE.

I MEAN, WE WE CAN'T REGULATE BUILDING HEIGHT.

WE ONLY HAVE PLATTING AUTHORITY, WHICH KIND OF SPELLS OUT, YOU KNOW, THE THE LAYOUT OF THE SUBDIVISION.

BUT IF SOMETHING WAS ALREADY PREEXISTING, IT WOULD, IT WOULD HAVE THAT PREEXISTING RIGHT, EVEN IF IT CAME WITHIN THE EDGE.

AND THEN ONCE AGAIN, STATE LAW IS ALLOWED PROPERTY OWNERS TO EASILY REMOVE FROM ANY TJ.

YOU JUST HAVE TO SUBMIT A VALID PETITION.

I MEAN, IT'S I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING.

IF YOU IF A IF A PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT WANT TO BE IN THE TJ THEY'RE EASY METHODS TO REMOVE FROM THE TJ. BUT YEAH YOU KNOW IF IF THE TJ EXPANDS AN ADDITIONAL YOU KNOW, A COUPLE MILES, THEN, YOU KNOW, A MILE AND A HALF, THEN ANYTHING THAT IT WOULD ENCOMPASS THAT WE WOULD, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, HAD THAT BEEN THE EDGE ORIGINALLY? YEAH, BECAUSE I REALIZED THAT POTENTIALLY YOU COULD END UP WITH A CRAZY QUILT PATCHWORK OF THIS IS THIS ISN'T THIS LOT IS.

THIS FARM IS AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, IT CAN BE AND THEN AT THAT POINT, WHAT DO YOU DO FOR FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION, YOU KNOW, DOES ONLY THE SHERIFF GO TO THIS HOUSE? BUT THE PRINCETON POLICE GO TO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, YOU KNOW, AND BECAUSE I'VE ACTUALLY LIVED THROUGH THOSE SITUATIONS, I'VE HAD FIRE DEPARTMENTS PARK AT THE LOT NEXT DOOR AND WAIT FOR THE FIRE TO BURN THROUGH THE LOT THAT THEY CAN PROTECT.

MEANWHILE, THE OTHER HOUSES ARE BURNING DOWN.

AND I KIND OF DOUBT WE WOULD PROBABLY DO THAT HERE, BUT, YOU KNOW YEAH. SO I'M JUST CURIOUS.

IT JUST SEEMS TO BE EXTREMELY GENERIC.

THE CITY'S ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS APPLY BOTH WITHIN THE CITY'S CORPORATE BOUNDARIES AND WITHIN ITS EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

THAT KIND OF APPLIES. REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING.

YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS JUST TOO GENERIC TO ME.

OKAY. BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO PROPOSE AS AN ALTERNATIVE.

SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I'D LIKE TO TAKE A DIFFERENT TACK.

I THINK IF THIS THING SAID NOT IN THERE, I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE TYING THE HANDS OF SUBSEQUENT CITY COUNCILS AND PLANNING BOARDS AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

IF WE DISPENSED WITH 1.05 COMPLETELY, THEY'RE GOING TO WORK IT OUT.

I WAS AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING, AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE FIRE. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS HERE TALKING ABOUT EXTRATERRESTRIAL.

TERRITORIAL. ET CETERA.

ET CETERA. THE CITY COUNCIL CAN WORK THAT STUFF OUT IF IT'S NOT IN THE CHARTER.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS STATEMENT IS DOING. IT'S JUST SAYING, OKAY, WE GOT THIS EXTRATERRITORIAL THING, AND ALL OF OUR STUFF APPLIES.

OKAY. IF YOU TAKE IT OUT, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO DEAL WITH IT.

THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THEY'RE WORKING THEIR STUFF OUT AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN OVERLAP LIKE YOU SAID, RANDI.

YOU KNOW, ONE HOUSE AND THEN ONE HOUSE, AND THEN THE NEXT BLOCK OR WHATEVER.

IT HAPPENS TO BE A CHECKERBOARD.

ANYWAY, SO I MIGHT RECOMMEND 1.05.

GO AWAY. I HAVE A I'M SORRY.

OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY I LOOKED UP TEXAS CITY LIMITS COALITION.ORG.

THEY HAVE A QUESTION THAT THEY HAVE ON THEIR FAQ SITE.

THEY HAD, THEY ANSWERED A QUESTION MAY A CITY APPLY ITS ORDINANCES IN THE ITJ? AND I THINK THEY HAVE A REALLY SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE FOR 105.

SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE RETAIN 105 AS IS.

WE REVIEW THE TEXAS CITY LIMITS COALITION RESPONSES.

COMPARE THAT WITH MAYBE CHARTERS FROM A FEW OTHER CITIES AND THEN DETERMINE HOW WE WILL REVISE THIS, BECAUSE AS IT'S WRITTEN AND AS I AM READING, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE. BUT THEN AS WE'RE DISCUSSING, IT SEEMS THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME ADJUSTMENT THAT COULD ALSO BE BENEFICIAL.

THANKS, CAROLYN. I'LL GO TO JULIE AND THEN I'LL COME BACK ON TOP OF THAT.

MY QUESTION GOES TO THE LANGUAGE.

WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT EMERGENCY SERVICES, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE A BIG CONCERN.

IT IT STRIKES AT THE HEART OF LIABILITY, BUT IT ALSO STRIKES AT THE HEART OF WHAT

[01:10:01]

RANDALL WAS DESCRIBING IN TERMS OF PUT THE FIRE OUT HERE.

