Mar 04, 2025 City Council on 2025-03-04 2:00 PM

[00:00:04]

YES. I'M SORRY. YOU DO GET ONE. GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL. TODAY IS TUESDAY, MARCH 4TH, 2025. IT IS 2:01 P.M. WE HAVE A QUORUM, SO I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. THE FIRST THING, ASSUMING THERE ARE NO IN PERSON. IN PERSON FOR REGULAR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, TAKES US TO. QUESTIONS ON THE. WE HAVE NO

[2. Requests for clarification of agenda items listed on this agenda for public hearing and individual consideration.]

[A. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding potential changes to the City of Denton Code of Ordinances Chapter 2, Article XI (Ethics) Sec. 2-269 Definitions, Sec. 2-277 Board of Ethics, and Sec. 2-281 Hearings. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 1 hour]]

[00:05:05]

WE DO APPRECIATE ALL OF OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. SO IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE SAYING YOU FELT THAT THIS WAS NARROWING? NO. EXPANDING, RIGHT. RIGHT. AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS. WELL, SO MY INITIAL CONCERN IS HOW TO KNOW WE'RE MAKING IT A LOT MORE BROAD AND FUZZY AS FAR AS INTERPRETING IT. THEN HERE'S WHEN WE KNOW FOR SURE YOU NEED TO DISCLOSE. YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. NOW WE'RE SAYING NO OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. AND ALSO, IF THE PERSON DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY HAD A CONFLICT, IF SOMEONE IN THEIR COMPANY CONTRACTED WITH SOMEONE THEY DIDN'T KNOW, A BUSINESS WAS LATER BEFORE, HOW DID THEY THEN HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? HOW DID THEY GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IF THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS PERSON HAD PARTICIPATED IN SOME KIND OF BUSINESS? SO I GUESS IF YOU CAN JUST KIND OF GIVE ME GENERALLY WHY WE'RE MAKING IT MORE NEBULOUS, IN MY OPINION, AND JUST UP FOR INTERPRETATION. AND THE CONCERN THERE IS THAT THE BOARD OF ETHICS, THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD OF ETHICS CHANGES. IT CHANGES AS PEOPLE TERM OUT.

IT CHANGES AS PEOPLE MOVE UP AND AS DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE ELECTED AND APPOINT PEOPLE. SO I AM OPEN TO THE REASONING, BUT MY INITIAL REACTION IS IT'S MUCH BETTER TO BE PREDICTABLE AS FAR AS WHAT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, RATHER THAN SAYING, WELL, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT EACH TIME. NOT THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, BUT THAT'S MY CONCERN, IS THAT IT CAN BE VERY DIFFERENT JUST DEPENDING ON WHAT MONTH YOU END UP GOING BEFORE THE BOARD AND THE MAKEUP OF THE BOARD. SO THAT'S MY INITIAL CONCERN. AND IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT, I'D APPRECIATE I HOPE THAT MADE SENSE. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO WITH YOUR FIRST KIND OF EXAMPLE, I GUESS IF, IF YOU IF SOMEBODY CONTRACTED WITH YOUR COMPANY AND YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF THAT, THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN, RIGHT? SO THAT WOULD BE PART OF WHAT YOU WOULD DISCUSS WITH THE BOARD AT A HEARING POTENTIALLY. RIGHT. OF LIKE, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS TRUE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE KNOWN OR OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE SOMETHING, RIGHT? AND THE COMPLAINANT HAS TO PROVE THAT YOU YOU KNEW ABOUT THAT CONFLICT AS PART OF PROVING THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION UNDER THIS SECTION. I HOPE THAT HELPS TO ADDRESS AT LEAST THAT QUESTION.

AND PLEASE FORGIVE ME. I DID READ OVER THIS, BUT I MAY NOT REMEMBER ALL OF IT. DOES THE COMPLAINANT HAVE TO PROVE OR JUST SHOW SUFFICIENT? SUFFICIENT ACTION? THEY HAVE TO. THEY HAVE TO ESTABLISH SUFFICIENT FACTS TO FOR REASONABLE CERTAINTY. THAT THE VIOLATION OCCURRED. OKAY.

UNDER THE PROPOSALS AND I RESERVE MY RIGHT TO CHANGE MY MIND ONCE I HEAR THE OTHER INPUT. BUT INITIALLY I LIKE THE CURRENT. I FEEL BETTER WITH THE CURRENT VERSUS THE PROPOSED AT THIS TIME, BUT AGAIN, I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE MY MIND ONCE WE HEAR MORE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IN THIS SECTION? SEE? SEEING NONE. ONE QUESTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON. MADISON, I TAKE YOUR ANSWER TO COUNCILMEMBER JESTER'S QUESTION, BUT AT THE END IS WHERE I DO ASK

[00:10:02]

THE ORIGINAL SAYS EVIDENCE. IS THAT RIGHT? I BELIEVE IT USES THE TERM EVIDENCE. I'D HAVE TO LOOK. THAT'S MY PREFERENCE. JUST GETTING THAT OUT THERE AND I'LL CIRCLE BACK WHEN IT COMES UP.

BUT EVIDENCE HAS A MORE SOLID LEGAL DEFINITION. FACTS ARE TO BE INTERPRETED, YOU KNOW, BASED ON A NUMBER OF THINGS. AND SO A FACT TO ME MAY NOT BE A FACT TO SOMEONE ELSE. SO FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, BUT YEAH. SO THE ONLY THING THAT FROM THIS CONVERSATION THAT THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME IS IT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU MEET THAT THRESHOLD. SO BUT BUT IT'S A IT IS THE COMPLAINANTS RESPONSIBILITY TO MEET THAT THRESHOLD. RIGHT. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. OKAY. BECAUSE IF I SEND YOU AN EMAIL AND YOU DIDN'T GET IT, HOW DO I PROVE YOU DIDN'T GET IT? I CAN DO AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST AND SAY IT HIT YOUR EMAIL BOX. BUT THEN IF YOU DIDN'T, HOW DO I PROVE YOU WERE AT YOUR COMPUTER AND SAW IT THAT YOUR COMPUTER DIDN'T GLITCH? THAT? I MEAN, THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE. BUT FOR ME, WALKING UP TO YOU, HANDING IT ALMOST LIKE SERVING YOU DOCUMENT TO. AND THEN, HEY, I DIDN'T READ IT. I, THE STRANGE PERSON CAME UP TO ME AND GAVE ME A PIECE OF PAPER, YOU KNOW? SO ANYWAY, I JUST, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT STANDARD IS ACHIEVABLE, BUT NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. JUST THAT'S FROM A FROM A PROVING STANDPOINT, YOU CAN ASSUME. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR TO EXPOUND ON THAT. I HAVE A REAL, REAL HARD TIME ABOUT WHAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS SAYING THAT I SHOULD KNOW. YOU KNOW, AND I'VE SAID MANY, MANY TIMES, WE ONLY KNOW WHAT WE KNOW, BUT BUT FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND SAY, YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS, I THINK THAT'S ODD. NOW, TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT THE MAYOR SAID, HERE'S A REAL, REAL WORLD EXAMPLE. I WAS CARRYING ON A CONVERSATION WITH CONSTITUENTS THIS THIS PAST WEEKEND VIA EMAIL, AND SOMETHING HAPPENED TO MY EMAIL. AND UNTIL ABOUT 130 THIS AFTERNOON, I WAS I WAS ON THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON. I COULDN'T ACCESS ANYTHING. I WENT TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, AND THEY WERE ASTOUNDED AT HOW MANY EMAILS THAT I'VE GOTTEN THAT I HAVEN'T READ ONE OF THEM.

I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE OF THEM UNTIL THIS AFTERNOON. SO ALL THESE NICE PEOPLE SENT ME EMAILS, DIDN'T READ A ONE, AND IT'S MY INTENTION TO READ EVERY ONE. BUT I HAVE NOT WITH WITH THE VERY, VERY BEST OF INTENTIONS. BUT I COULDN'T READ IT. I THINK IF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SPECIFICALLY IS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, THAT CAN BE EASILY REMOVED FROM THE PROPOSAL.

RIGHT. WE CAN YOU CAN GIVE DIRECTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT WITH CHANGES. AND SO IF THE CONCERN IS THAT IS THE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, THEN WE CAN STRIKE THAT FROM THE RED LINE AND IT

[00:15:04]

SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS ON THIS SECTION? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT ONE. I'M REALLY DEEP DIVING INTO THE WORD. PARTICIPATE IN DELIBERATIONS. AND THEN WE GO DOWN HERE AND LOOK TO SEE WHAT THOSE DELIBERATIONS INCLUDE, WHICH COULD BE AT THE DAIS, WHICH COULD BE AS A VOTING MEMBER, WHICH CAN BE RECEIVING A PRESENTATION AND ALSO CONVERSING AND CORRESPONDING WHEN WE I'M LOOKING AT IT THAT WAY, THE POINT OF NO OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IS PART OF THE DELIBERATIONS. AT SOME POINT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND OUT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REASONABLE TO THINK THAT YOU WOULD ALREADY KNOW IF YOU'RE JUST FINDING OUT. AND I THINK THAT THIS THIS PROPOSED PART GIVES US PAUSE TO LOOK AT WHAT WHEN IS THE DELIBERATIONS? I'M JUST FINDING OUT BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING THE DISCUSSION AT THE DAIS. I'M FINDING OUT FROM A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY. IT'S GOT TO COME AT SOME POINT. AND GIVING THIS PROPOSED PORTION GIVES US THE EXCUSE, I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN WE KNOW? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN? OR HOW DO WE KNOW THAT WE SHOULD KNOW? AND WE'RE GOING TO FIND THAT OUT DURING THE DELIBERATIONS. SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THE PROPOSED PORTION OF IT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME. I'M NOT GOING TO KNOW UNTIL I FOUND OUT. FIND OUT. AND THAT COULD BE IN A STATEMENT, IN AN EMAIL. AND IT CAN EVEN COME AS LATE AS BEING BROUGHT UP BY A COMMUNITY MEMBER. THAT'S WHERE I AM WITH THAT. AND JUST BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT UP THE DELIBERATION SECTION THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IS CURRENTLY PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST SECTION. SO THE PART THAT'S BEING CHANGED IS ESSENTIALLY EXPANDING UPON PENDING MATTER TO INCLUDE OTHER MATTERS AS WELL. YEAH, THAT'S THE PROPOSAL. SO OKAY, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE HERE AND NEEDING TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON CURRENT OR PROPOSED OR MODIFICATION THEREOF. SO IF YOU CAN GIVE DIRECTION THAT'D BE GREAT. REPRESENTATIVE FOR DISTRICT TWO. YEAH I, I THINK COUNCILOR BYRD HIT THE SALIENT POINT. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU FIND OUT THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE SUFFICIENT KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION THAT YOU FIND OUT THAT YOU ARE OR NOT ENGAGED IN A THING, THAT'S THE POINT. YOU KNOW IT AT AND IT'S FINE. AND SO THEN YOU SAY, WELL, I'LL STOP NOW. I, I'M FINDING OUT I HAVE A CONFLICT. SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BOW OUT AT THIS POINT. I THINK THAT FEELS TO ME LIKE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. LIKE IF YOU STOP ONCE, YOU REALIZE YOU'RE ENGAGED IN A THING. SO I'M FINE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. MY DIRECTION IS I'M FINE WITH THESE. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. YEAH. I SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE. I'M ALSO FINE WITH IT. BUT, MAYOR, JUST AS YOU'RE TAKING THE TEMPERATURE, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE, SHOULD HAVE. I'M ALSO OKAY WITH THAT.

BUT EITHER ONE. MADISON, I'M. I LIKE THE DIRECTION IN GENERAL. OKAY. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA THAT THAT A THIRD PARTY IS GOING TO TELL ME OR ANY OTHER MEMBER WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN AND WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT. SO I'M OPPOSED TO THAT. OKAY. I JUST THAT LANGUAGE. THAT LANGUAGE. YES, PLEASE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE? AGAIN? YEAH. ON THE SHOULD OF KNOWN POINT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, THEN YOU JUST HAVE THE NO. AND THAT'S ABOUT A MENTAL STATE AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, REALLY HARD TO ESTABLISH A MENTAL STATE. SHOULD HAVE KNOWN CAN BE ESTABLISHED FOR INSTANCE BY IT'S IN YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION OR IT WAS EMAILED TO YOU AND YOU REPLIED OR THERE'S A RETURN RECEIPT. SO IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN ALWAYS ESTABLISH THAT IN THAT CASE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MAKE THE CASE. BUT I ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S MORE MAKEABLE THAN THAT. YOU ACTUALLY

[00:20:05]

SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. NOT BE INCLUDED. THANK YOU. GOT IT. OKAY. SO THERE'S DIRECTION FOR THE PROPOSED. THERE'S. I COULD BE THE SWING VOTE ON REMOVING THE. SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, BUT. YOU ALREADY HAVE DIRECTION ON PROPOSED. SO WE'LL JUST GO WITH THAT. SO. SO THE DIRECTION IS THE PROPOSAL AS WRITTEN. NOT AND NOT REMOVING SHOULD OF KNOWN. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH.

YEAH. JUST JUST FOR SIMPLICITY. AND. YEAH. YEAH. WE'LL JUST LET'S KEEP MOVING. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE SECOND PIECE OF THE PROPOSAL OF THE FIRST PROPOSAL WOULD CLARIFY BY WHEN A DISCLOSURE MUST BE FILED. UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, IT SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER A CONFLICT ARISES DURING DELIBERATIONS, WHEN YOU WHEN, YOU KNOW, ALLOWS THE DISCLOSURE TO REMAIN SO THAT FOR A YEAR AFTER THE CITY OFFICIAL DOES NOT HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT SAME CONFLICT OF INTEREST AGAIN. THOUGH, YOU WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO RECUSE. THE CURRENT ORDINANCE DOES NOT INCLUDE A DEADLINE TO FILE A DISCLOSURE BY IF IT ARISES DURING DELIBERATIONS, AND IT'S RETROSPECTIVE INSTEAD OF PROSPECTIVE. SO QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS KIND OF SECOND PIECE. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU. I INTERPRETED THE LANGUAGE THE WAY YOU YOU JUST SAID, BUT IS NOT EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE IN RED. BUT SO LET ME LET ME JUST PARAPHRASE TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT IF, IF, IF YOU IF ONE OF US DECLARES A CONFLICT THAT THAT'S A STANDING CONFLICT AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO RE DECLARE ALL THE TIME A CONFLICT EXCEPT AFTER A YEAR HAS LAPSED AND THEN IF THE CONFLICT WAS STILL THERE, WE WOULD HAVE TO RE DECLARE THE CONFLICT. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? CAN. CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THIS TIMING AGAIN? SO IT'S 30 DAYS, CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE IN WHICH YOU CITY OFFICIAL BECAME AWARE OF. WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. SO. USING THE EXAMPLE FROM THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, IF I BECOME AWARE DAY BEFORE WE VOTE, I VOTE. DON'T RECUSE. I HAVE 30 DAYS. SO AFTER THE VOTE, IF I BECAME AWARE OF THE DAY, THE DAY WE'RE GOING TO VOTE, 30 DAYS AFTER THAT, I CAN DECLARE THAT I HAD A CONFLICT AND I AND IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THIS. IT MEETS THE INTENT OF THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT. I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT COULD THEN BE USED TO SAY THAT YOU VIOLATED THE RECUSAL REQUIREMENT. IF YOU DID DISCLOSE IT AFTERWARDS, IF YOU IF YOU BELIEVED YOU HAD A CONFLICT, DOES THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A THE REQUIREMENT, IT DEFINES WHAT A CONFLICT IS. IT REQUIRES YOU TO RECUSE AND IT REQUIRES YOU TO DISCLOSE. RIGHT. BUT THE DISCLOSURE IS THAT THAT'S THE 30 DAYS. CORRECT. THE RECUSE. WHAT'S THAT? WHERE ARE YOU SEEING THAT DATE? IT'S DIFFERENT. AND FORGIVE ME.

