[00:00:01]
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER THE CITY OF PRINCETON HOME RULE
[1. CALL TO ORDER; ROLL CALL]
CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING.WITH THAT, WE WILL START WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE.
AND I'LL START WITH GENTRY KELTON, WHO IS NOT HERE.
ZEB. NOT HERE. JASON RUTLEDGE HERE.
JIM POWELL, NOT HERE. RANDALL ROBERTS HERE.
RYAN. GOPHERS HERE. TERRANCE JOHNSON IS NOT HERE.
ONE MORE TIME ON THE MIC FOR ME. DAVID, WE DIDN'T CATCH YOU THERE. WRONG BUTTON HERE.
THANK YOU. MARK CRISWELL, NOT HERE.
AMISHA. NEEL HERE. CAN WE GET YOU ON THE MIC, COMMISSIONER? HERE. UP HERE.
PRESENT. CAROLYN. DAVID GRAVES IS NOT HERE.
MARLA OBARA HERE. JOSE RIOS HERE.
SKYLER SMITH HERE. JULIE ZELLER HERE.
AND MICHELLE BELL IS NOT HERE.
ALL RIGHT. THAT WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR INVOCATION, WHICH WILL BE DONE BY MARLO OBARA.
LET US BOW. HEAVENLY ALMIGHTY FATHER, WE THANK YOU, FATHER, FOR YET ANOTHER DAY BLESSING US WITH THE WHEREWITHAL AND THE MIND AND THE PRIVILEGE TO BE HERE TODAY TO SERVE THE CITY OF PRINCETON.
WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENCE IN OUR LIVES, AND JUST THE BLESSING THAT YOU BESTOWED UPON ALL OF US, AND ALLOWING US TO MAKE IT HERE SAFELY.
WE COME TO YOU TODAY, FATHER, JUST ASKING YOU TO BE WITH US AS WE MEET AS A COMMITTEE. WE WANT YOU TO PRAY.
WE WANT US TO PRAY FOR WISDOM, FATHER, THAT WE MAY USE YOUR WISDOM IN MAKING THESE DECISIONS AND IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, AND KEEP YOU IN MIND AS WE'RE TALKING AND MAKING THESE DISCUSSIONS ON TOPICS.
GET SENSITIVE. FATHER, WE ASK YOU TO BE WITH US AS A WHOLE AND COLLECTIVELY AND FOR ANY INDIVIDUALS ON THE WAY.
PRAY THAT THEY MAKE IT SAFELY.
FATHER, THESE THINGS WE ASK AND JUST CARRY YOUR PEACE WITH US THROUGHOUT THIS MEETING.
IN JESUS NAME WE SO HUMBLY PRAY.
AMEN. AMEN. ALRIGHT, WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND THEN TO THE PLEDGE TO THE TEXAS FLAG.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE.
OKAY, WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC APPEARANCE.
[F. PUBLIC APPEARANCE]
THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS SET ASIDE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE ON ANY ITEM OF BUSINESS THAT IS NOT FORMALLY SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA AS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHOULD COMPLETE A PUBLIC APPEARANCE CARD PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY.SPEAKERS ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
THE COMMITTEE IS UNABLE TO RESPOND OR TO DISCUSS ANY ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT UP DURING THIS PORTION THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA, OTHER THAN TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF FACTUAL, SPECIFIC, FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO A SPEAKER'S INQUIRY, OR TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK SHALL ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE DIRECTLY, NOT THE CITY STAFF OR OTHERWISE.
ALSO BE COURTEOUS, RESPECTFUL AND CORDIAL, AND REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL, DEMEANING, INSULTING, THREATENING, AND AND OR DISPARAGING REMARKS AS TO MAINTAIN DECORUM AND SUPPORT THE EFFICIENT AND ORDERLY FLOW OF THE MEETING.
BEFORE WE HAVE PUBLIC APPEARANCE, I WANT TO KIND OF RESTATE THE EXPECTATIONS HERE AND THAT THE EXPECTATIONS WILL BE GOING FORWARD FOR THESE MEETINGS, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE A TIME CONSTRAINT TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS WE HAVE HERE.
WE'RE ASKING THAT SPEAKERS STICK TO THE THREE MINUTE MARK.
I WILL NO LONGER BE EXTENDING AT PAST THREE MINUTES JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR WITHIN THE ITEMS FOR THE CHARTER. AT THE ONE MINUTE MARK.
YOUR MIC WILL BLINK. AND THEN AFTER YOUR TIME HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED, IT WILL TURN OFF. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WANT TO INVITE KEN SIEGELMAN UP TO TO SPEAK. THANK YOU.
KEN SELIGMAN, 512 BUCKEYE AVENUE.
[00:05:02]
CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION MEMBERS.I GAVE YOU ALL HANDOUTS OF THE TOPICS THAT TERESA AND I BROUGHT PREPARED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.
SHE PUT TOGETHER THE HANDOUT AND I'M GOING TO COMMENT ON IT.
THE FIRST PAGE, SHE FELT THAT THE WAY THAT THE POWERS OF THE MAYOR WITH A VETO POWER WAS A LITTLE NEEDED TO BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC, THAT EACH VETO WAS PER ISSUE OR ITEM AND NOT A ONE TIME VETO, STATED THE SECOND PAGE.
THE CITY MANAGER CITY MANAGER NOT BE A RESIDENT AT THE TIME.
HE IS OF HIGHER, BUT IS IS REQUIRED TO RELOCATE WITHIN SIX MONTHS AND RESIDE WITHIN THE CITY. THROUGHOUT THEIR TENURE. THE CURRENT CITY MANAGER IS NOT A RESIDENT AT THE TIME. THIS AMENDMENT TO THE RESIDENCY IS REQUIRED WILL BE EFFECTIVE BEFORE ANY RENEWALS OR MODIFICATION OF THEIR CONTRACT, WHICH ADDRESSES THE SITUATION OF OUR CURRENT CITY MANAGER. SHE PRESENTED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SETTING THE SALARY.
SO THAT SHOULD BE BASED ON SOMETHING RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF OUR CITY AS IT IS NOW.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH OUT OF LINE WITH THE SIZE OF OUR CITY AND OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES OF ANNA AND MELISSA. BOTH THOSE CITIES ARE ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF WHAT OUR CITY MANAGER SALARY IS.
AND THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL MAY COMMUNICATE WITH ANY CITY OFFICER ADMINISTRATOR EMPLOYEE AT WILL. NEITHER THE MAYOR OR THE COUNCIL MEMBER MAY SHALL GIVE ORDERS TO SUCH OFFICER ADMINISTRATOR EMPLOYEE, EITHER PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY.
JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO TALK TO ANYBODY AND THEY MAY NOT GIVE ACCOUNT DIRECTION OR ORDERS. THESE ARE PRETTY MUCH THE POWERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT I HANDED OUT LAST WEEK.
THEY ARE BASED ON, FOR THE MOST PART, THE POWERS OF THE COUNCIL OF CITY OF ALNA, WITH THE ADDITION OF APPOINTING THE CITY SECRETARY, DESIGNATING ITEMS ON THE FUTURE COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA THAT THEY SHALL HAVE POWER DESIGNATED, INCLUDING THAT THEY SHALL HAVE POWER TO CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS, SUBPOENA DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES, COMPEL TESTIMONY AND THAT THEY SHALL BE ABLE TO REMOVE AN EMPLOYEE IF THEY SEE FIT, THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE JUST UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, THAT BY MAJORITY VOTE, OR IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO REMOVE AN EMPLOYEE ON THEIR OWN. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT A INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMISSION BE APPOINTED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
[G. CONSENT AGENDA]
THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM IS I'M SORRY.LET ME READ THE INFORMATION REGARDING IT.
CONSENT AGENDA. ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS LISTED ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE COMMITTEE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION.
THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WILL REQUEST AND WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED IN ITS NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA. WITH THAT WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER G .12025118. CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOLLOWING CHARTER COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. JUNE 25TH, 2025 CHARTER COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING.
WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA G ONE.
WITH THAT RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU AGREE.
ALL RIGHT. PERFECT. THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.
ALRIGHT, SO BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THE REGULAR AGENDA AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, TRYING TO MAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE MOVING ALONG EFFICIENTLY.
WITH REGARD TO HOW WE'RE KIND OF PROCESSING THE INFORMATION FOR THE HOMEWORK CHARTER.
AND SO BOTH MYSELF, MAXINE, AND A NUMBER OF OTHERS INCLUDING SOME QUICK CONVERSATIONS WITH GRANT TO ENSURE WE'RE KIND OF ALIGNED WITH THE WAY WE'RE KIND OF APPROACHING THIS. WE WANT TO KIND OF INTRODUCE YOU GUYS A NEW FORMAT AND HOW WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HOMEWORK COMMITTEE REVIEW.
SO THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE'RE ADJUSTING IS, AS YOU CAN TELL, WE'RE GOING TO LET THIS JUST FOR THREE MINUTES, RIGHT. AND SO WE NEED AS MUCH TIME WITH THE CONVERSATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS WE'RE HAVING WITHIN OUR, OUR OWN SPACE TO ADDRESS THE HOMEWORK CHARTER ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO GET COVERED.
[00:10:05]
THE SECOND ITEM THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE IS AS WE MOVE INTO EACH SECTION, EITHER MYSELF OR MAXINE WILL ACTUALLY READ THE SECTION VERBATIM.AND THE POINT FOR THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT ON THE MIC THAT EVERYONE HAS HEARD WHAT THE SPECIFIC VERBIAGE IS IN THE CHARTER.
AND THEN ALSO FOR ANYONE THAT'S REVIEWING THIS AT A LATER DATE, WE'LL ALSO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT AND ALSO BE ABLE TO HEAR EXACTLY WHAT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE THE THIRD ITEM IS FOR EACH SECTION IS READ. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR YOU TO DO.
AND AGAIN, I KNOW THAT THIS MAY TAKE SOME KIND OF FLEXING WITHIN THIS FIRST MEETING, BUT I'M ALSO GOING TO ASK GRANT OR AMBER SOMEONE TO SEND THIS OUT TO YOU.
TO ALL OF YOU GUYS. SO YOU HAVE IT. GOING TO THE NEXT MEETING IS THAT YOU COME INTO WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FIRST.
SO AS WE GO INTO THE NEXT SECTION, YOU'RE GOING TO STATE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
STATE YOUR REASON RIGHT AFTER YOU STATE YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND STATE YOUR REASON GIVEN THE ALLOTTED TIME. THEN WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET THAT ALL OUT ON THE TABLE FIRST.
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS OR REASONS ARE FOR WHATEVER SECTION WE'RE COVERING. AND THEN FROM THAT POINT, GRANT WILL BE TAKING DOWN WHO RECOMMENDED WHAT.
HE WON'T BE COVERING YOUR REASONING BECAUSE YOU'LL BE CAPTURING WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING.
SO IF WE NEED TO GO BACK AND SEE WHAT'S THE MOST COMMON RECOMMENDATION, WHO RECOMMENDED WHAT, WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND GRANT WILL BE ABLE TO CALL THAT BACK UP FOR US.
THE FOURTH ITEM IS AFTER RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN STATED WITH REASONING AND GRANT CAPTURES THAT INFORMATION. THEN WE'RE GOING TO ESSENTIALLY MOVE FROM THERE TO OFFERING FOR BASICALLY MOVING INTO THE STATE OF, OF EMOTION.
RIGHT. SO WE'VE GOTTEN ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THAT SECTION OUT. AND THEN AT THAT POINT, SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION GIVEN MAYBE JUST WHAT THEY HAD WRITTEN DOWN FOR RECOMMENDATION, BUT THEY MAY HAVE HEARD SOMETHING FROM SOMEONE ELSE THEY WANT TO ENTERTAIN AND OFFER UP AS A MOTION.
THE ONE THING I'M GOING TO ASK THAT YOU DO IS THAT IF A MOTION IS PUT ON THE FLOOR THE NEXT THING WE NEED TO HEAR IS EITHER A SECOND OR THAT MOTION BE WITHDRAWN OR ADJUSTED BY THAT INDIVIDUAL, OR IT FAILS.
RIGHT? WE DON'T WANT TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSION IMMEDIATELY.
LET'S GET THE MOTION OUT THERE. LET'S SEE IF WE GET A SECOND. IF WE DO GET A SECOND, THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT.
RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THAT PERSON MEANT AROUND THEIR MOTION. SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WHAT WE WANT TO TRY TO REFRAIN FROM IS IF I MAKE A MOTION AND THEN SOMEONE TRIES TO CHIME IN BEFORE A SECOND COMES IN AND TRIES TO TELL ME, DON'T YOU MEAN THIS? OR YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADJUST YOUR MOTION, OR OR CAN WE ADD THIS TO YOUR MOTION? LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND GET THE MOTION OUT THERE. LET'S SEE IF WE GET A SECOND. IF IT FAILS, IF THERE'S IF IT GOES LIVE AND THERE'S DISCUSSION, YOU CAN THEN ENTER INTO THAT TYPE OF CONVERSATION AT THAT POINT. AND SO ESSENTIALLY THOSE ARE THE THE FIVE POINTS THAT WE WANT TO KIND OF INTRODUCE.
THE ASK IS, IS AS WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION PORTION, I'M GOING TO TRY TO DO MY BEST.
I DON'T WANT TO HINDER ANYONE ASKING QUESTIONS.
I DON'T WANT TO HINDER ANYONE OFFERING OPINIONS.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO GET THROUGH QUITE A BIT.
SO I WILL TRY TO KEEP THE CONVERSATION MOVING IN, IN A DIRECTION SO WE CAN ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF COVERING CHAPTER THREE AND FOR THE REMAINING OF CHAPTER THREE AND FOR TONIGHT, WHICH IS A BIG ASK. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID I'M GOING TO PAUSE AND JUST SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUICK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FORMAT.
AND THEN AGAIN, I WILL HAVE GRANT, GRANT OR AMBER SEND THIS OUT TO YOU GUYS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. MR. CHAIRMAN SUTHERLAND HAS A QUESTION.
PROCEDURALLY, FOR EXAMPLE, LAST WEEK WE VOTED ON AN AMENDMENT AT THE VERY END OF THE PROCEDURE.
AND I'M TALKING ABOUT IN AUGUST OR WHENEVER WE ARE DONE.
WILL WE HAVE ANOTHER STAB AT THESE AMENDMENTS WHERE WE'RE UP AND DOWN? OKAY. YEP. YEP. WE WILL GO.
WE WILL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO REVIEW ALL OF THE ONES WE'VE OFFERED UP. OKAY.
GOOD QUESTION. IN OTHER WORDS, BASICALLY KIND OF A RECONSIDERATION. SORRY A RECONSIDERATION OF RIGHT FOR SURE.
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT BEING SAID.
OH. SORRY, ALLISON. SO JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. SO IF THERE'S MULTIPLE, LIKE, ADDITIONS TO ONE SECTION, DO YOU WANT THOSE TO ALL BE INCLUDED IN THAT ONE MOTION? YEP. RIGHT.
SO, SO WHEN WE'RE WHEN WE'RE COVERING THE SECTION.
OH, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MOTION OF THE RECOMMENDATION. SO THE MOTION AT THE END.
RIGHT. SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN, YOU CAN INCLUDE THAT ALL IN THAT ONE MOTION.
THERE'S LIKE FIVE THINGS THAT I THINK SHOULD BE ADDED TO THAT ONE SECTION.
MY MOTION SHOULD INCLUDE ALL FIVE OF THOSE THINGS.
YEP. OKAY. YEP. AND IF EVERYBODY COULD PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU'RE STARTING TO TALK.
YOU LOOK DOWN AT YOUR MIC AND IT IS RED BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE NOT COMING ON THE MICROPHONE AND YOU'RE NOT BEING HEARD.