DON'T PUT THE FIRE OUT THERE.

GRANT THAT LANGUAGE ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS LEGALLY.

WHAT DOES THAT APPLY TO? DOES THAT APPLY TO EMERGENCY SERVICES, OR IS EMERGENCY SERVICES SOMETHING SEPARATE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONTRACTED FOR THE ETG? ANYWAY, I THINK TO YOUR QUESTION, IT WOULD BE MORE THE CONTRACTING THAT I DO.

I THINK CHIEF WANTED TO CHIME IN ON SOME OF THIS STUFF AND ADD A LITTLE, LITTLE CONTEXT.

SO I THINK THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THIS. SO THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY LAW, WE GOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE ITJ FOR US, FOR THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT'S STILL OUT IN THE COUNTY. SO ALL THE SERVICES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, ALL THE STUFF WE STILL OPERATE UP UNDERNEATH THE ON A INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH COLLIN COUNTY, WE WILL GO BACK COUNTY UP.

BUT THAT IS NOT OUR JURISDICTION. SO I CANNOT GO OUT AND ENFORCE CITY ORDINANCES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I ENFORCE SPEED LIMIT SIGNS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OUT IN THE COUNTY. IT'S NOT PROPER AND IT'S NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED, BUT WITH INSIDE OUR ORDINANCES AND ALL THAT.

SO WHENEVER THE GREAT PLANTS AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF, RIGHT, THE CITY CAN GO OUT AND INCORPORATE DIFFERENT PARTS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S OUT THERE. SO THAT'S WHY IT STATES TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY LAW.

THE LAW DOES NOT GIVE ME AUTHORITY TO GO OUT AND ENFORCE THE LAW OUTSIDE THE COUNTY.

WE ARE JUST ENFORCEABLE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS PROPER.

BUT THE LAW DOES GIVE THE CITY JURISDICTION AS FAR AS CREATING PLATS AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF THAT'S OUT THERE. SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY IT'S THE EXTENT PROVIDED BY LAW, COMMA. SO IT'S A IT'S A COMMONALITY BASED VERY VERY GENERIC BASE THAT'S OUT THERE.

SO THAT WAY CERTAIN CODE ENFORCEMENT OR CERTAIN PLANNING AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF CAN BE ENFORCED OUT THERE BY THE CITY.

BUT WE KNOW FROM STATE PENAL CODE, OCCUPATIONS, CODE, ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S OUT THERE, WE KNOW WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T ENFORCE.

OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS KIND OF REGARDING THAT? GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE SECTION 105 TO THE END OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AFTER THE OTHER CHAPTERS, SO THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RESEARCH THAT MY ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE HAS KIND OF RECOMMENDED WITH SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED.

I SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, WE WILL DO A VOTE.

IF YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT TO TABLE.

IF YOU'RE. IF YOU'RE. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING GINGERY. CAN I JUST WANT TO.

CAUTION AGAINST TABLING TOO MANY THINGS.

BECAUSE IF WE ARE NOT COMING IN PREPARED AND READING THESE THINGS IN ADVANCE AND DOING OUR RESEARCH INDEPENDENTLY BEFORE WE ARRIVE AT THIS MEETING, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO A STICKY HABIT AND SITUATION WHERE WE'RE TABLING MORE THINGS THAT WE'RE ACTING ON. AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WOULD URGE EVERYONE TO READ THE CHARTER THOROUGHLY AND BRING YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND YOUR QUESTIONS SO THAT WE CAN AVOID TABLING TOO MANY THINGS.

NOTHING. YEAH. GREAT RECOMMENDATION.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE DID HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

SO WITH THAT WE WILL TAKE A VOTE.

IF YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT TO TABLE SECTION 1.05 YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND THOSE FOR? NO. TERENCE.

OR. HE WAS. YES. DID YOU CATCH THE OTHER NOS. OKAY. AWESOME.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON.

[H2. 2025-009 Review Chapter 2 (“Form of Government”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action.]

THE NEXT SECTION THAT WE'RE GOING INTO IS CHAPTER TWO FORM OF GOVERNMENT GRANT GOING TO KICK US OFF. SO WE'RE MOVING ON TO CHAPTER TWO FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

THERE'S THREE SECTIONS IN THIS THIS CHAPTER, THE FIRST BEING FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

AS YOU I KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED THE TWO, I GUESS, KEY COMPONENTS OF THIS SECTION.

ONE IS THAT YEAH, PRINCETON IS A COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

IT CALLS FOR A COUNCIL COMPOSED OF EIGHT INDIVIDUALS, ONE MAYOR AND THEN SEVEN INDIVIDUAL SEATS.

IT ESTABLISHES A FOUR YEAR TERM OF OFFICE, I WILL SAY,

[01:15:03]

WITH THE CAVEAT BEING THAT THE NEWLY ADDED SEATS SIX AND SEVEN WERE APPOINTED TO AN INITIAL TERM OF THREE YEARS.

THE REASON BEING TO KIND OF CREATE A STAGGER ON COUNCIL.

SO I JUST WITH THE TERM OF FOUR YEARS, WANTED TO SAY THAT STATE LAW PROVIDES AND THIS IS, THIS IS ACTUALLY IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT IT CAN THE TERM CAN NOT BE FOR LONGER THAN FOUR YEARS. SO YOU CAN BE ELECTED FOR SUCCESSIVE TERMS, AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS TERM LIMITS.