SORRY. ONE SECOND. THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE. IN DELIBERATION PROHIBITED. I CAN PULL UP THE LANGUAGE IF YOU WOULD LIKE. IT DOESN'T. IT JUST SAYS YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO

[00:25:01]

RIGHT. IT'S LIKE WHEN DELIBERATIONS ARE OCCURRING, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO RECUSE YOURSELF. AND THEN IF YOU DO SO WHEN YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE YOUR CONFLICT AT THAT POINT, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO DISCLOSE THAT THAT OCCURRED. DOES THAT HELP THE TIMELINE UNDERSTAND? NO. GIVE, GIVE GIVE ME THAT FIRST PART AGAIN. THE PART ABOUT. OKAY. SO IN YOUR SO IN YOUR EXAMPLE RIGHT. YOU GET THE AGENDA. YOU'RE LIKE OH THIS I HAVE A I HAVE A CONFLICT HERE.

I'M AWARE OF THAT. NOW I KNOW THAT YOU WOULD THEN AT THE VOTE OR WHATEVER, YOU WOULD RECUSE YOURSELF, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE 30 DAYS FROM BECOMING AWARE THAT YOU HAD THAT CONFLICT TO DISCLOSE. IF YOU THEN DID PROCEED TO VOTE ON THE CONFLICT, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE. YOU WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE DELIBERATION, PROHIBITED THE FILING. THE DISCLOSURE ONLY NOTIFIES PEOPLE THAT YOU HAD A CONFLICT FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NOW DELIBERATED ON, RIGHT? OKAY. AND THEN HELP ME WITH THE BACK END OF THAT. WHAT'S THE TIME FRAME BY WHICH SOMEONE CAN FILE A COMPLAINT? I BELIEVE IT'S SIX MONTHS FROM WHEN THEY BECOME AWARE THAT THE VIOLATION OCCURRED. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. SO ANY. I'LL JUST QUICK POINT ON THAT BECAUSE OUR ETHICS CODE KIND OF OVERLAPS WITH GOVERNMENT CODE 171, WHICH IS CONFLICT OF INTEREST MATTERS AS WELL. IT'S A LITTLE MORE SPELLED OUT. OURS EXPANDS ON THAT. BUT IN THAT SCENARIO, BEFORE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO VOTE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ABSTAIN AND DISCLOSE THAT. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE IS A SCENARIO WHERE YOU'RE HAVING A CONFLICT UNDER 171, AND WE HAVE THE FORM THAT WE GIVE YOU THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO FILL THAT OUT BEFORE YOU VOTE. THAT'S THE STATE LAW FOR THOSE MATTERS. SO I DON'T WANT TO CONFLATE THE CONVERSATION, BUT THERE IS STATE LAW ETHICS PUNISHABLE BY FELONY OR CLASS A MISDEMEANOR. YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THAT AT ALL TIMES AND NOT TAKE THIS AS LICENSE TO NOT DISCLOSE UNTIL MUCH AFTER THE VOTE. THANK YOU. YEAH, I THEN I WOULD JUST SUGGEST WITH THAT NOTE THAT WE SYNC UP. RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT COULD BE EITHER A SITE THAT SAYS REVIEW OR SOMETHING THAT TIES TO THAT BECAUSE SOME FUTURE ENTITY IS NOT LOOKING AND MAY NOT BE MADE AWARE. SO I WOULD THINK IT NEEDS TO EITHER MIRROR WHAT STATE LAW IS, BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU HAVE SOMEONE THAT WOULD GO DOWN AND SAY, HEY, WELL, I'M IN LINE WITH THE CITY THING, AND THE CITY THING ISN'T IN LINE WITH THE STATE. THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM, NOT MINE. OR, YOU KNOW, IT JUST OPENS THE DOOR FOR CONFUSION. JUST MY THOUGHT, BUT. SO REPRESENTATIVE ROFF, GIVEN WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY JUST SAID. SELL ME ON THIS. DO WE EVEN NEED THIS AT ALL? GIVEN THAT THERE'S STATE LAW THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE DIFFERENCE. MY UNDERSTANDING AND I I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE STATE LAW. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT'S IF THERE IS A VOTE, YOU HAVE TO RECUSE AND DISCLOSE THE THIS ORDINANCE IS MORE EXPANSIVE THAN THAT. PER THE DEFINITION OF DELIBERATIONS.

RIGHT. SO IF YOU BECOME AWARE DURING A CONVERSATION WITH STAFF THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO HAVE, THAT THERE'S A OF A VOTE THAT'S COMING UP OR SOMETHING, YOU BECOME AWARE AT THAT TIME, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS FROM THEN TO RECUSE, TO DISCLOSE THAT THAT CONFLICT AROSE. YOU WOULD THEN IF YOU'VE ALREADY FILED THAT, THEN I BELIEVE YOU'RE YOU'RE COVERED BY THE STATE LAW. RIGHT.

BUT IT'S BUT THE VOTE MIGHT NOT BE FOR TWO WEEKS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. THAT KIND OF STATE LAW IS LIKE THIS OR IS IT A LITTLE BIT BROADER? NO, I DON'T, I HEAR YOU, I'M LISTENING. NO, I DON'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE. BUT I'LL LISTEN FOR Y'ALL. MAYBE Y'ALL CAN Y'ALL CAN HELP. I'M SORRY.

MAYOR. YEAH. NO, IT'S REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE, YEAH. THE PART I'M GLEANING FROM THAT IS THAT WHAT CITY ATTORNEY REFERRED TO IS SPECIFICALLY THE CASE THAT THE MAYOR RAISED, WHICH IS ABOUT A VOTE, WHEREAS THIS IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST VOTES. IT'S ALSO ABOUT DELIBERATIONS. WOULD IT WOULD THERE BE A WAY TO JUST AVOID ANY FURTHER CONFUSION BY SAYING, YOU KNOW, ADDING A, YOU KNOW, A LINE, A LINE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THIS IN THE EVENT OF A VOTE, THIS CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED AS IN ANY WAY BEING IN CONFLICT WITH STATE LAW. 151 YEAH, WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD SOMETHING LIKE THAT IF IT'S I'M NOT CERTAIN IF IT'S ALREADY IN THERE OR NOT, BUT WE CAN LOOK AT LOOK AT THAT. OKAY. OTHERS ON BOARD WITH REPRESENTATIVE FROM

[00:30:01]

REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT TWO. NO, I CAN PARSE I SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VOTES AS A SUBSET OF ACTIONS AND, AND ALL THE REST OF THE PLETHORA OF THINGS THAT WE'RE INVOLVED IN, WHERE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST MIGHT COME TO PLACE 30 DAYS FROM ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST. BUT HEY, IF IT'S A VOTE, YOU HAVE THESE SPECIFIC NARROW TARGETING THINGS THAT THAT, SAY, PROVIDE EXTRA INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO BEHAVE FOR THE CASE OF A SPECIFIC VOTE. I DON'T SEE THE CONFLICT. SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THESE. IF IT IF WE ALL HELP THINK IT HELPS TO SAY, HEY ALSO THERE'S A STATE LAW OUT THERE AND WE'RE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH IT. AS MAYOR PRO TEM SAID, THEN I'M GOOD WITH THAT ADDENDUM, BUT I'M ALSO GOOD WITH THE NAKED ONE OR THE NAKED RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT FIVE. MY APOLOGIES FOR SPEAKING AGAIN. CAN YOU JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING THIS PART? LIKE WHAT? THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE BOARD OF ETHICS WERE.

WHERE DID THIS SPECIFIC PART COME FROM? THE. THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE WAS NOT CURRENTLY A DEADLINE TO FILE DISCLOSURES, AND THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO HAVE ONE. SO THIS IS REALLY ONLY ABOUT THE TIMELINE. THAT'S THIS THIS SPECIFIC PART. YES. OKAY. MAYOR, I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER HOLLAND, BUT AGAIN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S CONSENSUS ON MOVING FORWARD WITH SOMETHING. SO I'M HAPPY TO BE THE SWING ON THIS, OKAY. BECAUSE I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT IT IS NEEDED. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE NEEDED FOR FUTURE MEMBERS. AND I'M OPEN TO THAT FACT. SURE. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT ONE. I GO BACK TO THAT OTHER PAGE ON THE APOLOGIZE. OKAY, THAT RIGHT THERE, I. AM GOING TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IT JUST MAKES SENSE FOR US TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A TIMELINE ON THIS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SOME THINGS COULD BE DRAWN OUT FOR QUITE A WHILE IF THERE'S NOT A TIMELINE. AND I THINK THAT OUR ETHICS COMMITTEE WOULD WANT TO, YOU KNOW, MOVE THINGS ALONG IF WE'RE HAVING CONFLICT, IT JUST MAKES SENSE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF TIMELINE ON IT. SO I THINK THAT WE SHOULD I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH US HAVING A 30 DAY TIMELINE. LET'S GET IT IN. LET'S LET'S TAKE CARE OF IT, YOU KNOW, AND TRY TO HANDLE THE SITUATION WITHIN 30 DAYS SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE.

WHEN IT ARRIVES. WE WON'T HAVE ALL OF THESE THINGS POSSIBLY LAPPING OVER EACH OTHER. THANK YOU. MAYOR. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE. DISTRICT SIX. I CERTAINLY CAN UNDERSTAND THE IMPETUS BEHIND THIS. I MEAN, I GET IT. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THAT. I THINK THAT TYPICALLY WE HAVE A DAY'S NOTICE BEFORE WE REALIZE THAT THERE'S SOME KIND OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WE GET THE AGENDA ON FRIDAY. WE SEE A COMPANY NAME. YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE OF DAYS. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN THIS WILL COME INTO PLAY AS FAR AS THAT KIND OF 30 DAY NOTICE, BECAUSE AT LEAST IN IN MY EXPERIENCE AS A CITY COUNCIL PERSON, THAT'S TYPICALLY WHEN WE KNOW OF WHO'S COMING FORWARD AND ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OR A CONTRACT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. GENERALLY, I THINK IT'S SIMPLER TO FOLLOW THE STATE ETHICS LAWS WHEN APPROPRIATE. SO I THINK THAT'S THAT'S MY DEFAULT, AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD GIVE DIRECTION TO.

HOWEVER, I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? I'M HERE'S HERE'S WHAT I HAVE JUST SO WE CAN WORK TOWARDS DIRECTION. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE IS MENTIONED ADDING A NOTE REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT. FIVE WAS BOTH EITHER NO NOTE OR NOTE REPRESENTATIVE ONE FROM DISTRICT ONE IS FINE WITH IT AS IS REPRESENTATIVE SIX IS STATE REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR IS STATE LAW AS WELL. AND I HAVE REPRESENTATIVE TWO I DON'T I DON'T KNOW I HAVE YOU DOWN AS BOTH. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EITHER OR OR I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU FELL. SO IF YOU COULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR DIRECTION, LIKE. YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. NO, I'M I'M FINE WITH IT

[00:35:07]

I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE LEGAL COUNSEL THAT THE COMMITTEE THAT THE ETHICS COMMITTEE SOUGHT. WHO WHO IS THAT? DID THEY DID WE INCUR LEGAL BILLS ON THAT? AND WHY WASN'T THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CONSULTED ON THIS? WHO CAN SPEAK TO THAT? THE LEGAL COUNSEL IS I BELIEVE THEIR LAW FIRM IS THEIR NAME. BORQUEZ LAW FIRM. B I CAN SPELL IT IF I WRITE IT DOWN ONE SECOND. B O J O R Q U E Z. THE WE CONTRACT WITH THEM FOR THE BOARD OF ETHICS, BECAUSE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE CITY ATTORNEY, IS SUBJECT TO THE ETHICS ORDINANCE AND GENERALLY DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL COUNSEL TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS. FOR THAT REASON. I'LL LET MATT SPEAK TO THAT MORE IF YOU'D LIKE TO. YEAH, THE BOARD HAS FIRM, AND THIS IS BEFORE MADISON AND I WERE EVEN WITH THE CITY, WORKED WITH THE CITY ON DRAFTING THE ETHICS ORDINANCE THAT'S IN PLACE. AND I THINK THAT TOOK SIX PLUS MONTHS FOR THEM TO PUT TOGETHER. BUT THEY HIRED OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO COME IN AND DO IT FOR VARIOUS REASONS. AND SPECIFICALLY IT PUT IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF SOME, SOME PROHIBITIONS ON WHEN OUR OFFICE CAN BE INVOLVED OR WHEN WE

[00:40:03]

OKAY. READY? SO, SO JUST THE CONSENSUS IS JUST A NOTE THERE THAT SAYS SEE STATE LAW OR SOME SOME KIND OF AMENDMENT THAT THAT OKAY DENOTES THAT OH I'M SORRY REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT SIX.

THANK YOU. WHICH ATTORNEY AT THE FIRM WORKED ON THIS? I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. BORQUEZ. OKAY. AND WHO SELECTED THE LAW FIRM? IT WAS IT WAS BEFORE I WAS HERE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM LIKE A CITY ATTORNEY SAID SINCE 2018. I BELIEVE THEY DRAFTED THE ORDINANCE. RIGHT. OKAY. SO THERE WAS NO SELECTION PROCESS AFTER ALL THESE YEARS AS FAR AS DETERMINING WHAT'S MOST ECONOMICAL OR AND I ASSUME WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THEM LIMITING THE HOURS AND WHAT THE RATES ARE. WE DO HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THEM. WE HAVEN'T HIT THE NOT TO EXCEED. THANK YOU. AND I WOULD THINK FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE NOT WE SAVE MONEY AND THAT THEY WROTE IT SO THEY CAN'T BILL US FOR HEY WE HAVE TO READ IT YOU KNOW. SO. I MEAN THAT'S A REAL THING. LIKE EVERY TIME, IF YOU'VE EVER TRANSFERRED A CASE FROM ONE ATTORNEY TO THE NEXT, THAT FIRST BILL IS A DOOZY BECAUSE ONE, THE FIRST ATTORNEY DID EVERYTHING WRONG. AND THEN TWO, THEY GOT TO READ EVERYTHING. SO IT'S EXPENSIVE. OKAY. NEXT. OKAY, OKAY. THE THIRD PART OF THIS FIRST PROPOSAL WOULD ADJUST THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. REALLY THE MOST OF THE CHANGES ARE PRETTY MINIMAL. AS FAR AS THE RELATIVES THERE. THERE'S MOSTLY JUST ADDING. FOSTER CHILD, REMOVING GREAT GRANDCHILD AND GREAT GRANDPARENT, AND ADDING DOMESTIC PARTNER. AND THEN THE OTHER KIND OF MAJOR CHANGE TO THIS SECTION WOULD BE TO ADD THE CLIENT RELATIONSHIP. BUT THOSE ARE THE MAJOR CHANGES OF HOW OF ADJUSTING THE SECTION. SO I HAVE A HANDOUT IF YOU ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CHANGES ABOUT THE RELATION, THE FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIPS. YEAH. ONE SECOND. YES. THANK YOU CHRISTY. AND THEN AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS THAT IT WOULD ALSO CHANGE HOW RELATIVES IS CONSIDERED TO IMPACT CLIENT. SO CURRENTLY ANY RELATIVE WHO HAS ONE OF THESE LIST OF THINGS LIST IS HAS ONE OF THESE LISTS OF THINGS THAT COMES BEFORE COUNCIL IS AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMED TO CREATE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THIS WOULD ADJUST THAT TO WHERE THAT'S NOT ENTIRELY TRUE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, IF A CITY OFFICIALS AREN'T SERVED ON A BOARD OF A NONPROFIT AND THEY NEEDED A PERMIT, FOR SOME REASON, THE CITY OFFICIAL WOULD AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO RECUSE FROM THAT VOTE. UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, THAT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED AUTOMATICALLY.

SO. OKAY. QUESTIONS DIRECTION FOR STAFF ON THIS STRUCTURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND I HAVE THE DEFINITIONS OF SOME OF THESE THINGS ON THIS SLIDE TOO FOR REVIEW IF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE THEM.