YEAH. WITH RESPECT TO WHAT ALISON JUST SAID, IF SHE PUTS FORTH A MOTION THAT HAS FOUR PIECES TO IT AND I DON'T LIKE TWO OF THEM.
[00:15:05]
SO I VOTED DOWN. IF WE PUT THEM ALL INTO ONE MOTION, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME GOING BACK TO THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES.AND THAT'S A LOT TO PUT IN A MOTION IS TO HAVE MULTIPLE ITEMS AND EMOTIONS.
SO I JUST WOULD WANT US TO THINK ABOUT THAT, PARTICULARLY IF, WELL, FOR INSTANCE, ON THIS PAPER THAT ALISON GAVE US IN SECTION 3.02, THERE ARE THREE MOTION TWO ADS, AND I COULD FORESEE A SITUATION WHERE ONE OR ALL OF US MIGHT AGREE WITH ONE, TWO, OR THREE OF THOSE, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. IF THEY'RE ALL IN A MOTION, I'D HAVE TO VOTE NO WHILE STILL ACTUALLY WANTING ITEM NUMBER ONE TO BECOME PART OF THE AMENDMENT.
YEAH, I THINK THAT I THINK DEFINITELY BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT.
I THINK THAT IF WE GET INTO THE POINT OF WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE MOTIONS AS THEY'RE PRESENTED, THEN WE CAN DEFINITELY ADJUST TO REDUCE GRANT.
LET ME KNOW IF I'M OFF BASE THERE IF THAT CAN BE STRUCTURED THAT WAY.
THE THING I'M KIND OF TRYING TO SOLVE FOR IS ALSO WE'RE OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION. NOW WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM MULTIPLE TIMES AND WE'RE KIND OF RUNNING INTO THE SAME SCENARIO.
SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE BEING AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE.
BUT IS THAT DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO? YEAH. I MEAN I'M COMFORTABLE WHATEVER Y'ALL ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. I IF I WERE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION MAYBE WHEN YOU'RE MAKING YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, KIND OF LIST THEM ALL OUT PER SECTION.
AND THEN WE GO THROUGH AND TAKE INDIVIDUAL MOTIONS FOR EACH PORTION JUST SO IN CASE, I THINK TO JULIE'S POINT, IN CASE THERE'S YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T YOU LIKE ONE OF THE FOUR? NOT ALL FOUR, BUT BUT IT'S WHATEVER YOU GUYS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH.
I'M FINE WITH THAT. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT IF WE TAKE THAT APPROACH, JUST ALSO BE COGNIZANT OF TIME.
THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE AND FOUR TODAY, AND I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING TO THE END OF THIS THING. SO WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION BASED OFF OF AND THANK YOU FOR CALLING IT OUT.
AND THEN WE'LL JUST TRY TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE BEING COGNIZANT OF TIME AS WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION ASPECT OF IT.
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT SAID, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO THE REGULAR AGENDA.
[H.1 2025-119 Review and consider proposed amendments to Chapter 3 (“City Council”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas, as discussed at the June 25, 2025, Committee meeting; and take appropriate action.]
OUR FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 8.1.IT'S 2025119. REVIEW AND CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER THREE, CITY COUNCIL OF THE HOME CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS, AS DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 25TH, 2025 COMMITTEE MEETING.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE TO MAKE A MOTION IF THEY WANT TO PROVE THEY WANT TO. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS? THIS IS THE AMENDMENT THAT WE MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION.
AND IT'S ALSO, I BELIEVE IT'S LISTED IN WHAT WAS PRESENTED EARLIER BY OUR CITIZENS APPEARANCE AS WELL. NO, I APOLOGIZE.
NO. THAT IS. I'M SORRY. IT IS. YEAH.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT.
SECTION 3.01. REGARDING THE MAYOR AND THEIR VOTING AND VETOING POWER AS STATED. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT WE HAVE OPENED IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
SO THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN I WOULD AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE EARLIER THAT THERE'S SOME AMBIGUITY HERE AND THERE'S SOME CONFLICT WHERE IT SAYS SHE'LL HAVE A ONE TIME VETO POWER. THERE'S NO BOUNDARIES ON WHAT ONE TIME EQUALS.
SO I WOULD RATHER SEE SOMETHING THAT SAYS THE MAYOR MAY VETO ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL INSTEAD OF DEFINING IT AS A ONE TIME.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU COULD INTERPRET THAT AS THAT ONE TIME DURING THE TENURE OF HIS TIME IN OFFICE, OR ONE TIME DURING A MEETING OR ONE TIME.
RIGHT. SO I LIKE TO ELIMINATE EXTRA WORDS.
SO WHILE I, WHILE I AGREE WITH THE VETO POWER AND I AGREE WITH WHAT WE, WE SOUGHT TO DO, I THINK THERE'S SOME, SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE AND MAKE IT CLEARER FOR EVERYBODY.
I MIGHT PROPOSE A SUGGESTION, BECAUSE ON THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM, I THINK MAYBE THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED.
I THINK IT'S GOOD TO SPECIFY THIS ONE TIME, JUST SO IT'S CLEAR THAT THERE'S NOT THEY CAN'T USE THE VETO POWER MULTIPLE TIMES.
SO WE COULD POTENTIALLY ADD THE LANGUAGE IN THERE.
THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE A ONE TIME VETO POWER OVER EACH ORDINANCE OR JUST TO.
I THINK MAYBE THAT'S A HAPPY MEDIUM. JUST I LIKE THE ONE TIME JUST BECAUSE I KNOW THE
[00:20:01]
QUESTION WILL COME UP, CAN I USE MY VETO POWER MULTIPLE TIMES? AND I THINK UNLESS OVER THE SAME ORDINANCE, I THINK UNLESS IT'S SPECIFIED.SO I, I'M ALL FOR ADDING YOU KNOW, AS MUCH CLARITY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE I'LL BE ASKED TO INTERPRET IT. SO I LIKE TO HAVE AS MUCH CLARITY.
NO, I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK THAT THE THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SCREW IT UP AND ANY PLACE WE CAN MITIGATE FUTURE CONFLICT. I THINK WE SHOULD DO.
MR. CHAIRMAN. I BELIEVE I MAY KNOW THE ANSWER.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS ONE CITY THAT HAS THIS VETO POWER, AND THEY KNOW IT COULD BE OVERRIDDEN WITH A MAJORITY.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
YES. SO SELINA AND I WILL SAY RIGHT NOW, I KNOW THAT SELINA HAD IT IN THEIR CHARTER AND IN THIS PAST MAY THEY ACTUALLY VOTED TO REMOVE THAT.
NOT THAT IT DICTATES WHAT WE DO HERE. BUT I DO WANT JUST EVERYONE TO REALIZE THAT IT IT WAS IN SELINA'S CHARTER, AND THEY JUST THEIR VOTERS ACTUALLY JUST REMOVED THE VETO POWER.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, IT WAS A MAJORITY, NOT A TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY.
OKAY. IN OUR LOGIC FOR MAKING IT A SUPERMAJORITY HERE WAS.
AND I'M OPEN FOR ANYONE TO BRING THAT OUT.
YEAH, I WOULD I WOULD SAY THAT ULTIMATELY IT WAS WHAT WAS ALL VOTED ON.
I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE BY MR. JOHNSON. SO I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN HIS MOUTH, BUT I THINK THE THE LOGIC IS TO ENSURE THAT IT WAS A VERY KIND OF OVERT ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN WHEN IT WHEN IT COMES TO THE OVERRULING OF IT.
AND. THAT'S CORRECT. BECAUSE I AMENDED, I MADE THE MOTION AND I AMENDED TO ADD THE SUPERMAJORITY BASED ON MR. JOHNSON'S INPUT. OKAY.
I APPRECIATE THE AUTHORSHIP, BUT JUST THE LOGIC BEHIND IT, JUST LIKE YOU'RE THE REASONING, RIGHT? SO I THINK WHAT I THINK WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND GIVEN THAT THIS IS AN ITEM THAT'S BEEN COVERED BEFORE. JODY, I DON'T WANT TO KEEP YOU OUT OF THE LOOP OR WHATEVER, BUT WE'VE COVERED THAT WITHIN THE IN THE LAST MEETING.
YOU KNOW, MAXINE HAS KIND OF GIVEN HER HER STATEMENT ON IT, BUT I DO WANT TO ENSURE THAT THAT YOU GET CLARITY ON THAT. WOULD WE BE OPEN TO HER KIND OF PROVIDING YOU THE LOGIC BEHIND WHY SHE MADE THE MOTION THAT WAY.
OH, SO NO ONE CAN GIVE ME THE LOGIC IN 1 OR 2? NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT. I'M SAYING IT. I THINK WE BOTH RESPONDED. WHAT I'M SAYING IS I. AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MAXINE'S MOUTH.
AND SHE ALSO RESPONDED FOR HERSELF.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND.
I THINK THE POINT OF IT WAS TO ENSURE THAT WHEN IT CAME TO IT BEING OVERTURNED, THAT IT WAS A VERY CLEAR THING BY THE COUNCIL, THAT IT WAS A SUPERMAJORITY VERSUS IT JUST KIND OF BEING THE MAJORITY OF IT.
OKAY. AND THAT. NO, BUT THAT WAS THE POINT BEHIND IT.
IT'S NOT JUST YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT SUPERMAJORITY, THEN YOU'RE BACK AT JUST A MAJORITY.
SUPERMAJORITY GIVES IT THAT EXTRA ASSURANCE.
AWESOME. RANDALL. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
HAVE THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE VETO POWER.
THAT THE A ONE TIME. THAT IMPLIES THAT, LET'S SAY THE ORDINANCE ABOUT SOMETHING PARTICULAR. HE VETOES IT.
THE CITY COUNCIL AND OTHERS MAKE CHANGES TO IT.
HE'S ALREADY EXERCISED HIS VETO POWER ONCE, AND THEY CHANGE IT.
HE CAN'T BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY EXERCISED HIS ONE VETO POWER.
SO IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT OBVIOUSLY IF HE'S IF HE'S GOING TO IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM VETO POWER, HE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE IT.
TURN YOUR MOUTH. I THINK YOU LOST YOU. THANK YOU.
HE WOULD BE ABLE TO EXERCISE IT AT ANY TIME.
AND HE CAN BE OUTVOTED BY A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE CITY.
BUT IF HE'S ONLY ALLOWED TO DO IT ONCE PER ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION, THEN HE WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE AT WHICH PARTICULAR TIME TO DO THAT.
ESPECIALLY KNOWING IN ADVANCE THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WHO FEEL A PARTICULAR WAY ON THIS SITUATION, AND HE DISAGREES WITH THEM, AND MAYBE THERE ISN'T A SUPERMAJORITY EVERY TIME.
[00:25:01]
SO I'M READING HERE THE IMPLICATION THAT HE ONLY GETS TO VETO ONCE PER ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION. AND I THINK THAT IF THAT WERE REMOVED, HE COULD EXERCISE HIS VETO AT ANY TIME.BUT THE COUNCIL CAN ALSO OUTVOTE HIM.
I THINK I THINK I THINK YOU'RE SPOT.
I THINK IT'S THE CLARIFICATION, THE SAME THING THAT DAVID WAS SPEAKING TO JUST NOW AS WELL. SO I THINK YOU'RE YOU'RE SPOT ON WITH THAT. AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO DESCRIBE ALSO.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU PROPERLY. YEAH.
I BELIEVE THE LANGUAGE OF THE ONE TIME SHOULD STAY.
I'M GOING TO CONCUR WITH GRANT THAT WE SHOULD ADD ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO, SAY, MAYBE OVER EACH ORDINANCE OR AND OR RESOLUTION.
BECAUSE IF WE REMOVE THAT ONE TIME LANGUAGE THAT GIVES A MAYOR THE POWER TO CONTINUE TO VETO EVERY TIME HE'S OVERRIDDEN BY SUPERMAJORITY.
OKAY. WELL, I'M GOING TO VETO AGAIN.
THE ONE TIME GIVES HIM THE ONE SHOT OVER EACH ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION.
AND ONCE IF HE WINS, IF HE LOSES, THAT'S IT.
IF WE REMOVE THAT ONE TIME, IT CAN JUST BE A PERPETUAL PROCESS OF HIM HOLDING UP AN ORDINANCE OR A RESOLUTION BECAUSE HE WAS OUTVOTED.
YEAH. YEAH. AND THAT'S I DON'T.
LET ME WATCH YOUR MOUTH. IS THAT.
THAT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING I HAD WITH WHAT YOU WERE COVERING. SO I THINK EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE WITH WHAT WE WANT.
BUT WHAT WE NEED TO NOT DO TO RANDALL'S POINT IS NOT HANDICAP THE MAYOR'S VETO POWER.
IF HE VETOES ONCE ON AN ORDINANCE AND THERE'S A CHANGE MADE TO THAT MOTION AND THAT HE DOESN'T GET THE VETOED AGAIN, BECAUSE ONCE THERE'S A CHANGE, IT SHOULD BE A NEW IT SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED AS A NEW VOTE AND IDENTIFIED AS A NEW OPPORTUNITY TO VETO.
SO THE CHANGE THAT I'M GOING TO GET IS AS LONG AS THE LANGUAGE, AS LONG AS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE AGREE TO SAYS THAT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM VOTING FOR IT.
BUT WHEN YOU PUT ONE TIME IN, THEN YOU NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR ON WHAT ONE TIME MEANS AND WHEN THAT ONE TIME COUNTS.
SO IF THAT MAKES ANY SENSE, YEAH, IT'D BE ONE I.
I THINK WE MAY BE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE EACH.
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT SUGGESTION TO PUT EACH IN THERE, BECAUSE IF THERE'S A CHANGE TO AN ORDINANCE, WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL.
THEN HE COULD. EVERY CHANGE REQUIRES A NEW ORDINANCE, SO HE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE VETO POWER FOR EACH NEW ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION.
BUT I THINK BY HAVING THE ONE TIME KIND OF PIGGYBACK OFF.
WHAT? MAYBE WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO USE THE VETO POWER ON THE SAME ORDINANCE UNTIL IT DOESN'T RECEIVE SUPERMAJORITY.
I THINK ADDING THAT SUPERMAJORITY PROTECTION TO.
IT'S LIKE IF YOU VETO IT AND IT GETS SUPERMAJORITY APPROVAL AND IT'S OVERRIDDEN, THEN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THAT'S JUST KIND OF MY TAKE.
BUT I DO THINK HAVING SOME CLARIFICATION IN THE LANGUAGE IS IS.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, SO IF THEY PUT AN ORDINANCE BASICALLY SAYING NO CELL PHONES IN THE ENTIRE BUILDING, JUST FOR EXAMPLE, AND HE VETOES IT AND THEN.
THEY COME BACK AND THEY CHANGE IT SAYING, OKAY, POLICE CAN HAVE SOMETHING, THEN IT WOULD BE A WHOLE BRAND NEW ORDINANCE ALTOGETHER. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, I SEE. RANDALL, I THINK IF WE COULD.
WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE? IF WE CONTINUE DOWN THE TIMELINE, OBVIOUSLY, IF A SUPERMAJORITY PASSES A ORDINANCE OR REGULATION I GUESS IF THE MAYOR FELT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY FOR HIM OR HER TO MAKE THE CITY AWARE THAT THEY WOULD VETO THIS, THEY COULD THEY COULD DO THAT.
HOWEVER, THEY'RE ALREADY SUPERMAJORITY.
OVERRULED. SO THEY WOULD PROBABLY NOT EXERCISE THAT, AT LEAST POSSIBLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
HOWEVER, THEY COULD IF WE TAKE OUT THE ONE TIME VETO.