LIKE I SAID, OUR NEXT MEETING IN CHAPTER THREE.

BUT RIGHT NOW, ALL ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, INCLUDING THE MAYOR, ARE APPOINTED FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS, WITH THE CAVEAT BEING SEATS SIX AND SEVEN WERE INITIAL THREE YEAR TERM.

TEXAS CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT YOU CAN HAVE A TERM OF ANYWHERE BETWEEN 2 AND 4 YEARS.

SO WHEN YOU KIND OF DO A SURVEY OF NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES MOST OR 3 OR 4, I THINK OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I THINK MCKINNEY IS FOUR YEARS.

I THINK MAYBE MELISSA SALINA OR MORE.

THREE YEARS. JUST JUST YEAH.

YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS CAN DISCUSS? STATE LAW.

THE ONLY LIMIT BEING CAN'T BE LONGER THAN FOUR YEARS.

YOU CAN HAVE A FIVE, SIX YEAR TERM.

YEAH. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE DIFFERENT FORMS OF GOVERNMENT, THE TWO, THERE'S I PUT THREE UP THERE.

COUNCIL MANAGER'S BY FAR THE MOST COMMON ACROSS THE STATE.

I PROVIDED SOME EXAMPLES OF NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THE SECOND MOST COMMON WOULD BE MAYOR COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT, BUT THAT'S. IT'S TYPICALLY FOR LARGER MUNICIPALITIES.

DOES IT MEAN THAT SMALLER MUNICIPALITIES CAN'T HAVE THAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT? BUT YEAH, THOSE ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES. SO LIKE I SAID, THE AREAS HIGHLIGHTED ARE PROBABLY THE TWO MOST LIKELY TO BE DISCUSSED COMPONENTS OF THIS SECTION.

SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. SO I KNOW THEY'RE WITH THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

THERE ARE TWO TYPES THE COUNCIL MANAGER WHERE THERE'S A WEAK MAYOR AND COUNCIL MANAGER WHERE THERE IS A STRONG MAYOR.

IS THIS THE PORTION WHERE THAT WOULD DETERMINE IF THAT WEAK, STRONG PORTION OF THE MAYOR WILL BE IN THERE? OR IS IT WHEN WE GET INTO THE MORE OF THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER PORTIONS OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER? YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT YOU VERY, VERY WELL SAID.

YEAH, THERE'S A STRONG. AND THEN THERE'S A WEAK FORM FOR THE MAYOR COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT. TYPICALLY THE, YOU KNOW, STRONG AND WEAK IS JUST A FUNCTION OF THE REST OF THE CHARTER.

SO DEPENDING ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE IN THE CHARTER, YOU CAN SAY THIS IS THIS READS MORE AS A STRONG FORM VERSUS A WEAK FORM.

SO I THINK WHEN WE GET IF THAT'S THE ROUTE THE COMMISSION WANTS TO GO OR IF WE WANT TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON IT YOU, YOU WOULD ADD SOME OF THOSE PROVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE CHARTER.

SO IN THE MAYOR SECTION, WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING, ETC..

YEAH, YOU WOULD KIND OF IF YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, YOU WOULD DESIGNATE IT IN THIS SECTION, AND THEN THROUGHOUT THE CHARTER YOU WOULD BREAK IN PROVISIONS TO, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN STRONG VERSUS WEAK. I WANT TO QUICKLY ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT WAS MISSED BY ME.

WE MOVED INTO THE SECOND CHAPTER.

AND THANKS, CHIEF, FOR KEEPING ME HONEST.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOTH.

YEAH. YEAH. THEY'RE STILL SHAKING THE RUST OFF.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE BEEN IN THIS SEAT.

BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MOVED ON APPROPRIATELY. SO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM H TWO. 2025-009 REVIEW.

CHAPTER TWO FORM OF GOVERNMENT OF THE HOME RULE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS. CONSIDER ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS THERE TO AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. SO THAT ITEM IS OFFICIALLY NOW OPEN.

SHOULD WE SHOULD WE MAKE YOU READ IT AGAIN? I'M JUST JOKING. ALL RIGHT.

SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AROUND THIS OR HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? ON SECTION 2.01 FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

I HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE A QUESTION.

I UNLESS I MISSED THE CONNECTION OF THE WORDS, I DIDN'T SEE HOW THE MAYOR WAS ELECTED.

DID. I ASSUME IT'S THAT LARGE.

MAYBE AT LARGE NEEDS TO BE STATED IN THERE THAT THAT'S HOW HE, HE OR SHE GAINS THE POSITION.

MY FEELING IS THAT WE NEED A STRONG MAYOR, AND HE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME.

HE SHE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME POWERS OF CITY COUNCILORS.

FROM THE STANDPOINT THE COUNCILMAN, FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT HE'S INVOLVED IN LEGISLATION. HE'S NOT JUST A FIGUREHEAD.

HE'S NOT JUST A GLAD HANDER.

[01:20:02]

A PRETTY FACE. I THINK THAT WE NEED A WORKING MAYOR IN PRINCETON, TEXAS. GREAT. ALL RIGHT.

