Apr 04, 2023 City Council on 2023-04-04 2:00 PM

[00:00:02]

AND WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL.

[WORK SESSION]

WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, SO I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AND THE FIRST THING ON THE MAKE SURE I GET THIS RIGHT.

FIRST THING IS CITIZEN COMMENT.

WE DO HAVE ONE, SO IF YOU CAN COME TO THE PODIUM.

COUNCIL MEMBER AHMED, FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER AMATEUR, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES.

IN. IS IT 4 OR 3? IT'S. LET ME GET THERE.

THREE. OKAY.

AND I'LL KEEP THE TIME.

GO RIGHT AHEAD. OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO I AM DEB ARMENTOR 2003 MR WOOD LANE AND DENTON.

AND I'M SPEAKING HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF DECRIMINALIZED DENTON.

I'M IN FAVOR WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE FOR THE FOR 20 FESTIVAL.

AND I'M HOPING THAT WHEN THAT COMES UP, IF IT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE PULLED FOR A DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS.

BUT IF IT IS, I HOPE THAT YOU ALL ARE CONSIDERING THAT THIS IS THE FIRST FOR 20 SINCE DENTON PASSED ITS HISTORIC ORDINANCE, PROPOSITION B, 71%, AS YOU KNOW, OF THE PUBLIC, VOTED IN FAVOR OF IT.

AND COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS'S DISTRICT, ABOUT 80 TO 83%, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BIRDSEYE DISTRICT ABOUT 75%.

AND AND COUNCIL MEMBER BEX DISTRICT ALSO ABOUT 75%.

AND THEN IN DISTRICT FOUR, WE DON'T HAVE REPRESENTATION RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT WAS ABOUT 61%.

SO VAST MAJORITY IN EVERY DISTRICT, AS YOU KNOW, DELTA EIGHT AND OTHER HEMP PRODUCTS WHICH ARE LEGAL EVEN WITHOUT PROPOSITION B HAVE THE EXACT SAME SMELL AS POT, WHICH IS ILLEGAL STATEWIDE.

AS YOU ALSO KNOW, PROPOSITION B CALLS FOR THE DECRIMINALIZATION OF MISDEMEANOR AMOUNTS AMONG A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING PREVENTING POLICE FROM USING THE SMELL TEST.

SO I HOPE THAT COUNCIL WILL ASK QUESTIONS AND RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF ASSURANCES ATTENDEES OF THIS FESTIVAL CAN HAVE THAT POLICE ARE NOT GOING TO BE USING THE SMELL TEST ON THEM BECAUSE IT WOULD EITHER COST THE CITY A LOT OF MONEY IN THC TESTING, WHICH AGAIN PROP B PROHIBITS OR IT WILL REALLY RAIN ON THIS PARADE, YOU KNOW, QUITE LITERALLY WHEN THERE ARE GOING TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE ENJOYING LEGAL DELTA EIGHT, BUT IT'S GOING TO SMELL LIKE POT.

SO AND IT'D BE NICE FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE SOME SORT OF ASSURANCE OF THAT.

AND THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

THAT TAKES US TO OUR NEXT SECTION, WHICH IS REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION ON AGENDA ITEMS FOR COUNCIL ANY ANY REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION FROM COUNCIL.

[2. Requests for clarification of agenda items listed on this agenda]

COME ON. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, BUT IT'S ON ITEM F.

COULD. COULD STAFF PLEASE GET US A COPY OF THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN? I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE BACKUP. IF THEY COULD JUST ADD SOME NEAR-TERM FUTURE POINT, PROVIDE US WITH THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT, BUT I JUST WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE THE THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN.

AND THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT, SIR.

WE'LL GET IT. OH, COUNCILWOMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUST NEED TO PULL ITEM G FOR A RECUSAL, PLEASE.

THAT'S ON THE AGREEMENT.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION ON H.

IF WE COULD, PLEASE. I DON'T KNOW WHO COULD SPEAK TO IT.

JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION IN THE BACKUP ABOUT THE PREVIOUS EVENT AND NO COMPLAINTS.

THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. MY QUESTION IS, IT'S A THREE YEAR VARIANCE, I THINK.

BUT CAN WE MAKE IT? IS IT SUBJECT TO CHANGE? IS THAT ABLE TO BE DONE IF THERE ARE NOISE COMPLAINTS? SO ASSUMING THIS YEAR THERE'S NOT ANY, BUT IF THERE ARE, COULD WE THEN REVISIT THE THREE YEAR OR WOULD THE THREE YEAR STAND IRRESPECTIVE OF COMPLAINTS? SO NIKKI SASSENUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION.

[00:05:02]

THE EVENT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SPECIAL EVENT APPROVAL PROCESS EACH YEAR SO THIS DOESN'T EXEMPT THEM FROM THE OVERALL APPROVAL PROCESS.

SO IF THERE WERE ISSUES THIS YEAR, WE WOULD CERTAINLY ADDRESS THEM IN THE NEXT YEAR GOING FORWARD BEFORE THEY WERE TO GET THEIR PERMIT.

GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

IS IT ON THIS ITEM, COUNCILWOMAN WATTS? YES. OKAY. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

ALL RIGHT. SO I GUESS IS THE ANSWER TO THE MAYOR'S QUESTION THAT IF IT'S GRANTED A THREE YEAR EXCEPTION, THAT THAT CAN BE MODIFIED ON A YEAR TO YEAR BY YEAR TO YEAR BASIS.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE NOT LOCKED IN FOR THREE YEARS, THAT GETS LOOKED AT EVERY YEAR.

THE OVERALL PROCESS, THE SPECIAL EVENT APPROVAL PROCESS DOES GET LOOKED AT EACH YEAR.

THIS WOULD JUST NOT REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL COUNCIL ACTION NEXT YEAR FOR THE NOISE EXEMPTION PIECE COMPONENT OF THAT.

OKAY. SO THE ANSWER IS THEN IF SOMETHING HAPPENS AND AND THAT NEEDS TO BE REVISITED, WE'RE PROHIBITED FROM DOING THAT FOR THREE YEARS.

ON THE NOISE EXCEPTION ONLY.

OTHER WORDS, WE GRANT THIS TODAY ON THREE YEARS THAT'S LOCKED IN.

SUBSEQUENT COUNCILS CANNOT MODIFY THAT.

IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING, MR. CITY ATTORNEY? THAT'S INCORRECT.

THIS IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

IT'S NOT A PERMIT OR ANYTHING ELSE.

THE CITY COULD, IF THEY WANTED TO AMEND THAT ORDINANCE IN THE FUTURE IF THE COUNCIL SO DESIRED.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

THEN I WANT TO SPEAK ON.

I JUST WANT TO GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT'S DUE.

I DON'T KNOW WHO PUT TOGETHER OUR THAT JUST I APPRECIATE ALL THE BACK UP LOTS OF DETAIL AND ANSWERED A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

SO THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THEN WANT TO PULL ITEM M AND I DON'T WANT A STAFF MEMBER TO HAVE TO STAY.

IT COULD BE THE CITY CITY SECRETARY THAT PULLS IT UP.

BUT I JUST WANT TO I JUST I'M REQUESTING ONE SLIDE WITH THAT FIGURE OF COST TOTAL, THE NEW TOTAL COST TO BE ALMOST $1.5 MILLION.

SO IT'D JUST BE A SLIDE 1.5 MILLION AND I'LL HAVE COMMENTS THEN, BUT I'M GOING TO PULL M FOR INDIVIDUAL VOTE. AND THEN QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY ON L, I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT. AND SO FORGIVE ME IF I MISSED IT.

WHAT TYPE OF WORK IS HAYNES AND BOONE DOING FOR US THERE? THIS IS RELATED TO THE CORE SCIENTIFIC BANKRUPTCY CASE.

THEY'RE REPRESENTING US IN THE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION.

GOT IT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S IT.

THAT TAKES US TO OUR FIRST WORK SESSION, WHICH IS.

LET ME GET THERE. ITEM A, WHICH IS ID 23690 RECEIVE REPORT WHOLE

[A. ID 23-690 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Audit Project 031 -Recreation Facility Operations]

HELLO MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M MADISON RORSCHACH DENTON CITY AUDITOR.

I'M TRYING TO PULL UP THIS SLIDE.

PRESENTATION. I'M HERE TO PRESENT OUR FINDINGS FROM THE CITIES, OUR AUDIT OF THE RECREATION FACILITY OPERATIONS.

SO THIS AUDIT GENERALLY EVALUATED THE CONTROLS IMPLEMENTED TO ENSURE RECREATION PROGRAMS AND EMPLOYEE TRAINING ARE ADEQUATELY MANAGED AND TO ENSURE CASH AND OTHER ASSETS ARE MANAGED AND SAFEGUARDED APPROPRIATELY.

THE AUDIT FOCUSED ON OPERATIONS AT THE SIX CITY RECREATION CENTERS SHOWN IN THE FIGURE ON THE SLIDE AND DID NOT EVALUATE ANY AQUATICS PROGRAMS. ABOUT $2.5 MILLION IN REVENUE WAS PROCESSED AT THESE SIX CENTERS, WHICH HAD ABOUT 460,000 VOLUNTEERS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2022. AND SPECIFICALLY, THIS AUDIT EVALUATED PAYMENT PROCESSING AND SAFEGUARDS RECREATION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY AND ASSET AND CYBERSECURITY MONITORING. SO I'LL BEGIN BY DISCUSSING PAYMENT PROCESSING AND SAFEGUARDS.

IN GENERAL, RECREATION CENTER PROGRAMS CAN BE REGISTERED AND PAID FOR ONLINE THROUGH THE CITY'S RECREATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM OR IN-PERSON USING CASH CHECKS AND DEBIT OR CREDIT CARDS. FOR THIS REASON, THE RECREATION DIVISION HAS ESTABLISHED PAYMENT PROCESSING PROCEDURES THAT ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S CASH HANDLING POLICY.

THIS POLICY IS GENERALLY COMPREHENSIVE, INCLUDING REQUIRING SAFES AND CASH DOORS TO BE LOCKED AND OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW, ACCESS TO BE RESTRICTED AND CASHIERS TO BE TRAINED.

HOWEVER, WE FOUND THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE SAFES OR CASH DRAWERS TO BE PHYSICALLY SECURED TO THE BUILDING AND ONLY RECOMMENDS THAT SAFES BE UNDER DIRECT VIDEO ONLY RECOMMENDS THAT SAFES BE BE UNDER DIRECT VIDEO SURVEILLANCE WHICH ARE CONSIDERED PHYSICAL CASH, SAFEGUARD BEST PRACTICES BASED ON ON SITE VISITS TO ALL SIX RECREATION CENTERS.

WE FOUND THAT NOT ALL SAFES WERE PHYSICALLY SECURED AND THAT FOUR DID NOT HAVE DIRECT VIDEO SURVEILLANCE AS THEY WERE LOCATED IN A SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE.

[00:10:08]

HOWEVER, REC STAFF STATED THAT THEY HAD MOVED THE SAFES TO ENSURE THAT THEY WERE OUT OF PUBLIC VIEW DUE TO THE SIZE OF MANY RECREATION CENTERS.

THERE ARE GENERALLY NOT AREAS THAT THE PUBLIC CANNOT ACCESS THAT HAVE THAT DO HAVE SECURITY CAMERAS AT THIS POINT.

AND WHILE CAMERAS CAN BE INSTALLED IN SUPERVISOR OFFICES AND THIS WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL COSTS AS WELL AS WOULD PRESENT POTENTIALLY SOME PRIVACY CONCERNS.

SIMILARLY, NOT ALL CASH DRAWERS WERE SECURED TO THE DESK THEY WERE LOCATED AT, AND THE KEY TO THE CASH TO SEVERAL OF THE CASH DRAWERS WAS LOCATED AT THE FRONT DESK, SORRY, FRONT DESK FOR FIVE LOCATIONS BASED ON DISCUSSION WITH RECREATION STAFF.

THIS WAS GENERALLY BECAUSE THE RECREATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DID NOT ALLOW ALL CASHIERS TO OPEN THE CASH DRAWER THROUGH THE SYSTEM AS NEEDED.

HOWEVER, ALLOWING UNRESTRICTED AND UNDOCUMENTED ACCESS TO THE CASH DRAWERS THROUGH THE KEY KEYS INCREASES THE RISK OF THEFT.

THAT BEING SAID, WE FOUND THAT ALL RECREATION CENTERS WERE GENERALLY PROCESSING PAYMENTS ACCURATELY AND HAD APPROPRIATE RECONCILIATIONS AND SEGREGATION OF DUTIES.

BASED ON OUR REVIEW OF REFUNDS, WE FOUND THAT 98% HAD A CLEARLY DOCUMENTED PURPOSE.

HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO CLEAR REQUIREMENT FOR A SUPERVISOR TO REVIEW THE REFUND PRIOR TO ISSUANCE AT ANY VALUE, INCREASING THE RISK THAT A REFUND COULD BE ISSUED INAPPROPRIATELY.

IN ADDITION, WE DID FIND TWO REFUNDS THAT WERE ISSUED BY A RECREATION EMPLOYEE TO THEMSELVES, WHICH PRESENTS A CLEAR CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

WHILE THESE INSTANCES DID NOT APPEAR TO BE FRAUD, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THE DEPARTMENT DEVELOP A POLICY THAT CLEARLY PROHIBITS THIS BEHAVIOR.

LAST, THE CITY'S CASH HANDLING POLICY REQUIRES THAT ALL CITY CASHIERS RECEIVE A CASH HANDLING CERTIFICATION FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, WHICH REQUIRES RECERTIFICATION EVERY THREE YEARS.

AND BASED ON REVIEW, ABOUT 14% OF RECREATION CASHIERS DID NOT HAVE A CURRENT CERTIFICATION.

BASED ON THEIR MANAGEMENT RESPONSES, PARKS AND REC PLANS TO DEVELOP OR UPDATE POLICIES AS NEEDED AND IS WORKING ON A PLAN TO IMPROVE SAFE SECURITY MEASURES.

NEXT. A RECREATION DIVISION STAFF ARE GENERALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR SOLICITING, BETTING, MARKETING AND MANAGING RECREATION PROGRAMS THAT ARE HELD THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

IN GENERAL, RECREATION PROGRAM IDEAS AND FEEDBACK ARE SOLICITED FROM THE COMMUNITY THROUGH SURVEYS, SUGGESTION BOXES AND POST EMAILS.

IN ADDITION, WE FOUND THAT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ARE ACTIVELY MARKETED ON SOCIAL MEDIA AS WELL AS THROUGH PHYSICAL AND ELECTRONIC PROGRAM BROCHURES EACH SEASON ALIGNING ALIGNING WITH ACCREDITATION STANDARDS.

IN ADDITION, THE RECREATION DIVISION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SOLICITING AND VETTING RECREATION PROGRAM IDEAS SUBMITTED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.

THE DIVISION HAS A HAS ESTABLISHED STANDARDIZED DOCUMENTATION TO FACILITATE THE SUBMISSION AND REVIEW PROCESS, INCLUDING AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR OR ISD ANALYSIS, ANALYSIS, DOCUMENT PROGRAM PROPOSAL, PAPERWORK, CHECKLIST AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST QUESTIONNAIRE.

THAT BEING SAID, THE DIVISION RELIES ON RECREATION SUPERVISORS TO DETERMINE WHEN THEY SHOULD REACH OUT TO THE CITY'S RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION TO DETERMINE IF LIABILITY INSURANCE SHOULD BE REQUIRED FROM THE CONTRACTOR, POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN INCONSISTENT REQUIREMENTS, AS NOT ALL PROGRAMS ARE REVIEWED BY THE RISK DIVISION.

WE ALSO IDENTIFIED THREE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS WHO INSTRUCTED YOUTH PROGRAMS AT RECREATION CENTERS CENTERS DURING 2022 THAT DID NOT HAVE A RECENT BACKGROUND CHECK.

IN ADDITION, NOT ALL REC PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS HAD CURRENT ANTI-BULLYING OR LIABILITY WAIVERS ON FILE, INCREASING THE CITY'S LIABILITY IF A SAFETY INCIDENT WERE TO OCCUR BASED ON A REVIEW OF INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS.

INVOICES WERE NOT ALWAYS ADEQUATELY DETAILED OR MISSING SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION TO HELP ENSURE THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS PAID ACCURATELY.

SPECIFICALLY BASED ON REVIEW OF A SAMPLE OF 62 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS, TWO DID NOT HAVE AN ACCURATE REGISTRATION COUNT, RESULTING IN A POTENTIAL OVERPAYMENT OF $60.

IN ADDITION, ABOUT 30% OF THE REVIEWED INVOICES WERE NOT SET UP TO CLEARLY DETAIL THE TOTAL PAYMENTS RECEIVED, THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMER REGISTRATIONS OR THE PERCENTAGE THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE PAID BASED ON THIS INFORMATION.

LASTLY, RECREATION CENTERS ARE GENERALLY HIGH RISK SAFETY LOCATIONS AS THEY ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND INVOLVE A MIX OF AGE AND ACTIVITY LEVELS BASED ON DISCUSSION WITH RECREATION STAFF.

WE FOUND THAT SOME SAFETY RELATED INCIDENTS WERE NOT REPORTED TO THE CITY CITY'S RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION IF THEY WERE DEEMED TO BE MINOR.

BASED ON DISCUSSIONS, THIS APPEARED TO BE DUE TO UNCLEAR CITYWIDE GUIDANCE FROM RISK MANAGEMENT AS WELL AS OPERATIONAL ISSUES, SINCE REC STAFF ARE NOT ALWAYS ABLE TO COMPLETELY HALT AN ACTIVITY TO COMPLETE AN INCIDENT REPORT.

FURTHER, WE FOUND THAT 15% OF REC STAFF DO NOT APPEAR TO HAVE CURRENT CPR AND AED TRAINING AS RECOMMENDED BY ACCREDITATION STANDARDS BASED ON THEIR MANAGEMENT RESPONSE.

PARKS AND RECREATION PLANS TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES FOR TRACKING, TRAINING AND REVIEW AND REVIEWING CONTRACTOR INVOICES.

IN ADDITION, THE RISK MANAGEMENT DIVISION IS WORKING TO PROVIDE CITYWIDE GUIDANCE AND STREAMLINE THEIR CONTRACT CONTRACTOR REVIEW PROCESS.

LASTLY, WE FOUND THAT RECREATION DIVISION STAFF GENERALLY MAINTAIN A LIST OF RECREATION CENTER ASSETS.

[00:15:04]

IN ADDITION, DURING OUR ON SITE VISITS, WE LEARNED ABOUT SIX TABLETS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ASSET LIST, INDICATING THAT THE LIST MAY NOT CONTAIN ALL VALUABLE ASSETS.

THE CITY HAS CONTRACTED WITH A VENDOR TO PERIODICALLY INSPECT AND MAINTAIN FITNESS EQUIPMENT AT EACH RECREATION CENTER.

HOWEVER, PERIODIC INSPECTIONS OF OTHER VALUABLE ASSETS ARE NOT PERFORMED BY RECREATION FACILITY STAFF, INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD THAT ASSETS COULD BE TAKEN AND NOT IDENTIFIED AS MISSING. WE ALSO REVIEWED EMPLOYEE ACCESS TO THE CITY'S RECREATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

IN GENERAL, WE FOUND THAT ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM WAS GRANTED APPROPRIATELY BASED ON AN EMPLOYEE'S ROLE.

HOWEVER, SIX OF THE 126 USERS HAD INAPPROPRIATE ACCESS, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN CORRECTED BY THE DIVISION.

FURTHER, ABOUT A THIRD OF EMPLOYEES WITH ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM USE NON CITY EMAILS, EMAIL ACCOUNTS AND USE OF A NON CITY EMAIL ACCOUNT INCREASES THE RISK OF A CYBERSECURITY EVENT.

AS THE SECURITY SETTINGS OF THESE EMAIL ACCOUNTS ARE NOT MANAGED BY THE CITY.

FINALLY, WE FOUND THAT THE RECREATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM VENDOR DOES NOT UNDERGO A SERVICE ORGANIZATION CONTROL OR SOC EXAMINATION.

SOC EXAMINATIONS REQUIRE AN INDEPENDENT PARTY TO ASSESS THE PROCESS CONTROLS PUT IN PLACE TO PROVIDE USER ORGANIZATIONS WITH ASSURANCE THAT THE VENDOR IS ADEQUATELY PROCESSING AND SECURING THEIR DATA.

THIS IS PARTICULARLY CONCERNING FOR THIS SPECIFIC VENDOR.

SINCE CUSTOMER SERVICE, CUSTOMER INFORMATION, INCLUDING PAYMENT INFORMATION, MAY BE STORED IN THE CITY'S RECREATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

WITHOUT A SOC REPORT, THE CITY IS NOT ABLE TO EASILY REVIEW AND MONITOR THE SOFTWARE VENDORS ORGANIZATIONAL CONTROLS.

BASED ON THEIR MANAGEMENT RESPONSE.

PARKS AND REC IS NOW WORKING WITH ON THE CITYWIDE ASSET MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE PROCUREMENT TEAM AND IS DEVELOPING A PROCESS TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW THE REC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS USERS TO ENSURE APPROPRIATENESS.

IN SUMMARY, WE ISSUED A TOTAL OF 19 RECOMMENDATIONS, ALL OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT CONCURRED BASED ON THEIR RESPONSES, WE BELIEVE THE IDENTIFIED RISKS WILL BE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESSED AND WE PLAN TO CONDUCT A FOLLOW UP REVIEW IN THE NEXT 18 TO 36 MONTHS.

SO. THAT'S THIS ONE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

PULL THAT DOWN FOR ME.

AND QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND MADISON, I KNOW THAT YOU ANSWERED THIS IN THE FEEDBACK FROM STAFF, BUT I WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR AND SO I'LL JUST SAY IT.

WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE STAFF MEMBER PER REC CENTER WHO HAS CPR AND AED TRAINING DURING BUSINESS HOURS.

IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE.

I THINK PARKS ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, SO I WOULD DEFER TO THEM.

BUT.

NIKKI SASSENUS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION.

YES, WE DO HAVE AT LEAST ONE PERSON IS CPR FIRST AID CERTIFIED ON SHIFT.

IT IS A REQUIREMENT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE OF THE PER THE JOB REQUIREMENT TO BE TRAINED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF HIRE.

SO AND THEN WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED A NEW TRACKING SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE BEFORE IT WAS SITTING WITH THE SUPERVISORS.

NOW WE HAVE ONE MAIN REPOSITORY WHERE WE'RE TRACKING ALL OF OUR CPR AND FIRST AID CERTIFICATIONS.

AWESOME. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I JUST. I HAVE ONE, BUT IT'S NOT.

IT'S TECHNICALLY JUST I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT HOW AWESOME THEY ARE, BUT I AM CURIOUS.

SO AT THE SENIOR CENTER, THE GIFT STORE, WHICH HAS AMAZING GIFTS, I CAN'T RECOMMEND ENOUGH POP IN BUY STUFF FROM THEM.

IS THAT CONSIDERED PART OF YOUR EVALUATION OR NO? THE KIND OF THE STORE AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, I THINK.

YEAH, I BELIEVE SO.

IT WAS IT'S ALL KIND OF HANDLED THROUGH THE SAME REGISTER AND THINGS, I BELIEVE.

GREAT. OKAY.

JUST. JUST CURIOUS. YEAH, THEY HAVE GREAT STUFF GO BY.

ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US TO ITEM B, WHICH IS ID 23691 RECEIVE REPORT, HOLD DISCUSSION, GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING AUDIT PROJECT

[B. ID 23-691 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Audit Project 019 -Municipal Court Payments: Follow-Up Review]

THIS IS A FOLLOW UP REVIEW.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

I AM STILL MADISON DENTON CITY AUDITOR.

I'LL BE YOUR HOST FOR THE EVENING.

I'M HERE TO PRESENT OUR FINDINGS FROM THE FOLLOW UP REVIEW.

AND SO LET'S LET'S START START AS A REMINDER, AUDIT FOLLOW UP REVIEWS ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON WHAT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPONSE TO AN ISSUED AUDIT.

THIS REVIEW WAS BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND MANAGEMENT RESPONSES ORIGINALLY COMPILED IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT PAYMENTS AUDIT, WHICH WAS ISSUED IN APRIL OF 2021.

THE ORIGINAL AUDIT WAS INTENDED TO EVALUATE THE DENTON MUNICIPAL COURTS FINES AND FEES COLLECTION PROCESS, AND THIS AUDIT FOLLOW UP FOUND IMPROVEMENTS HAD GENERALLY BEEN MADE TO THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL COURT PAYMENT MANAGEMENT PROCESS.

THOUGH TIMELINESS AND SEQUENCING OF MANUAL CITATIONS COULD BE FURTHER IMPROVED.

[00:20:01]

THESE MANUAL CITATIONS STATE THAT A DEFENDANT SHOULD WAIT FIVE DAYS BEFORE CONTACTING THE COURT TO ENSURE THAT THE TICKET HAS BEEN FILED.

HOWEVER, THE ORIGINAL AUDIT FOUND THAT MOST CITATIONS WERE NOT FILED WITHIN THE THE INDICATED FIVE DAY PERIOD WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF ISSUANCE.

SINCE THEN, THE MUNICIPAL COURT HAS WORKED WITH THE CITY'S PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES, IN PARTICULAR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, TO TRY TO SPEED UP THE TIME IT TAKES TO GET AN ISSUED CITATION TO THE COURT.

HOWEVER, BASED ON A REVIEW OF ALL MANUAL CITATIONS ISSUED IN 2022, ONLY ABOUT HALF WERE FILED WITH THE COURT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF ISSUANCE, AS SHOWN ON THE IN THE TABLE ON THE SLIDE. THIS MAY INDICATE THAT THE FIVE DAY TIME FRAME IS NOT SUFFICIENT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THE COURT ONLY WORKS ON WEEKDAYS WHILE PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES ISSUE TICKETS 24 OVER SEVEN. SPECIFICALLY ON THE SLIDE, IT SHOWS THAT IF THE CRITERIA WERE ADJUSTED TO SEVEN DAYS, TIMELINESS ISSUES WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE, ESPECIALLY FOR CITY OF DENTON PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ACCORDING TO MUNICIPAL COURT STAFF, SOME MANUAL CITATIONS CANNOT BE DELIVERED IMMEDIATELY DUE TO THE TYPE OF CITATION ISSUED.

BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY WE DIDN'T EXCLUDE THOSE AS PART OF THIS REVIEW.

IN ADDITION, THE ORIGINAL AUDIT FOUND THAT MANUAL CITATIONS WERE OFTEN ISSUED OUT OF SEQUENCE, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE IF ALL CITATIONS HAD ACTUALLY BEEN FILED WITH THE MUNICIPAL COURT OR IF SOME HAD BEEN LOST.

SINCE THEN, THE MUNICIPAL COURT ORDERED NEW TICKET BOOKS AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHICH ISSUES THE MOST MANUAL CITATIONS, BEGAN RECORDING WHAT CITATION NUMBERS HAD BEEN CHECKED OUT BY AN OFFICER.

THIS PROCESS HAS MADE IT MUCH EASIER TO RECONCILE ISSUED CITATIONS TO DETERMINE WHAT WHICH MAY BE MISSING OR MIGHT HAVE BEEN VOIDED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED A REGULAR PROCESS TO IDENTIFY AND VERIFY WHAT OCCURRED TO THESE POTENTIALLY THESE MISSING CITATIONS.

AND THE COURT AND AUDIT WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE MANUAL CITATIONS ARE NOT INADVERTENTLY LOST.

NEXT, THE ORIGINAL AUDIT FOUND THAT MOST PAYMENT PROCESSING PROCEDURES WERE ADEQUATE.

HOWEVER, ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH THE MAIL OR DROP BOX WERE NEEDED.

SPECIFICALLY, ONLY ONE COURT CLERK WAS RETRIEVING AND PROCESSING PAYMENTS RECEIVED THROUGH THE MAIL DURING THE ORIGINAL AUDIT, INCREASING THE RISK OF THEFT.

SINCE THEN, THE COURT NOW REQUIRES TWO CLERKS TO RETRIEVE, LOG AND POST THESE PAYMENTS BASED ON REVIEW OF A SAMPLE OF 87 MAIL AND DROPBOX PAYMENTS RECEIVED BETWEEN JULY AND NOVEMBER OF 2022, ALL WERE ACCURATELY POSTED TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND 94% HAD DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THAT TWO CLERKS HAD RETRIEVED AND PROCESSED THE PAYMENTS.

IN ADDITION, PROCEDURES WERE UPDATED TO CLARIFY WHICH STAFF HAD ACCESS TO THE COURT'S SAFE.

THE ORIGINAL AUDIT ALSO FOUND THAT SOME REFUNDS HAD BEEN PREPARED AND APPROVED BY THE SAME COURT REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE INCREASING THE RISK OF FRAUD.

ACCORDING TO COURT STAFF, THIS WAS DUE TO STAFFING SHORTAGES CAUSED BY THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC AND THEN, BASED ON REVIEW OF ALL 22 REFUNDS ISSUED BETWEEN JULY AND DECEMBER OF 2022, WHICH TOTALED ALMOST $5,000, ALL WERE APPROPRIATELY PREPARED AND APPROVED.

LASTLY, THE ORIGINAL AUDIT FOUND THAT THE MUNICIPAL COURT DID NOT POST ADEQUATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY'S THIRD PARTY COLLECTION AGENCY PROCESS ON ITS WEBSITE AND.

THAT CASES WERE NOT ALWAYS REFERRED TO THE COLLECTION AGENCY TIMELY PROMPTLY.

SINCE THE ORIGINAL AUDIT, THE MUNICIPAL COURT HAS POSTED INFORMATION ABOUT THE THE COLLECTION AGENCY'S PROCESS TO ITS WEBSITE.

AND THEN IN ADDITION, IN MARCH OF 2023, THE COUNCIL GAVE STAFF DIRECTION TO DISCONTINUE USE OF THE THIRD PARTY COLLECTIONS AGENCY MAKING REFERRAL TIMELINESS NO LONGER AN ISSUE.

FINALLY, THE ORIGINAL AUDIT FOUND THAT THE MUNICIPAL COURT DID NOT HAVE A FORMAL PROCESS FOR GRANTING, REMOVING AND REVIEWING WHO HAD ACCESS TO THE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

INCREASING THE RISK THAT INDIVIDUALS MAY HAVE INAPPROPRIATE, MAY HAVE MAY INAPPROPRIATELY HAVE ACCESS TO DEFENDANT INFORMATION.

SINCE THEN, THE COURT HAS IMPLEMENTED A PROCESS TO FORMALLY DOCUMENT ACCESS REQUESTS.

IN ADDITION, BASED ON REVIEW OF ALL 106 CASE MANAGEMENT USER ACCOUNTS, ALL HAD APPROPRIATE ROLE BASED ACCESS.

FURTHER, THE ORIGINAL AUDIT FOUND THAT COURT CLERKS WERE GENERALLY ABLE TO ADJUST FEES AND FINES BASED ON DEVELOPMENTS IN A DEFENDANT'S CASE.

HOWEVER, THERE WAS NOT A PROCESS TO REGULARLY REVIEW THESE ADJUSTMENTS TO ENSURE THEY WERE APPROPRIATE AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL AUDIT.

SINCE THEN, THE COURT HAS ESTABLISHED A STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE THAT DETAILS WHAT REVIEWS AND VERIFICATIONS OF COURT CLERK OPERATIONS ARE PERFORMED EACH DAY, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF ALL DAILY TRANSACTIONS BASED ON REVIEW OF A SAMPLE OF 102 FEE ADJUSTMENTS MADE IN THE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BETWEEN JULY AND DECEMBER OF 2022.

ALL APPEARED TO BE ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED IN THE SYSTEM'S COMMENTS.

SO IN SUMMARY, WE FOUND THAT TEN OF THE 12 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ORIGINAL AUDIT WERE IMPLEMENTED, WITH THE REMAINING TWO BEING IN PROGRESS.

BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, WE EXPECT TO PERFORM AN INFORMAL FOLLOW UP REVIEW IN THE FUTURE TO COMPLETE THIS AUDIT PROJECT, AND THAT'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.

ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

I DO.

[00:25:01]

CAN YOU HELP ME AFTER THIS? EMAIL ME SPECIFICS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR NOTE ABOUT THE COLLECTION AGENCY INFORMATION THAT WAS EITHER NOT POSTED, POSTED IN FULL OR INCORRECT.

I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE TIMING OF THAT, THE TIME.

OKAY. WE CAN AFTERWARDS, RIGHT? YES. YEAH, SURE. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. SEEING NONE.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO ITEM C, WHICH IS ID 23689.

[C. ID 23-689 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding proposals from the Board of Ethics to amend the Ethics Ordinance and the Board of Ethics’ Rules of Procedure.]

ALL RIGHT. DO THIS ONE MORE TIME.

ALL RIGHT. HELLO, I'M MADISON RORSCHACH, DENTON CITY AUDITOR, AND I'M ALSO THE STAFF LIAISON TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS.

I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE BOARD'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ETHICS ORDINANCE AND THE BOARD'S RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE LETTER OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, WHICH IS YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IN YOUR AGENDA BACK UP ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH CONDUCTED TO DEVELOP.

EACH PROPOSAL WAS DISTRIBUTED IN AN INFORMAL STAFF REPORT ON FRIDAY, MARCH 10TH, WHICH WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN YOUR AGENDA BACKUP.

AND THEN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE REDLINED ETHICS ORDINANCE AND RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHICH ARE ALSO IN THE AGENDA BACK UP.

SO FOR OUR DISCUSSION TODAY, WAS PLANNING IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, MAYOR, TO JUST KIND OF RUN THROUGH THEM EACH ONE AT A TIME SO WE CAN DISCUSS AND TAKE ANY DIRECTION AS NECESSARY BEFORE GOING TO THE NEXT ONE.

AND THEN THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS, ANITA RAMSEY, IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE IF I CANNOT.

SO GOT IT. SOUND GOOD? YES, I AGREE.

THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO GO.

ALL RIGHT. TO BEGIN, PROPOSAL ONE WAS DEVELOPED IN AUGUST OF 2022 BASED ON STAFF IDENTIFYING A GRAY AREA SURROUNDING A CITY OFFICIAL WAS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE GIFTS THAT THEY RECEIVED.

THIS PROPOSAL WOULD CLARIFY THAT CITY OFFICIALS MUST DISCLOSE ANY ACCEPTED GIFTS THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED EXCEPTIONS AND THEN ALSO HOW THEY DISPOSE OF THOSE. IT ALSO PROHIBITS ANY ACCEPTANCE OF CASH OR CASH EQUIVALENTS AND EXPANDS THE PROHIBITION TO INCLUDE A CITY OFFICIAL'S RELATIVE, WHICH INCLUDES FAMILY MEMBERS TO THE THIRD DEGREE OF AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY.

SO THAT'S A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY OF WHAT THIS DOES.

OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS PROPOSAL, ONE IN YOUR BACKUP, AND WE'LL HAVE TO PULL THAT DOWN SO I CAN SEE.

OH, RIGHT, SORRY. SO ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE. OKAY THEN I GUESS WE'LL TREAT IT LIKE A TWO MINUTE PITCH.

I MEAN, YOUR SILENCE IS CONSIDERED THAT YOU DON'T SUPPORT IT UNLESS YOU.

YOU GOT TO VERBALLY SAY YOU DO SUPPORT IT.

SO WE'LL TAKE THEM ONE BY ONE.

SO PROPOSAL ONE, THERE'S NO QUESTIONS.

THOSE KIND OF GIVE AN INDICATION SO THE MADDUX MADISON CAN TRACK ALONG IF YOU SUPPORT IT.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS.

IT'S JUST A SUCCINCT YES, I SUPPORT IT AND WE MOVE ON.

MAYOR PRO TEM. I SUPPORT THIS ONE.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN DAVIS? I SUPPORT THIS ONE. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN.

BYRD SUPPORT. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCGEE. OKAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER. WHAT'S CAUGHT? OKAY. GOT IT.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

YES? HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE FAMILY COMPONENT.

IT'S IN HOW THAT THAT WORKS.

SO I MIGHT DEFER TO MACK ON IT.

HELP. BUT THERE'S CONSANGUINITY, WHICH IS BY BLOOD, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE YOUR PARENTS, GRANDPARENTS OR SISTER LIKE SIBLINGS AS WELL AS, I BELIEVE NEPHEWS OR ANY LIKE THEIR FAMILY, THEIR CHILDREN.

RIGHT. AND THEN AFFINITY IS THE SAME, BUT JUST IN LAW, ESSENTIALLY.

SO IT'S HELPFUL.

YES. BUT IF THEY SO IF THEY GIVE IF MY IN-LAWS GIVE ME A GIFT, YOU'RE SAYING I HAVE TO TURN THAT IN TO SAY, HEY, MY IN-LAWS GAVE ME A GIFT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. NOT IF YOUR IN-LAWS GAVE YOU A GIFT.

IF THEY RECEIVED A GIFT THAT WAS THAT WOULD WAS A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE FOR HOW IT'S WRITTEN, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

DID THAT NOT MAKE SENSE? NO.

NO, IT DOESN'T. BUT IT'S OKAY.

IT HAS SUPPORT.

I JUST. IT WOULD.

YES, IT WOULD INCLUDE IF YOUR COUSIN RECEIVED A GIFT MORE THAN $50.

THEY SHOULD NOT ACCEPT IT, ESSENTIALLY.

I'VE RECEIVE A GIFT.

FROM WHOM? ANYONE, I THINK I BELIEVE IS HOW THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.

[00:30:05]

IF THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT, I MAY NEED TO WITHDRAW MY SUPPORT IF IT.

SO I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS JUST SAID.

AND THAT IS. I'VE GOT A RELATIVE THAT SOMEBODY GIVES A GIFT TO THAT HAS NO PENDING MATTER BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MEAN SO IT'S IT HAS TO DO WITH A PENDING MATTER. IS THAT CORRECT? THE GIFTS ORDINANCE.

THE GIFTS PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT.

OKAY. I'LL WITHDRAW MY SUPPORT ON THAT ONE.

COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

OKAY. MADISON, COULD YOU PUT SLIDE TWO UP AGAIN, PLEASE? YES. SO AS SHE'S DOING THAT, WE'VE HAD A PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN KINDS OF GIFTS FOR A LONG TIME IN THE ORDINANCE. THIS IS AND REALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE, THEY HAVE ALWAYS APPLIED TO RELATIVES.

THIS IS CLARIFYING THAT THOSE PROHIBITED GIFTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE ORDINANCE FOR A LONG TIME, THE FIRST ONE, THERE IS ANY GIFT THAT MIGHT REASONABLY TEND TO INFLUENCE SUCH OFFICER AND DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES.

SO THIS IS JUST SAYING NOT ONLY SHOULD YOU NOT TAKE THAT OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE GIFT CARD WHEN OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE IS ABOUT TO HAVE A ZONING CASE, ALSO, YOUR WIFE SHOULDN'T AND YOUR KIDS SHOULDN'T AND YOUR GRANDMA SHOULDN'T.

SO MY MY READING AND UNDERSTANDING WAS THIS CHANGE APPLIED TO PROHIBITIONS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE, NOT NECESSARILY JUST ANY GIFT YOU MIGHT GET FOR CHRISTMAS.

IT'S GIFTS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR DECISIONS ON THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP, WHERE ARE YOU? WHERE DO YOU DERIVE THAT FROM? IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE WORDS THE RED LINE HERE, HELP ME AGAIN, THE WHOLE THE RED LINE IS THE ONLY ADDITION.

IT'S THE REST OF IT TO ACCEPT ANY GIFT THAT MIGHT REASONABLY TEND TO INFLUENCE SUCH OFFICER.

SO THAT'S THE PRO, THAT'S THE PROHIBITION.

AND THEN THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THE GIFT POLICY LATER ON.

SO LET'S LET'S TAKE THAT STEP BY STEP.

SO WOULD REASONABLY TEND TO INFLUENCE WHO WHO IS THE.

WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION? WELL, AT THE OUTSET, ANY ETHICS DECISION IS THE OFFICE HOLDER MAKES THAT DECISION FIRST AND SAYS, I CANNOT ACCEPT THAT GIFT.

NO, THANK YOU. IF THEY DO OR THEY DO ANY OTHER THING, THAT MIGHT BE A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE, SOMEBODY FILES A COMPLAINT AND IT GOES TO THE PANEL AND THEN IT GOES TO THE BOARD AND IT GOES THROUGH THE THE PROCESS.

BUT BUT SO THE BOARD ULTIMATELY, YEAH, AT THE OUTSET, IT'S THE IT'S THE OFFICE HOLDER OR THE CITY OFFICIAL THAT MAKES THAT DETERMINATION FOR THEMSELVES.

CORRECT. THEY MAKE A DETERMINATION FOR THEMSELVES.

AND THAT'S THAT'S THEN IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY RUN THROUGH THE SYSTEM.

AND ULTIMATELY A BOARD WOULD DECIDE IF THAT GIFT GIVEN TO YOUR FAMILY MEMBER SOMEHOW MAKES ITS WAY SOMEHOW GAVE YOU MIGHT REASONABLY IS THE TERM INFLUENCED YOU.

RIGHT AND AND OTHER THAT'S THE MEASURE OF REASONABLE THAT'S HOW THAT'S HOW IT'S WRITTEN MIGHT REASONABLY TEND TO INFLUENCE AND IN OTHER IN OTHER SIMILAR I MEAN WE OUR BOARD HASN'T HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS SPECIFIC ONE YET.

IN OTHER SIMILAR PROVISIONS IN OTHER PLACES.

SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDE KNOW IS THERE A HISTORY OF OF GIFT GIVING? IS THIS THE FIRST TIME EVER OUTBACK HAS EVER SHOWED UP WITH SOMETHING IN YOUR STOCKING OR.

I'M USING THEM BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE ORDINANCES OR ZONING CASES COMING UP IS OR, YOU KNOW, IS YOUR BROTHER IN LAW, THE MANAGER AT OUTBACK AND YOU GET A GIFT CARD EVERY SINGLE YEAR AND YOU ALWAYS HAVE.

SO I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A REASON WHY WE HAVEN'T SEEN THESE BEFORE, PROBABLY BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBERS AREN'T ACCEPTING GIFTS OF THIS TYPE.

ALSO BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME STATE LAW PROVISIONS ABOUT IMPROPER INFLUENCE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

UM, BUT THE THIS WHOLE GIFT IDEA HAS BEEN IN THE CODE FOR A WHILE.

THIS IS JUST ADDING THAT IT APPLIES TO YOUR KIDS AND YOUR WIFE AND YOUR GRANDMA AND EVERYBODY TOO, RIGHT? YEAH. OKAY.

AND I DO WANT TO JUST AS WE KIND OF GO INTO ALL OF THIS, THIS IS THEIR PROPOSALS.

IF THE COUNCIL AGREES TO GO LIKE IF YOU DECIDED INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE TERM RELATIVE, YOU WANTED TO JUST SAY SPOUSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU CAN GIVE THAT DIRECTION HERE FOR ANY OF THESE. SO BUT IT HAS TO BE A MAJORITY OBVIOUSLY, SO SURE.

YEAH. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

AND SO I'LL JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE.

I'M NOT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE LOT, BUT I COULD GET COMFORTABLE IF WE HAVE A TRUE DEFINITION OTHER THAN MIGHT REASONABLY RIGHT THAT I, I CAN'T IMAGINE. THAT BEING APPLIED IN A COURT OF LAW ANYWHERE RIGHT THAT YOU YOU MIGHT REASONABLY SPEED.

SO I GAVE YOU A TICKET.

THE SECOND PART OF THAT DOES HAVE THE SPECIFIC DOES HAVE THE SPECIFIC IF PROVISION OF THE.

GIVE ME JUST GIVE ME JUST A SECOND.

[00:35:02]

THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

DR. ZELTNER. DURING THE WORK SESSION PERIOD.

SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE WHISPER SOFTER.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, I JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE TO SPEAK DURING THE WORK SESSION, AND OTHERS DON'T HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY.