BUT IT'S ALREADY HAD A SUPERMAJORITY PASS.
THE VETO IS NEGATED. I THINK THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THE VERBIAGE IS ONCE THE VETO IS ENACTED, IF IT'S OVERTURNED BY SUPERMAJORITY, THAT KILLS IT. YEAH, EXACTLY.
SO MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE A DISTINCTION, YOU KNOW, WHICH CAN BE OVERRIDDEN BY TWO THIRDS.
YEAH. IT'S ALREADY IN THERE. WELL, RIGHT. I THINK AGAIN, THIS IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING WE VOTED ON.
AND THAT WAS I THINK THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WENT UNDER WAS THAT WE WANTED TO SEE IT ENACTED IN A WAY TO WHERE THE MAYOR GOT A VETO FOR EACH ORDINANCE RESOLUTION.
[00:30:03]
I DO BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE CLARITY TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR THAT THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY THERE. BUT ALSO UNDERSTANDING THAT IF IT'S OVERRULED BY THE SUPERMAJORITY AND IT'S KILLED. THEN I THINK THAT'S HOW WE APPROVED IT, RIGHT? SO AT THIS POINT, SINCE THAT WAS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW, I THINK WE'RE JUST REALLY WITH THIS ITEM FOR THE REGULAR AGENDA, JUST TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH APPROVING THAT.AGAIN, AS STATED EARLIER AT THE BACK END OF THIS, TO COME BACK ACROSS ALL OF THESE THINGS, BUT TO KIND OF MOVE THIS FORWARD, I THINK THIS CONVERSATION HAPPENED LAST MEETING.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO KIND OF GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE WAY THAT WE'VE ALL VOTED TO, TO TO PROVE THAT THAT SPECIFIC ITEM, I, I BE WILLING TO AMEND MY MOTION JUST TO ADD THE WORD EACH IN FRONT OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION THAT AND LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE THE WAY IT IS.
YEP. THAT'S GOOD. AND THEN IF WE JUST GET A SECOND TO THE AMENDED MOTION OKAY.
SO I AMEND MY MOTION TO EXACTLY TO SECTION 3.01 FOR THE MAYOR LEAVING EVERYTHING THE WAY IT IS. HOWEVER, ADDING THE WORD EACH IN FRONT OF ORDINANCE AND IN FRONT OF RESOLUTIONS.
OKAY. WE MISSED YOU ON THE MIC.
I'M SORRY, MA MARLOW TECHNICALLY GOT IN THERE. WE JUST. IT'S THE. IT'S THE QUEUE.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAD A MOTION, AND THEN WE HAD A SECOND BY ALLISON.
SO WITH THAT, WE WILL VOTE FOR FOR YOU TO RAISE YOUR HAND.
ANY KNOWS. THANK YOU. RANDALL.
YOU'RE WELCOME. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.
ITEM H2 2025120. REVIEW CHAPTER THREE CITY COUNCIL OF THE HOMEWARD CHARTER FOR THE CITY
[H.2 2025-120 Review Chapter 3 (“City Council”) of the Home Rule Charter for the City of Princeton, Texas; consider any recommendations for amendments thereto; and take appropriate action.]
OF PRINCETON. CITY OF PRINCETON, TEXAS.CONSIDERING ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AMENDMENTS THERETO AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION THAT TAKES US BACK INTO THE CITY COUNCIL PORTION.
AND LET ME GET MYSELF TOGETHER HERE TO KIND OF GET BACK TO WHERE WE LEFT OFF.
AWESOME. I'M BEING TOLD THAT WE'RE AT.
YOU HAVE SOME ADDITIONS TO 3.01 THAT WE ENDED WITH.
WHEN WE ENDED OUR MEETING LAST TIME, YOU HAD TWO MOTIONS THAT YOU CANCELED.
YOU ARE CORRECT. I DID WANT TO ADD ONE OTHER THING TO 3.01.
YES. FOLLOW THE FORMAT TO READ THE SECTION.
YES. ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL MAKE A NOTE TO COME BACK TO THAT.
YEAH. JUST ALL WE NEED TO DO IS READ THE SECTIONS.
THAT WAY IT'S AT LEAST LISTED IF YOU CAN MAKE ANY SENSE, IT'S GOING TO BE ONE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE OFF. WELL, NO, MINE WAS FOR 3.01.
THE ONE THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.
RIGHT. SO WE PINNED THAT GRANT.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WE PINNED THAT HER RECOMMENDATIONS OF 3.01 IN THE LAST MEETING TO COME BACK TO THAT TODAY. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, THAT WE CAN REREAD THAT SECTION AND THEN WE CAN PICK BACK UP FROM THERE.
AND GRANT, SHOULD I READ SECTION 3.01 BASED ON WHAT WE JUST VOTED ON OR WHAT CURRENTLY? YEAH, YOU CERTAINLY CAN JUST SURE.
I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. OKAY.
SO CURRENTLY CHAPTER THREE, SECTION 3.01 MAYOR, THE PERSON ELECTED MAYOR SHALL BE GOVERNMENTAL AND CEREMONIAL HEAD OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT, PRESIDING OVER COUNCIL MEETINGS AND ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN DEBATE REGARDING ANY ITEM, BUT SHALL ONLY CAST A VOTE ON MATTERS AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL SO AS NECESSARY TO BREAK TIES BETWEEN OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING ON THE ITEM.
THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE A ONE TIME VETO POWER OVER EACH ORDINANCE AND EACH RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH CAN BE OVERRIDDEN BY A TWO THIRDS SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OF THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, EXCLUDING THE MAYOR PRESENT, AND VOTING ON THE ITEM AT THE NEXT REGULAR OR SPECIAL MEETING. THE OFFICE OF MAYOR SHALL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FROM COUNCIL MEMBER SEATS FOR PURPOSES OF THE LIMITATIONS OF SUCCESSIVE TERMS IN THIS CHARTER, BUT OTHERWISE THE MAYOR SHALL BE CONSIDERED A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE OTHER ITEM THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE MAYOR'S SECTION WOULD BE.
[00:35:07]
AND MY MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE ADD THE MAYOR SHALL PROVIDE A MONTHLY COMMUNICATION TO RESIDENTS, OUTLINE KEY UPDATES, DISCUSSIONS AND UPCOMING ISSUES AND THESE MAY BE DELIVERED VIA VIDEO, NEWSLETTER AND OR SOCIAL MEDIA.AND THAT'S MY THAT WAS THE MOTION I'D LIKE TO ADD IN FOR THE MAYOR.
ARE YOU OFFERING THAT? WELL, LET ME FIRST START BY.
I APOLOGIZE, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT JIM POWELL ACTUALLY AS IS IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT.
HE STEPPED IN AT 645 WAS THE TIME.
SO I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT HE IS ACTUALLY IN ATTENDANCE FOR THE HRC MEETING. SO ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION OR WERE YOU WANTING TO OPEN THAT UP AS A RECOMMENDATION? SO THAT WAY I CAN OPEN IT AS A RECOMMENDATION FIRST, BUT IT WILL BE A MOTION.
WAS THERE WAS THERE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS? I KNOW THAT WE'RE OPEN 3.01 AGAIN, BUT SINCE WE PINNED IT AND WE DIDN'T GET TO CLOSE IT OUT COMPLETELY, I KNOW WE'RE ALMOST DONE. I WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD BE ADDED, SO THAT WE CAN CAPTURE THAT AS WELL, SINCE THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS ADDED. MAXINE, DIDN'T YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE AS WELL? NO, NOT FOR THAT SECTION.
ARE YOU SURE? I DO. YOU DO HAVE ONE? YES I DID. I HAD PUT A CHECKMARK NEXT TO IT IN MY OTHER NOTES.
THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCES AND POLICY INITIATIVES DIRECTLY TO THE COUNCIL.
BUT I DON'T. DO WE WANT TO MAKE THAT TWO SEPARATE DISCUSSIONS, OR CAN WE? WELL, I THINK WE'RE CAPTURING RIGHT NOW FOR RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON PRESENTATIONS. AND SO AT THAT POINT, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 3.01, THEN WE CAN ENTERTAIN THOSE GRANTS, CAPTURING THOSE, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO ACTUALLY THE FUNCTION OF MOTIONS I HAVE NEXT AS RANDALL.
I HAVE AN ADDITION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO 301.
WE CAN EITHER DISCUSS IT OR WHATEVER.
BUT LONG STORY SHORT, WE HAVEN'T DETERMINED WHAT THE VETO POWER DOES. SO HE VOTES ANY VOTES AGAINST IT.
WHAT DOES THAT DO? IT'S NOT DESCRIBED AT ALL.
SO JUST COUNT IT AS A VETO POWER.
OR DOES IT MEAN IT DOESN'T PASS? IT DOESN'T PASS. I THINK IT STOPS IT.
OKAY. THE VETO IN MY UNDERSTANDING.
BUT THAT'S NOT DEFINED HERE GRANT.
YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR DOESN'T VOTE IN CASE OF A TIE.
SO THE ORDINANCE IS PASSED FOR THREE.
THE MAYOR CAN CHOOSE TO EXERCISE HIS OR HER VETO POWER, AND IT WILL BRING THAT ORDINANCE BACK AT THE NEXT REGULAR SPECIAL MEETING.
AND THEN IT WOULD IN ORDER TO TO PASS AGAIN, IT WOULD HAVE TO GET A TWO THIRDS SUPER MAJORITY SUPERMAJORITY VOTE, AND IF IT DOESN'T GET THE TWO THIRDS, THEN IT FAILS. I THINK.
OKAY. AND THAT'S NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE.
I MEAN, WE KNOW THAT. BUT IT'S NOT IN WRITING HERE, IS IT? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE I THINK POWER IS SUPERMAJORITY THESE TERMS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. WE KNOW, BUT THE ASPECT OF VETO POWER IS NOT DEFINED IN WRITING. IN OUR HOME RULE CHARTER.
I WOULD SAY IF WE WENT DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE, WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO DEFINING A LOT OF THINGS WITHIN THE HOME.
I THINK THERE'S SOME ELEMENTS AND, YOU KNOW AGAIN, I'M OPEN TO PERSPECTIVE FROM, FROM THE MASSES.
BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME ELEMENTS THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT IN A, IN A GOVERNMENT POWER CAPACITY LIKE VETO IS A IS A TERM THAT CAN BE ONE IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD AND ALSO CAN BE EASILY, YOU KNOW, RESEARCHED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WHAT THAT MEANS. YEAH. RIGHT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE SUPERMAJORITY ALSO IS ANOTHER TERM THAT WE HAD PEOPLE IN THE LAST MEETING WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT THAT WENT ACTUALLY AND LOOKED IT UP. WE HAD MR. OBAMA, WHO WAS GIVING US SPECIFIC NUMBERS AROUND WHAT THAT WOULD BE FOR BY MEMBER.
SO. RIGHT. I THINK THAT HAVING TO REQUIRE THAT BE DEFINED WITHIN THE CHARTER.
I DON'T I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS A PRECEDENCE WE WANT TO SET, BUT I'M HOPING IF EVERYONE ELSE BELIEVES THAT, THAT THAT'S NECESSARY. I MEAN, GRANT, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT WHEN I, I, I THIS IS AN ITEM I WAS LOOKING AT BEFORE AS WELL. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN ANY OTHER HRC AND ANY CITIES.
MAYBE TO PUT RANDALL'S MIND AT EASE.
IF I JUST READ THIS. THE MAYOR HAS VETO POWER, SO WHEN THE MAYOR VETOES SOMETHING THAT KILLS IT THAT VETO POWER CAN BE OVERRIDDEN BY A TWO THIRDS MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHICH MEANS NOW THE VETO HAS BEEN KILLED.
AND THE ORDINANCE OF THE RESOLUTION AND THE MOTION, WHATEVER WAS ON THE TABLE IS BACK ON THE TABLE.
SO I DON'T THINK I AGREE THAT I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS SPECIAL DEFINITION.
[00:40:04]
IT MAY NEED SOMEBODY TAKING APART THE SENTENCE.THAT'S A VERY LENGTHY SENTENCE WITH A LOT OF WORDS IN IT.
GOTCHA. THANK YOU. I WOULD AGREE IT'S CLEAR TO EVERYONE WHO FUNCTIONS IN GOVERNMENT, BUT THIS DOCUMENT IS ALSO BEING WRITTEN FOR THE POPULATION OF THE CITY THAT IS BEING COVERED BY IT. RIGHT. BUT WE THINK IT SHOULD BE.
BUT I THINK IT ALSO NEEDS TO CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT THOSE INDIVIDUAL POWERS ARE.
BUT WE'RE NOT GOVERNMENT PEOPLE SITTING HERE.
WE ARE CITY RESIDENTS SITTING HERE OF ALL AGES, ALL SCHOOL LEVEL KNOWLEDGE, EDUCATIONAL LEVELS.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, MIXING THAT AGAIN, WE'RE COMING BACK TO AN ITEM THAT HAS BEEN VOTED ON.
LET'S COME BACK TO IT AT THE END OF IT. YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION, THIS IS THIS IS NOT EVEN MOVING US INTO THE SECTIONS THAT WE ACTUALLY ARE TRYING TO FURTHER PROGRESS INTO. SO I DEFINITELY I APPRECIATE YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
I THINK GENERALLY FROM A MASS, WE ALL VOTED AND WE ALL AGREED THAT IT WAS CLEAR AND EVEN JUST NOW VOTING IT IN INTO THE THE CURRENT AGENDA ITEM, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF WE'RE SPINNING OUR WHEELS HERE. SO I'D LIKE TO KIND OF MOVE MOVE FORWARD PAST THIS TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE KIND OF ADDRESSING THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES. WE CAN MOVE IT TO THE END. GRANT, HELP ME OUT.
I UNDERSTAND, BUT QUORUM 1211, DON'T WE? DO WE? 0123456789 TEN.
11. WE ONLY HAVE 11. WE HAVE 11.
MR.. YEAH. I THINK THEY'RE WALKING BACK UP.
SO. OKAY. OKAY, SO. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS WE GOT? WE HAD WE HAVE HERE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADD TO 3.01? I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THOSE.
ALL RIGHT. SO SHE HAS MADE A MOTION YET.
BUT WHEN SHE GETS READY TO MAKE A MOTION WE'LL KEEP THE MIC HOT FOR YOU RANDALL. ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOOD TO MOVE ON.
OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR SECTION 3.01.
THE MAYOR SHALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCES AND POLICY INITIATIVES DIRECTLY TO THE COUNCIL. AND THE MAYOR SHALL PROVIDE A MONTHLY COMMUNICATION TO RESIDENTS OUTLINING KEY UPDATES, DECISIONS AND UPCOMING ISSUES.
THESE MAY BE DELIVERED VIA VIDEO, NEWSLETTER AND OR SOCIAL MEDIA.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A ONE SECOND? THAT IS A LENGTHY ONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE IF ANYONE WANTS TO SECOND THAT.
I SECOND THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT.
IT IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
SUTHERLAND. YES, MAXINE, I REMEMBER LAST WEEK YOU HAD MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT AN AGENDA.
SO THIS THE MEDIUM AS FAR AS THE MAYOR INTRODUCING ITEMS WHAT DO YOU HAVE IN MIND? THAT HE CAN IF HE FEELS AGAIN, LET'S GO BACK TO THE CELL PHONE ORDINANCE.
IF HE WANTS TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, RECOMMEND AN ORDINANCE ABOUT CELL PHONES, HE CAN. HE WANTS TO BRING SOMETHING DIRECTLY TO THE COUNCIL.
HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH CITY STAFF FIRST TO BRING ITEMS UP AT COUNCIL. SO AS FAR AS DOING THAT, YOU MEAN INTRODUCING SOMETHING SUBJECT TO THE THREE DAY NOTICE OR OR WHAT? OR HOW? WELL, IT WOULD STILL FALL UNDER THE SAME GUIDELINES, CORRECT? GRANT? YEAH. IF IT'S IF IT'S GOING TO GO ON AN AGENDA, IT'S, YOU KNOW, 72 HOURS RIGHT NOW, BUT EVENTUALLY IT'LL BE THREE BUSINESS DAYS.
WELL, WE HAVE THE DEADLINES BEFORE THEN, BUT WE HAVE TO POST THE AGENDA BY BY THOSE DATES. GRANT IS THE FUNCTION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT MISSING SOMETHING. AND I DON'T EVER TRY TO PRETEND TO BE THE SMARTEST GUY IN THE ROOM, BECAUSE. DEFINITELY NOT. BUT IS THERE A FUNCTION FOR PRESENTING ITEMS TO COUNCIL? IS THERE ANY OTHER FUNCTION OTHER THAN THE THE THE AGENDA? I MEAN, OUTSIDE OF, LIKE, YOU KNOW, ONE OFFS, RIGHT? WE CAN'T BREAK QUORUM. RIGHT? BUT THAT'S THE OFFICIAL FUNCTION TO PRESENT IDEAS TO COUNCIL TO TO PUT THINGS BEFORE COUNCIL.
YOU KNOW, POLICY, BUSINESS ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO ON AGENDA.
[00:45:02]
THEY CAN DISCUSS IT. CONSIDER IT AT AN OPEN MEETING.YEAH. OTHERWISE WE'RE BREAKING BREAKING QUORUM. SO, YES, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES, YOU KNOW, ACTION OR ADOPTION, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AT AN OPEN MEETING ON AN AGENDA POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OPEN MEETINGS ACT. AND CURRENTLY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
IF THE MAYOR WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING TO THE AGENDA, HE HAS TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER TO DO THAT.
THAT IS CURRENTLY THE PROCESS.
I KNOW YOU KNOW, ON ALL THE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS, THERE'S A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM LIST SO COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN BRING THINGS UP AND THEN KIND OF STAFF COORDINATES THE UPCOMING AGENDA DATE ON HOW MUCH TIME IT TAKES TO PREPARE THAT ITEM OR FIND OUT THE INFORMATION.
SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF THE CURRENT WAY TO PUT THINGS ON THE AGENDA IS THROUGH THAT FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. BUT YEAH, THAT'S HOW IT OPERATES RIGHT NOW.
AND I KNOW THE MAYOR, YOU KNOW, MEETS WITH WITH CITY MANAGEMENT AND KIND OF. CORRECT. BUT WHETHER IT'S THE CURRENT MAYOR OR FUTURE MAYOR, THEY SHOULD STILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO.
HAVE ITEMS ADDED TO THE AGENDA.
MR.. YOUR MIC JUST WENT DEAD, BUT I SAW YOUR NAME.
I MINE IS NOT WITH THE AGENDA, BUT I DID WANT TO ASK A QUESTION WHEN YOU SAID THE WAY THAT HE HAS TO, THE MAYOR HAS TO GO AND ADD THINGS TO THE AGENDA. NOW IS THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER.
BUT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL, WHICH MEANS IT HAS TO BE DONE OPENLY.
SO MAYBE REPHRASING IT, SAYING THE MAYOR CAN ADD ITEMS OR ORDINANCES TO THE AGENDA.
WE CAN PUT THE WORD AGENDA INSTEAD OF MEETING WITH COUNCIL SO HE CAN PRESENT IT AS WELL. AND THAT ONE, THIS ONE IS NOT ONE THAT I REALLY I'M NOT FOCUSED ON.
BUT WHEN THE ONE THAT I'M FOCUSED ON AGAIN, BECAUSE I SPOKE ON THIS LAST WEEK WAS THE MAYOR HAS TO PRESENT MONTHLY TO THE RESIDENTS.
WE ARE ASKING, WELL, THAT'S IN MY THAT'S THE ONE.
I'M THE ONE THAT SAID, THAT'S THE ONE I'M SPEAKING ON NOW.
SO WE'RE ASKING A PERSON WHO WE DO NOT PAY NOT ONLY TO COME IN HERE AND HAVE MEETINGS. ATTEND MEETINGS WITH RESIDENTS.
WE'RE ASKING SOMEONE WHO WE DON'T PAY.
WHO WE DON'T, WHO DOES NOT EVEN HAVE AN ADMIN TO DO SOMETHING ELSE THAT COULD BE PROVIDED THROUGH OUR CITY SECRETARY, THROUGH OUR CITY WEBSITE AND ONLINE.
ASKING THEM TO DO IT DIRECTLY.
I THINK THAT'S A BIT MUCH FOR OUR CURRENT MAYOR.
AND OUR PRIOR MAYORS ALREADY DID SOMETHING LIKE THIS JUST ON THEIR OWN.
BUT TO MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT AS A RESIDENT, I THINK I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY MAYOR.
I'LL COME HERE. OH, I AM HERE ALL THE TIME, BUT I WOULD STILL LIKE TO HEAR FROM IT, I THINK. GOOD DISCUSSION.
I THINK ONCE WE GET TO THE POINT OF VOTING, AT THAT POINT, WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IF EVERYONE AGREES.
THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FOR DAVID TO BE ABLE TO.
HE WAS SITTING IN QUEUE FOR A WHILE. I THINK THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE ONE AND I LIKE THE OTHER, SO I AM I AM PERSONALLY OPPOSED TO PUTTING AN ADDITIONAL MANDATE ON THE MAYOR TO COMMUNICATE. OUR CURRENT MAYOR COMMUNICATES VERY WELL ALREADY IN PUBLIC.
CONTENT, FACEBOOK, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
AND I DON'T THINK EVEN IF IT WAS A REQUIREMENT, I DON'T THINK THAT THE HOME RULE CHARTER IS A PLACE THAT IS APPROPRIATE TO PUT IT.
THIS IS. THE MORE WE PUT INTO THIS, THE MORE MORE WORK IT IS TO MANAGE.
ON THE ON THE OTHER ONE THAT I DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO OUR MAYOR.
AND HE WAS PRETTY CLEAR THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO OR WANT TO OWN THE DUTIES OF THE CITY
[00:50:06]
MANAGER WITH REGARDS TO OWNING THE AGENDA, THE CITY BUSINESS, THE CITY BUSINESS, AND THE CITY MANAGER SHOULD BE PROPOSING PREPARING THE AGENDA FOR CITY BUSINESS. HOWEVER, COMMA, HE DOES WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THINGS ON THE AGENDA THAT ARE COMMUNITY, BUSINESS, RESIDENT BUSINESS THAT OTHERWISE IS NOT CITY BUSINESS.AND I THINK IF WE LIMIT OURSELVES TO ADDING SOMETHING HERE THAT ALLOWS HIM THE AUTHORITY TO ADD TO THE AGENDA, NOT NECESSARILY BE THE OWNER OF THE AGENDA.
WOULD PROBABLY BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
AND I WILL SAY I ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE MAYOR.
AND IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM THIS WEEK, BOTH OF THESE ITEMS WERE KIND OF ITEMS THAT WE TOPICS WE TALKED ABOUT AND HE ACTUALLY WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I CAN BREAK IT UP INTO TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS LIKE I HAD ORIGINALLY OFFERED TO. THAT'S FINE.
AND THEN AT THIS POINT, JUST KIND OF MOVE US FORWARD AND WE CAN COME BACK AND YOU CAN MAKE WHATEVER ADJUSTMENT YOU FEEL LIKE IS NECESSARY.
WE CAN CONTINUE ON WITH THE VOTE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND LISTENING TO DAVID.
I ECHO, I MEAN, TO THE PUNCTUATION MARK.
EVERYTHING HE HAD TO SAY. AND I ACTUALLY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE MAYOR ALSO.
AND IT WAS JUST IDENTICAL TO WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.
AND I TO AGREE, THESE THESE TWO REQUESTS ARE ACTUALLY STRANGE BEDFELLOWS.
THEY SHOULD BE TAKEN UP SEPARATELY.
IT DOES SEEM TO GET INTO TOO MUCH MICROMANAGEMENT WHICH WOULD SEEM INAPPROPRIATE FOR A CHARTER.
PARTICULARLY THE ONE TELLING THEM MONTHLY YOU KNOW, WHAT TO DO AND WHAT TO PUT OUT.
IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE FOR A CHARTER. I THINK IT'S WELL INTENTIONED, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T DOESN'T SMACK ONE AS AS APPROPRIATE FOR A CHARTER.
AND IF THEY'RE NOT COMMUNICATING ENOUGH, OBVIOUSLY GET DOWN HERE OR EXPRESS YOURSELF AT THE BALLOT BOX OR WHATEVER.
BUT THE MAYOR EXPRESSED SATISFACTION WITH THE CURRENT PROCESS AND INPUT.
I MEAN, TOTAL SATISFACTION IN MY DISCUSSION WITH HIM.
SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE YOU KNOW WHY THAT'S NECESSARY, BUT I KNOW THE FIRST ONE DOESN'T.
NEITHER ONE REALLY GIVES ME MUCH HEARTBURN, BUT THAT WAS WHAT'S EXPRESSED AND DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE A REAL PROBLEM.
THANKS, JODI. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I JUST WANT TO KIND OF HEARD THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT WE HAVE A MAYOR THAT'S ACTIVE AND HE'S INVOLVED. HE'S HAVING CONVERSATIONS. LET'S REMEMBER, WE'RE SETTING THESE EXPECTATIONS NOT JUST FOR OUR CURRENT MAYOR. IT'S GREAT THAT HE HAS INPUT.
AND I TALKED TO HIM TO WRITE, BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT WHATEVER DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING, WE'RE MAKING FOR FUTURE MAYORS AS WELL. SO JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. I WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. YES. JULIE. SO JASON, IN THE IN THE INTEREST.
WELL, I AGREE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT THE ADDITIONS, BUT IN THE INTEREST OF STREAMLINING LANGUAGE AND MAKING SURE THAT THE LANGUAGE AGREES WITH ITSELF FROM SECTION TO SECTION IN SECTION 4.03, ITEM TWO. I DON'T KNOW WHAT PAGE THAT IS.
IT'S THE SECTION UNDER THE CITY MANAGER.
IT SAYS PREPARE AND RECOMMEND ITEMS FOR INCLUSION IN THE OFFICIAL AGENDA OF ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. THAT'S FOR THE CITY MANAGER.
MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT OR MY REQUEST WOULD BE THAT MAXINE WOULD BE OPEN TO CHANGING THE LANGUAGE OF HER MOTION ON THAT ADDITION, OR THAT RECOMMENDED ADDITIONS TO REFLECT THIS, NOT THE PREPARE. I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE MAN, THE MAYOR, WHO IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE.
SO THEREFORE NOT HERE ALL THE TIME.
I DIDN'T SAY PREPARE. NO, I KNOW I'M I'M JUSTIFYING MY RATIONALE, BUT ONLY TO INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE FOR THE MAYOR THAT SAYS RECOMMEND ITEMS FOR INCLUSION IN THE OFFICIAL AGENDA OF ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
THOSE CAN BE COMMUNITY BASED ITEMS. THEY CAN BE OTHER ITEMS. BUT IT IT IT PUTS THEM BOTH ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WITH RESPECT TO THE LANGUAGE THAT'S ALREADY HERE. THE REASON THAT I'M NOT PUTTING THE WORD RECOMMEND IN THERE IS BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE AND THE CITY MANAGER HAS NOT PUT THEM ON THE AGENDA. SO THAT'S WHY I'M NOT PUTTING THE WORD RECOMMEND IN THERE.
NOW, IF Y'ALL DENY MY MOTION, THAT'S FINE.
WE CAN. BUT I HAVE A I JUST WANT TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION BECAUSE AS THE WAY IT IS RIGHT
[00:55:01]
NOW THE MAYOR GOES, IT HAS TO BE PUT ON AN AGENDA.NO. THE CITY MANAGER BASICALLY HAS THE FINAL SAY, BUT RIGHT NOW THE AGENDA HAS TO BE OUT THERE FOR THE PUBLIC.
CAN THAT AGENDA BE. ONCE THE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING STARTS.
CAN THAT AGENDA BE CHANGED IN, YOU KNOW, FROM FROM ONE MINUTE TO ANOTHER? NO NO NO OKAY. SO THEN.
I GUESS THERE JUST NEEDS TO BE SOME CLARIFICATION BECAUSE IF THE MAYOR WANTS SOMETHING, HE GOES TO THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY SECRETARY, AND THEY CAN SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT PUTTING THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
SO WHO? SO? SO I GUESS YOU WANT TO GIVE HIM THAT POWER TO BE ABLE TO.
SO, SO I THINK I THINK WHAT I, WHAT I UNDERSTAND I'M JUST GOING TO JUMP IN.
I KNOW WE HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE IN QUEUE, BUT I JUST WANT TO JUMP IN REAL QUICK. WHAT I THINK I UNDERSTAND IS THE GOAL HERE IS THAT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NOT A SITUATION WHERE THE MAYOR WANTS SOMETHING ADDED TO THE AGENDA ITEM AND IT IS NOT ADDED.
RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S OVERARCHING WHAT EVERYONE PROBABLY AGREES UPON.
SO I THINK TO THE POINT OF REMOVING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OVERALL AGENDA HOLISTICALLY, THERE THERE, GRANT, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO HELP US WITH.
AND I KNOW YOU'RE NOT INTRODUCING VERBIAGE, BUT IF, IF, IF THE IF I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE OPEN TO ADJUSTING THE VERBIAGE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF GRANT, OF GIVING US HOW THAT SHOULD BE PHRASED TO ENSURE THAT HE HAS THE AUTHORITY THAT IS EQUAL TO OR, YOU KNOW, EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT TO THE CITY MANAGER.
AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE AGENDA OR MAYBE EVEN OVERARCHING IN THE THE END RESULT.
RIGHT. HE HAS THE, THE OVERARCHING LAST SAY, THE FINAL SAY THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO ADDING ITEMS TO THE AGENDA, BUT IT'S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FUNCTIONAL ASPECT OF IT, LIKE ACTUALLY CREATING THE AGENDA ITSELF.
THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION. DOES THAT SOUND? EXACTLY. THEN THEN GRANT YOU YOU COULD PROBABLY HELP US OUT WITH THAT.
YEAH, I MEAN, I CAN I CAN PREPARE SOME, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE BASED ON THE DISCUSSION.
I THINK TO MISS ZELLER'S POINT.
AND WE'LL GET TO HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET TO SECTION 4.03 HERE LATER.
BUT 4.0032 DOES MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CITY MANAGER RIGHT NOW HAS THE POWER AND DUTY TO PREPARE AND RECOMMEND ITEMS. SO I WOULD WHATEVER WE ADD IN 3.01, I WOULD ALSO CLEAN UP 4.032 IS YES.
CORRECT. YOU KNOW PREPARE AND RECOMMEND IN COLLABORATION WITH THE, YOU KNOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND WE COULD SO THAT WAY BOTH SECTIONS ARE KIND OF TALKING TO ONE ANOTHER OKAY.
BUT I CAN DO MY BEST TO PREPARE SOME LANGUAGE AND PUT IT BEFORE YOU GUYS TO JUST SOMETIMES IT'S EASIER TO SEE IT ON PAPER.
GOT YOU CORRECT. BUT WITH WITH WITH CURRENTLY THIS IS THIS SHE HAS A MOTION THAT'S OPEN.
RIGHT. WELL I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED THAT I BREAK IT INTO TWO MOTIONS. BUT STILL HOW WE PHRASE THAT FIRST PORTION OF IT, I THINK IT'S THE THING I'M TRYING TO SOLVE FOR BECAUSE WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OR DO WE HAVE TO DO. WE HAVE TO SOLVE FOR THAT RIGHT NOW.