YEAH, I WOULD AGREE. BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE A SECTION WHERE WE'LL BE ABLE TO KIND OF DIVE INTO THAT. AS FAR AS THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, IT LOOKS AS IF IT'S KIND OF STENCILED IN HERE, AS THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF THE FORM THAT WE SELECT.

MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO LEAVE IT AT AS IS, I DON'T. I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THIS FORM OF GOVERNMENT THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE WITH. AS FAR AS PRINCETON, I THINK THE MAYOR COUNCIL IS A IS A NO FOR ME IN THE TERMS THAT THE ROLE AND THE JOB IS REALLY HARD AND DEMANDING.

AND IF SOMEBODY IS NOT GETTING PAID AND HAS THE ACTUAL ATTRIBUTES TO DO THAT, I WOULD STRAY COMPLETELY AWAY FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL BECAUSE IT ESSENTIALLY MAKES THE MAYOR THE CITY MANAGER.

SO I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM THAT WE ARE IN IS FINE.

AND JUST WAIT TILL WE GET TO THE PROVISIONS TO ADD IN SOME ADDITIONAL VERBIAGE TO MAKE THE MAYOR A LITTLE STRONGER IN THE ROLE.

I WOULD AGREE, I KNOW THAT MY MY LIKE NOT GENERALLY.

AND I'LL COME BACK TO YOU. RANDALL. I WOULD AGREE I THINK THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW AN AREA THAT, AS JIM STATED, IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.

AND I'M INTERESTED IN SEEING THAT KIND OF COME TO FRUITION AS WELL.

SO I THINK THAT THE ONE QUESTION I DID HAVE FOR FOR YOU, GRANT, WAS WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE SEEN, LIKE, AS THE REASON WHY IT'S MORE COMMON? LIKE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. I KNOW THAT LIKE I'VE DONE MY RESEARCH TOO, AND I SEE THAT AS THE MOST COMMON, BUT I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND, LIKE, WHAT'S THE BENEFIT? I'VE ONLY FOUND, I THINK, ONE CITY I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE IN HOUSTON THAT HAD LIKE A MAYOR COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE THE THE DIFFERENTIATING DIFFERENTIATOR THERE.

SURE. SO THAT'S A GREAT, GREAT QUESTION.

I THINK REALLY I'M GOING TO ECHO A LOT OF WHAT MR. JOHNSON SAID. IT'S FOR THAT VERY REASON.

IT'S A GOOD BLEND OF HAVING ELECTED OFFICIALS AND PROFESSIONALS BECAUSE IN THE MAYOR COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT. I MEAN, THE MAYOR IS ESSENTIALLY THE THE CITY MANAGER, RIGHT? AND THAT, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON HOW LONG THE TERM LENGTH IS, YOU COULD THEORETICALLY HAVE A NEW CITY MANAGER EVERY 3 OR 4 YEARS.

THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAYOR IN THAT INSTANCE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR APPOINTING, YOU KNOW, DIRECTOR. SO THERE'S JUST THERE'S HIGH TURNOVER.

AND ALSO SOMETIMES IF YOU'RE ELECTED MAYOR, YOU MAY NOT HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE EXPERIENCE THAT IT MAY TAKE TO RUN A MUNICIPALITY TO, TO MR. JOHNSON'S POINT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BIG DIFFERENCE.

MOST OF TEXAS HAS THE COUNCIL MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

TO YOUR POINT, HOUSTON WOULD BE THE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND RIGHT OFF THE BAT AS A MAYOR COUNCIL. BUT THAT'S JUST THEY'RE A LARGE MUNICIPALITY.

AND TYPICALLY WITH THAT, THE MAYOR GETS PAID A, YOU KNOW, A FULL TIME SALARY. YOU KNOW, SIX FIGURES. I MEAN, IT'S A IT'S A FULL TIME JOB. AND I DID WANT TO ADDRESS, I THINK ONE THING THAT MR. POWELL ASKED EARLIER, AS FAR AS THE ELECTION PROCEDURE FOR THE MAYOR. WE'LL GET TO THAT AND THE REST OF THE CHARTER.

IT'S EITHER AND I THINK IT MIGHT BE ADDRESSED IN THE ELECTION SECTION, BUT WE'LL GET TO THAT.

AND THEN SO SO CURRENTLY THE MAYOR IS A MEMBER OF COUNCIL FOR ALL PURPOSES.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THAT THEY'RE KIND OF THE CEREMONIAL HEAD.

PRESIDE OVER THE MEETINGS, AND THEN THEY CAN ONLY VOTE IN AN INSTANCE OF A TIE. SO THAT'S AN AREA, TOO, WHERE SOME MUNICIPALITIES HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH. THEY ALLOW MAYOR TO VOTE ON ALL INSTANCES.

YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY IT'S MAYBE MAJORITY OF MUNICIPALITIES HAVE IT WHERE IT'S ONLY TO BREAK A TIE, BUT THAT'S THAT THAT VARIES.

I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF COMPLETELY UP TO YOUR DISCRETION. I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF ADD THAT EXTRA CONTEXT TO. I KNOW I WAS TALKING A LOT.

THANKS, RANDY. YEAH. AND I WANT TO CALL OUT. I KNOW THAT WE'LL GET TO THIS, BUT AS I'VE SEEN IN SOME OF THE OTHER CHARTERS THAT MAYORS HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO HAVE VETO ALSO, WHICH I THINK THE CHECKING THE BALANCE POINT THERE IS THAT COUNCIL CAN COME BACK AND UNDO THEIR VETO WITH A VOTE.