BUT YEAH, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THAT FIRST SLIDE, I'LL JUST TELL YOU HERE'S ONE OF MY NO. THE OTHER ONE I'M SORRY. OH, THE OTHER ONE. YES. BECAUSE THIS IS GERMANE TO THAT. YES. YES. THIS IS ALL THE SAME. YEAH. PERFECT. OKAY. HERE, HERE'S WHAT GIVES ME A CONCERN. HAVING BEEN HERE WHEN

[00:45:07]

YES. MY CHALLENGE TO THAT IS THE LAST SENTENCE AND I'LL START IN THE MIDDLE. CITY OFFICIALS LATEST INDIVIDUAL STATE INCOME TAX RETURN. WE DON'T HAVE A STATE INCOME TAX. SO IT COULDN'T HAVE COME FROM US. I BELIEVE THAT LAST SECTION IS FROM THE MODEL ETHICS CODE. THERE WE GO.

YEAH. SO YEAH. SO IT JUST IT BEGS THE QUESTION DID WE READ OVER IT. RIGHT. LIKE AND AGAIN NO ONE'S GOING TO I'M JUST IT'S JUST ADD THIS TO THE LIST OF CONCERNS I HAVE THAT NO ONE CAUGHT THAT. NO. IF YOU'RE DIGGING INTO IT, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE US FOUR TIMES.

OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF DIRECTION REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE? CERTAINLY A GOOD POINT. THERE IS NO STATE INCOME TAX AND I AND I, I HEAR THE LARGER CONCERN IT RAISES FOR YOU. BUT JUST AT LEAST ON THE NARROW POINT, YOU COULD STRIKE THE WORD STATE AND IT'D STILL BE VALID. MY QUESTION? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO COMMENT THAT THIS IS A VERY HELPFUL EXHIBIT AND I UNDERSTAND THE IMPULSE TO INCLUDE MORE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPULSE WAS TO EXCLUDE RELATIONSHIPS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED, AND I'D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT THE RATIONALE IS. I THINK IT JUST MAKES IT EASIER FOR CITY OFFICIALS TO KEEP TRACK OF THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE IMPLICATED AUTOMATICALLY, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT IT'S BEEN BROADENED. BUT IT ISN'T BROADENED. IT'S JUST SHIFTED. RIGHT? AND HOW THE MATTERS THAT CAN BE, THAT CAN CREATE A CONFLICT OR IS BROADENED, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T DO THE COUNT. BUT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A FEW MORE YESES THAN NOS, BUT THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF NOS IN THE RIGHT COLUMN. I MEAN, MY, MY, WITHOUT PUSHING IT REAL HARD, MY. MY IMPULSE WOULD BE TO SAY, JUST ADD WHAT YOU WANT TO ADD, BUT NOT TAKE AWAY. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I NEED A LITTLE MORE RATIONALE FOR TAKING AWAY A CATEGORY OF CONFLICT LIKE, YOU KNOW, IS IT IS THERE SOME PARTICULAR SITUATION THAT WE'RE NOW TRYING TO PERMIT THAT USED TO BE PROHIBITED? YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST KIND OF ODD. SO I'M A LISTEN, BUT LIKE I SAID, MY AS TO WHY WE'RE SAYING WHY WE'RE EXCLUDING RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE CURRENTLY COVERED, I DIDN'T REALLY, YOU KNOW, GET A CLEAR.

SENSE FROM, FROM WHAT YOU SAID. AND I'M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM THE CHAIR OR, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO ADDRESS IT. BUT FAILING THAT, THEN I WOULD JUST SAY INCLUDE THE NEW YESES, BUT DON'T ADD ANY NEW NOS. OKAY? ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT SIX. SO MY I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION OR CONCERN IS THAT THE KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN COMES INTO PLAY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, SAY, YOUR STEP GRANDCHILD'S CLIENTS SAY YOUR STEP GRANDCHILD IS A CHIROPRACTOR AND HAS A CLIENT. I MEAN, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW AT WHAT POINT WE SAY, YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN YOUR STEP GRANDCHILD HAD A CLIENT THAT THEN WAS PART OF A COMPANY THAT COMES BEFORE COUNCIL. AND SO AGAIN, SOME OF THIS MIGHT JUST BE MY LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. SO BUT THAT JUST SEEMS VERY DIFFICULT TO ME. SO THAT IS PART OF WHAT WHEN WHAT HE WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT UNDER THE, THE CURRENT, UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, IF YOUR STEP GRANDCHILD IS A CHIROPRACTOR AND THEIR BUSINESS CAME BEFORE YOU FOR A PERMIT, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RECUSE UNDER THE PROPOSAL. YOU WOULD NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE REMOVED. I THOUGHT IT SAID DOWN HERE THE CLOSE PARENT CHILD HOUSEHOLD. IF YOUR STEP GRANDCHILD THEMSELVES CAME BEFORE YOU, BUT IF THEIR IF THEIR BUSINESS DID YOU WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO RECUSE ANYMORE. SO I SEE HERE IT SAYS EMPLOYER.

[00:50:03]

IT'S RIGHT AROUND YOU. OKAY, THEN THERE'S THE NEXT STEP IS THEN THE SPOUSE OR DOMESTIC PARTNER. IF THEIR EMPLOYER CLIENT, A BUSINESS THAT THEY OWN COMES BEFORE YOU, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO RECUSE. THAT'S ALL THE SAME. BUT NOT IF THERE'S A IF THEY HAVE LIKE A POLICY INTEREST IN SOMETHING. SO IF THEY'RE JUST ON THE BOARD OF A NONPROFIT THAT IS NO LONGER THEY'RE NO LONGER YOU'RE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO RECUSE FOR THAT. THAT'S WHAT THIS THE SECOND SECTION THAT'S JUST TALKING ABOUT YOUR SPOUSE. THE THIRD SECTION IS WHAT I'M REFERENCING. AND SO IF THE CITY OFFICIALS PARENT CHILD HOUSEHOLD AS IT'S DEFINED HERE. YEAH. IS HAS A CLIENT. SO YES. SO A STEP GRANDCHILD WOULD NOT BE WITHIN THAT DEFINITION. IT WOULD JUST INCLUDE YOUR YOUR CITY OFFICIALS, PARENTS, THEIR CHILDREN, A STEP CHILD, BUT NOT ANY GRAND FURTHER. THEN I'M MISUNDERSTANDING THIS. WHAT IS THIS A DEFINITION OF THEN UP ON THE ON THE SCREEN. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE. OKAY. LET ME GO BACK HERE. SO OKAY. SO YOU'VE GOT OTHER RELATIVES. NO NO. SO IF IT'S THE PARENT OR THE CHILD AND THE PARENT OR THE CHILD HAS A CLIENT, AND THAT CLIENT HAPPENS TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL ASKING SOMETHING YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN YOUR PARENT OR CHILD'S CLIENT WELL OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. YEAH. YES. YEAH, I FORGOT WE DIDN'T TAKE THAT OUT. I JUST THAT JUST SOUNDS VERY AS SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO FOLLOW THE RULES, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS LIKE, HOW DO I FOLLOW THE RULES? SO YEAH, THAT JUST SEEMS REALLY HARD TO BE ABLE TO SAY 100%. YOUR PARENT OR YOUR CHILD HAS NOT HAD ANY GOODS OR SERVICES FOR SOMEONE THAT MIGHT BE INVOLVED IN AN ENTITY OR HAVE A SMALL OWNERSHIP THAT THEN COMES FORWARD. SO I, I'M JUST TRYING TO AGAIN, TRY TO MAKE SURE I FOLLOW THE RULES. SO I KNOW I, I AGREE I'M SUBJECT TO THIS ORDINANCE TOO, RIGHT. CURRENTLY IT'S BROADER THAN THAT. RIGHT. LIKE RIGHT. THIS IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY SOME OF THAT. LIKE HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW MY GREAT GRANDPARENTS BUSINESS CAME BEFORE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I'M. SO THE PROPOSAL ACTUALLY REMOVES THAT IT DOES STILL HAVE SOME THE THIS THE THAT THIRD SECTION OF THE HANDOUT IS THE ONE WHERE IT'S A LITTLE PROBABLY HARDER, RIGHT. BECAUSE IT'S TALKING ABOUT YOUR PARENT, YOUR CHILD OR A MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD AND THAT. BUT THAT'S JUST LIMITED TO EMPLOYER AND CLIENT AND CLIENT. WHEREAS CURRENTLY IT'S ALSO IF THEY OWN A BUSINESS, IF THEY'RE ON THE BOARD OF SOMETHING, IF THEY'RE ON LIKE A BUSINESS ENTITY OR A NONPROFIT, CURRENTLY YOU ARE REQUIRED TO RECUSE FROM THAT. IF THEY COME, THAT ENTITY COMES BEFORE YOU WITH A PERMIT.

AND YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF CONNECTION. WELL, IF IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU KNOW OR NOT. BASICALLY, DIDN'T WE JUST SAY WE WERE IN FAVOR OF THE. WELL, I'M TALKING ABOUT UNDER THE UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, IF IT IS A PENDING MATTER, THE ORDINANCE IS ASSUMING THAT, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS IT'S ONE UNDER ONE OF THESE RELATIONSHIPS. BUT WASN'T THAT THE DIRECTION WE GAVE TODAY IS TO INCLUDE THAT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. SO, YES. BUT SO ONE SECOND. SO CURRENTLY IT DOESN'T USE IT STILL USES THAT KNOWING LANGUAGE. RIGHT. BUT WE THE COUNCIL JUST GAVE DIRECTION FOR THE PROPOSED WHICH IS SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH IS WHY I'M USING THAT VERNACULAR I WAS TRYING TO COMPARE CURRENTLY TO UNDER THE PROPOSAL. SO. SO IF YOU IF YOU ADOPT, IF WE IF WE'RE GOING TO OPERATE UNDER THIS, THIS IS ADOPTED AND THEN WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS SECTION. YES. IF YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN UNDER.

THE THIRD SECTION IN HERE, IF THEY HAD. OKAY. I'M SORRY I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE HYPOTHETICAL. NO. AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NO. THANK YOU. REALLY. SO IF WE'RE OPERATING UNDER THE PROPOSAL AS FAR AS WHAT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BUT AND THEN THE PROPOSAL AS FAR AS YOUR, YOUR, YOUR GREAT GRANDCHILD, RIGHT. YOUR GREAT GRANDCHILD IS, IS ANOTHER ANOTHER RELATIVE. I DON'T HAVE THE. SO THEY'RE CURRENTLY UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. THEY WOULD BE IMPLICATED AS HAVING A CONFLICTING INTEREST. UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL THEY WOULD NOT BE

[00:55:04]

I'M KNOWING NOW IF SOMEBODY COMES IN HERE AND TELLS ME SOMETHING NOW, I KNOW IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. I DON'T SEE WHERE SHOULD KNOW. THAT MEANS I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. I SEE IT SAYING, YOU KNOW OR YOU SHOULD KNOW. THAT MEANS I KNOW NOW. I NOW KNOW RATHER THAN ME KNOWING 3 OR 4 DAYS AGO OR A WEEK AGO OR A YEAR AGO, THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE TO ME. SO I'M GOING TO PUT THAT THERE. AND I'M STILL GOING TO STICK WITH THE PROPOSED WITH LEAVING KNOW OR SHOULD KNOW THAT THAT'S WHERE I AM WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT THAT'S WHERE I AM WITH THAT. OKAY, NOW BACK TO THE OTHER PAGE. AND ALSO LOOKING DOWN HERE ON WHAT WE ARE SPEAKING ON, I'M REALLY KIND OF GETTING HUNG UP ON THE WHOLE $600 THING OF FAIR MARKET VALUE. I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHETHER OR NOT OUR OUR BOARD OF ETHICS, YOU KNOW. MOVES IN ANY AMOUNTS THAT ARE HIGHER THAN THAT. I MEAN, $600 SEEMS LIKE IT'S A FAIRLY LOW, LOW NUMBER. I'M NOT REAL SURE HOW THAT NUMBER COMES OUT OF THE AIR. IS THAT IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? AND THEN I'LL AND I'LL BE DONE. SO THE $600 IS CURRENTLY IN THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. IT WAS SET WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS INITIALLY CREATED. THAT HASN'T BEEN CHANGED SINCE THEN. SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT NUMBER CAME FROM. THE BOARD HAS HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT NUMBER, ESPECIALLY WITH INFLATION THE WAY IT IS. BUT THEY THEY HAVEN'T CHANGED IT. YEAH. BUT I GUESS IF COUNCIL WANTED TO GIVE DIRECTION TO RAISE THAT AMOUNT THEY TODAY THEY COULD BUT THEY HAVE DISCUSSED IT. BUT IT WAS BEFORE MY TIME. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE WHERE THAT CAME FROM.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN HELPFUL. I UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BETTER THE INTENT AND I'M COMFORTABLE GIVING IT A TRY. YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THIS THING RUN AROUND THE TRACK FOR SEVEN YEARS NOW. I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE THINGS HAVE ACTUALLY COME UP.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TRYING IT THAT WAY. OKAY. REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT. TWO THEN SIX. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE DIALOG AS WELL. I, I, I MADE SENSE OF IT. THE, THE HANDOUT WAS EXTREMELY HELPFUL. I MADE I MADE SENSE OF IT BY HONESTLY MOVING THEM UP HORIZONTALLY RATHER THAN VERTICALLY. AND I KNOW THAT'S JUST A DATA THING, BUT IT HELPED ME KEEP TRACK OF YOU WERE ESSENTIALLY SAYING AS YOU WENT FURTHER AWAY FROM YOU, FEWER AND FEWER THINGS WERE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. AND THAT THAT THAT'S HOW I READ IT AFTER THE CONVERSATION. SO I MY DIRECTION IS FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT SIX. I. THE DEFINITION OF THE BUSINESS ENTITY THAT THE OWNERSHIP AND CREATING THAT CONFLICT. SO IT INCLUDES ANY OWNERSHIP OF 5% OR MORE OR THE $600 FAIR MARKET VALUE. SO IF YOU SAY, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, 2500 OVER TWO YEARS. SO IF SOMEONE WAS A 5% OWNER AND HAD A CLIENT THAT CAME IN, OR SOMEONE THAT PURCHASED GOODS AND SERVICES OF 2500, SO 5% OF 2500 IS 125 OR

[01:00:09]

SO YOU LOOK AT THE TYPICAL 8 TO 10% NET FROM YOUR GROSS INCOME. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $12.50 A YEAR. THAT MAY BE A 5% OVER OWNER ACTUALLY MADE. I JUST DON'T SEE THAT GIVING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR THAT AMOUNT. CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY IT WAS SET AT A $600 INVESTMENT OR. THE 5%, AND THEN ALSO WITH THE NUMBER 2500 OVER TWO YEARS BEING AT THE POINT THAT THEY FEEL THAT IT WOULD REASONABLY AND AGAIN, THEY'VE KIND OF COUCHED IT AGAIN, COULD REASONABLY, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY BE INFERRED THAT YOU WERE UNETHICAL AND GAVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF THIS INCOME. SO IT JUST SEEMS TO ALSO BE SO SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS SMALL BUSINESSES. AND WE DON'T SEE THE OWNER OF OUR HOSPITALS OR UNIVERSITIES OR US COLD STORAGE OR PETERBILT, YOU KNOW, RUNNING FOR OFFICE HERE. YOU HAVE TO BE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE STATE OR RETIRED. I JUST ALSO AM CONCERNED THAT EXCLUDING A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WE SAY WE SUPPORT IN THIS COMMUNITY, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, TO DISCOURAGE THEM FROM BECOMING ENTREPRENEURS AND CREATING BUSINESSES IF IT'S GOING TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE REASONING FOR MY QUESTION.