CAN WE GET A GENERAL SENSE OF WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE FOR THE MOTION? YOU CAN WORK ON THE VERBIAGE. YEAH.
MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND MAYOR SHALL SHE'LL COLLABORATE. YEAH, I THINK YOU KIND OF MENTIONED THAT VERBIAGE, RIGHT. BUT THE THING IS, THE MAYOR SHOULD STILL BE ABLE TO SAY, I WANT THIS ON THE AGENDA.
AND I UNDERSTAND COLLABORATING.
THEY DO COLLABORATE. BUT THE MAYOR SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY I WANT THIS ON THE AGENDA.
AND CURRENTLY HE CANNOT DO THAT.
LET'S LET'S SEE IF GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
MAYBE I'LL COME RIGHT BACK TO YOU. LET'S LET'S SEE IF WHEN IT COMES TO BECAUSE IT'S YOUR MOTION. RIGHT. AND SO AND SO THERE'S A SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE HAS IS THAT SHE'S WANTING TO PUT OUT THERE ON THE FLOOR FOR IT TO BE VOTED ON. IF GRANT, IF DO WE HAVE TO SOLVE FOR THE VERBIAGE RIGHT NOW OR CAN SHE EXPLAIN WHAT SHE'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE AND THEN YOU PROVIDE THE VERBIAGE AT A LATER DATE? YEAH. IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN KIND OF THE INTENT BEHIND THE MOTION, KIND OF WE CAN I CAN TRY TO PUT PEN TO PAPER IN THE NEXT THANK YOU.
I WANT TO GET BACK TO WHAT YOU DID WITH THE 3.01 THAT WE GOT TODAY.
YOU CAN DO SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO THAT.
THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO JUMP TO MICHIGAN AND COME BACK TO YOU.
I'M SORRY. SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET ACCOMPLISHED, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO DO IT HERE OR IN THE FUTURE.
BUT MAYBE SAY SOMETHING AS THE MAYOR HAS THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA BEING POSTED,
[01:00:01]
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IT HAS A TIMELINE AND LET'S SAY THE MAYOR HAS TO APPROVE IT AS WE KNOW THAT THEY COLLABORATE.SO INTRODUCE AND APPROVE THE EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
ULTIMATELY THAT THAT WOULD BE LEFT UP TO MAXINE TO HOW SHE PROPOSED THAT.
JULIE. JUST TWO THINGS REAL QUICK.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE PERSONALLY VOTING YEA OR NAY ON A MOTION THAT THE LANGUAGE IS NOT SET FIRST. AND NUMBER TWO, JUST TO PUT A PIN IN IT.
THERE IS NOTHING IN SECTION 4.3 OF ITEM TWO THAT IN MY CITY MANAGER THAT GIVES THE CITY MANAGER FINAL APPROVAL.
IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING IN PRACTICE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT VERY CLEARLY.
THIS LANGUAGE DOES NOT GIVE THE CITY MANAGER APPROVAL, AND I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT SO THAT WE CAN PUT A PIN IN IT WHEN WE GET THERE.
BECAUSE THE ISSUE AMISHA JUST BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF APPROVAL.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO INTRODUCE THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE.
THAT'S THAT'S PRETTY TIGHT LANGUAGE.
BUT THIS IS HOW THIS NUMBER TWO IS BEING INTERPRETED RIGHT NOW WITH THE CITY MANAGER HAVING APPROVAL. POWER IS NOT WHAT THIS SAYS.
YEAH. YEAH. I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THERE ISN'T ANY CLARITY IS WHY WE'RE KIND OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. I SEE AMICIA AND THEN DAN.
DAVID. OH, IT'S STILL IN THE QUEUE.
DAVID. ALL RIGHT, SO I THINK I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR HIM.
I'M GOING TO SAY IF I WAS THE MAYOR, I WOULD NOT WANT TO BE SOMETHING.
I WOULD NOT WANT IT TO BE MY POSITION TO STOP PROGRESS IF I DIDN'T APPROVE SOMETHING.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE WHOEVER OUR MAYOR IS, IS THE OPPORTUNITY NOT TO BE SILENCED.
TO SAY THAT THE MAYOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ADD THINGS TO THE AGENDA IS VERY SMALL.
IT'S VERY SHORT AND IT'S VERY CLEAR, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY AMBIGUITY TO IT.
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PUT IN THE SECTION THREE. THAT'S THAT.
OVERRULED. RIGHT. BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE HIM ANY REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT. TO DO ANY OF THE BUSINESS THAT IS COVERED IN FOR IN SECTION FOUR UNDER THE CITY MANAGER, I, I THINK IF WE START PUTTING THINGS LIKE THOU SHALT WE CAN CRUISE IN POSITION. RIGHT. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE.
WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE IS JUST EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID, DAVID, IS THAT THE MAYOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SAY, I WANT TO ADD A DISCUSSION ON CELL PHONE USAGE IN THE CITY HALL BUILDING TO THE AGENDA, AND IF THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO ADD, HE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED.
TO ADD THAT ITEM IS THAT VERBIAGE THAT HE JUST WAS THAT SUFFICIENT? IT SEEMS PRETTY CUT AND DRY. AND THAT WAS SOLVE FOR JULIE'S CONCERN. YEAH. I MEAN I THINK YEAH, I NEVER SAID APPROVE, I NEVER SAID.
OKAY. SO I THINK WE WE HAVE WE HAVE AS PART OF OUR DISCUSSION SOME VERBIAGE THAT IS VERY SIMPLIFIED AND CUT AND DRY.
AND NOW IT'S ON YOU, MAXINE, TO MAKE OR DO WHAT YOU WHAT YOU WILL WITH YOUR MOTION IF YOU WANT TO REINTRODUCE, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS ASK DAVID TO PLEASE READ, QUOTE, WHAT HE JUST SAID, TO ADD TO MY MOTION WHERE I WOULD LIKE THE MAYOR TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADD INTRODUCE ORDINANCE POLICIES, INITIATIVES TO THE AGENDA ITEMS. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO BE SPECIFIC ON WHAT HE CAN ADD.
IF IT'S IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ON THE AGENDA, I THINK IT SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE, AND THAT'S FINE.
IF IT'S A BIRTHDAY PARTY, I DON'T CARE.
YEAH, I CAN ADD ITEMS TO THE AGENDA.
THE MAYOR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ADD ITEMS TO THE AGENDA.
OKAY, THAT'S THAT'S ONE MOTION DO WE HAVE? THAT'S MY MOTION. SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. ARE THESE MOTIONS STILL COMBINED? ARE YOU WITH. NO. OKAY.
SEPARATE IT. I THINK THAT WE HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE MOTION THAT WAS COMBINED.
YEAH, WE JUST DID A SEPARATE DRAWING, AND THE SECOND HAS TO AGREE TO IT.
SO WHOEVER SECONDED THAT FIRST MOTION HAS TO AGREE.
YEAH. SO THE THE SECOND WHAT HE STATED IS THE SECOND THAT THAT SECOND,
[01:05:04]
THE MOTION HAS TO AGREE TO BE DISSOLVED BY THE WITHDRAW.FIRST MOTION TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND OR TO APPROVE THE REVISED GRANT.
HELP US, HELP US TO MOVE ON FROM HERE.
LIKE WHAT SHE HAD. MAXINE WITHDREW HER ORIGINAL MOTION.
I DID. SO WE NOW HAVE A FIRST BY MAXINE AND A SECOND BY MISS NEAL.
AND SO WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT WE DISCUSSED AND ABILITY TO INCLUDE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
SO NOW WE'RE OPEN FOR ANY MORE DISCUSSION AND THEN A VOTE.
AND THAT'S THAT'S SUFFICIENT FOR.
RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE A FIRST. WE HAVE A SECOND.
I'M HOPING WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION.
ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE FOR YES. RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE FOR. YES. MAKE IT THERE.
ALL RIGHT. AND I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS.
ALL RIGHT. NOW FOR YOUR SECOND ITEM.
YES. MY SECOND ITEM IS THAT I MOTION THE MAYOR SHALL PROVIDE A MONTHLY COMMUNICATION TO RESIDENTS OUTLINING KEY UPDATES, DECISIONS AND UPCOMING ISSUES.
AND THEY CAN BE DELIVERED VIA VIDEO, NEWSLETTER OR SOCIAL MEDIA.
ALL RIGHT. THAT IS NOW SEPARATE MOTION.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT? I'LL SECOND IT. I MISS SKYLER SKYLER SECOND.
OKAY. WITH THAT WE ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM.
ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS THAT.
I'M JUST ON BOARD WITH AMISHA.
WE UNLESS WE TABLE THIS UNTIL WE GET TO COMPENSATION.
I, I DON'T SEE, YOU KNOW, WHY WE SHOULD BE FORCING A AN UNPAID VOLUNTEER TO DO SOMETHING.
YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS AND HE'S UNABLE TO DO IT, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S OUR DECISION TO TO FORCE HIS HAND IN HALF.
YOU KNOW, FOR HIM TO HAVE TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WHEN WHEN HE'S ESSENTIALLY A VOLUNTEER. SO. THANK YOU.
I HAVE A QUESTION. WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT TO MANDATE OR YOU WANT TO SPECIFY.
HOW IS IT THAT THE ABSENCE OF THAT MAKES CITY GOVERNMENT GO BETTER? AND WHY IS THAT? WHY IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO SAY? THIS IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE DOING OR YOU HAVE TO DO.
SO OUR PAST MAYOR AND OUR CURRENT MAYOR ARE REALLY GOOD ABOUT COMMUNICATING SOCIAL MEDIA IN GENERAL. BUT WHAT IF WE GET ANOTHER MAYOR IN HERE? THAT'S JUST KIND OF. YEAH.
YOU KNOW, AND NOT AS GOOD AT COMMUNICATING.
IT GIVES THE CITY RESIDENTS THE ABILITY TO KNOW THAT THEY WILL HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY, AND NOT HAVE TO WAIT FOR THAT.
YOU KNOW, OH WELL, I HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE, OR I HEARD IT THROUGH THIS RUMOR MILL.
YOU'RE HEARING IT STRAIGHT FROM THE MAYOR.
AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO TABLE THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL WE GO THROUGH COMPENSATION.
I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HEAR FROM OUR MAYOR ON A CONSISTENT BASIS.
ONE THING TO JUST ADD IN, I DON'T KNOW WHO SAID IT EARLIER, BUT I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
MAYBE BETTER SUITED FOR SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF A CHARTER AMENDMENT.
YOU KNOW, WE COULD HAVE A COMMUTE. CITY COULD HAVE A COMMUNICATION POLICY OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. IT KIND OF GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY AND IT CAN EASILY BE AMENDED. YOU KNOW, ONCE IT'S IN THE CHARTER, YOU'RE KIND OF TIED FOR A LITTLE BIT JUST.
AND JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT AGAIN YOU GET A MAYOR THAT'S NOT REALLY FULLY ON BOARD WITH COMMUNICATING EXCEPT FOR WHEN THEY'RE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING.
YOU JUST KIND OF FEEL IN THE DARK.
AND LISTENING TO WHAT THE RUMOR MILL HAS.
WHEREAS IF THEY'RE COMMUNICATING MONTHLY, YOU'RE GETTING.
AND EVEN AT COUNCIL, THE MAYOR DOESN'T GET TO GIVE FULL UPDATES.
THE MAYOR ONLY GETS TO GIVE WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA, AND THAT'S IT. THERE IS NO REAL TRUE FORUM FOR THE MAYOR TO JUST STAND UP AND TALK.
[01:10:07]
I DEFINITELY THINK WE WE WE CAPTURE YOUR SENTIMENT THERE, MAXINE. I WANT TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR JUST FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, A MISSION IN SKYLER. AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE.I HAVE A QUESTION. DO WE HAVE A COMMUNICATION DEPARTMENT? YEAH, WE HAVE A MARKETING DEPARTMENT. COMMUNICATIONS. AND THEY THEY POST PRETTY REGULARLY. SO THEY'RE POSTING THEY WANT AWARDS FOR HOW MUCH THEY'VE BEEN POSTING. SO.
AND DO CAN THEY POST ON BEHALF OF THE MAYOR.
I MEAN, THE MAYOR CAN YEAH, THERE CAN BE A PRESS RELEASE FROM THE MAYOR THAT, YOU KNOW, USUALLY THE MAYOR WORKS WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO HAVE A MAYOR, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME THEY GIVE A PRESS RELEASE, IT'S KIND OF ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, LIKE AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT.
SO THEY USUALLY WORK HAND IN HAND. I KNOW, YOU KNOW, MAYOR CAN POST HIS OWN STUFF TO HIS OR HER OWN STUFF, BUT THEY USUALLY WORK HAND IN HAND BEFORE PUTTING OUT OFFICIAL STATEMENTS OR UPDATES OR NEWS PRESS RELEASES. BECAUSE WHAT I WANT, I GUESS WHEN I'M HEARING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING IN HERE TO REGULATE THE MAYOR, TO DO SOMETHING.
AND THEN IT CAN BE YOU CAN DO IT THIS WAY, THIS WAY OR THAT WAY.
IT'S NOT CONSISTENT. SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MISS IT IF IT'S NOT THE SAME WAY EACH AND EVERY TIME. I WOULD RATHER IF WE, IF WE JUST HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS ON THE HOME RULE CHARTER TO KIND OF MAYBE DEFINE IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT.
WE'RE WELL, YOU'RE MIKE, YOU'RE MIKE.
I WOULD RATHER FOR US TO IF WE'RE GOING TO EVEN ENTERTAIN IT.
MAYBE NOT SAY HE CAN. THEY CAN DO IT, OR SHE CAN DO IT.
WHOEVER IS MAYOR. THEY CAN DO IT THIS WAY, THIS WAY OR THIS WAY.
MAYBE KIND OF FIGURE OUT SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT WHERE THE CITIZENS KNOW EXACTLY WHERE TO GO. SEARCH EVERY MONTH FOR WHATEVER THEY ARE LOOKING FOR, THAT THE MAYOR HAS TO SAY I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST WELL, I'M GOING TO MAKE JUST IN FOR TIME'S SAKE, I'M GOING TO TABLE THIS ITEM AND UNTIL AFTER WE DISCUSS SECTION 3.04 WITH COMPENSATION, BECAUSE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT UP COMPENSATION IN REGARDS TO.
SO I'M GOING TO TABLE MY MOTION FOR NOW.
THANK YOU. SKYLER. SO WHEN YOU SAY TABLE, YOU MEAN YOU WITHDRAW THE MOTION AND THEN WE CAN BRING IT. I'LL WITHDRAW IT FOR NOW AND BRING IT BACK.
THAT WORKS. AWESOME. ALL RIGHT, WELL, THOSE WERE OUR ITEMS FOR 3.01.
SO WITH THAT WE'RE MOVING INTO SECTION 3.02 WHICH IS QUALIFICATIONS.
EACH CANDIDATE FOR ELECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR OFFICE OF MAYOR SHALL BE QUALIFIED. VOTER OF THE CITY SHALL BE.
NO. NOT LESS THAN 21 YEARS OF AGE SHALL HAVE RESIDED IN THE CITY NOT LESS THAN 12 MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION DAY, AND SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE. EACH COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE MAYOR MUST CONTINUALLY, CONTINUALLY RESIDE WITHIN THE CITY DURING HIS OR HER TERM OF OFFICE AND ANY REMOVAL OF HIS OR HER RESIDENT FROM THE CITY DURING HIS OR HER TERM OF OFFICE SHALL CONSTITUTE A VACATION OF HIS OR HER OFFICE, AND SUCH VACANCY SHALL BE FILLED AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 3.05. ANY PERSON WHO HAS EXCEEDED THE LIMITS FOR TOTAL CUMULATIVE SERVICE IN THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER PROVIDED BY THIS CHARTER SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR FURTHER ELECTION TO EITHER OF THOSE OFFICES, AND NO PERSON WHO SERVES THE LIMIT OF TWO SUCCESSIVE I'M SORRY, TWO SUCCESSIVE ELECTIVE TERMS SHALL BE QUALIFIED TO BE ELECTED AS EITHER MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBER UNTIL THE MINIMUM TIME PERIOD HAS ELAPSED.