OKAY. SORRY.

THE SECOND PIECE THAT I DON'T KNOW, I CAN SHARE IT AGAIN.

I'M SORRY. I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS WAS RAISING HIS HAND.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE SECOND ONE THERE.

SPECIFIC IS THE MORE SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF GIFT.

OKAY. WELL, COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS HAS A QUESTION.

WHY I WAS ASKING. I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN YOU RECOGNIZING ME? YES. SO AND SO THAT APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS'S CLARIFICATION.

SO I JUST NEED SOME UNDERSTANDING HERE.

AND IT'S REALLY ABOUT SORT OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION.

SO I'M GOING TO LEAN HEAVILY ON ON THE CITY ATTORNEY.

SO I SEE PROVISION ONE, WHICH AS NOTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, HAS BEEN IN THE CODE AND THAT IS TALKING ABOUT ANY GIFT THAT MIGHT REASONABLY TEND TO INFLUENCE SUCH OFFICERS IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES.

AND THEN I SEE PARENTHESES TWO AND I SEE THREE AND I SEE FOUR.

SO DOES THAT GENERAL RULE OVERLAY AND SORT OF BLANKET.

PROVISIONS TWO, THREE, FOUR AND THE OTHERS, IN OTHER WORDS, IS THAT.

BUT THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN AND THE WAY IT'S FORMATTED, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THAT WAY.

SO ON THE SPECIFIC GIFT, IT TALKS ABOUT $50 TO $200 IN SECTION 3 OR 3, IT SAYS IT SHALL BE A VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE FOR A CITY OFFICIAL OR A CITY OFFICIAL RELATIVE TO ACCEPT ANY GIFT, CASH, PREPAID DEBIT CARDS OR GIFT CARDS, REGARDLESS OF VALUE.

I DON'T KNOW.

THOSE SEEM INCONSISTENT TO ME.

WHY ARE WE DEFINING VALUE IN ONE? AND THEN WE'RE SAYING IT'S ANY VALUE YOU'RE PROHIBITED FROM ACCEPTING IT OF ANY VALUE.

AND THEN DOES THAT GENERAL RULE OVERLAY THAT? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE READING IT SORT OF IN THE SENSE OF IT SHALL BE A VIOLATION IN ARTICLE THREE TO ACCEPT ANYTHING OF REASONABLE GIFT OR VALUE THAT MAY TEND TO REASONABLY INFLUENCE SUCH OFFICER IN THE DISCHARGE OF HER DUTIES? IS THAT QUESTION MAKE SENSE? IT DOES. AND IT'S AS I'M READING IT AS WELL, IT'S NOT TERRIBLY CLEAR.

I THINK I READ ONE, WHICH IS THE GENERAL RULE THAT THERE'S ANY GIFT THAT MIGHT REASONABLY TEND TO INFLUENCE THE OFFICER IS A BROAD RULE THAT APPLIES GENERALLY, I THINK, TO THE MAYOR'S POINT OF WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN? TWO, THREE, FOUR.

TRY TO SPECIFY WHAT THAT COULD MEAN IN VARIOUS SITUATIONS.

I DON'T THINK THEY NECESSARILY CREATE NEW RULES.

THEY'RE JUST EXAMPLES OF WHAT THAT MIGHT WHAT MIGHT REASONABLY TEND TO INFLUENCE YOU AND CREATE SOME HARD LINES THAT MAKE IT CLEAR FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHERE THEY CAN GO AND WHERE THEY CAN'T ACCEPT AS FAR AS THE FINANCIAL GIFTS THEY RECEIVE.

SO JUST A REAL QUICK FOLLOW UP AND THEN I'M FINISHED.

SO GIVEN YOUR EXPLANATION, WHAT THE WAY I INTERPRETED THAT WAS THAT THAT GENERAL RULE DOES GET OVERLAID INTO THOSE OTHER SECTIONS. BUT SO LET'S TAKE SECTION THREE.

I GET. A $100 GIFT CARD FROM I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO YOU KNOW, AN OLD FRIEND WHO'S IN TOWN.

UH, DOES THAT MEAN THAT I CAN'T ACCEPT THAT OR I CANNOT ACCEPT IT BASED UPON THREE BECAUSE IT'S OF ANY VALUE? OR IS THERE A SECOND TEST THAT SAYS, UH, IS THIS IS THIS GIFT CARD TRYING TO REASONABLY INFLUENCE ME? IN OTHER WORDS, IS THERE IS THERE A TEST HERE OR IS THERE UM.

AND IF WE NEED TO REWRITE IT AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR BECAUSE ONE OF THEM SAYS YOU CAN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING OF ANY VALUE.

BUT THEN I'M HEARING THIS GENERAL RULE OF, WELL, YOU CAN GIVEN THESE PARAMETERS, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT REASONABLY INTENDED TO INFLUENCE YOU.

THOSE SEEM A LITTLE ONE IS ABSOLUTE AND ONE IS NOT ABSOLUTE.

THERE IS AN EXCEPTION.

THERE'S AN EXCEPTION SECTION IN THE ORDINANCE.

SO IN YOUR EXAMPLE OF AN OLD FAMILIAR FRIEND OR A PERSONAL FRIEND OR SOMETHING, I THINK THAT WOULD BE COVERED UNDER AN EXCEPTION, BUT I CAN'T NECESSARILY OFFER.

YEAH, WELL, OKAY.

SO I CHOSE THE WRONG I GUESS THAT I CHOSE THE WRONG FACT SCENARIO TO SORT OF ILLUSTRATE MY POINT.

SO YOU'RE RIGHT.

BUT ANYWAY, THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS WITH THAT IS IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM VERY CLEAR.

AND WHICH MEANS THAT IF SOMETHING IS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF ETHICS, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A WHOLE LOT OF CLARITY IN MOVING FORWARD IN THAT DELIBERATION ON HOW DOES ALL THIS GET APPLIED TO THIS PARTICULAR THING AND UNDERSTANDING.

WE'VE NOT EVER HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU DON'T WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO IGNORE IT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD TO DEAL WITH IT.

OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO WERE ANY OF THESE LIMITATIONS I MEAN, I SEE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, BUT WERE THESE DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD IN TERMS

[00:40:06]

SO BUT THEY DID DISCUSS ALL OF THIS LANGUAGE BEFORE IT GOT BROUGHT HERE.

I WOULD I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE VICE CHAIRS IMPRESSION OF WHAT THE INTENT OF THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION WAS, IF THAT'S ALLOWED.

WELL, LET'S.

HELP ME. HELP ME UNDERSTAND.

YOU ALREADY HAVE. THERE IS.

THERE IS. THERE IS MAJORITY SUPPORT FOR IT.

I DON'T. I DON'T UNDERSTAND IF SOMEONE'S THE ONLY WAY THAT'S PRODUCTIVE IS IF SOMEONE'S LOOKING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND.

SOMEONE'S NOT LOOKING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

FAIR ENOUGH. BECAUSE IT'S JUST WE COULD GO ROUND AND ROUND FOR A VERY LONG TIME ON THIS.

SO IF THERE'S SOMEONE THAT NEEDS THAT INFORMATION TO SHAPE THEIR DECISION OR RESHAPE THEIR DECISION, GREAT.

IF NOT, THEN THEN IT'S IT'S MOOT, MY ESTIMATION.

YEAH. JUST TO CLARIFY MY POSITION, I'M GOING TO VOTE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS JUST BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE LANGUAGE COULD BE MORE CLEAR AND GIVE BETTER DIRECTION TO THE POLICY.

YEAH. NO. AND I AM THE SAME I BECAUSE IT'S ALARMING TO ME CONCERNING TO ME THAT WE CAN'T PROPERLY IN THIS ROOM ARTICULATE SOMETHING THAT NOW WE'RE GOING TO PUT INTO ACTION, RIGHT? LIKE SO IT SHOULD BE CRYSTAL CLEAR AMONGST THIS DAIS THAT WE'RE AFFECTED BY IT, THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND IF IT'S NOT CRYSTAL CLEAR AND EASY, THEN THAT IS CONCERNING.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU FIND OUT WHEN YOU GET AN ETHICS COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST YOU, MY QUESTION IS THIS.

I VOLUNTEER WITH KIWANIS, THE BREAKFAST KIWANIS.

I GO PICK UP A GIFT CARD FROM RAISING CANE'S.

THEY'RE DONATING TO.

UH, KIWANIS.

I PICK IT UP. I RECEIVED IT.

IS THERE LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT SAYS I'VE RECEIVED THIS GIFT CARD AND THAT THERE'S NO GOTCHA? THEY'RE LIKE, HEY.

UH, BECAUSE IT SAYS IF I CAN'T RECEIVE, LIKE, IF I CAN'T GO PICK IT UP, IT'S HOW I READ IT.

AND I MAY BE READING.

THAT'S THE PLAIN LANGUAGE.

YOU TELL ME IF I'M WRONG.

I THINK IF YOU IF YOU WERE READING IT AS YOU'RE RECEIVING THAT GIFT CARD AND THEN GIVING IT TO KIWANAS, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY DISCLOSE THAT AS YOU RECEIVED IT AND THEN DONATED IT IF YOU WANT IT TO BE AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE.

RIGHT. BUT IF I DIDN'T, SOMEONE COULD RAISE THAT ISSUE.

SOMEONE COULD SAY I SAW THE MAYOR AT RAISING CANE'S PICKING UP A GIFT CARD, AND THEY'RE ADDING A NEW LOCATION AND THAT'S PENDING.

AND THAT COULD POTENTIALLY, UNTIL FURTHER INVESTIGATION, BE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT.

AM I WRONG? I MEAN, ANYBODY CAN SUBMIT AN ETHICS COMPLAINT ABOUT ANYTHING AT ANY TIME.

AND THERE'S A PRESUMPTION OF I MEAN, THERE'S NO PRESUMPTION UNTIL IT'S HEARD BY THE PANEL, BY THE PANEL AND THEN BY THE BOARD.

GOT IT. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

THANK YOU. I MIGHT BE OF A LITTLE BIT OF HELP HERE.

THE FIRST ON YOUR SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, AND THIS IS THE DANGER OF EXAMPLES BECAUSE IT LOCKS US INTO ONE PARTICULAR HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION.

BUT IN YOUR SITUATION, DONATIONS HAVE A PARTICULAR EXCEPTION, PARTICULAR PROCESS UNDER THE GIFTS, WHETHER IT'S A DONATION THAT YOU YOU GO TO A FUNCTION AS THE MAYOR AND RECEIVE, YOU KNOW, A SOMETHING AND YOU'RE RECEIVING IT AS THE MAYOR.

BUT THEN ALSO, IF SOMEBODY WERE TO SAY, OH, SOMEBODY HE GOT THAT THAT GIFT CARD.

AT RAISING CANE'S CONVEYANCE OF A GIFT TO A NONPROFIT THAT YOU WEREN'T RECEIVING THAT AS GERARD YOU WERE RECEIVING THAT AS THE GUY FROM KIWANIS, RIGHT? YEAH.

BUT THERE'S ALREADY IF SOME IF IT GOT THAT FAR, THERE'S ALREADY SOMETHING IN THE CODE THAT, THAT DEALS WITH THAT SPECIFIC SITUATION, BUT I'M NOT AS WORRIED.

ONE I'LL POINT OUT AGAIN, THIS IS LANGUAGE ONLY LANGUAGE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SO FAR IS LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN IN THERE.

OTHER THAN JUST ADDING RELATIVES TO IT.

IT'S ALL IT'S ALL BEEN IN THERE SINCE WE FIRST PASSED THE CODE.

NOT EVEN SOMETHING WE ADDED AFTER WE THE COUNCIL BEFORE I WAS ON PASSED THE CODE.

BUT THE GENERAL SPECIFIC THING IS NOT ESPECIALLY CONFUSING TO ME.

YOU'VE GOT A GENERAL RULE THAT IF IT'S A STICK OF GUM OR A MERCEDES ANY GIFT THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE YOU, DON'T TAKE IT.

THE SPECIFIC IS A PRESUMPTION BY WHOEVER WROTE THIS PART OF THE CODE YEARS AGO, A PRESUMPTION THAT MORE THAN 50 BUCKS OR MORE THAN 200 OVER THE YEAR, THAT'S GOING TO THAT WE'RE BEYOND TENDING TO WE'VE JUST ASSUMING UNDER THE CODE PRESUMING UNDER THE CODE THAT THAT IS GOING TO INFLUENCE YOU AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

SO AND THEN THE EXCEPTIONS AND THEN ALL THOSE EXCEPTIONS, YOU KNOW, FLY IN A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TO A CONFERENCE, YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER TAKING A BUS TO AUSTIN

[00:45:10]

THOSE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS THAT APPLY TO MOST OF THOSE THINGS.

SO THAT'S WHY I JUST I DON'T HAVE ANY HEARTBURN ABOUT IT AND WHY I'M OKAY WITH IT.

IT'S JUST ADDING OUR WIVES AND KIDS AND EVERYBODY ELSE TO THE RELATIVES.

WE TALKED ABOUT. GOT IT.

COUNCILMAN WHAT'S SO YEAH, I GUESS AND MAYBE I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, YOU KEEP SAYING THAT WE'RE REALLY NOT CHANGING ANYTHING EXCEPT ADDING ADDITIONAL CONSANGUINITY OR RELATIVES.

SO I'M LOOKING AT THE PRESENTATION THAT HAS A RED LINE.

UH, RED LINE VERSION OF ITEMS THREE AND FOUR.

SO THOSE WERE ALREADY IN THERE.

THESE RED LINES DON'T MEAN THEY'RE ADDED.

THAT'S JUST. AM I READING THIS WRONG? ITEM THREE IS NEW.

ITEM FOUR. THE ONLY ADDITION IS TO INCLUDE THE CITY OFFICIALS RELATIVE.

OKAY, SO ITEM THREE IS NEW.

THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN IN THE CODE ALL ALONG.

THAT'S CORRECT. ABOUT ITEM THREE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

YEAH, SURE.

NO, BUT AND I WANT I WANT TO ECHO THAT.

I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS DID POINT OUT A CONFLICT THERE.

THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE CLEAN UP AND I'M FINE IF WE WANT TO SAY THERE'S FOUR THAT SAY THEY WANT TO ADOPT IT AS WRITTEN.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE DEMONSTRATED A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE ADOPTING, AND I HAVE JUST A GENERAL PROHIBITION AGAINST THAT ONE TOO.

I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS IS ACCURATE IN HIS CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S.

GENERAL THOUGHT OF, HEY, THERE MAY BE SOME DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN 1 AND 2.

I THINK THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT PARDON ME, THREE IS THE NEW SUBJECT.

SO IT'S EITHER ONE AND 3 OR 2 AND THREE.

I FORGET FROM THE CONVERSATION, BUT THERE IS A THEY'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT.

AND I JUST THINK I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR BEFORE AGAIN AND I'M SPEAKING I'VE NEVER BEEN BEFORE THAT BOARD, NEVER, NEVER HAD ANY ISSUES, DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY ISSUES, ALL THOSE THINGS.

SO I'M NOT I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS HUNT.

I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SIGNING UP FOR.

AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO EASILY EXPLAIN TO ANYONE THAT WOULD ASK ME, HEY, WHY DID YOU VOTE FOR THAT? AND I DON'T HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF OF HOW I GOT THERE.

SO I THINK THE LANGUAGE NEEDS CLEANING UP.

THAT'S THAT'S MY PRIMARY ISSUE.

AND I THINK THEY'RE IN CONFLICT.

AND THAT THAT WAS EVIDENCED BY THE CONVERSATION.

I TURN IT OVER TO YOU. YEAH, JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY MY COMMENT A MINUTE AGO, I THINK WHAT I SAID WAS NONE OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS NEW OTHER THAN THE RELATIVE, BECAUSE WE HADN'T REALLY TAKEN UP 3 OR 4 YET.

BUT ON THAT, THAT'S JUST SAYING YOU SHOULDN'T TAKE CASH OR CASH EQUIVALENTS.

THAT IS AN ADDITION, BUT NOT NOT REALLY THAT WILD AN ADDITION.

AND THEN IN FOR THE ONLY ADDITION IN FOUR IS THE RELATIVE.

SO I WON'T BEAT THE THE DEAD HORSE ANYMORE.

IT'S JUST NOT PARTICULARLY CONFUSING TO ME.

OKAY. VERY GOOD.

COUNCILMAN MCGEE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I APPRECIATE ALL THE CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU ALL.

I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOUR POINT, MR. MAYOR. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS IF WE CAN IF THERE'S CONSENSUS BY THIS BODY, JUST TO MAYBE, PERHAPS CLEAN UP THE LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT SO WE CAN.

GET TO A PLACE WHERE WE CAN PASS THIS.

YEAH. IF THERE'S SUPPORT FOR THAT, THEN THEN THAT'S GREAT.

ARE THERE OTHERS THAT ECHO THAT SENTIMENT OR NO? SO I GUESS I SHOULD SAY I WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY SUPPORT NOW AND PERHAPS MOVE THAT WE CLEAN THE LANGUAGE UP.

HOW WOULD YOU. OKAY? YEAH. SO AT THE RISK OF EDITING ON THE FLY.

MR. CITY ATTORNEY, DO YOU HAVE SOME GUIDANCE FOR US UNDERSTANDING THE CONVERSATION? I GUESS PRIMARILY IT'S WHAT DOES THE COUNCIL WANT THIS TO DO OR SAY? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE AS A COUNCIL? IS IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT'S SAID RIGHT HERE CURRENTLY? AND WE CAN DRAFT ACCORDINGLY.

BUT WHAT DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO ADDRESS IN THE ETHICS ORDINANCE THAT ISN'T ALREADY THERE? I THINK SPEAKING FOR THE GROUP, WHAT I'VE DISCERNED, THERE'S GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THIS AMENDMENT.

IT JUST NEEDS TO THE MAIN LINE ONE AND THE SUPPORTING LINES TWO THREE THROUGH FOUR. OR IS THAT AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO EIGHT.

I GUESS THERE'S JUST SEGMENTS IN THERE.

BUT ANYWAY, ALL THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE IN CONCERT.

JUST BASICALLY THERE'S GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THIS.

IT JUST NEEDS TO BE WORKED TOGETHER IN CONCERT VERSUS POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL AMBIGUITY.

AS FAR AS A TAKE, COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS'S POINT MIGHT REASONABLY IS ALREADY THERE, BUT IN THE CONVERSATION I GUESS WE FOCUS IN

[00:50:01]

I THINK THAT'S JUST THREE.

WHEN YOU'RE ADDING THAT DEFINITION, WHEN YOU'RE ADDING DETAIL, IT SHOULD FLOW WITH TWO.

TWO AND THREE ARE IN DISAGREEMENT.

I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.

SO SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU LISTED WERE ACTUALLY GOOD EXAMPLES.

WOULD IT BE HELPFUL FOR US TO HEAR FROM THE VICE CHAIR TO SPEAK TO THOSE EXAMPLES LIKE AS TO WHAT THEY MIGHT HAVE INTENDED WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY WROTE THIS? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WILL.

I'M ASKING CERTAINLY.

YES. LET'S LET'S LET'S DO THAT.

IF WE CAN HAVE THE.

MADAM VICE CHAIR, IF YOU COULD COME TO THE PODIUM AND I'LL LET YOU PHRASE YOUR QUESTION, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PHRASE IT.

COUNCILMAN. I GUESS I'M JUST INTERESTED.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M JUST INTERESTED IN THE MAYOR GAVE A COUPLE OF GOOD EXAMPLES.

I THINK I'M INTERESTED IN IF THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES LIKE THIS OR HOW YOU MIGHT SPEAK TO TO WHAT THE MAYOR SAID.

ANITA RAMSEY, VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS.

WE DID DISCUSS THIS AT LENGTH MORE THAN ONCE, ACTUALLY PROBABLY THREE TIMES.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IS THAT THE CODE AS A WHOLE IS CONFUSING AND IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND, AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE SMALL THINGS LIKE THIS AND THEN YOU ADD THEM ON TOP OF THE THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST DEFINITION THAT THE CODE HAS, THAT'S WHEN THEY BECOME REALLY CONFUSING.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ADDRESSING.

WE WANT WE WANT CITIZENS, RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO READ THE CODE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SAYS AND NOT WHAT IT DOESN'T SAY. I HOPE THAT'S HELPFUL ENOUGH.

OKAY. ANY COUNCILMAN.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE VICE CHAIR OR NO? OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. MAYOR? COUNCILMAN BYRD.

TIME I READ SOMETHING WHERE I HAVE TO ASK WHO, WHAT, WHERE OR WHEN.

WHY? WITHIN THAT.

THAT SOUNDS VERY SUBJECTIVE.

AND I THINK WHAT OUR ISSUE IS, WHAT MY ISSUE WOULD BE, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ELSE, IS THAT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE MOST LIKELY, YOU KNOW OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, IT JUST BECOMES SUBJECTIVE, SUBJECTIVE.

AND MY QUESTION IS, WELL, WHO'S GOING TO THINK THAT? WHO'S JUDGING THAT? WHO'S MAKING THAT DECISION? SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ADDING, YOU KNOW, TO THE TO THE CONVERSATION.

HERE'S THE TRICKY BIT.

WHEN WHEN YOU HAVE A CODE OF ETHICS, IT IS MEANT TO BE A BROADER SUGGESTED A HIGHER RULE OF ORDER.

IT IS NOT THE RULE OF LAW AND THAT OFTEN THOSE TWO GET OFTEN CONFUSED.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE STANDARDS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE FOR EVERYONE'S PROTECTION, ESPECIALLY ACTUALLY FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WE WANT IT TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR WHAT IS AND IS WHAT IS AND IS NOT INSIDE THE BULL'S EYE, IF YOU WILL.

AND WE I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE STRUGGLE IS, IS THAT THIS IS BEING INTERPRETED AS LAW.

THERE IS PLENTY OF STATE LAW TO COVER ALL OF THIS.

ETHICS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A HIGHER A HIGHER THING.

AND IF EVERYBODY IS FOLLOWING THAT, THEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET IN TROUBLE WITH THE STATE LAW.

BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, IS WE'RE TRYING TO HELP THIS ORDINANCE JUST BE MORE CLEAR.

SO YEAH, AND THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE A BOARD TO INTERPRET IT.

I CAN'T SAY HOW THEY WILL INTERPRET IT.

THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE A BOARD.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS.

IT'S MUTED.

OH, YOU'RE MUTED. SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

I THINK THAT WAS A GREAT COMMENT FROM MADAM CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT'S IN THE BULL'S EYE IS INSIDE THE BULL'S EYE.

AND SO THIS ISN'T ABOUT TRYING TO INTERPRET THIS ORDINANCE AS A AS A STATUTE.

I'M JUST READING IT.

AND SO AND MAYBE IT'S JUST BECAUSE OF SOME TRAINING, BUT MACK THIS MR CITY ATTORNEY, THIS IS REALLY WHERE MY QUESTION BECOMES.

ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE.

THIS REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OR A PROHIBITION AGAINST ACCEPTING CERTAIN GIFTS BY CERTAIN PEOPLE.

AND THE QUESTION SEEMS TO BECOME, DO WE HAVE DO WE HAVE A TEST HERE? AND THAT'S THAT'S REALLY TO ME WHERE THE CONFUSION IS, BECAUSE IN ONE OF THE SECTIONS IT SAYS, IT SHALL, IT SHALL IT SHALL BE A VIOLATION.

THAT'S NOT ABOUT MAKING IT LOOK LIKE THE RULE OF LAW.

[00:55:02]

I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT IT SHALL BE A VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE FOR A CITY OFFICIAL OR A CITY RELATIVE TO ACCEPT ANY GIFT OF CASH, PREPAID DEBIT CARDS OR GIFT CARDS, REGARDLESS OF THE VALUE.

I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT'S SAYING.

THAT STANDING OF ITSELF IN AND OF ITSELF IS VERY, VERY CLEAR.

BUT WHEN YOU PUT IT IN THE CONSTRUCT OF THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE THE I GUESS THIS IS PROPOSAL ONE, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO REFER TO THESE PARAGRAPHS.

YOU HAVE A GENERAL RULE.

WELL, DOES THAT GENERAL RULE, IS THAT ONE OF THE FIRST TESTS OR IS IT I'VE RECEIVED A GIFT OF ANY VALUE.

NOW, IS THERE A TEST THAT I HAVE TO APPLY TO THAT GIFT? AND THAT IS THIS MIGHT REASONABLY TEND TO INFLUENCE SUCH OFFICER IN THE DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES.

WELL, THAT'S TO ME WHERE THE CONFUSION IS.

YOU'VE GOT A GENERAL, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC IT APPLIES TO.

SO IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME.

DO WE WANT TO HAVE IT TO WHERE IT'S AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION TO RECEIVE ANYTHING OF VALUE BASED UPON THE DEGREE OF CONSANGUINITY AND THE VALUES AS DESCRIBED HERE? OR DO WE WANT TO HAVE THAT RECEIPT OF THAT GIFT AND THEN APPLY SOME OTHER TEST TO IT, WHICH IS THIS REASONABLY TEND TO INFLUENCE SUCH OFFICERS IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES? QUITE FRANKLY, I WOULD DO AWAY WITH THE GENERAL RULE.

BECAUSE IT BECOMES VERY CLEAR YOU JUST DON'T RECEIVE IT.

NOW, IF THAT'S NOT THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL, OKAY, THEN YOU DO HAVE THIS SORT OF SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION OF THAT THEN GOES INTO INTERPRETATION WITH A BOARD OF WHAT MIGHT REASONABLY TEND TO INFLUENCE.

SO IF WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO STAY WHAT IS INSIDE THE BULL'S EYE TO GIVE EVERYBODY CLARITY AND AND PREDICTABILITY ON WHAT THE RULES ARE, THAT'S THE CLEANEST. OTHERWISE, THEN WE'RE APPLYING SOME OTHER RULE OF SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION.

AND I'M NOT SAYING NECESSARILY I'M FOR OR AGAINST ONE OF THOSE.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS IS THERE'S THERE'S NOT CLARITY ON THERE'S AN ABSENCE.

THERE'S ABSOLUTE LANGUAGE THAT'S THEN BEING OVERLAID WITH SUBJECTIVE KIND OF INTERPRETATION.

COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

IF I INTERPRETED THE VICE CHAIRS COMMENTS CORRECTLY.

AND AND I THINK I DO THE THE PLACE WHERE A CODE OF ETHICS GOES BEYOND JUST, YOU KNOW, DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND THINGS IS WHERE YOU GET INTO WHAT COULD BE SUBJECTIVE, THAT YOU SHOULD NOT DO THINGS THAT HAVE AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

YOU SHOULDN'T DO THINGS THAT CAUSE SOMEONE TO CALL INTO QUESTION YOUR DECISIONS AS A POLICY MAKER OR A CITY OFFICIAL.

TO ME, I THINK THE I THINK THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS, IF I'M INTERPRETING THE COMMENTS OF THE VICE CHAIR CORRECTLY, WOULD RATHER KEEP THE GENERAL THAN THE SPECIFIC IF YOU'RE GOING TO JETTISON ONE. BUT I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO.

I THINK THE GENERAL IN ACTUAL APPLICATION, THE GENERAL IS THE RULE THAT EVERYBODY OUGHT TO FOLLOW.

DON'T BE INFLUENCED BY GIFTS.

RIGHT. DON'T TAKE A GIFT THAT THAT MIGHT INFLUENCE YOU OR MIGHT LOOK LIKE TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS THAT YOU'RE BEING INFLUENCED.

BUT WHEN YOU GET TO THAT PRACTICAL APPLICATION, IT'S THE SPECIFIC I THINK THAT'S GOING TO GOVERN FIRST BECAUSE THAT'S ANYTHING THAT'S OVER 50 BUCKS.

IT'S JUST RIGHT OUT.

ANYTHING THAT'S 200 OR MORE IN A CALENDAR YEAR OR FISCAL YEAR, IT'S JUST RIGHT OUT.

THAT'S, I THINK, YOUR FIRST GATE, YOUR FIRST TEST.

I THINK THE GENERAL IN APPLICATIONS EVER ONLY EVER GOING TO APPLY TO SOMETHING THAT'S LESS THAN 50 BUCKS OR 200 BUCKS IN A YEAR.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CUPS OF COFFEE AND, I DON'T KNOW, OUTBACK GIFT, HOUSE GIFT, OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE, GIFT CARD OR WHATEVER.

IT'S GOT TO BE UNDER 50 BUCKS TO EVEN GET TO THAT KIND OF SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE IF YOU'RE OVER 50 BUCKS OR $200 IN A FISCAL YEAR, YOU'RE ALREADY PASSED THE TEST, YOU'RE ALREADY OUTSIDE WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS.

SO YOUR TEST, I THINK, IS THE SPECIFIC FIRST.

AND THEN IF THE SPECIFIC DOESN'T APPLY, YOU'VE GOT THIS GENERAL PROHIBITION THAT AND THAT'S WHERE IT'S SUBJECTIVE.

AND AGAIN, I'LL POINT OUT THOSE TWO SECTIONS OTHER THAN THE WORD RELATIVE, THOSE TWO SECTIONS HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE WE PASSED THE CODE.

OKAY. YEAH.

SO. TO TRY TO SUMMARIZE.

I UNDERSTAND THE POINTS.

GENERALLY I WANT TO GIVE.

BECAUSE TO COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS'S POINT, IF YOU GO TO THE CITY WEBSITE, GO TO THE EXCEPTIONS.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALL LISTED THERE.

YOU CAN YOU CAN TRACK A TRACK ALONG WHICH.

REALLY NEGATES A LOT OF THIS CONVERSATION, AND I THINK THIS MISSES THE MARK.

UM, BUT I JUST.

[01:00:01]

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE THE CLARITY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT IT ON ITS FACE AND YOU DON'T CHECK THESE OTHER AREAS, IT CAN GET CONFUSING. I WOULD BE FINE WITH.

STAFF. LEGAL STAFF.

TAKING A LOOK AT IT, MAKING SURE IT SYNCS UP THAT THERE ARE NO KIND OF IF THERE ARE BUMPS IN THAT.

I MEAN SO GENERALLY THE PROPOSAL.

GREAT. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS SUMMARY.

GREAT. I JUST I WOULD LIKE THE WORDING OF THE THE RED LINES IN THE AMENDMENTS TO ALIGN WITH THE SPIRIT BY WHICH THE VICE CHAIR AND COUNCIL DAVIS POINTED OUT.

MY QUESTION IS TO YOU, MR. CITY ATTORNEY. DO YOU HAVE A FEEL FOR THAT OR.

I THINK SO. AND IF WE BREAK IT INTO TWO PARTS, I THINK THE COUNCIL, AS FAR AS THE EXTENDING THE EXISTING REGULATIONS TO.

RELATIVES. I THINK COUNCIL IS MORE OR LESS OKAY WITH THAT CONCEPT.

WHAT'S THROWING US IS THAT SECOND PIECE, WHICH IS CAN YOU ACCEPT CASH, DEBIT CARDS, ANYTHING THAT OF VALUE, OR IS THAT A HARD PROHIBITION? AND I THINK WE CAN COME BACK WITH SOME LANGUAGE IF THE COUNCIL HAS THOUGHT IS DO WE BUILD THAT SEPARATE FROM AS A CLEAR REGULATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER IT INFLUENCES YOU AND YOUR DUTIES OR NOT.

IF THAT'S JUST A CLEAR YOU AND YOUR RELATIVES DON'T TAKE CASH, THAT'S A PRETTY STRICT REGULATION.

BUT IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DO THAT, WE CAN DRAFT THAT AND MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR.

IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY WANT THAT MORE UNDER THIS UMBRELLA OF DON'T TAKE CASH, THAT WOULD INFLUENCE YOU, WE CAN ADJUST FOR THAT AS WELL.

WE NEED THAT DIRECTION.

SO QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT COMING BACK, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S HEARD.

SO FEEDBACK DIRECTED TOWARD THE CITY ATTORNEY AS HE'S RESPONDING TO WHAT HE SAID.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO IF I COULD ASK THE SUMMARY IS THAT THERE'S NO CONSENSUS FOR AS DESCRIBED HERE.

IS THAT THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION, MR. MAYOR? THERE'S A LACK OF CONSENSUS THAT DEPENDS ON WHERE COUNCILMAN MCGEE FALLS.

OKAY. SO IF HE'S IN AS WRITTEN, THEN YOU DO HAVE SUPPORT.

IF HE'S OUT AS WRITTEN, YOU DO NOT HAVE MAJORITY SUPPORT.

MAY I ANSWER? YES, I WOULD DRAW MY SUPPORT.

OKAY. SO NO, THERE'S NOT A MAJORITY CONSENSUS FOR AS WRITTEN.

THEN. THEN I WILL SAY I SUPPORT SINCE I ALREADY SUPPORTED THIS.

IF IF THE IF THE LANGUAGE THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY DESCRIBED WOULD GET US TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THEN I WOULD BE ON BOARD THAT INSTEAD BECAUSE I SUPPORT THIS.

YEAH. NO. AND I THINK THERE IS SUPPORT FOR IT.

I'M I'M CLEAR ON THAT PROPOSITION ONE AS THE IDEA IT'S TRYING TO AND WHAT IT'S TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

THERE'S SUPPORT FOR THAT.

IT'S JUST CLEANING UP THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

SO YEAH.

SO WE'RE GOOD.

OKAY. SORRY.

THAT'S OKAY. YES.

THAT WAS ONE ONE DOWN, ONE TO GO.

ALL RIGHT. IT ONLY GETS EASIER FROM HERE.

THERE'S NINE. SO PROPOSAL.

OH, HERE WE GO. PROPOSAL FOR TWO AND THREE WERE DEVELOPED, BUT THEN THE BOARD DECIDED NOT TO FORWARD THEM TO YOU.

SO WE'RE ON. PROPOSAL FOUR WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED BY THE BOARD OF ETHICS IN OCTOBER OF 2021 AND WAS INCLUDED IN THE JUNE 2022 PACKET OF AMENDMENTS. SO THIS THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS, HOWEVER, IT WAS POSTPONED BY COUNCIL WITH REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL CLARITY.

IN AUGUST OF 2022, THE BOARD OF ETHICS DISCUSSED THE CLARITY ISSUES BROUGHT UP BY THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH RESULTED IN CREATING THE DEFINITIONS FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION AND ELECTION CYCLE WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE SLIDE.

IN ADDITION, THERE'S THE DEFINITION OF CITY SECRETARY THAT'S ADDED JUST TO KIND OF ADD MORE CLARITY TO THE TO THE ORDINANCE AS WELL.

SO THAT IS THIS PROPOSAL, THIS WOULD ADD IT RECUSAL WOULD REQUIRE RECUSAL FOR CERTAIN FOR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS IF THERE WAS A PENDING MATTER. THAT I EXPLAIN THAT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES.

SO QUESTIONS FOR MADISON OR COMMENTS, COUNCILMAN DAVIS? THANK YOU, MAYOR. A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

FIRST, I WANT TO KIND OF LIMIT EXPECTATIONS JUST A LITTLE BIT THAT THAT LANGUAGE IS IS PRETTY CLEAR WHEN YOU READ IT, BUT IT CAN'T POSSIBLY ENCOMPASS EVERY FACTUAL SCENARIO, EVERY ENTITY THAT MIGHT GIVE MONEY, THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DIFFERENT ENTITIES AND PEOPLES AND THINGS.

SO AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS TO FILE A CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORT LIKE THE REST OF US HERE AT THE DAIS, I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO KIND OF MANAGE EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT'S AVAILABLE IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS.

AND THE INFORMATION THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE.

YOU KNOW, IS A IS AN ENTITY THAT'S STANDING IN FRONT OF THE COUNTY EXCUSE ME, THE COUNCIL WITH A PENDING MATTER.

[01:05:01]

SO I JUST WANT I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK THAT THIS IS SOME KIND OF SILVER BULLET THAT'S GOING TO CATCH EVERY BAD ACTOR THAT'S OUT THERE OR SOMEONE WHO'S WHO'S WHO'S BEEN INFLUENCED. I, I CAN'T REALLY IMAGINE A SCENARIO WHERE ANYBODY SITTING HERE TODAY IS GOING TO BE INFLUENCED BY $500 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.

BUT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE PUBLIC IS WORRIED ABOUT.

MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNOW.

I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S THIS IS NOT A SILVER BULLET.

NOTHING IN THE ETHICS CODE IS A SILVER BULLET THAT'S GOING TO PREVENT ALL BAD ACTORS AND CATCH EVERY BAD ACTOR THAT EXISTS.

MY MY AREA OF CONCERN REALLY IS THE DEFINITION OF THE ELECTION CYCLE, BECAUSE AN ELECTION CYCLE, AS I READ IT, AND MAYBE IT CAN BE READ IN ANOTHER WAY, BUT I READ IT AS, LET'S SAY YOU'RE RUNNING FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR CITY COUNCIL.

YOUR ELECTION CYCLE FOR THESE CONTRIBUTIONS.

AND LET'S SAY YOU ARE SUCCESSFULLY ELECTED TO CITY COUNCIL IN MAY OF 2019.

THE ELECTION CYCLE IS.

MAY OF 2019, BACKWARDS TO MAY OF 2018.

YOU COULD YOU COULD READ IT AS BACKWARDS TO MAY OF 2017.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER MAY OF 2019 AND WHAT HAPPENS IN THE AREA IN THE TIME BEFORE? WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TIME AFTER MAY OF 2019.

CAN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS CAN CONTINUE TO BE RECEIVED AT ANY TIME THAT SOMEBODY IS STILL SUBJECT TO FILING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTS UNTIL THEY HAVE A UNTIL THEY TERMINATE THEIR CAMPAIGN TREASURER DESIGNATION.

SO WHAT IF THERE'S A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION THAT COMES IN TO SATISFY CAMPAIGN DEBT? WHAT IF THERE'S A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION THAT COMES IN THAT'S INTENDED FOR THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE THAT YOU'VE NOW ENTERED THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE? WELL. IS THAT THAT'S NOT A CONFLICT UNDER THE WAY THAT THIS IS WRITTEN, UNDER THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN.

IT'S JUST THE LAST.

SO IF SOMEBODY GAVE A $500 CHECK AND THEY EXPECTED SOMETHING FOR IT AND THAT AND THAT COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU DID A BAD THING AND WAS WAS SUBJECT TO THAT PERSON'S INFLUENCE. THEY NEVER HAD TO DISCLOSE THAT $500 BECAUSE IT CAME AFTER THEY GOT ELECTED.

IT'S ONLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THE RUN UP TO THEIR ELECTION DAY.

SO I THINK THE ELECTION CYCLE DOES NOT THAT DEFINITION JUST IN THAT LAST IN THAT LAST CYCLE, IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TODAY OR TOMORROW OR ANY TIME BEFORE.

WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S RETROACTIVE, BECAUSE IT'S THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE.

THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S THE BETTER WAY TO DO IT IS TO REFERENCE.

THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE OR UNTIL A TERMINATION OF CAMPAIGN TREASURER IS ON FILE.

YOU CAN'T TAKE DONATIONS ANYMORE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BETTER TO REFERENCE A FILING DEADLINE.

AND WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF FILING DEADLINES, I'LL NOTE WE NEED TO CALL IT THE TEXAS ELECTIONS CODE THAT REQUIRES THESE THINGS.

NOT THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION.

LATER DOWN IN THE IN I THINK IT'S THREE D THE THE TSC THAT'S REFERENCED IN LOTS OF PLACES IN THAT IN THAT CONTEXT IS TEXAS ELECTIONS CODE NOT TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION.

SO THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS WITH ELECTION CYCLE.

THAT'S WHY I CAN'T GET BEHIND THIS ONE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO ACTUALLY TAKE IT OUT PROSPECTIVELY TO INCLUDE EVEN THE DAY OF THE VOTE, WHICH IT DOESN'T.

RIGHT NOW, IT'S ONLY RETROSPECTIVE WITH ELECTION CYCLE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM. I TAKE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I TAKE THE COUNCILOR DAVIS'S POINTS.

EXCEPT YOU DO HAVE TO PUT TIME FREQUENCIES ON THERE SOMEHOW.

SOMEWHERE. AND THE MOST CONVENIENT ONE IS FROM ELECTION DAY TO ELECTION DAY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE YOU DO IT.

IF YOU UNLESS YOU JUST WANT TO COLLECT AN AGGREGATE STATISTIC FOR ALL TIME, FOR FOR ALL WHILE YOU HAVE THAT OFFICE, WHICH WE COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT I MEAN, FROM THE THE THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION TILL THE DAY AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION OR TILL THE DAY OF THE ELECTION, YOU HAVE TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE.

AND IT'S PRETTY COMMON TO USE THAT THAT SORT OF BUMPER RAILS.

AND WE HAVE WE HAD THAT SORT OF TIME FRAME.

WE SORT OF IN THERE ALREADY, ALTHOUGH I CONCUR WITH COUNCILOR DAVIS THAT I THINK WE SHOULD BE CLEAR AND DEFINED.

A ARE WE SAYING AS IN THE QUESTIONS THE STAFF TWO YEARS OR THE TERM OF THE OFFICE? AND I THINK RESPONSE FROM FROM THE ETHICS WAS IT WAS TERM OF OFFICE FREQUENCY.

[01:10:05]

AND THEN I DO WANT TO ALSO POINT OUT IT GOES FROM THE LAST REGULAR ELECTION DATE UNTIL IT'S DECLARED BY THE CERTIFIED BY THE CITY CITY SECRETARY ESSENTIALLY. SO IT WOULD INCLUDE THAT PERIOD WOULD INCLUDE THE ACTUAL ELECTION DAY AND THEN THE PERIOD OF CANVASING DATE.

YES, THAT'S CORRECT. AND I'M FINE WITH THAT, TOO.

I MEAN, HONESTLY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUOUSLY GET ELECTED AROUND MORE THAN ONE TERM, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GO OVER A BOUNDARY OF SOME SORT.

IT THE BOUNDARY BECOMES A LITTLE ARBITRARY.

I'M FINE WITH IT AS WRITTEN.

BUT IF IF PEOPLE HAVE HEARTBURN ON THE EXACT DAY OF THE OF THE BOUNDARY, THEN I WOULD BE AMENABLE TO SUPPORTING SOME OTHER DAY.

ANYONE ELSE BEFORE I GO BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS? COUNCIL MEMBER WHAT'S.

YEAH. UM, I'LL SAY MY COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, BUT ON THE, ON THE $500 FROM A INDIVIDUAL, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT BUSINESS ENTITY.

I'M A I THINK UNLESS AND I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE BACKUP UNLESS THESE ARE DEFINED SOMEWHERE OF COURSE BUSINESS ENTITY CAN BE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT MEANS IF X, Y, Z, CORPORATION OR CORPORATIONS CAN'T GIVE.

ACTUALLY THAT'S.

EVEN AN LLC CAN GIVE IN A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP AND CORPORATIONS CANNOT GIVE TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

UM. THE THING THAT I'M WONDERING IS WHERE IT SAYS OR OTHER ORGANIZATION.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE OTHER THE ONLY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT I CAN THINK OF ARE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES.

ALL RIGHT. AND SO I KNOW THAT DURING ONE ITERATION OF THIS DISCUSSION BACK IN THE PAST, THERE WAS SOME IDEAS FLOATED THAT, WELL, IF YOU WERE A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZATION WHO HAD A PAC, WHO GAVE MONEY TO A CANDIDATE, IF THAT MEMBER OF THE ORGANIZATION CAME BEFORE ON A PENDING MATTER UNRELATED TO THE ORGANIZATION, THEY JUST THEY'RE JUST A MEMBER OF SOMETHING.

THEY'RE JUST PAYING DUES.

THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SAY IN WHO GETS MONEY, WHEN AND WHERE.

THAT'S THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN IS I DON'T THINK THAT'S VERY CLEARLY DEFINED ON WHO THAT ACTUALLY APPLIES TO.