OKAY. SO. THE 5% AND THE $600 ARE LIKE I TALKED TO SAID TO COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT I WAS NOT HERE WHEN THOSE WERE SET. I HEAR I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND I AND THE I DON'T KNOW WHY THOSE NUMBERS WERE SET AT THAT LEVEL. THE BOARD DIDN'T GIVE REASONING WHEN THEY I BELIEVE THAT THAT DIDN'T COME OUT OF THE BOARD AT ALL. THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, THE $600 AND THE 5% THAT'S CURRENTLY THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE ORDINANCE. AND THEY DIDN'T CHANGE IT. THE, THE, THE $2,500, THIS IS A NEW THIS WOULD BE A NEW RELATIONSHIP, THE CLIENT RELATIONSHIP THAT THE $2,500 THEY DID DISCUSS. THIS LANGUAGE WAS TAKEN INITIALLY FROM THE MODEL CODE. IT INCLUDED A $1,000. THEY FELT THAT THAT WAS TOO SMALL. THEY DID DISCUSS 2000. THEY DISCUSSED 2500 AND THEY DISCUSSED 5000. AND THEY SETTLED ON 2500. AGAIN, THEY HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT INTEREST AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SORRY, THE INTEREST RATE. SO BUT THAT'S HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THIS $2,500 NUMBER. AND I JUST WANT TO STATE, I THINK JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS CALLED A MODEL CODE DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS ALWAYS APPLICABLE IN EVERY CITY, OR THAT IT TRULY IS WHAT'S AGREED TO AMONG ALL MUNICIPALITIES OR ALL THOSE THAT STUDY THAT AREA TO BE THE GOLD STANDARD. IT IS JUST A DOCUMENT, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER DOCUMENT. IT SAID $1,000. I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. I, I UNDERSTAND A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I UNDERSTAND BEING ETHICAL AND NOT BEING SWAYED BECAUSE OF BUSINESS INTERACTIONS. BUT I THINK THAT THE LEVEL AT WHICH IT IS PROPOSED, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME RECONSIDERATION OF HOW TO NOT SINGLE OUT BUSINESS OWNERS FOR A VERY TIGHT AMOUNT OF WHAT ACTUALLY THEY WOULD ACTUALLY MAKE FROM SOMEONE, AGAIN, THAT USE GOODS OR SERVICES OR WENT INTO A RESTAURANT ENOUGH TIMES IN 1 OR 2 YEARS TO EQUAL THIS AMOUNT, TO THEN FEEL THAT THAT PERSON HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CAN'T MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT BEING SWAYED. AND JUST BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED RESTAURANTS. SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THE CLIENT, THE CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS A IS A PERSON OR BUSINESS ENTITY THAT HAS PAID THE CITY OFFICIALS. SO IT'S NOT THE OTHER WAY. SO JUST GOING TO A GROCERY STORE AND SPENDING. BUT IF A COUNCIL MEMBER HAS A 5% OWNERSHIP IN A GROCERY STORE, THE GROCERY STORE WOULD BE IF THEY CAME BEFORE A COUNCIL, THEY WOULD THE COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD HAVE TO RECUSE YES, OR WHOMEVER PURCHASED $2,500 OVER TWO YEARS WORTH OF GOODS FROM THE GROCERY STORE THAT THE CITY OFFICIAL WAS A 5% OWNER OF, ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION I READ. I BELIEVE THEY WORK SEPARATELY, BUT I'D HAVE TO THINK WHAT IT WORKS SEPARATELY THERE. ONE SECOND BUSINESS ENTITY IN WHICH THE CITY. SORRY, I WAS GOING TO GO.

[01:05:12]

I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION. IF YOU IF YOU DON'T MIND, HELP ME KIND OF NAVIGATE SOME OF THESE.

AND I APPRECIATE MAYOR PRO TEM BRINGING UP THE CHANGING INTERESTS BOTH WAYS. SO IF I'M A PERSONAL TRAINER AND I HAVE A CLIENT AND THAT CLIENT. OWNS 20% AND REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES AND THE CITY IS GOING TO CONTRACT WITH REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES. I AM NOW GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT. CORRECT. IF YOU ARE A PERSONAL TRAINER AND YOUR CLIENT WHO OWNS WHO IS REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES, WHO OWNS STOCK IN REPUBLIC? I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S THE INTENTION.

I THINK IT'S THE INTENTION. IF YOUR CLIENT, THE PERSON BECAUSE YOUR CLIENT IS THE INDIVIDUAL.

SO IF THE PERSON CAME BEFORE FOR A PERMIT. THEN YES, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RECUSE. THEY WOULDN'T BE PROHIBITED FROM GETTING THE PERMIT. YOU WOULD JUST BE REQUIRED TO RECUSE BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP, PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP. BUT IF JUST REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICE, UNLESS THEY ARE THEM THEMSELVES ARE SPECIFICALLY COMING AND THEN YOU'RE LIKE, OH, I KNOW I HAVE A CONFLICT WITH THIS PERSON, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO RECUSE. BUT IF THE MANAGER OF REPUBLIC WASTE SERVICES, I CAME BEFORE YOU AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY OWNED IT, THEN I THINK YOU WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO RECUSE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPED. THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE MISS BYRD WAS WAS, WAS FOR ME. THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE PICKING IT EARLIER. BECAUSE THAT'S THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. I'M A PERSONAL TRAINER. I DON'T TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT THEIR PERSONAL BUSINESS, NOR SHOULD I HAVE TO. I'M. I'M A LITTLE. I'M A LITTLE LEERY ON SOME OF THESE.

FOR ME. MAYOR, DIRECT MY COMMENTS TO THE CHAIR. MAYOR, I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING.

BUT FOR ME, ALL OF THIS IS IT'S A IT'S A SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM. ESSENTIALLY, SOME OF THIS FEELS LIKE NOT THE INTENTION, BUT IT FEELS LIKE IT'S DESIGNED TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS, FOR US AS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, TO HAVE PRIVATE BUT STATE LAW BASED LEGAL CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY. WE'RE NOT BREAKING ANY LAW, ANY STATE LAW OR FEDERAL LAW. SOME OF THIS FEELS LIKE IT IS A BIT UNNECESSARILY ACCUSATORY AND MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO DO OUR JOBS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE HERE. WE GOT TO MOVE FORWARD. MAYOR, I'M GONNA VOTE FOR SOMETHING. TELL ME WHERE WE ARE. ONCE YOU MAKE THE COUNT, AND I'LL SWING TOWARD WHICHEVER WAY WE NEED TO GET

[01:10:05]

LET ME KNOW WHERE WE ARE AND I'LL GET THEIR ORDINANCE. IF YOU MOVED IN WITH SOMEBODY AND HAD AN INDEFINITE ROMANTIC SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM WOULD REQUIRE YOU ONLY TO RECUSE IF THEY CAME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WITH AN ITEM BECAUSE IT CREATES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

WHAT IF I DON'T HAVE A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM BECAUSE YOU JUST MOVE IN WITH SOMEBODY THAT WOULD BE A HOUSEHOLD MEMBER, NOT A DOMESTIC PARTNER. A HOUSEHOLD MEMBER IS ANYONE WHOSE PRIMARY RESIDENCE IS THE CITY OFFICIALS HOME, WHO DOES NOT PAY RENT. OKAY, I GUESS I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT A DOMESTIC PARTNER THAT WOULD STILL BE CATEGORIZED AS DOMESTIC PARTNER. THERE ARE A LOT OF MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY WHO ARE ANYWAY, OKAY, WE'LL GET THERE.

YEP. ANYONE ELSE? SHORT REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO THEN THREE. I JUST WANTED TO AMEND MY DIRECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FOLLOW THE MAYOR'S POINT ABOUT THE STATE. THE WORD STATE NEEDS TO BE DROPPED THAT I WANT TO INCLUDE THAT IN MY DIRECTION. REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT TWO.

YEAH, I THINK I THINK IT'S INCORRECT TO VIEW THIS AS SAYING THAT THIS IS A BUNCH OF ELECTRIC FENCES AND THAT IF YOU TOUCH THEM, YOU GET FRIED. THIS IS LIKE A POSSIBLE BASIS FOR SOMEONE TO BRING A CASE, BUT IT'S LIKE A JURY TOO. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE SEVEN PEOPLE.

ULTIMATELY YOU'RE GOING TO DECIDE, IS THAT ENTIRELY REASONABLE THAT YOU WOULD, THAT YOU OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN WHAT YOUR TRAINER INVESTED IN? YOU KNOW, IT'S STILL GOING TO PASS.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING, THAT IT'S GOT TO PASS LIKE A HUMAN BEING, SET OF HUMAN BEINGS. REASONABILITY TEST. SO I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT AS WORRIED ABOUT, LIKE, OH, ALL THESE TRIPWIRES. I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT SAYS. IT CREATES POSSIBILITY OF A CASE, BUT IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, THEN IT'S GOT TO BE ADJUDICATED. YEAH, I THINK I'LL. AND THEN ACTUALLY I JUST ONE ONE OTHER LOOSE END. I'M, I'M LISTENING WITH INTEREST. YOU KNOW, AT AT THE POINTS RAISED BY COUNCILMEMBER JESTER ASK IF THERE'S SOME GUIDANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD PROVIDE HERE, THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO RESPOND RATHER THAN SEND IT BACK TO THEM, BECAUSE I GET THE IDEA THAT THAT 2500 WAS AN AMOUNT THAT'S TOO LOW BECAUSE OF LIKE, LIKE THE GROCERY STORE EXAMPLE, BUT IS THERE ARE YOU LOOKING FOR A DIFFERENT, IF I MAY, CHAIR? I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHETHER COUNCILMEMBER JESTER WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE A DIFFERENT NUMBER OR QUALITATIVELY A DIFFERENT WAY TO DESCRIBE THE RELATIONSHIP? WELL, AND I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. AND THIS IS NOT A LINE OF EXPERTISE WHATSOEVER, BUT INITIALLY MY THOUGHT WOULD BE TO AS OPPOSED TO USING MAYBE I WOULD SAY THE NEXT BEST THING WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE MATERIALLY THAT MATERIALLY ADVANTAGES. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, OR GIVE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE LIKE IF 10% OF YOUR BUSINESS OR, OR A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF YOUR WHOLE BUSINESS IS DEPENDENT ON THIS CLIENT, ONE CLIENT. WELL, THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING I THINK IS VERY FAIR TO SAY IS INFLUENTIAL. AND IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SET ASIDE AND LOOK AT WHAT IS BEFORE COUNCIL TO VOTE ON WITHOUT SOME KIND OF UNDUE INFLUENCE OR INFLUENCE THAT WOULD BE IMPROPER. SO AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS WHAT IT SHOULD BE. I'VE NOT STUDIED THIS MYSELF, I SHOULD THIS IS SOMETHING I SHOULD DEEP DIVE INTO. BUT I THINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE MUCH MORE REASONABLE FOR OUR SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS TO UNDERSTAND.

THEY CAN PARTICIPATE AND NOT. BE IN DANGER OF BEING IN VIOLATION. IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S QUANTIFIABLE IN THAT WAY, VERSUS JUST 2500 OVER TWO YEARS, I JUST DON'T. I MEAN, AND THIS MAY

[01:15:05]

AND SO I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO GET WHERE WE WANT TO GO WITHOUT USING THIS SPECIFIC DEFINITION.

AND I CERTAINLY THINK ETHICS ARE OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE. WE HOPEFULLY ARE ELECTED BECAUSE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ETHICAL. BUT I WOULD JUST FEAR THAT THIS DISCOURAGES PEOPLE FROM RUNNING FOR LOCAL OFFICE. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I'M ACTUALLY TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CONSIDER DOING, BECAUSE DEMOCRACY DOESN'T WORK WITHOUT PEOPLE'S PARTICIPATION.

AND AGAIN, I HATE TO JUST EXCLUDE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT I THINK COULD HAVE A GOOD PERSPECTIVE ON COUNCIL AND BE VERY, VERY HELPFUL AND CONTRIBUTE. SO SOMETHING MORE LIKE THAT, I THINK. GETS TO WHAT THE HEART OF WHAT I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS FEEL THAT WE ARE BEING TRANSPARENT. BUT I MY OPINION IS AND I THINK OTHERS THAT ARE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION AND AS A PART OF A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU JUST THINK, WELL, THEN I CAN'T, I CAN'T BUY INTO THE GROCERY STORE OR I CAN'T BUY INTO THE RESTAURANT OR I CAN'T BUY INTO, YOU KNOW, WITH THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE'VE GOT.

SO. I'M, I HOPE I'VE, I'VE STATED THAT AS RESPECTFULLY AS AS POSSIBLE. YEAH. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOU CAN APPROVE THE REST OF THIS, THIS PIECE OF THE PROPOSAL AND JUST EXCLUDE THE CLIENT PIECE AND SEND THAT BACK FOR I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY GOOD DIRECTION. YEAH. MATTER OF FACT, YES. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. AND I'D BE ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE PICKING DOLLAR NUMBERS.

AND WE'RE IN A WORLD WHERE OUR NUMBERS HAVE CHANGING MEANINGS OVER TIME. BUT NOW I KNOW SOME OF Y'ALL DON'T LIKE JUDGMENT BEING INVOLVED. I LIKE JUDGMENT BEING INVOLVED. I LIKE THE IDEA THAT SEVEN REASONABLE PEOPLE YOU KNOW, WILL HAVE TO HAVE TO WEIGH IT. IF WE, INSTEAD OF USING THE DOLLAR LIMIT, SAID A MATERIAL INTEREST AND YOU KNOW. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. THEY'RE GOING TO THEY WON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT'LL BE. THEY'LL HAVE TO DISCUSS IT. AND, YOU KNOW, COMMON SENSE WILL HAVE TO COME INTO PLAY. SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS CHANGE THE DOLLAR LIMIT TO MATERIAL, NOT KICK IT BACK TO THEM FOR NOW. AND. OPTIONS. I JUST HAVEN'T FOLLOW. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT THAT WAS. THE ATTRACTIVE SHINY PEBBLE I PULLED OUT OF YOUR THOUGHTS THERE. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? YEAH, I GO OVER THAT. BUT HERE'S THE THING. I JUST WANT TO BE ON THE RECORD AND BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR IF YOU GO BACK ONE. THAT DOMESTIC PARTNER SENTENCE AT THE END IS ABSURD BECAUSE AND I WANT NO PART OF IT. BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE OPENING THE DOOR FOR THE MAJORITY. IF THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO GO AND YOU WANT TO LEAVE THAT IN THERE, HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE OPENING THE DOOR TO DO. BECAUSE IN THE ORDINANCE IT SAYS YOU SHALL FILE A COMPLAINT IF YOU THINK SOMETHING REASONABLY HAPPENED SHALL. THAT'S A DUTY. NOW I'M GOING TO GO AND SAY, WELL, I CAN ACCUSE ANYONE IN THE CITY OF DOING SOMETHING AND THEN INVOKE THEIR SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP AS PART OF THAT EXPLANATION. SO YES, I HAD TO SIT OUT IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC STREET IN FRONT OF FILL IN THE BLANKS EMPLOYEES HOUSE TO TAKE PICTURES TO THEN VALIDATE MY CLAIM THAT THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY IN A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS INDIVIDUAL, AND THAT INDIVIDUAL BENEFITED TO THE DEGREE, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH. SO I'VE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING. WHERE IN THE WORLD DID THAT COME FROM? LIKE, WHAT OTHER ORDINANCE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IN THE CITY OF DENTON POINT TO IT. WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? WE WORKED ON THIS DEFINITION DURING THE DURING THE MEETINGS. IS THERE IS THERE ANOTHER ORDINANCE IN THE CITY OF DENTON THAT TALKS ABOUT SOMEONE'S SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP? I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. YEAH, I WANT TO KNOW. SO SOMEBODY DO A QUICK WORD SEARCH AND GET BACK WITH ME THIS WEEK. ABSURD. CAN'T I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING ELSE OUTSIDE THAT I SAW THAT AT FIRST BLUSH. I'M LIKE, WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE WE DOING? IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THAT PART, WE CAN I

[01:20:01]

GOT THAT. JUST A NOTE. SO YEAH JUST REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE TALKED ABOUT THE MATERIAL AMOUNT AMENDMENT TO THE $2,500 AND WAS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE BUT SAYS TAKE AWAY STATE REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX IS SEND IT BACK OR REWORK OR MATERIAL AMOUNT AND THEN REPRESENTATIVE ONE IS GOOD AS IS AND REPRESENTATIVE FIVE TO BE DETERMINED. AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FROM REPRESENTATIVE FOR YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. I THINK THIS IS FRAUGHT WITH GOTCHA ITEMS. IT'S JUST LOOK AT LOOKING FOR PLACES WE CAN PUT PUT SNARES TO, TO SNAG PEOPLE. I THINK THAT'S I'D LOVE TO KNOW WHERE THIS WAS WAS, WAS STOLEN FROM THE STATE. INCOME TAX IS THE GREAT THE GREAT EVIDENCE OF THAT. AND I APPLAUD THE MAYOR FOR HIS EAGLE EYE IN IN PICKING THAT UP. I'M OPPOSED TO IT. IT'S JUST IT'S JUST IT'S JUST GOTCHA. I'M OPPOSED TO IT OKAY. SO WE DON'T HAVE DIRECTION THAT THAT'S MY READ OF THINGS. THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR OTHERS WHO WANT TO ADD COMMENTS. BUT THEN WE'RE MOVING ON. AND IF IT JUST I DON'T KNOW HOW WE HANDLE IT. MR. CITY ATTORNEY, IF IT GETS HUNG UP.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE, MR. JUSTER, BROUGHT UP A POINT ABOUT SENDING THIS BACK AND LETTING THEM REWORK THAT. MAYBE WE CAN GET CONSENSUS FOR THAT, MAYOR. YES. WE'LL ASK THE QUESTION. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX AND THEN ONE. I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK ACTUALLY WE'VE REALLY GONE THROUGH EVERY SINGLE POINT THAT WAS RECOMMENDED TO CHANGE. AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE COMPLAINANT AND RESPONDENT HAVING A RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY LEGAL COUNSEL OR ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE. THAT'S THEMSELVES PART. SORRY. OH, WE'RE STILL GETTING THERE. OKAY.