SO THAT IS THE READING OF SECTION ITEM 3.02.
AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS WE HAVE FOR THIS ITEM.
AND GRANT WE'LL BE CAPTURING THOSE DOWN. ALISON.
SO JUST SO BASED ON OUR LAST MEETING, I WENT AHEAD AND BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WE HAD, I WENT AHEAD AND JUST TYPED UP MY RECOMMENDATIONS.
I MADE THEM IN MOTION, LIKE AT MOTION TO ADD AS LIKE THE STATEMENT.
BUT SOME OF THESE I HAD ALREADY SAID TO GRANT MIGHT HAVE ALREADY STATE LAW IMPLICATIONS.
SO THEY MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY NEED TO GO INTO THE CHARTER.
AND THE OTHER THING IS SOME OF THEM ARE OPEN TO BE MOVED TO OTHER SECTIONS POTENTIALLY,
[01:15:04]
AND THEN ALSO OPEN, OF COURSE, TO BE REWORDED, HOWEVER ANYBODY YOU KNOW COULD SEE FIT.SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE MAYORAL OR CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE, IF RESIDING IN AN ANNEXED AREA OF THE CITY.
THAT AREA MUST BE PART OF THE CITY FOR A YEAR OR 12 MONTHS OR MORE BEFORE THE CANDIDATE IS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE.
AND THIS ONE I DID ACTUALLY BRING UP TO GRANT PRIOR TO OUR LAST MEETING ENDED ENDING.
AND HE SAID THIS. I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO IT.
YEAH. NO, I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY GOOD THOUGHT AND I HAVEN'T HAD THIS COME UP BEFORE. SO I THINK THE WAY IT WOULD WORK IS CURRENTLY YOU HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT FOR AT LEAST 12 MONTHS. SO THE WAY I WOULD INTERPRET THAT IS IF YOU'RE ANNEXED IN, YOU BECOME A RESIDENT WHEN YOU'RE ANNEXED IN. AND SO YOU'D HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, BE ANNEXED IN WAIT 12 MONTHS AFTER BEING ANNEXED IN AND BE ABLE TO VOTE.
IT JUST KIND OF FALL BACK TO THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, WHICH, WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC THE CHARTER CURRENTLY HAS, YOU KNOW, IT'S YOU HAVE TO BE 21 YEARS OF AGE AND YOU HAVE TO RESIDE IN THE CITY FOR AT LEAST 12 MONTHS. SO THE STATE LAW MINIMUM YOU HAVE TO BE AT LEAST JUST 18, AND IT'S SIX MONTHS RESIDING IN THE CITY.
SO WE'VE GONE A STEP BEYOND THAT, JUST SO WE CAN'T GO BELOW 18 AND BELOW SIX MONTHS. MOST CITIES HAVE THE 21 YEARS OF AGE AND THE 12 MONTHS RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.
SO I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT WHILE WE'RE ON THIS TOPIC.
SO CAN WE CAN WE FREE UP ALLISON SO SHE CAN GO THROUGH HER OTHER MOTIONS? I'M SORRY. SO THEN THIS ONE WOULD JUST BE OPTIONAL, I GUESS, SINCE TECHNICALLY IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT FIRST ONE THAT GRANT JUST MENTIONED IF WE WOULD WANT TO INCLUDE IT.
SO THERE WAS NO, LIKE, AMBIGUITY.
THEN THE NEXT ONE IS THE MAYORAL OR COUNCIL OR CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE MUST BE CURRENT ON ALL TAXES AND LIABILITIES DUE TO THE CITY OF PRINCETON BEFORE THE CANDIDATE IS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE. AND THEN THAT WOULD JUST BE ALSO A QUESTION OF IF THEY'RE LIABILITIES OR TAXES. I HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCUSSION WITH SOMEBODY BEFORE BEFORE OUR LAST MEETING ENDED LAST TIME OR AFTER IT.
WE WOULD WANT TO MAYBE DISCUSS IF IT WOULD JUST BE PERSONAL LIABILITIES AND TAXES OR ALSO IF IT WERE TO INCLUDE BUSINESSES.
I JUST SAID ALL TAXES AND LIABILITIES DUE TO THE CITY OF PRINCETON.
AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS THE MAYORAL CANDIDATE OR CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES.
CAN FILE TO RUN, CAN'T FILE TO RUN FOR MORE THAN ONE OFFICE DURING THE SAME ELECTION.
AND AGAIN, GRANT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ALSO A STATE LAW OR NOT.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING I FOUND IN ONE OF THE OTHER CHARTERS.
YEAH. SO TO TO TO ADDRESS YOUR FIRST ONE WITH THE TAXES AND LIABILITIES.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT DONE BEFORE.
I YOU JUST. OFF JUST KIND OF SPITBALLING HERE.
THE LIABILITIES I THINK WOULD WE'D HAVE A LITTLE.
BIT MORE TROUBLE WITH BECAUSE I MEAN I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DEFINE THAT. IS IT. YOU KNOW, CODE ENFORCEMENT ETC..
I THINK YOU COULD MAYBE AND I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT MORE.
I DON'T KNOW THE DEFINITE ANSWER.
YOU COULD MAYBE PUT IN THERE SOMETHING ABOUT. YOU KNOW, AD VALOREM TAXES POTENTIALLY.
BUT LIKE I SAID, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT DONE BEFORE.
JUST I FOUND IT. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE FIRST GO.
ONE, BECAUSE THAT WAS DEFINITELY ONE I TOOK FROM ONE OF THE COLLIN COUNTY CHARTERS.
IT MIGHT. I LOOKED AT ALL OF THE ONES THAT HAD HOMEROOM CHARTERS, SO I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK BACK AND SEE WHICH ONE IT WAS.
BUT IT WAS ONE OF THE ONES IN COLLIN COUNTY.
OKAY. YEAH. IF WE ULTIMATELY CHOOSE TO ADOPT THAT RECOMMENDATION, I'LL LOOK INTO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE. I JUST HAVEN'T HAD IT COME UP BEFORE SO I CAN FIND OUT WHICH ONE IT WAS. SO I THINK WE HAVE HEARD THREE RECOMMENDATIONS CAPTURED OR ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS SECTION.
NO. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, THEN WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE PORTION OF MOTION. I HAD A QUESTION.
WHAT IS THE TOTAL CUMULATIVE AMOUNT OF YEARS THAT A PERSON CAN SERVE? YEAH. YEAH. I THINK THAT WE WE GET INTO THAT INTO THE WHAT SECTION IS THAT.
SO THERE'S TERM LIMITS IS IN 3.03.
AND THEN THERE'S CUMULATIVE SERVICE. THAT'S THE POINT ZERO SECTION.
SO WE'LL GET TO IT. BUT IT'S 16 YEARS.
YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO SHOULD WE DISCUSS THESE THAT SHE JUST MENTIONED.
RIGHT. SO WE'RE MOVING INTO THE, THE THE PORTION OF THE OF MAKING A MOTION.
SO SHE'S MADE A RECOMMENDATION.
AND THERE ARE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS OUT THERE. NOW AT THIS POINT SHE CAN MAKE A MOTION. AND THEN IF WE GET A SECOND THEN WE'LL GO INTO DISCUSSION FOR ALL THREE.
SHE THE THE UNDERSTANDING WE HAVE IS MAKING THE MOTION SEPARATELY.
SO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON EACH ITEM.
SO THAT WAY THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO AGREE WITH SOME AND NOT OTHERS.
[01:20:01]
OKAY. SO MY FIRST MOTION IS I WOULD LIKE TO MOTION FOR THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE IF RESIDING IN AN ANNEXED AREA OF THE CITY.THAT AREA MUST BE PART OF THE CITY FOR 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE CANDIDATE IS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. SHE GOT BEFORE YOU, RANDALL.
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, DISCUSSION IS OPEN.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION.
SO WHEN GRANT WAS SPEAKING ABOUT RESIDENCY, CAN CAN YOU DEFINE WHAT RESIDENCY IS AND HOW A CANDIDATE CAN. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF THERE'S A LOT OF CASE LAW ON WHAT RESIDENCY IS.
THAT'S ONGOING. IT'S USUALLY PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
AND THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS ON WHAT'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE SO THAT IT'S VERY HARD TO DEFINE WHAT RESIDENCY IS.
SO MAYBE WE SHOULD TIGHTEN THIS UP BECAUSE AND I'M, I'M GOING TO BE I'M. I JUST SAY WHAT I WANT TO SAY.
SO THERE WAS A CANDIDATE WHO RAN FOR MAYOR, AND THEY THE RESIDENCE WAS THEIR FATHER'S APARTMENT.
THERE THERE WAS NO WAY TO HE THAT PERSON WASN'T ON A LEASE OR ON ANYTHING, BUT ALL THEY HAD TO SAY WAS THEY LIVED THERE.
THAT'S NOT DECLARING. I DON'T SEE IT AS DECLARING RESIDENCY.
I I'M OPPOSED TO ANYTHING THAT I DON'T LIKE THIS LANGUAGE BECAUSE TYPICALLY AN ANNEXED AREA HAS BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF BEING ANNEXED FOR YEARS.
IF YOU'VE BEEN THE RESIDENT OF A COUNTY ZONE THAT'S IN ANNEX FOR 20 YEARS, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO TELL THEM THAT NOW YOU'RE YOU OWE TAXES.
YOU YOU. RIGHT. SO THAT'S TAXATION.
AND YOU CAN'T RUN FOR OFFICE FOR A YEAR.
I'M OPPOSED TO THAT. IF, IF AT THE MOMENT THAT WE SAY THAT YOU'RE NOW PART OF THE CITY, YOU GOT TO START PAYING TAXES.
IF YOU'VE LIVED IN THAT HOUSE FOR LONGER THAN A YEAR, YOU'RE A RESIDENT AND YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE. THAT'S MY OPINION. SO.
I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I THINK EITHER WAY, WE HAVE TO CLARIFY.
SO I THINK WE EITHER HAVE TO SAY THEY CAN RUN AND THEY ARE ELIGIBLE OR THEY CAN'T RUN AND THEY ARE NOT ELIGIBLE.
BUT I THINK IF WE DON'T CLARIFY, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND GRANT SAYING IS THE LAW WILL DEFAULT TO THEM NOT BEING ELIGIBLE.
YEAH. SO I MEAN, IT'S YOU HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF, OF THIS STATE AND THEN ALSO OF THE MUNICIPALITY FOR AT LEAST CURRENTLY 12 MONTHS. SO, I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT A RESIDENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY UNTIL YOU'RE ANNEXED IN AND PAYING, YOU KNOW, CITY TAXES, YOU'RE PART OF THE MUNICIPALITY. SO I THINK IT'S A IT'S A SITUATION THAT MAY COME UP.
IS LANDS BEING ANNEXED IN. BUT I THINK THE CURRENT RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT WOULD ALREADY COVER THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOUR FIRST RECOMMENDATION.
I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH DAVID.
BUT I ALSO AGREE WITH ALISON THAT IT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED IN THE CASE OF A NEWLY ANNEXED AREA.
JUST NOT ALLOWING THEM TO BE ABLE TO BUY IN OR EVEN CAMPAIGN OR EVEN EVEN BE REPRESENTED.
IT JUST SPEAKS TO ME. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
PRESENTATION. THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS STARTED. SO I IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AN EXTENT, I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE A BITE AT THE APPLE TOO, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE, THE, THE ATMOSPHERE BETWEEN THE ETH AND THE CITY IS ALREADY FRACTURED.
PUTTING SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE CHARTER IS GOING TO BE FRACTURED EVEN MORE.
IT IS NOT GOING TO REALLY GIVE ANYBODY ANY INCENTIVE TO EVER WANT TO BE ANNEXED IF THEY CAN BE PROPERLY REPRESENTED, BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE IN TJ HAVE BEEN, FOR THE MOST PART, PRINCETON RESIDENTS, NOT THE DEFINITION THAT WE CAN.
THEY'VE BEEN THEY'VE BEEN HERE LONGER THAN A LOT OF US HAVE. AND TO EXCLUDE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE COUNTY.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROPER REPRESENTATION OF THAT AREA THAT WE AS PRESENTLY ARE.
THE CITY COUNCIL IS PASSING ORDINANCES THAT AFFECT THEM.
SO TO NOW ANNEX THEM AND THEY STILL DON'T HAVE A SAY.
AND I THINK THAT'S JUST A SLAP IN THE FACE.
BUT TO ALLISON'S POINT, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, THAT IF THEY ARE AN EXTEND, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO RUN FOR COUNCILOR MAYOR, AGREE. BECAUSE AS YOU JUST MENTIONED, MARLO AND DAVID, AS YOU MENTIONED, IF THEY'RE IN THE AND GET ANNEXED IN,
[01:25:03]
THE MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS HAVE LIVED THERE SINCE THEY WERE BORN, AND THEY PROBABLY KNOW A LOT MORE ABOUT THE CITY THAN A LOT OF US DO, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT OPTION TO RUN FOR COUNCIL MAYOR.GREAT. SO YOU AGREE, RANDALL, YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL POINT TO ADD.
PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE EOG OR WHO ARE GOING THROUGH AN ANNEXATION PROCESS, WHEN DO THEY START PAYING TAXES TO THE CITY? I'M GOING TO DEFAULT THAT TO YOU BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MISSPEAK. I DON'T KNOW THE THE EXACT DATE, BUT I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S THE ANNEXATION BECOMES EFFECTIVE AFTER THERE'S AN ORDINANCE THAT'S PASSED THAT, YOU KNOW, PASSES BY COUNCIL.
AND THE OFFICIAL MAPS ARE UPDATED.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DATE FROM A, YOU KNOW, TAXING PERSPECTIVE, BUT I WOULD.
YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S THE TRIGGERING DATE, RIGHT? IS AFTER THE ORDINANCE THAT'S PASSED, ALLOWING THE ANNEXATION TO OCCUR AND EXTENDING THE CITY LIMITS.
IS YOUR IS YOUR TONE THERE, RANDALL, TO ESSENTIALLY LOOK AT IT FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF THAT THEY WOULD BECOME ELIGIBLE AT THE TIME THAT THE TAXATION STARTS. IS THAT WHERE YOU'RE HEADING WITH THAT? WELL, I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE.
IF THEY'RE PAYING TAXES TO AN ENTITY, THEY SHOULD HAVE REPRESENTATION WITHIN THAT ENTITY. AND IF THEY CAN HAVE REPRESENTATION, THEY SHOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE.
RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING LIKE FOR RIGHT NOW IN THE DOJ, DOES ANYBODY LIVING IN THE DOJ ACTUALLY PAY TAXES TO THE CITY? THEY'RE GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE.
YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT'S A SHARED SENTIMENT BY MARLO TO CAPITALIZE ON DAVID.
YEAH. YEAH. GOOD. I THINK THAT'S A SHARED SENTIMENT.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK OBVIOUSLY ALLISON, YOU WERE THE ONE THAT MADE THE MOTION.