AND THEN TO GO BACK TO THE THE TIME FRAME, THE ONLY TIME YOU'RE REALLY NOT GOING TO GET CAUGHT UP IN THE CYCLE ASPECT OF THIS LANGUAGE IS WHEN YOU INITIALLY RUN BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT'S SET, IT SAYS FROM ELECTION DAY TO ELECTION DAY.

SO IF I'VE NEVER RUN AND I'M RECEIVING CONTRIBUTIONS UP TO ELECTION DAY, THEN I'M RECEIVING THEM.

THEN TECHNICALLY THIS DOESN'T APPLY.

NOW, ONCE THAT ELECTION DAY OCCURS, ANYTHING I RECEIVE FROM THAT TIME FORWARD, THE WAY THAT I READ THIS IS THROUGH THE NEXT ELECTION CYCLE, TWO YEARS LATER, THE NEXT ELECTION, THEN THIS APPLIES.

SO THAT'S MY ONLY OBSERVATION ON THAT.

BUT MY MY MAIN CONCERN IS JUST UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS BY, YOU KNOW, WHO DOES THIS ACTUALLY APPLY TO.

WE UNDERSTAND INDIVIDUALS, BUSINESS ENTITIES IS VERY LIMITED BECAUSE OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST CORPORATE DONATIONS.

BUT ORGANIZATION, WHAT IS THERE SOME KIND OF IDEA OF WHAT WHAT THAT MEANS? WHAT'S THE ORGANIZATION IS NOT DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE BUSINESS ENTITY IS.

I COULD READ IT IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO.

NO, YOU'RE GOOD. NO, YOU'RE GOOD.

YEAH. YEAH, I CAN LOOK IT UP.

IT DOES HAVE ANY OTHER ENTITY RECOGNIZED BY LAW AT THE END OF IT.

SO IF THAT WOULD IF THAT'S HELPFUL.

I DON'T THE ORGANIZATION IS NOT DEFINED.

ORGANIZATION IS NOT DEFINED.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. FIRST ON THE ELECTION CYCLE THING, THE LANGUAGE IS IT DEFINES ELECTION CYCLE.

WE'VE COVERED THAT. THE LANGUAGE IS THE CONFLICTING INTEREST IS RECEIPT OF MORE THAN $500 CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION FROM BLAH, BLAH, BLAH DURING THE MOST RECENT ELECTION CYCLE.

THAT MEANS THE MOST RECENT, NOT THE CURRENT.

SO IF WE ADD THE WORD CURRENT, THAT ALLEVIATES MY CONCERN ABOUT ELECTION CYCLE.

IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO, I PUT OUT SOME OPTIONS FOR HOW TO ADDRESS MY CONCERN.

BUT MOST RECENT DOES NOT MEAN TODAY.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THE CHECK I GOT IN THE HALL BEFORE I CAME IN FOR THE VOTE.

IT MEANS THE CHECKS I GOT THE LAST ELECTION CYCLE, THE MOST RECENT ELECTION CYCLE.

SO I THINK MY CONCERN WOULD BE ALLEVIATED IF WE SAID MOST RECENT AND CURRENT ELECTION CYCLE BECAUSE THAT COVERS THE CHECK YOU GET WALKING INTO CITY HALL THE THE DAY OF THE VOTE ON THE CITY COUNCIL, THE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WHAT'S JUST SAID IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY WITHOUT EVERYBODY'S HEADS EXPLODING.

THIS DOESN'T COVER PACS.

ANYBODY WHO THINKS IT DOES.

WHEN I TALKED ABOUT EXPLICIT EXPECTATIONS A MINUTE AGO, PACS DON'T HAVE PENDING MATTERS.

[01:15:07]

THEY DON'T SHOW UP AND ASK FOR A TAX RATE CHANGE.

PACS DON'T HAVE PENDING MATTERS.

INDIVIDUALS OR LLCS OR REAL ESTATE COMPANIES OR WHATEVER CAN HAVE PENDING MATTERS.

BUT A PAC IS NOT GOING TO SHOW UP WITH THE PENDANT.

SO ANYBODY WHO THINKS THAT THIS IS GOING TO COVER WELL, SO AND SO GOT MONEY FROM SUCH AND SUCH A PAC, AND I DON'T LIKE THAT PAC.

SO ANY TIME SOMEBODY WHO KIND OF AGREES WITH THAT PAC OR IS A MEMBER GIVES THEM MONEY, SHOWS UP TO A MEETING IN SUPPORT OF SOMETHING OR HAS A PENDING MATTER, A ZONING CASE OR A BUILDING PERMIT OR WHATEVER, THAT'S GOING TO PROHIBIT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER FROM VOTING.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS SAYS, BECAUSE A PAC WILL NOT HAVE A PENDING MATTER IN FRONT OF US.

A PERSON CAN.

BOB JONES GIVES ME A CHECK AND THEN BOB JONES HAS A ZONING CASE.

THEN IF IT'S MORE THAN $500 I GOT FROM MR. JONES, THIS SAYS I CAN'T VOTE ON HIS ZONING CASE, BUT IF BOB JONES IS A MEMBER OF A PAC AND HE GAVE $500 TO THAT PAC OR $50 OR WHATEVER, THAT'S IRRELEVANT.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

MY RELATIONSHIP ISN'T WITH BOB JONES, IT'S WITH THE PAC.

THE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION CAME FROM THE PAC.

SO ANYBODY OUT THERE, BOARD MEMBERS OR OURSELVES, WHO THINKS THAT THIS APPLIES TO PACS, IT JUST DOESN'T.

IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, YOU GOT TO SAY THAT.

AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME DIFFERENT ISSUES THERE.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS DOES TODAY.

OKAY. AND I'LL JUST SAY THAT'S.

IN THE SPIRIT OF THIS IS TO ADD TRANSPARENCY.

WHAT THIS DOES IS, AGAIN, YOU COULD TELL THE PEOPLE AND WE MENTIONED THIS BEFORE, SO THIS IS NOT NEW, YOU SHOULD HAVE SOMEONE THAT'S RUN FOR OFFICE, COME SPEAK TO THE TO THE BODY AND TAKE NOTES, BECAUSE THIS PUSHES AWAY TRANSPARENCY.

THIS MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO CREATE A PAC.

AND THEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.

THIS MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO GIVE $20 CASH DONATIONS THAT TOTAL GOD KNOWS WHAT, BUT IT'S $20.

CASH AT THE KICKOFF PARTY IS JUST STUFFED IN THERE.

THAT THAT. NOW, HOW DO YOU DISCERN WHO GAVE THE OVER 500 BUCKS AND $20 BILLS? RIGHT. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE WANT AS FAR AS TRANSPARENCY.

BUT TO THE LAYPERSON THAT'S OUTSIDE LOOKING IN, IT'S NEVER BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS.

IT READS FANTASTIC.

BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO TELL YOU, HAVING GONE THROUGH IT ENOUGH, THIS ISN'T YOU DON'T WANT TO PUSH PEOPLE THE WRONG WAY.

YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO BE TRANSPARENT, WRITE CHECKS, THAT SORT OF THING.

THAT'S TRACKABLE.

AND THERE'S A MILLION DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF HOW THIS IS NOT PRODUCTIVE AND DOES NOT GIVE THE CITIZENS THE TRANSPARENCY THEY THEY WANT OR DESERVE. SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T SUPPORT IT.

I BUT I DO TAKE NOTE AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE GOAL, IT JUST MISSES THE MARK.

SO THAT'S THAT'S THE EXTENT OF MY COMMENTS.

ANYONE ELSE? COUNCIL MEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM.

SO IS IT THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE LIKE ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE? IS THAT WHAT WOULD MAKE PEOPLE FEEL BETTER? IF THEY I MEAN, I TAKE YOUR POINT.

WE WANT TO PUSH TOWARDS TRANSPARENCY.

AND SO THAT'S NOT A WRONG GOAL.

THAT'S A GOOD GOAL. I AGREE WITH YOU.

SO WOULD IF THE GOAL IS TO STOP DONATIONS OUTRIGHT AND WHO'S GOING TO DONATE AN INDIVIDUAL, A BUSINESS ENTITY OR A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE? THOSE ARE OUR THREE BIG DONORS, SOMETIMES AN ORGANIZATION, BUT OKAY, THEY GENERALLY ROLL UP A PAC, A PARALLEL TO THEIR ORGANIZATION. RIGHT.

SO I MEAN, IS THAT THE IS THE GOAL IS COUNCIL'S WILL TO ADD THE LANGUAGE, INCLUDING PACS OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT.

AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE FEEL OF COUNCIL ON THAT.

THE SHORT ANSWER FOR ME IS NO, BECAUSE THEN YOU TALK ABOUT AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN A VACUUM, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN THE REAL WORLD, I HAVE I KNOW I'VE WRITTEN.

SO THIS IS RED.

THIS IS FIRSTHAND INFORMATION.

WHEN A PAC OR ORGANIZATION SUPPORTS ME, THEIR MEMBERSHIP, THAT'S NOT 100% RIGHT.

THERE'S MEMBERS WITHIN THAT ORGANIZATION THAT ARE ANGRY THAT I'M BACKED BY THAT GROUP.

AND THAT MEMBER WOULD THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD AN ADU.

THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING, THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD WHATEVER, AND THEY NEED TO COME GET A PERMIT.

NOW THAT THAT MEMBER IS THERE, LIKE I'M CAUGHT UP IN THIS WHIRLWIND THAT I DIDN'T EVEN SUPPORT IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT? SO THAT THAT IS IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN A VACUUM, IT SOUNDS GREAT, BUT IT'S NOT EFFECTIVE.

AND THOSE ENTITIES, IT COMPLICATES THINGS FOR THOSE THAT DON'T WANT TO GO ALONG WITH THE GROUP.

[01:20:08]

SO THAT'S MY READ OF IT.

SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO, I DON'T THINK THAT FIXES IT.

THE AND THEN I'LL RECOGNIZE COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INFLUENCE AND NOT THE CONTRIBUTIONS.

SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WRITING AN ORDINANCE THAT GOVERNS WHAT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN ACCEPT OR SHOULD ACCEPT OR ANY OF THAT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE DISCLOSURE OR RECUSAL REQUIREMENTS OUGHT TO BE.

IF YOU'RE A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO RECEIVES SUCH A CONTRIBUTION, AND IF SOMEONE WITH A PENDING MATTER IS THE PERSON WHO GAVE YOU THAT CONTRIBUTION, WHAT DO YOU DO IN THAT INSTANCE? THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN WITH A PAC.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PURPOSE IN PUTTING A PAC IN THERE TO ADDING LANGUAGE.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY TO ALLEVIATE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

I JUST WANT THE PUBLIC TO BE AWARE THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOESN'T RELIEVE US AS VOTERS OR AS COUNCIL MEMBERS OF GOING AND READING CAMPAIGN FINANCE STATEMENTS, LOOKING UP WHAT A PAC IS OR WHAT IT ISN'T, FIGURING OUT WHO THE MEMBERS ARE AND WHERE THEIR MONEY COMES FROM AND DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE THERE.

THERE'S JUST NOT A SILVER BULLET IN HERE THAT SAYS AHA SO-AND-SO WHO KEEPS GETTING CHECKS FROM A PAC I DON'T LIKE IS GOING TO HAVE TO RECUSE FROM ALL THESE MATTERS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW.

COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH TAKES A $1,000 CHECK FROM THE TREE HATERS PAC AND COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH JUST KEEPS VOTING IN FAVOR OF CLEAR CUTTING PARKS AND STUFF AND CUTTING DOWN ALL THE TREES.

AND SOMEBODY SAYS HE SHOULDN'T BE VOTING ON ALL THIS TREE CUTTING STUFF.

HE'S GOT MONEY FROM THE TREE HATERS PAC.

WELL, THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

THAT DOESN'T MATTER. UNDER THIS ORDINANCE.

YOU CAN'T PROHIBIT.

THERE IS NO INDIVIDUAL THERE.

THERE'S NO THE TREE HATERS PACK ISN'T UP THERE ASKING YOU TO CUT DOWN A BUNCH OF BUNCH OF TREES OR HAVE A PENDING MATTER.

AND I'M STRETCHING MY HYPOTHETICAL ABOUT AS FAR AS IT'S GOING TO GO.

BUT IF PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PAC MONEY, THIS IS NOT THIS IS NOT WHAT ADDRESSES IT TO THE MAYOR'S POINT.

AND THERE'S NOT THERE'S NOT A CHANGE IN WHAT WE'RE THE SECTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT I THINK WOULD WOULD ADDRESS IT TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, THE THEIR CITIES, THE CITY OF DALLAS IS A NOTABLE EXAMPLE THAT HAVE DONE WHAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

AND THEY PROHIBITED CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.

THEY PROHIBITED CERTAIN TYPES OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION.

AND ALL IT DID WAS MADE PEOPLE MORE CREATIVE.

WELL, I DIDN'T GET $500 FROM MR. SMITH. I GOT 50 BUCKS FROM HIM AND 50 BUCKS FROM HIS WIFE AND 50 BUCKS FROM HIS NEIGHBOR AND 50 BUCKS FROM HIS DEAD GRANDMA, WHOSE CHECKING ACCOUNT IS STILL OPEN.

AND DALLAS HAS HAD THE WORST TIME TRYING TO ACTUALLY.

RIGHT. IT'S ALL IT'S ALL BAD ACTORS, RIGHT.

DALLAS HAS COMPLETELY LOST CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY'VE TRIED TO GOVERN, WHICH IS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LIMITING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LIMITING THE INFLUENCE.

AND I THINK WHAT'S WRITTEN THERE, FIXING MY LITTLE CONCERN ABOUT THE ELECTION CYCLE, I THINK THAT'S AS FAR AS THE CITY CAN REASONABLY GO.

AND I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO BE AWARE THAT IF THEY'RE THINKING SOMETHING ELSE IS HAPPENING, THAT THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT AT ALL WHAT'S ON THE TABLE TODAY.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. DO YOU NEED SUPPORT? ARE WE? YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT'S IN SUPPORT OF AS WRITTEN THUS FAR.

OKAY. SO THERE'S DIRECTION.

THERE'S NO DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD.

NO. OKAY.

AND CORRECT ME WHERE I'M WRONG.

OKAY. WE'RE ON TO LET'S DO THIS.

LET'S TAKE. AND WE'RE WAY.

WE'RE GOING TO BE LATE. THAT'S FINE.

LET'S TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK.

WE'VE BEEN AT IT SINCE 11, 1130.

SO, YEAH, LET'S TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK AND COME BACK AND WE'LL PICK UP AT 5:00.

IT IS 325.

WE'LL BE BACK AT 335 TO PICK UP PROPOSAL FIVE.

IT IS. 337.

WE'RE BACK FROM A BRIEF BREAK.

WE'RE WE HAVE WE'RE ON PROPOSAL FIVE.

THIS IS STILL IN SECTION C OF OUR WORK SESSION.

AND I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU, MELISSA.

ALL RIGHT. LET ME PULL IT BACK UP THE PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT. SO PROPOSAL FIVE WAS DEVELOPED IN OCTOBER OF 2022 AND ADDS TO THE DEFINITION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF RECENT OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT, WHICH IS DEFINED ON THE SLIDE

[01:25:02]

AND I GUESS I'LL TAKE IT DOWN.

THERE YOU GO. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR COMMENTS? COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON. YES, I GUESS AS I'M READING THIS, IS THIS ONLY ONE DIRECTION? IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS AN OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT FROM SOMEONE TO THE CITY OFFICIAL AND NOT AN OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT FROM THE CITY OFFICIAL IN THEIR POTENTIAL PRIVATE PRACTICE OR BUSINESS.

AND THAT PERSON MAY HAVE A PENDING MATTER BEFORE THIS.

IS THIS THE ONE WAY OR IS THIS TWO WAY? I BELIEVE I BELIEVE IT'S ONE WAY.

IS THERE A OKAY.

IS THERE A.

PARTICULAR. I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY COULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT THE OTHER WAY MAY NOT BE AS NECESSARY.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF IF I'M HIRING SOMEONE AND I'VE EXTENDED AN OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT TO THEM AND THEY HAVE A PENDING MATTER BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

ARE WE SAYING THAT THERE'S NO NEED FOR ME TO.

IS THIS A RECUSAL? YEAH, RECUSAL.

UH, TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT'S THE OTHER DIRECTION.

THIS PROPOSAL WAS BASED ON LANGUAGE CREATED, I BELIEVE, BY SAN ANTONIO.

SO IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME LANGUAGE.

I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF THE INTENTION WAS TO SAY THERE'S NOT A REASON TO HAVE THAT.

BUT SO IF YOU THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE, WE CAN TAKE DIRECTION TO CHANGE IT.

WELL, I THINK THAT I MEAN, IF IF IN OUR EARLIER DISCUSSIONS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT THE GOAL HERE IS, NUMBER ONE, TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE RULES ARE AND TO ACHIEVE A HIGHER SORT OF PLANE OF BEHAVIOR THAT'S NOT JUST RESTRICTED TO, QUOTE UNQUOTE, THE RULE OF LAW AND AND FOR TRANSPARENCY. SO I DON'T SEE WHERE THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IT BEING ONE WAY AND THEN NOT THE OTHER.

I MEAN, THERE STILL CAN BE INFLUENCES THAT CAN COME TO BEAR, WHETHER I'M BEING OFFERED A JOB OR I'M OFFERING SOMEBODY A JOB.

AND THOSE PARTICULAR PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS OR CORPORATIONS OR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE A PENDING MATTER BEFORE.

SO I DON'T SEE ANY HARM IN MAKING IT BOTH DIRECTIONS.

UM, THAT'S SORT OF MY THOUGHT ON IT.

I JUST WAS I WASN'T QUITE SURE WHY IT WAS ONLY ONE WAY.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN DAVIS. JUST TO SAY I SHARE THAT CONCERN.

EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME.

THIS KIND OF CONTEMPLATES SOMEBODY WHO WOULD BE OFFERED A JOB OR MIGHT BE THINKING ABOUT A JOB FROM AN APPLICANT FOR SOMETHING OR SOMEONE WITH A PENDING MATTER.

BUT IT'S JUST AS LIKELY THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER COULD BE THINKING ABOUT HIRING THAT PERSON OR THINKING ABOUT HIRING THAT ZONING CONSULTANT OR LAND USE CONSULTANT OR WHATEVER.

SO I THINK I WELCOME THE CHANGE.

I THINK IT'S GOT TO GO BOTH WAYS, THOUGH.

I THINK IT'S GOT TO BE EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER JUST LOOK AT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THIS BODY NOW AND IN THE PAST.

CERTAINLY COULD BE A COUNCIL MEMBER, COULD BE A POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE OR A POTENTIAL EMPLOYER.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YEAH, I THINK THIS IS ONE ITEM OF.

OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

I SUPPORT THE THE DIRECTION.

THE. I DON'T HAVE PARTICULAR HEARTBURN.

IF IN THE FUTURE THE BOARD OF ETHICS WERE TO BRING BACK THE OTHER HALF OF THE EQUATION AFTER HAVING THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND GIVEN THEIR THEIR OPINIONS AND AND THE RELEVANT STATUTE THAT'S THAT'S FINE IF WE WANT TO BRING THAT BACK AS A FUTURE ITEM, I'VE LOST TRACK OF HOW MANY FUTURE ITEMS THERE ARE BUT BUT THAT YEAH IT I THINK THE INFLUENCE WAS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE BECAUSE THERE'S NO THERE'S NO FINANCIAL EXISTING FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP, WHICH IS WHY THIS WAS BEING COVERED BECAUSE IT'S A FUTURE FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP.

SO IT'S NOT COVERED BY THE OTHER ITEMS. I GUESS THAT COULD BE TRUE OF OF ANOTHER.

ITEM. SO I DON'T I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RECUSAL ON THE OTHER DIRECTION EITHER.

SO WHATEVER WILL GET SUPPORT FOR THIS HALF OF THE EQUATION.

IF WE NEED BOTH HALVES, I'M FINE WITH IT.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? I'M WILLING IF IT CUTS BOTH WAYS, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

SO THAT'S THAT'S FOUR OF US TAKES US TO.

SO JUST EDIT IT SO THAT IT MIRRORS.

YES, PLEASE. AND THANK YOU.

TAKES US TO PROPOSAL SIX.

OKAY. A PROPOSAL.

SIX WAS DEVELOPED IN OCTOBER OF 2022 AND ADDS TO THE DEFINITION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

[01:30:04]

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR NUMBER SIX.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, AND THAT'S KIND OF CAREFULLY, WAS THERE A PARTICULAR HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION THAT THE THE BOARD WAS CONCERNED ABOUT? I DON'T REMEMBER US TALKING MUCH ABOUT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS AND BUSINESS NEGOTIATIONS, THAT KIND OF THING.

I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM REALLY WITH HOW IT'S WRITTEN.

I'M JUST KIND OF WONDERING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE GENESIS OF IT AND WHAT WE'RE IT HELPS ME TO UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE PREVENTING SOMETHING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT, IF I KNOW WHAT IT IS SPECIFICALLY WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IN MY RECOLLECTION, THERE WAS NOT LIKE A SPECIFIC INCIDENT OR EVENT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO COVER THAT THE BOARD WAS TRYING TO COVER.

THROUGH THIS, WE DID A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF A BUNCH OF TEN YEAR CITY ORDINANCES AND LOOKED AT WHAT THEY WERE THEY INCLUDED.

AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS INCLUDED IN SOME OTHER ORDINANCES THAT WAS NOT IN THE CURRENT IN OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE.

AND SO THE BOARD CHOSE TO PROPOSE THAT IT BE ADDED.

AND BUT WE DON'T WE DON'T DEFINE NEGOTIATIONS, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. SO, AGAIN, JUST TRYING TO MANAGE EXPECTATIONS A LITTLE BIT.

I MEAN, SOMEBODY COULD OFFER SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE SITTING AROUND ON THE CAMPUS RIGHT NOW SAYING, HEY, WE COULD BE THE NEXT ZUCKERBERG.

LET'S START A BUSINESS IN OUR IN OUR GARAGE.

YOU KNOW, CONVERSATIONS LIKE THAT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.

SO AND PROBABLY FALL SHORT OF NEGOTIATION.

SO THAT'S WHY I ASK IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF PARTICULAR SITUATION WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO ADDRESS IT BECAUSE THIS IS A LITTLE BIT ON THE NEBULOUS SIDE.

SO AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

I JUST DON'T WANT THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE AN IDEA THAT THIS PREVENTS SOMETHING WHEN WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT THIS IS REALLY AIMED AT PREVENTING.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR CITY ATTORNEY, BUT OUR NEGOTIATIONS COVERED UNDER CONTRACT LAW THAT WE WOULD BE COVERED UNDER.

NO, I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CLEAR DEFINITION THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO LOOK TO THAT WOULD HELP US HERE.

OKAY. THAT THAT, THAT.

YEAH, THAT WAS THAT WAS SORT OF TRYING TO PUT THE IN ANTICIPATION OF A CONTRACT, YOU KNOW, A NEGOTIATION.

I MEAN, I THINK IT'S CLEAR WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO CURTAIL.

SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S A PROBLEM.

BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF WE'VE GOT SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, INITIATED CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP, THAT THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY GO ANYWHERE AND DOESN'T RESULT IN ANY MONEY.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WHERE THIS IS TRYING TO TO GO TO.

AND AND THAT SHOWS A A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP SO YOU KNOW IT IT'S A RECUSAL IT'S IT'S NOTHING ELSE IT'S THE SAME AS SORT OF THE THE PREVIOUS ONE WITH WITH THE LAWN CARE EXAMPLE OR THE BUSINESS ENTITY EMPLOYMENT LOBBYIST EXAMPLE.

SO I MEAN THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO WORK ON THE INFLUENCE FOR ITEMS COMING BEFORE COUNCIL.

COUNCILMAN. WHAT'S.

OH, GOSH. JUST LOST MY THOUGHT.

UM, I GUESS.

MADISON, REFRESH MY MEMORY.

I KNOW YOU. IT WAS IN THE MARCH, I THINK MARCH 10TH.

THESE PROPOSALS, SEVERAL OF THEM, IT HAD IN THE BACK UP THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU DID A SURVEY OF I THINK YOU SAID, WAS IT TEN CITIES? THAT'S CORRECT. TEN.

TEN CITIES.

AND SO LET'S SAY LET'S JUST USE THIS ONE PARTICULAR THIS THIS ONE EXAMPLE.

SO OUT OF THE TEN, UM, AND, AND ARE WE INCLUDED IN THAT TEN OR IS IT TEN AND THEN US TEN AND THEN US.

OKAY. SO OUT OF THAT TEN, HOW MANY HAD SOMETHING EVEN SIMILAR TO THIS IN IT? THREE, I THINK THREE I THINK I REMEMBER READING MOST OF THESE AND MOST OF THESE PROPOSALS WHEN THEY WERE SORT OF PUT UP AGAINST THESE TEN KIND OF CITIES. I DIDN'T SEE ANYBODY THAT HAD OVER THREE OR ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS THAT HAD OVER 3 OR 4.

I MEAN, SOME OF THEM HAD MAYBE 1 OR 2.

AND I THINK THOSE WERE SOME OF THE ONES THAT WERE EXCLUDED.

MY MY MY CONCERN HERE IS I UNDERSTAND THE SPIRIT OF IT.

AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE SPIRIT OF IT, BUT.

THE CHALLENGE IS WHAT I'M HEARING SORT OF IN THIS DISCUSSION IS SORT OF TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF APPROACHES THAT SEEM TO BE CONFLICTING.

AND ONE IS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BULL'S EYE.

[01:35:04]

AND I TOTALLY GET THAT. AND I THINK ANY TIME YOU CAN PROVIDE PREDICTABILITY, ESPECIALLY FOR SOMETHING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, AS IMPACTFUL AS THESE KINDS OF SITUATIONS CAN BE AS FAR AS ON PEOPLE AND ON ETHICS AND ON POLICY MAKING, WE NEED TO BECOME I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AS SPECIFIC AS WE CAN, BUT WE NEED TO GIVE PRETTY CLEAR DIRECTION. THIS IS PRETTY VAGUE.

I MEAN, BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NEGOTIATIONS, I MEAN, AS THE MAYOR PRO TEM POINTED OUT, YOU KNOW, HE ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, DO WE ARE WE COVERING NEGOTIATIONS IS SO WIDE OPEN.

AND SO TO LEAVE THAT KIND OF OPEN ENDED DISCUSSION TO A PANEL THAT IS HOPING TO PROVIDE MORE CLARITY AND MORE GUIDELINES AND SORT OF THE RAILS, EVEN IF THEY'RE ONLY PERCEPTUAL, EVEN IF THEY'RE ONLY CONCEPTUAL.

I THINK WE COULD NARROW IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THIS JUST IT DOESN'T GIVE A WHOLE LOT OF CLARITY ON WHAT THAT MEANS.

WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS.

BUT THEN WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IF SOMETHING GETS FILED, THEN YOU'VE GOT TO START GOING THROUGH ALL THOSE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INTERPRETATIONS.

YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S GOT AN OPINION ABOUT IT.

I JUST THINK IT NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY ON WHAT WHAT BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NEGOTIATIONS MEANS.

I MEAN, IS IT IS IT A LETTER OF INTENT? IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S REDUCED IN WRITING? IS IT IS IT YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY COULD, AS COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, I THINK, HAD SAID, YOU COULD TALK ABOUT ALL KINDS OF THINGS, AND YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN WHEN THOSE MIGHT BEAR FRUIT LATER ON. SO I CAN'T SUPPORT IT.

AS IT'S WRITTEN. I CAN SUPPORT THE CONCEPT, BUT I'D LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY ON EXACTLY WHAT WHAT THOSE TERMS MEAN AND WHAT THE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO.

YEAH. AND I'LL JUST SAY I CAN'T SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IT'S OVERLY BROAD.

I'M LOOKING AT IT NOW.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A BUSINESS ENTITY IS.

YOU COULD HAVE A SOLO SOLO ENTREPRENEUR.

I FORGET THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO SAY THAT I'M NOT MESHING THOSE TWO WORDS TOGETHER.

RIGHT? BUT IT'S JUST IT IS OVERLY BROAD.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE A CATCH ALL.

AND AGAIN, THAT GOES TO.

YOU POST SPEED LIMITS, HOPING PEOPLE WILL ABIDE BY THE SPEED LIMIT.

IT'S NOT A GOTCHA LIKE, HEY, YOU SHOULD HAVE ASSUMED THAT IT'S A RESIDENTIAL ROAD AND THE SPEED LIMIT IS 30MPH.

SO WE'RE GOING TO WRITE YOU A TICKET.

IT'S MORE POST SPEED LIMIT SIGNS EVERYWHERE SO PEOPLE GO 30MPH AND SLOW DOWN.

THIS DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH THAT.

I'VE HEARD SEVERAL PEOPLE SAY THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S TRYING TO GET TO.

I TRULY DON'T.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO PROTECT AGAINST HERE.

IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

IT IS JUST, HEY, IF IT'S JUST ALMOST LIKE, HEY, SOMETHING WILL FIT IN HERE, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE LIST BUSINESS, ESPECIALLY IN TEXAS, BUSINESS ENTITY MEANS A LOT.

AND AGAIN, I JUST. I THINK IT JUST BEGS.

SO IF IT COMES BACK GREAT WITH MORE DETAIL, MORE CLARITY, MORE REASON, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AND EVEN AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS WOULD BE GREAT.

I JUST I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS MEANS.

AND SO I CAN'T SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I HAVE TO DEFEND WHAT I SUPPORT.

AND I'VE HEARD EVERYONE LIST, NOT EVERYONE.

I'VE HEARD A COUPLE PEOPLE SAY THEY UNDERSTAND WHERE IT'S GOING.

I HADN'T HEARD ONE EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT'S GOING TOWARDS.

LIKE I HADN'T HEARD ANYONE CLEARLY ARTICULATE WHAT WHAT IT'S TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

SO SOMEONE WANTS TO DO THAT.

I CAN GET ON BOARD IF YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND, IN THE WORDS OF DENZEL WASHINGTON, HELP EXPLAIN IT TO ME LIKE I'M A THREE YEAR OLD.

LIKE, HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS.

OTHERWISE I CAN'T I CAN'T SUPPORT IT BECAUSE IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME.

SO. I LEAVE THE FLOOR OPEN FOR? WHO WANTS TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT I WHAT I'M MISSING? IT'S OBVIOUS. OKAY.

TAKES US TO PROPOSAL SEVEN AD RECUSAL REQUIREMENT FOR CLIENT RELATIONSHIPS.

OKAY. HERE WE GO.

PROPOSAL SEVEN WAS DEVELOPED IN OCTOBER OF 2022 AS THE DEFINITION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS.

THE EXISTENCE OF A CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH A PERSON OR BUSINESS ENTITY.

AND THEN THIS DEFINITION.

WE DID DISCUSS SOME OF THIS WITH COUNCIL AT A PREVIOUS MEETING, AND THIS WAS THE DEFINITION AT THE TIME THAT COUNCIL LEANED TOWARDS MORE OF THE SEVERAL THAT WERE PRESENT OR THE 2 OR 3 THAT WERE PRESENTED AT THAT TIME.

BUT I'LL TAKE DIRECTION QUESTIONS.

OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF DIRECTIONS ON PROPOSAL SEVEN.

COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

I FIGURE HOW TO WORK A BUTTON FIRST.

TAKE YOUR TIME. BLINK AND WEIRD AT ME.

ALL RIGHT. I DIDN'T DO IT. WHATEVER IT WAS, I DIDN'T DO IT.

MY CONCERN WITH THIS IS REALLY JUST THE SAME AS THE OTHER EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE ISSUE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THAT WHAT THIS CONTEMPLATES IS A LET ME SLIDE DOWN.

[01:40:10]

THIS CONTEMPLATES A SITUATION WHERE THE CITY OFFICIAL IS NOT THE CLIENT.

THE CITY OFFICIAL IS THE PERSON WITH THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY.

SO A CITY OFFICIAL WHO IS A LAWYER, CERTAIN KINDS OF FINANCIAL ADVISERS, THAT KIND OF STUFF, MAYBE A REALTOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THIS DOESN'T CONTEMPLATE A SITUATION WHERE THE PERSON OR BUSINESS ENTITY.

IS IS THE PERSON PROVIDING THAT.

SO MY DOCTOR, MY LAWYER, WHATEVER OTHER CLIENT RELATIONSHIP YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, I THINK IT'S GOT TO GO BOTH WAYS BECAUSE I THINK THE THE ISSUE COULD EXIST FROM BOTH.

UM. WHETHER I'M THE CLIENT OR WHETHER THE PERSON MAKING THE APPLICATION IS THE CLIENT.

I THINK THERE'S STILL A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND I THINK IT'S GOT TO APPLY BOTH BOTH DIRECTIONS.

SO FOR INSTANCE, IF LET'S SAY I OWN A PARCEL OF LAND AND LAST YEAR I REZONED THAT PARCEL OF LAND AND I PROPERLY RECUSED AND DID ALL THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

BUT I ASKED A LOCAL CONSULTANT, AN ENGINEER OR SOMEBODY ELSE TO HELP ME WITH THAT ZONING CASE.

THAT PERSON.

THERE IS A FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP THERE.

THERE THERE'S BEEN A CLIENT RELATIONSHIP ESTABLISHED, BUT IT DOESN'T GO IN THE DIRECTION THAT THIS CODE AMENDMENT TALKS ABOUT.

IT GOES THE OTHER DIRECTION SO IT WOULDN'T BE COVERED.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE? GIVE ME GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE AGAIN.

AGAIN. AND FORGIVE ME FOR NOT MAYBE I'M JUST NOT AS SOPHISTICATED AS AS I UNDERSTAND THE WORDS.

RIGHT. I GET IT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL SIDE OF THINGS VERY WELL.

BUT THE COMMON APPLICATION OF IT IS WHAT I'M MISSING, RIGHT? SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT.

GIVE ME ANOTHER.

RIGHT? NO. SURE.

PART OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THIS CLIENT.

THIS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

THIS LANGUAGE IS THE PRODUCT OF A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.

THIS IS THE PRODUCT OF A CONVERSATION THAT WAS ABOUT EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYER.

AND THE CLIENT LANGUAGE CAME AS AN EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER CODE MEANT TO APPLY TO AN EMPLOYEE EMPLOYER SITUATION.

WE PICKED UP ON OUR LAST DISCUSSION.

THERE WAS SOME CONSENSUS WITH US AND SOME CONSENSUS APPARENTLY WITH THE ETHICS BOARD BUILT AROUND THE IDEA OF, WELL, WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IS THIS WHEN THERE'S A DUTY THERE, THAT'S WHEN SOMEBODY WE'RE NOT REALLY WORRIED ABOUT.

YOU SPENT A WHOLE BUNCH OF MONEY AT KROGER OR YOU GOT YOUR OIL CHANGE SOMEPLACE.

WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE AREA OF CONFLICT.

COULD BE WHEN SOMEBODY OWES THIS PERSON THIS DUTY OF CARE, CONFIDENCE, TRUST OR PRIVILEGE.

AND SO WE PICKED THAT LANGUAGE UP FROM ANOTHER CODE AS A RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO ADDRESS, WHICH IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN APPLICANT, A PERSON WITH A PENDING MATTER AND A CITY OFFICIAL THAT'S DEALING WITH THAT, DELIBERATING ON THAT PENDING MATTER.

SO RIGHT NOW, AS IT'S WRITTEN, IT SAYS A DUTY OF CARE, CONFIDENCE, TRUST OR PRIVILEGE APPLIES TO THE CITY.

OFFICIAL. I READ THAT TO MEAN THE CITY OFFICIAL HAS THE DUTY OF CARE, CONFIDENCE AND TRUST.

NOT THAT THE AND IF IT'S MEANT TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT, I'M SAYING AT LEAST ONE ATTORNEY'S READING IT AND READING IT THE WAY I JUST DESCRIBED.

THAT'S WHY I THINK IT OUGHT TO GO BOTH WAYS.

WHETHER IT'S MY CLIENT STANDING AT THE PODIUM ASKING FOR A ZONING CASE OR A BUILDING PERMIT OR WHATEVER IT IS, OR WHETHER IT'S MY DOCTOR OR MY LAWYER OR WHOEVER ELSE.

THE RELATIONSHIP IS THE ISSUE, NOT THE DIRECTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP.

DOES THAT MAKE MORE SENSE? I TRIED TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE THAT WAS A AN ENGINEER OR A LAND USE CONSULTANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I DIDN'T WANT TO GET KIND OF TOO INTO THE WEEDS, BUT THE IDEA THERE WOULD BE SOMEBODY THAT I HIRED LAST MONTH IS NOW REPRESENTING SOMEBODY ELSE, AND I STILL HAVE A RELATIONSHIP THAT I WAS STILL A CLIENT OF THAT PERSON WHO WAS REPRESENTING ME.

THAT RELATIONSHIP IS THE THING WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT, NOT THE DIRECTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP.

OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM.

COME ON. THERE WE GO. YEAH.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I READ THIS.

AND MADISON, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, OR MAYBE WE CAN GET AN ETA OR WHATEVER, WHOEVER NEEDS TO SAY.

BUT I READ THIS AS THE.

THE CITY OFFICIAL WAS THE CLIENT.

IS THAT THE INTERPRETATION I BELIEVE IN? AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE INTENTION WAS FOR IT TO GO BOTH WAYS.

IF THE LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED FOR THAT TO BE MADE MORE CLEAR.

THAT CAN CERTAINLY BE DONE.

THAT'S OKAY. SO EITHER WAY, SO IF THE INTENTION IS FOR IT TO JUST A CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, THE I'M GLAD FOR THAT CLARITY THAT THE INTENTION

[01:45:09]

THE THE QUESTION I HAVE IS THE ONE I BROUGHT UP TWO QUESTIONS TO STAFF AND I AND I GUESS I NEED TO BRING IT UP HERE AS WELL BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THE ANSWER REALLY ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

AND THAT IS THERE'S SORT OF A STANDARD OF CARE FOR REGULAR BUSINESS CARE THAT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, TRUST, PRIVILEGE, ET CETERA.

FOR MANY KINDS OF RELATIONSHIPS WHERE WE WOULD SEE AN ITEM COME BEFORE COUNCIL YET DOESN'T HAVE SORT OF ONE OF THESE CLASSIC PRIVILEGED RELATIONSHIPS LIKE A LAWYER, A DOCTOR, A TAX ATTORNEY.

I THINK THOSE ARE TAX CONSULTANT.

I THINK THOSE ARE REALLY CLEAR THAT THOSE ARE PRIVILEGED STANDARDS OF CARE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I'LL GIVE A SILLY ONE.

I CAN GO OUT TO A MASSAGE THERAPY.

AND IF MY WIFE AND I SPEND, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S A MASSAGE, 100 BUCKS A POP.

AND SO WE GET 2 OR 3 OF THOSE, WE'RE WAY OVER THE LIMIT.

AND. AND NOW THEY HAVE A ZONING CASE.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WELL PAST THE NUMBER WE'RE WE HAVE I MEAN, THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT LIKE A DOCTOR WHERE THEY HAVE A TRADITIONAL CULTURAL RELATIONSHIP. AND THE SAME WITH AN AUTO DEALER.

YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DEAL RELEASE THEIR THEIR CAR CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP.

BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, 20,000 PLUS DOLLAR RELATIONSHIP WITH THOSE FOLKS.

AND SO I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A LACK OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN REGULAR BUSINESS DUTY OF CARE AND SORT OF A SPECIALIZED RELATIONSHIP.

THAT GIVES ME PAUSE, TOO, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CLEARLY DEFINING WHEN WE'RE DOING IT AND WHEN WE'RE NOT DOING IT.

AND THAT WAS THE GIST OF MY QUESTION, AND I APPLAUD THAT BOTH WAYS, THAT THAT SHOULD BE TRUE.

BUT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE DEFINING IT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE DEFINING SORT OF REGULAR BUSINESS STANDARD OF CARE VERSUS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGED STANDARD OF CARE.

AND IT'S NOT IN THE IN THE ORDINANCE.

YOU I'VE SAID YES TO MOST OF THESE SO FAR, BUT THE I DO HAVE A QUALM SETTING LIKE TEACHERS HAVE A SPECIALIZED STANDARD OF CARE BY FERPA, AND THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REVEAL THINGS.

BUT WHERE IF A TEACHER CAME WITH A ZONING CASE AND MY KIDS WENT TO SCHOOL UNDER HER, IS THAT A SPECIALIZED STANDARD OF CARE? HONESTLY, MAYBE.

AND I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT DEBATE WITH WITH WITH COUNCIL WHETHER THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE.

BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE SETTING THAT THAT PRIVILEGED LINE.

WELL, AND I THINK WE ARE THIS TUNA NET IS SWEEPING IN TOO MANY DOLPHINS.

SO I DON'T CURRENTLY SUPPORT THIS.

AND RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TOO VAGUE.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILWOMAN WHAT'S I SHARE THOSE SENTIMENTS.

IT'S IT'S IT'S VERY VAGUE, VERY BROAD.

BUT ALSO, I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE IT SAYS EXISTENCE OF A CLIENT RELATIONSHIP, AS IN COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS'S EXAMPLE, WHERE, YOU KNOW, HE HIRES AN ENGINEER TO COME GET A ZONING CASE BEFORE THE COUNCIL, HE RECUSES HIMSELF.

AND THEN THAT RELATIONSHIP, THAT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP, YOU COULD SAY, IS TERMINATED.

YOU KNOW, YOU HIRED SOMEBODY TO DO A JOB AND THEY DID A JOB.

BUT DOES THAT MEAN, THEREFORE, SINCE THEY DID A JOB FOR YOU AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE THEM, THAT THAT QUOTE UNQUOTE EXISTS OUT IN THE FUTURE TO WHERE YOU HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF FROM ANYTHING THAT THEY BRING FORWARD? I'M NOT SAYING WHETHER I'M FOR OR AGAINST.

I'M SAYING THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT.

AND SO, YEAH, THIS LANGUAGE REALLY NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP.

MADISON HOW MANY HOW MANY CODES HAD THIS IN THERE OF THE TEN? I'M SORRY. LET ME PULL UP MY CHEAT SHEET.

UM, TWO AND THEN ALSO THE MODEL CODE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO MEAN. LANGUAGE, I BELIEVE, IS BASED ON SAN ANTONIO'S.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO HOW MANY OF THESE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN BASED ON SAN ANTONIO'S? JUST A COUPLE TO 2 OR 3 OR IN GENERAL, IF IT'S EITHER SAN ANTONIO OR DALLAS THAT THE LANGUAGE IS BASED ON? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. YEAH. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS AS IT'S WRITTEN.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE. PROPOSAL EIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. UH, SORRY.

THAT'S THE WRONG DIRECTION.

PROPOSAL EIGHT WAS DEVELOPED IN OCTOBER OF 2022 AND ADDS TO THE DEFINITION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS OF SUBSTANTIAL DEBTOR OR CREDITOR AS DEFINED ON THE SLIDE, WHERE $5,000 IS THE THRESHOLD FOR SUBSTANTIAL.

SO I THINK THE INTENTION WAS FOR THIS TO GO BOTH WAYS AS WELL, WHICH IS WHY IT'S DEBTOR OR CREDITOR.

[01:50:07]

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE EXCEPTIONS.

BUT HERE'S HERE'S MY QUESTION.

5000 OR MORE.

MY DAUGHTERS END UP GOING TO TEXAS WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY.

FIRST SEMESTER, THEY'RE GOING TO RACK UP MORE THAN $5,000 DEBT.

COMES TO US WITH A PENDING ITEM.

DOES THIS, AS IT'S WRITTEN, SAY, I CAN'T VOTE ON SOMETHING BECAUSE MY DAUGHTERS ARE IN DEBT TO TWU, AND LORD WILLING, I'LL HAVE ABUNDANCE OF CASH AND PAY CASH STRAIGHT CASH, HOMIE.

BUT ASSUMING I DON'T.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT AS IT'S WRITTEN, I.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN SPEAK TO THAT WELL BUT AND THAT'S THAT'S AGAIN, I OKAY, THAT THAT IS MY CONCERN. RIGHT? SO I'LL LISTEN, MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN ANSWER MY QUESTION.

