[A. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding appointments to vacancies on City of Denton boards and commissions. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

ITEM A ID 232426 RECEIVE, REPORT, HOLD, DISCUSSION, GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING APPOINTMENTS TO VACANCIES ON CITY OF DENTON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD DEAL. I'M A LOT OF PRACTICE WITH THE ZOOM.

SO, I GOT IT RIGHT. I THINK MAYOR AND COUNCIL RYAN ADAMS CHIEF OF STAFF THIS IS A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON ESTABLISHING DEADLINES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES. LET'S GIVE A LITTLE BACKGROUND.

THIS STEMMED FROM A TWO-MINUTE PITCH FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE THAT REQUESTED THAT A TIME FRAME BE ESTABLISHED FOR INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINTMENTS.

BEAR WITH ME.

PARDON ME. GOT IT.

SORRY. AND IF HE LEAVES, DO WE LOSE QUORUM? NO. THERE'S FOUR OF US. KEEP GOING.

REQUESTED THAT THE PITCH REQUEST THAT A TIME FRAME BE ESTABLISHED FOR INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER NOMINATIONS TO BOARD AND COMMISSIONS BE ESTABLISHED.

AND THESE ARE FOR, THOSE INSTANCES WHERE A CERTAIN CHAIR OR A CERTAIN POSITION ON A BOARD OR COMMISSION, THAT NOMINATION IS DESIGNATED TO ONE SPECIFIC COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND IN THIS PITCH, IF AN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER NOMINATION WAS NOT MADE BY A CERTAIN DEADLINE, THE COUNCIL, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A NOMINATION. THAT PITCH RECEIVED DIRECTION TO PROCEED.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

SO, WE DO WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF MAKING THIS CHANGE.

PARTICULARLY THERE WOULD BE SOME ADDITIONAL STAFF HOURS NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THIS.

THOSE WOULD BE, TIED TO MANAGING THE VARIOUS MEMBER SPECIFIC DEADLINES.

SO, IF WE'RE TRACKING DEADLINES ACROSS ALL THE VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSION MEMBERS, IF THEY ARE TIED TO A SPECIFIC MEMBER.

SO, A SPECIFIC MEMBER HAS A SPECIFIC DEADLINE THAT'S OVER 100 DIFFERENT DEADLINES, STAFF WOULD HAVE TO TRACK.

AND THEN THIS WOULD ALSO ENTAIL A LOT OF COMMUNICATIONS, THAN WE CURRENTLY DO, SUCH AS COMMUNICATIONS TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS REMINDING THEM OF APPROACHING DEADLINES.

THERE WOULD BE MULTIPLE ONES OF THOSE.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE A NEED TO DO.

AND THEN ALSO NOTIFICATIONS TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS WHEN APPOINTMENTS ARE OPEN DUE TO A DEADLINE PASSING.

SO, THERE IS POTENTIAL WITH THIS CONCEPT FOR REDUCED LONG TERM VACANCIES TO HOLDOVERS.

STAFF CANNOT SAY FOR CERTAIN HOW MUCH THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED.

WE CAN SHARE THAT AS OF JUNE.

PARDON ME, JANUARY 2ND.

SO, ABOUT A WEEK AGO, THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 15 VACANCIES AND 40 MEMBERS IN HOLDOVER POSITIONS.

AND JUST AS A REMINDER, A HOLDOVER MEMBER IS SOMEONE WHOSE TERM HAS EXPIRED.

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN REAPPOINTED AND A REPLACEMENT HAS NOT BEEN APPOINTED.

SO, THEY CONTINUE TO SERVE AS A HOLDOVER SO THAT THE BOARD OR COMMISSION CAN CONTINUE TO CONDUCT ITS BUSINESS.

SO, IF A DEADLINE IS DESIRED AND STAFF RECEIVES THE DIRECTION TO ESTABLISH A DEADLINE AND BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A VOTE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT WE ESTABLISH A STANDARD DEADLINE ACROSS ALL VACANCIES.

THAT COULD BE AT THE END OF A MEMBER TERM, WHICH IS AUGUST 31ST EVERY YEAR.

THOSE ARE WHEN, TERMS END OR SOME OTHER FIXED DATE AFTER AUGUST 31ST.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, 60 DAYS AFTER AUGUST 31ST IS A DEADLINE WHEN ALL OF THOSE VACANCIES NEED TO BE RECEIVED BEFORE IT IS OPENED UP FOR THE ENTIRE COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT A NOMINATION FOR UNEXPECTED VACANCIES, SUCH AS A RESIGNATION OR REMOVAL.

THAT COULD BE SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS 60 TO 90 DAYS FROM THE NOTICE OF THAT VACANCY.

HAVING A STANDARD DEADLINE, SOMETHING THAT APPLIES TO ALL OF THE VACANCIES THAT ARE EXPECTED AND SOMETHING THAT APPLIES TO ALL THE VACANCIES THAT ARE UNEXPECTED WOULD REALLY REDUCE THAT STAFF TIME IN MANAGING COORDINATING THOSE DEADLINES.

SO, WHAT STAFF IS LOOKING FOR TODAY IS DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL.

DOES COUNCIL WANT TO ESTABLISH A DEADLINE, AND IF SO, STAFF WOULD LIKE DIRECTION ON WHETHER TO IMPLEMENT A STANDARD DEADLINE FOR THOSE END OF TERM VACANCIES AND A SEPARATE STANDARD DEADLINE FOR THE UNEXPECTED VACANCIES AND STAFFS.

[00:05:03]

NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO BRING FORWARD AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD UPDATE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND POTENTIALLY, SOME OF THE ENABLING ORDINANCES EXISTING FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND STAFF IS, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

AND I'LL STOP SHARING MY SCREEN SO EVERYONE CAN SEE.

GOT IT. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

ANY QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE.

THEN I WILL.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

HAS THE HAS THE SYSTEM BEEN, DIFFICULT TO COORDINATE UP TO THIS POINT FOR FILLING VACANCIES? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, FOR THE STAFFS TIME, I WOULD SAY THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE SYSTEM MORE EFFICIENT.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING STAFF IS EXPLORING.

IF THERE TYPICALLY IS A CHALLENGE IN FILLING THOSE VACANCIES, IT IS FROM STAFF NOT RECEIVING NOMINATIONS FROM COUNCIL.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILMAN. MAYOR PRO TEM AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO, ANECDOTALLY, IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT COMMISSIONS, AND STUFF SEEM TO FAIL.

FROM LACK OF NOMINEES.

BUT I GUESS MY QUESTION TO YOU, RYAN, IS, OR MAYBE THIS IS A JESSE QUESTION, BUT I GUESS YOU'RE FIELDING THOSE.

BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS THE PRACTICE THAT, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE TIMES A YEAR.

THE, THE VACANCIES, WERE PUT INTO BINDERS OR PDFS.

NOW THAT WE'VE KIND OF MOVED FORWARD IN TIME AND THE APPLICANTS, ALL THESE SORTS OF EXISTING VACANCIES AND BINDERS AND WHO APPOINTED WHOM AND WHAT THEIR TIME FRAME WAS, WAS ALREADY DONE MULTIPLE TIMES A YEAR.

SO, I CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THAT EFFORT? AND THE ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME THAT THAT WAS PUT UNDER OPERATIONAL IMPACTS.

I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING.

SURE, SIR. SO, THE ONE THING THAT THAT WE WOULD DO UNDER THIS CONCEPT THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY DO IS TRACK THOSE DEADLINES.

SO RIGHT NOW, IF A, SAY, A TERM MEMBER, A TERM ENDS FOR A MEMBER, THEY GO INTO A HOLDOVER POSITION AND THEY CONTINUE IN THAT CAPACITY, ESSENTIALLY ONGOING UNTIL THEY ARE EITHER RENOMINATED OR REPLACED.

NOW STAFF WOULD HAVE TO TRACK, OKAY, WHEN DO THEY GO OUT OR WHEN DO THEY BECOME, A HOLDOVER? WHEN DID THE TERM END? AND THEN WE NEED TO TRACK NOT ONLY WHEN THAT DEADLINE THAT COUNCIL ESTABLISHED.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, IF THAT IS SOMEONE THAT TYPICALLY IS NOMINATED BY DISTRICT TWO.

SO, MAYOR PRO TEM HAS 90 DAYS FROM THE END OF TERM TO MAKE HIS NOMINATION.

SO NOW WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE TIMELY REMINDERS TO MAYOR PRO TEM SO HE CAN MAKE THAT NOMINATION BEFORE THE DEADLINE.

AND WE TRY TO DO THAT TO HELP THE COUNCIL MEMBERS OUT SO THAT THEY KNOW, HEY, YOU HAVE TWO WEEKS FROM THE DEADLINE OR A MONTH FROM THE DEADLINE, OR IT WOULD LIKELY BE MULTIPLE COMMUNICATIONS. AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TRACK ACROSS THE BOARD, WHICH IS WHY WE WERE ADVOCATING FOR SOME STANDARDIZATION OF THAT DEADLINE, BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE MORE COMPRESSED AND MORE COMMUNICATIONS BOTH.

NO, I SEE THE DISTINCTION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RAISE.

I DO NOTE THAT HOLDOVER STATUS AND START AND END TIMES HAD ALWAYS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SUPPLIED TO US IN OUR PACKETS.