SO TYPICALLY IT'S A SUPERMAJORITY TO OVERRULE.

YEAH, I'VE SEEN THAT TOO.

YEAH. GENTRY, YOU ASKED MY FIRST QUESTION, BUT MY NEXT QUESTION IS IF WE DECIDE LATER THAT THE MAYOR HAS A VOTE ON ALL ISSUES, DOES THAT CHANGE THE NUMBER OF THE SIZE OF COUNCIL? BECAUSE THEN WHAT? WHAT DO YOU DO IN THE EVENT OF A TIE? WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT WE WOULD DO IN THE EVENT OF A TIE.

I MEAN, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD NOT BE TO ADD OR REDUCE ANY MORE SEATS TO COUNCIL.

[01:25:01]

I THINK THERE'S A DOMINO EFFECT THERE, RIGHT? AND I THINK WE JUST EXPANDED FROM MAYOR PLUS ONE THROUGH FIVE AND ADDED SIX AND SEVEN.

THAT'S A THE CURRENT SIZE OF COUNCIL IS PRETTY COMMON.

JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT TO.

BUT YEAH, AS FAR AS BREAKING A TIE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEFINE IN THE CHARTER, OR WE CAN DEFER TO COUNCIL TO COME UP WITH THEIR OWN BYLAWS AND DETERMINE HOW TO BREAK A TIE. WE CAN KIND OF BUMP THAT.

IT'S EITHER ONE. I'VE DONE BOTH WAYS.

YEAH, I'VE SEEN IT BOTH WAYS.

SO WE CAN WE CAN DISCUSS THAT WHEN WE GET TO THE SECTION ON VOTING.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO, GRANT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TYPE OF COUNCIL MANAGER GOVERNMENT THAT WE HAVE IS BASICALLY THE COUNCIL PROVIDES DIRECTION TO A HIRED MANAGER, AND THE MANAGER BASICALLY DEALS WITH PROVIDING DIRECTION THAT'S GIVEN TO THEM BY THE COUNCIL TO ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND PERSONNEL, HANDLES THE PERSONNEL AND DEPARTMENT ISSUES.

AND, IF NECESSARY, PASSES THOSE BACKED UP TO THE COUNCIL TO WHERE THEY CAN MAKE SOME KIND OF DECISION OR SOMETHING IF THE MANAGER CHOOSES NOT TO.

BUT OTHERWISE, THE OVERALL MANAGEMENT OF THE ENTIRE CITY IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY MANAGER. AGAIN, WITH DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL.

IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S VERY WELL SAID. YEAH. OKAY.

DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, RANDALL? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BEFORE WE SWITCH ON THE NEXT PERSON.

UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVEN'T READ THE BEYOND CHAPTER TWO.

SO I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT YOU KNOW, IS IT CURRENTLY, THE MAYOR HAS IS VOTED BY THE ELECTORATE.

BUT WE COULD MAKE IT WHERE IT WAS CHOSEN BY THE COUNCIL.

OR WE COULD DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS, OR WE COULD LEAVE IT OUT ENTIRELY, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS A GOOD IDEA.

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE LATER CHAPTERS THAT REFERRED TO HOW A CITY COUNCIL HAS CHOSEN HOW YOU KNOW WHAT QUALIFICATIONS THERE ARE FOR A CITY MANAGER? ARE THOSE GOING TO BE CODIFIED IN THE HOME RULE, OR ARE THOSE OTHER POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT ARE DEFINED BY THE COUNCIL OUTSIDE OF HOME RULE? VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING YOU MENTIONED IS GOING TO BE IT'S CODIFIED IN SUBSEQUENT CHAPTERS IN THE CHARTER. SO WE'LL GET TO I KNOW CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO OR A LOT OF IT'S NOT THE NECESSARILY THE MOST EXCITING, BUT WE'LL GET TO ALL THIS.

IT'S THE INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK, SO TO SPEAK.

SURE. I'M DONE, BY THE WAY.

SORRY. ALL RIGHT, SO GRANT, YOU POINTED OUT HERE.

ESTABLISHED A FOUR YEAR TERM.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE SUGGESTING A CHANGE UP THERE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING CANNOT EXCEED FOUR YEARS. SO WHAT I'M SEEING HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM.

IF SOMEBODY WAS TO FILL A VACANCY, LET'S SAY, LIKE LAST YEAR. ARE YOU TRYING TO POINT OUT HERE THAT THEY CAN'T RUN FOR REELECTION BECAUSE THE TERM WOULD BE IN EXCESS OF FOUR YEARS? WHERE ARE YOU SAYING THAT? LIKE WHAT? WHAT'S YOUR. SO IF YOU FILL A VACANCY, IT WOULD BE TO CARRY OUT THE TERM OF THAT COUNCIL MEMBER.

SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A TERM OF FOUR YEARS, FOR INSTANCE, A TERM FOUR YEARS.

YOU COULD REDUCE THAT TO THREE OR REDUCE IT TO TWO.

I, YOU KNOW, GENERAL LAW IS TWO YEARS.

SO NOW WE'VE KIND OF MOVED ON FROM THAT. WE'RE HOME RULE. I'VE.

IT'S TYPICALLY 3 OR 4 YEARS.

IF YOU LOOK AROUND NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES, LIKE I MENTIONED SOME EARLIER. I, I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANYTHING NECESSARILY.