THERE'S MORE. I'LL RESERVE MY COMMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. NO THAT'S GOOD.

REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT ONE. WHATEVER. REPRESENTATIVE MAGEE SAID. I WOULD CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THAT. IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TOO FAR IN THE WEEDS WITH ALL OF THIS. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE

[01:25:01]

YES, SIR. WELL, SHE JUST WALKED OUT, BUT IT WAS MR. JESTER'S IDEA TO SEND IT BACK. SHE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING, THOUGH. I WAS GOING ALONG WITH WHAT SHE'D SAID EARLIER. SURE. SO, YEAH. LET ME.

WHEN SHE COMES BACK, WE'LL WE'LL TAKE THAT UP AND SEE. THAT WOULD BE. THAT WOULD GIVE US CONSENSUS. MR. MAYOR, ARE WE GOING TO COVER THAT LAST POINT? WHAT LAST POINT? THERE'S ONE MORE. THERE'S ONE MORE ITEM. THERE'S ONE MORE PROPOSAL. YEAH, YEAH. NO, I'M JUST SAYING. YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING WE'RE TRYING TO WRAP UP. WE'RE GOING BY SEGMENT. RIGHT, RIGHT. AND SO THIS SEGMENT WE NEED DIRECTION AND WE'VE NOT GOT IT. SO ARE YOU COUNCILMEMBERS I'M SO SORRY.

YEAH. NO WORRIES. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE POSITION TAKING THE POSITION OF SENDING THIS BACK.

YOU MENTIONED THAT, BUT I WASN'T SURE IF THAT'S STILL ON THE TABLE. YES OKAY. GOT IT. AND I'LL JOIN THAT. SO REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX AND MYSELF WILL SAY SEND IT BACK. AND THAT THAT GIVES US A CONSENSUS OKAY. SO MY UNDERSTANDING ON THE FIRST PROPOSAL IS THE FIRST TWO PIECES GOT DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD. THE CHANGES TO THE RELATIONSHIPS DID NOT THAT THAT IS CORRECT. AND I BELIEVE THERE'S ENOUGH CONSENSUS THERE TO ADD A FOOTNOTE ABOUT THE STATE LAW. GOT IT. REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT. SORRY, MAYOR. ONE MORE. YEAH.

CAN WE MAYBE DISCUSS DOLLAR AMOUNT BECAUSE WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT ON PREVIOUS COUNCILS. AND MISS JESTER ALSO JUST BOUGHT UP THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT. DO YOU THINK IT'S WORTHY OF MAYBE TAKING A STAB AT THAT QUICKLY OR NOT? WELL, I THINK IF THAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT GOES BACK TO THEM, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION? YES. YEAH. AND THE CLIENT ONE WOULD BE ARE YOU, WOULD YOU LIKE THEM TO LOOK AT THE $600 AND 5% AS WELL. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT? THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I HEARD HIM SAY TALK ABOUT THE MATERIAL CHANGE INSTEAD OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT MATERIAL, SO THAT IT'S NOT A DOES THAT APPLY EVERYWHERE IN THIS SECTION I THINK OH, I THINK WELL I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. I'LL DEFER TO STAFF. SO CURRENTLY THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SLIDE. YEAH. THAT'S LEFT THE OR THE ORDINANCE HAS THIS IS WHAT'S CURRENTLY IN EFFECT THE 5% AND THE $600. THE $2,500 IS PART OF THE PROPOSED CLIENT DEFINITION. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS JUST THE MATERIAL MATERIAL INTEREST WOULD BE POTENTIALLY AN OPTION FOR THE CLIENT DEFINITION. BUT I THINK ARE YOU DID YOU INTEND THAT TO BE IN ALL OF THE WERE ALL THE PERCENTAGES ARE I THINK IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OKAY AS AN ALTERNATE FOR ALL POTENTIALLY IF THERE'S NOT A BETTER IDEA OUT THERE, WHICH THERE MIGHT BE, BUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AS OPPOSED TO THE NUMBER WAS WHAT THE SUGGESTION WAS. YEAH. SO JUST TO ADD CONTEXT, I DO BELIEVE THE 600 IS WHAT REQUIRES YOU TO FILE A TAX RETURN. SO IT'S EASILY DISCOVERABLE. THINK THAT DOUBLE CHECK MY MATH ON THE WORK SESSION WAS TAPED AND PUT OUT THERE. BUT I THINK THAT'S THAT'S WHERE THEY WERE. THAT WAS THE INTENT ON THE 600. OBVIOUSLY A LOT HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN. AND SO TO YOUR POINT, I THINK WE CAN GIVE DIRECTION TO SAY, LOOK AT ALL THE DOLLAR FIGURES OR LOOK AT THE DOLLAR FIGURES IN A PARTICULAR SUBSECTION. I DON'T KNOW WHEN I THOUGHT SEND IT BACK, I THOUGHT IT CAPTURED ALL THIS WHOLE RUN OF THINGS. AND SO IT WOULD INCLUDE THAT 600 AND, AND ALL THE THINGS. BUT YOUR THOUGHTS? MAYOR, I APPRECIATE THAT. I REMEMBER MAYBE IT WAS A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WHEN MR. WATTS BROUGHT THIS UP. I BELIEVE WE DIDN'T. WE HAD THREE FOLKS

[01:30:02]

OKAY. AND THEN THIS IS AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS THAT ONE. I THOUGHT IT WAS PART OF THIS, BUT I'M SORRY. THIS IS THE WRONG SLIDE. THIS IS THE LAST PROPOSAL. THE BOARD OF ETHICS IS RECOMMENDING WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CALLED THE BURDEN OF PROOF SECTION TO BE RETITLED THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ESTABLISH FACTS. THIS CHANGE WOULD CLARIFY THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARD THAT THE BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO USE WHEN REVIEWING ETHICS COMPLAINTS. MOST SIMPLY, THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARD OUTLINES HOW CERTAIN THE BOARD SHOULD BE THAT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE OCCURRED. AN EVIDENTIARY STANDARD IS NOT CLEARLY OUTLINED IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, AND THE PROPOSAL WOULD SET THE STANDARD TO BE REASONABLY CERTAIN BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE COMPLAINANT. THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES ARE PRESENTED ON THE SLIDE, SO I'LL STOP THERE TO GET DIRECTION ON THIS PART. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DIRECTION. FOR STAFF REPRESENTING DISTRICT SIX, YOU CAN PICK UP WHERE YOU LEFT OFF.

WELL I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF ISSUES, BUT LET'S START WITH IT SEEMS TO ME AND TELL ME WHAT THE INTENTION WAS, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IT HAS LESSENED TO A LARGE DEGREE, THE OBLIGATION THE COMPLAINANT HAS, BECAUSE HERE IT JUST SAYS SUFFICIENT FACTS. WHEREAS BEFORE IT SAID OBLIGATION TO PUT FORTH EVIDENCE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE COMPLAINT SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY EVIDENCE, JUST ALLEGE FACTS THAT WOULD, IF TRUE, WOULD BE A VIOLATION. IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THAT THAT IS HOW IT READS. I THINK THE INTENTION IS THAT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE. THEY JUST THEY WERE NOT AS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT WORD.

OKAY. AND OF COURSE, EVIDENCE DOES INCLUDE TESTIMONY. SO I WOULD WANT EVIDENCE BACK IN. AND AGAIN WE'VE GOT SO YOU KNOW THEY SAY REASONABLY OR REASONABLE IS A LITIGATION WORD BECAUSE IT'S TRUE. IT CAN MEAN LOTS OF DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. SO I THINK THE ADDING OF THAT WORD VERSUS THE OLD DEFINITION IS ALSO NOT HELPFUL. TO BE CLEAR, WHAT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO PRESENT A VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHY WHY WE WOULD WANT TO CHANGE IT. IT SEEMS LESS CLEAR OTHER THAN THAN MORE CLEAR. WHEN YOU READ THE BURDEN OF PROOF VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY TO ESTABLISH FACTS AGAIN, ESTABLISHING FACTS, THAT'S ANYTHING. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS CONCERN. THAT THE WORDS BURDEN OF PROOF. WOULD DISCOURAGE POTENTIAL COMPLAINANTS FROM FILING COMPLAINTS. AND SO THEY WERE TRYING TO REMOVE THAT IMPACT WHILE. KEEPING THE PROCESS THE SAME. OKAY. AND I'M OKAY WITH NOT SAYING BURDEN OF PROOF, BUT I'M NOT OKAY WITH SAYING THERE'S NO EVIDENCE, JUST SAYING FACTS.

I MEAN, SOME KIND OF EVEN IF IT'S JUST I WAS THERE, I HEARD THIS PERSON SAY THAT THAT'S EVIDENCE, RIGHT? BEING ABLE TO SAY THAT YOU HEARD SOMETHING OR SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING OR DO SOMETHING, BUT TO JUST SAY NO EVIDENCE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY, IS REQUIRED. I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH. AND THEN ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE CORRECT PORTION TO SAY I'M NOT OKAY WITH A REPRESENTATIVE. I THINK IF THEY ARE MAKING THE ALLEGATION THEY NEED TO COME AND EITHER THEY OR THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL TALK ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT THEY ARE ACCUSING, AND WHAT I'M FEARFUL OF IS THAT IT COULD BE ABUSED BY SOMEONE THAT JUST ASKS OTHER PEOPLE, HEY, CAN I USE YOUR NAME? I'LL GO ARGUE IT. I JUST WANT TO USE YOUR NAME TO ATTACK THIS PERSON. I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF THE FEAR. JUST SO I CAN GET CLARITY ON THAT. THAT'S IN THE REPRESENT FOR THE.

OH, IT SAYS FOR BOTH. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ALREADY THAT THE COMPLAINANT IS STILL REQUIRED TO APPEAR. THEY CAN JUST HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL OR

[01:35:03]

AND UNFORTUNATELY, SOMETIMES MY MIND GOES TO WORST CASE SCENARIO, I CAN SEE THIS BEING ABUSED VERY EASILY BY ONE PERSON WHO DECIDES TO ASK A FEW OTHER PEOPLE IF THEY CAN USE THEIR NAME AND ARE IN HERE EVERY WEEK. MAKING THESE COMPLAINTS DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

THIS IS JUST THE SCENARIO THAT CAME INTO MY MIND AND I THOUGHT, THAT'S A LOT OF POWER MAYBE TO GIVE SOMEONE. AND SO AGAIN, THAT THAT'S MY DIRECTION, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS EVIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU MA'AM, I'M VERY OKAY WITH THAT.

I WAS JUST IT GAVE ME A LITTLE PAUSE BECAUSE LEGAL COUNSEL COMES WITH A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT, AND I DIDN'T WANT THAT TO BE A BURDEN TO SOMEONE FROM DEFENDING THEMSELVES. SO BUT AND MAYOR, I'LL JUST QUICKLY SAY, I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU'RE ALLOWING THE DELIBERATIVE DISCUSSION SO WE CAN REALLY GET INTO THIS. IT'S CERTAINLY HELPFUL. SO APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. I'M TOTALLY ON BOARD WITH SEEING EVIDENCE INSTEAD OF FACTS. IS THAT RIGHT THAT YOU CAN'T CURRENTLY HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S SOMEONE REPRESENT YOU WHO WAS NOT AN ATTORNEY? I THOUGHT YOU COULD DO THAT. SO. RIGHT. SO YEAH. SO I THINK THERE WAS AN ISSUE WHERE IT WAS CHANGED IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE TO SAY ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE, BUT NOT CHANGED IN THE ORDINANCE. SO THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE A CLEAN UP. I THINK IF THE BOARD IF THE COUNCIL, IF THE IF THERE'S NO CONSENSUS TODAY, I THINK IT WILL JUST BE LEFT BOTH WAYS. HOW IT IS. IF THERE'S CONSENSUS TO REMOVE THAT, THEN WHEN WE BRING THIS BACK, I'LL REMOVE IT FROM THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AS WELL. OKAY. WELL, HERE'S WHAT I THINK.

IF WE'RE GOING TO CLEAN IT UP, IT'D BE THE DIRECTION OF THAT YOU CAN HAVE. IF YOU'RE A SHY PERSON, YOUR YOUR SISTER SPEAK FOR YOU. THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY A COURT. IT'S VERY COURT LIKE IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A COURT. AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE PUTTING, YOU KNOW, A HIGH DOLLAR BARRIER TO BRINGING ISSUES FORWARD. AND INCIDENTALLY, THE IDEA THAT SOMEONE COULDN'T IN AN ENTERPRISING WAY, COLLECT A BUNCH OF COMPLAINTS, THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT ABOUT BEING A LAWYER THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM DOING THAT. THAT'S WHAT CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS ARE ALL ABOUT. RIGHT? SO THAT THAT'S MY INPUT. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THE LAST TIME WE HAD THE LARGE DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD OF ETHICS. AND, AND IT WAS DETERMINED AT THAT TIME THAT, THAT WE WANTED THE COMPLAINANT

[01:40:05]

REPRESENTATIVE. AND THEN REPRESENTATIVE FOUR SAYS NO. REPRESENTATIVE. AND THERE IS SUPPORT FOR EVIDENCE. THERE'S THREE OF THOSE TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. SO THAT'S WITHIN RANGE ON THE EVIDENCE SIDE OF THINGS. ANYONE ELSE CARE TO ADD THEIR THEIR DIRECTION. REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT ONE. I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THE EVIDENCE PUT THAT DOWN. AND. YOU KNOW, THE BURDEN OF PROOF. I BELIEVE THAT THAT NEEDS TO STAY IN THERE. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE REDLINED OUT AS WELL. THAT'S MY DIRECTION. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A POSITION ON THE REPRESENTATIVE OR NOT A REPRESENTATIVE. SO THAT'S THAT REPRESENTATIVE OKAY. GOT IT. YES. SURE. I'M FINE TO GET ON BOARD AND SAY NO. REPRESENTATIVE I AM FINE TO SAY EVIDENCE AND. YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT THAT SATISFIES MOST OF IT. SO OKAY, SO FOR THE ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE I THINK THE DIRECTION IS TO REMOVE THAT AND FROM HERE. SO NOT ACCEPT THE RED LINE AND TO REMOVE IT FROM THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IF IT APPEARS THERE, WHICH I BELIEVE IT DOES. YES. YES. FOR CONSISTENCY. YES.