SO, AS WELL AS YOU CAN GO LOOK ONLINE FOR MOST OF THAT INFORMATION AS WELL.

SO, I DO THINK IT MIGHT BE EFFICIENT TO HAVE, THIS IS AN APPOINTMENT TIME, AND THIS IS THE REMINDER MONTH X DAYS LATER, I COULD SEE THE VALUE OF THAT.

YEAH, I'M LEADING WITH, I LIKE BOTH OPTION ONES.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LEANING WITH RIGHT NOW.

I'LL PASS THE BATON TO OTHER QUESTIONS BECAUSE COUNCILMAN MCGEE. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO, BE REMINDED AS A COUNCIL THAT IT'S OUR JOB TO ENCOURAGE OUR CITIZENS TO BECOME A PART OF THE PROCESS.

AND SO, I'M GOING TO CHARGE US WITH THAT, TOO, YOU KNOW, KEEP A REMINDER OUT THERE TO OUR CITIZENS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY EMAIL US, THEY CALL US, THEY DO EVERYTHING ELSE.

YOU KNOW, SHORT OF BEING A PART OF THE PROCESS.

SO, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT I DO A BETTER JOB WITH THAT.

BUT OF COURSE, I'M ENCOURAGING EVERYONE TO GO ONLINE AND FILL OUT THE FORM, FIRST OF ALL, AND I PERSONALLY HAVEN'T

[00:10:07]

HAD AN ISSUE IN REGARD TO YOU ALL LETTING US KNOW, YOU KNOW THAT IT'S TIME FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE, AND YOU ALL GIVE US A STATEMENT AS TO WHO'S YOU KNOW, WHAT'S MISSING.

SO THAT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL.

AND IT'S ALWAYS, VERY HELPFUL WHEN WE CAN LOOK AT THAT.

WHAT, DR.

BECK HAS SPOKEN OF AND GO DOWN THE LIST AND YOU ALL HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IN THAT MANNER.

SO JUST SAYING THAT THOSE KINDS OF THINGS NEED TO COME TO A CROSSROADS AND, AND BE ELEVATED, BUT ALSO, YES, THERE NEEDS TO BE A TIMELINE.

I'M IN AGREEMENT. I CERTAINLY WOULD ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF YOU ALL TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE US A TIMELINE, PUT A BIT MORE PRESSURE ON US TO PERFORM AS COUNSELORS. AND JUST KEEP TALKING ABOUT BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

WE WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, WHICH I AM GOING TO SAY THAT I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH IN ALLOWING A BROADER SPECTRUM OF FOLKS TO BE ABLE TO GET ON THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

I DIDN'T APPRECIATE THAT VOTE, BUT IT IS, THAT WAS A TIME WHEN WE WERE STRESSED TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE TO BE A PART OF THIS PROCESS.

SO, AS YOU ALL ARE LOOKING ON AND HEARING OUT, NOW IS YOUR TIME TO GO ON THE WEBSITE AND GO TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND COMMIT YOURSELF TO BEING PART OF SOMETHING POSITIVE SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN A IN A COMMUNITY TYPE WAY.

SO, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANYONE ELSE.

COUNCILWOMAN. YEAH.

I WOULD, FIRST SAY I THINK THIS IS A GOOD FIX.

YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER OF VACANCIES AND HOLDOVERS.

I THINK GOD DOES SUGGEST THAT A PROCESS IMPROVEMENT IS WORTH TRYING.

AND I WOULD ALSO AGREE THAT 90 DAYS FEELS LIKE PRETTY GENEROUS.

IT TAKES LONGER THAN PEOPLE MIGHT REALIZE TO FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE.

YOU KNOW, IN SOME WAY QUALIFIED AND INTERESTED AND WILLING AND ABLE.

SO, IT DOES TAKE SOME TIME.

BUT I THINK 90 DAYS, IS, IS A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME.

AND THEN THE IDEA THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A FORCE MULTIPLIER, YOU KNOW, AND HAVING OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HELP OUT, I THINK IS, IS A GOOD IDEA.

AND I'D SAY WHATEVER KEEPS IT MOST EXECUTABLE BY STAFF, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE THE PLACE TO START.

SO, I THINK THE IDEA OF A COMMON DATE, YOU KNOW, AFTER EXPIRATION OR AFTER TERM EXPIRATIONS IS GOOD.

I WAS ACTUALLY THINKING WHILE LISTENING THAT.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU'D WANT IT TO BE 90 DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THE TERM END.

ALTHOUGH, YOU KNOW, YOU DO HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE NEW MEMBERS COMING ON, TO COUNCIL WHO, YOU KNOW, WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACT.

SO, JUST IN THE INTEREST OF KEEPING IT ALL ON THE SAME DATE, I WOULD ENDORSE THE, YOU KNOW, THE COMMON DATE POST TERM END FOR THE TRANSITION. ANYONE ELSE.

SO THAT'S.

COUNCILWOMAN. YEAH, I, IF IT GETS EXTENDED TO 90, I MIGHT COULD GET ON BOARD.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF CHECK AND BALANCE THAT IF, THOSE 90 DAYS EXPIRE, THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE 1 OR 2 COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO BASICALLY WAIT AND KIND OF STACK THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS ON IF THAT DOES OCCUR, THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ONLY A CERTAIN NUMBER OF APPOINTEES THAT THEY CAN MAKE UNDER THAT RULE.

SO, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WAITING FOR 90 DAYS.

SO, I THOUGHT THIS PITCH ORIGINALLY WAS FOR VACANCIES, BUT NOW IT'S APPARENTLY MORPHED INTO ALSO HOLDOVERS.

IS THAT CORRECT? IT HAS. AND WITH WITH OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS ESSENTIALLY A VACANCY IN ANOTHER TERM.

THERE'S NO ONE OCCUPYING THAT SEAT FOR THE CURRENT TERM.

WE SIMPLY HAVE A HOLDOVER COMING OVER AND SOMEONE IS REMAINING IN THAT SEAT BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN NO NO ONE TO TO BE RENOMINATED OR TO FILL WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE CURRENT TERM.

HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IS SOMETHING NEW THAN WHAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE TWO MINUTE PITCH, BASED UPON THIS SORT OF NUANCED ARGUMENT OF IT IS VACANT. IT'S JUST GOT SOMEBODY SITTING IN THERE BECAUSE OF A HOLDOVER.

IS THAT WHAT IS THAT WHAT I HEARD WE CONSIDER THEM ONE AND THE SAME.

OKAY. AND WHEN WOULD THIS TAKE EFFECT?

[00:15:05]

SO, WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND BRING AN ORDINANCE BACK TO COUNCIL.

SO THAT WOULD GENERALLY TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY.

AND SO, DEPENDING ON HOW WE STRUCTURE WHAT DIRECTION WE GET, IT MAY NOT TAKE EFFECT IN ANY PRACTICAL WAY UNTIL PERHAPS TERMS END IN NEXT AUGUST, UNLESS THERE'S AN UNANTICIPATED VACANCY.

YEAH. YEAH, I THINK WE CERTAINLY CAN'T MAKE THIS RETROACTIVE.

ALL RIGHT. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, ONCE IT BECOMES ACTIVE, IF SOMEBODY'S GOT A VACANCY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE 60 DAYS IS UP OR THE 90 DAYS OR IT STARTS TO. I MEAN, WE NEED TO HAVE A HARD START DATE, WHICH TYPICALLY WOULD BE WHEN ALL THOSE NEW TERMS ARE COMING UP.

SO, THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

ANYONE ELSE.

OKAY. SO, COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. AS YOU ALL KNOW, THIS WAS THIS WAS MY PITCH.

AND I APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER WATTS BRINGING THAT UP.

WHEN I MADE THE PITCH, I DID NOT INTEND FOR THIS TO INCLUDE HOLDOVERS.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT STAFF DID AND I'M OKAY WITH IT.

BUT JUST SO IT SAID, I WASN'T TRYING TO GO AFTER ANYONE WHO HAD A WHO HAD A HOLD OVER.

SO JUST TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.

I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THAT STAFF HAS DONE ON THIS.

AND I DID NOT WHEN I MADE THIS PITCH, I DID NOT NECESSARILY, AS I SAID, HAVE HARD LIMITS, DEADLINES IN LINE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I JUST WANTED TO START THE CONVERSATION.

SO, I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO YOU ALL AND GET YOUR FEEDBACK.

FOR UNIFORMITY'S SAKE, BECAUSE I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER MELTZER, AND COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS, I LIKE OPTION ONE.

AUGUST 31ST END OF THE TERM.

AND I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO GO WITH OPTION ONE AS WELL.

60 DAYS. BUT, MAYOR, JUST SO YOU'RE PUTTING ME DOWN, FOR THE FOR THE DAYS OF REMOVAL.

I'M FLEXIBLE. WHICHEVER YOU NEED ME TO BE TO MAKE THE MAJORITY OPINION I'M OKAY WITH THE SECOND PART, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

ALL RIGHT. YEAH, IT DOES.

I'M NOT TRACKING IT.

THERE'RE TOO MANY MOVING PARTS FOR ME TO TRACK.

SO, STAFF'S TRACKING I PRESUME.