BUT THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU HAVE THESE SCENARIOS WHERE WE'RE DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY.

IF I IF SOMEONE'S BUILDING SOMETHING OR IT'S A NATURAL KIND OF OCCURRENCE WHERE WE HAVE TO LIVE, RIGHT.

WE UNTIL THE CITIZENS ARE DENTON GIVE US A WORKING WAGE, WE HAVE TO WORK.

WE HAVE TO LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

WE HAVE TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS COMMUNITY.

I THINK YOU WANT US TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS COMMUNITY.

YOU DON'T WANT US GOING TO HIRING PEOPLE FROM LEWISVILLE, CARROLLTON-FARMERS BRANCH, SAN ANTONIO, DALLAS.

YOU WANT US TO HIRE PEOPLE IN DENTON AND PEOPLE IN DENTON DO GREAT WORK.

AND SO IT'S JUST I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GO, BUT IT IT SHOULD NOT BE PUNITIVE TO OUR LOCAL BUSINESSES OR OUR FAMILIES THAT WANT TO GO GET A HIGHER EDUCATION AND SO THE FACT THE MERE FACT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S OKAY IS ALARMING TO ME.

BUT I'LL LISTEN SO ANYONE ELSE.

MAYOR PRO TEM. I'D LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE VICE CHAIR MAYBE ADD SOME CLARITY TO THE WHAT THIS WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS, IF WE COULD.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

AFTERWARDS, I MIGHT SUPPORT IT IF I HAD MORE CLARITY.

I UNDERSTAND. BUT I THINK FIRST BEFORE THAT IT'S A MATTER OF IT'S WRITTEN BEFORE US AND SO SOMEONE TO WHATEVER IS SAID IS NOT WRITTEN RIGHT.

AND SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO WHAT SHE WHAT SHE ADDS TO CONTEXT.

I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A HEALTHY CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT IS WRITTEN AND WHAT'S BEFORE US TO VOTE ON THE CONTEXT AND THE EXTRA EXPLANATION AND WHAT THEY WERE INTENDING TO ACHIEVE. WHETHER THEY ACHIEVED THAT OR NOT IS NOT FOR THIS BODY TO DECIDE.

THIS BODY IS TO DECIDE AS WRITTEN, DO WE WANT TO ADOPT THIS LANGUAGE? AND SO ONCE WE GET TO THAT POINT CONTEXT, THEN MAYBE ADD HOW WE ADDED IT.

CERTAINLY. BUT I JUST NEED TO HAVE WE CAN GO ROUND AND ROUND ABOUT THAT.

SO I NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S NOT FOUR PEOPLE THAT WANT TO ADOPT IT AS WRITTEN OR THIS GENERAL CONCEPT, THEN THEN THERE'S NO REASON TO GO FURTHER INTO DETAIL ON SOMETHING WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADOPT.

COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

SO I WAS TRYING TO AVOID THE PARADE OF EXCEPTIONS FOR THIS ONE.

YOU KNOW, THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME REASONABLE EXCEPTIONS, BUT MAYBE I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT.

I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I THOUGHT ABOUT LIKE MORTGAGE ON YOUR PRIMARY HOME, THAT KIND OF STUFF.

YOU KNOW, WELLS FARGO NEEDS ZONING FOR A NEW BANK, BUT YOU HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH WELLS FARGO.

I DON'T. BUT YOU COULD YOUR MEDICAL BILLS.

MAYBE YOU HAD TO STAY AT MEDICAL CITY AND THEY'VE GOT A ZONING THING GOING ON.

THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME KIND OF EXCEPTIONS TO THIS.

BUT I DO SUPPORT THE I SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT IF YOU HAVE IF YOU HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO SOMEBODY OR THEY HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO YOU, THAT CAN BE AN ISSUE. AND THAT'S AN ISSUE WITH THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

BUT TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR, I AGREE.

I THINK YOU GOT TO YOU GOT TO BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE IN THE MODERN WORLD.

SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE, OH, SOMEBODY THAT KIND OF MONEY.

YEP. ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM. I SUPPORT THIS.

I THINK WE WE CAN BE CLEAR THAT THERE ARE REGULAR BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS AND AND WE'RE ALREADY SETTING, YOU KNOW, RELATIONSHIPS AT $5,000.

I THINK I THINK WE CAN DO THIS.

IT'S NOT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

THERE'S STILL, YOU KNOW, X MEN MEMBERS OF OF COUNCIL THAT CAN VOTE ON THAT THAT.

WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE OF YOURS.

JESSE. SO NEVER AGAIN.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? THE MAYOR? YES.

COUNCILOR BYRD. I THINK IT'S JUST I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS ONE.

I THINK WE NEED TO COME BACK.

AND HAVE A DEEPER DISCUSSION ON THAT.

[01:55:03]

NOW, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS IS KEEPING IT AS IS.

I'D MUCH RATHER HAVE THAT THAN WHAT WE HAVE FOR THE PROPOSAL.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. IT TAKES US A PROPOSITION.

PARDON ME. PROPOSAL NINE.

UM, PUZZLE NINE IS TO ADJUST THE REQUIREMENT FOR BUSINESS PARTNER RELATIONSHIPS FROM A DISCLOSURE TO RECUSAL.

SO CURRENTLY THIS WAS DEVELOPED IN OCTOBER OF 2022.

IT ADDS TO THE DEFINITION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS KNOWLEDGE OF HAVING A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH AN INDIVIDUAL OR BUSINESS ENTITY.

IT WOULD ALSO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY OFFICIALS TO FILE A DISCLOSURE FOR THIS SITUATION AND REPLACE IT ESSENTIALLY WITH A RECUSAL REQUIREMENT.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY TAKING THE BUSINESS DISCLOSURE SECTION THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE ORDINANCE AND PUTTING IT IN THE CONFLICTING INTEREST SECTION.

OKAY. QUESTIONS.

COMMENTS FOR STAFF.

OH, AND YOU HAVE TO PULL. MAYOR.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THERE YOU GO.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO IS THIS.

THIS IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS KIND OF LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD.

IT JUST I MEAN, IT TAKES IT FROM DISCLOSURE TO RECUSAL, BUT WE'RE ALREADY REQUIRED TO, YOU KNOW, RECUSE ON ON THESE KINDS OF I GUESS I'M I'M FOR IT BECAUSE I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S DIFFERENT.

IT DOESN'T ISN'T ALREADY COVERED SORT OF IN OUR ETHICS IT CAN CAN YOU EXPLAIN MAYBE FOR MY BENEFIT WHERE WE'RE CARVED OUT DIFFERENTLY THAN THAN THE REST OF THE ETHICS LANGUAGE ALREADY.

SO WHAT'S UNIQUE AND DISTINCT ABOUT THIS ONE? SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS IT'S ESSENTIALLY IF YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF A RELATIONSHIP.

THAT THAT YOU HAVE WITH A BUSINESS THAT IS LIKE A PARTNER OR AN AFFILIATED BUSINESS.

WITH THAT ONE THAT'S COME BEFORE FOR A PENDING MATTER.

SO THERE'S LIKE TWO STEPS INSTEAD OF JUST ONE, IF THAT HELPS.

AND DID THAT NOT HELP? SORRY. AND NO.

GO RIGHT AHEAD. DO YOU HAVE THE FLOOR? SORRY.

YEAH. I JUST NEED YOU.

THANK YOU. I JUST NEED YOU TO SAY IT AGAIN.

YEAH. SO ESSENTIALLY, IT'S CURRENTLY IN THE CODE.

THERE'S, LIKE, ONE STEP, RIGHT? SO IF YOU HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A BUSINESS ENTITY OR AN INDIVIDUAL, IT'S.

IT'S TAKING THAT TO A SECOND STEP WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE, OKAY, THAT I KNOW I WORK FOR THIS COMPANY.

THIS COMPANY IS ALSO IS OWNED BY THE SAME COMPANY AS THIS OTHER COMPANY.

DOES THAT GET THE COMPANY TO.

UH, AND BECAUSE THERE'S THAT AFFILIATED RELATIONSHIP.

IT WOULD YOU'RE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IF THAT HAPPENS, IF IT BECOMES COMES UP IN A PENDING MATTER IF AND THIS WOULD JUST MAKE THAT A RECUSAL REQUIREMENT.

OKAY. SO IF I CAN IF I CAN MAKE THE CORRELATE TO THE THE FAMILY RECUSAL, IS THIS NOT A THE BUSINESS EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY RECUSAL? THIS IS AFFINITY ONE, ONE DEGREE OF SEPARATION.

IS THAT WHAT THIS IS? I THINK THAT IS ACCURATE, YES.

IF THAT'S THE CASE.

UM. WELL, THEN I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE BUSINESSES ARE TIED TO OTHER BUSINESSES FOR OTHER REASONS.

AND AND I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO FAR DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE OF NETWORKS.

I KNOW THAT'S POTENTIALLY PROBLEMATIC.

AND AND THERE CAN BE WAYS OF HIDING ETHICAL VIOLATIONS, BUT WE CAN'T.

WE. TOO MANY BUSINESSES HAVE TOO MANY RELATIONSHIPS.

THAT NETWORK IS TOO TIED.

I THINK WE'D HAVE TO CRAFT THIS BETTER.

ANYONE ELSE. COUNCILMAN WHAT'S SO MAYOR PRO TEM? IF THIS WERE JUST A DISCLOSURE INSTEAD OF A RECUSAL, DOES THAT DOES THAT LESSEN THE IMPACT FOR YOU? OR ARE YOU JUST WE JUST IF YOU DON'T IF IF YOU JUST HAVE A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PERSON BEFORE THAT HAS THE PENDING MATTER? BECAUSE THIS IS BASICALLY SAYING, LET'S SAY, FOR INSTANCE, IF I KNOW SOMEBODY WHO'S BEFORE US WITH A PENDING MATTER AND BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THAT BUSINESS ENTITY BUT A PERSON WHO OWNS THAT BUSINESS, I MAY BE IN BUSINESS WITH THEM, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY INTEREST IN THAT BUSINESS THEN.

AND THAT'S THE WAY IT EXISTS NOW.

YOU HAVE TO FILE DISCLOSURE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO FILE RECUSAL.

UH, NOW, I'VE BEEN IN THIS SITUATION, QUITE FRANKLY, AND I'VE ALWAYS FILED A RECUSAL.

UM, SO IF IT WAS JUST DISCLOSURE PRIOR TO THE VOTE OR ARE YOU JUST SAYING NO, YOU JUST GET ONE LEVEL OF IT HAS TO BE A DIRECT PENDING MATTER BEFORE THE

[02:00:03]

CAN I RESPOND? YES, BY ALL MEANS.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YEAH. NO DISCLOSURE.

YOU CAN DISCLOSE EVERYTHING.

I'LL VOTE FOR DISCLOSURE ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING.

SO YOU KNOW, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BRING IN? BECAUSE I THINK TRANSPARENCY IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

SO MY BASELINE STARTS AT DISCLOSURE.

MY MY ISSUE WAS WITH THE RECUSAL FOR SORT OF TOO MANY KEVIN BACON STEPS OF RELATIONSHIP, WHICH I'M SORRY, MAYOR, IF I COULD FOLLOW UP.

YES, BY ALL MEANS. THANK YOU, MADISON.

IF WE JUST IN WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM JUST ARTICULATED, THAT'S SORT OF THE CODE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY.

SO IF WE DID NOTHING, THEN WE WOULD JUST REVERT TO THE CODE THAT'S CURRENT AND THAT IS DISCLOSURE.

NOW, ONE QUESTION I DO HAVE, BUT I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED IN OUR WORK WORK SESSIONS, BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DISCLOSURE, I THINK WE'VE CHANGED THE CODE TO WHERE THAT DISCLOSURE HAS TO BE MADE PRIOR TO WHATEVER THE VOTE IS FOR THE PENDING MATTER.

IN THE PAST, I THINK YOU JUST FILLED OUT YOUR PAPERWORK AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WAS EVER GIVEN OUT TO ANYBODY BEFORE ANY TYPE OF VOTE IS THAT WE WE DID CHANGE THAT, DID WE? THAT WAS WE DISCUSSED THAT AND THERE WAS NO DIRECTION GIVEN TO ACTUALLY MAKE THAT CHANGE.

OKAY. SO.

OKAY, THIS IS.

ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY TODAY AND NOT YOU, BUT WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND WE'VE NOT GIVEN DIRECTION THAT IF YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT A DISCLOSURE FORM, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT.

AT THE TIME OF THE PENDING MATTER.

THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THE DISCLOSURE.

THAT'S THAT'S OUR CURRENT POLICY.

THERE'S CURRENTLY NO PROCESS REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRE YOU TO REQUIRE YOU TO FILE THE DISCLOSURE PRIOR TO THE PRINTING MATTER, OR FOR THAT TO ONCE FILED TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE COUNCIL IN ANY WAY.

THE REST OF THE COUNCIL. OKAY.

SO THEN I'M GOING TO SAY I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS EVEN IN THE STATUS QUO.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A PROPOSAL THAT WE LEAVE THE STATUS QUO LANGUAGE WITH THE ADDITION.

THAT SAID, DISCLOSURE HAS TO BE DISCLOSED TO THE VOTING BODY PRIOR TO THE VOTE ON THE PENDING MATTER.

THAT'S GOING TO BE MY AMENDMENT TO THIS PROPOSAL THAT WE STRIKE THE PROPOSAL FROM THE BOARD OF ETHICS AS FAR AS RECUSAL REQUIREMENT.

BUT IN THE NOTICE, THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT THAT WE ADD TO THAT, THAT THAT DISCLOSURE HAS TO BE MADE TO THE VOTING BODY PRIOR TO THE VOTE ON THE PENDING MATTER.

SO THAT'S MY THAT'S MY PROPOSAL ON THIS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE AND THAT TO GO BACK AROUND YOU'VE HEARD I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO PARAPHRASE OR ADD WORDS, BUT THAT'S.

THE THAT'S THE COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS HAS LAID OUT A NEW OPTION TO CONSIDER TO PUT YOUR SUPPORT BEHIND.

SO JUST.

THOSE THAT WANT TO THAT ARE AGREEABLE, PLEASE STIPULATE THAT SO THAT WE CAN SO STAFF AND I CAN TRACK ALONG ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

QUESTIONS COUNCILMAN MCGEE I CAN GET BEHIND.

WHAT? COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHAT'S PROPOSED? OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? UM, I'LL SUPPORT THAT AS WELL BECAUSE IT IS A STATUS QUO AND ADDING A LAYER OF I'D LIKE I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION BEFORE WE VOTE.

SO I'LL SUPPORT THAT THAT AMENDMENT TO OUR CURRENT.

ORDINANCE. MAYOR PRO TEM THEN.

THEN COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIDSON.

COUNCILMAN. BYRD. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE BOARD REVIEW THAT CONCEPT, BUT I DON'T INTRINSICALLY, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO COUNCILOR WATTS'S IDEA.

COUNCILOR DAVIS.

YEAH, I'M OKAY WITH THE AMENDMENT.

I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT. COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD.

SO DO I. IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE FOR US TO DO AHEAD OF TIME.

OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S APPROVED.

AND THAT TAKES US TO ITEM TEN.

IS THAT RIGHT? I LOST MY SCREEN.

YES. OKAY.

WE'RE GETTING CLOSE. YES.

OKAY. PROPOSAL TEN WAS DEVELOPED IN AUGUST AND NOVEMBER OF 2022 AND CREATES SPECIFIC SANCTIONS TO BE USED IF A COMPLAINT IS FOUND TO BE FRIVOLOUS.

THESE PROPOSED SANCTIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE SLIDE.

IT ALSO CLARIFIES THAT IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS ORDINANCE FOR A COMPLAINANT TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE INFORMATION RELATING TO THE FILING OF A COMPLAINT BEFORE IT'S POSTED PUBLICLY UNDER THE CONFIDENTIALITY SECTION AND REQUIRES THE CITY AUDITOR TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE ACCEPTED COMPLAINT TO THE COMPLAINANT, AS WELL AS THE RESPONDENT AND THE CITY

[02:05:07]

SO. OKAY.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS I'M JUST GOING TO KIND OF JUMP ON THIS GRENADE AND SAY AT THE OUTSET, I FEEL BAD ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT'S CLEAR THAT A LOT OF THOUGHT AND WORK HAS GONE INTO THIS SECTION LIKE A LOT OF THOUGHT AND WORK, ESPECIALLY IN SOME OF THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS.

AS SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN THE TARGET OF A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT, I THINK IT'S VERY DANGEROUS TO CHILL COMPLAINTS AND TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO FILE OR TO MAKE IT.

THERE'S THIS IDEA THAT YOU FILE TOO MANY COMPLAINTS AND YOU'RE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT NOW AND YOU DON'T GET TO FILE ANY MORE COMPLAINTS.

AND IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THE WORST THING THAT'S EVER HAPPENED IN DENTON HISTORY.

WELL, SORRY, YOU FILED TOO MANY COMPLAINTS ALREADY.

THE VERY FIRST COMPLAINT WE REVIEWED UNDER THIS CODE WHEN I WAS THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS WAS A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT.

IT JUST WAS.

AND IT WASN'T PROPERLY RESEARCHED.

IT DIDN'T STATE FACTS THAT WERE THAT IT NEEDED TO.

BUT NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS WOULD I WANT TO TELL THAT PERSON WHO FILED THAT COMPLAINT, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BE A PART OF THIS PROCESS ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU FILED THIS COMPLAINT. I DON'T THINK IT IS FOR THE I THINK IT'S FOR THE BOARD OF ETHICS TO DETERMINE IF OUR CODE OF ETHICS HAS BEEN VIOLATED AND TO ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS. I DON'T THINK IT'S FOR THEM TO DECIDE THE MOTIVATIONS OF THE PEOPLE FILING THE COMPLAINTS.

AND AGAIN, I SAY THAT AS SOMEBODY WHO WAS THE THE TARGET OF A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT, I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO CHILL THE PROCESS IN THAT WAY.

AND AGAIN, I FEEL BAD BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THOUGHT AND EFFORT THAT WENT INTO THAT.

BUT I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SCARE PEOPLE OFF FROM THIS PROCESS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? CATHERINE, WHAT'S THE QUESTION ON THE AND I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS'S SENTIMENT.

I MEAN, I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST COMPLAINTS.

I WAS ONE OF THE ONES FIRST COMPLAINT WAS FILED AGAINST.

AND IT WAS THE ONE THAT YOU BUT I WOULD NEVER WANT TO SAY TO SOMEONE, HEY, YOU CAN'T FILE ANYTHING.

I MEAN, TO GET TO GET CLASSIFIED AS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT IN A COURT OF LAW IS VERY, VERY DIFFICULT.

IT'S A VERY HIGH STANDARD.

SO WE DON'T WANT TO CHILL PEOPLE TO TO BRING SOMETHING FORWARD THAT THEY BELIEVE IS IS A IS A REASONABLE VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE ON THE CONFIDENTIALITY.

AND THIS IS PROBABLY MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION.

SO WE DO HAVE THAT WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU FILE A COMPLAINT, IF I WALKED IN AND FILED A COMPLAINT BEFORE IT'S PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BY THE CITY, I GUESS THROUGH A NOTICE OF A HEARING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT IF I GO OUT THERE AND SOMEHOW DISCLOSE THAT SOMEWHERE POSTED ON A FACEBOOK PAGE OR SEND IT TO THE NEWSPAPER OR WHATEVER, THAT THAT I'M IN VIOLATION OF THAT.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WHAT'S THE WHAT ARE THE SANCTIONS FOR THAT? I MEAN, FROM OUR CODE.

WHAT HAPPENS TO ME.

UH. NOTHING.

AND AND YOU GET YELLED AT.

IF YOU RAISE THAT. I RAISE THAT ISSUE AND GOT YELLED AT IN THE IN THE METAVERSE.

SO BECAUSE IT'S SAID YOU'RE HAVING A YOU'RE ATTACKING FREE SPEECH AND PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO SAY STUFF I BELIEVE AS A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE IT COULD BE PROSECUTED BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT THE BOARD OF ETHICS JURISDICTION.

OKAY. SO THEN, CITY ATTORNEY, HELP ME UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE THAT THE.

STATE CODE DEFINES WHAT INFORMATION AS A AS A CITY.

WE HAVE TO DISCLOSE AND DON'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE BASED UPON OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS, I BELIEVE.

BUT IS THAT I MEAN, DOES STATE LAW REGULATE OR DOES THE CITY HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE PREVENTING A CITIZEN FROM DISCLOSING INFORMATION THAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE OPEN RECORDS, OPEN INFORMATION ACT OR OPEN RECORDS REQUEST? ARE WE ABLE TO DO THAT? I THINK THERE WOULD BE SOME LIMITATIONS.

CERTAINLY EVERYTHING THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT REQUEST WOULD BE SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.

THINGS THAT ARE ACCEPTED FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.

WE AS A CITY MAY HAVE SOME DISCRETION IN HOW WE DO THAT, BUT THERE'S ALSO THERE'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, WHICH IS, YEAH, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE JUST PRIVATE.

THE CITY CAN'T DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC WITHOUT INCURRING SOME LIABILITY.

SO IT DEPENDS KIND OF ON THE NATURE OF WHAT THE COMPLAINT WOULD BE THAT WOULD DRIVE POTENTIALLY WHAT'S RELEASED OR WHAT LIABILITY THE CITY MAY INCUR OR THE PERSON MAY

[02:10:01]

OKAY. YEAH. AND I WAS SPEAKING MORE FROM THE THE PERSON WHO FILED THE COMPLAINTS PERSPECTIVE OF IF THEY DISCLOSE THE COMPLAINT THAT THEY FILED, WHICH THAT'S NOT THE CITY RELEASING IT, THAT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT THE CITY HAS DONE.

BUT THAT PERSON THAT SOMEHOW WE CAN.

UM, PROHIBIT THEM FROM DOING THAT.

AND THAT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF EITHER FREE SPEECH OR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE TOUGH TO TO STOP OR REGULATE THAT PERSON WHO ACTUALLY IS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC FROM.

ALSO SENDING A COPY TO THE NEWSPAPER OR WHOEVER ELSE WHEN THEY SUBMIT A COPY TO THE CITY.

OKAY, SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE HAVE THAT PROHIBITION IN OUR CODE.

IS THAT MEAN? IF AND MAYBE I MISHEARD YOU, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY WAS A WE CAN HAVE IT THERE, BUT.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REALLY POTENTIALLY, LAWFULLY REGULATE.

SO, I MEAN, IT'S THERE.

IT'S THERE. BUT IF IT'S IF IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY ANY ENFORCEMENT OR TEETH.

AND I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED ABOUT THAT.

I THOUGHT, WELL, HOW CAN WE TELL SOMEBODY YOU CAN'T DO SOMETHING WHEN THEY'RE A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL AND THERE'S NOTHING REALLY THAT PROHIBITS THEM FROM DOING IT PER STATE LAW AS FAR AS DISCLOSING THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, RIGHT.

ANYWAY, YOU'RE LIMITED BY THE CITY'S POWERS OVER WHETHER IT'S AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OR A COUNCIL MEMBER.

POTENTIALLY THERE'S CENSURE AND OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY KIND OF BUILT IN HERE, BUT NOTHING BEYOND THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M GOING TO PULL A COUNSELOR.

WHAT'S ON THIS? WHEN AND MADISON, HOW MANY OTHER CITIES IMPLEMENT SOMETHING LIKE WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED? AND ARE THERE CASES WHERE THAT HAS BEEN ENFORCED OR USED OR SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REFERENCE? SO VERY FEW OTHER CITIES HAVE A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT PROCESS.

I BELIEVE ONLY TWO OF THE BENCHMARKS THAT'S SPECIFIED IN THIS LANGUAGE IS TAKEN FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS.

I DON'T I DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES IT HAS OCCURRED.

I MEAN, IT MY IMPRESSION FROM THIS LANGUAGE IS THAT IT IS A GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO TO DE WEAPONIZE ETHICS COMPLAINTS. I MEAN, THAT SEEMS CLEARLY WHAT IT'S GEARED FOR.

DON'T DON'T RUN PEOPLE'S NAME THROUGH THE MUD IN PUBLIC.

DON'T DON'T CONSTANTLY RUN PEOPLE'S NAME THROUGH THE MUD IN PUBLIC.

I MEAN, AND, YOU KNOW, VARIOUS LEVELS OF PROHIBITION AGAINST IT.

I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING.

CAN SOMEONE REMIND ME WHAT IT SAYS IN THE IN THE STRUCK THROUGH SECTION IMPOSED SANCTIONS AS PROVIDED BY 228? CAN SOMEONE REMIND ME OF WHAT 2282B IS OUR.

YES. ONE MOMENT. SWAGIT.

SO THE SECTIONS FROM THAT OR SANCTIONS FROM THAT SECTION INCLUDE A LETTER OF NOTIFICATION, A LETTER OF ADMONISHMENT ADMONITION, A LETTER OF REPRIMAND, RECOMMENDATION OF SUSPENSION AND INELIGIBILITY.

IN THE QUICK, I CAN GIVE YOU MORE ELIGIBILITY OR INELIGIBILITY I BELIEVE ONLY APPLIES TO A VENDOR.

OH. TO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.

YES. OKAY.

I MEAN, I.

I LIKE THE THE THE IDEA OF THIS PROPOSAL.

IT IS A DE WEAPONIZATION OF OF OF ETHICS COMPLAINTS.

I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER WE CAN DO THIS ANY MORE THAN THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

BUT I ABSOLUTELY MY MY DIRECTION WOULD BE YOU KNOW, IT SOUNDS LIKE SOME OF THE COUNCIL HAS HEARTBURN WITH SOME OF IT. I ABSOLUTELY WOULD GIVE DIRECTION THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS CONTINUE IF THIS DOESN'T ACHIEVE FOR TO TO HAVE SOME SORT OF DE WEAPONIZATION OF ETHICS COMPLAINTS AND SOME OTHER METHOD OF SANCTION.

SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THAT UP BECAUSE THEY CAN BE.

AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO AVOID.

SO I'LL HIDE AND WATCH AND SEE IF THERE'S THERE'S FOR FOR THIS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN. BYRD. I'M NOT REAL SURE OF THE SPECIFIC SANCTIONS PART.

I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE.

YOU KNOW, HOW FRIVOLOUS THE COMPLAINT WAS.

IS IT A IS IT AN ANOMALY? IS IT ATROCIOUS, OR IS IT JUST A LITTLE BIT OF LIE, YOU KNOW?

[02:15:01]

BUT I HAVE MORE CONCERN ABOUT IF SOMEONE DID DO HAVE A COMPLAINT THAT WAS FRIVOLOUS, THAT THERE IS SOME TYPE OF REASON WHY THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO, YOU KNOW, PUT IN ANOTHER ONE THAT MAY NOT BE FRIVOLOUS, BUT WE WOULD KEEP THEM FROM APPLYING ANYWAY.

SO I'M JUST KIND OF MIXED UP.

I'M KIND OF CONFUSED, A LITTLE MIXED UP WITH THIS ONE.

BUT I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME TYPE OF SANCTION.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS RISES TO TO TO WHAT I'M WHAT I'M WHAT I WOULD AGREE TO RIGHT NOW.

SO AS IT'S PROPOSED HERE, I PROBABLY WOULD ASK THE I AM ASKING THE COMMITTEE TO GO BACK AND AND KIND OF REWORK IT A LITTLE BIT TO GIVE SOME CLEAR, SPECIFIC SANCTIONS FOR I THINK WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON WHAT WHAT CONSTITUTES A FRIVOLOUS.

A COMPLAINT MORE SO THAN WHAT'S HERE.

I THINK IT'S TOO BROAD.

THANKS, COUNCILMAN DAVIS.

SO IT'S ALREADY A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE TO FILE TO SUBMIT A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT.

AND A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS CODE HAS ITS OWN SANCTIONS BUILT INTO IT.

SO WHAT THIS IS PROPOSING IS A SPECIFIC SANCTION THAT GOES OVER AND ABOVE ANY OTHER SANCTION THAT'S ALLOWED.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE'S BEEN ONE ONE SANCTION ISSUED BY THIS BOARD.

THE MAJORITY OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THIS BOARD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE BASELESS AND HAVEN'T GONE FORWARD TO A PRELIMINARY HEARING OR MUCH LESS A HEARING BY THE FULL BOARD. I THINK THAT THERE'S ALREADY THE BOARD CAME TO US WITH A CONCERN ABOUT FRIVOLITY.

IT'S IN THERE.

IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE CODE TO SUBMIT A A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT.

WHAT THIS DOES IS PUTS AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON A COMPLAINANT THAT IS ACCUSED OF A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT.

AND MAYBE, MAYBE IT IS AND MAYBE IT ISN'T.

BUT THEY'RE ACCUSED OF IT.

THEY'VE GOT MORE TO DO THAN THE AVERAGE RESPONDENT TO A COMPLAINT JUST BECAUSE THEY CAME FORWARD AND FILED THEIR COMPLAINT.

WHEN WE GET DOWN INTO PROPOSAL 11, THEY'VE GOT TO COME DO A SHOW CAUSE HEARING.

THAT'S WHAT WE DO IN MY COURT WHEN SOMEONE'S VIOLATED THEIR BOND AND THEY'VE GOT TO COME TELL THE JUDGE, HERE'S THE REASONS I VIOLATED MY BOND OR I DIDN'T VIOLATE MY BOND LIKE A SHOW. CAUSE HEARING THIS IS THESE ARE ADDITIONAL HOOPS THAT WE ARE ASKING A COMPLAINANT TO SUBMIT TO BECAUSE THEY KIND OF WENT OUT ON A LIMB AND FILED THIS COMPLAINT.

AND I'M TELLING YOU THAT, AGAIN, AS SOMEBODY WHO'S HAD THESE FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS FILED, HAD MY REPUTATION ATTACKED.

WE DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT MAKES IT HARDER TO FILE A COMPLAINT AND SEE IT THROUGH, THEN WE NEED TO.

OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO ONLY GET WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO GET COMPLAINTS.

THE BOARD'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE SANCTION FOR A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT BEING THE SAME PROCESS, THE SAME MENU OF SANCTIONS THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR ANY OTHER VIOLATION OF THE CODE.

IF SOMEONE IS THE SUBJECT OF A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT AND THEY WANT TO TURN AROUND AND FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT TO SAY THAT PERSON WITH ILL INTENT CAME AFTER ME WITH A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT, THEY'RE AT LIBERTY TO DO THAT.

SO FAR, PEOPLE HAVEN'T DONE THAT.

THEY'VE KIND OF TAKEN THE HIGH ROAD AND NOT DONE THAT.

BUT IT'S AVAILABLE AND IT'S AVAILABLE TO THE PERSON WHOSE REPUTATION HAS BEEN HARMED OR TO SOME OTHER PERSON IN THE COMMUNITY WHO'S AWARE OF IT.

IT DOESN'T PUT IT ON THE BOARD OF ETHICS TO BECOME THIS KIND OF COURT OF INQUIRY ABOUT FRIVOLITY.

I'M BEING A LITTLE FLIP WHEN I SAY COURT OF INQUIRY.

THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE IN HERE, NO OTHER PLACE WHERE THE BOARD CONDUCTS AN INVESTIGATION.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS DOES.

THEY REVIEW FACTS BROUGHT TO THEM BY OTHER PEOPLE THERE.

THERE'S NO OTHER PART OF THIS CODE EXCEPT FOR THIS FRIVOLITY BUSINESS WHERE THE BOARD GETS INTO THE INVESTIGATION AND WHAT'S GOING ON AND COME HERE AND REPORT RIGHT NOW WHAT YOUR BEHAVIOR MEANS.

THIS IS A STEP TOO FAR.

AND I THINK WHAT WE'VE ALREADY GOT IN THE CODE DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF FRIVOLITY JUST FINE.

AND I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO RECOGNIZE.

MOST OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT COME TO THIS BOARD ARE GOING TO BE BASELESS.

NOT ALL ARE GOING TO BE FRIVOLOUS, BUT MOST OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE BASELESS.

THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.

WE KNEW WHEN WE WERE WRITING IN IT AS A COMMUNITY YEARS AGO.

WE KNEW WE WERE AMENDING IT EVERY SINGLE TIME UP UNTIL NOW.

SO WRITING IN A SANCTION THAT THAT COULD POTENTIALLY PREVENT A REAL VALID COMPLAINT FROM COMING FORWARD, I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG IDEA. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. SO PROPOSAL 11 IS CONTINGENT ON TEN.

SO I'M SKIPPING PAST THAT TAKES US TO THE MINOR VERBAL CHANGES AND MORALE.

[02:20:05]

WELL, HOW DO YOU HAVE A PROCESS FOR IT? THERE'S CURRENTLY A PROCESS, RIGHT? AND THIS IS JUST CLARIFYING THE PROCESS INTO SOMETHING MORE FORMAL THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY A SINGLE LINE IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.

HOW WE'RE INTERPRETING IT, IS IT NOT CHANGING THE PROCESS, THE CURRENT PROCESS? IT'S ADDING TO IT.

IT WOULD CHANGE THE CURRENT PROCESS TO BE MORE FORMAL.

IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY IMPACT THE SANCTIONS AVAILABLE.

IF A COMPLAINT IS DETERMINED TO BE FRIVOLOUS, THAT COULD HAPPEN EITHER WAY.

OKAY, WELL, THEN.

THEN I'LL.

I MEAN, I'M MISSING SOMETHING.

SO YOU ARTICULATE WHAT WHAT'S NEW AND I'LL.

I'LL HAVE COMMENT AFTER THAT.

OKAY. SO PROPOSAL 11 WAS DEVELOPED IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER OF 2022.

IT'S INTENDED TO CLARIFY HOW THE BOARD MAY FIND A COMPLAINT TO BE FRIVOLOUS.

TO DO THIS, IT CREATES AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE PROCESS WHICH IS GENERALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE SLIDE.

SOME CRITICAL CHANGES HERE INCLUDE THE BOARD EITHER DURING A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OR EVIDENTIARY HEARING BEING REQUIRED TO FORMALLY DISMISS A COMPLAINT BEFORE IT CAN BEGIN THE PROCESS OF DETERMINING IF A COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS.

THE CHANGE IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE CLOSURE TO THE RESPONDENT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

IN ADDITION, IT REQUIRES THE COMPLAINANT TO BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO SHOW WHY THEIR COMPLAINT IS NOT FRIVOLOUS.

BY ALLOWING THE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO BE SUBMITTED, AS WELL AS ALLOWING THE COMPLAINANT TO BE PRESENT TO I'M SORRY TO PRESENT A DEFENSE AT THE FRIVOLITY HEARING.

IT ALSO DOES PROHIBIT THE COMPLAINANT FROM REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION IF THE COMPLAINT IS DETERMINED TO BE FRIVOLOUS.

SO THIS IS WHAT THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT'S PROPOSED.

THIS IS THE CURRENT PROCESS.

SO ESSENTIALLY RIGHT NOW, IF THE BOARD OF ETHICS EITHER AT A PANEL OR AT A HEARING, THEY CAN RECOMMEND THAT THEY BASICALLY STOP DETERMINING WHAT THE CURRENT COMPLAINT IS AND INSTEAD DETERMINE IF THIS IS ACTUALLY A FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT AT ALL.

IT THEN GOES INTO THE REGULAR EVIDENTIARY HEARING, EVIDENTIARY HEARING PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES BOTH THE COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT, WHICH CAN BE CONFUSING IN SOME INSTANCES.

AND THEN THEY ISSUE A DETERMINATION.

SO. AND THEN HERE'S ALL THE LANGUAGE, BUT I CAN BRING IT UP IF WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT.

CERTAINLY. MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND I'M GLAD WE WE PAUSED BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR US TO PAUSE BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE COUPLED.

SO I APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT.

I JUST SEE THIS AS SEPARATING OUT.

I OTHERS MAY HAVE QUALMS, BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT SEPARATES OUT THE FRIVOLITY ASPECTS AND THE PROCESS IS JUST MAKES IT VERY DISTINCT FOR JUST THE COMPLAINANT ALONE AND THE FRIVOLITY PROCESS.

AND I, I SUPPORT THIS.

IT SORT OF MADE SENSE TO ME THAT JUST IT'S PROVIDES SORT OF A SEPARATION OF STREAMS AND I THOUGHT IT WAS FAIRLY CLEAR.

SO I SUPPORT THIS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? AND JUST BECAUSE I LEFT OFF, I TAKE COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID'S POINT ABOUT THE SHOW CAUSE I AND IF THERE WERE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT ALLOWED A COMPLAINANT TO AMEND AND THIS IS ALL THIS IS ALL WELL DOCUMENTED.

THERE WAS A COMPLAINT FILED DURING MY CAMPAIGN PERIOD THAT WAS FOUND FRIVOLOUS, BUT IT WAS, I BELIEVE, FROM MEMORY. BUT IT WAS SIMPLY THEY NEEDED TO AMEND TO ADD THE ATTACHMENTS, AND RIGHTFULLY SO.

THE BODY IS LIMITED IN WHAT THEY CAN CONSIDER.

AND SO BUT NOTHING IN THIS NEW PROCESS ALLOWS SOMEONE TO AMEND TO SAY SO IF YOU SUBMIT SOMETHING AND YOU FORGET AN ATTACHMENT OR THE ATTACHMENT IS NOT LEGIBLE OR IT'S NOT IN THE RIGHT FORMAT. SO I'M A MAC USER AND I SEND YOU A PAGE AS OK VERSUS A WORD DOC AND YOU CAN'T OPEN IT, THEN IT'S NOT INCLUDED.

IT'S NOT TO BE CONSIDERED.

UNDERSTAND ALL THAT, ALL THAT'S FAIR RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.

BUT THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO JUST.

HEY, I MADE A I MADE A MISTAKE.

I IT'S A KNOWN THING, RIGHT? SO WE HAD A AGAIN, FROM MEMORY, WE HAVE A WE HAVE A FINDING OF FRIVOLITY FROM SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED VERSUS SAYING, HEY, WE DISAGREE WITH IT AND OR IT WAS A CLERICAL ERROR OR WHATEVER THAT FINDING IS.

IT'S FOUND TO BE FRIVOLOUS.

AND SO THAT TO ME IS THE CONCERN WITH THIS NEW PROCESS OF SHOW, CAUSE IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU'RE TRYING TO I WANT SOMEONE TO HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO COUNTER WHAT COUNCILMAN DAVIS SAID. SAME THING.

YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF THAT CONCEPT.

EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO TO COMPLAIN, RAISE ISSUES, SEND MEAN COMMENTS, ALL THOSE THINGS.

[02:25:03]

DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T RUN FOR IT.

AND SO THAT TO ME IS MY CONCERN WITH THIS AMENDED PROCESS.

IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S AN EARLY EXIT IN THE SHOW CALLS VERSUS SOMEONE ANY CITIZEN THAT RAISED AN ISSUE BEING ABLE TO BE HEARD.

THERE'S KIND OF AN EARLY EXIT RAMP FOR FOR THOSE THAT THE SHOW CAUSE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL WRITTEN EVIDENCE IF, SAY, YOU FORGOT SOMETHING OR FOUND NEW EVIDENCE AFTER THE FACT TO SUPPORT WHY YOUR WHY THE BOARD SHOULD NOT FIND YOUR COMPLAINT TO BE FRIVOLOUS.

AND THEN THERE WOULD ALSO BE A HEARING AT WHICH THEY COULD PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE BOARD.

SURE. AND AS LONG AS THAT WAS ONE WAY I'D SUPPORT THAT.

IF YOU CAN'T IF YOU CAN'T PUNT THE CASE THERE, THEN GREAT IF YOU ALLOW IT.

SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT.

RIGHT. IT CUTS BOTH WAYS, THOUGH.

I'M CONFUSED. SO THE SHOW HEARING, IF IF THAT IS IF IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT NEW INFORMATION, GREAT.

IF IT PUSHES ONE WAY, GREAT.

BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND IT TO BE THAT YOU CAN REMOVE THE CASE FROM BEING FURTHER CONSIDERED AT THAT HEARING AS WELL.

IS THAT RIGHT? IT'S IT REQUIRES THE BOARD OF ETHICS TO DETERMINE THAT THE COMPLAINT IS BASELESS BEFORE THEY GO INTO THE FRIVOLITY DETERMINATION.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO YEAH, BUT YEAH, BUT IT'S YOU CAN THAT CAN DETERMINE WITHOUT BEFORE YOU GET TO A HEARING OR WHATEVER OR WHATEVER.

BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S DETERMINED THAT.

THIS IS ON A DIFFERENT TRACK.

IT'S ON A TRACK FOR BASELESS OR IT'S ON A TRACK FOR BEFORE THE HEARING.

YES. OKAY.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS. MAYOR, I APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS YOU HAVE ARTICULATED, BUT I THINK IT EVEN GOES A LITTLE FURTHER THAN THAT.

THE COMPLAINANT IN THIS SCENARIO WANTS THAT ORDER FOR A SHOW CAUSE, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT DRACONIAN LANGUAGE.

WHAT'S THAT ORDER FOR SHOW CAUSE ISSUES THERE.

THE ONE IN THE HOT SEAT.

NOW, THERE THE RESPONDENT, THEY HAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE OR THEY COULD BE PINGED WITH THIS FRIVOLITY LABEL AND NEVER BE ALLOWED TO FOR FIVE YEARS NOT BE ABLE TO FILE ANOTHER COMPLAINT.

I'M GOING TO KIND OF LEAVE THAT TO THE SIDE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GO FORWARD WITH THAT.

BUT THAT'S THE KIND OF ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

AND ONCE A SHOW CAUSE ORDER ISSUES, YOU CAN'T WITHDRAW YOUR COMPLAINT.

SO LET'S SAY YOU PUT YOUR COMPLAINT IN AND THE BOARD FINDS IT BASELESS.

HE SAID, WELL, OKAY, THAT'S THE BREAKS.

THEY FOUND IT BASELESS.

AND NOW PRESENT YOURSELF.

COME TELL US WHY THIS ISN'T FRIVOLOUS.

AND BY THE WAY, YOU CAN'T SAY MEA CULPA AND TAKE IT BACK.

YOU'RE STUCK.

UM, THIS.

THIS FLIPS THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE BARRIER TO COMPLAINTS SHOULD BE VERY, VERY LOW.

YOU'RE GOING TO GET SOME WACKADOODLE STUFF.

IT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENS.

THE BOARD'S JOB, THE PANEL'S JOB IS TO FIND IT BASELESS AND MOVE ON.

LEAVE IT BEHIND US, NOT TO COME BACK AND FIND A WAY TO PUNISH A CITIZEN, EVEN A A YOU KNOW, A CITIZEN WITH ILL INTENT FOR USING THE PROCESS THAT EXISTS.

SO I JUST I DON'T LIKE ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PART OF THE PROCESS.

I THINK ONCE A COMPLAINT IS FOUND TO BE FRIVOLOUS, THERE'S RECOURSE IN THERE.

IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO TAKE IT, IF THE PERSON WHO IS THE TARGET OF THE FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINT DOESN'T WANT TO OR ONE OF THEIR FRIENDS DOESN'T WANT TO, THAT'S FINE.

WE'LL ALL BE BIGGER PEOPLE AND MOVE ALONG.

ANYONE ELSE.

I HAVE ONE THING.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ADDRESSED FROM THAT COMPLAINT WAS THE IN PROPOSAL TEN.

PART OF THAT WAS THAT TO CREATE A REQUIREMENT FOR ME TO BASICALLY GIVE A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BACK TO THE COMPLAINANT AS PART OF THE PROCESS, WHICH IS NOT CURRENTLY IN THERE, IS THERE DIRECTION TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE ORDINANCE? I'LL I'LL OPEN THAT UP.

IS THERE. LOOKING BACK ON TEN THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT GOING TO THE COMPLAINANT.

BASICALLY THIS IS WHAT I RECEIVED, GIVING IT BACK TO THEM TO SAY.

SO THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, OH WAIT, I FORGOT AN ATTACHMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

OKAY, THAT THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US.

COUNCILMAN WHAT'S.

YEAH, I'M, I'M FOR THAT.