AND THEN ON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ESTABLISH FACTS, I THINK THERE'S DIRECTION TO CHANGE, TO ACCEPT IT, BUT CHANGE FACTS TO BE EVIDENCE IS THAT. YEAH. AND I AND I, I, I WILL SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THAT FOR CONTEXT. HAVING PREPARED FOR THIS FOR THIS PROCESS. RIGHT. ONE OF THE NUMBER 17 IN THE DOCUMENT RULES AND PROCEDURES, CONDUCTING MEETINGS OR HEARINGS ABOUT THIS, THIS VERY PROCESS, NUMBER 1717, THE SUBSECTION IS PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE. SO I THINK IT GOES IN LINE. AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE ARGUMENT AROUND FACTS AND EVERYTHING BECAUSE AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THE PROBLEM THROUGHOUT THE THING. BUT JUST TO HIGHLIGHT IT FOR THE RECORD, I'LL PICK UP AT THE MIDDLE OF THAT SECTION AND SEE FIND A GOOD FIND A STARTING POINT. ALL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN ADVANCE OF THE FINAL HEARING SHALL BE ADMITTED TO THE AT THE START OF

[01:45:04]

THERE'S AN ARGUMENT TO SAY THIS FACTS AREN'T EVIDENCE, ERGO, THIS SECTION DOESN'T APPLY. SO I THINK IT'S FOR CONSISTENCY SAKE THAT THAT'D BE GOOD TO HAVE. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT TWO I CAN YOU JUST SUMMARIZE AGAIN THE REPRESENTATIVE NON-REPRESENTATIVE THING. I, I HEARD MY EAR HEARD CONFUSION AND I WOULD LIKE THE SUMMARY PLEASE.

YEAH. SO THE FOUR THAT SAID NOT NOT REPRESENTATIVE IS REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR, REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT ONE AND MYSELF.

BUT CAN WE DEFINE TERMS JUST BECAUSE I. THAT'S THE PART THAT I HEARD CONFUSION ON. WHEN YOU SAY NOT REPRESENTATIVE, YOU MEAN A NOT REQUIREMENT FOR LEGAL COUNSEL IS THAT THE SHORTHAND WORKS? MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE TO REINSTATE BUT FOR BURDEN OF PROOF ONLY. I DIDN'T HEAR CONSENSUS TO PUT THAT BACK IN. OUTSIDE OF THAT, THOSE RED LINES WOULD COME BACK IN AT THE SO BURDEN OF PROOF. NO, BECAUSE THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE OCCURRED PLACE AND COMPLAINT COMPLAINT.

AND LET ME SEE THIS. NO NO TO PUT FORTH BELOW THAT I GUESS PUT FORTH EVIDENCE INCLUDING TESTIMONY SUPPORT THE COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT. SO STARTING IT IS COMMA. IT IS THE COMPLAINT THAT HAS THE OBLIGATION TO PUT FORTH EVIDENCE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE COMPLAINT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT COMES BACK IN BASED ON THE DIRECTION. REMOVE THE RED LINE. YES, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. THAT'S HOW I READ IT. AND IF I'M WRONG. SO THAT'S THE RIGHT NEXT TO THAT BLUE LINE ON SLIDE TEN. JUST BEFORE THAT YOU BACK UP TO THE COMMA AND THEN GOING FORWARD. OKAY. SO OKAY. SO IF YOU PUT IT ON IF YOU PUT THE SLIDE BACK, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. I WAS TRYING TO PULL UP BOTH OF THE LANGUAGES. SO THE BLUE LINE THERE IS UNDER HAS THE OBLIGATION. AND THEN YOU BACK UP TO THE COMMA. IT IS THE COMPLAINT THAT HAS THE OBLIGATION TO PUT FORTH EVIDENCE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY SUPPORTING THE COMPLAINT THAT WOULD COME BACK IN. SO THIS SO THIS SECTION WOULD COME BACK AND THE THIS PART WOULD THE CORRECT. I DIDN'T HEAR CONSENSUS TO BRING BURDEN OF PROOF BACK IN, BUT THIS PART WOULD ALSO STAY. BUT THE FACTS WOULD BE CHANGED TO EVIDENCE. CORRECT. OKAY. SO I. OKAY. JUST JUST I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE LINING UP. ALL IS ALL I'M TRYING TO DO HERE. WHO? YOU YOU YOUR SUMMARY IS THAT THE IT'S ONLY THE, THE COMPLAINANT CAN PRESENT OR THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL. THAT LAST PIECE. CAN YOU RESTATE THAT LAST PIECE THAT FROM COMPLAINANT ON THE BLUE LINE PART. YOU JUST SAID AGAIN PLEASE SIR. YEAH I THINK THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING THAT ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE PART WHICH IS NOT ON THE SLIDE. IT'S WELL THAT AND THAT'S PART OF WHY I'M HEARING CONFUSION IS WE'RE BRINGING IN REPRESENTATIVES TO THIS SECTION IN FOR AND AS WELL AS IN THE NEXT SECTION FIVE. AND, AND MY DIRECTION WAS ONLY ABOUT FIVE. AND THAT'S WHAT I HEARD FROM MOST PEOPLE WAS THE DIRECTION WAS ONLY ABOUT FIVE.

AND I'M JUST CONFUSED ABOUT WHERE IT'S COMING BACK IN ON FOUR, BECAUSE REPRESENTATIVE ISN'T ANYWHERE IN THERE. IF I'M TRACKING WITH THE MADISON POINTED OUT, THERE IS A INCONSISTENCY AND WE'RE SINKING THOSE UP. SO THE CHANGES WOULD APPLY TO BOTH. BUT YEAH. SO OKAY, SO THERE'S THE THERE'S SECTION FOUR. THIS SECTION HERE. RIGHT. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS THERE'S DIRECTION TO KEEP THIS NEW LANGUAGE BUT CHANGE FACTS TO EVIDENCE AND THEN STILL REMOVE THIS SECTION. BUT WITH THIS COMMA KEEP THIS BACK IN THIS AFTER THE COMMA HERE. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO DIRECTION TO REJECT THIS RED LINE HERE IN SECTION FIVE. YES. BECAUSE THAT'S NEW. YES. YEAH. AND IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT. AND THAT WOULD BE. AND THEN THE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY CURRENTLY WITH THE RULES OF PROCEDURE. SO THAT WOULD BE AMENDED AS WELL. YEAH. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIRECTION. LIKEWISE. OKAY. ANY ANYONE CARE TO SHED LIGHT ON THEIR THOUGHTS OR

[01:50:03]

YEAH, I BELIEVE AND MADISON SUMMARIZED AND OF THE FOUR, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYONE THAT WALKED IT BACK. BUT I BELIEVE THE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBER BYRD AND I, WE DON'T HAVE TO COUNT THEM.

I JUST THERE IS FOR TAKING THOSE THREE WORDS OUT IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

OKAY THEN THEN I WILL I WILL MOVE ON. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S THE END.

YEAH. HI FIVE. THANK YOU AGAIN I YOU SHOULD GET HAZARD PAY FOR INHERITING THIS. AND BUT YOU DID A MASTERFUL JOB, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. THAT TAKES US TO OUR SECOND ITEM. BUT AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP ROLLING. PLEASE EXCUSE YOURSELF IF YOU NEED TO TAKE A BREAK I GET IT.

[B. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the 89th State Legislative Session and the City’s State Legislative Program priorities. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

OF THOSE, THE CITY IS TRACKING 256 RELATED TO CITY BUSINESS, AND ROUGHLY 27 OF THOSE ARE RELATED TO THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM, WHICH YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, AS WELL AS THE LIST OF 27 BILLS THAT ARE MARKED AS A PRIORITY. THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 19TH AND PROVIDES THE FRAMEWORK FOR OUR ENGAGEMENT ON LEGISLATIVE ISSUES, AND THEN ANY ISSUES OUTSIDE OF THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM WE MAY TRACK, BUT THE CITY WILL NOT WEIGH IN ON THOSE BILLS WITHOUT RECEIVING DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL TO DO SO.

AND THEN IN COMPARISON, HTML IS TRACKING ROUGHLY 1100 BILLS AT THIS TIME. SO WE'VE TRIED TO KEEP OUR LIST OF BILLS AS NARROW AND STRATEGIC AS POSSIBLE, WHILE STILL REVIEWING AND WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS OVER AT HTML. AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH SESSION, THE GOVERNOR DELIVERS A STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS WHERE HE SETS EMERGENCY ITEMS. THESE ITEMS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE 60 DAY BILL PASSAGE MORATORIUM, AND TYPICALLY IT'S EXPECTED IF THE LEGISLATURE FAILS TO PASS ANY ONE OF THESE ITEMS, THE GOVERNOR WILL LIKELY CALL THEM BACK FOR A SPECIAL SESSION IN ORDER TO DO SO. AFTER THE SESSION ENDS IN JUNE, THE GOVERNOR'S EMERGENCY ITEMS THIS SESSION INCLUDE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF, INVESTMENTS IN WATER SUPPLY, TEACHER PAY, EXPANDING CAREER TRAINING,

[01:55:01]

I'LL BE BACK WITH UPDATES AT THE APRIL AND MAY WORK SESSIONS, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL HAVE THE

[02:00:02]

REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO AND THEN SIX. THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT THE TWO THINGS, TWO THINGS ON I KNOW OUT OF THE SENATE THEY HAD I THINK IT WAS ETHICAL PET SALES. THAT'S THE SAME AS THE HOUSE. BUT DID THEY? I HEARD THAT THEY FINALLY FILED A HOUSE EQUIVALENT. YES. OKAY. YES. DO YOU FILED IT FRIDAY? IT IS 34. LET'S SEE. PATTERSON FILED 3458. HOUSE BILL 3458. AND IT'S IDENTICAL TO ZAFFIRINI SENATE BILL 1652. CORRECT. OKAY. GREAT. AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WANT TO ASK, AND IT'S MORE OF A IF SB 19 MAKES IT THROUGH, I'M REALLY CURIOUS. IT'S NOT LIKE WE WILL STOP ADVOCATING FOR OURSELVES, BUT IT IT IMPLIES THAT IT'S GOING TO BE, FOR INSTANCE, YOUR JOB OR SOMEBODY IN YOUR OFFICE. AND DOES STAFF HAVE ANY IDEA OF WHAT THE COSTS FOR THAT SORT OF THING MIGHT BE? IF WE FIND OURSELVES UNABLE TO ADVOCATE FOR OURSELVES USING A CONSULTANT? NOT. NOT SPECIFICALLY. RIGHT NOW, WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THE SB 19 HAS SEVERAL EXCEPTIONS TO THE BAN ON TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING THAT INCLUDE ALLOWING COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS TO ENGAGE IN THOSE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES. IT ALLOWS STAFF, EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY TO DO THOSE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T MEET THE THRESHOLD TO REGISTER AS A LOBBYIST, WHICH IS BASED ON COMPENSATION AND THE NUMBER OF HOURS SPENT LOBBYING THE LEGISLATURE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

I WILL SAY, JUST BECAUSE THOSE EXCEPTIONS EXIST IN THE BILL THAT'S JUST BEEN PASSED OUT OF THE SENATE DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S WHAT WILL PASS EVENTUALLY. THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT ITERATIONS AND VERSIONS OF THE BILL, SO WE'RE HOLDING OFF ON MAKING A SET PLAN BUT MONITORING IT AND WILL, YOU KNOW, REVISE ACCORDINGLY AS THINGS PROGRESS. I'D LOVE TO. YEAH. KEEP AN EYE ON ON YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE GOALS OF THIS BILL ORIGINALLY WERE, IT'S POTENTIALLY GOING TO COST THE CITY A TON OF MONEY IF IT PASSES. SO THANK YOU, REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SI.

WITH THE CURRENT DEFINITION, I KNOW THERE ARE MULTIPLE BILLS THAT ADDRESS THEY CALL LOBBYISTS. WE HAVE CONSULTANTS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THEM DOWN THERE POUNDING THE PAVEMENT, BUT WE RELY ON THEM TO WATCH BILLS AND LET US KNOW WHAT'S COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE. WOULD OUR CURRENT CONTRACT BE IN VIOLATION OF THESE BILLS, IN YOUR OPINION, OR CAN WE CONTINUE WITH OUR CONSULTANT JUST TELLING US WHAT BILLS ARE, WHERE AND WHICH ONES AFFECT US? YEAH. I WOULD WANT TO CONFIRM WITH LEGAL BEFORE SAYING ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY. I DO THINK THERE WOULD THERE IS

[02:05:01]

THEY MIGHT NOT BE ON OUR PRIORITY LIST AT THIS TIME, BUT ANYTHING RELATED TO CITY BUSINESS, INCLUDING THE LIBRARIES, IS ON OUR LIST. AND I SAW THAT SPECIFICALLY IT SAID OR THE ABILITY TO HOST EVENTS. IS THAT MEANING THE LIBRARY ITSELF CAN'T HOST AN EVENT, OR THAT THE CITY CANNOT RENT OUT SPACE AT A LIBRARY FOR OTHER EVENTS? WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE PROMOTING SAYING THAT WE WANT THIS RIGHT? I THINK THAT ONE IS FOR THE LIBRARY SPECIFICALLY TO BE ABLE TO HOST DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMUNITY EVENTS. OKAY, SO THEY WANT THERE'S A BILL SAYING, LET'S BAN BEING ABLE TO HOST EVENTS AT LIBRARIES. THERE ARE THERE ARE SEVERAL BILLS RELATED TO HOSTING EVENTS THAT REPRESENT VARIOUS GENDERS AND DIFFERENT WAYS. AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE LIBRARIANS SPECIFICALLY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY LIBRARIES HAVE DONE IN THE PAST? IT IS NOT. OKAY. SO IT'S OKAY. AND FOR THAT AND FOR THAT REASON, THE CITY HAS NOT WE HAVE NOT WEIGHED IN ON ANY OF THOSE BILLS TO DATE. AND UNLESS COUNCIL GIVES US EXPLICIT DIRECTION TO, WE WON'T. OKAY. I THINK THAT WAS ALL OF MY QUESTIONS OR REQUESTS, OTHER THAN I HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HELP US WORK TOGETHER AS

[02:10:08]

VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. AND PLEASE WEIGH IN ON YOUR THOUGHTS ON LOBBYING FIRM OR NOT LOBBYING LANGUAGE. THANK YOU. I'M WONDERING HAS HAVE OF ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS MET WITH WITH REPRESENTATIVES OR STATE REPRESENTATIVES OR OR OR STATE SENATORS I HAVE, I'M JUST WONDERING, HAS EVERYBODY, ANYONE OR STAFF HAS ARRANGED MEETINGS WITH THE MAYOR AND EACH OF OUR STATE DELEGATION MEMBERS IN AUSTIN IN JANUARY, AND THEN WE'VE ALSO BEEN WORKING ON THE LOCAL MEETINGS WITH OUR DELEGATION MEMBERS. ON FRIDAY, REPRESENTATIVE HOPPER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE. UNFORTUNATELY, HE WASN'T ABLE TO ATTEND AND HIS DISTRICT DIRECTOR JOINED US. WE'RE STILL WORKING TO KEEP SCHEDULING THOSE MEETINGS. AS SESSION CONTINUES. THEY'LL GET BUSIER AND BUSIER IN AUSTIN, SO OUR BEST BET TO MEET WITH THEM IS IN AUSTIN. OKAY, I WAS WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL, I WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE MEETING THAT THAT WAS THAT WAS HERE LAST FRIDAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS IT WAS HALF BAKED IS BRAGGING ON IT. SO I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY AGAIN TO VISIT WITH, WITH ONE OR MORE STATE REPRESENTATIVES. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. REPRESENTATIVE. DISTRICT FIVE.