I JUST KIND OF HIGHLIGHTED SOME AREAS THAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE SOME AREAS OF DISCUSSION, YOU KNOW, FOR YEARS IS I THINK MCKINNEY HAS FOUR. IT'S NOT ATYPICAL TO HAVE FOR YOU FOR YEARS. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A POINT OF INFORMATION IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THERE'S A I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE A A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS GOING TO GO ON. BUT IT JUST REMEMBER, EVERY CHANGE THAT WE MAKE ON HERE WOULD BE A SEPARATE ITEM ON THE BALLOT.

SO IF WE MAKE 40 CHANGES AND WE SUBMIT THOSE, THERE'S GOING TO BE 40 THINGS ON THE ITEM.

SO I REALLY THINK AS WE LEAVE THIS MEETING TODAY AND WE GO HOME AND WE READ THESE AND

[01:30:01]

YOU DO THE RESEARCH AND THE RECOMMENDATION, REALLY EMPHASIZE ON IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS CRUCIAL FOR US TO MAKE THE UPDATE ON OR, YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T IF SOMETHING IS IN THERE AND IT'S ARBITRARY, BUT IT REFERS BACK TO THE STATE AS THE AUTHORITY FIGURE.

I THINK THAT WE'RE SAFE TO SAY THAT ISN'T A PRESSING MATTER TO MAKING THIS PARTICULAR UPDATE. SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT, BUT THIS GO AROUND, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO SHOOT FOR 50 ITEMS ON THE BALLOT. SO JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE GO FORWARD AND DO OUR RESEARCH AND BRING BACK THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. SO AWESOME.

ANYONE ELSE ON THAT LAST ITEM? YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I MOTION FOR US NOT TO DO ANY UPDATES FOR 2.01 SECOND.

GRANT. KEEP ME HONEST.

IF WE DON'T HAVE TO REALLY HAVE A MOTION.

WE WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE. RIGHT? YOU DON'T HAVE TO. I MEAN, THERE'S NO HARM IN HAVING. BUT. YEAH, I THINK AS LONG AS I THINK WE JUST NEED TO KIND OF SET A PRECEDENT, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE ONLY GOING TO DO MOTIONS FOR CHANGES, THEN IT'S KIND OF I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO. YEAH, I THINK THAT'LL SAVE US ALL SOME TIME, WHICH WE'RE KNOCKING ON LIKE 25 MINUTES LEFT AND WE HAVE SECTION 2.02 AND 2.03 TO GO THROUGH AS WELL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE LAST SECTION? AWESOME. OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO SECTION 2.02 POWERS OF THE CITY.

GRANT, IF YOU JUST FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, I KNOW WHILE PEOPLE ARE READING, THEY CAN THEY CAN READ AND DIGEST ON THEIR OWN. CAN YOU JUST GIVE US AN OVERLAY? ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS PROVIDES IS A LOT OF A LOT OF BOILERPLATE.

JUST WE HAVE THAT. IF YOU COUPLED 2.02 AND 2.03 WHICH I MEAN, OH SORRY. SO 2.03 YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU PRINTED OUT.

SO WHEN YOU COUPLE BOTH OF THEM, IT JUST BASICALLY SAYS THAT PRINCETON HAS FULL POWER. LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.

INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL THOSE THINGS LISTED THERE.

SO IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THOSE THINGS LISTED.

IT JUST BASICALLY PROVIDES THAT PRINCETON HAS ALL POWERS PROVIDED THEM UNDER STATE LAW.

YEAH. I MEAN, A LOT A LOT OF BOILERPLATE STUFF.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANKS, GRANT. WITH THAT BEING SAID IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

OH, I SEE JUST ONE AGAIN, SINCE I CAN'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE NOTES PRINTED OR DIDN'T PRINT. DID YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS ONE? GRANT? NO, I DID NOT. I THINK THE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IN SECTION 2.02 AND THEN THE LANGUAGE OF 2.03.

IT JUST BASICALLY REITERATES THAT THE POWERS LISTED IN THE CHARTER ARE NOT HELD OR DEEMED TO BE EXCLUSIVE IS SUFFICIENT.

FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, TO GIVE CITY ALL THE AUTHORITY THEY NEED UNDER STATE LAW. SO NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THAT.

SECTION 2.02 OR 2.03. ANYONE WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS? IF NOT, WE CAN CLOSE THIS ONE OUT.

MOVED ON TO 2.03. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL CONSIDER CLOSE. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL OFFICIALLY MOVE ON TO SECTION 2.03.

AND I KNOW GRANT HAS ALREADY KIND OF GIVEN US AN OVERLAY. SO ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS ON THAT SECTION.

ALL RIGHT. WE CAN MOVE PAST THAT.

AND THAT CLOSES OUT THE TWO SECTIONS I'M SORRY.

THE TWO CHAPTERS THAT WERE COVERED WITHIN THIS RUN OF THE AGENDA.

AND THAT WILL MOVE US ON TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM.

[H3. 2025-010 Consider and discuss proposed meeting schedule and review timeline; and take appropriate action.]

IT'S ITEM NUMBER H3 2025..

SORRY DASH 010. CONSIDER AND DISCUSS PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE AND REVIEW TIMELINE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. GRANT, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO YOU. I KNOW YOU HAD SOME SOME RECOMMENDATIONS HERE.

SURE. I THINK EVERYONE HAS THIS PRINTOUT.