BASICALLY. IT'S JUST SAYING THAT THE COMPLAINANT RECEIVES A RECEIPTED COPY OF WHAT THEY HAVE PRESENTED TO THE CITY, WHEREAS NOW THEY PRESENT IT TO THE CITY AND THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO GIVE THEM BACK SOMETHING SAYING WE'VE RECEIVED IT.

IT'S OFFICIAL, THIS IS WHO RECEIVED IT.

AND I'M ALL FOR GIVING BACK THAT THAT SORT OF NOT CERTIFIED BUT THAT FILE STAMPED COPY OR TIME STAMPED COPY.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? DAVIS YEAH, I'M OKAY.

AND I APOLOGIZE. MADISON IF I MISSED THAT PART OF PROPOSAL TEN, I DIDN'T.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF LITTLE EXTRA BITS THERE THAT.

YEAH, COULD YOU.

IT'S NOT IN THAT LANGUAGE ON THE SLIDE.

I CAN FIND IT FOR YOU.

RIGHT. LIKE THAT'S THE.

I MEAN, YOU COULD JUST EVEN EMAIL ME THE CODE SECTION OR JUST TELL US AFTER THE SECTION IS.

[02:30:04]

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE SUPPORTIVE OF THE COMPLAINANT GETTING A COPY OF WHAT THEY FILED BASICALLY? MAYOR PRO TEM YEAH, I THINK THAT'S JUST DUE PROCESS.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL JOIN THAT.

SO THAT'S FOUR. SO YES, THAT THAT WILL CARRY THAT CHANGE OR THAT ADJUSTMENT.

WE'RE BACK TO 11 ON THIS PROCESS.

ANYONE CARE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE CLARIFY THE PROCESS FOR BOARD MAY DETERMINE A COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS.

OKAY. UH.

NOW WE'RE AT ADDITIONAL MINOR VERBIAGE.

AM I RIGHT OR NO? YEAH, I THINK THAT THESE ARE ADDRESSED ALREADY.

OKAY. I FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT.

OKAY. ANY ANYTHING ELSE? ANY QUESTIONS? ANYTHING MISSED? I DON'T.

NOT AT THIS TIME. I THINK NEXT STEPS ARE I'LL DISCUSS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHAT WE DID GET DIRECTION FOR, AND WE'LL BRING THAT BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING. AND A FUTURE AND A FUTURE REQUEST OF MINE IS.

I'D LIKE THE BOARD TO TALK ABOUT A WAY TO.

IN JURY PANELS.

YOU HAVE ORDER, RIGHT? YOU HAVE YOU QUESTION THE JURY.

I WANT TO HAVE A PROCESS WHERE SOMEONE CAN, AS A IF A COMPLAINTS FILED AGAINST YOU, YOU HAVE A YOU HAVE AT LEAST A WAY TO SHUFFLE THE DECK ON. I KNOW IT'S RANDOM, BUT IF YOU DRAW SOMEONE THAT IS OBVIOUSLY WELL DOCUMENTED, LIKE SO FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEONE SAYS THE NEXT PERSON THAT GETS THERE ON THE ETHICS BOARD AND THEY SAY THE NEXT PERSON THAT FILES AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE IT STICKS BECAUSE THIS THIS PROCESS ISN'T GETTING A FAIR SHAKE. AND THEN YOU'RE NEXT AND YOU'RE LIKE, OH, MAN, I'M NOT GETTING A FAIR SHAKE HERE.

RIGHT? THERE HAS TO BE A WAY.

RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO WAY TO OTHER THAN THE THE SHUFFLING.

THERE'S NO WAY TO SAY TO RAISE AN OBJECTION, TO SAY THIS JURY PANEL IS, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, IN CASES YOU HAVE CHANGE OF VENUE, YOU HAVE YOU HAVE STRIKES, THERE'S A WAY TO TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THOSE THAT WOULD BE ULTIMATELY JUDGING THE INFORMATION PROVIDED.

SO THAT'S NOT JUST THE PANEL, THE THREE MEMBER PANEL, CORRECT? OKAY. YEAH. YEAH.

BECAUSE AGAIN, USING THAT EXAMPLE, WHICH IS I'M TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING AS FAR FETCHED AS POSSIBLE, BUT IF SOMEONE THERE'S RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NO PROTECTION FOR THE INDIVIDUAL THAT THEY COULD PUT IT ON A BILLBOARD.

THE NEXT PERSON THAT I SEE AT THE ETHICS BOARD IS IS GOING TO GET IT.

THERE'S NO RECOURSE FOR THE PERSON THAT'S NEXT IN LINE.

THERE'S NO, HEY, WE NEED TO RESHUFFLE THIS, OR HERE'S A DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT I FIND TO BE PROBLEMATIC.

THIS PERSON'S NOT A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUROR OR A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IN MY IN MY PARTICULAR CASE, I WANT TO TRY TO RAISE THAT ISSUE.

THERE'S NOTHING TO TO DO THAT.

AND AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

IT'S A IT'S A CRITICAL PART OF EVERY CASE THAT YOU SELECT YOUR JURY AND YOU GET TO HAVE A SAY SO.

AND YOU HAVE STRIKES FOR CAUSE, STRIKES, STRIKES, JUST BECAUSE NOT SAYING THAT WE HAVE TO GO THAT FAR, BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING TO WHERE THE EVERYONE GETS A FAIR SHAKE IN MY MIND.

SO IT COULD ABSOLUTELY FALL ON ITS FACE.

BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS JUST SO YOU KNOW, THERE IS CURRENTLY IF LIKE A BOARD OF ETHICS MEMBER HAS SUBMITTED A COMPLAINT AGAINST A CITY OFFICIAL AND THAT CITY OFFICIAL COMES UP AGAIN, THERE'S A PROHIBITION ON THEM BEING ASSIGNED TO A PANEL CURRENTLY.

THERE'S THAT CURRENTLY. BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT.

A LITTLE SEPARATE FROM WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING.

YES, RIGHT, EXACTLY.

YEAH. BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THAT THEY CAN OPENLY SAY THE NEXT ONE.

LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, USE ME THE NEXT TIME GERARD COMES BEFORE US, I'M GOING TO FIND HIM GUILTY OF EVERYTHING THAT'S COMING, THAT EVERYTHING THEY ALLEGE.

AND THERE WOULD BE THERE'S NO AND AND THAT PERSON COMES UP IN THE QUEUE.

THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD MAKE THAT IMPROPER.

THAT WOULD BE THAT'S LUCK OF THE DRAW.

THAT'S WHAT YOU GET. CURRENTLY.

IT'S THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION WHO GETS ASSIGNED.

RIGHT? SO I THINK THE INDIVIDUAL THAT'S BEING THE COMPLAINT IS FILED AGAINST SHOULD HAVE SOME WAY TO RESHUFFLE. I'M NOT SAYING YOU HANDPICKED RIGHT BUT AND I UNDERSTAND SIMILAR YOU THE PERSON THAT YOU I APPOINT TO THE ETHICS BOARD CAN'T HEAR MY CASE. RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S BECAUSE OF THAT.

RIGHT. SAME THING.

IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT LOOK AT IT.

SAME IT'S A KNOWN COMMODITY.

IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT SHOCKING.

OTHERWISE THE ALTERNATIVE IS SHOCKING THAT I APPOINT SOMEONE AND THEY BE ABLE TO THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO HEAR ME.

IF THAT'S NOT SHOCKING, THEN IT SHOULDN'T BE SHOCKING TO SAY, HEY, HERE'S EVIDENCE OF WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A CONFLICT AND THIS PERSON SHOULD NOT BE.

[02:35:04]

SO, OKAY, IF THERE'S NOTHING WRITTEN AND I SIMPLY APPOINT SOMEONE.

THAT'S A CONFLICT.

THEN IF SOMEONE ABSOLUTELY WRITES SOMETHING THAT SHOULD ALSO BE A CONFLICT, I WOULD THINK.

BUT WE'LL SEE.

OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THERE WAS A NUMBER OF ITEMS WHERE THERE WAS POTENTIAL CONSENSUS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT ACHIEVED CONSENSUS THAT IT FEELS LIKE WE SHOULD HAVE THE BOARD REEXAMINE THOSE BECAUSE WE BASICALLY ALMOST HAD CONSENSUS.

BUT FOR AND THEN THERE WERE SOME SUGGESTIONS.

SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE I MEAN, IF THAT'S THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL HERE, I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO SEND THOSE ITEMS WHERE WE BASICALLY ALMOST AGREED OR WE EXPRESSED THAT, HEY, WE'RE REALLY CLOSE TO AGREEMENT, BUT IF THOSE COULD GO BACK TO THE BOARD BECAUSE THAT THAT WOULD THERE'S NO REASON TO LEAVE THEIR HARD EFFORTS LYING ON THE MUD.

AND THEN IF THE BOARD WANTS TO EXPRESS THEIR IDEAS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BIAS IN THE BOARD MEMBERSHIP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I THINK THEY CAN REVIEW THAT WE ALREADY HAVE MECHANISMS. I'M NOT REALLY I UNDERSTAND THE MAYOR'S POINT.

YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD, BUT I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE SORT OF AN ETHICS BOARD IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A JURY TRIAL.

AND THAT'S THEY'RE JUST DIFFERENT.

SO WHILE I TAKE THE MAYOR'S POINT, I THINK WE CAN WE CAN MAYBE ADDRESS THE IDEA OF BIAS, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT WE THAT WE WANT TO TREAT THESE EXACTLY THE SAME.

ANYONE ELSE? POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU MENTIONED YOU'RE GOING TO GET WITH MACK WITH ALL OF THEM.

I ASSUME THE ONES THAT WERE APPROVED, THERE'S NO NEED TO GET WITH MACK ON IF THEY.

SOME OF THEM. OKAY. OKAY.

AND THEN THE ONES THAT.

WELL, YOU HAVE THE NOTES ABOUT WHAT WASN'T APPROVED AND.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND TO RUN THAT DOWN.

AND SO IT'S IT'S ONE IS GOING TO COME BACK WITH OPTIONS.

LEGAL IS GOING TO COME BACK WITH OPTIONS FOR THERE WASN'T I MEAN AND IT WASN'T EVEN CLOSE THERE'S ONE PERSON IN SUPPORT OF FOUR FIVE WAS ADOPTED TO BE BOTH WAYS IS AMENDED AND THEN SIX IT WASN'T CLOSE THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON SEVEN NO ONE SUPPORTED THAT.

EIGHT THERE WAS TWO AND A HALF, MAYBE ONE AND A HALF.

REALLY, LIKE COUNCILMAN DAVIS SAID, NEEDS EXCEPTIONS TO BE ADDED.

AND THEN THERE'S MAYOR PRO TEM AND THAT NO ONE ELSE SUPPORTED IT.

FROM MY MEMORY, FROM MY NOTES.

NINE IT'S THE STATUS QUO.

BUT THEN ALSO ADDING DISCLOSED.

LET'S SEE. STATUS QUO DISCLOSURE.

GOING TO VOTE YES.

YEAH. RIGHT, RIGHT.

SO. SO THAT WAS.

THAT WAS.

SUPPORTED, I DO BELIEVE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU HAVE NOT YET SUPPORTED AS MODIFIED BY.

OKAY. GOT IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND THEN TEN THERE WAS THERE WAS NO ONE SUPPORTED THAT.

AND SO YEAH, EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE SECTION.

CORRECT. AND THAT HAD SUPPORT AND 11 THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON THAT SUPPORTED THAT.

SO THERE'S NOTHING CLOSE EVERYTHING CLOSE WAS SUPPORTED MY NOTES.

TO THAT END, MAYOR, DO YOU WANT THIS TO COME BACK AS AN ACTUAL ITEM ON INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION FOR A VOTE AND WE CAN GO THROUGH THE OPTIONS ON THE FIRST ONE? OR WOULD YOU LIKE ANOTHER WORK SESSION? I THINK IT ALMOST HAS TO BE A.

WELL, IF THERE'S A WAY TO POLL BEFORE THEN, IF THE LANGUAGE IS SUITABLE, MAYBE YOU ASK EVERYONE, HEY, WHICH OF THESE DO YOU LEAN TOWARDS? AND MAYBE THERE'S A WAY TO.

YEAH, I WAS JUST THINKING AT THE MEETING, WE COULD WE COULD OBVIOUSLY GIVE IT TO COUNCIL BEFOREHAND, BUT AT THE MEETING KIND OF GO THROUGH THE OPTIONS AND IF THEY CAN SETTLE ON ONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST PUT THAT INTO THE ORDINANCE.

OKAY. YEAH, THAT'LL JUST BE ONE.

JUST MAKE A NOTE THAT WE REALLY WANT TO HAMMER HOME.

HEY, GET US YOUR FEEDBACK SO THAT WE CAN BE CLOSE WHEN WE GO TO VOTE.

OKAY, GREAT.

OKAY. ANYTHING THAT I MISS? ANYTHING. WE'RE ALL GOOD. ALL RIGHT, GREAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT CONCLUDES ITEM C TAKES US TO ITEM D, WHICH IS ID TWO, THREE, TWO, ONE TO RECEIVE, REPORT, HOLD, DISCUSSION, GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON PENDING CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS AND AGENDAS HERE.

SO. OKAY.

YEAH, WE'LL DO THAT BEFORE.

UM, YEAH.

SO AFTER THIS WE HAVE ONE CLOSED SESSION ITEM AND THEN WE'LL SO WE'LL TAKE A BRIEF BREAK.

AFTER THIS, GRAB FOOD, DO THE CLOSED SESSION.

OH, MAN. THING IN THERE.

ALL RIGHT. MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

JENNIFER RANEY, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

[02:40:05]

UP TO SEVEN REQUESTS WILL BE REVIEWED PER MEETING.

THIS MEETING WE HAVE ONE.

I'LL INTRODUCE THE REQUEST AND THEN THE ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT MADE THAT REQUEST HAS UP TO TWO MINUTES TO DESCRIBE IT.

AND THEN EACH OF YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE AFTERWARDS TO SHARE SUPPORT AND YOUR LEVEL OF RESPONSE THAT CAN BE HIGH, MODERATE OR LOW OF THAT LEVEL OF PRIORITY. AND WE HAVE ONE ITEM TODAY REQUEST FOR WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY FOOD INSECURITY PROJECT AND

[D. ID 23-212 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on pending City Council requests for: 1) Request for a Work Session to discuss the Southern Methodist University food insecurity project commissioned and related regional food bank information.]

MAYOR PRO TEM. GREAT.

YES. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO AS WE SAW THIS MORNING, THE UNITED WAY TALKED ABOUT FOOD INSECURITY ISSUES ACROSS THE CITY.

AND ONE OF OUR ONGOING PROBLEMS AND WE HAVE A LOT OF A NUMBER OF ESTABLISHED AND IMPORTANT PARTNERS IN THE COMMUNITY, THE NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK, THE DENTON COMMUNITY FOOD CENTER, THE TARRANT AREA FOOD BANK AND STAFF AND COUNCIL HAVE BEEN REACHED OUT TO BY TARRANT AREA FOOD BANK TO BOTH INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND TALK ABOUT THE SERVICES IN DENTON THAT THEY PROVIDE.

SO I THINK COLLEGIALITY JUST INDICATES WE SHOULD WE SHOULD RECEIVE THAT THAT INFORMATIVE SESSION.

BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT COORDINATED WITH THE NEW SMU STUDY.

IT'S NOT OUT OF SMU, THAT'S THE NAME OF THE CONSULTING GROUP, WHICH IS KIND OF A WEIRD THING.

BUT THAT SMU STUDY TALKS ABOUT REGIONAL FOOD INSECURITY AND THE VARIOUS APPROACHES THAT THE COUNTY, CITY AND REGION ARE TAKING.

AND I THINK IT'S GERMANE THAT WE HAVE A COORDINATED WORK SESSION BETWEEN THE TARRANT AREA FOOD BANK AND REPORTS FROM STAFF ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THIS EFFORT AND AS IT WILL AFFECT OUR OUR DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

SO I'M ASKING FOR TO COORDINATED WORK SESSIONS ONE A PRESENTATION AND ONE REPORT FROM STAFF.

OKAY. AND I'LL JUST GET OUT OF THE WAY.

SO FOR ME, I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS WORK SESSION BECAUSE UNITED WAY MENTIONED IT'S A COUNTY, IT SHOULD BE A COUNTY LOCATION.

THAT'S A DENTON COUNTY ISSUE.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE A GRANT FOR LOCAL FOOD NONPROFITS THAT WANT TO ASK FOR SUPPORT IN THE CITY OF DENTON.

AND THEN IF ANYTHING, IT WOULD BE A SMU DISCUSSION I WOULD BE OPEN TO BECAUSE THEY ARE NEUTRAL.

WE TRUST ME.

I WENT ON A TOUR AND YOU DO NOT WANT TO INSERT THE CITY OF DENTON IN THAT FIGHT BETWEEN THE TWO FOOD BANKS.

IT IS VERY CONTENTIOUS.

IT IS NOT CLEAR.

AND WE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE AS A CITY.

AND IT'S NOT A FIGHT FOR US TO BE IN BETWEEN THESE TWO GIANT ORGANIZATIONS.

THE COUNTY. ET CETERA.

THE CITY OF DENTON NEEDS TO STICK TO OUR CURRENT PROCESS.

THEY CAN APPLY FOR A GRANT, AND THEY'RE ALWAYS WELCOME TO MAKE A FOUR MINUTE PIT.

I MEAN TO MAKE AN OPEN DURING OPEN MIC.

THEY CAN ALWAYS COME AND TALK TO US AT ANY POINT.

AND SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO HAVE BUY IN OR SUPPORT ANYONE ELSE.

COUNCILMAN DAVIS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT FOOD INSECURITY.

AND CERTAINLY WE HEARD FROM UNITED WAY ABOUT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT THIS MORNING.

BUT THE THE STUDY IS NOT DONE.

IT'S NOT COMPLETE.

IT HASN'T DONE IT HASN'T DONE WHAT THE FOOD BANKS HAVE ASKED IT TO DO.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING BACK TO THE CONSULTANT AND ASKING THEM TO FULFILL WHAT THEY WERE PAID TO DO.

I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING FOR STAFF TO KEEP AN EYE ON AND TO REPORT BACK TO US ON.

I DON'T THINK IT'S WORK SESSION READY YET.

I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR. IT'S NOT FOR US TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO TWO ENTITIES THAT BOTH SERVE DENTON COUNTY.

IT'S FOR THOSE ENTITIES TO SORT THAT OUT.

IT'S NOT FOR US TO INSERT OURSELVES INTO THE MIDDLE OF WHEN THERE'S A ROLE FOR THE CITY THAT I DON'T SEE QUITE YET IN THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF FOOD AND SECURITY AND PROVIDING FOOD. I THINK I TRUST STAFF TO TELL US WHEN IT'S TIME TO BECOME PART OF THAT CONVERSATION.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN. MCGEE. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THIS IS SOMETHING I'M GOING TO SUPPORT WITH A MEDIUM PRIORITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN. BYRD. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE I DO FEEL AND UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON RIGHT NOW WITHIN OUR CITY, WITHIN OUR COUNTY, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK BEING DONE TOWARDS THIS ANYWAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE. OKAY.

THAT TAKES US TO OUR CLOSED SESSION.

[1. Closed Meeting]

THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW AT 4:57 P.M.

CONVENE IN CLOSED MEETING TO DELIBERATE THE CLOSED MEETING ITEM SET FORTH ON THE AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING ITEM A ID

[02:45:05]

AND SHOULD I CALL THESE OTHER ONES OR THEY'RE ALL THERE.

THEY'RE JUST PLACEHOLDERS.

UNLESS THE COUNCIL WANTS TO OR HAS QUESTIONS, WE CAN WE DON'T NEED TO CALL THEM.

OKAY. SO IF WE IF WE GET INTO THOSE, WE'LL CALL THEM AT THAT TIME.

SO IT IS 458.

LET'S TAKE A 20 MINUTE BREAK AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND PICK UP.

SO 520 WILL BE BACK.

SO. GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL.

TODAY IS APRIL 4TH.

IT IS 630 AND WE HAVE A QUORUM AGAIN, SO WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

THE FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA IS PLEDGES TO THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS FLAG.

PLEASE STAND AND JOIN ME IF YOU'RE ABLE.

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 FLAG.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE.

TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

OKAY. AND THEN I HAVE TWO PROCLAMATIONS TO READ, SO I WILL ASK.

[A. ID 23-609 Proclamation: National Community Development Week]

UND BASKETBALL.

IF YOU'RE HERE, YOU CAN COME DOWN AND MEET ME UP FRONT.

ALL RIGHT. HEY, RYAN.

HOW ARE YOU, MAN? MAN, LOOK AT THAT.

DOESN'T THAT JUST LOOK GOOD? IT BELONGS IN DENTON.

IT JUST FEELS. HEY, WHAT'S GOING ON? GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN, BROTHER. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, FOR SURE.

WELL, I JUST WANT TO OPEN IT UP BEFORE I HAVE A PROCLAMATION.

OPEN IT UP FOR YOU TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON TOMORROW AND YOUR JOURNEY AND HOW MUCH SLEEP YOU GOT IN VEGAS.

ALL THOSE THINGS.

WELL, THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS RYAN PECK.

I'M OUR ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT AT UNT ATHLETICS.

WE HAD AN AMAZING COUPLE COUPLE DAYS.

CONNOR SMITH, OUR COO AND ASSOCIATE VP AS WELL, IN LAS VEGAS, CHEERING ON OUR UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS MEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM.

SO AS WE BEAT WISCONSIN, THE SEMIFINALS AND THEN BEAT CONFERENCE RIVAL UAB IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME LAST THURSDAY, IT WAS A POINT OF PRIDE AS WE WERE ON ESPN AND ESPN TWO FOR OUR CITY, FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO BRING HOME THIS TROPHY.

I GIVE ALL CREDIT TO OUR COACHES, OUR STUDENT ATHLETES, AS THEIR RESOLVE AND GRIT WAS WAS UNBELIEVABLE AND A SPECIAL MOMENT FOR THOSE YOUNG MEN TO BRING HOME THIS HARDWARE TO THE UNIVERSITY.

SO IT MADE US ALL AND PROUD.

AND WE'RE EXCITED TO BE HERE TODAY AND WE APPRECIATE THE CITY.

SO TOMORROW AT NOON AND APOGEE STADIUM HUB CLUB OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, WE WILL BE INTRODUCING OUR NEW MEN'S BASKETBALL HEAD COACH, ROSS HODGE, ALONG WITH OUR NEW WOMEN'S BASKETBALL COACH, JASON BURTON.

SO WE'LL READ THIS PROCLAMATION.

WE'LL INTRODUCE THEM, HEAR FROM SOME OF THE STUDENT ATHLETES AND ALSO HAVE A SMALL RECEPTION JUST AS WE WE CELEBRATE THIS ACCOMPLISHMENT WITH OUR UNIVERSITY AND WITH THE COMMUNITY AND WITH OUR ALUMNI.

GOOD, GOOD, GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND THEN JUST IN SEGWAYING, SO FOOTBALL SEASON'S COMING UP.

IF SOMEONE'S INTERESTED IN TICKETS, WHAT DO THEY DO? IF YOU WANT TICKETS TO ANY OF OUR ATHLETIC EVENTS, MEAN GREEN SPORTS.COM OR VISIT OUR TICKET OFFICE AT APOGEE STADIUM.

AND WE HAVE LOTS OF OPTIONS AND PACKAGES FOR ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY TO COME ON OUT AND MAKE THIS AN ENJOYABLE EXPERIENCE ON SATURDAYS OR ANY ANY SPORT. WE HAVE SOFTBALL GOING ON RIGHT NOW OVER OVER ACROSS THE WAY, SO WE'D LOVE TO HAVE YOU ALL OUT.

AND YOU CAN ALWAYS FIND CONNOR AND I AND OUR OTHER ADMINISTRATION, OTHER STUDENT ATHLETES THAT ARE WITH US.

SO LOVE TO HAVE YOU ANYTIME.

YEAH, NO, I APPRECIATE IT.

I THINK I'VE SPONSORED AT LEAST ONE STUDENT WITH ALL THE POPCORN I'VE PURCHASED FOR MY SIX YEAR OLD.

NO DOUBT. NO, I THINK I'VE AT LEAST GOT A SEMESTER IN.

OKAY. SO I HAVE A PROCLAMATION AND IT READS A PROCLAMATION BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS.

TO ALL. TO ALL WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME.

[02:50:01]

AND. WHEREAS, THE MEAN GREEN ARE THE EMBODIMENT, EMBODIMENT OF TENACITY, GRIT, PERSEVERANCE.

AND. WHEREAS, THE UNT TEAM DEFINED DEFIED CHALLENGES POSTED POSTING A SCHOOL RECORD 31 TOTAL WINS AGAINST ONLY SEVEN LOSSES FOR THE SEASON, INCLUDING 16 CONFERENCE WINS.

AND. WHEREAS, THE SECOND SEEDED MEAN GREEN WENT TO WENT THE DISTANCE IN THE NATIONAL INVITATION TOURNAMENT IN LOS ANGELES PARDON ME, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA DELIVERING A 68 TO 61 WIN AGAINST THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM AND THE PROGRAM'S FIRST NIT CHAMPIONSHIP.

AND. WHEREAS, THE PLAYERS AND COACHES OF THE MEAN GREEN HAVE ELEVATED THE STANDARD OF SPORTSMANSHIP AND TEAMWORK, SHOWN UNRIVALED SKILL, DETERMINATION AND FORTITUDE AGAINST UNCERTAINTY, AND STOOD AS A BEACON OF PRIDE FOR THE UNIVERSITY AND THE ENTIRE DENTON COMMUNITY.

NOW, THEREFORE, I GERARD HUDSPETH, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, DO HEREBY DECLARE AND PROCLAIM THE FIFTH DAY OF APRIL 2023 AS UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS MEN'S BASKETBALL DAY IN THE CITY OF DENTON, AND URGE ALL CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO SHARE AND CELEBRATION OF THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS.

IF WE CAN GIVE THEM A HAND. YEAH.

AND THEN. YEAH. YEAH.

SEE. THAT IT'S FANTASTIC.

THAT FITS WELL. AND SO I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT.

THESE ARE YEARS.

WELL, YOU CAN GET THAT. I GOT YOU, PARTNER.

YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU KNOW WHAT? SLIDE OVER HERE AND GET A PICTURE.

OKAY, PERFECT. THAT RIGHT THERE. YES, I'M GOING TO GET IN THE MIDDLE.

YEAH, COME ON. SHE'S GOING FIRST.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. JUST NIKKI.

ALL RIGHT, MAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'LL SEE YOU TOMORROW. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

YEAH. ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU. YES, FOR SURE.

ALL RIGHT.

AND THEN YOU INTRODUCE EVERYONE CAN INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND THEN YOU CAN TELL US WHAT WE RECOGNIZE.

YEAH. THIS IS A CELEBRATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING THAT'S BEEN AVAILABLE TO COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES FOR 40 PLUS YEARS NOW.

THE CITIES HAD ACCESS TO THESE FUNDS FOR 30 YEARS OR SO AS WELL, BEING ABLE TO DO THINGS THAT HELP OUR FAMILIES AND OUR HOUSEHOLDS AND OUR LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS. WITH IMPROVEMENTS.

JUST IN SINCE 2015, $27 MILLION OF CDBG FUNDS HAVE COME INTO THE CITY FOR PROJECTS, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO A LOT OF GREAT THINGS FOR THE COMMUNITY.

SO THIS WEEK JUST CELEBRATES AND HONORS THOSE FUNDS BEING AVAILABLE TO US AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO HELP OUR NEIGHBORS AND OUR FAMILIES IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO I AM DANNY SHAW.

I'M THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES THAT OVERSEES THE PROGRAM.

COURTNEY DONDERO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES.

ALMA ESPINO, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST.

LUISA GARCIA, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER.

GORDON MEREDITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION SPECIALIST.

MEGAN BALL HOMELESS PROGRAMS COORDINATOR.

EMILY BLAKE HOUSING PROGRAMS COORDINATOR.

ELENA GRAF GRANTS PROGRAM COORDINATOR.

AND JUST VERY QUICKLY UP HERE ON THE STAGE, JUST THESE THREE FOLKS RIGHT HERE, ALMA AND LUISA AND GORDON, HAVE MORE THAN 100 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS PROGRAM WITH THE CITY.

THEY'VE EVERY SINGLE PROJECT THAT YOU SEE HERE, THEY'VE TOUCHED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO MAKE IT IMPORTANT AND PERFECT.

WOW. EXCELLENT.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YEAH. YEAH, I REMEMBER WHEN I SERVED ON THE ON THE BOARD, JUST GREAT WORK AND REALLY INVOLVED.

AND THERE'S NOTHING BETTER AS FAR AS JUST FEDERAL DOLLARS HITTING THE GROUND RUNNING AND SUPPORTING OUR COMMUNITY.

THIS IS THE BEST AVENUE I'VE SEEN FOR US TO REALLY MAKE AN IMPACT DAY IN AND DAY OUT FOR PEOPLE.

SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR FOR ALL YOU DO.

AND SO THE PROCLAMATION READS FROM THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TO ALL WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME.

GREETINGS. WHEREAS NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK IS CELEBRATED AS A CELEBRATION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

AND. WHEREAS, THE CDBG PROGRAM PROVIDES ANNUAL FUNDING AND FLEXIBILITY FOR COMMUNITIES TO PROVIDE SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUITABLE LIVING

[02:55:10]

AND. WHEREAS, THE HOME PROGRAM PROVIDES FUNDING TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO CREATE DIXON SAFE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW INCOME PERSONS.

AND. WHEREAS, OUR COMMUNITY HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL OF $32,676,206 IN CDBG FUNDS SINCE 1989 AND $14,192,774 IN HOME FUNDS SINCE 1994.

AND. WHEREAS, THERE THESE FUNDS HAVE BEEN USED TO REVITALIZE NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGH THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES STREETS, SIDEWALKS, DRAINAGE AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS.

PROGRAMS THAT ASSIST LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS IN MAINTAINING SAFE, ENERGY EFFICIENT HOMES, HOMEBUYER ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, SUPPORT OF OTHER HOME ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING AND SUPPORT OF OUR LOCAL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AS THEY PROVIDE MUCH NEEDED SERVICES IN THE COMMUNITY.

NOW, THEREFORE, OUR GERARD HUDSPETH MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, DO HEREBY DECLARE AND PROCLAIM THIS WEEK OF APRIL 10TH THROUGH 14TH 2023, AS NATIONAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WEEK IN THE CITY OF DENTON, AND ENCOURAGE ALL CITIZENS TO RECOGNIZE THE SPECIAL EFFORTS OF THE STAFF WHO ENHANCE THE LIVES OF NEIGHBORS THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY WITH THESE PROGRAMS, IF WE CAN GIVE THEM A HAND.

OKAY. WE ALL IN? ALL RIGHT.

OUT THERE AGAIN. READY.

ONE, TWO, THREE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

I'LL NOTE THAT ITEMS G AND M WERE PULLED FOR SEPARATE VOTE.

OH, YEAH.

I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.

ONE SPEAKER CANCELED.

THERE IS ANOTHER SPEAKER.

STEPHEN DILLENBURG.

ARE YOU HERE? SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.

ONE MORE TIME. STEVEN DILLENBERG.

OKAY, SO NOW THAT TAKES US TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

[4. CONSENT AGENDA]

OKAY. IS THERE A IS THERE A SECOND? MACK. COUNCIL MEMBER. MCGEE.

SECOND ON CONSENT.

OKAY. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCGEE. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS.

I'LL SAY YOU. UH, OKAY.

THE CITY SECRETARY WILL NOTE THAT, AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

WE'RE TESTING SOMETHING HERE.

OH. AND THAT PASSES 6 TO 0.

OKAY, THAT TAKES US TO ITEM G.

AND THAT IS ID 2346 TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR JOINT FOR JOINT FACILITY USE AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR DENTON PARKS AND RECREATION CAMP PROGRAMS. AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS HAS RECUSED HIMSELF.

MAYOR PRO TEM I MOVE APPROVAL.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE SECOND.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS. I'LL SEE YOU.

HI. THANK YOU.

AND EVERYONE TO VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

[03:00:03]

THAT TAKES US TO.

WHAT'S THE OTHER ONE? AMEN.

IS IT M OKAY.

THANK YOU. ITEM M SHOULD HAVE MADE A NOTE ON THIS PAGE AS WELL.

LET'S SEE. WE GET THERE.

PARDON ME. THERE WE GO.

WHICH IS ID 23729.

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, A HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AUTHORIZING THE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF $150,000 FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL EXPENSES AND THE APPELLATE EXPENSES.

IN THE INITIAL LITIGATION STYLED MICHAEL GRIMM AND JIM MAYNARD V CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS.

CURRENTLY, YEAH, THAT'S GOOD.

MAYOR, THIS AFTERNOON YOU REQUESTED A SLIDE TO SHOW THE EXPENDITURES ON THIS.

DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CALEB GARCIA IS HERE TO PRESENT THAT.

GOT IT. OKAY.

YEAH. NO, I'M GOOD.

THAT'S PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND. AND I JUST.

I PULLED THIS ITEM BECAUSE I COULDN'T, IN GOOD FAITH, NOT VOTE.

I DIDN'T WANT TO VOTE ON THIS WITHOUT MAKING THE PUBLIC AWARE OF THIS EXPENSE.

THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT TO ME.

IT'S NOTEWORTHY BECAUSE THIS IS A CONSTANT REMINDER OF ME FOR ME PERSONALLY, THAT WE HAVE TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE TAXPAYER MONEY AND WE HAVE TO BE GOOD LISTENERS TO LEGAL ADVICE BECAUSE THESE THINGS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. SO THIS IS $1.5 MILLION OF YOUR TAXPAYER MONEY, AND I THINK YOU SHOULD KNOW WHERE WE'RE SPENDING YOUR MONEY AND HOW IT'S SPENT.

AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ASK THOSE.

BUT I JUST COULDN'T LET THIS GO THROUGH ON CONSENT WITHOUT AT LEAST HAVING A SEPARATE VOTE.

HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO BE TO RAISE AWARENESS OF THIS THIS COST TO THE TAXPAYERS.

SO I AM SUPPORTIVE.

IT IS, AT THIS PHASE THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

I WANT TO I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A THERE'S A BIGGER ISSUE AT HAND AT THIS POINT.

BUT THIS IS THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.

SO THAT BEING SAID, I, I DO MOVE APPROVAL, SO I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? COUNCILMAN. MCGEE SECOND TO THE APPROVAL.

OKAY. MOTION BY MAYOR HUDSPETH.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCGEE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

COUNCIL MEMBER. WHAT'S OKAY? AND LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

AND THAT PASSES SIX ZERO.

THAT TAKES US TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

AND LET ME GET THERE BECAUSE A FEW HAVE BEEN IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG IN THE AGENDA, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM A HAS BEEN

[A. ID 23-387 THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. NEW PUBLIC NOTICE WILL BE PUBLISHED IN ADVANCE OF THE FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOC. GOV'T CODE CH. 395. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, regarding the approval of the Roadway Impact Fees Study]

SO IF YOU'LL NOTE THAT AND THEN ITEM PUBLIC HEARING B SIMILARLY HAS BEEN POSTPONED INDEFINITELY.

[B. ID 22-2556 THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS POSTPONED INDEFINITELY. NEW PUBLIC NOTICE WILL BE PUBLISHED IN ADVANCE OF THE FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOC. GOV'T CODE CH. 395. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas regarding updates to the Roadway Impact Fees]

[C. PD22-0010d Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification from a Planned Development - Mixed-Use Neighborhood (PD-MN) District to a Planned Development - Suburban Corridor (PD-SC) District on approximately 12.770 acres of land generally located at the northwest and southwest corner of Teasley Lane (F.M.2181) and Hunters Creek Road in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; adopting an amendment to the City’s official zoning map; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof; providing a severability clause and an effective date. STAFF IS REQUESTING TO WITHDRAW THIS ITEM (PD22-0010d, Denton West Joint Venture, Mia Hines).]

TAKES US TO OUR ONLY PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, WHICH IS ITEM DZ230001A HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON,

[D. Z23-0001a Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas regarding a change in the zoning district and use classification on approximately 29.714 acres of land from Planned Development 120 (PD-120) District to Mixed-Use Neighborhood (MN) District. The site is generally located at the south of Loop 288, approximately 1,640 feet west of North Locust Street (F.M. 2164) in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; adopting an amendment to the City’s Official Zoning Map; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof; providing for severability and an effective date. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted [7-0] to recommend approval of the request. Motion for approval by Commissioner Smith and second by Commissioner McDade. (Z23-0001a, Loop 288 PD to MN, Mia Hines).]

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

MIA HINES, ASSOCIATE PLANNER.

THIS ITEM IS STATED IN THE CAPTION IS A REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES FROM PD 120 TO THE MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT.

THE SITE ITSELF IS GENERALLY LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF LOOP 288 APPROXIMATELY 6300FT WEST OF LOCUST STREET.

SURROUNDING THE SITE ARE SOME DEVELOPING SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS TO THE WEST AND SOUTH TO THE EAST IS EXISTING MULTIFAMILY AND TO THE NORTH IS LOOP 288.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT IS UNDEVELOPED LAND WITHIN A MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY AND THEN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR THIS SITE IS MODERATE RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ACCOMMODATES RESIDENTIAL DWELLING DENSITY AT APPROXIMATELY 6 TO 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AS WELL AS NEIGHBORHOOD SCALED COMMERCIAL.

AND THE SITE ITSELF IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE TIMELINE OF THE EXISTING ZONING.

THE ORDINANCE WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1986, LATER AMENDED IN 1998 AND AGAIN IN 2010.

[03:05:03]

SO WITH THIS ZONING CHANGE, THE SITE WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THAT PD AND BROUGHT INTO THE CURRENT DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS.

THAT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE SOME ITEMS THAT WE HAVE PRIORITIZED IN OUR CURRENT DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE SILENT IN FORMER DEVELOPMENT CODES AS WELL AS THIS PD.

SPECIFICALLY, JUST LOOKING AT THIS TABLE HERE, WE CURRENTLY REQUIRE A MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREAS AND TREE CANOPY COVERAGE AS WELL AS STREET TREES.

SOME OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WE'VE INTRODUCED TO HELP MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THOSE ITEMS WERE SILENT UNDER THE CURRENT PD, WHEREAS THEY WOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE CURRENT DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE UNDER THE DISTRICT FOR THIS ZONING CHANGE.

SO STAFF DID REVIEW THIS PER THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN SUBCHAPTER TWO OF OUR DDC, NAMELY, THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT IS IN LINE WITH THE DENTON 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MODERATE RESIDENTIAL.

THE ZONING IS ALSO INTENDED TO SUPPORT COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE USES THAT ARE SURROUNDING THIS SITE MENTIONED EARLIER AND THE UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE A BIT UNCLEAR BECAUSE WE'RE PULLING FROM THE 2000 TO 1969 ZONING ORDINANCE AS WELL AS THE 2002 CODE AND THE CURRENT DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE.

OF COURSE, WE DID PERFORM A PUBLIC OUTREACH AS OF THE TIME OF THIS REPORT.

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION TO THIS CASE AND THE APPLICANT DID ATTEMPT TO HOLD TWO VIRTUAL PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, BUT THOSE WERE CANCELED BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY RSVP'S FOR THOSE MEETINGS.

SO WITH THAT, THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REQUESTED ZONING.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ALSO HEARD THIS CASE BACK AT THE BEGINNING OF MARCH AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SEVEN ZERO AS WELL.

SO AT THIS TIME I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO INTRODUCE HIMSELF AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THE PROJECT AS WELL.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE THE APPLICANT COMES UP? SEEING. NONE.

AND AMY, IF YOU'LL COME UP AND YOU'LL HAVE APPLICANT JUST 110.

OKAY. YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES IF YOU NEED IT.

I PROMISE I WON'T TAKE THAT.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

AMY BISSETT, 97, LAND COMPANY 109 NORTH ELM, DENTON.

AND I BROUGHT SOME SLIDES, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO DISPLAY THEM UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR I NEED TO POINT TOWARDS THEM.

BUT I DID JUST WANT TO SHARE A COUPLE OF THINGS.

IF YOU SAW THE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH AERIAL THAT MIA PUT UP ON THE SCREEN, WE WE DID MAKE AN EXTRA EFFORT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION TODAY.

THAT'S DIRECTLY TO OUR SOUTH.

IT APPEARS THAT THEY WERE SINGLE, SINGLE FAMILY FOR RENT HOMES THAT DIDN'T HAVE UTILITY ADDRESSES SET UP.

THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED AS OUR TYPICAL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT UNDER THE 200 FOOT AND THE 500 FOOT.

SO WE JUST TOOK A LOOK AT THOSE.

I WENT OUT AND DROVE IT AND SAW THAT SOME OF THEM WERE OCCUPIED.

SO WE PICKED UP AND MAILED ANOTHER 46 NOTICES TO HOMES THAT WERE ALONG BEALE STREET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY THAT LIVED THERE WAS NOTIFIED.

AND WE STILL DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES, BUT JUST WANTED YOU ALL TO BE AWARE THAT BECAUSE THIS IS SIMILAR TO A CASE THAT YOU SAW LAST OCTOBER THAT I BROUGHT BEFORE YOU THAT BACKS UP TO A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

I JUST WANTED TO TO POINT OUT THAT WE DID MAKE EXTRA EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO THOSE NEIGHBORS.

AND THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT MULTIFAMILY IS PERMITTED UNDER THE EXISTING PD.

AND I HAVE ACTUALLY DONE A PD AMENDMENT IN A PD THAT WAS FROM THE 1969 CODE AND IT WAS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT FOR ALL OF US TO UNDERSTAND.

SO I'M GLAD TO BE REPRESENTING THIS ONE AND HOPEFULLY BRINGING IT INTO THE CURRENT CODE.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? THANK YOU. SEEING NONE.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD CARE TO SPEAK ON IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE FILLED OUT A CARD IN ADVANCE.

YOU CAN SPEAK.

SEEING NO SUDDEN MOVEMENTS.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'LL TAKE AGAIN QUESTIONS OR EMOTION FROM THE COUNCIL.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THIS IS IN MY DISTRICT.

I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE APPROVAL.

AND THE ONE OF THE REAL REASONS IS WHAT AMY AND STAFF TALKED ABOUT THIS.

THIS BRINGS UP COMPLICATED, ARCANE COMBINATIONS OF CODE INTO THE 21ST CENTURY.

[03:10:04]

AND IF THERE'S ISSUES THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE WITH WHAT COMES IN IN THE FUTURE, THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE IN THE FUTURE.

BUT IT'S NICE TO SEE THE THE MODERN STANDARDS PUT INTO PLACE.

SO I MOVE APPROVAL.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCGEE. SINCE THIS IS IN MY DISTRICT TOO, I GUESS I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MCGEE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YEAH, I GUESS. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHAT'S. HOW SAY YOU? I. OKAY.

AND WE'LL VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

AND THAT PASSES. SIX ZERO.

THANK YOU. TAKES US TO OUR THE SECTION SECTION OF OUR AGENDA CALLED THE ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION NUMBER SIX ON YOUR AGENDA.

[A. ID 23-545 Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, amending the fiscal year 2022-2023 budget and Annual Program of Services of the City of Denton to allow for adjustments to the Capital Improvement Program of $29,223,360 for expenses related to transformers, LED conversion, Hickory GIS, and TxDOT relocations; declaring a public purpose; directing the City Secretary attach a copy to the 2022-2023 budget; requiring approval by at least five votes; providing a severability clause, an open meetings clause and an effective date. The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0).]

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 2023 BUDGET AND ANNUAL PROGRAMS OF SERVICES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO ALLOW AMENDMENTS PARDON ME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OF $29,223,360.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

DANIELLE STANFORD, BUDGET MANAGER.

THIS EVENING, I'M ASKING YOUR APPROVAL FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $29.2 MILLION.

IT INCREASES EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET FROM 738.7 MILLION TO 768 MILLION.