WELL, FIRST OFF, LET ME GET OUT OF THE WAY WITH COUNCIL MEMBER JESTER. SO I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE SAYING YOU STILL WANT TO HAVE THE YOU STILL WANT MUNICIPALITIES TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO HIRE A FIRM JUST TO TRACK BILLS. SANDS LOBBYING. SANDS LOBBYING THE LEGISLATURE DIRECTLY. CORRECT. IN A PERFECT WORLD, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO HIRE LOBBYISTS. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HIRE CONSULTANTS. HOWEVER, IF THEY'RE GOING TO PASS A BILL SAYING NO LOBBYING, THAT WE WOULD ASK FOR AN EXCEPTION FOR THE CONSULTING SERVICES TO NOTIFY US AND TRACK BILLS, THAT WOULD BE THE REQUEST. QUESTION. WHAT EXACTLY DOES IT MEAN FOR SOMETHING TO BECOME A COUNCIL PRIORITY? WHAT DOES IT DO TO DO WE JUST NOW START INCLUDING IN TALKING POINTS, SEND IT OUT TO OUR DELEGATION AND INFORM OUR INFORM SCARBOROUGH TO HEY, START PUSHING THIS TO ESSENTIALLY RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY. SO WE WOULD UPDATE THE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM AND THEN PUSH THAT OUT TO ANYBODY THAT HAS RECEIVED IT THUS FAR. WE WOULD UPDATE OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF THE CHANGE. AND THEN WHENEVER THE RELATED BILL COMES UP, WE WOULD BE REGISTERING OPPOSITION OR SUPPORT, PROVIDING TESTIMONY, THAT SORT OF THING. OKAY, MISS JESTER, THANK YOU FOR THAT. MAYOR. YOU CAN PUT ME DOWN AS SUPPORTING MISS JESTER, INCLUDING THAT IN THE PRIORITY. OKAY. IS THIS THE TIME TO ASK ABOUT SPECIFIC BILLS FOR CLARIFICATION OR. SURE. OKAY, SO CHRISTIE, SOME COUPLE BILLS THAT GIVE ME PAUSE. SENATOR HUGHES CERTAINLY LOVES CITIES, DOESN'T HE? SB, SB 844, SENATE BILL 844. IS THERE ANY WAY TO KIND OF GIVE ME. I'VE JUST GOT TWO THAT DON'T ASK ABOUT IS THERE ANY AND PERHAPS MATT CAN WEIGH IN ON THIS. IS THERE ANY WAY TO KIND OF GIVE A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF WHAT THIS BILL COULD DO? BECAUSE I READ IT, BUT OBVIOUSLY I WOULD DEFER TO YOUR EXPERTISE IN PARTICULAR. AND EVEN OUR CITY ATTORNEYS. YEAH. IS THERE ANY WAY TO KIND OF TAKE WHAT THIS WOULD DO TO US? IF THERE'S NOT, I WILL I WILL ACCEPT THAT ON PAGE NINE, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, AND I CAN ABSOLUTELY PROVIDE THAT TO YOU. I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE ON ON WHAT IT HOW IT AFFECTS US. WELL THEN CAN I JUST GIVE YOU ONE MORE THAT I'M INTERESTED IN AS WELL? SPEAKER. SPEAKER CRADOCK'S. BILL. FORMER SPEAKER CRADOCK'S. BILL. THAT WAS HOUSE

[02:15:02]

I'M VERY INTERESTED IN PARTICULAR HOW THOSE TWO BILLS MIGHT MIGHT AFFECT US, GIVEN SOME OF THE WORK SESSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. MAC. AND YEAH, WE NEED A PLAN FOR THIS. WE NEED A PLAN FOR THIS. ABSOLUTELY. I CAN GET YOU SOMETHING IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. THANK YOU. CHRISTINE. THANKS, MAYOR. YEP. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE. DISTRICT ONE.

LOBBYISTS KNOWN AS CONSULTANTS. AND THEY'RE ONLY. AND THEY THE ONLY THING THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE THEM TO DO IS TO ADVISE US ON OR ADVISE THE LEGISLATORS. WE WOULD HIRE CONSULTANTS, WHICH ARE TECHNICALLY LOBBYISTS. WELL, WE HIRE CONSULTANTS, RIGHT. AND THEY THE ONLY THING THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IS TO. JUST PROVIDE US INFORMATION AND NOT ADVISE THE LEGISLATORS. IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT LOBBYISTS DO THEY THERE'S A STATE THERE'S A STATE DEFINITION OF WHAT WHAT LOBBYING ENTAILS. SO WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT DEFINITION AND MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T GOING INTO SOMETHING THAT IS INCLUDED IN LOBBYING FOR, TO BE A REGISTERED LOBBYIST. IT ALL IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF HOURS YOU SPEND WITH LEGISLATORS AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING. SO WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ADVISE A LEGISLATOR OF WHAT OUR POSITION ON SOMETHING WOULD BE. WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW AND WHEN THEY'RE DOING THAT, OKAY, HOW AND WHEN THEY'RE DOING THAT. AND THEN WE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT HAVING A TRACKER. ARE YOU A TRACKER? ARE YOU OUR TRACKER. SO HANCE SCARBOROUGH HAS A BILL TRACKING SYSTEM, SOFTWARE THAT THEY ARE TRACKING ALL OF OUR BILLS ON. OKAY. SO ANYTHING RELATED WITH TOPIC ISSUE AREAS RELATED TO OUR PRIORITIES OR ANYTHING RELATED TO CITY BUSINESS GETS FLAGGED FOR THEM IN THEIR SYSTEM. THEY SEND US THAT LIST EVERY WEEK, AND THEN WE POPULATE IT INTO A SMART SHEET WHERE I MANAGE THAT.

AND IF THERE'S A BILL HEARD IN COMMITTEE TOMORROW, I WILL CLICK THE BILL AND SEND AN ALERT TO THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR AND ANYONE ELSE. LEGAL CMO'S OFFICE AND HAVE THEM PROVIDE INPUT ON WHAT THE BILL DOES. SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE DOING BILL TRACKING THIS SESSION. THANK YOU. THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE LIBRARIES, WE ALL KNOW THAT THOSE FOLKS IN AUSTIN ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRANS AND READING GENDER BOOKS TO KIDS AND HAVING TRANS PEOPLE OR PEOPLE THAT DRESS IN WHATEVER TO BE AMONGST SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY IN LIBRARIES WHERE PEOPLE GO TO LEARN. SO OF COURSE, I'M NOT PLEASED WITH THAT AT ALL. LET'S PUT THAT ON THE RECORD. BUT LOOKING OVER HERE AT OUR AT THIS BOOK, THIS SHEET HERE, I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE WERE TO, IF YOU IF ANYBODY WERE TO ASK ME WHAT IS MY PRIMARY, YOU KNOW, CONCERN HERE, I WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO PUT CITY SERVICES, ALL THESE CITY SERVICES AT THE TOP OF THE LIST AND HAVE THEM TO WORK ON THAT FOR US AS A PRIORITY. I'M NOT SURE IF ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE COMMUNITY FOCUSED, YOU KNOW, LAND AND DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S GOING TO BE A HARD ONE FOR US BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY KIND OF TAPPED INTO SOME OF THAT. BUT JUST CITY SERVICES AND BECAUSE THIS IS SO MUCH CLOSER TO US, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS, EVERYTHING ELSE IS VERY IMPORTANT. UTILITIES, ALL OF IT. MUNICIPAL COURT. BUT RIGHT NOW FOR ME IS CITY SERVICES. IF I WOULD WANT MY CONSULTANTS TO WORK ON SOMETHING FOR US, THAT IS THAT ENOUGH THAT WE NEED RIGHT NOW? YES. IS THAT WHAT WE NEED? OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I DIDN'T OPINE ON ON COUNCILOR CHESTER'S THING. I'M.

I'M FINE WITH THAT. IT DOVETAILS WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, MUNICIPAL AUTONOMY. THAT'S ONE OF OUR

[02:20:01]

[C. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the future, potential use of the homestead located at the former Evers property on 2900 N. Elm St. [Estimated Presentation/Discussion Time: 30 minutes]]

THEY REMAIN SUPPORTIVE OF OUR OF THE PRESERVATION EFFORTS AND ESTABLISHED TIMELINE, AND WE ANTICIPATE BRINGING FORWARD A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION WITHIN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS. SO THERE WERE A COUPLE QUESTIONS CAME FORWARD THROUGH THE AGENDA. ONE OF THEM WAS COUNCIL MEMBER GESTURES, BUT STAFF DOES FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THERE'S WAYS TO STRUCTURE AN AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO MOVE FORWARD. AS WE CONTINUE WORKING ON FINALIZING THOSE DETAILS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTY AND RELOCATING OR MAINTAINING THE HOMESTEAD ON SITE, AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK TOWARDS THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION IN APRIL OR MAY. SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S AN UPDATE YOU ALL WANTED TO HEAR, BUT CERTAINLY ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR. SO ANY QUESTIONS OR

[02:25:03]

[02:30:07]

[1. Closed Meeting:]

[AFTER DETERMINING THAT A QUORUM IS PRESENT, THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL WILL CONVENE AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, 215 E. MCKINNEY STREET, DENTON, TEXAS AT WHICH THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE CONSIDERED:]

[2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS]

[02:35:06]

PERFECT. WHERE YOU REALLY HELPED US RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT WHAT WE DO AT THE SALVATION ARMY WITH OUR YEAR ROUND PROGRAMS. YOU KNOW, THE SALVATION ARMY IS JUST NOT AROUND AT CHRISTMAS, BUT IS IN THIS COMMUNITY 365 DAYS A YEAR FIGHTING HOMELESSNESS, POVERTY AND ADDICTION. SO YOU WANT TO YOU WANT TO HEAR HOW MUCH THEY RAISED. ALL RIGHT. SO I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT YOUR TEAM RAISED $1,006, 756 OF THAT WAS RAISED ON THE DAY THAT YOU DID BELL RINGING, BUT YOU KNOW, IT IS 2025. SO WE HAVE DIGITAL WAYS TO RAISE MONEY NOW. AND YOUR VIRTUAL RED KETTLE RAISED $249.78 FROM FIVE DONORS. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE OWE YOU A DEBT OF GRATITUDE BECAUSE OF YOUR EFFORTS, THREE OTHER MAYORAL TEAMS CAME TO COMPETE. THEY WERE TRYING TO BEAT YOU, YOU KNOW. YEAH. WHICH IN TURN INSPIRED 23 DONORS TO RAISE A TOTAL OF $5,878. SO THANK YOU FOR HELPING US AND HELPING TO GIVE HOPE TO THE PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. AWESOME AWESOME AWESOME. YEAH. NO, IT'S AN AMAZING EVENT, AN AMAZING OPPORTUNITY. AND LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S YEAR ROUND. SO TO THAT END, WHAT DO PEOPLE DO IF THEY WANT TO IF THEY WANT TO VOLUNTEER OR GET INVOLVED? CURRENTLY WHAT DO THEY DO? SO HERE IN DENTON, THE BEST PLACE TO GO IS RIGHT HERE ON MCKINNEY STREET. TO VOLUNTEER IN OUR FOOD PANTRY WITH OUR COMMUNITY DINNER. I WAS JUST OVER THERE AND I SAW FOLKS COMING IN WHO WERE COLD ON THIS KIND OF CRAZY, BLUSTERY SPRING DAY. WHO CAME IN FOR A HOT MEAL AND TO THE SHELTER FOR THE EVENING. SO I WOULD GO THERE. YOU CAN ALWAYS GO TO OUR WEBSITE. SALVATION ARMY NT FOR NORTH TEXAS. AND THERE'S WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITIES TO VOLUNTEER. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH I APPRECIATE IT. LOOK FORWARD TO DOING IT AGAIN AND CONTINUING TO SUPPORT YOU WHERE WE CAN. AND THEN HERE WE'LL GET A WE'LL GET A PICTURE RIGHT HERE. SO HERE WE GO. WE GOTTA GET THE BELL. YES CERTAINLY. CERTAINLY. ALL RIGHT. HERE WE GO. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. BACK INTO RECOVERY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN. ALL RIGHT. COLLEAGUE HERE. YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. AS YOU TAKE YOUR SEAT, I JUST WANT TO TELL Y'ALL ONE STORY THAT I'LL JUST TAKE ONE MINUTE ABOUT A WONDERFUL PERSON. THIS WAS A CLIENT NAMED COREY WHO CAME INTO THE SALVATION ARMY OF DENTON COUNTY FOR HELP. AND SO WE GAVE HER WHAT WE COULD. WE GAVE HER A MEAL, A HOT MEAL, AND FOUND OUT THAT SHE HAD MEDICAL NEED. SHE COULDN'T AFFORD HER MEDICATION, AND SHE WAS SLEEPING IN HER CAR. WE ALSO GAVE HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SHOWER. IT'S AMAZING HOW THOSE SIMPLE THINGS CAN REALLY RESTORE SOMEONE'S DIGNITY WHEN THEY ARE REALLY IN NEED. AND SHE TRULY HAD TEARS IN HER EYES AND WE CONTINUED TO HELP HER. SHE HAD STOPPED TAKING HER BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICINE BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO GET THAT. SO WE ARRANGED FOR A CHECKUP FOR HER AND TO PAY FOR HER MEDICATION, AND SHE CAME IN EVERY DAY TO EAT AND TO SHOWER WHEN SHE WAS LOOKING FOR A JOB. EVERY DAY SHE WAS LOOKING FOR A JOB. AND IT WAS A WONDERFUL, EXCEPTIONAL DAY. WHEN SHE CAME IN AND SHE SAID, I WAS ABLE TO

[02:40:04]

FOR. ALL RIGHT. OH, I FORGOT THAT. OKAY. AND THEN IF YOU ARE HERE WITH DELTA SIGMA THETA SORORITY, YOU CAN COME ON DOWN, PLEASE. SET THAT THERE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. I'LL LET EVERYONE INTRODUCE THEMSELVES. AND THEN I HAVE A PROCLAMATION TO RECOGNIZE Y'ALL'S WORK. OKAY. THANK YOU.

I'M THE CHAPTER PRESIDENT OF OUR ORGANIZATION. I'M DOCTOR TANYA REYNOLDS, A MEMBER OF DENTON COUNTY ALUMNAE CHAPTER. LISA MORGAN. HI. I'M VICKI BIRD, CHARTER MEMBER, PAST PRESIDENT.

GOOD TO BE HERE. AND BEFORE THE PROCLAMATION, ANYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW OR HOW PEOPLE CAN HELP OR UPCOMING PROGRAMS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. FLOOR IS YOURS. SURE. THANK YOU. SO GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. WE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU ALL THAT WE ARE VERY EXCITED BECAUSE DENTON COUNTY ALUMNAE CHAPTER OF DELTA SIGMA THETA SORORITY, INCORPORATED. WE ARE CELEBRATING 30 YEARS THIS MONTH OF SISTERHOOD, SCHOLARSHIP, SERVICE, AND SOCIAL ACTION. OUR FIRST ACT OF SERVICE WAS OUR WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE MARCH IN WASHINGTON, D.C, SO WE ARE VERY PROUD OF THAT. AND OF COURSE, WE CARRY THAT ON TODAY FROM OUR FOUNDERS. SO WE HAVE CONTINUOUSLY PUT ON PROGRAMS IN THE DENTON COUNTY AREA UNDER OUR FIVE POINT PROGRAMMATIC THRUST OF EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH, INTERNATIONAL AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT, AND POLITICAL AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT. SO WE CONTINUE TO DO THOSE PROGRAMS. WE OFFER COLLEGE TOURS FOR STUDENTS THAT ARE WANTING TO FURTHER THEIR EDUCATION, AND WE ALSO OFFER SCHOLARSHIP OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRADUATING SENIORS IN EVERY YEAR. WE'VE BEEN BLESSED TO GIVE AWAY MORE THAN $10,000 IN SCHOLARSHIPS, AND SINCE WE STARTED, WE'VE GIVEN AWAY CLOSE TO $100,000 OR MORE IN SCHOLARSHIPS. SO WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THAT. SO IF YOU EVER WANT TO VOLUNTEER WITH ANY OF OUR PROGRAMS, KNOW ANY YOUTH THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY OF OUR PROGRAMS, YOU CAN VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT CONTACT AT. ORG I THINK. OKAY. YES. LISA MORGAN. HERE IS OUR COMMUNITY OUTREACH COORDINATOR. SO SHE KEEPS US CONNECTED WITH THE COMMUNITY. AND SO OUR VICKY BIRD ALSO SERVES AS OUR CHAIR OF OUR PAST PRESIDENTS COUNCIL. AND SO OUR RUNNELS HERE SERVES ON MULTIPLE COMMITTEES WITHIN THE CHAPTER. SO THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, FOR LETTING ME SAY THAT, BECAUSE WE ARE VERY PROUD OF THE WORK WE'VE DONE IN THE DENTON COUNTY COMMUNITY AND THE WORK THAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO. AND WE HAVE FORMED A LOT OF PARTNERSHIPS OVER THE YEARS, AND WE INTEND TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT. SO THANK YOU. EXCELLENT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. AND IT'S A PROCLAMATION BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TO ALL WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME. GREETINGS. WHEREAS DELTA SIGMA THETA SORORITY, INCORPORATED IS A PRIVATE, NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION FOUNDED IN 1913, WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT IN LOCAL COMMUNITIES CONFRONTING CHALLENGES OF AFRICAN AMERICANS.