SO, I'M AUGUST 31ST AND THEN I'M EITHER 60 OR 90, WHICHEVER YOU NEED IN ORDER TO GET THE DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE NOW? YEAH. SO, ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO, COUNCILWOMAN.

WHAT'S. YEAH.

AND THIS IS JUST A COMMENT.

I MEAN, I'M A HARD 90 DAYS BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF THEM COMING UP.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE PEOPLE ARE JUST, YOU KNOW, JUMPING OVER THE FENCES TO GET ON THESE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

BUT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMETHING.

AND CONCERN MAY BE TOO STRONG OF A WORD.

THE TWO-MINUTE PITCH WAS FOR VACANCIES.

AND WHAT I JUST HEARD IS THAT SOMEHOW.

AND IT'S NOTHING AGAINST STAFF.

NOTHING AGAINST YOU, RYAN, OR CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY MANAGER.

BUT I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE KNOWN AHEAD OF TIME.

AND MAYBE IT IS IN THE REPORT THAT I READ, AND I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT, BUT SO WE'VE, WE'VE MODIFIED IT TO INCLUDE HOLDOVERS.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE REASON WHY AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT THAT WASN'T THE ORIGINAL PITCH FOR THE DISCUSSION.

SO, COULD SOMEBODY JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT CHANGE, OR POSITION WAS MODIFIED? IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL JUST GO BACK TO THE PITCH BECAUSE IT WAS ON NOVEMBER 7TH AND IT SAID, I PROPOSE A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME FOR INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS TO NOMINATE PUBLIC MEMBERS TO EXPIRED TERM LIMITED OR VACANT POSITIONS.

OKAY, I APOLOGIZE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

I APPRECIATE THAT. IF YOU ALL, FOR THE SAKE OF BRINGING EVERYBODY TOGETHER, IF YOU ALL WANT TO TAKE OUT THE VACANCIES, I'M VERY OPEN TO THAT.

I APPRECIATE COUNCILOR WATSON.

I'M VERY OKAY WITH 90 DAYS, WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO ALL MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER IF WE WANT TO TAKE OUT THE HOLDOVER TERMS. I AM FINE WITH THAT.

SO, SOMEONE WANTS TO GIVE THAT DIRECTION.

I'M GOOD.

COUNCILWOMAN BYRD.

WHEN I THINK OF A PERSON THAT'S HELD OVER, THEY'RE DOING IT VOLUNTARILY AND THEY'RE NOT THERE.

[00:20:01]

THERE THEY ARE.

THEY'RE HOLDING A VACANT SEAT.

THEY CAN LEAVE THE ROOM AT ANY TIME.

THEY CAN SAY, I'M DONE, AND THEN THEY'RE DONE AND IT'S STILL VACANT.

BUT NOW THE QUESTION BECOMES, WHAT IS THEIR ROLE AS A HOLDOVER? ARE THEY STILL VOTING OR ARE THEY STILL ACTIVE, OR ARE THEY? SO, THERE IS A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN A HOLDOVER AND A VACANCY.

RIGHT. OR I'M UNDERSTANDING IT'S ALL ONE AND THE SAME.

YEAH. AND STAFF WE TREAT THEM VERY SIMILARLY.

YES. A HOLDOVER IS SOMEONE WHOSE TERM HAS ENDED.

SO, THEY'RE WHAT THEY SIGN UP FOR HAS CONCLUDED.

HOWEVER, THERE HAS BEEN NO ONE NOMINATED OR APPROVED APPOINTED TO TAKE THEIR PLACE ON THE BOARD, SO THEY CONTINUE TO SERVE IN THAT CAPACITY UNTIL SOMEONE IS NOMINATED OR THEY THEMSELVES, IF THEY ARE ELIGIBLE, ARE RENOMINATED FOR THAT NEW TERM.

SO THAT TERM IS THERE'S NO ONE BEEN APPOINTED.

NO ONE HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO THAT TERM.

SO, THEY CONTINUE TO JUST SERVE SO THAT THE COMMITTEE MAY CONTINUE TO DO ITS BUSINESS.

SO, IN MY MIND, I CAN COMPREHEND THAT ALTHOUGH WE DO KNOW WHAT IT'S A VACANCY, BUT IT JUST DOESN'T ACT LIKE ONE.

SO THEREFORE, IT'S DIFFERENT.

IT IS. AND SO, NOW WE CAN COME BACK TO CONCLUDE, COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCT THAT IS REALLY NOT A VACANCY, ALTHOUGH WE REALLY ARE KIND OF WANTING IT TO BE.

SO, THERE'S SOME CLOUDS IN THAT I THINK THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CLEAR UP AND CLEAN UP.

AND SO, WITH MCGEE SAYING, HEY, IF WE NEED TO TAKE VACANCY TOTALLY OUT, WHICH IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, IS VACANCIES, RIGHT? SO, SO THAT NEEDS TO STAY IN, BUT MAYBE JUST TAKE OUT THE TERM HOLDOVER OR CLEARLY DEFINE IT AS A VACANCY.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE TO HAVE TO DO IS TO CONNECT HOLDOVER TO VACANCY, WHICH RIGHT NOW, APPARENTLY, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

SO, WITH THAT.

SO, MAYOR, YOU KNOW, IF NOTHING ELSE, JUST PUT ME DOWN FOR, OPTION ONE.

I DON'T THINK I SAID THAT THE LAST TIME AND THEN 90 DAYS, BECAUSE IT IS FAIRLY DIFFICULT TO FIND SOMEONE FOR CERTAIN POSITIONS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? MAYOR PRO TEM. YEAH, JUST KEEPING TRACK.

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH STAFF'S INTERPRETATION THAT.

YOU KNOW A HOLDOVER IS SOMETHING YOU DO WHILE THERE IS A VACANCY, AND THERE HAPPENS TO BE SOMEBODY WHO CAN KIND OF, SERVE UNTIL, SOMEONE IS PROPERLY APPOINTED ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS.

SO, THAT'S WHERE I'M ON THAT.

HOWEVER, I'M INTRIGUED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WATT'S CONCERN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU DON'T LET ONE COUNCIL MEMBER KIND OF MONOPOLIZE ALL THE APPOINTMENTS.

AND I WAS KIND OF HOPING I WOULD HEAR A PROPOSAL AND I WOULD JUST, INDICATE THAT I'M.

I'M INTERESTED AND WOULD BE OPEN TO CONSIDERING ONE.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YEAH.

I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S CONCILIATORY TONE AND HOW EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO WORK TO CONSENSUS.

I'M A LITTLE WORRIED THAT WE'RE CREATING, YOU KNOW, OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS.

I MEAN, A HOLDOVER IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S A DE FACTO VACANCY.

AND I'M WORRIED THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CREATING NUANCE WHERE THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A DISTINCTION OF NUANCE.

AND UNLESS, YOU KNOW, IF THE BODY WANTS TO DO THAT, THEY CAN DO THAT.

BUT, FOR ME, I DON'T SEE A DISTINCTION FOR, OR I DON'T SEE A REASON TO MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN, ONE AND THE OTHER, ESPECIALLY GIVEN, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE I'M HEARING, YOU KNOW, MORE PEOPLE GOING FOR 90 DAYS.

THAT SHOULD BE LOTS OF TIME TO RECTIFY, ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

I WAS, I WAS FOR OPTION ONE, 60 DAYS.

I, I'M OPEN TO, SOME SORT OF, I TAKE COUNCILOR WATTS'S POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT YOU DON'T WANT

[00:25:10]

TO NECESSARILY DOMINATE EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME.

SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT RULE WOULD BE.

BUT I AM OPEN TO AN ADDITIONAL RULE IN THE FUTURE THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN ONLY MAKE SO MANY, POST 60- OR 90-DAY OPEN NOMINATION KIND OF THINGS.

THAT THAT SOUNDS FAIRLY REASONABLE TO ME.

SO, THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN WATTS? I WOULD, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF NUMBER IT'D BE.

I JUST SAY, STARTING OUT, I THINK TWO NOMINEES, WOULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT IF IT GOT TO BE WHERE THERE WERE SO MANY.

THERE WERE SO MANY SEATS THAT THAT, VIOLATED THE 90-DAY RULE.

YOU MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT IT, BUT I THINK THAT THIS WILL MOTIVATE PEOPLE.

AND I ADMIT, I MEAN, I'VE PROBABLY BEEN ONE OF THE WORST OFFENDERS JUST BECAUSE OF CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU KNOW, I THINK I'VE GOT MOST OF MINE CAUGHT UP, BUT I HAVE A HOLDOVER THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST 2 OR 3 YEARS, SO I'M CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO DENY THAT.

I'VE NOT, BEEN AS DILIGENT ON THAT AS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

BUT I DO THINK THAT THIS WILL, YOU KNOW, MOTIVATE PEOPLE TO GET OUT THERE, GET IT DONE.

AND THEN IF THEY COME UP AND, YOU KNOW, IF COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO DO IT, I THINK WE NEED SOME NUMBER.

AND I WOULD THROW OUT TWO.

THAT'S JUST PICKING IT OUT OF THE AIR.

SO. AND THEN IF IT SEEMS THAT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S STILL AN ISSUE.

SUBSEQUENT COUNCILS CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND MODIFY THAT.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN MCGEE.

I APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS.

I'LL COSIGN ON TWO.