THE REASON FOR THIS INCREASE IS THE PURCHASE OF TRANSFORMERS LED CONVERSIONS.

HICKORY GEARS AND FINALLY TEX-DOT RELOCATIONS.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS ALL OF THE LINE ITEMS IN THE ELECTRIC CIP BUDGET.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE, SOME ITEMS HAVE BEEN DECREASED WHERE OTHER LINE ITEMS HAVE INCREASED AND THAT NET DIFFERENCE IS 29.2 MILLION.

SO THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT IS THE AMOUNT WE ARE ISSUING.

THAT'S JUST THAT'S THE MAXIMUM THAT WE CAN ISSUE.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

AND ALSO ELECTRIC STAFF IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL QUESTIONS.

OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. OUR STAFF.

OH, GOOD. SO JUST TO JUST TO CURIOSITY QUESTION, BECAUSE I KNOW THE SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES WITH TRANSFORMERS AND LINES AND SUBSTATIONS ARE NOT REALLY SOMETHING UNDER THE CONTROL OF DENTON STAFF.

BUT I AM CURIOUS WHAT STAFF THINKS THE IMPACT OF ROOFTOP SOLAR IS ON MITIGATING OPERATIONAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS SO THAT THAT 19 THAT CRAZY NUMBER IS WOULD HAVE BEEN DIMINISHED IF WE HAD LESS LOAD, LESS NEED FOR SUBSTATIONS, THAT SORT OF THING.

DO YOU HAVE THAT SORT OF IDEA IN YOUR YOUR HEAD OR IF NOT, THEN I WOULD TAKE AN ANSWER IN THE FUTURE.

JESSE FIELD DIVISION ENGINEERING MANAGER FOR DME.

I DO NOT HAVE THAT IN MY HEAD, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER AND PROVIDE IT TO YOU.

THAT'D BE GREAT.

I'D BE REALLY INTERESTED BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF EXTENDING THE THE LIFETIME OF OUR SUBSTATIONS IS A WAY OF MITIGATING THESE THESE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS.

THANKS. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

MAYOR PRO TEM. I'M NOT AFRAID.

I WILL MOVE APPROVAL.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCGEE SECOND.

OKAY. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

MCGEE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

HCRC YOU. HI.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND WE'LL VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

LET'S STOP IT IN. THAT PASSES.

SIX ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT TAKES US TO ITEM B ID 23195.

[B. ID 23-195 Consider adoption of an ordinance directing the publication of Notice of Intention to issue $52,000,000 in principal amount of Certificates of Obligation of the City of Denton for General Government and Solid Waste projects; and providing an effective date. The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (5-0).]

YEAH, THAT'S THE GIST OF IT.

OKAY. GOOD EVENING.

RANDY KLENGEL TREASURY MANAGER.

MAYOR, I HAVE ONE PRESENTATION FOR BOTH ITEMS B AND C, SO IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CALL THE ITEM C AS WELL.

[03:15:05]

OKAY. BOTH GOT IT.

I'LL DO THAT. AND SO THAT'S ITEM C IS ID 23196.

[C. ID 23-196 Consider adoption of an ordinance directing the publication of Notice of Intention to issue $167,000,000 in principal amount of Certificates of Obligation of the City of Denton for Waterworks and Wastewater System and Electric System projects; and providing an effective date. The Public Utilities Board recommends approval 5-0).]

WATERWORKS AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS AND ELECTRIC ELECTRIC SYSTEM PROJECTS.

THERE WE GO AGAIN.

RANDY KLINGEL, TREASURY MANAGER AND I HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ABOUT THE NOTICE OF INTENTS FOR OUR CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION FOR THIS SUMMER'S BOND SALE.

FIRST OF ALL, THE NOTICE OF INTENTS ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW FOR ANY CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION FOR THE CITY OF DENTON.

WE MUST PUBLISH THE NOTICE IN OUR LOCAL PAPER, SO IT WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE DENTON RECORD CHRONICLE, AS WELL AS THE CITY'S WEBSITE.

IN ADDITION, IT WILL BE POSTED TWICE, SO IT'LL BE IN TWO CONSECUTIVE WEEKS IN THOSE DENTON RECORD CHRONICLE.

IT WILL STAY IN OUR ON OUR WEBSITE UNTIL THE ACTUAL BOND PARAMETER ORDINANCE IS PRESENTED TO YOU GUYS IN JUNE.

SO MOST OF MY SLIDE PRESENTATION TODAY IS THE CIP BUDGET THAT SUPPORTS THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION.

YOU ALSO HAVE THESE PROJECTS IN YOUR EYES, IN YOUR BACKUP, AND IT DEMONSTRATES THE ORIGINAL BUDGET THAT YOU APPROVED.

AND IT ALSO SHOWS YOU THE NOTICE OF INTENT, WHICH SHOWS THE DIFFERENCES OF THOSE.

I WILL NOT GO THROUGH THE PROJECTS, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I BELIEVE THERE ARE STAFF HERE THAT CAN ASSIST YOU THROUGH THOSE ANYTHING.

SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, THE INTERNAL SERVICES AND THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS WHO STAYED AT BUDGET FOR THE NOTICE OF INTENT AT $3.6 MILLION.

THE NEXT GENERAL GOVERNMENT SECTION, WHICH INCLUDES SOME OTHER FUND FACILITIES, PARKS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, HAVE A SMALL LIST HERE, BUT IT CONTINUES ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT DID GET REDUCED SLIGHTLY.

THERE WAS A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT THEY COULD NOT GET TO IN THIS YEAR, SO THEY REDUCED THOSE ITEMS COMPLETELY.

SO THAT BROUGHT IT FROM $34 MILLION BUDGET TO A $31.9 MILLION BUDGET.

SOLID WASTE PROJECT'S STATED BUDGET AS WELL.

SO THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE SOLID WASTE TOTALS FOR THE CO FOR THE NOTICE OF INTENT COS IS $51,608,000.

CONTINUING ON WITH OUR PROJECTS, WE HAVE THE WATER UTILITY WHICH REDUCED THEIRS BY $3 MILLION.

AND AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME PHILOSOPHY.

THEY TOOK A LOOK AFTER BUDGET AND THEY DIDN'T NEED AS MANY DOLLARS AS THEY DID IN ONE, 1 OR 2 PROJECT LINES.

SO THOSE WERE REDUCED.

WASTEWATER ALSO REDUCED QUITE A BIT.

THEY ONLY HAVE $11 MILLION APPROXIMATELY, AND THAT IS IN THE SOLIDS HANDLING IMPROVEMENTS LINE.

YOU'LL SEE THAT THE BUDGET WAS $12.1 MILLION, WHICH WAS THE FULL CONTRACT AMOUNT AND INSTEAD THEY ONLY WILL NEED $2 MILLION OF THAT IN THIS CURRENT YEAR AND THEY'LL USE COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM TO ENTER INTO THAT CONTRACT.

AND THEN YOU'LL SEE THOSE FUTURE FUNDS COME AT A LATER TIME AS NEEDED.

LAST IS THE ELECTRIC UTILITY.

AND YOU JUST GUYS JUST APPROVED THE BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THAT.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO I DON'T HAVE TO MAKE ANY WILD CHANGES RIGHT NOW.

SO THIS BUDGET DOES INCLUDE THE $29 MILLION THAT YOU JUST APPROVED WITH DANIEL'S BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CIP PROJECT LIST.

AND SO THIS ELECTRIC COMES IN AT 102 MILLION, 185,000 FOR THE REASONS THAT SHE PROVIDED.

AND JERRY FIELDER GAVE SOME BACKUP INFORMATION AS WELL TO THE PUB AND OTHERS THAT THE COST OF TRANSFORMERS AND SOME OF THOSE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE ADDING TO THE ADDITIONAL COST HERE. SO THE UTILITY'S TOTAL CO FOR THE NOTICE OF INTENT IS $165,000,771 $771,000. OUR NEXT STEPS IS I'LL COME BACK TO YOU IN JUNE WITH A BOND ORDINANCE FOR BOTH THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS AND THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, WHICH WILL BE THE BOND PARAMETERS ORDINANCE.

WE'LL HAVE THE FINAL LIST AND THE PARAMETERS WITHIN THAT.

WE GO TO THAT CELL IN JUNE, AND THEN IF ALL GOES WELL IN JULY, WE WILL RECEIVE THOSE PROCEEDS.

ANY QUESTIONS ON ME? ANSWER. OKAY.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO A LOT OF THE PROJECTS THAT HAD VARIATIONS FROM THE NOTICE OF INTENT WERE DOWNSCALING OR, YOU KNOW, OTHERWISE MOVING PROJECTS INTO THE FUTURE.

BUT ONE OF THE ONES I NOTICED WAS THE ADA FACILITIES UPGRADES GOT CHANGED.

GENERALLY, IT'S BEEN MY IMPRESSION THAT ADA CHANGES ARE FOR PEOPLE AND NEEDS.

AND SO CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT WAS HAPPENING THERE? I CANNOT, BUT I CAN SEE WHO WE HAVE HERE FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT THAT MAY ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

[03:20:06]

TAYLOR. WE'LL BE RIGHT DOWN.

HELLO. CHRISTINE TAYLOR, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

SO LAST YEAR WAS OUR FIRST YEAR TO PUT TOGETHER THAT COMPREHENSIVE CAPITAL BUDGETING.

AND WHEN THE ADA PLAN CAME FORWARD, COUNCIL PROVIDED A DOLLAR AMOUNT, AN APPROACH.

WELL, WE HAD SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS WORKING ON THEIR SPECIFIC PIECES FOR THAT ADA PROJECT, SO WE HAD PARKS SUBMITTED THEIRS UNDER PARKS, WE HAD FACILITIES AND WE HAD PARKING LOTS.

WHEN WE WENT BACK THROUGH AND DID THAT OVERHAUL AND COMPLETE LOOK AT WHAT ALL WE'RE DOING, A COUPLE OF THE PROJECTS WERE NOT READY FOR YEAR ONE OR DUPLICATED IN ANOTHER AREA.

SO WE CONSOLIDATED THE LIST DOWN AND ALL OF THE PROJECTS THAT NEEDED TO MOVE FORWARD ARE AND THE OTHER ONES THAT WE NEED TO MOVE OUT TO.

YEAR 2 OR 3 WILL COME BEFORE YOU NEXT YEAR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE WILL VOTE ON THESE ONE AT A TIME.

AND SO THIS IS SPECIFIC TO ITEM B.

IS THERE A MOTION FOR ITEM B? MAYOR PRO TEM. I MOVE APPROVAL.

OKAY. IS THERE A COUNCILMAN BYRD.

I SECOND. OKAY.

MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

BYRD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

COUNCIL MEMBER WATSON.

I'LL SEE YOU. HI.

THANK YOU.

AND WE'LL VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

AND ITEM B PASSES SIX ZERO.

THAT TAKES US TO ITEM C.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR.

I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

MAYOR PRO TEM. I MOVE APPROVAL.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE SECOND.

OKAY. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE FOR ITEM C, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCIL MEMBER. WHAT'S HOW SAY YOU.

HI. THANK YOU.

AND WE'LL VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

THAT PASSES 6 TO 0.

THANK YOU.

TAKES US TO ITEM D, AND THAT IS ID TWO, THREE, TWO, FOUR, ONE.

[D. ID 23-241 Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, amending the fiscal year 2022-2023 budget and annual program of services of the City of Denton to allow for adjustments to the Westpark Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) Fund of six hundred sixty-five thousand fifty-three dollars ($665,053) for the purpose of reimbursing the Westray Group, LP; declaring a public purpose; directing the City Secretary attach a copy to the 2022-2023 budget; requiring approval by at least five votes; and providing a severability clause, an open meetings clause, and an effective date.]

RIGHT. DANIELLE STANFORD, BUDGET MANAGER, AGAIN, HAVE A SECOND BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR YOU THIS EVENING.

IT IS FOR THE WEST PARK TIERS FOR $665,053, INCREASING EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY FROM $207,063 TO 872,001 16.

THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE IS FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE WEST TRADE GROUP.

THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED IN MAY OF 2014.

SO THIS THIS REIMBURSEMENT REQUEST IS RELATED TO THAT AGREEMENT.

SO THE REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSES ARE ON THE SCREEN.

WE HAVE PREDEVELOPMENT COSTS OF COSTS OF 155,000.

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR $390,053.

AND FINALLY, TRAFFIC SIGNALS IN THE AMOUNT OF $120,000 TOTALING $665,053.

WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

ANY QUESTIONS? THEN I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

MOVE APPROVAL OF THE ITEM.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? MAYOR PRO TEM. A SECOND.

OKAY. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS.

SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE.

COUNCILMEMBER WATTS, I'LL SAY YOU.

THANK YOU AND WE'LL VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

OKAY. AND THAT PASSES SIX ZERO TAKES US TO OUR LAST ITEM, WHICH IS ITEM E, ID

[E. ID 23-721 Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton creating a Special Citizens Bond Advisory Committee for the proposed November 2023 Bond Election; Appointing Chair, Chair Pro Tem and members to the committee; creating rules for the meetings; establishing a charge for the committee; and providing an effective date]

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL.

[03:25:01]

SO WE DISCUSSED IN MARCH, OUR MARCH 7TH CITY COUNCIL DID GIVE US CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ESTABLISHING THE SPECIAL CITIZENS BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND START MAKING THOSE APPOINTMENTS.

SO THIS ORDINANCE PROPOSES A 40 MEMBER COMMITTEE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN OUR ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION.

THE CITY HAS CONTRACTED WITH THE SAME CONSULTANT WHO FACILITATED THE DENTON ISD BOND PROGRAM THAT'S GOING FORWARD TO VOTERS IN MAY.

AND BASED ON OUR CONSULTANTS REVIEW OF OUR MEMBER, OUR EXCUSE ME, OUR COMMITTEE AND MEMBERSHIP, SHE RECOMMENDED INCREASING THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM 19 TO 40 TO TRY TO INCREASE OUR THE REPRESENTATION ACROSS ALL OF OUR ALL OF OUR CITY.

SO THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR NOMINATIONS FROM EACH COUNCIL MEMBER FOR A TOTAL OF 28 AND THE DISTRICT FOR NOMINATIONS WILL BE FROM THE FULL COUNCIL, 12 NOMINATIONS FROM OUR BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

AND WE DO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED COMMITTEE TO RECEIVE THOSE NOMINATIONS ON APRIL 21ST.

AND THEN THE APPOINTMENTS OF THE ACTUAL MEMBERS THEMSELVES ARE SCHEDULED FOR SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL MEETINGS.

SO WE ALREADY HAVE AN ITEM PROGRAMED ON APRIL 18TH AS WELL AS MAY 2ND.

SO THE OUTLINE CHARGES, THE COMMITTEE OR EXCUSE ME, THE ORDINANCE CHARGES THE COMMITTEE WITH SELECTING THE PROJECTS TO BE INCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF PRELIMINARY PROJECTS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL IN JANUARY AND MARCH WITH THE PROGRAM NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF $335 MILLION.

THE THE COMMITTEE WILL START MEETING IN MAY AND START ASSESSING WHICH CAPITAL PROJECTS TO INCLUDE IN THEIR FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL IN JULY.

THE COMMITTEE IS OFFICIALLY DISSOLVED ON ELECTION DAY, SO IN NOVEMBER.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

WE DO HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK, BUT ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COUNCILMAN. WHAT'S. THIS IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

AND I KNOW WE DISCUSSED THIS BACK AT THE LAST WORK SESSION.

WHAT IS THE DEADLINE FOR CALLING AN ELECTION TO GET IT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT? DO WE KNOW WHAT DATE THAT IS? OR KASEY'S WHISPERING IT TO ME? AUGUST 21ST, I BELIEVE.

78 DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION? YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANKS, KASEY.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM.

YEAH. NO, I WAS JUST ASKING IF HE WAS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

SO MAYBE I.

MAYBE I'M MISREMEMBERING, BUT I THOUGHT WE HAD SORT OF ADDED LANGUAGE AT THE LAST TIME THAT WE DID THE WORK SESSION TALKING ABOUT HOW WE COULD WE WE WOULD GIVE THE BOND COMMITTEE THE ABILITY TO ADD AND SUBTRACT.

I DIDN'T REALLY SEE THAT THAT LANGUAGE IN THE IN THE SECTIONS OF THE OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND THE OTHER THE OTHER THING THAT I SORT OF REMEMBER US SORT OF DISCUSSING WAS THAT THE WE HAD WHAT I THOUGHT WAS CONSENSUS TO SEPARATE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM THE CITY HALL INTO SEPARATE PROPOSALS.

SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS GOING TO COME BACK AS MULTIPLE ITEMS AND THEN I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE MAYOR WANTS TO ENTERTAIN THE DISCUSSION ON THIS, BUT I HAVE SOME SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMPOSITION SECTION THREE COMPONENTS AS WELL.

BUT MAYBE MAYBE START WITH THOSE THOSE TWO.

SO THE COMMITTEE DOES HAVE THE THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE PROJECT LIST.

THEY CANNOT EXCEED THE TOTAL THAT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.

SO THE 335 MILLION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL, BUT THEY CAN SUBTRACT SO THEY CAN DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF RECOMMENDED PROJECTS TO YOU IN JULY.

I THINK THIS WAS MODIFIED.

AND AGAIN, I IF I SPEAK OUT OF TURN, PLEASE, THE OTHER COUNCILORS CORRECT ME, BUT I THOUGHT WE'D AGREED ALSO THAT IF THERE WERE A HOST OF ADDITIONS AND SUBTRACTIONS THAT STAYED WITHIN THE UMBRELLA, THAT THAT WAS ALSO GOING TO BE WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF OF THE COMMITTEE.

SO THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES LANGUAGE THAT GIVES THE DIFFERENT PROPOSITIONS AND SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WERE CONTEMPLATED.

BUT IT REALLY WE WANTED TO KEEP IT BROAD TO GIVE THEM THAT ABILITY, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO.

I THINK WE HEARD FROM COUNCIL THAT YOU WANTED A CAP, AND SO WE'VE INCLUDED THAT.

[03:30:05]

THEY GIVE YOU A RECOMMENDATION, BUT THEY CANNOT GO ABOVE THAT $335 MILLION CAP.

AND THAT THAT ITEM OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE CITY HALL COMBO, WHERE DID WE LAND? SO WE TALKED ABOUT IN MARCH.

THE ACTUAL PROPOSITIONS THEMSELVES ARE ACTUALLY APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

SO THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ASKING THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE TO GIVE US A RECOMMENDATION ON.

THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THE PROJECTS THEMSELVES.

WE THEN IN TURN WORK WITH OUR BOND COUNSEL, WHO TAKES OUR PROPOSED PROPOSITIONS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

HE WILL SIGN OFF ON THEM AS TO WHETHER HE CAN SUPPORT THEM BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO COUNCIL TO CALL THE ELECTION.

SO THE FINAL MAKEUP OF THE PROPOSITIONS AND THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROPOSITIONS ARE ARE SUBJECT WILDLY TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE NOT WHIMS, BUT THE DESIRES OF THE OF THE COMMITTEE.

YES. OKAY.

OKAY. AND THEN, MAYOR, DID YOU DID YOU WANT US TO HOLD OFF ON THE COMPOSITION DISCUSSION OR HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT? YES. NO, THIS HAS TO PASS.

AND THEN I WAS TALKING TO THE CITY MANAGER.

WE'LL COME UP WITH A GAME PLAN.

I'M PRETTY, PRETTY EASY THAT WAY.

I'M HAPPY NOT TO NOMINATE SOMEONE.

IF SOMEONE ELSE IS VOLUNTEERING, NOT TO NOMINATE SOMEONE THAT FIXES IT THAT WAY, IT'LL BE PRETTY QUICK AND EASY BECAUSE ULTIMATELY TO TO PUT AN ADDENDUM TO WHERE YOU LEFT OFF, THE WE THE COUNCIL WILL MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION.

THE BOARD AND THE COMMITTEE WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, IF I DON'T IF I'M NOT CRAZY ABOUT WHAT COMES BACK, THEN I'LL VOICE THAT.

THEN I DON'T NEED I DON'T WANT TO PUT THAT ON SOMEONE ELSE TO SAY THAT I'M FULLY CAPABLE OF SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND TAKING THE HEAT.

SO I DON'T I DON'T NEED TO PUT AN EXTRA PERSON ON THERE.

I'M REAL EASY.

GO RIGHT AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO SO THEN MY QUESTION.

I APPRECIATE THAT AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS MORE I'M NOT I'M NOT I'M CONCERNED AT THE 40 PERSON MAKE UP.

AS COMMITTEES GET BIGGER AND BIGGER, BIGGER, THEY GET MORE AND MORE UNWIELDY.

AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE CONSULTANT'S RECOMMENDATION GIVEN SOME ARE SCHEDULING AND THE TIME CRUNCH THAT, YOU KNOW, AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE NUMBER OF THAT COULD ACHIEVE QUORUM IS IN ORDER.

WE HAVE AN EXISTING MECHANISM TO TO TO GOOSE THE LEVEL OF QUORUM AND THAT'S ALTERNATIVE MEMBERS.

SO MAYBE, MAYBE I WILL I WILL JUST THROW IT ONTO THE DAIS AND AN ALTERNATIVE TO.

BEING THE SIZE OF THIS COMMITTEE WOULD BE STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, BUT THEN ADD EACH ONE OF US AS TO GIVE AN ALTERNATIVE AND THE BOND COMMITTEE AN ALTERNATIVE.

THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE A WHAT IS THAT 27 MEMBER DISCUSSION BUT STILL ONLY HAVE QUORUM OF 19.

I'M THROWING THAT OUT THERE.

I REALIZE THIS A IT'S A NEW CONCEPT, BUT IT SEEMS IT SEEMS LIKE 40 IS POTENTIALLY UNWIELDY.

AND THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO BRING UP FOR DISCUSSION IS, IS THE THIS IDEA THAT WE HAD AT THE WORK SESSION THAT I THOUGHT THERE WAS MAYBE NOT CONSENSUS BUT SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN BECAUSE I WAS I WAS FORCED TO CHANGE VOTES, NOT FORCED.

I VOLUNTEERED TO CHANGE VOTES DURING THAT WORK SESSION.

AND THAT WAS THE THE THE TIMING, AT LEAST FOR THE D FOR REPRESENTATION.

I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US MAYBE SINCE WE'RE STAGGERING NOMINATIONS.

ANYWAY, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT D4 NOMINATION WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION.

I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THAT UNTIL THEY HAVE VOTED REPRESENTATION.

RIGHT. AND I DO UNDERSTAND WANTING TO HAVE THAT REPRESENTATION.

I THINK FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TIMING BECAUSE IF WE ARE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND START THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS IN ORDER TO AVOID A LOT OF THE VACATION TIME IN JULY THAT PEOPLE ALREADY USUALLY HAVE SCHEDULED, THAT THOSE DISTRICT FOUR APPOINTEES MAY MISS, THAT IF THERE IS A RUNOFF IN THE ELECTION.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. OKAY. I'LL STOP FOR NOW.

THANK YOU, MR. MCKAY. I JUST WANT TO SAY, TOO, I FULLY SUPPORT STAFF'S POSITION ON THE 40, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYONE THAT HAS ANY QUESTIONS TO WATCH OUR EARLIER SESSION WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, AND I OPEN THE FLOOR FOR ANYONE HERE THAT THOUGHT THAT THAT WEBSITE IN THEIR REPORTING ON THEIR BOND ISSUE WAS.

I WAS LESS THAN ANYTHING BUT EXEMPLARY.

AND THEY HAD 100 PEOPLE AND IT'S THE SAME CONSULTANT.

SO AND THEY HAD NO ISSUES.

AND SO AGAIN, IF ANYONE SAT IN THAT PRESENTATION AND LOOKED AT THAT WEBSITE AND THOUGHT AND ALL THE DATA AND ALL THE DETAIL AND ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WAS

[03:35:08]

AND YOU CAN GO TO THE YOU CAN GO TO THE SITE AND WATCH THE VIDEO FOR YOURSELF AND WATCH THEM CLICK THROUGH IT AND SEE THE BREADTH OF INFORMATION AND THE DEPTH OF INFORMATION AND THE CLARITY OF WHICH IT WAS PRESENTED.

AND THAT'S WHAT DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE.

SO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, NO QUESTION.

IT'S THEY JUST DID IT.

SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE THINK THEY CAN DO.

IT'S PRESENTED READY TO GO RIGHT NOW.

SO AND IF ANYONE SAW ANYTHING ON THAT, THAT THING AGAIN ON THAT WEBSITE THAT DISAGREES WITH HOW WELL THAT INFORMATION WAS ORGANIZED, I PLEASE POINTEDLY POINT THAT OUT.

AND I WOULD LOVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANYTHING AMISS.

I THOUGHT IT WAS IT EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S WITH 100 PEOPLE AND $1.4 BILLION BOND.

SO A FRACTION OF THAT HALF THE PEOPLE I'M FULLY COMFORTABLE AND I AND I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S A MISSING OR A LACK OF ENGAGEMENT.

I DON'T THINK THAT TO BE THE CASE.

I THINK THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE WE TALK ABOUT IT REGULARLY THAT ARE READY TO GET INVOLVED AND READY TO PARTICIPATE IN OUR DISCUSSIONS, AND I DON'T WANT TO TRUNCATE THAT.

I WANT TO ENHANCE THAT AND REWARD PEOPLE FOR STEPPING UP AND SHOW THEM A FINAL PRODUCT THAT AGAIN, IS FANTASTIC.

SO I SUPPORT THIS.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION LATER.

BUT THAT THAT'S THAT'S MY COMMENTS.

COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE GONE INTO DISCUSSION JUST A LITTLE BIT, SO I'M GOING TO ADD MY $0.02.

I SHARE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE COMMITTEE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S WRONG TO POINT TO THE ISDS PROCESS, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'VE ENGAGED THE SAME CONSULTANT.

IT SEEMS THEIR BOND IS $1.4 BILLION.

THEIR TERRITORY IS BIGGER THAN THE CITY OF DENTON.

OUR TRADITION IN THE CITY OF DENTON, YOU DON'T JUST DO THINGS BECAUSE IT'S TRADITION, BUT OUR PRACTICE AND TRADITION HAS BEEN A VERY AUTONOMOUS AND ENGAGED BOND COMMITTEE, NOT WHAT THE DSD DID, WHICH WAS A BIG ROOM FULL OF PEOPLE AT EIGHT TOP TABLES WITH A BUNCH OF SMALL DISCUSSIONS AND A VERY MANAGED PROCESS.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T GET A GOOD RESULT AND GOOD ENGAGEMENT FROM A MANAGED PROCESS.

BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE OUR BOND COMMITTEE TO BE IS WHAT WE HAD IN 2019.

I THINK THAT'S THE MODEL. I THINK 2019 IS THE MODEL.

IT WAS A VERY GOOD BOND PACKAGE.

IT HAD A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH.

THEY DID A LOT OF HEAVY LIFTING BECAUSE WE HAD SOME VERY CAPABLE PEOPLE ON THAT COMMITTEE AND WE GOT A GOOD RESULT.

WE GOT IT IN A NOT QUITE RECORD TIME, BUT WE GOT IT IN SHORT ORDER.

I THINK WE'RE WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE A LITTLE BIT TOO.

MAYOR PRO TEM MS POINT, I'M NOT SURE WE'VE EVEN JUST HERE ON THE DAIS GOT TO A CONSENSUS OF WHAT THESE WHEREASES NEED TO BE AND WHAT THE SECTIONS NEED TO BE.

I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF PASSING THIS TONIGHT UNLESS IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS EFFECTIVE AT A FUTURE DATE WHEN WE HAVE A FULL CITY COUNCIL.

I UNDERSTAND STAFF'S CONCERNS ABOUT TIME.

I ABSOLUTELY DO.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE GET TO LEAVE OUT DISTRICT FOUR OR THAT WE GET TO SIT UP HERE AND SPEAK FOR DISTRICT FOUR.

EVEN THOSE OF US WHO ARE AT LARGE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE NEED TO KIND OF HAND THE KEYS OVER TO A CONSULTANT.

I THINK THE PROCESS THEY WENT THROUGH WITH THE DISD WAS BENEFICIAL FOR THEM, BUT IT'S NOT THE WAY WE'VE DONE THINGS HERE.

AND I THINK WHAT WE LOSE SOMETHING IN THAT PROCESS.

F A COMMITTEE OF 40 PEOPLE AND A QUORUM ONLY HAS TO BE 15.

I DON'T LIKE THAT EITHER.

THAT MEANS THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE WANT TO ENGAGE THIS DIVERSE CROSS-SECTION OF THE CITY AND WE TAKES 40 PEOPLE TO GET THERE, WELL THEN WHY TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT ABOUT A THIRD OF THOSE THAT ALL HAVE ALL THAT HAVE TO SHOW UP TO MAKE DECISIONS? IT FEELS TO ME LIKE A MUCH MORE MANAGED PROCESS THAN THE 2019 BOND WAS.

AND I DON'T I DON'T LIKE THAT.

I ALSO A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED.

SO THE CITY COUNCIL UNDER THIS ORDINANCE IS GOING TO BE ASKED TO NOMINATE FOUR PEOPLE APIECE.

IT'S SOMETIMES DIFFICULT FOR US TO FIND PEOPLE TO SERVE ON OUR STANDING BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

THE ONES THAT HAVE LIKE STUFF TO DO EVERY OTHER WEEK, WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO FIND AND NOMINATE FOUR INDIVIDUALS PER COUNCIL MEMBER, AND THEN THE BOND COMMITTEE IS GOING TO COME UP WITH 12 NAMES.

THAT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S A BIG ASK.

LIKE I THINK A CYNICAL PERSON WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, WELL, WHERE ARE THOSE 12 NAMES GOING TO COME FROM? WHAT'S THE WHAT ARE THE 12 PEOPLE, THE BOND COMMITTEE? WHO ARE THEY GOING TO NOMINATE? WHERE ARE THOSE NAMES? SURELY THE CITY WILL HAVE SOME SOME INVOLVEMENT IN WHERE THOSE NAMES COME FROM AS OPPOSED TO THE CITY COUNCIL SEEING THOSE NAMES AND THE CITY COUNCIL

[03:40:10]

AND I DON'T THINK IT'S IN ALL WAYS A POSITIVE DEPARTURE FROM WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST.

SO IN ITS CURRENT FORM, I CAN I COULD CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT SOME AMENDMENTS, I CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT A POSTPONEMENT, BUT I CAN'T VOTE FOR THIS IN ITS IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE THE QUALITY OF THE PROJECTS PROPOSED OR THE NECESSITY OF THE PROJECTS.

I I'M JUST NOT THERE WITH THIS STRUCTURE.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE. I'LL CALL.

I HAVE TWO CARDS. PATTI HAYWORTH.

YOU CAN COME. YEAH, I'LL COME BACK AROUND.

IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES.

WANT THE ADDRESS? NO, I ABANDONED THAT AS TOO COMPLICATED.

PATTI HAYWORTH, THANK YOU.

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY.

I'VE SERVED ALMOST 20 YEARS OFF AND ON ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES FOR THE CITY OF DENTON 2019 WAS AN ESPECIALLY GOOD COMMITTEE. THE BOND COMMITTEE WAS EXTREMELY WELL RUN, WELL MANAGED STAFF, DID A BEAUTIFUL JOB WITH PRESENTATION.

THEY PROBABLY STAYED UP PAST MIDNIGHT TO GET EVERYTHING DONE, BUT THEY BROUGHT IT TO US.

WE HAD A MANAGEABLE SIZE.

WE HAD A 19 MEMBER COMMITTEE.

WE WERE WE ALL FIT INTO THE COUNCIL WORK ROOM WHERE ALL THE I'VE WAS THERE AND AVAILABLE.

AND WE MET, AS I RECALL, WE MET ONCE A WEEK FOR EIGHT WEEKS AND WE DID OUR JOB.

WE GOT IT DONE.

THE IDEA OF A 40 MEMBER COMMITTEE MAKES MY HAIR CURL, AND THE ONLY WAY A 40 MEMBER COMMITTEE CAN CAN DO ANYTHING IS WITH THE CONSULTANT LEADING IT AND DIRECTING IT. AND I WILL SAY THAT NOBODY ON THIS DAIS KNOWS THAT I WAS GOING TO COME TONIGHT AND SPEAK.

I'VE BEEN ON COMMITTEES WHERE THERE WAS A CONSULTANT AND COMMITTEES WHERE THERE WAS NOT A CONSULTANT, AND THE COMMITTEES WHERE THERE WAS NO CONSULTANT WERE INFINITELY BETTER. EVERY CITIZEN HAD A VOICE.

WHEN WE SPOKE, WE WERE HEARD.

WHEN A CONSULTANT WAS INVOLVED, ALL OF OUR OUR VOICE WENT THROUGH THE CONSULTANT.

IT WAS PROCESSED AND MANAGED AND FILTERED, AND THEN IT WAS TAKEN TO COUNCIL.

I REALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT AGAIN.

ON THE ON THE BOND COMMITTEE THIS SUMMER.

CONSULTANTS ARE HIRED TO PRODUCE DESIRED RESULTS.

IT'S THE NATURE OF THE BEAST.

THEY'RE HIRED, THEY SAY.

WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO? AND THEY'RE TOLD HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE.

I'VE BEEN IN THAT POSITION.

I UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS.

SO WHAT I SUSPECT HERE IS THAT THE END GOAL IS TO ENSURE THAT THIS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS A NEW CITY HALL.

THAT IS THE ONE THING ON THIS BOND PACKAGE THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO HUE AND CRY FOR FROM THE COMMUNITY.

AND IF I'M WRONG, SO BE IT.

HOWEVER. IF A COMMITTEE, A CONSULTANT IS INVOLVED AND THERE ARE 40 PEOPLE, THERE WILL BE TABLE EXERCISES AND THERE WILL BE PROBABLY THINGS UP ON THE WALL THAT YOU PUT LITTLE COLORED DOTS ON.

WE SPENT ALL OF OUR TIME IN 2019 TALKING ABOUT THE PROJECTS IN FRONT OF US AND WE DISAGREED AND WE AGREED.

AND WHEN WE DISAGREED, WE WORKED IT OUT.

WE NEGOTIATED IT.

SOME GAVE A LITTLE HERE, SOME GAVE A LITTLE THERE.

AND IT WAS TRULY A CITIZEN VOICE WHEN OUR OUR REPORT WAS MADE.

IT. CITIZEN VOICES ARE MUTED WHEN A CONSULTANT IS USED.

WHEN WHEN THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE TOTALLY, TOTALLY VIABLE.

AND THEY'RE. SO I ASK THAT YOU REDUCE THE NUMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE BACK TO 19.

THAT WE YOU NOT SUBJECT TO THE COMMITTEE TO BEING UNDER A CONSULTANT'S DIRECTION, BUT YOU LET THE CITIZENS WORK WITH THE STAFF, THE STAFF WHO ARE HERE, WHO KNOW OUR CITY, WHO KNOW ALL THE PIECES AND PARTS.

THEY KNOW THE STREETS AND THEY KNOW THE LIGHTS AND THEY KNOW THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SIDEWALK.

AND AND WE LIVE HERE, TOO.

AND WE KNOW THAT ANY ANY COMMITTEE MEMBER KNOWS THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO LIVE IN DENTON.

SO AND AS THE FINAL KICKER, PLEASE LET THE COMMITTEE ELECT ITS OWN CHAIR.

[03:45:02]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND THEN JULIANNE RIMSKY, YOU CAN COME DOWN.

YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME, PLEASE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M GOING TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COMMITTEE SELECTION BE POSTPONED UNTIL AFTER THE MAY 6TH ELECTION.

IT ALLOWS FOR THE ELECTED D-4 CANDIDATE TO HAVE THEIR INPUT.

IT ALSO ALLOWS EITHER FOR PRESENT INCUMBENTS OR NEWLY ELECTED CANDIDATES FROM D ONE AND D THREE TO HAVE THEIR INPUT.

IT DOES NOT PUSH THE SCHEDULE BACK BY MORE THAN ONE MONTH.

AND AS A COMMENT, I BELIEVE THAT THE BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE IS NOT GOING TO EVEN SELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES UNTIL APRIL 21ST.

AND HERE YOU'RE WANTING TO START AS OF TONIGHT.

I'D LIKE TO READDRESS THE NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS WITH 40 MEMBERS.

I'M GOING TO SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE HERDING CATS TO GET A RESOLUTION AND A RECOMMENDATION.

SURE. IF THE COMMITTEE IS DIVIDED WITH X NUMBER OF MEMBERS RESEARCHING 1 OR 2 OF THE PROPOSED MISSION PROPOSAL SECTIONS, THEY CAN REPORT BACK AND THEN HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION THAT MAY BE DOABLE.

BUT AGAIN, 40 MEMBERS UNDER SECTION THREE.

THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS THAT THEY WILL SELECT THE CHAIR AND THE CHAIR PRO TEM.

HISTORICALLY, EVERY COMMITTEE THAT I HAVE BEEN ON, AND I AM SURE SEVERAL OTHERS OF YOU HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO SELECT THEIR OWN CHAIR AND PRO TEM.

SO IF THE CITY COUNCIL FEELS THAT THEY CAN PICK THEIR MEMBERS AND REPRESENTATIVES, WOULD THEY NOT HAVE THE CONFIDENCE IN THOSE SAME MEMBERS AND REPRESENTATIVES TO SELECT WHO SHOULD BE THEIR LEADERSHIP? ITEMS IN THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS SHOULD REALLY BE SEPARATED, AND I'M GOING TO SAY THAT IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED.

DENTON ISD.

IF THE DENTON ISD COULDN'T DO IT, WHY CAN'T THE CITY COUNCIL? IS IT TO CONFUSE PEOPLE SO THAT WHEN THEY VOTE FOR ONE ITEM ONLY AFTERWARDS TO FIND OUT THAT THERE IS ANOTHER ITEM INCLUDED? WHAT HAVE YOU ALL BEEN PART OF THE BELTWAY OF WASHINGTON TO ADD THINGS ON TO BILLS? SECTION SEVEN THE NEW CITY HALL DOESN'T BELONG WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A COMMUNITY QUALITY DEED OF LIFE.

YES, THE CITY ADMINISTRATION DOES NEED THEIR SPACE AND THAT, HOWEVER PUT IT WHERE IT SHOULD BE.

THE RENOVATION OF CITY HALL WEST SHOULD NOT BE WITH A LIBRARY, AN ANIMAL SHELTER.

AGAIN, YOU'RE PAIRING SOMETHING THAT'S FOR THE COMMUNITY WITH SOMETHING THAT IS A REQUIREMENT AND NEED OF ADMINISTRATION.

INCLUSION OF PUBLIC ART UNDER SECTION 12 IS THAT FOR ART TO BE FREESTANDING WITHIN THE CITY, OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ART TO BE INCLUDED ON THE WALLS? AND IF THAT IS THE LATTER CASE, I BELIEVE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED WHEN THERE WERE COMMENTS ON BONDS FOR THAT.

I'M GOING TO ASK, DO WE REALLY NEED A $335 MILLION BOND AT THIS TIME? YOU'VE JUST VOTED FOR CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATIONS, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE AT A HIGHER RATE TO THE TUNE OF 102,185,000. SO THEREFORE, EXCUSE ME, 165.

I WAS KIND OF LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING.

YOU'VE ALSO INCREASED YOUR BUDGET IN REGARD TO THE TIRZ.

USING A CONSULTANT.

I'VE INTERACTED WITH CONSULTANTS THERE, THE SUITS THAT COME IN AND KNOW IT ALL.

THEY'VE NEVER BEEN ON THE FLOOR.

THEY NEVER REALLY ASK THE WORKERS.

SO THEREFORE, WITH THAT IN MIND, I ASK YOU TO.

POSTPONE THIS WHOLE DECISION.

THANK YOU. I DO WANT TO CLARIFY JUST ONE THING, BECAUSE I'LL SPEAK TO ALL THE COMMENTS LATER.

BUT THE ONE THING I DO WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT EVERYONE'S TRACKING ALONG.

WE DON'T GROUP THE ITEMS. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE DOES THAT.

SO WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T GET TO SELECT WHAT GOES WITH WHAT VALID POINTS, VALID QUESTIONS.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE CITY STAFF IS NOT ON THE HOOK FOR THAT.

THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS CITY HALL WEST GOES WITH THIS OR THAT GOES WITH THAT.

AND WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE AUTONOMY IN THAT WAY.

[03:50:01]

THEY'LL TELL US, TELL US WHERE IT GOES ON THE BALLOT AND LIKE IT OR LOVE IT, THAT'S WHERE IT GOES ON THE BALLOT.

IF I MAY, THE AUSTIN NEEDS TO HAVE SOME COMMON SENSE.

IF THEY CAN'T TAKE WHAT IS A COMMUNITY NEED AND SEPARATE IT FROM WHAT IS A FUNCTIONAL NEED.

THANK YOU. ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

YEAH. MR. CITY MANAGER, A COUPLE OF THINGS.

SO WE'RE HEARING A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS TONIGHT.

SO IF COUNCIL WOULD GIVE US SOME DIRECTION EITHER WHETHER TO COME BACK OR WHAT I'M HEARING IS AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS A CONSENSUS, BUT WAIT TILL AFTER THE ELECTION SO THAT YOU HAVE NEW SEATING.

COUNCIL MEMBERS MAKE THEIR APPOINTMENTS POINT MADE MAKES SENSE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

REDUCE THE COMMITTEE TO SOME NUMBER BELOW 40, PREFERABLY 19 OR WHATEVER, MAYBE.

MAYOR PRO TEM SUGGESTED I LET THE LET THE CHAIR AND THE CHAIR PRO TEM BE SELECTED FROM THE ACTUAL COMMITTEE.

THAT CAN BE DONE.

IT WAS DONE BEFORE THE GROUPINGS.

AGAIN, WE DON'T GET A LOT OF SAY THE BOND COUNSEL RECOMMENDS WHERE IT GOES AND THEN IT HAS TO GO TO THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO THEN SAYS THIS GOES HERE, THIS GOES HERE.

WE WISH WE COULD, BUT IT DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY.

AND I THINK IF WE GET SOME DIRECTION, THEN WE CAN EITHER MOVE FORWARD OR WE CAN HOLD OFF AND COME BACK.

YEAH, NO, I THINK WE HAVE SOME WE HAVE OTHER PEOPLE WANTING TO SPEAK.

I HAVE QUESTIONS FROM MY PEERS THAT SOME OF THE COMMENTS I HEARD THAT I NEED JUST CLARIFICATION, UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY MEANT.

SO LET'S YES, WE'LL BOIL IT DOWN TO DIRECTION.

AS QUICK AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

COUNCIL MEMBER. WHAT'S. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

MY QUESTION FIRST, JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE ONE THAT'S MOST BEEN CURRENTLY TALKED ABOUT IS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IF YOU COULD JUST VERY BRIEFLY, BECAUSE I'M HEARING ALL KINDS OF PROCESSES FOR HOW THESE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS GET ARRANGED.

SO LET'S SAY, FOR INSTANCE, WHAT I'VE JUST HEARD WAS THAT THE BOND COUNSEL TAKES ALL THESE ISSUES.

I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, WE'VE GOT THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED TO US ON COUNCIL WAS YOU HAD THESE DIFFERENT GROUPINGS FOR THESE DIFFERENT PROJECTS.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS DO ALL THOSE THEN GET SINGLED OUT? AND THEN THE BOND COUNSEL SORT OF TAKES A LIST OF THESE 20 OR 30 PROJECTS AND BEGINS TO GO THROUGH AND TRY TO CLUMP THOSE TOGETHER, GROUP THOSE TOGETHER BASED UPON SOME KIND OF CONSTRUCT IN STATUTE, OR DOES THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDE A PROPOSED STRUCTURE? AND THEN THE BOND COUNSEL REVIEWS THAT PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND ADDRESSES ANY GLARING ITEMS THAT MAY NOT COMPORT WITH STATE LAW.

THAT'S OBVIOUS.