IT'S LIKE I SAID, I, I EMPHASIZED, PROPOSED.

I JUST WANT TO KIND OF GIVE EVERYONE I KNOW.

LAST, LAST MEETING WE DISCUSSED HOW OBVIOUSLY THE WE THOUGHT THAT THE JUNE 23RD DEADLINE TO HAVE A FINAL REPORT WAS A BIT UNOBTAINABLE.

SO WHAT I HAVE IS JUST A PROPOSED TIMELINE THAT KIND OF BREAKS DOWN THE MEETING DATES.

AND THEN ALSO KIND OF SOME CHAPTERS, I MEAN, WE CAN WE CAN CERTAINLY DEVIATE FROM THIS. IT'S JUST A PROPOSED SCHEDULE.

WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO ADOPT THIS UNLESS YOU GUYS WANT TO. WE CAN JUST SET THE NEXT MEETING AT THIS MEETING AND THEN CONTINUE TO DO THAT MOVING FORWARD.

[01:35:02]

I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO LAY IT OUT THERE.

THIS IS CERTAINLY A EXPEDITE, NOT EXPEDITED, BUT I MEAN, IT'S A, YOU KNOW, COMPLETING IT ALL OVER THE COURSE OF ABOUT TEN WEEKS. BUT I WILL SAY IF WE DO HAVE A IF WE PROCEED IN THIS MANNER AND COMPLETE MEETING SEVEN ON AUGUST 6TH, THEN GIVE A FINAL REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL, IT WOULD GIVE COUNCIL TIME TO ORDER AN ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER IF THAT'S THE ROUTE WE WANT TO GO. OBVIOUSLY, I THINK IF WE IF YOU GUYS NEED MORE TIME, WE CAN DEVIATE FROM THIS PROPOSED SCHEDULE.

BUT JUST WANTED TO KIND OF KICK THAT OUT THERE.

I WILL NOTE THAT THE PROPOSED MEETING, NEXT MEETING IS BEING JUNE 11TH.

THE REASON BEING, I THINK WE DISCUSSED DOING BIWEEKLY MEETINGS AT THE LAST MEETING, WHICH WILL PUT IT AT JUNE 18TH.

I BELIEVE THE IT'S EITHER THE EDC OR CDC JUST VOTED TO HAVE THEIR REGULAR MEETINGS EVERY THIRD WEDNESDAY SO THAT THAT WOULD BE A CONFLICT ON THE 18TH.

SO THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HAVING THE 11TH AND THEN EVERY TWO WEEKS THEREAFTER. BUT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IT'S UP FOR FOR YOU GUYS TO DECIDE JUST WANT TO GIVE A PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND KIND OF OVERVIEW OF WHAT CHAPTER WE'D COVER EACH EACH MEETING.

THANKS, GRANT. YEAH, I, I'M LOOKING AT THIS.

I DON'T HAVE PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE ANY RESERVATIONS WITH THE WAY THAT IT'S OUTLINED. THE ONLY THING I WOULD CALL OUT IS WE WENT THROUGH A QUITE A BIT OF NOT AS SOME OF THE MOST SENSITIVE TOPICS WITHIN THE HOME RULE CHARTER.

AND I KNOW THAT CHAPTERS THREE AND FOUR ARE TWO VERY MEATY CONVERSATION PIECES.

SO I WOULD PROBABLY LIKE TO SEE I LIKE THIS OUTLINE, BUT I IF I WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DATES, I'D LIKE TO SEE, LIKE FOR SPLIT OFF OF CHAPTER THREE AND MAYBE ADD IT TO ONE OF THE OTHER SECTIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, CAN MOVE THINGS AROUND TO WHERE WE'RE NOT HAVING THOSE TWO AT THE SAME TIME ESSENTIALLY IS MY ONLY RECOMMENDATION THERE.

I ALSO WAS THINKING BEFORE WE CAME TONIGHT ABOUT A PROCESS TO BE EFFICIENT AND GET THROUGH A LOT OF THIS, RIGHT? AND I WAS THINKING, IS THERE POSSIBLY COULD WE I KNOW THAT THIS IS A NUMERICAL ORDER, BUT COULD WE MAYBE SEE WHERE THERE'S LESS MEATY STUFF WHERE WE COULD CHUNK ALL THAT TOGETHER? AND GRANT CAN KIND OF RUN THROUGH WITH US AND SAY, THESE ARE THE SECTIONS THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY OR, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A LOT OF EDITS OR WHATEVER, JUST MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY GO IN ORDER NUMERICALLY, BUT SOMETHING THAT MAKES MORE SENSE TO GIVE US MORE TIME.

YEAH. NO, CERTAINLY. THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. AND MR. CHAIRMAN AND I KIND OF SPOKE ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT BEFOREHAND, AND I AGREE WITH HIS RECOMMENDATION ON MAYBE JUST FOCUSING ON CHAPTER THREE NEXT.

MAYBE WE CAN. I CAN SIT DOWN WITH YOU AND VICE CHAIRPERSON AND WE CAN KIND OF DETERMINE MAYBE THE ORDER OF, OF THE CHAPTERS.

WE CAN KIND OF, WE CAN KIND OF CHAT ABOUT THAT AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE WANT TO WANT TO HANDLE IT. I THINK REALLY TONIGHT MAYBE BE MORE OF, I GUESS ADOPTING THE MEETING SCHEDULE AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM THAT.