I'LL COSIGN TWO. AND JUST TO ADD AGAIN, I MISSPOKE WHEN I ORIGINALLY MADE THE PITCH.

IT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO COME AFTER YOUR PARTICULAR HOLDOVER, JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE.

SO, I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT I'M TRYING TO.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT.

SO, I GUESS IF THERE'S AGREEMENT, I'LL GO WITH HIM ON HIS NUMBER OF TWO.

SO. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILWOMAN. YEAH, I'LL GO ALONG WITH TWO.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TRY THIS OUT IF, THERE'S A SUFFICIENT AGREEMENT AND, IF IT NEEDS FURTHER ADJUSTMENT IN THE FUTURE, WE COULD DO THAT.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. THEN I'M GOING TO CLOSE OUT.

SO, IF YOU IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, GET IT IN.

NO SUDDEN MOVEMENTS.

MY CONCERN IS THIS THE GOAL IS TO ENHANCE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE NOMINATION PROCESS.

AND. I NEED TO UNDERSTAND.

IF SOMEONE IS.

WELL, FIRST, JUST THE IDEA OF 50 PEOPLE.

BEING REPLACED.

OR EVEN THE 15, RIGHT? HOW MUCH TIME DOES IT TAKE THE VET PER PERSON? JESSE, YOU MAY.

LESS THAN A WEEK.

BUT THAT'S NOT A WEEK OF STAFF TIME FOR ONE PERSON.

IT JUST THAT'S THE TIMELINE.

USUALLY IF WE START VETTING, SAY, ON A MONDAY, WE CAN USUALLY HAVE IT WRAPPED UP BY A FRIDAY.

EXCUSE ME. AND THAT HAPPENS QUITE A BIT IN THE SUMMER BECAUSE THAT IS WHEN WE DO SEE THE MOST TURNOVER.

AND SO, WE DO QUITE A BIT OF VETTING DURING THE SUMMER.

AND WE EXPECT THAT WE KNOW THAT THAT'S COMING.

SO THAT'S A WEEK FOR A, SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE OR ONE PERSON A WEEK FOR SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE COULD IF WE HAD, FOR INSTANCE, TEN NOMINATIONS THAT WE START THE VETTING PROCESS ON MONDAY, WE GENERALLY CAN CONCLUDE THAT, SAY, BY FRIDAY OR THE NEXT MONDAY FOR ALL TEN.

OKAY. AND THEN THERE'S BEEN NO DISCUSSION.

AND THIS HAPPENED JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO.

A NOMINATION IS MADE.

IT'S VOTED DOWN.

THAT CREATES A VACANCY.

THAT VACANCY IS TREATED LIKE ANY OTHER VACANCY.

SO, IF YOU HAVE A NOMINATION THAT'S MADE FOR IT, WOULD THERE ALREADY WOULD BE EITHER A VACANCY ALREADY EXISTING OR IT WOULD BE A HOLDOVER POSITION THAT THE NOMINATION WAS MADE.

SO, IF THAT NOMINATION IS VOTED DOWN, EITHER THE VACANCY THAT ALREADY EXISTED WOULD CONTINUE TO PERSIST, OR THE HOLDOVER PERSON WHO IS IN THAT

[00:30:05]

HOLDOVER POSITION WOULD CONTINUE TO SERVE UNTIL SOMEONE IS APPOINTED BY COUNCIL.

BUT THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT YOU MAKE A NOMINATION.

THAT IS WHAT I BELIEVE THE DIRECTION WE'VE RECEIVED IS RIGHT.

SO, DO YOU FULFILL THAT OR BY PROXY? BY A RESULT OF A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE NOT WANTING YOU TO FEEL THAT IT MAINTAINS CLOCK STARTS OR HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT? SO, I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE BECAUSE THE LETTER OF THE ORDINANCE HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED YET.

BUT IF COUNCIL'S DIRECTION IS THAT A NOMINATION MUST BE MADE BY A CERTAIN DATE AND THAT PERSON COUNCIL MEMBER MAKES THAT NOMINATION, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR MACK IF YOU WANT TO CHIME IN, BUT THAT APPEARS THAT THAT WOULD FULFILL THE REQUIREMENT THAT COUNCIL IS PLACING ON ITSELF.

OKAY. AND THEN, IT HADN'T BEEN TALKED ABOUT. IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT GENERALLY AND I JUST ASK YOU ABOUT IT.

BUT JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

SO, THE JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME TIME TO BE DETERMINED THAT WOULD LET'S SAY WHATEVER 90 DAYS.

THAT'S. THAT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR.

I SENT THE EMAIL, AND THEY DIDN'T GET IT.

RIGHT OR HOW WILL STAFF HANDLE? BECAUSE WHAT YOU'LL HAVE IS MULTIPLE NOMINATIONS, RIGHT? IF I IF I THINK THERE'S A GAP, THERE'S A MISSED EMAIL, THERE'S A MISPLACED POST-IT NOTE.

I DIDN'T TELL THEM I CALLED IN.

THEY DIDN'T GET THE MESSAGE.

IT HAPPENS. RIGHT.

IT'S, WE GOT 1800 EMPLOYEES.

RIGHT. AND SO THINGS GET MISSED I.

NOW YOU HAVE MULTIPLE NOMINATIONS.

HOW DO YOU ANTICIPATE OR WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT? BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS THIS.

THERE'S, I HADN'T BEEN TRACKING, BUT THERE'S SOME MAJORITY THAT SUPPORTS THE GENERAL IDEA.

BUT I CAN'T GET BEHIND THE IDEA BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

RIGHT. THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS.

I JUST CAN'T GET ON BOARD WITH SOMETHING THAT'S THAT.

AND I'M JUST NOT WILLING TO SIGN A BLANK CHECK.

SO, THAT'S MY HANG UP.

SO, I'LL TAKE IT THAT THAT'S NOT, YOU'RE NOT AT THAT PROCESS, I GUESS SO, YEAH, I JUST THEY HAVE A LOT MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS.

SO, FOR ME, I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE.

NOT BECAUSE I DON'T SUPPORT THE IDEA.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU HANDLE THE 15 VACANCIES CURRENTLY.

RIGHT. ARE THOSE? HOW DO YOU HANDLE THOSE? ARE THOSE FAIR GAME? THEY'RE NOT FAIR GAME. I JUST THERE'S SO MANY MOVING PARTS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN VETTED, THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A DISCUSSION.

I'LL JUST SKIP TO THE END.

I MY PREFERENCE MACK IS THAT YOU DO NOT WRITE THIS.

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SEMBLANCE OF THE REQUESTER AND OR SOME SUBCOMMITTEE OF THIS BODY TO WRITE THIS.

IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD LEGAL BLINDLY WRITE THINGS, AND THEN, IT DOESN'T CAPTURE THE INTENT, OR THE INTENT GETS MOVED OR ALL THOSE THINGS. SO, I JUST THERE NEED TO BE SOME SUBSET OF THOSE THAT ARE IN SUPPORT TO THEN MEET WITH STAFF AND CREATE THIS ORDINANCE VERSUS, HEY, LEGAL, YOU HEARD A, YOU KNOW, HOUR LONG CONVERSATION DID BOIL THAT DOWN TO SOMETHING THAT THEN, YOU KNOW, GOES FORWARD.

SO, I JUST, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, AND I'LL LEAVE THAT TO STAFF TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS.

BUT I WANT TO HAVE A CLEAR RECORD THAT I DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT STATUS QUO OF A GENERAL CONVERSATION THAT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE THAT NO ONE KNOWS. IF I ASK YOU TO SUMMARIZE WHAT'S BEEN SAID RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, YOU YOU'LL GET CLOSE.

CERTAINLY. BUT BUT THERE'S NUANCE, RIGHT.

AND SO, I NOT TAKING A FOR OR AGAINST POSITION.

I'M TAKING A POSITION THAT THIS IS NOT RIPE FOR ANY MOVEMENT BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEEN, IT HADN'T BEEN PRESSURE TESTED.

IT'S JUST QUICK TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND SO, WITH THAT, SO ANYWAY, I'LL LEAVE STAFF TO COME BACK WITH WHATEVER YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE EVERY, ALL INFORMATION YOU NEED.

I BELIEVE SO, YES, SIR. OKAY.

GREAT. THAT CONCLUDES THAT ITEM TAKES US TO ITEM B ID 232425.

[B. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding a future charter amendment election. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 45 minutes]]

RECEIVE REPORT HOLD DISCUSSION.

GIVE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING A FUTURE CHARTER AMENDMENT.

ELECTION. OKAY.

MAYOR, COUNCIL, RYAN ADAMS, CHIEF OF STAFF.

LET ME PULL THIS PRESENTATION UP.

THERE IT GOES. SO, THIS IS A FOLLOW UP CONVERSATION FROM, I BELIEVE, A MEETING OR TWO AGO REGARDING A FUTURE CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION.

[00:35:02]

I JUST WANTED TO COME OUT UP FRONT WITH COUNCIL JUST TO SHARE THE OBJECTIVES FOR THE PRESENTATION.

WE DID RECEIVE DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CHARTER AMENDMENT ELECTION BACK ON DECEMBER 5TH.

AND TODAY WE'RE REQUESTING DIRECTION ON THE GENERAL TIMELINE FOR THAT PROCESS AND THE SIZE OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE.