SO SO THE ONE THING THAT I THINK I'M FINE WITH IT GOING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, BUT I THINK THAT ONE THING THAT I WOULD PREFER IS THAT THAT PERSON STILL LIVES IN THAT ANNEXED AREA FOR AT LEAST 12 MONTHS, BECAUSE THEN THEY'RE STILL INVESTED IN THE CITY BECAUSE THEY'VE LIVED IN LIKE THE TJ FOR 12 MONTHS, JUST LIKE THEY LIVED IN THE CITY FOR 12 MONTHS.
SO THEY'RE STILL. BUT HAVEN'T THEY ALREADY LIVED IN THAT? WHAT HAVEN'T THEY ALREADY? IF THEY. SO THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT.
THEY CAN'T JUST MOVE INTO AN AREA AND THEN IMMEDIATELY RUN FOR MAYOR FOR THE MAYOR'S POSITION A MONTH AFTER THE ANNEXATION, SO THAT THEY AT LEAST SHOULD RESIDE IN THAT AREA FOR 12 YEARS. CURRENT STATE AS IT'S LISTED IN THE HRC.
THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR YOU TO BE A RESIDENT, NO MATTER HOW AMBIGUOUS THAT IS FOR CASE LAW.
FOR 12 MONTHS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SOLVE FOR IS THAT THEY ARE THEY'RE NOT MOVING INTO THE DAY ONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
YOU JUST GOT HERE, RIGHT? I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, HONESTLY. SO I'LL JUST PROVIDE SOME MORE. SO.
SO STATE LAW SAYS YOU HAVE TO RESIDE IN THE TERRITORY FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS, SO YOU'RE NOT PART OF THE CITY'S TERRITORY UNTIL YOU'RE ANNEXED IN.
RIGHT. SO THAT'S THAT'S STATE LAW.
THAT'S GOT TO BE AT LEAST SIX MONTHS. SO WE HAVE A AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, 12 MONTH RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT. SO MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT IS, IS IF YOU'RE ANNEXED IN YOU BECOME PART OF THE CITY'S TERRITORY.
ONCE YOU'RE ANNEXED IN AND YOU'RE NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE UNTIL AFTER YOU'VE BEEN ANNEXED IN FOR A YEAR.
THAT'S THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CURRENT WAY THE CHARTER IS WRITTEN, NOT IS THAT STATE LAW, BUT WITH THE STATE LAW RESTRICTION OF SIX.
YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN SIX MONTHS, SIX MONTHS.
SO WE COULD YOU GUYS COULD REDUCE THE 12 MONTH RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO SIX MONTHS, BUT WE CAN'T. I MEAN, STATE LAW SAYS THEY HAVE TO BE LIVING WITHIN THE TERRITORY. GOTCHA.
AND THEY'RE NOT IN THE TERRITORY TO THEY'RE ANNEXED IN.
GOT YOU. RIGHT. JUST BECAUSE YOU READ.
I'M GOING DOWN THE QUEUE. WE HAVE RANDALL AND THEN WE HAVE JOSE.
OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO THOUGH AVOID MEETINGS.
POINT. THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE ABUSED RESIDENCY TO BE ABLE TO RUN FOR OFFICES. AND IN FACT, EVEN IN THIS STATE, WE'VE HAD POLITICAL PARTIES MOVE PEOPLE FROM OTHER PARTIES FROM OTHER STATES.
I'M SORRY. AND RUN AS A CANDIDATE FOR THAT PARTY TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH WHATEVER AGENDA THEY HAVE. AND THAT PERSON HAD LIVED THERE TWO WEEKS, AND THEY PUT THEM IN THAT TOWN FOR TWO WEEKS BECAUSE THAT TOWN HAS NO REGULATIONS.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THERE BE A RESIDENCY,
[01:30:02]
WHATEVER WE DEFINE AS RESIDENCY.IF THE STATE IS SIX MONTHS OR 12 MONTHS, I WOULD DEFINITELY WANT TO SEE SOME TIME LIMIT ASPECT OF THAT BECAUSE.
YOU KNOW, AND THE THE UNFORTUNATE OTHER SIDE, AS MAXINE MENTIONED, IS THAT ANYBODY IN THIS COUNTRY CAN GO TO WIKIPEDIA AND READ ABOUT PRINCETON AND WILL PROBABLY KNOW MORE ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL HISTORY THAN MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE LIVED HERE EVEN A LONG TIME.
AND IT'S NOT A GOOD REPORT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO AVOID ALL THAT FOR NOW, IN THE FUTURE? SURE. SURE.
SO I DID GET IT FROM ANOTHER CHARTER IN COLLIN COUNTY.
AND IT DID SPECIFICALLY SAY THAT IF THEY WERE ANNEXED IN, THEY COULD THEY COULD IMMEDIATELY VOTE, OR AFTER 12 MONTHS, THEY COULD RUN. AND IT WAS IMMEDIATELY AS LONG AS THEY LIVED IN THE NEXT AREA WITHIN 12. YEAH. I'LL LOOK INTO IT.
I'LL, I'LL FIND OUT WHICH ONE IT WAS AND I'LL EMAIL YOU.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE, BUT I'LL LOOK AT TRYING.
I'M TRYING TO GOOGLE IT NOW, BUT IF I FIND IT. SURE.
GO AHEAD. WELL, THE QUESTION I HAD WAS, I MEAN, I GUESS IT IS KIND OF ANSWERED WITH WHAT SHE SAID, BUT BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK, SUPPOSE, YOU KNOW COME ELECTION DAY, THERE'S AN 80, IT GETS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.
DOES IT GET ANNEXED IMMEDIATELY OR DOES IT, YOU KNOW, IS THERE YOU KNOW, STARTING MARCH 1ST, THEY BECOME PART OF THE CITY.
HOW DOES THAT WORK? YEAH, IT'S TYPICALLY RIGHT.
RIGHT AFTER THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED IN THE THE CITY MAP IS EXTENDED.
THERE'S THERE'S SOME NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, BUT PRETTY SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
OKAY. BECAUSE MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE THEN BECAUSE THE THE WORDING IS 12 MONTHS IMMEDIATELY. PRECEDING.
LOOKS LIKE. I KNOW DAVID, YOU'RE UP NEXT.
RANDALL, CAN YOU BACK OUT SO WE CAN LET HIM FINISH HIS STATEMENT AND WE'LL GET YOU BACK IN Q. ALL RIGHT. YES, I LOVE YOU.
I LOVE YOU, GRANT. BUT HOLD ON, DAVID, I WANT TO LET YOU FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.
YEAH, HE WAS JUST WRAPPING UP HIS THOUGHT, AND HE GOT. YEAH. SO I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY YOU KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IT WAS THAT.
BECAUSE IF IF IT WAS THE, YOU KNOW, UNTIL MARCH 1ST, THEN WE'RE OPENING UP THAT THEY CAN'T VOTE FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, ALMOST TWO YEARS NOW. SO.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT PAGES AND PAGES OF STUFF POPPING UP HERE TO DISCUSS THIS, BUT THE TWO THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING TYPICALLY TAX YEAR START THE FIRST THE 1ST OF JANUARY. RIGHT. AND TRADITIONALLY MOST PLACES TAXATION STARTS AT THE NEW YEAR.
I'M SURE WE COULD PROBABLY HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT DOES WHATEVER, BUT MOST PLACES STARTED STARTED THEN AS FAR AS THE RESIDENCY AND THE TERRITORY, STUFF LIKE I'M, I'M SEEING TONS OF STUFF FOR TEXAS WHERE IF YOU LIVED IN THE TERRITORY AND THAT TERRITORIES ANNEXED YOUR TIME IN THAT TERRITORY COUNTS.
SO I. I LIKE I SAID, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN THE CHART.
SO I'LL LOOK INTO IT. I KNOW THERE'S, THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF ANNEXATION. RIGHT.
IF IT'S LIMITED PURPOSE, I KNOW YOU'RE IMMEDIATELY ELIGIBLE FOR OFFICE, BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF ANNEXATION. SO JUST JUST IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY ON SECTION 3.02 WHY DON'T WE IF WE MAKE THE WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD THE MOTION AND I'LL LOOK INTO IT A LITTLE BIT MORE AND LET YOU GUYS KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I HAVEN'T, I, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN A CHARTER.
NOT TO SAY IT'S NOT OUT THERE, BUT I'LL LOOK LOOK INTO IT AND MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT'S CONTRARY TO STATE LAW, OBVIOUSLY. BUT I THINK IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND AND MAYBE ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR A VOTE AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
SO BASED ON THE FEEDBACK, I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW MY ORIGINAL MOTION AND I DON'T KNOW WHO SECOND IN IT.
I DID ALL WITHDRAW FOR A SECOND.
AND THEN I'M GOING TO RE MOTION TO SAY THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE MAYORAL OR CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE, IF RESIDING IN AN ANNEXED AREA OF THE CITY, MUST HAVE RESIDED IN THAT AREA FOR 12 OR MORE MONTHS BEFORE THE CANDIDATE IS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. OKAY, WE GOT AMISHA ON MIC AS A SECOND.
WITH THAT BEING THAT IT'S A NEW MOTION, HOPEFULLY THERE'S NO DISCUSSION. IF NOT, WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND DO A VOTE.
[01:35:02]
ALL RIGHT. I DID A QUICK ONCE OVER. ALL RIGHT, SO IF YOU WANT TO VOTE YES, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.WITH THAT BEING SAID, FOR RECOMMENDATIONS, I BELIEVE YOU HAD ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS IF YOU WANT TO. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO THAT THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE MUST BE CURRENT ON ALL TAXES AND LIABILITIES DUE TO THE CITY OF PRINCETON BEFORE THE CANDIDATE IS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT MOTION.
WITH THAT, IT OPENS IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
YEAH. BRIEFLY. GRANT, WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES I'VE HEARD? AD VALOREM TAXES. WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF TAXES AND LIABILITIES? I DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT MIGHT BE OWED.
YEAH. I MEAN, PROPERTY TAXES IS THE ONE THAT COMES TO MIND.
LIABILITIES. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT VAGUE IN MY OPINION.
YOU KNOW, PERMIT FEES YOU KNOW, COULD BE I MEAN, A NUMBER, A NUMBER OF THINGS, ANY, ANY, ANY FEE THAT THE CITY HAS OUTSTANDING. YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, MAYBE CITATION CODE ENFORCEMENT RELATED MATTERS LIABILITY IS A LITTLE BIT VAGUE.
I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
BUT, I MEAN, I'LL LOOK, AND I THINK YOU MENTIONED MAYBE FRISCO HAS IT, SO I'LL LOOK AND SEE HOW HOW THEY HAVE IT.
COULD IT BE LIKE EVEN A PARKING TICKET OR SOMETHING? YEAH, IT COULD BE. YEAH.
THANKS. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS ONE STRIKES ME SIMILAR TO A POLL TAX.
IF YOU'RE IN LITIGATION WITH THE CITY OR SOMETHING ELSE REGARDING ANY KIND OF A LIABILITY, SAYING THAT SOMEBODY CAN'T RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE OR THEY CAN'T VOTE OR THEY CAN'T DO WHATEVER IS A CITIZEN THAT THAT'S I THINK THAT'S CLOSE TO BEING AN AMERICAN.
SO YOU'RE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IF IF YOU HAVE A VIOLATION OR SOMETHING THAT STEMS AND REQUIRES YOU TO FAIL AN ETHICS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.
I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING THAT'S NOT FINALIZED OR LITIGATED SHOULD BE ABLE TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM RUNNING FOR OFFICE.
SO THAT'S JUST MY OPINION, BECAUSE ALSO, CORRECT ME IF THE CITY LIBRARY, IF YOU HAVE A I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT IF YOU HAD A LIBRARY, FINE, THAT WOULD FALL UNDER OWING THE CITY MONEY AND YOU MIGHT OWE THE CITY THE LIBRARY $5. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
IT'S KIND OF AN UNDEFINED, NEVER ENDING.
SO, YOU KNOW. WITH WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND.
I GUESS WE CAN MOVE ON UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION POINTS. RANDY, I SEE YOUR MIC ON. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION ITEM. IT MIGHT BE WISE TO INCLUDE SOMETHING REGARDING LITIGATION BECAUSE THAT COULD BE OVER FINES THAT ARE DUE.
BUT IF PEOPLE DON'T PAY THEIR LIBRARY $5, FINE.
I'M NOT REALLY THRILLED ABOUT THEM RUNNING FOR MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL IF THEY'RE.
I REALIZE THAT MAY BE PETTY, BUT WHAT ELSE ARE THEY AVOIDING? BUT IF IT WAS MY CHILD.
I MEAN, YOU CAN GET DOWN DIRTY ON THIS.
YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS MY CHILD, IT GOES AGAINST ME.
WELL, LET'S SAY, FOR INSTANCE I'VE TAKEN OVER AN APARTMENT COMPLEX ON 380, AND I OWE $600,000 TO THE CITY OF UNPAID PREVIOUS FINES.
HOW ABOUT I RUN FOR MAYOR? I WILL SAY, AND I TRY TO TRY NOT TO ADD MY $0.02 TOO OFTEN, BUT MY PERSPECTIVE ON THIS IS I KIND OF AGREE WITH DAVID.
I THINK THAT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, ONE JUST IN MY TIME BEING IN THE CITY OF PRINCETON. IF YOU'RE RUNNING FOR MAYOR, GOOD LUCK ON HAVING, LIKE, SOMETHING THAT'S THAT EGREGIOUS, LIKE IT'S GOING TO COME OUT RIGHT.
AND WE'VE SEEN IT. AND THEN AND THEN WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE POLLS.
RIGHT. IF, IF WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S IT'S MORE THAN LIKELY WHAT WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO COME OUT. RIGHT. AND SO THEN THE PEOPLE WILL MAKE A DECISION AT THE POLLS.
AND THAT'S WHERE I HONESTLY LIKE TO LEAVE THAT AT IS MY $0.02.
I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN IT OVER THE LAST MAYOR OR RIGHT, THE LAST ELECTION, HOW MUCH STUFF WAS OUT ON FACEBOOK ABOUT BOTH MAYORS, FOR SURE. YOU KNOW, BUT BUT SOMETHING I WANT US TO CONSIDER IS IT'S MY OBSERVATION THAT
[01:40:04]
THE THAT THE MORAL COMPASS OF THIS ROOM IS IN GENERAL AGREEMENT, BUT WE CAN'T SAY THAT THAT WILL ALWAYS BE TRUE OF THE PEOPLE WHO RUN FOR FUTURE OFFICE.AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF ADDRESSING THAT.
AND SO, FOR INSTANCE, DAVID'S POINT ABOUT LITIGATION.
YOU KNOW, I THINK. WHY? YOU'RE MIKE. YOU'RE MIKE. SORRY.
THANK YOU. I DO LIKE ALISON'S MOTION.
YOU KNOW, AND CERTAINLY THE THE SPIRIT OF IT.
WE MAY HAVE TO GET INTO THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF LIABILITIES AND STUFF.
MAYBE IT MIGHT BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO TABLE THIS AFTER SHE AND GRANT GET TOGETHER AND THAT CALL, THAT CALL.
BE ON HER. WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND. SO I THINK AT THIS POINT, JUST DISCUSSION ITEMS AND IF THERE'S NO OTHER LIKE, ITEMS TO ADD AS FAR AS THE DISCUSSION, WE CAN JUST GO THROUGH THE VOTING PROCESS AND SEE HOW EVERYONE ELSE FEELS WITHIN THE ROOM. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID IF YOU WANT TO VOTE YES TOWARDS THE THE MOTION.
ALL RIGHT. SO THAT MOTION FAILED.
OKAY. AND THE LAST ONE IS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE MAYOR SAID A CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE CAN NOT FILE A RUN FOR MORE THAN ONE OFFICE DURING THE SAME ELECTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. THAT OPENS US UP FOR DISCUSSION. I WANT TO START.
GRANT, WHY DO I FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT THAT? OKAY.
DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? YEAH. YEAH. I OPENED THE DISCUSSION, SO I ASKED GRANT A QUESTION.
I HAVE A QUESTION. ACTUALLY, A QUESTION REGARDING THE MOTION. MORE THAN ONE MUNICIPAL OFFICE. JODY.
JODI. SO? SO SHE HAD A FIRST AND A SECOND.
AND THEN WHAT I DID WAS I ACTUALLY OPENED WITH THE DISCUSSION AND SAID THAT I JUMPED IN FIRST TO KIND OF ASK A QUESTION TO GRANT. SO I HAD A QUESTION TO GRANT, AND I'LL COME RIGHT BACK TO YOU. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. NO WORRIES. NO WORRIES. WHAT YOU SAID. OKAY. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.
TYPICALLY WHEN YOU FILE FOR YOU HAVE TO SPECIFY THE PLACE YOU'RE RUNNING FOR SO YOU CAN'T RUN FOR, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN.
BUT I DO THINK MR. SUTHERLAND'S POINT IS VALID BECAUSE I THINK IT SAID MORE THAN ONE OFFICE. JUST KIND OF DEFINE WHETHER THAT'S MUNICIPAL OFFICE.
STATE OFFICE. BUT, I MEAN, A LOT OF THIS I THINK THE INTENT BEHIND THIS RECOMMENDATION IS COVERED UNDER THE ELECTION CODE.
GOOD, GOOD. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? RANDALL, DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE IT? DO WE WANT TO INCLUDE IT ANYWAYS IN CASE THE ELECTION CODE CHANGES? THAT MY PERSONAL OPINION IS.
YEAH. IT'S THE. IT'S THE NIGHT.
RIGHT. WE CAN SUPERSEDE THE LAW.
BUT WHO KNOWS WHAT. THE ELECTION CODE COULD BE.
YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GOOD THERE.
GO AHEAD. ALISON. I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION.
ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONLY MINUTES BECAUSE WE'VE GONE THROUGH A BUNCH OF CONVERSATIONS. THOSE WERE ONLY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SECTION THAT UP TO THIS POINT.
YEP. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. CORRECT.
ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATION BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT HERE? IT IS PAST TIME.
IT'S TECHNICALLY THE CLOSING TIME. WE'VE GOTTEN TO QUALIFICATIONS SECTION 3.02.
AT THIS RATE, WE MAY NOT MAKE IT TO OUR DEADLINE IN TIME.
GO AHEAD. BUT THIS IS WHAT'S GOOD.
THANK YOU FOR GOING OVER THIS AND DOING THESE THINGS.
SO BEING THAT WE HAVE THIS UP FRONT.
IT GIVES US TIME AT HOME TO GO OVER ALL OF THESE ITEMS, KIND OF TYPE OUT OUR OWN THINGS, AS YOU WERE STATING EARLIER.
IT MAY MOVE A LITTLE FASTER NOW THAT WE HAVE SOME KIND OF ORGANIZATION.
SO I DON'T WANT US TO FEEL LIKE WE'RE NOT GETTING ANYWHERE BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE JUST LET'S JUST BRING ALL OF OUR STUFF TO THE TABLE.
SO FOR HER TO GO OUT AND DO THIS ON YOUR OWN TIME AND PRESENT IT TO US,
[01:45:01]
WE CAN LOOK AT THE STUFF THAT YOU HAVE, KIND OF THINK ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY, PUT OUR NOTES IN.AND IT MAYBE IT WILL SPEED UP THE PROCESS.
WELL, THAT WAS SOMETHING WE ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED LAST WEEK, AND I KNOW ALLISON MADE COPIES FOR EVERYBODY.
LIKE I HAVE ALL MY NOTES HERE.
OKAY. SO SO THAT'S NOT TO CUT YOU OFF OR CUT IT SHORT.
WE'RE IN THE WE'RE ON THE TAIL END OF THIS.
SO WE'LL MAKE SURE THE FORMAT IS SENT OUT SO EVERYONE'S CLEAR AS TO HOW THIS GOES GOING FORWARD. WE DO HAVE TO GRANT.
WE DO HAVE TO HASH OUT ITEM H4 WHICH IS SELECTING THE DATE FOR THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE WE ONLY SELECTED UP TO TODAY.
SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT ITEM UP.
SO THAT WAY WE CAN GO AHEAD AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
SO THE NEXT ITEM THAT WE'LL BE COVERING IS H4 2025122.
[H.4 2025-122 Consider selecting the dates and times of future Committee meetings; and take appropriate action.]
CONSIDER SELECTING THE DATES AND TIMES FOR A FUTURE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. WITH THAT GRANT, I BELIEVE WE ASKED THAT WE BE PRESENTED WITH SOME TANGIBLE DATES. YEAH.DID WE WERE WE ABLE TO GET A CALENDAR? WE REQUESTED THAT THEY COME BACK WITH TANGIBLE DATES. RIGHT. GIVE US OPTIONS. YEAH.
AMBER IS GOING TO GIVE HER JUST A SECOND.
SHOW OFF ALL THE DATES THAT ARE BLOCKED OFF. WHY? SHE'S DOING THAT. FOR THOSE THAT MAY HAVE MISSED THE LAST MEETING AND DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW. WE DID MOVE TO WEEKLY.
NOW IT'S JUST DETERMINING WHAT DATE.
I REMEMBER MYSELF SPECIFICALLY SAYING, COULD YOU AMBER, ASK, IS IT ARE WE STICKING? ARE WE SET ON WEDNESDAYS OR JUST KIND OF ANY CITY? YEAH. CAN YOU REFRESH THAT FOR US, GRANT? BECAUSE WE CAN'T HEAR AMBER. YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY ARE WE.
IS THE COMMITTEE SET ON STICKING WITH WITH WEDNESDAYS OR I THINK IT'S WHERE WE START OFF AT. I WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE, BUT I THINK WE ARE OPEN TO WHATEVER AVAILABLE DATES, BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S MOVING PIECES IN REGARDS TO LIKE CDC AND THOSE OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE'RE BRINGING THAT WERE CAUGHT UP BEFORE. SO THAT WAS WHERE WE WERE WHERE WE WERE AT BEFORE WAS WEDNESDAY.
SO IF THERE IF THERE IS JASON, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT, BUT THERE IS ONE ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 9TH ALREADY.
THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT AMBER IS SAYING IS THAT THERE'S THERE'S ALL THEY'RE SAYING THAT THERE'S ALREADY WE'RE ALREADY ON THE CALENDAR FOR JULY 9TH.
THERE'S THERE'S A BUT I THOUGHT LAST WEEK WE WERE TOLD THERE WAS A CONFLICT.
THERE I WAS THINKING THAT THEY ARE, BUT.
I'M GOING TO TRY TO TO REPHRASE THAT BASED OFF WHAT I HEARD, WE HAVE JULY 9TH. THERE'S A CONFLICT FOR THE FOLLOWING WEEK THAT WEDNESDAY, WHICH I BELIEVE SHE SAID IT'S THE 16TH AND THEN THE FOLLOWING WEEK WE'RE ON THE CALENDAR ALREADY, SO WE WOULD NEED TO FIGURE OUT A GAP FOR THE WEEK OF THE 16TH THAT WE ORIGINALLY OR NOT. WE DIDN'T ORIGINALLY, BUT THE WEEK WE NEED TO FILL IN FOR.
SO IS EVERYONE GOOD WITH THE NINTH AND THE 23RD REMAINING? I WON'T BE HERE FOR THE NINTH.
OKAY. THAT'S FINE. DO WE HAVE ALTERNATE DATES THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THAT WEEK OF THE 16TH? SORRY, WE'RE WE'RE LOOKING INTO IT.
OKAY. THANKS, GRANT. I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION.
SINCE I WON'T BE HERE THE NINTH, DOES THAT MEAN THAT MY SECOND IS KIND OF LIKE NULL AND VOID FOR THE FOR THE ACTION ITEM THREE, THE FOR? BECAUSE I HAD SECONDED.
OH, YEAH. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE ONE THAT I.
YEAH. I BASICALLY EVEN THOUGH I SAID I TABLED IT.
IT'S A WITHDRAWAL. SO I WOULD HAVE TO MAKE IT A BRAND NEW MOTION.
THANK YOU. I MEAN, FOR THE SAKE OF TIME.
ARE WE JUST. ARE WE GOOD? FOR SURE. ON THE NINTH.
OKAY. BECAUSE IF WE ARE, THEN WE CAN LET THESE PEOPLE GET HOME, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND SORT OUT THE REST.
BECAUSE THERE'S I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION.
THE CDC HAS MOVED THEIR MEETINGS BACK AND FORTH, SO MAYBE WE COULD GO GO FORWARD WITH THE NINTH AND THEN HAVE A RECOMMENDATION.
IF THE NINTH IS UNAVAILABLE, THEN THE BACKUP DATE IS ALMOST LIKE A RECOMMEND THE NINTH. AND IF THAT'S UNAVAILABLE, THEN ANOTHER DAY AND WE'LL WE'LL SEND OUT THE THE MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA SO YOU GUYS WILL HAVE IT.
[01:50:04]
BUT MAYBE JUST SO EVERYONE CAN, CAN GO HOME RIGHT.NO. RIGHT. SO THE BACKUP DATE WOULD BE CHOOSING.
CHOSEN AFTER. AFTER WE ADJOURN HERE TONIGHT.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET ONE OF THOSE DATES RIGHT NOW? I WOULD GET THE DATES RIGHT NOW. JUST BUT DO WE KNOW WHAT'S TANGIBLE? THAT'S MY MY QUESTION IS, LIKE, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED LAST TIME WAS I WOULD I'M GOING TO GUESS THE 10TH IS AVAILABLE.
THE 10TH IS THAT THE 10TH WOULD BE.
YEAH. SO THE EIGHTH AND NINTH IS IS BLOCKED OFF FOR EVENING MEETING.
AND THEN SO THE 15TH AND 16TH WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
BUT THERE IS A SO THE 10TH, YOU SAID THE 10TH IS AVAILABLE.
SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SOLVING FOR IS WE ARE ON THE BOOKS FOR THE NINTH, JUST IN CASE THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
AND THERE'S A CONFLICT FROM THE FROM A BOARD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WE'RE SOLVING FOR A BACKUP DATE TO BE ABLE TO, TO MEET ON. SO I'M HEARING THE 10TH IS AVAILABLE.
ALL RIGHT. SO ANYONE HAVE ISSUES WITH THE 10TH AT SIX AS A BACK UP? IF THE NINTH IS NOT. I WILL NOT.
THAT'S THE THAT'S THE NINTH IS ON THE CALENDAR.
YES. YEAH. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE ON THE CALENDAR.
I MEAN, I WON'T I WON'T BE HERE AT ALL FOR THE WEEK.
SO. GOT YOU. IF WE MOVE TO THE 10TH, I WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A BOARD MEETING.
WE HAVE A A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WON'T BE AVAILABLE FOR THE 10TH.
JUST REAL QUICK, JUST SO I CAN SEE WHAT THE THE MASS IMPACT IS.
SHOW OF HANDS. WHO WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR THE 10TH IF WE DID THE 10TH? ONE. TWO. THREE. FOUR.
SO IS THAT FOUR PEOPLE? I THINK GIVEN OUR I GUESS YOU'RE RIGHT, GIVEN OUR OUR CURRENT ATTENDANCE.
I THINK THAT'S PRETTY, PRETTY SPICY THERE.
SO I'M SORRY, CAN I JUST ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? MAYBE I JUST DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE I COULDN'T HEAR AMBER TOO WELL.
I'M LOOKING AT THE CITY CALENDAR AND FOR JULY 9TH ON THE CITY CALENDAR AND ON THE FACEBOOK PAGE, IT SAYS WE'RE HAVING A MEETING.
SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE NINTH ISN'T GOOD.
AMBER. WELL, WE WEREN'T, SO WE WERE ORIGINALLY GOING TO HAVE IT.
WE HAD SCHEDULED FOR 15TH AND 16TH.
WELL, THAT BECAME AN ISSUE FOR CDC AND EDC.
WE'RE MOVING TO THE THIRD WEEK OF EVERY MONTH.
WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THEIR MEETING ON THE EIGHTH AND NINTH.
SO WE ENDED UP THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW.
THAT'S WHY WE CAN'T DO IT ON THE NINTH.
BUT WE ARE. SO THE WE WERE LOCKED IN FOR THE NIGHT, AND THEN THEY'RE MOVING AND NOW WE'RE BEING BUMPED IS ESSENTIALLY THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. IS THAT IS THAT ACCURATE? BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR AND IT SAYS THE EDC IS THE 15TH. AND CDC IS THE 16TH.
THEY HAVEN'T UPDATED. AND I AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE REASON THEY HAD TO SWITCH IT IS BECAUSE THE COMP PLAN DATES ARE THE EVENING OF THE 16TH.
SO THEY COULDN'T USE THOSE DATES.
SO THEY HAD TO MOVE TO JULY 9TH.
OKAY. I THINK AT THIS POINT YEAH, WE DON'T CONTROL LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE CITY MANAGER LEVEL. LIKE NONE OF US IN HERE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT THE CDC CAN'T MEET. RIGHT. SO I THINK THE NEXT STEP IS TO TRY TO FIND ANOTHER ANOTHER DATE.
AND THEN WE CAN ALL BLOW UP MIKE'S OR WHOEVER'S EMAIL ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE GETTING BUMPED FROM THE DATE. SO THE 10TH IS IS NOT GOING TO WORK FOR THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE HERE. WHAT'S THE OTHER DATES THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THAT WEEK? OH, IT'S NOT NOTHING ELSE UNTIL THE NEXT WEEK.
WHAT ABOUT JULY 7TH? IT'S BOOKED.
THERE'S NOTHING ON THE CALENDAR.
THERE'S A FIRE AND ICE EVENT FROM 9 TO 11 A.M..
JULY 7TH? YEAH. I MEAN, I DON'T SEE ANY CONFLICT.
OKAY. YEAH, I THINK THAT WORKS.
SHOW OF HANDS. FOR THOSE THAT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH.
MONDAY, JULY 7TH. THE SIXTH WILL BE OUR ALTERNATE.
I'M SORRY, I JUST SAID THAT OUT LOUD.
WE HAVE TO. WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.
I'M JUST TRYING TO GET US OUT OF HERE. ALL RIGHT, SO THAT THAT IS THE CURRENT DATE THAT WORKS. WE ONLY HAVE ONE PERSON CURRENTLY HERE THAT THAT IS AN ISSUE FOR US. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE IN APPROVAL FOR MONDAY, JULY 7TH BEING OUR ALTERNATE. IF THE NINTH DOESN'T WORK AND I'M GOING TO CONNECT WITH GRANT AND MIKE AND TRY
[01:55:02]
TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THE NINTH TO WORK.I KNOW, I KNOW, YOU ALL PUT YOUR HAND UP ONCE FOR ME.
YEAH. THANKS. OKAY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FAVORITE PART, WHICH IS SECTION J. WE JUST HANDLED THE WELL I'M SORRY ITEM I REPORTED TO THE NEXT HRC REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING IS GOING TO BE SET CURRENTLY FOR THE NINTH AT 6 P.M.,
[I. REPORT AGENDA]
TENTATIVELY FOR THE SEVENTH AT 6 P.M..AND WE WILL ENSURE THAT COMMUNICATION GOES OUT TO CONFIRM TO YOU GUYS WHICH OF THOSE DATES IS THE ONE THAT'S LOCKED IN.
THAT MOVES US TO OUR LAST ITEM, ITEM J ADJOURNMENT.
IF YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT FOR A JOURNEY,
YOU CAN WALK OUT. IF NOT, YOU CAN STAY HERE UNTIL PRINCETON PD PUTS YOU OUT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.