THAT'S A GREAT SUGGESTION. I COMPLETELY AGREE.

THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD THINK OF IS, I KNOW WE HAVE TO POST THE AGENDA.

SO, YOU KNOW, TO GIVEN THAT THIS NEXT ONE IS GOING TO BE NEXT WEEK, RIGHT? JUNE 11TH. NEXT WEEK. RIGHT. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO, AT LEAST FOR THE AGENDA SAKE, HAVE SOMETHING IRONED OUT THERE AND WE CAN I MEAN, AS LONG AS THE COMMITTEE IS OKAY WITH LIKE KIND OF MOVING ON WITH CHAPTER THREE FOR SURE, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S I FEEL LIKE IT'S PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL.

AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF ADDRESS THE REST OF THEM POST THERE.

YEAH, I, I AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL.

AND ALSO THIS WOULD GIVE US A CHANCE TO PREPARE ADEQUATELY BEFORE COMING TO THE MEETING. SO IT DOESN'T APPEAR AS IF WE'RE RELYING TOO MUCH ON A TONY LORRY, AND IT APPEARS AS IF HE'S THE ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY REVISING THE CHART.

AND WE'RE AGREEING TO HIM WITH WHAT HE RECOMMENDS.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE IT A MORE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

YEAH. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK ABOUT I KNOW WE HAVE TO SET THE AGENDA TONIGHT, AND LET'S JUST SAY THAT WE TAKE FOUR AND PUT IT LATER FOR, YOU KNOW, JUST ANTICIPATING THE HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO REVIEW CHAPTER THREE.

HOWEVER, IF WE HAVE TIME, IS IT POSSIBLE TO ADD AN AGENDA ITEM TO CONSIDER, LIKE CAN WE BRING PART OF CHAPTER FOUR IN IF WE HAVE THE TIME TO DO SO? YEAH. I MEAN, WE COULD CERTAINLY POST IT AS CHAPTER THREE AND FOUR, AND WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO COVER IT IF WE RUN OUT OF TIME. IF WE'RE HERE FOR THREE HOURS, WE COULD. WE COULD TABLE THE CHAPTER FOR DISCUSSION AND BUMP IT.

BUT IF WE HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA, IT ALLOWS US TO TO TO DISCUSS CHAPTER FOUR.

[01:40:01]

IF WE IF WE HAVE TIME TO GET TO IT.

YEAH. WOULD WE BE ABLE TO BE EMAILED CHAPTERS THREE AND FOUR SO THAT WE CAN LOOK OVER IT BEFORE? SO THAT WAY, ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE, WE CAN COME UP WITH A CODIFIED LIST.

YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY.

YEAH. IF WE IF WE NEED TO GET YOU ANOTHER COPY OF THIS, WE CAN. WE CAN DEFINITELY DO. SO WE'RE REQUESTING A DIGITAL COPY, PLEASE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOU CAN FIND THAT DIGITAL COPY ON PRINCETON, TEXAS GOV.

I WAS GOING TO SAY WHO'S GOING TO REIMBURSE.

YEAH. OKAY. SORRY. ALL RIGHT.

SO. SKYLAR YOU SHOULD HAVE IT.

I SEND IT TO YOU JUST NOW.

OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE READY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF YOU HAVE ONE. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED MEETING SCHEDULE WITH THE CHAIR.

HAVING THE ABILITY TO MAKE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CHAPTER OF EACH ITEMS. I HAVE A SECOND. I'LL SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, IF YOU VOTE YES, RAISE YOUR HAND.

ALL RIGHT. APPROVED. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ON. NEXT ITEM IS GOING TO BE ITEM TWO ZERO.

[H4. 2025-011 Consider setting a public hearing to receive public input on the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; and take appropriate action.]

I'M SORRY H4. 2025011.

CONSIDER SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE INPUT ON THE HOME RULE CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

THIS IS THE ITEM THAT WE MOVED TO THIS MEETING FROM THE LAST.

AND JUST TO KIND OF KEEP EVERYONE IN THE KNOW, WE'RE 15 MINUTES BEFORE CLOSING TIME.

SO DISCUSSION AROUND HOW WE WANT TO GO ABOUT SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I KNOW THAT DISCUSSION WAS BROUGHT UP AROUND, I BELIEVE WE ALSO VOTED FOR WEEKEND AND THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE THROUGH THE COURSE.

SO GRANT HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU COULD WE COULD ALSO EXTEND THE TIME OF OUR CURRENT MEETINGS AND THE AND GIVE THE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE SECTION TO BE MORE KIND OF EXPANSIVE, AS USUAL.

HAPPY TO HEAR ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS. I JUST WANT TO BE REMINDED OF THE MATERIAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PUBLIC APPEARANCE AND THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES AND THE PUBLIC HEARING IS A LITTLE BIT LONGER. CORRECT. WHAT WHAT OTHER WHAT WAS THE OTHER DIFFERENCE? YEAH. SO A PUBLIC HEARING, WE JUST WE WOULD POST AMPLE NOTICE.

YOU KNOW. PUT IT IN. PUT IT IN THE NEWSPAPER.

PUT IT ON THE WEB. IT JUST.

YOU KNOW. I KNOW BY BY STATE LAW, WE HAVE TO POST 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE OUR OUR MEETING, AND WE HAVE TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO SPEAK UNDER PUBLIC APPEARANCE AT EACH MEETING.