AND WE ANTICIPATE THAT SPECIFIC CHARGES, WHAT MAY BE INCLUDED IN A CHARGE TO, THE REVIEW COMMITTEE WOULD BE DISCUSSED IN FOLLOWING WORK SESSIONS.

SO JUST A REMINDER FOR COUNCIL, THIS IS WHAT WE SHOWED AT THE LAST MEETING, A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE CHARTER REVIEW AND AMENDMENT PROCESS.

WE'LL TRY THAT AGAIN.

WE ARE STILL AT THE VERY BEGINNING, INITIATING, GETTING DIRECTION, BEFORE COUNCIL DEVELOPS A CHARGE, INITIATES THE COMMITTEE PROCESS, AND THEN REVIEWS THE COMMITTEE DECISION. SO, WE DID PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON TIMELINE ALTERNATIVES.

AND I HAVE A SLIDE RIGHT AFTER THIS THAT SHOWS MORE DETAIL THAN WHAT YOU SEE HERE.

SO, THE TWO OPTIONS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO COUNCIL WERE A MAY 2025 ELECTION, WHICH IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND A NOVEMBER 2024 ELECTION.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BECAUSE THIS MAY 2025 ELECTION DOES PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT TIMELINE FLEXIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS, ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS, UNANTICIPATED THINGS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT COME UP.

IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR AN ADDITIONAL MONTH OF AN INFORMATION CAMPAIGN, AND I WILL SHOW THAT IN THE NEXT SLIDE.

AND WHILE THIS IS NOT YET KNOWN, IT COULD SUPPORT A SCOPE OF FIVE OR MORE POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS THAT COULD BE CHARGED TO THE COMMITTEE.

AS YOU CAN GUESS, MORE CHARGES TO THE COMMITTEE.

MORE THINGS FOR THEM TO DISCUSS WILL REQUIRE MORE MEETINGS FOR THE COMMITTEE.

BY CONTRAST, STAFF FEELS THAT A NOVEMBER 2024 ELECTION WOULD NOT PROVIDE A WHOLE LOT IN THE WAY OF FLEXIBILITY FOR UNANTICIPATED, ISSUES THAT MAY COME UP.

THERE WOULD BE ABOUT TWO DATES TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT CHARGES BEFORE AN ELECTION HAS TO BE.

OR, PARDON ME, BEFORE A COMMITTEE SHOULD BE FORMED.

AND THE COMMITTEE TERMS WE MENTIONED THIS LAST TIME, THE COMMITTEE MEMBER TERMS WOULD NOT ALIGN NECESSARILY WITH COUNCIL MEMBER TERMS. SO A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO MAKES AN APPOINTMENT IN THE SPRING POTENTIALLY COULD NOT BE ON COUNCIL, BY THE TIME THE SUMMER COMES AROUND OR THE FALL COMES AROUND.

ONE BIG THING WITH A NOVEMBER 2024 ELECTION IS THAT THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF STAFF WORK FOR SUPPORTING THE COMMITTEE COINCIDES WITH A LOT OF SIGNIFICANT STAFF WORK WITH THE BUDGET PROCESS, AND THAT WOULD BE A VERY HEAVY LIFT FOR STAFF.

AND IT COULD LIMIT THE SCOPE OF POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO 3 TO 5 ITEMS. AND THAT IS PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE ARE LIMITED TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS WITH THE NOVEMBER 2024 ELECTION.

SO, I DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THESE TIMELINES.

I WILL PAUSE HERE TO LET YOU LOOK OVER IT, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN 2024 AND PARDON ME, I SHOULD SAY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF A 2025 ELECTION AND AN OPTION TWO, WHICH IS A 2024 ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.

YOU DO HAVE MORE COMMITTEE MEETINGS, MORE TIME FOR THE INFORMATION CAMPAIGN, WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

NOT AS MUCH FOR BOTH OF THOSE WITH OPTION TWO.

AND I'LL PAUSE IF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS OR I CAN MOVE ON.

YOU MOVE ON. IT'S ON.

WE HAVE IT IN OUR BACKUP, SO.

GOT IT. REFER BACK TO IT SO I CAN GO THROUGH REALLY QUICKLY.

I HAVE ABOUT TWO SLIDES ON THE CHARTER COMMITTEE SIZE, AND THEN WE CAN RECEIVE DIRECTION ON BOTH AT THE END, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'D LIKE.

MAYOR. OR I CAN PAUSE AND GET DIRECTION ON THE TIMELINE FIRST AND THEN MOVE ON TO COMMITTEE SIZE TIMELINE FIRST WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE TO MAKE IT EASIER.

WELL, I'LL PULL THIS BACK UP AND STAFF'S READY TO TAKE DIRECTION ON THE TIMELINE.

OKAY. IF YOU CAN PULL THAT DOWN SO I CAN SEE.

OH YES SIR. COMMENTS ON PREFERRED.

JUST EITHER CLARIFICATION TO GET TO A DIRECTION ON TIME AND IT'S MAY OR NOVEMBER.

THOSE TWO OPTIONS.

COUNCIL MEMBER TIMELINE ONE.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMAN HARLAN? MAY 25TH. OKAY.

MAYOR PRO TEM, NOVEMBER 24TH.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE NOVEMBER OF 24.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? THEN I'M GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THERE.

THEIR TIMING AND NEEDS.

MAYOR, WE MAY HAVE JUST LOST OUR CONNECTION.

[00:40:02]

THERE THEY ARE. THEY'RE BACK.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY HEARD OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A HANG UP.

SURE. ANY INPUT BEFORE Y'ALL? POTENTIALLY. HELLO.

ARE PEOPLE TALKING? YEAH. YES. I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING.

YEAH. THE TV'S.

THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBERS, CAN YOU HEAR US? YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

OKAY, NOW WE CAN. YEAH.

GO. RIGHT. EITHER OF YOU CARE TO TAKE A POSITION ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR OPTION TWO? COUNCIL MEMBER MELTZER? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION.

THAT ABOUT A DIFFERENT WAY TO GO FORWARD, AND I'D BE INTERESTED IN STAFF REACTION.

WHAT WOULD YOU THINK ABOUT TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE OPTION TWO DIRECTION AND THEN, LETTING THE COMMITTEE ADVISE IN JULY WHETHER THEY NEED MORE TIME OR NOT. AND IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF IT FALLING ON TOP OF, BUDGET PREP, YOU KNOW, IF LIKE, IF WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING IS WE CAN'T DO THIS BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I WANT TO HEAR THAT THAT IF THAT'S.

ANYWAY, WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHT? IF I SAY THAT, THEN TRY TO PURSUE OPTION TWO B MOVING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET TO NOVEMBER, BUT BE WILLING TO LISTEN IN JULY IF THE COMMITTEE SAYS WE NEED WE JUST NEED MORE TIME.

THAT WOULDN'T, OH I'M SORRY.

I'M SORRY, THAT WOULDN'T REALLY RESOLVE THE STAFF TIME CAPACITY ISSUE.

WE WOULD REALLY HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT ALREADY AND EXPENDED MOST OF THAT TIME BY JULY.

AND WE WOULD COUNCIL WOULD HAVE NOT HAD, MORE THAN PROBABLY TWO POSSIBLE DISCUSSIONS TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP THE COMMITTEE CHARGE. SO, IF THAT'S IMPORTANT TO COUNCIL TO HAVE TIME TO TALK THROUGH THOSE ISSUES, THAT WOULD HAVE ALREADY GONE PAST, THE ONLY FLEXIBILITY THAT WOULD GIVE US AT THAT TIME WOULD BE TO EXTEND THE AMOUNT OF, COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND THEN HAVE MORE TIME FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION.

BUT IN TERMS OF STAFF, STAFF EFFORT AND TIME TO CONSIDER THE CHARGES BEFORE THEY GO TO THE COMMITTEE, YOU WOULD STILL BE LIMITED THERE.

YEAH. I MEAN, I'M NOT SURE WE YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T DO THE CHARTERING PART, IN A COUPLE OF MEETINGS.

BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST, STAFF JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO, THE REST OF IT, THEN THAT'S NOT AN OPTION. SO, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US, THEN I WOULD SUPPORT THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

OH, GO AHEAD. YEAH.

I THINK I WOULD SAY THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND STAFF'S PREFERENCE IS TO PROVIDE THAT TIMELINE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE OF THE STRAIN IT WOULD PUT ON STAFF RESOURCES DURING THE BUDGET SEASON.

SO, OKAY. I, YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO RESPECT THAT COUNCIL.

I'M OKAY WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE I'M NOT QUITE SURE.

I MEAN, CHANGING THE CHARTER IS A BIG DEAL.

WHAT WE PUT IN THE CHARTER, WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS WE PUT FORTH TO THE COMMITTEE THAT THE COMMITTEE THEN PUTS FORTH TO THE PUBLIC IS A BIG DEAL.

AND WHY WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN WITHIN.

WHAT IS THAT, 8 OR 9 MONTHS BY THE TIME WE GET THINGS REALLY MOVING COMPARED TO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE AN ADDITIONAL 6 OR 7 MONTHS.

PLUS, IT ALLOWS YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPREHENSIVE, COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH AND ALLOWS YOU TO REALLY LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE HAVE REALLY FLOATED SOME INTERESTING IDEAS.

AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT SEVEN MONTHS IS ENOUGH TO REALLY VET THROUGH A COMMITTEE, REALLY EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY ON CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR CITY.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

BECAUSE IF SOMEHOW SOMEBODY WANTS TO SORT OF PUSH IT THROUGH QUESTION THAT PARTICULAR, APPROACH.

SO I'M ALL FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THEY HAVE SHARED WITH US THAT IT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF BUDGET SEASON, AND WE ALL KNOW HOW CRAZY THAT GETS. AND THE LAST THING WE NEED TO DO IS DO A COUPLE OF THINGS, SORT OF HALF.

YOU KNOW WHAT? BECAUSE WE'RE STRETCHED TOO FAR AT BOTH ENDS, AND STAFF WOULDN'T DO THAT.

BUT THAT'S WHY THEY WOULD BE BURNING THE CANDLE AT BOTH ENDS.

SO, MY MY PREFERENCE IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH THAT THAT CONCLUDES THAT ITEM.

YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED. WELL, WE HAVE TWO MORE PARTS.

[00:45:02]

YEAH. YES, SIR. GOT IT. SORRY.

SO THAT GIVES YOU A TIMELINE? YES, SIR. YES.

SO, THE NEXT PORTION IS ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE SIZE.

WE DID RECEIVE DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 5TH TO PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS.

THAT INCLUDES A CHARTER COMMITTEE, AND GENERALLY, A COMMITTEE MUST BE OF A SIZE WHERE THE COMMUNITY IS REPRESENTED.

ALL VOICES CAN BE HEARD WITHIN THE COMMITTEE ENSURING EFFECTIVE DISCUSSIONS.

DIVISION INTO SUBGROUPS OR SUBCOMMITTEES TO STUDY ISSUES IS STILL FEASIBLE, AND THE LOGISTICAL MANAGEMENT BY STAFF IS STILL EFFICIENT.

SO, THE LARGER THE COMMITTEE GETS, THAT GETS MORE AND MORE DIFFICULT FROM A JUST A LOGISTICS STANDPOINT.

ADDITIONALLY, THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN CHOSEN BY THE COMMITTEE.

WE MAY HAVE LOST THEM AGAIN.

THEY KEEP COMING BACK. SO, I'M JUST GOING TO.

YEAH. I'M NEITHER.

OH, THERE WE GO.

AND IT'LL TAKE A SECOND FOR GTV TO UNMUTE.

OKAY I THINK, ALL RIGHT I THINK WE'RE ALL BACK.

LET'S SEE.

LET ME RESHARE THE SCREEN.

TALK FAST.

WE NEVER KNOW HOW FAST. I KNOW RIGHT? HOW LONG? WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME WE HAVE.

CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF TRADITIONALLY BEEN CHOSEN BY THE COMMITTEE.

AND THE COUNCIL MAY ESTABLISH THE QUORUM THRESHOLD.

THAT COULD BE DIFFERENT THAN A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

SO, WE DO HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND GIVE DIRECTION ON.

ONE IS 14 MEMBERS.

THAT IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

THAT WOULD BE TWO APPOINTMENTS PER COUNCIL MEMBER THAT WOULD EXPEDITE THE APPOINTMENT AND ONBOARDING PROCESS.

IT'S LESS FOLKS TO HAVE TO GET THE APPOINTMENT, GET THROUGH THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS BEFORE THEY CAN START MEETING.

THERE WOULD BE IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR FORMING SUBCOMMITTEES THAT THEY NEEDED TO STUDY CERTAIN ISSUES IN A SMALL GROUP BEFORE BRINGING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE.

AND IT MAY PROMOTE MORE THOROUGH DISCUSSION OF ISSUES, WITH, WITH A TIGHTER GROUP.

ON THE OTHER SIDE, ANOTHER OPTION IS THREE APPOINTMENTS FOR COUNCIL MEMBER, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN 21 MEMBERS.

THIS WAS UTILIZED FOR THE 27 CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE.

THIS IS ALSO EFFICIENT FOR FORMING SUBCOMMITTEES.

AND WHILE IT MAY, BE A LITTLE BIT MORE LABORIOUS TO APPOINT THEM, BRING THEM ON BOARD AND, YOU KNOW, TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME FOR THOSE ISSUES.

IT MAY ALLOW TO TALK TO DISCUSS THOSE ISSUES.

IT MAY ALLOW FOR GREATER COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION ON THE COMMITTEE.

AND SO I'LL LEAVE THAT THERE.

AND STAFF IS HAPPY TO TAKE DIRECTION ON THE SIZE OF THE COMMITTEE.

OKAY. INPUT ON THE SIZE OF THE COMMITTEE.

IF YOU CAN PULL THAT DOWN FOR ME, PLEASE.

YES, SIR. WE'LL JUST START THERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHAT'S. YEAH, RIGHT.

WHEN DID YOU SAY.

THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WAS.

IT WAS FOR THE 2017 ELECTION.

RIGHT. AND SO, I BELIEVE THEY ALL THE MEETINGS WERE IN 2017.

BUT THAT'S THE MOST RECENT CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE.

WHAT WAS THE SIZE OF THAT 21? OKAY, SO THAT WAS THREE, NOMINEES PER COUNCIL MEMBER.

YES, SIR. APPOINTEES OR WHATEVER.

YEAH. I'M GOING TO GO WITH THAT BECAUSE I THINK, IT ALLOWS FOR A GREATER REPRESENTATION, ALLOWS US TO, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY INCLUDE, A MORE CROSS-SECTION OF THE VOICES.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT BIG WAS OUR BOND COMMITTEE, 40 MEMBERS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER MELTZER.

WELL, I DIDN'T ACTUALLY ASK TO SPEAK, BUT I'M WILLING TO.

YEAH, WELL, MY CONCERN IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GO AWAY, SO I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU GET YOU IN WHILE YOU'RE HERE.

IF YOU WANT TO WAIT AND CHANCE IT, THEN I'M HAPPY TO OBLIGE.

WELL, I'LL FOLLOW YOUR INSTINCT THERE.

I DON'T, I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IT EITHER WAY.

I HAVE A BIAS TOWARD, I MEAN, I THINK THERE'S GOOD THINGS ABOUT BOTH.

I HAVE A BIAS TOWARD THE 14 BECAUSE I THINK IT'S JUST EASIER TO HAVE RICHER CONVERSATIONS WHERE PEOPLE GET AIRTIME.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S GOOD THINGS ABOUT 21 TWO.

SO, SO, YOU KNOW, I'M KIND OF 60% FOR TWO, BUT I WOULDN'T OBJECT IF THE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU NEED TO GET TO FOUR ON 21, I WOULDN'T OBJECT TO IT.

OKAY. IF THAT HELPS OR NOT.

MAYOR PRO TEM. YEAH, I'LL BE FAST.

I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS AND THE RATIONALE FROM COUNCILOR WATTS.

SO, I'M FOR, THREE PER 21.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCILOR HOLLAND.

I THINK IT WOULD BE SIMPLER TO GET 14 PEOPLE TOGETHER ON A GIVEN, PLACE AND GIVEN NIGHT THAN 21.

[00:50:07]

SO, I WOULD SUGGEST THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

14 COUNCIL MEMBER MCGEE.

I'M ALL ABOUT MORE PARTICIPATION, MORE REPRESENTATION.

WHICH IS WHY TO THE PREVIOUS ITEM, I WANTED TO GO IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE GREATEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE VOTE.

SO, IN ORDER TO STAY CONSISTENT, I WILL ALSO GO WITH THE LARGER COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. ALL RIGHT.

COUNCILMAN BYRD. MY SENTIMENTS ARE WITH 14.

AND THAT ALSO IS CONNECTED, TOO, ALONG OUR OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TOGETHER ON IT.

SO THAT'S WHY I WENT THE OTHER WAY WITH THE MAY VOTE.

SO, I'LL DO THAT.

14. OKAY.

I WILL BE 14 AS WELL AT SOME POINT.

WE HAVE TO, I BELIEVE.

WELL, BETTER SAID, I AM SPEAKING FOR MYSELF WHEN I SAY.

I TRUST STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF THEIR TIME.

I TRUST THEIR, CAPACITY AND THEIR ABILITY TO MANAGE THESE PROCESSES. AND SO, I'M NOT WILLING TO I MEAN, IT'S, I JUST, IT'S INCUMBENT UNLESS THEY'RE, UNLESS I FEEL THEY'RE WAY OFF AND THEY KNOW.

I'LL SAY THAT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I NEED TO RESPECT AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO COME AND SAY, HEY, HERE'S WHAT WE THINK IS BEST AND TRUST THAT ANALYSIS VERSUS, AND THEIR ANALYSIS ON 21 IS CLEAR, TOO.

THEY'RE NOT SAYING THERE'S AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION LIKE THE OTHER DISCUSSION.

SO, I TAKE THAT POINT, BUT JUST I 14 PEOPLE IN A ROOM WORKING TOGETHER.

AGAIN, IT DOESN'T LIMIT ANYONE FROM COMING IN.

IT JUST I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S STRESSED ENOUGH FOR ME PERSONALLY THAT ANYONE CAN.

THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE PUBLIC MEETINGS.