AND THEN THOSE GET SENT TO THE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

MY HUNCH IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JUST GETS A LIST OF THINGS AND THEY LOOK AT IT TO MAKE SURE THAT, OKAY, DOES THIS CONFORM WITH OUR CODE? SO. WHAT DO WE SEND TO THE BOND COUNCIL? DOES COUNCIL SENDING A PROPOSED BALLOT PROPOSITION LANGUAGE THAT IS THEN REVIEWED BY THE BOND COUNCIL? AND IF AND IF WHAT WE SUBMIT IS OKAY, THEN THEY FORWARD THAT.

I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S SOME CONFUSION, AT LEAST ON MY PART, ON WHAT IS THAT PROCESS.

SO COUNCIL MEMBER WHAT'S SO FAR THE PROCESS HAS BEEN.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR BOND COUNSEL.

THIS WAS THEIR RECOMMENDED PROJECT GROUPING.

SO THEIR PROPOSITIONS, HE, BASED ON HIS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, HIS INTERACTIONS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HE ACTUALLY HAD ME BREAK OUT THE ROADWAY PROJECT INTO A SEPARATE PROPOSITION BECAUSE ORIGINALLY WE WERE PROPOSING THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE TOGETHER BASED ON THE PROJECT SCOPE HE HE RECOMMENDED.

WE BROKE THOSE TWO OUT INTO SEPARATE PROPOSITIONS.

AND BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE WERE PROPOSING THE CITY HALL WITH A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, HE SAID THAT HAS TO GO UNDER AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSITION, WHICH IS ALSO WHY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT HAVE A BOND ELECTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT HAVING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND SO THOSE WERE SOME OF HIS RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND SO HE WILL DO ANOTHER FINAL REVIEW AFTER WE MEET WITH THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE AND HAVE A FINAL RECOMMENDATION BEFORE WE HAVE COUNCIL CALL THE BOND ELECTION. IT WILL GO TO OUR BOND COUNCIL AND THEN ALSO TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

[03:55:01]

THAT PROVIDES A LOT OF CLARITY.

FIRST OF ALL, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THE BOND COUNSEL HAS ALREADY BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS STRUCTURING OF THE BALLOT LANGUAGE, WHICH THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN REPORTED BEFORE, AND I JUST MISSED IT. SO THEN AS FAR AS THE CITY HALL COMPONENT, WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY WAS THAT BECAUSE OF, QUOTE UNQUOTE, THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, THAT IT WAS REQUIRED TO GO WITH AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, WHICH IN THIS CURRENT BOND, THESE CURRENT PROPOSALS IS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT, THAT AND WE DISCUSSED THIS PRETTY AD NAUSEAM LAST TIME THAT THAT PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP DID NOT INCLUDE WELL, WHAT IF WE HAVE TO HAVE A PARKING GARAGE? WELL, THEN WHO'S PAYING FOR THAT? SO I'M GOING TO SAY, I THINK WE NEED TO STRIP OUT I'M I'M GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THIS AS IT IS TONIGHT.

BUT BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, IF THE ONLY REASON WE'RE UNABLE TO PUT IT ON A SEPARATE BALLOT PROPOSITION IS BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, I THINK THAT'S LIMITING US.

I THINK IT'S REALLY CONSTRAINING US AND IT'S CONSTRAINING THE VOTERS.

SO I'LL LEAVE THAT.

SECONDLY, MY I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE NECESSARILY HEARTBURN ABOUT THE 40 MEMBERS.

I THINK IT'S A LITTLE IT'S A LITTLE MUCH.

MY HEARTBURN COMES MORE IN THAT A QUORUM IS 15.

SO THEREFORE AND SOMEBODY CORRECT ME, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, IF I'M INCORRECT IN THIS THIS KIND OF ASSUMPTION THAT IF YOU HAVE A QUORUM OF 15 TO ACTUALLY PASS SOMETHING TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL, YOU ONLY HAVE TO HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE QUORUM, NOT A MAJORITY OF THE THE TOTAL COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP NUMBER.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

SO THEN TECHNICALLY YOU COULD HAVE A $335 MILLION BOND PACKAGE COMING BEFORE COUNCIL AS A RECOMMENDATION BASED UPON EIGHT PEOPLE.

IF IS 15 AND THERE'S 15 THERE AND IT'S EIGHT TWO, SEVEN EIGHT, GET IT.

SO THAT'S THAT'S A CONCERN OF MINE.

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'VE REDUCED THE QUORUM AND I UNDERSTAND FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF'S WORK AND PUTTING ALL THESE PROJECTS TOGETHER AND I'M GOING TO SHARE THE SENTIMENT AS COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE PROJECTS OR NECESSARILY EVEN THE AMOUNTS.

WE'LL LET THE COMMITTEE DECIDE THAT.

FOR ME, IT'S MORE ABOUT THE STRUCTURE AND THIS KIND OF SQUEEZING OF THE TIME FRAME BECAUSE I JUST CANNOT SUPPORT BEING THIS CLOSE TO AN ELECTION. BASICALLY.

I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD SAY IT'S DISENFRANCHIZING, BUT BASICALLY TAKING 1 TO 3 DISTRICTS THAT ARE THAT ARE OPPOSED, WHICH REPRESENTS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VOTERS AND SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU VOTE ONE WEEK AFTER WE'VE NOMINATED PEOPLE FROM YOUR DISTRICT THAT YOU'RE VOTING FOR FOR A BOND COMMITTEE.

I JUST CAN'T DO THAT.

I THINK WE CAN I THINK WE CAN PUT IT WITHIN THE TIME CONSTRAINT.

I THINK IT'S NOT NECESSARILY FAIR TO THE VOTERS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE MAKING A DECISION.

AND I THINK WE STILL HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GET IT.

ON THE AUGUST WHAT WAS IT, 21ST OR 28TH? I THINK IT WAS DATE FOR THAT.

SO IT'S MORE FOR ME THE PROCESS AND THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BECAUSE WE TALK ABOUT WE WANT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, WE WANT A CROSS-SECTION, LARGE CROSS-SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY. SO WE'RE WE'RE NOMINATING 40 PEOPLE, BUT WE'RE SAYING ALL YOU NEED IS 15 TO DO BUSINESS AND ALL YOU NEED IS REALLY EIGHT OF THAT 15 TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A VERY LARGE CROSS-SECTION OF THE POPULATION TO BE RECOMMENDING THE LARGEST BOND PROGRAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE CITY OF DENTON.

SO I'M ALL FOR THIS MOVING FORWARD.

I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT IT IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

AS FAR AS THE PROCESS AND THE STRUCTURE.

SO OKAY, I I'M GOING TO JUST SHOTGUN ALL MY QUESTIONS AND AND I'LL TRY TO POINT OUT WHERE I HEARD IT SO THAT AT THE DAIS YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND.

I DO WANT TO KEEP AND I'VE CONTINUED TO AND I WOULD ASK MY PEERS TO CONTINUE TO KEEP YOUR CONVERSATIONS PROJECT AGNOSTIC BEST YOU CAN, BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PROCESS.

AND IF YOU TALK ABOUT DISENFRANCHIZING BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT'S WORSE THAN ALL OF US SITTING UP HERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT PROJECTS WE DO AND DO NOT WANT TO TO GO FORWARD VERSUS THE PROCESS.

AND THEN THAT, I HOPE, EMPOWERS THE CITIZENS AND DOESN'T PUT KIND OF WORDS IN THEIR MOUTH.

BUT TO SAY IN THIS CONVERSATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY COME TOGETHER, THAT SORT OF THING, NOT A I DON'T WANT THIS, I DON'T WANT THAT.

SO JUST MY THOUGHTS.

FEEL FREE TO IGNORE THEM AND STOP ME IF YOU'VE HEARD THIS BEFORE.

CITY, CITY, CITY EMPLOYEES RUN THE CITY AND THEY'RE NOT LISTENING TO COUNCIL AND ALL THOSE THINGS.

[04:00:05]

AND SO AND SO I'LL JUST SAY THIS IN ALL SINCERITY.

WE CAN'T IN GOOD FAITH, I BELIEVE, PUT THIS ON OUR STAFF.

WE ARE LOOK AT THE HIRING WE'RE HAVING TO DO.

LOOK AT THE STAFFING ISSUES WE HAVE JUST I BEG YOU, TAKE TOMORROW, SEND AN EMAIL, ASK HOW WE'RE DOING ON STAFFING, AND THEN ASK YOURSELF, HOW CAN WE AS BOSSES BE GOOD BOSSES AND ASK OUR STAFF TO SPEND ADDITIONAL TIME AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES, AWAY FROM THESE THINGS, TO DO SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE BECAUSE OF A WHAT? I MEAN, HERE'S COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

YOU SAID THIS. YOU TALKED ABOUT WE MAY LOSE SOMETHING IN THE PROCESS.

WHAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WOULD LOSE.

I NEED YOUR HELP PINPOINTING WHAT WE WOULD LOSE BECAUSE AGAIN.

BUT I ALSO ASK YOU JUST TO TAKE A EXECUTIVE APPROACH TO THINGS.

AND IF YOU IF YOU DISAGREE THAT WE'RE FULLY STAFFED UP, IF YOU DISAGREE WITH MY ASSESSMENT AND YOU BELIEVE WE'RE FULLY STAFFED UP, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OPEN VACANCIES.

WE CAN TAKE ON ALL PROJECTS.

WE CAN TAKE ON A $300 MILLION BOND AND PEOPLE WON'T HAVE ANY STRAIN FROM THAT.

OR IF YOU'VE TALKED TO SOMEONE THAT SAID 2019 WENT SMOOTH AND SEAMLESSLY AND HAD NO ANGST AND NO PRESSURE, AND THEN YOU ADD EXTRA $100 MILLION TO THAT, THEN THEN TAKE THAT POSITION, SAY IT LOUD INTO THE MIC AND I'LL AND I'LL NOTE THAT.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU, I DISAGREE, BUT I'M NOT HERE TO TO KIND OF GO BACK AND FORTH JUST GIVING GIVING MY THOUGHTS.

SO I WOULD ASK US TO BE GOOD BOSSES AND MAKE SURE WE'RE MINDFUL OF OUR STAFFING.

THEN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT IT'S INTERESTING, WE TALKED ABOUT BOND COUNCIL.

WHY DO WE MR SEEING.

THE ATTORNEY OR CASSIE? WHY DO WE USE BOND COUNSEL? BECAUSE HE HAS THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE THAT WE ON THE STAFF LACK IN THEIR ATTORNEYS.

YES. MR. CITY ATTORNEY, YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY.

YES, INDEED.

YES. YOU HAVE AN OFFICE FULL OF ATTORNEYS? YES. CORRECT.

BUT YOU'RE OUTSOURCING IT.

BECAUSE WHY? THERE'S A LEVEL OF EXPERTISE TO A BOND CONSULTANT THAT NO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS.

ARE YOU TURNING OVER CONTROL OF EVERYTHING OR ARE YOU JUST MANAGING AND RELYING ON SOMEONE'S EXPERTISE? THE LATTER. YES. SO AND THAT'S WHAT I'D ASK US TO DO IS RELY ON SOMEONE'S EXPERTISE.

THE NUMBERS BE [EXPLICIT].

I DON'T MIND WHATEVER NUMBER WE WANT TO COME UP WITH.

AGAIN, JUST GOES TO OUR STAFF, OUR CAPABILITY, THE EXPERTISE, THAT SORT OF THING.

SO THAT'S WHY I AM SUPPORTIVE.

AND HERE'S THE OTHER THING, THAT THOSE MEETINGS WILL BE OPEN MEETINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS POSTED, ALL THOSE THINGS.

SO I COULD SIT IN AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS AND RAISE ISSUES AND SAY, HEY, THIS, THIS, THIS CONSULTANT IS RIDING HERD OVER THINGS AND THEY NEED TO RELAX AND ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO BE HEARD.

AND MATTER OF FACT, I DID THAT EXACT SAME THING I SAT IN.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOLID WASTE AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS.

SO I JUST SAT IN ON THE MEETING AND PROVIDED COMMENTS TO STAFF.

SO EVERYONE ON THIS DAIS CAN BE IN THOSE MEETINGS AND INVOLVED AND ADVOCATE FOR CITIZENS.

SO I FEEL THAT THERE'S A FIX FOR WHATEVER WE WOULD THINK WOULD BE MISMANAGED, QUOTE UNQUOTE.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING I HEARD IS.

WE THIS THIS BODY AND THIS IS THIS IS A FACT.

WE HAD A SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT THAT GUESSED RIGHT TEN YEARS AGO ON OUR ON OUR DISTRICT MAPS THAT CAME WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS BODY IGNORED.

SO YOU WE CAN'T SIT HERE AND SAY WE DON'T WANT OUR CITIZENS TO BE IGNORED.

AND THAT WAS AND WE DID IGNORE THE CITIZENS.

THERE'S 200. SO FOLKS THAT CAME AND WE IGNORED NOT WE.

THE GROUP AS A BODY MADE A DECISION TO IGNORE THOSE VOICES.

SO WE CAN'T SIT HERE AND SAY WE DON'T WANT A CONSULTANT TO DO WHAT WE DO.

RIGHT. I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND AND TRUST.

THAT THAT EVERYONE'S GOING TO DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

EVERYONE'S GOING TO EVERYONE'S GOING TO LISTEN TO SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS.

WE'RE GOING TO BE ACTIVELY ADVOCATING FOR FOR OUR CITIZENS.

AND SO THAT'S MY HOPE.

AND THEN NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE BOND IN 2019, THERE'S A $200 MILLION BOND AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK TO THAT.

IF THEY TO END UP IF PEOPLE WANT TO END UP WITH 19 PEOPLE, ENDED UP WITH 20.

A NUMBER MATTERS NOT I JUST I HOPE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND THEN I'LL JUST SAY I THIS BODY DOES NOT CHOOSE ITS CHAIR.

BUT BECAUSE IF THAT WERE THE CASE, I WOULDN'T BE HERE.

SO THAT IS THAT THE PEOPLE CHOOSE THAT WE CHOOSE OUR PRO TEM, OUR OUR.

[04:05:02]

AND SO TO THE TO THE FACT THAT WE WOULD MIRROR THAT PROCESS ON THIS, THAT'S GREAT IF WE IGNORE IT AND LET THEM CHOOSE THEIR OWN CHAIR AND THEIR OWN SECOND, GREAT.

I DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE ANY QUALMS OVER THAT.

I JUST WANT IT TO BE WE IT WAS JUST SAID THAT THIS BODY CHOOSES ITS OWN CHAIR AND SECOND AND WE DO NOT.

AND SO I WANT TO I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

AND THEN I'LL JUST POINT OUT ANYONE THAT WANTS A TOUR, I'LL TAKE YOU TO CITY COUNCIL HALLWAY AND YOU CAN SEE THE NOTES FROM OUR COUNCIL PLANNING SESSION.

AND IT TALKS ABOUT ALL THE PRIORITIES THAT WE WANTED WITH THIS COUNCIL IDENTIFIED.

AND I'LL REPRESENT TO YOU THAT THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE PUT HERE ARE ALL, IF NOT ALL, MOST ARE CAPTURED ON THAT LIST.

AND THAT WAS THAT WAS AFTER OUR FIRST THAT WAS THAT WAS OUR JUNE IN JUNE, JUNE IN JUNE.

SO WELL BEFORE WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, WHEN WE WERE FULLY ALL SEVEN OF US WERE HERE, THOSE PRIORITIES WERE SET.

SO STAFF IS JUST REACTING ON WHAT WE TOLD THEM TO WORK ON.

AND THAT'S HOW THESE PROJECTS COME TO BE.

AND THAT'S WELL BEFORE ANY OF THIS, WELL BEFORE ANY ELECTIONS PENDING.

AND THAT'S AND I'LL CLOSE WITH THAT.

I JUST AGAIN, I'LL TAKE DIRECTION.

I WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.

BUT IT'S A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, I BELIEVE, TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO BECAUSE WE'RE A MONTH OUT FROM ELECTIONS.

WE'RE GOING TO STOP THE PROCESS BECAUSE THAT'S JUST WE HAVE AN ELECTION EVERY YEAR.

SO WE CAN'T DO THE CITY BUSINESS FOR A YEAR OR A MONTH OR SO UP TO AN ELECTION EVERY YEAR.

IT JUST SEEMS PROBLEMATIC.

THE SHOW MUST GO ON, AND I BELIEVE WE CAN FIND THE RIGHT CITIZENS.

WE WE I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE SET THE BOARD IN 2019.

I HAVEN'T DONE THAT RESEARCH, BUT I'M SURE THERE WAS AN ELECTION PENDING.

YEAH. YEAH. SO IT'S THE SAME THING, RIGHT? IT'S IT'S S JUST UNTIL WE CHANGE OUR ELECTION CYCLES OR WHATEVER, EVERY YEAR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS AND WE CAN'T IF PEOPLE PRAISE 2019 BOND AND SAID IT WORKED OUT OKAY, WHY CAN'T WE MOVE FORWARD AND IT WORKED OKAY THIS YEAR JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE SEAT EMPTY AGAIN, I'M WILLING TO CONCEDE MY VOTE.

HOPEFULLY WE CAN JUST THAT THAT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE.

AND IF WE'RE LOWERING THE NUMBER, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE.

BUT THAT BEING SAID, I HOPE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

I HOPE WE DON'T JUST GET THE RIGHT FEEDBACK TO MAKE IT WHATEVER WE WANT.

THE MAJORITY WANT IT TO BE MOVED FORWARD, BUT IF NOT, SO BE IT.

BUT THOSE ARE MY RESPONSES TO WHAT I'VE HEARD.

COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. CASSIE, I THINK YOU JUST RESPONDED TO THE MAYOR'S QUESTION THAT WE SAT THE BOARD IN APRIL.

MY, MY. WE ESTABLISHED THE BOARD IN APRIL.

CORRECT. BUT THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DID NOT WERE NOT A THEY DIDN'T THEY DIDN'T START MEETING IN MAY.

THEY STARTED MEETING IN JUNE.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES.

BUT JUST LIKE WE WERE PROPOSING NOW, EVERY SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL MEETING, THE COUNCIL VOTED ON THE NOMINATIONS.

SURE. NOW, INTERESTINGLY, YOU SAY NOMINATIONS.

THE WHOLE COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE THE NOMINATIONS OR ARE THEY THEY APPOINTMENTS THAT EACH COUNCIL MEMBER OR THE BOND COMMITTEE IS MAKING A STRAIGHT ONE FOR ONE APPOINTMENT OR THAT THEY ARE NOMINATING AND THEN THE COUNCIL BY VOTE HAS TO MAKE THE APPOINTMENTS FROM THE NOMINATIONS.

SO WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION AT LENGTH AND WE WENT BACK TO SUBSEQUENT BOND COMMITTEES AND IT IS A NOMINATION.

AND THEN THE COUNCIL MAKES THE FINAL APPOINTMENT BY VOTE, RIGHT? AND THAT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR CHARTER AND CODES THAT SAYS THE COUNCIL IS ACTUALLY HAS TO APPOINT THE ACTUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES.

RIGHT. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

I JUST WANTED TO BE VERY, VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

MY OTHER QUESTION, I UNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING THE INDIVIDUAL PROPOSITIONS MORE LIKE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS LAID OUT, THAT WE ARE SUBMITTING WHAT WE WANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BUT WE CRAFT THAT IN CONSULTATION WITH THE BOND COUNSEL WHO SAYS, HEY, THE AG'S NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS ONE, MOVE IT OVER HERE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE THAT ONE.

REDO IT THIS WAY AND MAKE SURE YOU HAVE GOOD TITLES THAT CORRESPOND TO YOUR CITY'S PRIORITIES AND EVERYTHING HAS TO FIT UNDER A TITLE THAT MAKES SENSE THAT WAY.

THE AG'S OFFICE DOESN'T BOUNCE IT.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS.

NOT NECESSARILY THE AG IS GOING TO DICTATE WHAT WE DO.

THEY'RE JUST GOING TO TELL US IF IT'S RIGHT OR NOT, IF THEY CAN APPROVE IT OR NOT.

THE YOU MENTIONED THAT WE CAN'T DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITHOUT AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT TO IT, AND THAT'S STATE LAW.

THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.

BUT CAN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NOT HAVE ITS OWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT? IF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP LIKE.

[04:10:05]

BUT WE WE CAN GET MORE CREATIVE THAN THAT.

WE WHAT I'M SAYING IS, I THINK IS THERE NOT A PATH TO HAVING AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT'S NOT COUPLED WITH A NEW CITY HALL? ABSOLUTELY. AND THAT'S SOME OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN MARCH, THE WORK SESSION, IF YOU RECALL, JUST LIKE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS POINTED OUT AND WHAT YOU'RE POINTING OUT, WE TALKED ABOUT LETTING THE COMMITTEE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION ON HAVING THAT PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP COMPONENT WITH CITY HALL.

IF THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION, ULTIMATELY THE CITY HALL WOULD GO UNDER A DIFFERENT PROPOSITION.

IT WOULD NOT FALL UNDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IF IT DID NOT HAVE THAT PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP COMPONENT.

SO ULTIMATELY, WHERE WE I THOUGHT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WAS SEND IT TO THE COMMITTEE, LET THE COMMITTEE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL AND ULTIMATELY COUNCIL, JUST MAKE THAT DETERMINATION IN JULY AND AUGUST.

OKAY. MAYOR.

THE LAST THING I'LL SAY, AND THEN I HAVE I HAVE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

YOU YOU ASKED WHAT WE LOSE WHEN WE USE A CONSULTANT.

I AGREE WITH THE SPEAKER WHO SAID THAT WE LOSE A PORTION OF THE CITIZENS VOICE.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS A BETTER USE OF OUR STAFF, TIME AND RESOURCES TO HAVE ANOTHER PAID PERSON WHO WE CONTRACT TO COME IN AND MANAGE THE PROCESS.

BUT WE ARE GOING TO PUT THIS IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS AND WE ARE GOING TO SAY YOU ALL HAVE TO DECIDE ON THIS AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.

REMEMBER, WE DON'T GET TO GO STUMP FOR IT.

WE DON'T GO GET TO TO CAMPAIGN FOR IT.

WE DON'T GET TO TELL THEM HOW MUCH WE AS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, LIKE WITH THE BOND COMMITTEE, HAD TO HAD TO SAY WE JUST PUT IT OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY IN ITS OWN WAY, GETS BEHIND IT OR DOESN'T.

AND IF THERE'S A SENSE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THIS WAS A MANAGED PROCESS, THAT THE BOND COMMITTEE SPAT OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANTED THEM TO, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

SOME OF THESE ARE NOT GOING TO BE SOME OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE TOUGH SELLS ON THEIR OWN.

AND I DON'T WANT A PROCESS DENTON WILL NOT TOLERATE A PROCESS THAT IS MASSAGED AND MANAGED AND DIRECTED AND PUT INTO A LITTLE A LITTLE BOX.

THEY'LL THEY'LL KICK IT RIGHT BACK.

THEY WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT.

I THINK THE COMMITTEE HAS TO HAVE ITS OWN VOICE.

AND IF A CONSULTANT IS HIRED TO FACILITATE THAT, GREAT.

IF THAT'S NOT HOW THAT CONSULTANT RUNS, THINGS GET A DIFFERENT CONSULTANT.

SO MAYOR MRS CITY MANAGER COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.

IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT BE THAT THE CONSULTANT IS DRIVING THIS PROCESS.

STAFF'S STILL GOING TO BE INVOLVED, STAFF'S STILL GOING TO GIVE TOURS AND STAFF WILL BE HEAVILY ENGAGED.

THE FACILITY. ALL THIS WILL BE AS A FACILITATOR.

IT WILL NOT GUARANTEE YOU WILL NOT DRIVE TO ANYWAY.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS IS THE OPPOSITE IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE STAFF SO ENGAGED AND YOU HAVE ALL THOSE THINGS IN THERE FROM STAFF, THERE IS A LITTLE TENDENCY SOMETIMES THAT NOT SAYING THAT THEY WOULD DO IT, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S PERCEIVED THAT WE ARE PUSHING IT.

WE WANT WE NEED THESE RECREATION THINGS, WE NEED THIS ROAD STUFF.

WHAT WE WANTED TO TRY TO DO WAS MAKE IT MORE BENIGN SO THAT A FACILITATOR LED THE PROCESS.

IF QUESTIONS WERE ASKED, STAFF WILL ANSWER, BUT IT'S NOT DRIVEN BY STAFF.

SO SEEING THAT STAFF? YES, STAFF WANTS A NEW CITY HALL STAFF WANTS THIS NEW POOL STUFF.

IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE THE PUBLIC SAYING THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR US.

WE WANT THIS.

SORRY, BUT WE REALLY DON'T WANT THAT AND THE FACILITATORS TO BE TOTALLY NON BIASED AND JUST FACILITATE A PROCESS, NOT LEAD PEOPLE DOWN A WAY OR ANYTHING.

AND STAFF IS ONLY GOING TO BE THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND NOT TO DO LEADING INFORMATION OR ANYTHING ELSE.

I ASSURE YOU THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

MAYOR I HAVE A MOTION I CAN MAKE THAT I THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL.

I SEE THAT YOU'VE YOU'VE ACTIVATED THE THE BUTTON TO MAKE A MOTION.

SO I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO STEP ON YOUR TOES.

OBVIOUSLY I'M AT A I'M OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE MAJORITY.

SO YOU MAKE A MOTION AND AND I'LL SEE IF I CAN GET ON BOARD.

OKAY. THIS IS MY MOTION.

I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS IN SECTION TWO THAT THE NUMBER 40 IN THE FIRST SENTENCE BE REPLACED WITH THE NUMBER 25.

IN SECTION THREE.

THAT IN THE FIRST BULLET POINT, THE NUMBER FOUR FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE NOMINATED BY EACH COUNCIL MEMBER BE REPLACED WITH THE NUMBER THREE. THAT THE SECOND BULLET POINT REFERRING TO DISTRICT FOUR BE STRUCK?

[04:15:05]

THAT THE FOURTH BULLET POINT BE STRUCK ENTIRELY.

THAT IN SECTION THREE, THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE WOULD BE ADDED IN WHATEVER WAY APPROPRIATE.

NO APPOINTMENTS WILL BE MADE TO THE COMMITTEE UNTIL THE MAY 6TH.

MAY 6TH 2023 ELECTION HAS BEEN CANVASED.

AND IN SECTION FOUR, STRIKE THE NUMBER 15 AND INSERT THE NUMBER 13.

AND I WOULD SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION IF YOU'D ALLOW ME.

WHAT IS THE LAST? SECTION FOUR? SECTION FOUR CHANGING THE QUORUM FROM 15 TO 13.

BECAUSE YOU CHANGED THE.

OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO REPEAT THAT JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

SECTION TWO.

THE NUMBER 40 IS CHANGED TO THE NUMBER 25.

SECTION THREE. THE FIRST BULLET NUMBER FOUR IS CHANGED TO NUMBER THREE.

SECOND BULLET IS DISTRICT FOUR IS STRICKEN.

AND THEN I FORGET WHERE IT IS, BUT IT'S NUMBER 12 IS CHANGED TO NUMBER FOUR.

WHAT IS THAT? WHERE IS THAT? THAT'S THE THIRD BULLET. THIRD BULLET.

OKAY, THIRD BULLET IN SECTION THREE IS THE NUMBER 12 IS CHANGED TO THE NUMBER FOUR IN THE FOURTH BULLET.

AND SECTION THREE IS STRICKEN.

AND THEN THERE'S WORDING ADDED THAT NO APPOINTMENTS MADE UNTIL 2023 ELECTIONS IS CANVASED.

AND THEN SECTION FOUR IT THE QUORUM REQUIREMENT IS CHANGED TO 13.

THAT'S WHAT'S PUT BEFORE US.

COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR? WELL, I THINK I THINK I NEED A SECOND FIRST AND THEN I WOULD ASK TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION.

OKAY, THERE'S A SECOND.

IS THERE A SECOND? MAYOR PRO TEM. I THINK I COULD SECOND IT.

AND I'M SORRY FOR BEING PEDANTIC.

I'M JUST LOSING TRACK OF THE ITEMS. CAN. MR. MAYOR, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND SAYING IT ONE MORE TIME.

CERTAINLY BEFORE.

BEFORE YOU SECOND, I'LL GO OVER IT AGAIN.

SO SECTION TWO, THE NUMBER 40 IS CHANGED TO THE NUMBER 25.

IN SECTION THREE.

THE FIRST BULLET NUMBER FOUR IS CHANGED TO NUMBER THREE IN THE SECOND BULLET.

SECTION THREE, THE DISTRICT FOR REFERENCE IS STRICKEN AND SECTION THREE, THE THIRD BULLET NUMBER 12 IS CHANGED TO THE NUMBER FOUR AND THE FOURTH BULLET.

SECTION THREE IS STRICKEN.

THERE'S LANGUAGE ADDED THAT READS TO SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF NO APPOINTMENT MADE UNTIL THE 2023 ELECTIONS HAVE BEEN CANVASED. AND THEN IN SECTION FOUR IT THE QUORUM REQUIREMENT IS CHANGED TO 13.

THEN I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION WITH COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM DISCUSSION.

MAYOR. JUST SO I'M CLEAR, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION SO I CAN CLARIFY WITH THE STRIKING OF THE FOURTH BULLET, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE INTENT IS THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL APPOINT THEIR OWN CHAIR AND CHAIR PRO TEM? THAT IS THE INTENT.

IF THAT NEEDS TO BE IF THE BODY FEELS THAT NEEDS TO BE STATED MORE CLEARLY, I THINK THAT'S THE DEFAULT THAT THEY WOULD ELECT THEIR OWN CHAIR.

I'D BE OPEN TO A DISCUSSION HERE IN A MOMENT.

NOW THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

I'D BE OPEN TO A AMENDMENT TO TO SAY THE COMMITTEE WOULD ELECT THEIR OWN CHAIR IF THAT'S IF THAT'S THE BODY'S PLEASURE.

BUT I THINK THAT HAS TO BE AN AMENDMENT NOW THAT I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

AND THEN AS FAR AS THE 2023 ELECTION RESULTS BEING CANVASED, THAT INCLUDES A RUNOFF POTENTIALLY KNOW WHAT I THE WORDS I USED A MOMENT AGO WERE NO APPOINTMENTS WILL BE MADE TO THE COMMITTEE UNTIL THE MAY 6TH, 2023 ELECTION IS CANVASED AND I CAN THOSE ARE THE WORDS I USED AND I CAN COVER THAT IN MY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, IF THAT'S HELPFUL.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY, THEN BEFORE WE DO THAT, MATT, CAN YOU GIVE US AN ANSWER ON THAT? IS IT IS IT DEFAULT THAT THEY WOULD ELECT THEIR OWN OR DOES IT NEED TO BE STIPULATED THAT THEY WOULD ELECT? IN THE PAST IT'S BEEN SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THEY WILL ELECT THEIR OWN.

SO IF THAT CAN BE ADDED, THAT WOULD BE AT LEAST CLARIFY THAT.

OKAY. SO JUST THOSE TRACKING ALONG, NOTE THAT WE NEED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THERE OR AN AMENDMENT AT SOME POINT OR THE MOTION OR CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT AND THE SECOND OR CAN SECOND THAT AMENDMENT.

WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS, SECOND BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

AND COUNCILMAN DAVIS, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I CERTAINLY WOULD BE OPEN TO AN AMENDMENT TO WHAT I JUST SAID THAT SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL EXCUSE ME, THAT THE COMMITTEE SHALL SELECT THEIR OWN CHAIRS.

[04:20:02]

THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE I CHOSE FOR THE THE TIMING OF THE APPOINTMENTS WAS THAT THE MAY 6TH ELECTION, WHICH WE INTEND AT THIS POINT TO CANVASS ON THE 16TH OF MAY, THAT THAT THAT THOSE RESULTS WOULD BE IN.

THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A RUNOFF IN FOUR AND A POSSIBILITY OF A RUNOFF IN 3 IN 3 YOU HAVE HOLDOVER AND THE THE CITY COUNCIL COULD CHOOSE AFTER IF WE'VE GOT A RUNOFF ON THE ON THE HORIZON, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN CHOOSE HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT ON MAY 16TH.

IF THERE'S A RUNOFF IN FOUR AND THERE IS NO HOLDOVER BECAUSE IT'S VACANT.

THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 16TH, KNOWING THE LAY OF THE LAND, CAN MAKE THAT DECISION AT THAT TIME.

SO ALL THIS IS SAYING IS THAT WE WOULDN'T MAKE APPOINTMENTS UNTIL AFTER WE'VE CANVASED THE VOTE.

THAT MEANS LATER IN THE AGENDA ON THE 16TH THAT WE WOULD MAKE AVAILABLE TO OURSELVES FOR.

FOR MAKING APPOINTMENTS.

WE COULD ACCEPT NOMINATIONS.

UP UNTIL THAT TIME.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS WE COULDN'T.

IT'S JUST THAT WE WOULD NOT ACTUALLY MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS UNTIL THE ELECTION HAS BEEN CANVASED THE QUESTION OF RUNOFFS IS KIND OF TOO SPECULATIVE RIGHT NOW TO HOLD UP THE WHOLE PROCESS. IN MY MIND, I THINK THAT WE ALLOW OURSELVES THE ABILITY TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO FILL THOSE SPOTS ON THE 16TH.

THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT ARE WE APPOINTING DIRECTLY OR ARE WE NOMINATING IS IF LET'S SAY I FIND MYSELF IN A RUNOFF THAT TAKES PLACE IN JUNE IN THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS, WELL, WE KNOW HOW THIS IS GOING.

WE DON'T WANT HOLDOVER OVER THERE TO MAKE APPOINTMENTS.

WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL HE'S DONE IN JUNE.

WELL, THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY.

CITY COUNCIL HAS THAT ABILITY.

THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT ANYBODY'S NOMINATIONS AT THAT TIME.

THEY CAN WAIT. I THINK THAT'S THE PRUDENT THING TO DO.

WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE LAY OF THE LAND IS UNTIL THAT TIME.

ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO ALLOW FOR US THAT ARE HERE PRESENT TO MAKE OUR APPOINTMENTS AND NOT MAKE THE DISTRICT FOR APPOINTMENTS UNTIL A LATER TIME.

I DIDN'T CHOOSE THAT ADOPTION FOR MY AMENDMENT.

EXCUSE ME THAT THAT OPTION FOR MY AMENDMENT, FRANKLY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST ONE VACANT SEAT THAT COULD BE DIFFERENT.

WE COULD BE TALKING ABOUT A WHOLE DIFFERENT COUNCIL.

IT'S NOT IT'S NOT FAIR.

I SAY A WHOLE DIFFERENT COUNCIL. WE COULD TALK ABOUT THREE DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

WE CERTAINLY COULD. IT COULD HAPPEN.

SO IT'S NOT FAIR TO THOSE CANDIDATES AND IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE VOTERS FOR US TO GET ONE IN UNDER THE WIRE IF WE'RE NOT THE FACES THAT ARE STILL SITTING HERE AFTER MAY THE 6TH.

THAT'S WHY I PICKED THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, THE NUMBERS, IT SEEMED LIKE GOOD COMPROMISE NUMBERS.

IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD WAY TO GET TO A RESULT THAT WE COULD ALL BE COMFORTABLE WITH.

THE CONSULTANT CONVERSATION IS A SEPARATE CONVERSATION FROM A PASSING THE ORDINANCE.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN.

MCGEE, THEN COUNCILMAN. WHAT'S.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

MR. MAYOR, IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO WAIT.

I GUESS I'M NOT SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THE AMENDMENT.

I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE CONTRACT.

SO IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER WE DEAL WITH THE AMENDMENT ON THE FLOOR, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.

OKAY. YEAH. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHAT'S. THIS IS A FIRST.

THANK YOU. MAYOR A MOTION.

I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

IS THIS A FIRST MOTION? FIRST, YES.

OKAY. NOT AN AMENDMENT.

WE'RE STILL IN DISCUSSION. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND I'M REALLY OKAY WITH ALL OF THE PROVISIONS EXCEPT FOR ONE.

AND I THINK I NEED CLARIFICATION ON IT.

AND THAT'S THE PROVISION OF THE THE APPOINTMENTS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL THE MAY 6TH ELECTION IS CANVASED, WHICH I THINK THE EXAMPLE WAS ON MAY 16TH.

AND SO WHEN I'M THINKING ABOUT HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS, BECAUSE TO ME, THE PUTTING OFF OR THE DELAYING OF THE APPOINTMENTS IS REALLY TO PROVIDE ANY DULY ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THAT ELECTION TO NOMINATE THE PEOPLE THAT THAT THEY WANT BASED UPON THOSE ELECTION RESULTS. AND I'M NOT SURE FROM HOW THIS WOULD WORK ON THE GROUND.

AND SO COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, YOU MIGHT HELP ME ON THIS, BUT SO WHEN YOU SAY APPOINTMENTS THAT WHAT I IMAGINE IS ON MAY 16TH.

THE ELECTIONS. AND LET'S JUST SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST JUST FOR DISCUSSION.

THERE'S NO RUNOFF.

ALL RIGHT. EVERYBODY'S ELECTED.

THERE'S GOING TO BE ELECTED WITH A MAJORITY.

THERE'S NO RUNOFF.

UM, THEN ON THAT MAY 16TH AGENDA.

IS YOUR THOUGHT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LIST OF NOMINATIONS FOR THIS BOND COMMITTEE?

[04:25:05]

DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOMINATE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT SWORN IN OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE.

THAT AGENDA ITEM IS AFTER THE CANVASING, WHICH MEANS THEY ARE SEATED.

AND THEN THEY, I GUESS, COULD HAVE THEIR PREDETERMINED NOMINEES FOR APPROVAL.

SO TO ME, IT'S IT'S I'M NOT SURE IT'S THE MECHANICS.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT LANGUAGE SOLVES FOR ME THE MECHANICS OF.

SOMEONE WHO'S JUST ELECTED, BEING ABLE TO NOMINATE THE PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO SELECT.

SO HELP ME. I COULD BE REALLY OFF ON THAT.

HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIDSON COUNCILMAN BYRD.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO THE TWO TWO WORDS THAT I PICKED PRETTY DELIBERATELY WERE APPOINTMENTS AND CANVASED APPOINTMENTS, MEANING THAT NO ACTION BY THE COUNCIL NOMINATIONS COULD BE TAKEN PLACE AT ANY TIME BY ANYBODY WHO'S GOT A RIGHT TO MAKE A NOMINATION THEN CANVASED THAT MEANS THAT VOTE ON THE 16TH. SO IF IT'S AFTER THAT IN THE AGENDA THAT WE MAKE AN APPOINTMENT, THE WHOLE COUNCIL APPOINTS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS DON'T APPOINT, WE NOMINATE THE WHOLE COUNCIL APPOINTS.

SO IF IT'S A SITUATION WHERE, HEY, JESSE JUST NOMINATED LIKE LIKE FOUR GUYS FOR THIS COMMITTEE, THREE I GUESS, AND BUT HE'S NOT COMING BACK.

THEN THE COUNCIL CAN DECLINE TO APPOINT PEOPLE THAT I NOMINATED.

THEY CAN AT THAT TIME SAY, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO APPOINT THESE FOLKS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO WAIT.

WE'RE GOING TO WAIT TILL THE RESULTS OF A RUNOFF OR WHATEVER TO FILL THOSE DISTRICT THREE APPOINTMENT SEATS.

BUT IF THE IF THE RESULTS BEEN CANVASED AND THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE IS TO ACCEPT THOSE NOMINATIONS, THEY CAN DO THAT.

I THINK THERE ARE TOO MANY TWISTS AND TURNS.

I THINK THAT ELECTORAL POLITICS CAN TAKE FOR US TO HOLD UP THE PROCESS.

I THINK THAT WE CAN GET MOST OF THIS COMMITTEE SEATED THERE ON THE 16TH.

AND THEN TO YOUR POINT ABOUT DISTRICT FOUR, FOR INSTANCE, WHOEVER'S GOING TO FILL THE SEAT IN DISTRICT FOUR, THEY'RE NOT HERE NOW.

WHOEVER THAT PERSON IS, HOWEVER, WILL HAVE TEN DAYS FROM WHEN ELECTION RESULTS ARE UNOFFICIALLY IN TO THE DATE THAT THEY'RE OFFICIAL AND WE CANVASS THEM ON THE 16TH. THAT PERSON HAS BEEN WHOEVER IT IS HAS BEEN RUNNING IN A IN AN ELECTION, GETTING UP TO SPEED ON EVERY CITY ISSUE THEY CAN IF THEY'RE A GOOD CANDIDATE AND THEY SHOULD BE PREPARED AT THAT TIME TO MAKE SOME ON THE SPOT NOMINATIONS.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE CROSSED THEIR MIND ONCE THEY SAW THOSE ELECTION RESULTS.

SO THE MECHANICS TO ME WOULD BE CANVASING THE VOTE, WHATEVER THAT RESULT IS, ON THE 16TH.

THEN LATER IN THAT AGENDA, APPOINTING THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN NOMINATED.

AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH THAT, IF THERE'S SOME GROUP OF THOSE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SAYS, NO, HOLD OFF, SOMEBODY ELSE NEEDS TO MAKE A NOMINATION FOR THOSE, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN DO THAT. THEY CAN DECLINE TO APPOINT CERTAIN NOMINEES ON THE 16TH.

OKAY. AND I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IF I COULD JUST RESPOND, MAYOR, JUST REAL QUICKLY, BECAUSE I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.

COUNCILMAN BIRDSEYE THE QUEUE.

SO IF YOU COULD BE REALLY QUICK.

SURE. YEAH.

TO ME, IT'S IT'S WHERE I'M LOOKING AT IS THE NOMINATION BECAUSE WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY WAS A CURRENT SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER CAN MAKE THE NOMINATION.

IF THEY'RE NOT REELECTED, THEN IT'S UP TO THE ONE WHO'S ELECTED TO EITHER ACCEPT THOSE OR REJECT THOSE.

AND IF THEY AND IF THE COUNCIL REJECTS THEM, THEN YOU'RE BASICALLY BACK TO WHERE YOU ARE.

AND THAT IS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME TIME TO MAKE SOME NOMINATIONS.

SO. OKAY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE.

COUNCILMAN. BYRD. I CAN FIND MYSELF BEING ALONG THE SAME LINES AS COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS, BUT WHAT I DO WANT TO SAY IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD INITIALLY WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS VERY SIMPLE AND, YOU KNOW, EASILY UNDERSTOOD THAT WE HAVE A TASK HERE TO DO.

AND IT WAS EXPECTED THAT WE DO IT AT THIS TIME.

I KNOW THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND YOU ALL THAT ARE ADMINISTRATING THE ADMINISTRATORS FOR THE CITY, YOU HAVE US ON A TIMELINE AND YOU WANT US TO KIND OF WORK TOWARDS THAT.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF TIMES WHENEVER WE'RE HAVING THESE DIFFICULT I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THIS IS A TOO DIFFICULT CONVERSATION.

BUT WHEN WE GET TO THIS POINT WHERE WE NEED TO MAKE THESE SOLID DECISIONS, WE TEND TO EXPAND THINGS AND THEN IT CONTRACTS AND THEN WE'RE JUST TALKING AND TALKING AND TALKING UNTIL 11 OR 12:00 AT NIGHT SOMETIMES.

BUT WHAT I WANT TO REALLY SAY, WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, IS THAT I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ALL HAVE BROUGHT TO US INITIALLY.

[04:30:03]

WE ARE PAYING THE CONSEQUENCE OF A RECALL.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF LIKE WE ARE WORKING WITH WHAT WE GOT UNTIL WE, THE CITIZENS, BRING SOMEONE ELSE ON.

I THINK WE CAN DO THIS.

I THINK THAT WE CAN MAKE THIS DECISION.

I'M WITH THE MAYOR ON THIS POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A TIME TIME INDUCED FACTOR.

WE HAVE TO GET THINGS DONE.

AND AND IT TAKES A WHILE TO DO THAT.

40 PEOPLE ON A ON A INTERCEDED TO MAKE DECISIONS WITH HAVING SOMEONE IN FRONT OF THEM TO GUIDE US ALONG WITH THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE.

WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME.

WE HAD TO DO THAT THIS SUMMER WHEN WE MADE OUR DECISIONS ABOUT WHAT WE THOUGHT WERE PRIORITIES THAT HELPED US, THAT HELPED US STAY IN ORDER, AND THEY MOVED US.

AND THESE PEOPLE DO NOT MAKE DECISIONS FOR US.

WE CAN DO THAT ON OUR OWN.

BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, WITH THE AMENDMENTS AND ALL OF THAT, IT'S JUST KIND OF A LOT OF TALKING RIGHT NOW.

BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS TONIGHT.

I WOULD VOTE ALONG WITH THE MAYOR AND I APPRECIATE THAT AND THE COMMENTS THUS FAR.

AND IT'S GOOD DIALOG.

I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL HAVE CASSIE WHILE I'M DOING THIS.

CAN YOU PLEASE.

DO YOU HAVE A SLIDE WITH YOUR TIMETABLE? I DO NOT.

I'M SORRY. OKAY.

CAN YOU. CAN YOU.

BE THINKING ABOUT THAT, HOW TO HOW TO LAY THAT OUT VERBALLY.

I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH MY MY PEERS.

ON THE MAY 16TH, WE HAVE THE GREEN.

THESE ARE WORK SESSIONS ALREADY PLANNED, NOT TO MENTION ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO COME UP.

GREEN SENSE UPDATE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY.

OVERVIEW. POLICE DEPARTMENT UPDATE ANY TWO MINUTE PITCHES.

THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO CANVASS THE VOTE.

AND THEN YOU WOULD ALSO REPRESENT THAT WE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF COVER THIS.

THAT'S THE, YOU KNOW.

IT'S JUST.

A LOT. AND I'M JUST STRUGGLING TO GET THERE.

I JUST I'M JUST FULL DISCLOSURE.

I CAN GET WITH EVERYTHING YOU'VE LAID OUT, I JUST CANNOT PUT DOWN SET ASIDE THE CITY BUSINESS FOR A A ELECTION DATE THAT ULTIMATELY IT'S COMING BACK TO THE COUNCIL.

AND ULTIMATELY, THAT COUNCIL IS NOT GOING TO BE LOADED FOR BEAR DAY ONE.

IT IS A RARE THING FOR SOMEONE TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING, READY TO GO, READY TO PICK NAMES, READY TO SUBMIT NAMES.

AND LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'D BE NAMES ALREADY SUBMITTED.

THEY GOT TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO ADOPT THOSE OR NOT.

THEY GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE IPAD WORKS.

THERE'S JUST A LOT.

AND I JUST I DON'T THINK IT'S THE RIGHT MESSAGE TO SEND THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE CITY'S BUSINESS BECAUSE THERE'S AN ELECTION TWO MONTHS AWAY. THAT'S JUST NOT THE RIGHT MESSAGE.

THE MESSAGE IS WE ALL WORK TOGETHER.

WE ALL HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE OF THE CITY AND THE NUANCED APPROACH OR THE EXPERIENCE THAT WILL BRING THAT THEY'LL BRING TO THE TABLE IS IS GOING TO BE GREAT.

IT'LL BLEND IN WELL, NO MATTER WHO IT IS.

AND ULTIMATELY IT'LL COME BACK TO THIS COUNCIL.

THIS COUNCIL CAN HAVE INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS WITH PEOPLE, GET UP TO SPEED, ATTEND THE MEETINGS, GIVE YOUR INPUT.

THAT WAY THERE'S JUST A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS WE CAN DO OTHER THAN SENDING A SIGNAL TO THE CITIZENS THAT SOMEHOW IN 2019 THAT COUNCIL WAS ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN THIS EXACT SAME TIME WITH NO PROBLEM.

NOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT 2019 BEING A GREAT BOND, RIGHT? EVERYONE SAID THAT WE AGREED AND IT WAS DONE THIS WAY.

BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN 2019 PROCESS ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET A DESIRED OUTCOME.

AND THAT TO ME IS THE PROBLEM.

THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T I DIDN'T SPEAK ON 2019.

BOND HAS BEEN GREAT. I DIDN'T I DIDN'T MENTION IT.

BUT THOSE THAT WOULD THEN TRY TO CHANGE THIS PROCESS DID.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE I GET A LITTLE HUNG UP.

AND I COULD NOT AGREE WITH THE CITY MANAGER MORE.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CITY STAFF AND THE HEAT THEY WOULD TAKE, BECAUSE I CAN GUARANTEE YOU I CAN PULL UP THE EMAILS AND THEIR NUMERAL AND IT'S PROBABLY SOME PEOPLE THAT SPOKE TODAY THAT SAY CITY STAFF IS RUNNING THE CITY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW CITY STAFF IS GREAT WHEN IT MEETS AN END AGAIN.

AND I'LL FIND THOSE EMAILS.

BUT ALL I'M SAYING TODAY IS I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS ONLY BECAUSE OF THAT KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD TO THE ELECTION, NOT NOT WILLING TO DO THAT.

I THINK WE'RE ALL MORE THAN CAPABLE.

IT'S THE EXACT SAME PROCESS BEFORE IT'S $100 MILLION MORE.

AND IF YOU COULD JUST ROUND NUMBERS, I THINK THAT LEAVES YOU SIX WEEKS.

WE'RE OFF IN JUNE AND SUMMER, YOU KNOW, THOSE SORT OF THINGS.

BUT I THINK THAT LEAVES SIX WEEKS.

SO WE'D HAVE WE'D RUSH.

24 PEOPLE IN SIX WEEKS TO MAKE A DECISION ON $300 MILLION.

[04:35:02]

THOSE PEOPLE HAVE TO ASK QUESTIONS TO BE INVOLVED, TO GIVE DIRECTION AND ANYTHING SHORT OF THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DAYS.

AND NO ONE'S TALKED ABOUT THIS.

SO I'M GOING TO PUT THAT I'M GOING TO LIST I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

AND MY RECORD ON NOVEMBER VOTERS IS ABSOLUTELY I'M ZERO FOR ONE.

RIGHT. BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

IT IS AN ABSOLUTE DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

RIGHT. AND NO ONE'S TALKING ABOUT THAT.

IT'S YOU TALK ABOUT MESSAGING AND YOU TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE NEEDED TO TRY A NOVEMBER DATE VERSUS A MAY DATE.

AND IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT THING.

AND IT'S TEN FOLD FOR THOSE NOT TRACKING ALONG TEN FOLD.

THE DIFFERENCE IN PEOPLE THAT VOTE IN NOVEMBER, THEN VOTE IN MAY AND TRYING TO GET A PULSE ON THAT, SENDING LESS PEOPLE OUT TO THE STREETS TO TO ADVOCATE FOR OUR BOND AND EDUCATING MORE PEOPLE WITHOUT A ORGANIZED WAY.

SO I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT ALL.

I'M WILLING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO RELEASE ON IT.

I'M WILLING TO REDUCE ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.

I'M NOT WILLING TO NOT DO THE CITY BUSINESS FOR A MONTH BECAUSE SEATS MAY POTENTIALLY CHANGE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T CHANGE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE.

THERE'S THERE'S RESIDENTS THAT LIVE HERE THAT THAT ARE LIVING HERE NOW THAT WILL LIVE HERE IN MAY.

AND WE CAN PICK GREAT ONES THAT WILL DO GREAT WORK AND WE CAN SIT IN ON THOSE MEETINGS AND MAKE SURE WE ADVOCATE FOR THOSE THAT CAN'T BE THERE.

THERE THEY'RE STREAMED. PEOPLE CAN WATCH THEM FROM THE COMFORTS OF THEIR HOME AND WE CAN DO A GREAT THING.

JUST LIKE IN 2019 WAS A GREAT BOND.

2023 CAN BE A GREAT BOND THE SAME WAY.

SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS AS CONSTITUTED IF SOMEONE AMENDS IT AND REMOVES THAT CATEGORY ABOUT MAY, GREAT.

IF IT'S GOING TO STAY, THEN I'M GOING TO BE OPPOSED.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO TO TO COUNCIL MEMBER BIRDSEYE POINT, WE'RE GOING TO COME TO A DECISION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER PRETTY QUICK.

COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. JUST TO PIGGYBACK OFF WHAT YOU SAID, SOMETHING ELSE THAT DOESN'T CHANGE ARE THE NEEDS OF THE STAFF.

AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

AND I RECOGNIZE THOSE.

UM, I COULD SEE MYSELF TO SUPPORTING THE MOTION BY MR. DAVIS. I APPRECIATE YOUR CREATIVITY AND COMING UP WITH US, BUT HOWEVER, I'M ALSO GOING TO SIDE WITH MISS BYRD AND THE MAYOR.

I AM NOT FOR DELAYING THIS PROCESS.

FOR ME, THIS REEKS OF WHAT HAPPENED IN 20 2016 WHEN WE DIDN'T APPOINT A SUPREME COURT SEAT BECAUSE THE SENATE SAID WE SHOULDN'T.

WE DON'T GET TO STOP GOVERNING JUST BECAUSE THERE'S AN ELECTION COMING UP.

I TRUST I TRUST THOSE OF US WHO ARE HERE NOW TO CONTINUE DOING THIS PROCESS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY QUALMS WITH IT.

UM, I THINK THAT WE ALL HAVE A PRETTY GOOD, A PRETTY GOOD PULSE IN THE CITY, AND I AM VERY MINDFUL OF PUTTING EXTRA WORK ON STAFF WITH THE RUSH TIMES.

AS AS WAS JUST SAID, FOLKS ARE OFTEN OUT FOR VACATIONS AND ILLNESSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE.

I DON'T SEE ANY REASON.

I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO DELAY AND TO TO MY FRIENDS IN DISTRICT FOUR.

I WOULD SIMPLY REMIND THEM THAT WHILE THERE ARE FOUR OF US THAT WE NORMALLY ELECT FROM DISTRICTS, THE TRUTH IS WE ALL VOTE ON ALL PROJECTS ACROSS THE CITY.

SO WE ALL ARE AND SHOULD BE ACCOUNTABLE TO ALL PARTS OF THE CITY.

SO A RESIDENT FROM DISTRICT THREE SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM CALLING THE DISTRICT.

ONE COUNCILOR AND A RESIDENT FROM DISTRICT TWO SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM CALLING THE PERSON WHO IS SITTING IN DISTRICT THREE AND SO ON.

FOR DISTRICT FOUR, THERE ARE THREE OF US WHO STILL DIRECTLY REPRESENT DISTRICT FOUR, MYSELF, THE MAYOR AND MR. WATTS, WHO WERE ELECTED AT LARGE EVEN WITH OUR DISTRICT FOUR RESIDENTS.

I'M CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN CHOOSE PEOPLE APPROPRIATELY FOR THAT SO I CAN SEE MYSELF TO SUPPORTING THIS, EXCEPT THE PART WHERE WE'RE GOING TO DELAY.

AND I GUESS THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY IS I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE COMMENTS THAT WERE SAID IN OUR BY OUR FIRST SPEAKER.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.

I CAN AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT SHE SAID.

HAVING SAID THAT, AGAIN, AS ONE SEVENTH OF THE POWER OF THE CITY OF DENTON, I AM ALSO TASKED WITH MAKING SURE THAT WE MAKE THAT I MAKE RESPONSIBLE CHOICES FOR OUR STAFF, AND I WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF NOT PUTTING AN EXTRA BURDEN ON STAFF WHEN THESE THINGS ARE LITERALLY THE JOB OF CONSULTANTS.

I TRUST WHAT THE CITY MANAGER SAYS AND HOW THE PROCESS IS GOING TO WORK BECAUSE WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE AND AS THE MAYOR HIGHLIGHTED IN HIS INITIAL COMMENTS, WE HAD OUR JOINT MEETING EARLIER TODAY AND WE SAW THAT THE PROCESS WORKED FLAWLESSLY.

HAVING SAID THAT, LAST THING I'LL ADD IS I AM ABSOLUTELY FLEXIBLE ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE.

I UNDERSTAND WHY 40 WAS CHOSEN.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IN THE PROCESS, THE PROCESS IN 2019 HAPPENED TO BE 19, FOLKS.

I COULD GO EITHER WAY DEPENDING ON THE CONSENSUS OF MY COLLEAGUES.

SO WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.

COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'LL BE REALLY BRIEF.

THIS IDEA OF DELAY IS A LITTLE BIT MANUFACTURED.

THERE IS NOTHING IN WHAT I'VE PROPOSED THAT NECESSITATE THAT ANY KIND OF DELAY.

THE STAFF HAS SAID THEY PROPOSE UNDER THE ORDINANCE DRAFT WE HAD THAT THERE WOULD BE A MEETING IN LATE MAY TO CONVENE THIS GROUP.

[04:40:10]

LATE MAY IS AFTER THE MIDDLE OF MAY.

THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE SCHEDULE AT ALL.

WE HAVE TO CALL AN ELECTION BY AUGUST THE 21ST.

THERE'S NOTHING WHAT I'VE PROPOSED THAT CONTRACTS THAT SCHEDULE WHATSOEVER.

THE ONLY THING IT CHANGES IF YOU LOOK AT THE EYES.

THE PROPOSAL RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE APPOINTMENTS, NOT NOMINATIONS, BUT APPOINTMENTS SCHEDULED TO BE VOTED ON BY THIS BODY APRIL 4TH, APRIL 18TH AND MAY 2ND. ALL I'VE DONE IS SAY DO ALL THAT ON THE 16TH AND IT'S NOT THAT MUCH.

THE CANVASING WE'VE ALL EXPERIENCED THE CANVASING MEETING IT TYPICALLY IS MOSTLY CEREMONIAL.

YOU MAKE THE VOTE AND THEN YOU HAVE THE INSTALLATIONS AND THE SMILING FOR THE PHOTOS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

A SHORT AGENDA ITEM TO APPOINT PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE PRE NOMINATED.

THAT'S NOT A LOT TO ADD TO THAT EVENING.

THAT'S DOING THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY IN AN EXPEDITIOUS WAY.

THAT'S GETTING IT DONE. AND THAT HASN'T CHANGED.

A THING ABOUT THE MEETING CALENDAR FOR THIS COMMITTEE THAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED.

IT DOESN'T CONDENSE ANYTHING.

ALL IT DOES IS MAKE US WAIT UNTIL THERE'S A PERSON IN THAT CHAIR OVER THERE AND WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA WHO'S SITTING IN THESE CHAIRS OVER HERE.

I THINK THAT'S FAIR TO THE VOTERS.

AND IT DOESN'T DO ANY DOESN'T ADD ANY ADDITIONAL BURDEN TO STAFF.

IT'S ONE ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM ON THE 16TH.

IT'S AN AGENDA ITEM THAT PRETTY MUCH RUNS ITSELF BECAUSE THERE ARE NOMINATIONS THAT WE'VE MADE AHEAD OF TIME.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO SUPPORT SOMETHING, EVEN A BUNCH OF PROJECTS THAT I DO WANT TO SUPPORT.

HAVING THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT APPOINTING ON BEHALF OF DISTRICT FOUR.

THAT'S THE WRENCH IN THE WHOLE WORKS.

THE NUMBERS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE COME TO SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS ON THAT.

UNLESS SOMEBODY'S GOT A BETTER IDEA FOR HOW TO FIX THIS, WE'RE DOING THE D FOUR REPRESENTATIVES JOB FOR THEM AND SPEAKING FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T ELECT AT LEAST THREE OF US SITTING HERE.

THEN THIS IS THE THE THIS IS THE SOLUTION I'VE PROPOSED.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE SCHEDULE AT ALL.

IT DOESN'T MAKE IT HARDER AT ALL.

THE ONLY SCHEDULE THAT CHANGES IS OUR SCHEDULE TO NOMINATE PEOPLE AND THEN WE APPOINT THEM ON ONE DATE INSTEAD OF OVER THE COURSE OF THREE DATES, WHICH MAYBE DIDN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M GOING TO TRY TO FLOAT A COMPROMISE.

I'M NOT GOING TO DO MY TYPICAL BELABORING OF THINGS.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE I AGREE.

WE DO HAVE A SEEMINGLY CONSENSUS AT AN INTERMEDIATE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

SO I DON'T WANT TO WRECK THAT.

SO I WONDER IF PEOPLE MIGHT BE AMENABLE TO WE'VE GOT THIS APRIL 4TH, APRIL 18TH, MAY 2ND, IF WE ADDED ONE MORE MEETING FOR NOMINATIONS AND HELD OUT FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THAT IS A COMPROMISE POSITION WHERE WE ARE STILL PROCEEDING AS IN SOME WAYS, BUT WE'RE WE'RE HOLDING OUT FOR THAT DISTRICT FOUR POSITION AND ON THAT LAST MEETING TO NOMINATE AND, AND DO THE SORT OF INSTEAD OF NOMINATING EVERYONE ALL AT ONCE AND APPOINTING THEM ALL AT ONCE, WE HAVE ONE EXTRA MEETING WHERE WE DO THE DISTRICT FOUR.

IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THAT PEOPLE THINK THAT WOULD BE A COMPROMISE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO UNIFY THESE TWO NOT VERY SEPARATED THINGS, THEN I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TO MOTION THAT AS AS AN A SUBSIDIARY AMENDMENT.

OKAY. SO I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION BECAUSE AS AND JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S JUST EVERYONE'S TRACKING ALONG.

SO I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE REAL SIMPLE.

THE VOICE VOTE, VOICE JUST KIND OF CONSIDERATION IS WE'RE THREE THREE AND IT MOVES FORWARD AS WRITTEN BY DEFAULT BECAUSE IT FAILS AND THERE'S NO CHANGE. SO IT'S GOING TO GO FORWARD AS IS.

SO IF EVERYONE'S TRACKING ALONG, BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM STAFF ON THE TIMING, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

SO OBVIOUSLY AN EIS, IT LISTS THAT AND MAYBE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PULL THAT UP FOR PEOPLE TO SEE, BUT OR IF YOU JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO IT.

BUT WHAT IS THAT? WHAT IS THAT? FIRST, LET'S CORRECT ONE STATEMENT THE MAY IN THE PAST.

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

IN THE FUTURE.

THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA THAT DAY.

I MEAN, WE ARE HUMMING, RIGHT? WE'RE A $1.8 BILLION CITY OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS GOING TO COME IN TO BE.

AND THERE IS NO REST FOR THE WEARY.

SO IN THE PAST, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA THAT DAY.

WE'RE GOING TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING.

SO I NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU ON THE TIMING AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION.

SO JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE SAYING I GUESS STAFF'S INTENTION WAS TO ALLOW YOU TIME TO GATHER YOUR NOMINATIONS AND THEN MAKE THOSE

[04:45:01]

THAT'S WHY I LISTED THREE DIFFERENT DATES KNOWING THAT THE FIRST MEETING OF THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE IS SCHEDULED FOR LATE MAY.

I'M. YOU KNOW, WE WE JUST WANTED TO ALLOW ENOUGH TIME FOR THE THE COMMITTEE TO MEET.

WITHOUT, YOU KNOW.

BUT WITHOUT HAVING TO MOVE INTO JULY BECAUSE WE DO HAVE LESS MEETINGS IN JULY BECAUSE OF JULY 4TH.

SO WE ALREADY KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL LATE JULY WITH THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE.

SO THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE INTENTIONS, WAS TO JUST GIVE US TIME TO HAVE ALL OF THE MEETINGS WITH THE COMMITTEE TO MAKE A FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL LATE JULY. BUT I'M I'M FINE WITH WHATEVER THE COUNCIL DECIDES.

WE WILL MAKE IT WORK. FROM THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE HAPPY TO FACILITATE THE MEETINGS AND ARRANGE OUR SCHEDULE ACCORDINGLY.

BUT AND FORGIVE ME, I WAS I WAS GETTING CORRECTED.

SO NO ACTION IS NO ACTION.

RIGHT? I WANT TO SPEAK CLEARLY.

SO NO ACTION ON THIS? NO ACTION ON IF THIS MOTION FAILS.

NO ACTION ON ANOTHER MOTION FAILS, THEN WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE IN BAD SHAPE.

AND THAT'S JUST THE FACT OF THE MATTER.

BUT SO I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

SO I MISSED THE BEGINNING, REALLY.

I JUST WANT TO FOCUS IN ON THERE'S THERE'S A REPRESENTATION THAT MAY 16TH, NO HARM, NO FOUL.

IS THAT DOES STAFF ADOPT THAT OR DOES STAFF SAY THERE'S WORK THAT WE WITH THE BOARD CAN BE DOING BEFORE MAY 16TH? SO WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THE SCHEDULE TO THE THE APPOINTEES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

MY PLAN WAS AS AS THEY WERE APPOINTED, REACH OUT TO THEM, GIVE THEM THE SCHEDULE, THE MEETING DATES, TIMES AND ALLOW THEM TO GET THAT ON THEIR CALENDARS. BUT I'M HAPPY TO FACILITATE WHATEVER THE COUNCIL DESIRES.

SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I HEARD YOU RIGHT, IT'S TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS US GIVING YOU A NAME, BECAUSE THEN ONCE YOU TALK TO ALL WHATEVER, LET'S SAY 25 OF THOSE PEOPLE, THERE'S 25 DIFFERENT SCHEDULES AND YOU HAVE TO COORDINATE.

AND SO THAT THEN WELL, AND WE DO HAVE TO ALLOW TIME FOR CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TO VET THE NOMINATIONS.

GOT IT. OKAY.

SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE FOR THE STAGGERED.

YES. SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A RUSH OF 25 PEOPLE THAT YOU CAN'T PROCESS THROUGH THE SYSTEM ALL AT ONCE.

IT JUST AND IT'S A LOGJAM.

TIME FOR THOSE NOMINATIONS FROM OUR BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.

SINCE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED.

WE DID CALL A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING IN APRIL TO GET THEIR NOMINATIONS AND THEN BRING THOSE BACK TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPOINTMENT.

GOT IT. SO I DO THINK, MAYOR, THAT THE OTHER POINT, THOUGH, THAT IS POSSIBLE IS WITH THE ELECTION, EVEN THOUGH CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY MAKE AN APPOINTMENT, IT COULD CHANGE WITH A NEW COUNCIL MEMBER COMING IN, WHICH EITHER WAY IS GOING TO MEAN WORK FOR US.

I MEAN, I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, DEPENDING ON WHO'S ELECTED, IF THERE'S THREE SEATS, ONE IS NOT FILLED, BUT TWO THAT ARE.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS DON'T USE THE SAME PEOPLE, WHICH MEANS WE WOULD START OVER AGAIN ANYWAY, WITH GETTING THE INFORMATION TO THE CITY SECRETARY, HAVING TO HAVE IT REVIEWED AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO BE HOOFING IT EITHER WAY.

STAFF STAFF IS NOT I MEAN, WE JUST WANT TO DO WHAT THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL IS AND GET BUSY.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO EVEN NOW JUST TO GET THINGS PLANNED OUT.

WHATEVER THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL IS, WE WILL FOLLOW IT.

OKAY. SO YEAH, AND I THINK THOSE ARE VALID POINTS AND WE'LL JUST SEE.

SO, SO WE HAVE A MOTION.

ON ON THE TABLE, AND THAT IS THE ITEMS IDENTIFIED.

PUSHING IT TILL THE WHAT BETTER SAID SELECTION ON MAY 16TH.

THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE TABLE.

SO LET'S LET'S DEAL WITH THAT AND SEE IF THAT PASSES OR.

MR. MAYOR. YES, I KNOW THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE TABLE AN AMENDMENT TO AT LEAST SAY TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE, THAT THE COMMITTEE WILL SELECT A CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT AMENDMENT WAS EVER BROUGHT FORWARD, SO I WOULD AT THIS TIME MAKE AN AMENDMENT ON THE CURRENT MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT WE AMEND THAT SECTION THAT WHERE IT SAYS CITY COUNCIL SHALL APPOINT THE COMMITTEE CHAIR, SO FORTH AND SO ON.

JUST CHANGE THAT TO THAT.

THE BOND COMMITTEE WILL APPOINT THE COMMITTEE CHAIR AND THE PRO TEM POSITION.

OKAY. AND I CAN SECOND THAT AMENDMENT.

OR CAN YOU JUST ACCEPT IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? NO, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF PAST THAT POINT.

[04:50:02]

OKAY? YEAH.

SO, OKAY.

MOTION BY COUNCILMAN WATTS, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS AND OKAY, SO IT'S IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT THE BOND COMMITTEE WILL APPOINT A CHAIR AND A.

COACH HERE. SO THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

JUST THAT ELEMENT, THAT AMENDMENT.

AND SO IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I'M GOING TO START THE DISCUSSION BY SAYING I'M NOT SUPPORTING AN UNDERLYING MOTION AS WRITTEN, SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS JUST TO GET TO THAT POINT TO WHERE I CAN SAY NO.

SO. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

SEEING NONE. WATTS.

I'LL SAY YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE'S PHOTO ON THE SCREEN ON THAT EDITION.

THAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IS PASSES FIVE TO TAKES US TO THE UNDERLYING MOTION FOR TWO SORRY THAT TAKES US TO THE UNDERLYING MOTION, WHICH IS THE CHANGES THAT COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIES POINTED OUT.

AND WAITING TILL THE THE MAY 6TH ELECTION IS CANVASED IS THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE? ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT UNDERLYING MOTION? SO EVERYONE HERE WANTING TO SPEAK, RIGHT? OKAY. COUNCILWOMAN DAVIS MAYOR AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORD APPOINTED IN WHAT I SAID.

ALL OF THE TIME, CONSUMING PARTS OF MAKING NOMINATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS ARE AT THE NOMINATION STAGE.

NOMINATIONS COULD HAPPEN TOMORROW IF WE WANTED TO.

IF STAFF WAS READY TO START TAKING OUR NOMINATIONS, WE SITTING HERE COULD DO THAT NOW.

THE VETTING PROCESS COULD HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY.

THE BOND COMMITTEE COULD MAKE NOMINATIONS AT THEIR APRIL 21ST.

THE APPOINTMENTS ARE THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN FOLLOWING CANVASING OF THE VOTE.

AND IF WE'RE FULL UP ON THE 16TH, THEN WE HAVE A SEPARATE CANVASING, A SEPARATE CANVASING MEETING THE DAY BEFORE.

IT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR TRADITION, BUT WE COULD DO IT IF WE'RE FULL UP IN THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY'S GOT TO KEEP ROLLING.

THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER SPECIAL CALLED MEETING TO KEEP THAT THAT BUSINESS ROLLING.

THE WORKING MAN THERE IS SHAKING HIS HEAD, NO, BUT YOU TAKE MY POINT, THOUGH.

IT'S NOT THAT LONG AN ITEM.

NOMINATIONS ARE TIME CONSUMING APPOINTMENTS.

THE LEGAL PROCESS WHERE WE VOTE ON THEM TAKES NO TIME AT ALL.

IT'S A ONE SLIDE PRESENTATION AND THE THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS THIS.

EVEN IF I HAD NOT PUT THIS PARTICULAR LANGUAGE OUT THERE, I WAS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS IDEA OF NOMINATING ON APPOINTING ON THREE SEPARATE DATES, BECAUSE THE THING THAT STAFF MAYBE ISN'T THINKING ABOUT, BECAUSE THEY DON'T BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT POLITICIANS.

THE NOMINATIONS COULD CHANGE BASED ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S NOMINATIONS, BASED ON A SIMILAR POOL OF PEOPLE YOU MIGHT WANT TO NOMINATE.

BECAUSE WE HAVE AT LARGE FOLKS AND WE HAVE DISTRICT FOLKS, WHEN ALL OF THE NOMINEES ARE VOTED ON AT ONE TIME INSTEAD OF OVERTIME, PIECEMEAL, THAT'S YOUR COMMITTEE.

YOU'VE GOT IT RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.

YOU SEE WHAT IT IS. WITH THE POSSIBLE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF THE RUNOFFS.

IF YOU ARE APPOINTING A COUPLE, THREE DATES OVER APRIL AND MAY, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THEIR NOMINATIONS.

THE BOND COMMITTEE COULD CHANGE THEIR NOMINATIONS.

THE BOND COMMITTEE COULD BE INFLUENCED BY NOMINATIONS ALREADY MADE BY CITY COUNCIL.

IT IS MORE OPPORTUNITY TO GAME THAT COMMITTEE, AND THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE NEED.

SO I WOULD HAVE PROPOSED HAVING ALL THE APPOINTMENTS DONE ON ONE DAY TO BEGIN WITH, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ANY CHANGE TO OUR SCHEDULE DOING THAT ON MAY THE 16TH VERSUS THESE OTHER DATES ARE BEFORE THE ELECTION.

MAYOR PRO TEM THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I WAS GOING TO MOTION TO ADD MAY 16TH AS AN ADDITIONAL DATE TO TRY TO GET THAT COMPROMISE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER.

BUT IN LIGHT OF COUNCILOR DAVIS'S DISAFFECTION WITH MULTIPLE DATES, I THINK I WON'T IF THAT'S IF THAT'S A PROBLEM WITH HIM.

SO I GUESS WE WILL RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

YEAH. AND I'LL JUST SAY SUCCINCTLY, I'M YOU.

THE PERSON NOT DOING THE WORK SITTING AT THE DESK SAYS IT'S OKAY.

THE PEOPLE DOING THE WORK IN FRONT OF ME AT THE PODIUM SAY I'D RATHER HAVE IT THIS WAY.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I'M GOING TO DEFER TO PEOPLE THAT DO THE WORK BECAUSE I THINK THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND EVERYONE TALKED ABOUT THE 29 PROCESS.

2019 PROCESS WAS GREAT, AND I'M GOING TO ADOPT THAT THEORY AND SAYING THE 2019 PROCESS HAS WORK, WORK, GREAT, LET'S REPLICATE IT.

[04:55:08]

I WANT TO DO IT AGAIN.

SO THAT'S MY STATEMENT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE I, I JUST I UNDERSTAND THE PERSON.

I UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENT.

I UNDERSTAND THE SCENARIOS, UNDERSTAND THE OUTLINE, UNDERSTAND THE BENEFITS AS PURPORTED FROM THE REPORTED FROM THE DAIS.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSAL AND UNDERSTANDING AND STEPS OUTSIDE OUTLINED FROM THE PODIUM.

I'M JUST GOING TO SIDE WITH THE PODIUM OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AND OUR PREVIOUS HISTORY, WHICH WE SAID WAS GREAT.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THE CHANGES COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS OUTLINED WITH THE MOST RECENT PASSAGE OF THEY WILL THE BODY WILL SELECT THEIR OWN CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR.

THAT'S WHAT WHAT IS BEFORE US.

THAT ENTIRE PACKAGE FROM ALL THE AMENDMENTS FROM 40 TO 25 FROM ALL THOSE SECTIONS.

SO COUNCILMEMBER WALTZ, I'LL SAY YOU.

I. OKAY.

AND EVERYONE ELSE, LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

AND THAT FAILS 4 TO 2.

YES. THAT BRINGS US BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL AGENDA ITEM.

I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

COUNCILMAN. BYRD.

I MOVE APPROVAL FOR OUR ORIGINAL AGENDA ITEM.

OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? MAYOR HUDSPETH A SECOND MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BYRD.

OH, SORRY. OH, I'M SORRY.

I APPRECIATE YOU. SECOND BY MAYOR HUDSPETH.

SHE WANTS OUT OF HERE. I'M READY TOO.

SO, MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BYRD SECOND BY MAYOR HUDSPETH.

DISCUSSION COUNCILMEMBER DAVIS.

MAYOR. I MOVE AMENDMENT OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

EVERYTHING I SAID EXCEPT FOR THAT ADDED LANGUAGE ABOUT NO APPOINTMENTS NEED TO BE MADE UNTIL TO BE MADE UNTIL AFTER CANVASING AND INCLUDING THE THEY'LL SELECT THEIR OWN.

CORRECT. OKAY.

SO THERE'S A THERE'S AN AMENDMENT THAT CAN THAT'S BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

SURE. GREAT.

CLEANER. THANK YOU. BLESS YOU.

YEAH. SO, COUNCILMAN BYRD.

DO YOU ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT SAID NO? OH, OKAY.

YEAH. OKAY.

THE NUMEROUS THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

IT'S A REGULAR AMENDMENT. NOW REGULAR.

OKAY. SO LET ME LET ME GET MY MIND RIGHT.

SO MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

AND HERE'S WHAT IS ADDED.

SO THIS IS WHAT WE'LL BE VOTING ON.

THE ORIGINAL STAFF AMENDMENT IS AMENDED TO SAY.

SECTION TWO.

THE NUMBERS GO FROM 40 TO 25.

SECTION THREE.

FIRST BULLET.

THE NUMBER FOUR GOES TO NUMBER THREE.

THE SECOND BULLET IN SECTION THREE STRIKES.

THE SECOND BULLET.

SECTION BULLET THREE IN SECTION THREE.

THE NUMBER 12 IS CHANGED TO THE NUMBER FOUR.

IN THE FOURTH BULLET IN SECTION THREE IS STRICKEN AND THE LANGUAGE IS CHANGED TO READ, THEY SHALL SELECT OR SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF CITY COUNCIL IS STRUCK.

AND IT SAYS THE COMMITTEE INSTEAD.

THERE YOU GO. YEAH.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

WHAT HE SAID.

AND THEN SECTION FOUR IS QUORUM IS CHANGED TO 13.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US THAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON RIGHT NOW.

ANY COMMENTS? QUESTION YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM BECK.

SO THE COUNCILOR DAVIS, IS IT YOUR INTENTION THAT THAT WHAT THE MAYOR SAID, THAT THE DISTRICT FOUR IS STILL STRICKEN? YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S THE THAT'S MY INTENTION.

THAT'S THE LANGUAGE OF MY AMENDMENT.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MORE PROTRACTED THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MORE PROTRACTED APPOINTMENT PROCESS.

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE MULTIPLE APPOINTMENT DATES.

MY INTENTION HERE IS THAT THOSE SEATS ARE JUST GOING TO STAY VACANT UNTIL DISTRICT FOUR IS FILLED AND THAT THE BOND COMMITTEE, IF THEY'RE IF THEY'RE DOWN THREE MEMBERS, THEY'RE DOWN THREE MEMBERS. IF THOSE PEOPLE ARE BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL BY A MEETING, I DON'T THINK THEY WILL BE BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE NOMINATION IS THE TIME CONSUMING PROCESS, THE US VOTING

[05:00:06]

THEY CAN MAKE THE FIRST MEETING, I PROMISE YOU THEY CAN.

SO I HAVE A POINT OF QUESTION FOR MAYBE THE STAFF OR CITY ATTORNEY.

IF WE IF WE LEAVE THIS, AS COUNCILOR DAVIS HAS SUGGESTED, AND AND WE DON'T.

AND THOSE ESSENTIALLY ARE NO NOMINATIONS FROM DISTRICT FOUR.

DOES THAT OPEN UP US TO ANYONE NOMINATING FOR THAT THOSE THOSE FOUR SLOTS.

THREE SLOTS.

SORRY, THREE SLOTS.

I DON'T THINK SO.

EACH COUNCIL MEMBER GETS TO NOMINATE THREE INDIVIDUALS.

SO THEY WOULD THEY WOULD STAY IT WOULD STAY VACANT, UNSEATED.

SO THAT WOULD BE LIKE.

AND IF THAT THAT COMMITTEE MET, THAT WOULD BE LIKE THREE ABSENCES ON THAT COMMITTEE.

THREE VACANCIES, CORRECT.

UNTIL WE HAD A LATER MEETING TO FILL THOSE ABSENCES, UNTIL THEY'RE NOMINATED BY THAT NEW COUNCIL MEMBER.

THEN I. THEN I MAINTAINED MY SECOND.

OKAY, SO ANYONE ELSE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE US.

ARE WE ALL TRACKING ALONG? SO WHAT'S BEFORE US IS THE AMENDMENT THAT I READ.

AND. THAT WOULD BE ADDED, THAT WOULD BE THOSE CHANGES WOULD BE AMENDED TO THE ORIGINAL EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.

THESE THINGS WOULD BE AMENDED, BUT WE'RE JUST VOTING ON THAT AMENDMENT PROCESS FIRST AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO THE UNDERLYING MOTION.

SO AMENDMENT PROCESS FIRST IS WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

JUST MAKE MAKE SURE YOU'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

IT'S AN AMENDED AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS AND SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM AND MEMBER WATTS. HOW ARE YOU? I SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE ELSE VOTE ON THE SCREEN WITH RESPECT TO THE AMENDMENT.

AND THAT'S THREE THREE TAKES US SO THAT WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL STAFF.

ORDINANCE. MOTION.

MOTION BY COUNCILMAN.

BYRD. SECOND BY MAYOR HUDSPETH.

DISCUSSION. ARE YOU BACK ON OR NO? OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHAT'S THE ORIGINAL MOTION ORDINANCE? I'LL SAY YOU NAY.

OKAY. EVERYONE ELSE VOTE ON THE SCREEN.

THAT PASSES FOR TWO.

THAT TAKES US TO CONCLUDING ITEMS.

[7. CONCLUDING ITEMS]

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GOT THIS IN.

AND MADAM CITY MANAGER, I TOLD YOU THIS IN PRIVATE.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I SAY THIS IN PUBLIC.

I WANT TO APPRECIATE YOU FOR OUR RECENT TRAVELS AND SENDING JENNIFER RAINEY TO AUSTIN AND RYAN ADAMS TO DC WITH US.

STAFF HAS BEEN REALLY, REALLY GREAT PARTNERS WITH THOSE OF US ON COUNCIL HELPING MAKE SURE THAT WE GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO GO AND AND WE SAY THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SAID SO WE CAN GET THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE GOTTEN FOR THE CITY OF DENTON.

SO, MADAM CITY MANAGER, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR, FOR THE WORK OF YOUR STAFF AND AND STAFFING US THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS DURING DURING OUR TRAVELS.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

COUNCILMAN BYRD.

ALSO, THANK YOU, CITY MANAGER, FOR ALLOWING US TO HAVE ADDITIONAL TRAVELS AND THAT ALLOWS ME TO LEAD INTO THE SEASON OF QUAKERTOWN.

I SAID I WAS GOING TO KEEP US FILLED IN ON WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THAT.

THE CITY MANAGER ALLOWED ME TO RIDE ALONG WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION FOLKS AND HISTORIANS AND THE LIBRARY TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WHAT TULSA, OKLAHOMA DID FOR THEIR THEIR PROJECT OF RECONCILIATION.

THAT WAS A GREAT RIDE.

SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THAT.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO MOVING ON WITH OUR PROJECTS.

ABOUT QUAKERTOWN.

WE DO HAVE SOMETHING COMING UP TOMORROW.

THERE'S THIS YOUNG LADY THAT MADE A QUILT THAT'S DESIGNED TO TELL THE STORY OF THE HISTORY OF QUAKERTOWN.

I KNOW THAT SHE WILL BE DISPLAYING IT IN THE PATTERSON APPLETON.

IS THAT THE NAME OF THE BUILDING? I KNOW IT'S BEEN THERE A VERY LONG, BUT SHE'LL BE DISPLAYING THAT TOMORROW EVENING.

SO TAKE A LOOK AT AT THE TIME.

I THINK IT'S ABOUT 6:00, 530 OR 6:00 THAT SHE'LL BE DISPLAYING THAT AND GIVING A HISTORY ON THAT.

SO THAT'S JUST ONE STEP.

AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME DOING SOMETHING AT LEAST EVERY MONTH LEADING UP TO NEXT YEAR, YEAR AFTER NEXT, AND CULMINATING INTO SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE GREAT FOR

[05:05:09]

MAYOR PRO TEM. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IT'S.

IT'S BEEN A ROUGH MONTH ISH FOR THE BECK FAMILY.

MY SISTER IN LAW JUST PASSED AWAY FROM BREAST CANCER IN ABOUT A MONTH AGO.

MY MOTHER PASSED AWAY FROM BREAST CANCER.

SO I NOT ONLY WANT TO HONOR MY SISTER IN LAW AND HER PASSING AND BUT I ALSO WANT TO JUST STRONGLY ENCOURAGE EVERYONE WHO'S WATCHING THE VIDEO, EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE, PLEASE KEEP UP WITH YOUR SCREENINGS.

I'M REALLY TIRED OF LOSING FRIENDS AND FAMILY TO BREAST CANCER.

I'VE REALLY HAD ENOUGH.

SO PLEASE, PLEASE STAY UP WITH YOUR SCHEDULED MEDICAL EXAMS. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? MS.. CITY MANAGER.

MAYOR. I'LL BE OUT ON FRIDAY WITH SOME FAMILY FOR THE EASTER HOLIDAY.

WELL, JUST FOR EASTER.

OKAY. GOT IT.

AND I HAVE A FEW THINGS HERE TO CLOSE US OUT.

AS I MENTIONED, UNT'S EVENT IS TOMORROW AT NOON AT APOGEE STADIUM.

SO IF YOU WANT TO IF YOU'RE ABLE TO COME MEET THE NEW COACHES AND CELEBRATE WITH THE MEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM, GREAT.

TWU IS COMPETING IN THE COLLEGIATE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS, SO I WANT TO WISH THEM GOOD LUCK.

AND IF YOU GO TO ANY HOTELS LOCALLY, YOU'LL SEE SCHOOLS LIKE YALE AND ALL THESE OTHER SCHOOLS THAT ARE COMPETING AS WELL IN TOWN.

SO IT'S A GREAT ECONOMIC DRIVER FOR OUR COMMUNITY, GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR TEXAS WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY TO COMPETE FOR A NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP AGAIN.

AND THEN MARTIN LUTHER.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

REC CENTER THIS SATURDAY HAS A JOB FAIR.

THAT'S THE EIGHTH FROM 10 TO 12, I DO BELIEVE, AND JUST WANT TO RECOGNIZE WHAT IS A SIGNIFICANT WEEK.

HOLY WEEK GOOD FRIDAY COMING UP AND EASTER SUNDAY.

SO THOSE THAT CELEBRATE THOSE THINGS, I JUST ASK YOU TO REFLECT FONDLY ON THOSE THINGS AND FELLOWSHIP.

AND THAT'S ALWAYS IT'S AN IMPORTANT WEEK FOR THOSE THAT RECOGNIZE THAT.

THEN THE POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION TOMORROW IS GOING TO BE HAVING AN ACCREDITATION LUNCHEON WHERE THEY CAME AND TALKED ABOUT THE ACCREDITATION THEY RECEIVED.

SO I'M SO PROUD OF THEM.

SO I WANT TO THANK THEM AND FOR THE WORK THEY DO, AND I HOPE THAT GOES WELL.

AND THEN LASTLY, I JOINED PROBABLY A LOT OF US HERE ASKING PEOPLE TO MAKE A NOTE FOR THE LILAC, LILAC, MARIACHI AND FOLKLORICO.

I'M SURE I'M SAYING THAT WRONG.

MY DAUGHTER USED TO DANCE IN THE TWO, BUT ANYWAY, THEY'RE HAVING A SHOWCASE THIS SATURDAY.

THAT'S THE 15TH, 6 P.M.

AT T.W. CAMPUS.

SO PLEASE LOOK THAT UP.

YOU CAN GO TO THE LILAC PAGE FACEBOOK PAGE AND CHECK THAT OUT.

BUT A REALLY GREAT EVENT.

AND SO GO SUPPORT THOSE KIDS AND LEARN.

AND WITH THAT AT WHAT? OH YEAH. THERE IS A EASTER EGG HUNT THIS SATURDAY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS.

GO TO DENTON PARKS RECREATION.

THERE'S AN INSIDE JOKE.

JUST GOOGLE DENTON PARKS.

NO, IT'S SHOUT OUT TO DAVID GAINES.

BUT SO YES, IT'S ALL DAY, I DO BELIEVE SATURDAY HERE AT QUAKERTOWN PARK.

IS THAT RIGHT? NINE TO NOON.

SO PLEASE COME OUT AND ENJOY THAT TIME.

AND THANK YOU DENTON PARKS FOR FOR ALL YOU DO SO AT 853 WE'LL CONCLUDE TONIGHT'S MEETING.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.