EVERYONE CAN PARTICIPATE.

WE COULD HAVE 151,000 PEOPLE SHOW UP AT EVERY MEETING, AND THERE'LL BE NO PROBLEM.

BUT IT'S JUST WHO'S AT THE TABLE, WHO MAKES UP THAT QUORUM? WHO'S INVOLVED IN THOSE THAT THAT KIND OF DIRECTION SIDE OF THINGS.

BUT INPUT IS WELCOME FROM ANYONE.

SO, THERE IS NOT A LIMIT ON INPUT.

THERE'S A LIMIT ON HOW MANY PEOPLE MAKE UP THOSE COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEES, ET CETERA.

SO THAT'S WHERE I FALL, 14.

COUNCILMEMBER MELTZER, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PICK.

YEAH, I YOU KNOW, I KNOW I'M GOING TO, MAKE, MAKE SOME FOLKS UNHAPPY, BUT I DO THINK THEY'LL BETTER CONVERSATIONS WITH 14.

OKAY, THERE WE GO.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED, RON? THAT'S IT FOR THIS PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. OKAY. THANK YOU.

TAKES US TO ITEM C ID 232423.

[C. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on pending City Council requests for: 1) Request seeking a supermajority for a resolution to go directly onto an upcoming agenda to express support for state legislation similar to H.B. 870 and S.B. 1989, which would prohibit pet stores from selling dogs or cats unless they are obtained from an animal control agency, an animal shelter, or an animal rescue organization. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

RECEIVE REPORT, DISCUSSION.

GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON PENDING CITY COUNCIL REQUEST.

MAYOR COUNCIL CARLOTTA COWAN, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

I'LL BE PRESENTING THE CITY COUNCIL PENDING REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.

SHARE MY SCREEN.

ALSO KNOWN AS THE TWO-MINUTE PITCH.

SO, COUPLE REMINDERS THE REQUESTING COUNCIL MEMBER WILL HAVE UP TO TWO MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR PITCH TO YOU ALL, AND THE REMAINING COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL HAVE UP TO ONE MINUTE EACH FOR TO GIVE THEIR FEEDBACK.

A REMINDER THAT A CONSENSUS OF SIX IS REQUIRED FOR A RESOLUTION, AND WE ARE REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS GIVE THEIR, GENERAL CATEGORIZATION OF HIGH, MODERATE OR LOW WHEN GIVING THEIR SUPPORT.

SO WE HAVE ONE ITEM TODAY, WHICH IS A REQUEST SEEKING A SUPERMAJORITY FOR A RESOLUTION TO GO DIRECTLY ONTO AN UPCOMING AGENDA TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR STATE LEGISLATION SIMILAR TO HOUSE BILL 870 AND SENATE BILL 1989, WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT PET STORES FROM SELLING DOGS OR CATS UNLESS THEY ARE OBTAINED FROM AN ANIMAL CONTROL AGENCY, AN ANIMAL SHELTER, OR AN ANIMAL RESCUE ORGANIZATION.

COUNCIL MEMBER MELTZER I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU.

YES. THANK YOU. WE'VE ALREADY HAD A PRETTY GOOD, WORK SESSION ON THIS TOPIC.

GENERALLY, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, BASED IN PART ON THE ADVICE GIVEN BY THE ANIMAL SHELTER ADVISORY BOARD, WAS TO BAN SALE, RETAIL SALE OF PUPPIES AND KITTENS BECAUSE OF THE PUPPY MILL, KITTEN MILL PROBLEM.

AND THE REASON.

THAT COUNCIL VOTED NOT TO PROCEED WITH.

[00:55:02]

THAT WAS BECAUSE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE HAD THAT AUTHORITY UNDER STATE LAW.

AND THE POINT OF THIS RESOLUTION IS TO GO DIRECTLY AT THAT AND TO MAKE IT CLEAR, IF YOU ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS THE RESULT THAT WE WANT, OUR STATE LAW TO REFLECT AND TO COMMUNICATE THAT, THAT TO OUR DELEGATION.

AND THERE HAS BEEN, LEGISLATION PROPOSED EVEN FROM MEMBERS OF OUR LOCAL DELEGATION, EXACTLY ALONG THOSE LINES.

AND IT'S NOT THAT IT WAS VOTED NO.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT JUST IT DIDN'T GET TO THE FLOOR, DIDN'T MAKE IT THROUGH THE FUNNEL.

SO, I THINK IT'S WITHIN OUR SCOPE TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

AND I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT, FOR A RESOLUTION TO EXPRESS THAT TO OUR LOCAL DELEGATION.

OKAY. OKAY.

POINT OF INQUIRY.

RYAN, IF YOU COULD.

WHAT IS STAFF'S POSITION? FOR THE RECORD.

SO, WE PROVIDED A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION THAT IS IN YOUR BIG MATRIX THERE.

BUT STAFF BROUGHT FORWARD THIS ISSUE AND THIS WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION THAT STAFF MADE.

THERE ARE OPERATIONAL BENEFITS TO DOING IT.

THERE ARE ALSO SOME LEGAL IMPLICATIONS, LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS TO ROLLING IT OUT.

BUT SO FAR, STAFF HAS NOT FORMALLY MADE THIS A RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF, THOUGH IT DID WANT TO CONVEY THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THIS.

GOT IT. SO JUST AND JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND CONTINUING MY SO THAT I CAN BE CLEAR IN MY DIRECTION OR GIVE CLEAR DIRECTION.

IS IT FAIR TO SAY.

EVERYTHING I RECEIVE IN MY IPAD IS FROM STAFF DIRECTION, RIGHT STAFF FORWARDS P AND Z.

ZBA LEGAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION COMES.

IT'S ALL ENCOMPASSING.

I WOULD SAY THAT WHILE YOU DO GET A LOT OF THINGS FROM STAFF, STAFF ENDEAVORS TO BE VERY CLEAR WHEN WE ARE MAKING A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. GOT IT. SO, THIS IS PASSING ALONG INFORMATION FROM WHICH BODY.

VERY OFTEN WE PASS ALONG INFORMATION.

AND THIS IS FROM THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

PERFECT. OKAY. JUST SO I UNDERSTOOD.

OKAY. SO THOSE ARE COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS, I'LL GIVE YOU THE FLOOR, IF YOU WANT IT FIRST.

YOU WANT TO WAIT, BUT COUNCIL MEMBER WATTS.

SURE. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE RESOLUTION ITSELF.

I CAN'T SUPPORT THE GOING STRAIGHT TO RESOLUTION.

I DID WATCH THE WORK SESSION THAT Y'ALL HAD ON, THE PRIME THE CITY'S WILLINGNESS TO WRITE AN ORDINANCE TO RESTRICT CERTAIN TYPES OF BUSINESSES AND FROM SELLING CATS AND DOGS THAT ARE NOT FROM, YOU KNOW, SHELTERS OR THINGS SUCH AS THAT. AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS BECAUSE OF STATE LAW.

I'M NOT I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR BILLS.

SO, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE RESOLUTION.

I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT IT ONLY BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THOSE BILLS WERE THAT DID NOT THAT JUST SORT OF SAT ON THE FLOOR AND DIDN'T PASS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS. THESE TYPES OF LEGISLATION WOULD ALSO CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW.

THAT WAS PRESUMABLY THE REASON THAT COUNCIL DIDN'T ADOPT THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS THERE.

SO, I MEAN, IT'S PROBABLY ONLY ABOUT A 15-MINUTE CONVERSATION AND A WORK SESSION, BUT I NEED TO HAVE SOME INFORMATION BEFORE I SEND SOMETHING STRAIGHT TO A RESOLUTION.

SO, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THIS.

IT'S NOT A POSITION TO THE SUBSTANTIVE PART.

IT'S MORE THE PROCEDURAL PART.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILMEMBER HOLLAND, MAYOR PRO TEM, AND THEN COUNCILMAN BYRD.

THANK YOU. I, MY WIFE AND I RESCUED A PUPPY MILL MOM, BEAUTIFUL GOLDEN RETRIEVER NAMED AUDREY.

AND AUDREY WAS BEAT UP.

AUDREY HAD BEEN, ABUSED AND NEGLECTED AND USED JUST TO GIN OUT AS MANY PUPS AS POSSIBLE.

SO, MY HEART IS WITH THIS.

BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO SET THE CITY UP FOR A LAWSUIT.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT THESE LICENSES ARE GRANTED BY THE STATE, NOT BY THE CITY.

AND UNTIL I CAN BE CONVINCED THAT THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO HAVE TO DEFEND ITSELF IN COURT, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS.

AGAIN, MY THOUGHTS ARE WITH MY PAL AUDREY.

AND I DON'T WANT ANY, ANY, ANY DOGS OR KITTIES TO BE, TO BE PUT IN THAT SITUATION.

BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT MY CITY TO BE SUED.

[01:00:02]

THANK YOU. OKAY.

MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AND JUST FOR CLARITY, IN MY ONE MINUTE.

THIS IS SUPPORTING STATE LEGISLATION OUT OF JARED PATTERSON'S OFFICE.

THAT SAYS TO DO IT AT THE STATE LEVEL.

PRECISELY. AND IT'S SIMPLY MAKING THE COMMUNITY, STANDARD WE SET FOR OUR COMMUNITY AGREE WITH JARED PATTERSON'S OFFICE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I FIND MYSELF AGREEING WITH JARED PATTERSON'S OFFICE, BUT THIS IS THIS.

I CERTAINLY DO.

SO, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS HIS OFFICE TOOK ON THIS.

I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT, TAKING THIS TO THE RESOLUTION AND SUPPORTING, THAT WE SUPPORT THE STATE GETTING GEAR AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN. COUNCILMAN BYRD. I JUST NEED TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT I HEARD THAT WE, AS A CITY, WAS ALREADY IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING SURE THAT THE BUSINESSES WERE DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE IN BRINGING ANIMALS IN FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES.

THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING HUNG UP ON.

IS THE CITY BEING DILIGENT IN MAKING SURE THAT THESE ANIMALS ARE COMING FROM THOSE PLACES? HOW DO WE FIGURE THAT OUT? OR HOW MUCH TIME ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT INTO THIS ENDEAVOR IN MAKING SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS PARTICULAR PLACE IS BRINGING IN ANIMALS FROM A LOCATION THAT IS HONORABLE? I'M JUST STILL NOT CLEAR ON THAT.

SO, IF SOMEONE CAN PROVIDE A SO THE INQUIRY BE A STATEMENT OF FACTS.

SO, IF SOMEONE CAN PROVIDE A FACT STATEMENT FOR THAT, I'D APPRECIATE IT.

COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD.

WE DO NOT CURRENTLY BECAUSE OF STATE LAW DO THAT.

OKAY. AND SO, THAT THAT PUTS IT IN ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE VERY QUICKLY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WAS NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE I THINK THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT I WANT TO GO IN IS TO SUPPORT, THIS STATEMENT.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? COUNCILWOMAN MCGEE POINT OF INQUIRY, MR. MAYOR. STATE YOUR POINT OF INQUIRY.

MELTZER ASKED FOR THIS TO GO STRAIGHT TO A MEETING RESOLUTION, WHICH MEANS WE NEED A SUPERMAJORITY IF IN FACT WE ONLY HAVE A MAJORITY TO COUNCIL MEMBER WHAT'S HIS LINE OF THINKING? WOULD WE THEN FALL BACK TO WORK SESSION? OR IF WE DON'T HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BASED OFF OF WHAT HIS REQUEST WAS BASED ON HIS REQUEST AND THE RULES.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

OKAY. OKAY.

I'M READY TO GO TO MY TIME.

GO RIGHT AHEAD. I APPLAUD COUNCILMEMBER MELTZER IN DOING THIS.

I THINK THIS IS GREAT.

I'M GOING TO BE I'M GOING TO BE A YES ON THIS.

I APPLAUD, REPRESENTATIVE PATTERSON'S OFFICE FOR DOING THIS.

I THINK THIS SHOULD BE AN EASY THING FOR US TO DO.

WOULD BE TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN FILED LAST SESSION THAT WE ALREADY KNOW IS GOING TO BE FILED NEXT SESSION.

I THINK OBVIOUSLY, THE LEGISLATION IS NEEDED.

SO, I AM HAPPY TO GIVE DIRECTION TO ADD THE CHORUS OF VOICES FROM THE CITY OF DENTON TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR STATE DELEGATION KNOWS THAT THIS IS, IN FACT, THE WILL OF THIS PARTICULAR BODY.

SO, I AM A YES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. OKAY.

SO, FOR ME, THE LAW THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE PASSED JUST LAST YEAR.

THE LAW THAT WAS BEING REFERENCED HERE DID NOT MAKE IT TO A VOTE.

I HAVE A HARD TIME READING THE TEA LEAVES TO SAY THIS IS EVEN IF IT'S FILED NEXT YEAR, THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPEAL THE LAW THEY JUST PASSED, AND I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW LIKELY THAT IS.

THAT'S NOT MY BUSINESS TO BE IN THAT PLACE.

SO, I, TOO, SHARE COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLANDE'S HEART, EVERYONE'S HEART ON HERE ON THIS DAIS FOR MAKING SURE ANIMALS ARE WELL CARED FOR, THAT WE'RE PROTECT THEM WITH EVERYTHING WE HAVE.

BUT I'D ALSO SAY THERE NEEDS TO BE A LEVEL OF CONSISTENCY TO NOT FIGHT WITH THE STATE AT EVERY TURN UNLESS IT'S, THIS THING WE LIKE JARED PATTERSON TO DO, AND THEN WE FIGHT WITH HIM ON EVERYTHING ELSE.

SO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME TO HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY THERE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS JUST BECAUSE I, I DON'T JUST LAST YEAR IT VOTED.

I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TURN AROUND AND DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

[01:05:03]

SO THAT, AND THEN.

SO THAT'S EVERYTHING.

BUT IS THIS YOUR FIRST KIND OF FORMAL? YES, IT IS. TRIP TO THE PODIUM.

OKAY, WELL, I'M COMING UP TO THE PODIUM.

OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T SURE.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS RIGHT.

AND SO, WE HAVE, LET ME GET RIGHT BACK AT IT.

SO, YEAH. SO, WE HAVE A GIFT FOR YOU.

SO, TO REMEMBER US BY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK.

AND SO PROUD OF YOU FOR BEING PART OF THE TEAM.

GREAT JOB. AND SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

APPRECIATE IT. YES.

ALL RIGHT. BRIAN DUSTIN.

AND TAKE A PICTURE FOR US.

YES. HERE WE GO.

RIGHT. THAT'S SOME KIND OF FUNNY GOING ON AROUND HERE.

MAKE SURE YOU ALL. I'M GONNA TAKE CARE OF THIS ONE FOR YOU, TOO, BECAUSE I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.

HEY, I HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY HERE, SO IT'S FINE.

OH. ALL RIGHT.

THAT WAS FOR THE MISSING ONE.

YEAH, I DON'T KNOW.

OH, NO.

YEAH. THERE YOU GO I DON'T KNOW.

THAT NOW WE NEED TO.

WE HAVE OUR TWO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS, SO WE'LL SET THE ROOM FOR, CLOSED, BUT I'LL CALL THE ITEM.

AND SO, THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW AT 3:07 P.M., CONVENE IN CLOSED MEETING TO DELIBERATE THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS SET

[1. Closed Meeting:]

FORTH ON THE AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDES ITEM A, ID 232376, DELIBERATIONS REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND ITEM B, ID 232377 DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY.

WE'LL TAKE A QUICK FIVE-MINUTE BREAK TO SET THE ROOM, AND SO WE'LL BE BACK AT 4:03.

JUST CALL IT 4:05.

WELCOME BACK TO WELCOME BACK TO THIS MEETING IN DENTON CITY COUNCIL.

THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW AT 5:03 P.M., RECONVENED FROM CLOSED SESSION, AND NO OFFICIAL ACTION WAS TAKEN.

THAT TAKES US TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

[4. CONSENT AGENDA]

I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

NOTING NOTHING WAS PULLED.

MAYOR PRO TEM, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN.

COUNCILOR MCGEE? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE NEED TO DO A VOICE VOTE.

OH, NO. WE'RE GOOD. OKAY.

WELL, I GOT TO DO THE TWO THERE.

RIGHT? DO I DO THOSE FIRST? AND YOU PLUG THEM IN, RIGHT? COUNCIL MEMBER MELTZER, HOW SAY YOU? AYE. COUNCILMEMBER WATTS? AYE. OKAY, SO THAT'S TWO AYES, AND THEN EVERYONE ELSE WANTS.

READY? VOTE ON THE SCREEN, PLEASE.

AND THAT PASSES SEVEN ZERO TAKES US TO OUR ONE ITEM, ONE ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

[A. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton amending Chapter 14, Article VIII of the Code of Ordinances (Non-Discrimination in Public Accommodations, Employment Practices, and Housing), to add a fair chance hiring provision to Section 14-203-5 setting hiring standards to limit employers’ consideration of the criminal history on an initial job application; providing severability; providing a savings clause; providing for publication and codification; providing for a penalty; and providing an effective date.]

LET ME GET THERE.

AND THAT IS ID 232407.

CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AMENDING CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE EIGHT OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADD FAIR CHANCE HIRING PROVISION TO SECTION 14 DASH 203-5 SETTING HIRING STANDARDS TO LIMIT EMPLOYERS' CONSIDERATION OF THE CRIMINAL HISTORY ON THE INITIAL JOB APPLICATIONS.

PROVIDING SEVERABILITY PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE.

PROVIDING PUBLICATION AND CODIFICATION.

PROVIDING FOR PENALTY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU, MAYOR RYAN AND CHIEF OF STAFF, THIS PRESENTATION IS GOING TO GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE UNDER CONSIDERATION TODAY.

LET ME JUST, OH, AND BEFORE YOU DO THAT, YOU TOLD ME A MILLION TIMES I STILL MESSED IT UP.

SO, I JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO KNOW IF YOU'RE HERE FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT RELATED TO SAINT MARK'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, THAT HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 23RD, 2024, THIS YEAR AND WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED DURING THIS MEETING THIS EVENING.

SO, JUST WANTED TO GIVE EVERYONE A HEADS UP.

IF YOU'RE HERE FOR, SAINT MARK'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, THAT IS IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS, JANUARY 23RD, 2024.

IT'LL BE ON THAT AGENDA.