AND WHEREAS, EXERCISING VISION TO ESTABLISH AND PROMOTE PROGRAMS TO INCLUDE SUPPORT SCHOLARSHIPS TO THE GREATER DENTON COUNTY AREAS. COMMUNITIES, 14 WOMEN LED THE CHARGE FOR THE CHARTER OF DENTON COUNTY'S ALUMNI CHAPTER. AND WHEREAS, ON MARCH 25TH, 1995, UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SOUTHWEST REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MISS SHIRLEY FRIEDA, ALONG WITH THE GUIDANCE OF THE 20TH NATIONAL PRESIDENT, MISS BERTA M RODDY SOROS AND MANY DEDICATED MEMBERS HUMBLY COMMITTED THEMSELVES AND TO THE BELOVED SORORITY TO PROVIDE UNWAVERING SUPPORT TO THE DENTON COUNTY COMMUNITIES BEING AWARDED. AND WHEREAS DCA IS AN AWARD WINNING CHAPTER AND IS THE ONLY AFRICAN AMERICAN ALUMNI CHAPTER SORORITY IN DENTON COUNTY AND HAS BECOME KNOWN FOR ITS FOR THEIR SIGNATURE EVENT, THE ANNUAL WOMEN'S SYMPOSIUM PROGRAM, MAY WEEK PROGRAMS, AND THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS AND SCHOLARSHIPS PROGRAMS, IN WHICH AWARDS DCA AWARDS UP TO $10,000 IN SCHOLARSHIPS EACH YEAR TO GRADUATING SENIORS IN DENTON COUNTY. AND WHEREAS DCA IS INSTRUMENTAL IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMS AND PARTNERSHIPS THROUGHOUT THROUGHOUT THE GREATER DENTON COUNTY AREA. NOW, THEREFORE, I. GERALD HUDSPETH,

[02:45:06]

[3. PRESENTATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC]

SPEAKERS WILL HAVE FOUR MINUTES TO GIVE A SCHEDULED REPORT AND FOUR MINUTES TO GIVE AN OPEN MIC REPORT. A BELL WILL RING WHEN TIME HAS EXPIRED. IF THE REMARKS ARE NOT CONCLUDED BY THAT TIME, THE SPEAKER WILL BE ASKED TO STOP SPEAKING. IF THE SPEAKER DOES NOT CEASE AND A SECOND REQUEST IS MADE, THE MAYOR MAY REQUEST TO HAVE THE SPEAKER REMOVED FROM THE CHAMBER.

SPEAKERS SHOULD NOT APPROACH THE DAIS IF A SPEAKER HAS MATERIALS FOR THE COUNCIL. PLEASE NOTIFY THE CITY SECRETARY IN ADVANCE FOR SCHEDULED REPORTS. THE COUNCIL MAY INITIATE DISCUSSION OR ASK QUESTIONS FOR NON SCHEDULED OPEN MIC REPORTS. THE COUNCIL MAY LISTEN, HOWEVER, BECAUSE NO NOTICE OF THE SUBJECT OF THE OPEN MIC REPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC IN ADVANCE. THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT PROHIBITS DISCUSSION OR DECISION BY THE COUNCIL ON NON SCHEDULED ITEMS. AS A RESULT, THE COUNCIL MAY ONLY PROCEED AS FOLLOWS ON NONSCHEDULED ITEMS PROPOSED TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. MAKE A STATEMENT OF FACTUAL POLICY OR A RECITATION OF EXISTING POLICY. SPEAKERS ARE ASKED TO DIRECT ALL REMARKS AND QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, AND NOT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL MEMBER. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING ABUSIVE, PERSONAL, IMPERTINENT, PROFANE, OR SLANDEROUS REMARKS. ANYONE WHO VIOLATES THE COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE MAY BE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM THE CHAMBER. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE. COPIES OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE CITY SECRETARY. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. SO THE FIRST SPEAKER IS MIKE WEAVER. IF YOU CAN COME DOWN, GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. HELLO. MY NAME IS MIKE WEAVER. I'M WITH THE PILOT KNOB ROTARY CLUB.

PROUD TO BE WEARING MY ROTARY JACKET TONIGHT. PLEASE EXCUSE THE APPEARANCE. SHELTERED FROM THE WIND. SO WE HAVE A LITTLE JUST TO TELL YOU WHAT'S GOING ON. THIS IS A SECOND YEAR WE'RE WORKING WITH GUYER HIGH SCHOOL. THIS IS STEPHANIE RILEY IS IN THE AUDIENCE, AND ELLIOT MUNOZ WILL BE SPEAKING TO YOU SHORTLY. WE'RE DOING ANOTHER LITHIUM ION BATTERY RECYCLING PROJECT ON APRIL 19TH, FROM 10 TO 2 AT 10 A.M. SO THE STUDENTS GOT TOGETHER AND DID A LITTLE VIDEO CONTEST. THERE WERE 14 ENTRIES. I WANT TO PRESENT ONE OF THEM TO YOU RIGHT NOW. YOU'LL SEE.

GO TEAM. RECYCLE. WOW, WHAT A GAME. OH, HI. MY NAME IS LUNA AND I'M A ROBOT MADE COMPLETELY OUT OF RECYCLED LITHIUM ION BATTERIES. NOW, YOU MIGHT BE THINKING, WHAT IS A LITHIUM ION BATTERY? IT IS A TYPE OF RECHARGEABLE BATTERY THAT IS CHARGED AND DISCHARGED BY LITHIUM IONS. MOVING BETWEEN THE NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE ELECTRODES. AND LUCKY FOR YOU, GUYER HIGH SCHOOL IS HOSTING OUR OWN LITHIUM ION BATTERY DRIVE. AND WE NEED YOUR HELP RECYCLING.

[02:50:02]

PILOT KNOB, ROTARY CLUB AND THE GUYER AP ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE STUDENTS ARE ALL SUPPORTERS OF THIS CAUSE. SO WHAT DO YOU SAY? CAN I COUNT ON SEEING YOUR BATTERIES IN THE DRIVE? OH, I HOPE SO. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU SOON. AND DON'T FORGET LITHIUM BATTERIES. THEY POWER TODAY. THEY POWER TOMORROW. AND THEY POWER OUR FUTURE. WELL, I'LL SEE YOU SOON.

BYE BYE. YEAH. THE STUDENTS ARE WORKING SUPER HARD TO MAKE THIS DRIVE A SUCCESS. LAST YEAR, WE COLLECTED 170 POUNDS OF BATTERIES AND DEVICES THAT CONTAIN THEM. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE REST OF MY TIME TO ELLIOT MUNOZ, WHO WILL TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN. ELLIOT. YEAH. YOU CAN COME ON DOWN. AND YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES ISH. FOUR MINUTE ISH. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO SEE YOU. JUSTICE. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS ELLIOT MUNOZ. AND, LIKE MIKE HAS MADE A WAR WHERE WE ARE HERE TO PROMOTE THE RECYCLING OF LITHIUM ION BATTERIES AND NICKEL HYDRATE BATTERIES IN OUR COMMUNITY. I AM A STUDENT GUYER HIGH SCHOOL, AND I'M IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CLASS WITH MY TEACHER, MISS RILEY, RIGHT HERE. AND SO THE MAIN, THE MAIN REASON IS WHY SHOULD I RECYCLE MY BATTERIES, MY OLD BATTERIES. AND LET'S JUST START OFF WITH A COUPLE OF THESE TO PREVENT THE LET ME PUSH THIS A LITTLE BACK. IT'S A LITTLE I HEAR MY VOICE TOO MUCH. TO PREVENT IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF THE BATTERIES. LITHIUM ION BATTERIES CONTAIN TOXIC CHEMICALS THAT SHOULD NOT BE DISPOSED OF IN THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE LANDFILLS. THIS DAMAGES THE ENVIRONMENTS. HURTS A LOT OF ORGANIC MATERIALS. PLANTS. JUST THE ENVIRONMENT IN GENERAL. AND IT ALREADY TAKES UP SPACE IN THE LANDFILL. I KNOW WE HAVE LIMITED SPACE IN THE LANDFILL. AND SO TO REDUCE THIS, THIS IS LIKE A DOUBLE POSITIVE. WE SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT AND WE ALSO SAVE SPACE IN THE LANDFILL. SO AND ALSO LOTS OF A LOT OF MISHAPS CAN HAPPEN WHENEVER YOU DON'T DISPOSE OF YOUR BATTERIES CORRECTLY. I BELIEVE TWO WEEKS AGO AND VERY CLOSE TO HERE IN ANNA, ONE OF THE GARBAGE TRUCKS ACTUALLY EXPLODED DUE TO THE BATTERY THAT WAS DISPOSED, WAS NOT DISPOSED OF CORRECTLY. AND WE CAN KIND OF REDUCE THIS TO MINIMIZE THESE MISHAPS AND HAPPENING AND LIKE THE VIDEO WAS MENTIONED, WAS MENTIONING RENEWABLE ENERGY. THE RECYCLING BATTERIES WILL ALLOW FOR NEW BATTERIES TO BE CREATED. THE MATERIALS MADE FROM THE BATTERIES ARE INFINITELY, INFINITELY RECYCLABLE. AND SO THIS LEADS TO LESS MINING. SINCE MINING CAN CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT ARE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, TAILINGS, WHICH DISPOSES OF THE BYPRODUCTS OF REFINING THESE MATERIALS WHICH CAN HARM AQUATIC ANIMALS AND TERRESTRIAL ONES ALIKE. AND SO ANOTHER ONE IS REPETITION. THE MORE WE RECYCLE, THE MORE BETTER WE GET AT IT,

[02:55:02]

YES. YEAH. OKAY. THE. OUR THIRD SPEAKER IS. LET ME GET BACK THERE. DANA. ZELTNER. YOU CAN COME AND GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. THIS LOUD ENOUGH FOR EVERYBODY? THAT WORKS. DANA ZELTNER ON DECEMBER 18TH, A LONGTIME RESIDENT ACROSS MY STREET HAD TO MOVE TO ASSISTED LIVING. LESS THAN TWO WEEKS LATER, BIG TRUCKS AND WORKERS WERE OUTSIDE IN THE FREEZING COLD, DIGGING UP AND CUTTING DOWN EVERY LIVING PLANT AROUND. HER 1949 BUNGALOW AND THE ENTIRE LOT. EVERY SINGLE OXYGEN PRODUCING PLANT WAS RAZED TO THE GROUND. NOT CONTENT WITH THAT DEVASTATION, THEY ENCROACHED ACROSS THE NEIGHBOR'S FENCE TO COMPLETE CUTTING OFF A BIG BRANCH OF A TREE IN HIS YARD. AFTER CALLING THE CITY, WE FOUND OUT THAT IT'S LEGAL TO DO WHATEVER A BUYER WANTS TO DO TO THE LOT OUTSIDE, BUT COULD NOT BEGIN WORK ON THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WITHOUT A PERMIT. THERE WAS NO PERMIT ON FILE, ALTHOUGH THE DEVELOPER HAD ALREADY BEGUN WORKING ON THE INSIDE OF THE HOME AND PLANNED TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, ADU, IN THE BACKYARD, MAKING IT TWO STORY WITH STORAGE ON THE GROUND FLOOR. AFTER FURTHER RESEARCH, WE DISCOVERED THAT ADUS ARE ALLOWED IN EVERY RESIDENTIAL AREA IN DENTON. THE CRITERIA FOR THIS IS AVAILABLE IN THE 2040 GUIDELINES. THE CITY COUNCIL PUT IN PLACE DURING COVID. THOSE OF YOU WHO OWN A HOME IN DENTON SHOULD EDUCATE YOURSELVES AS TO WHAT YOUR NEIGHBORS OR A NEW DEVELOPER OWNER IS ALLOWED TO DO NEXT DOOR TO YOU. MOVING ON. ACCORDING TO THOSE 2040 GUIDELINES, THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR UP TO FOUR UNRELATED TENANTS PER BUILDING EIGHT TOTAL. IF THERE'S AN ADU IN THE BACKYARD AND ONLY ONE REQUIRED PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM. THUS ADDING MORE CARS SITTING ON ALREADY CAR LADEN STREETS. A CULTURE FOR RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS HAS BEEN CREATED TO DECIMATE COMMUNITIES AND CLOG RESIDENTIAL STREETS. KEEP IN MIND THIS DECIMATION IS ALLOWED IN EVERY RESIDENTIAL ZONE IN DENTON. HOWEVER, OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MINDSET THAT IT'S OKAY FOR DEVELOPERS AND RENTAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO BE NEGLIGENT IN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS. IT'S HIGH TIME TO RETHINK 2040 SET STANDARDS FOR ALREADY EXISTING RENTAL PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NO OVERSIGHT AS AS TO ANY KIND OF UPKEEP, AND START CRACKING DOWN ON BUILDERS THAT BEGIN WORK WITHOUT THE PROPER PAPERWORK. A PROJECT THAT BEGINS WITH TEARING UP EVERY GREEN PLANT THAT SURVIVED WITH MINIMAL WATER FOR YEARS SHOULD REQUIRE MORE CRITICAL GUIDELINES BEFORE EVERYTHING IS DESTROYED. THIS CITY HAS SET UP A CULTURE OF DISREGARD, NOT ONLY FOR THOSE OF US WHO ALREADY LIVE HERE IN

[03:00:01]

NEIGHBORHOODS BUILT IN THE 50S HAVE EITHER CLAY OR CONCRETE SEWER LINES THAT HAVE SHIFTED OVER THE YEARS. THESE SHOULD BE INSPECTED AND REPLACED IF NECESSARY BEFORE SOMEONE STARTS MAKING MONEY OFF THE BACKS OF VULNERABLE RENTERS. IT'S YOUR JOB TO PROTECT ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS AND SEE THAT RENTAL PROPERTY BUSINESSES PROVIDE SAFE HOMES FOR RENTERS.

AND THAT'S YOUR TIME. QUIT PANDERING TO BUSINESS OWNERS AND RENTAL PROPERTIES. THERE'S A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE. MISS ZELTNER. I KNOW YOU AND I KNOW YOUR HEART, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO SAY THIS FOR THE PEOPLE HERE AND ALSO THE PEOPLE WATCHING. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT RENTERS DON'T DECIMATE NEIGHBORHOODS. IT SHOULD NEVER. IF I MAY, IT IS NOT A CHOICE BETWEEN EITHER OR. IT IS A BOTH AND. MY INTEREST SITTING IN THE SEAT IS NOT JUST TO REPRESENT NEIGHBORHOODS, IT'S TO REPRESENT EVERY RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF DENTON. I KNOW YOU DIDN'T MEAN THAT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ME TO CLARIFY FOR EVERYBODY HERE. THIS IS A CITY THAT HAS A HIGH NUMBER OF RENTERS, INCLUDING MYSELF, AND WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BE IN EVERY PART OF THE CITY, AND WE WANT YOU TO BE PROTECTED. THAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS. YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. I KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR PEOPLE WATCHING, I KNOW YOU, SO WE'RE GOOD. I JUST. THANK YOU, MISS DALTON. AND ONE OTHER. ONE OTHER QUESTION. REPRESENTATIVE. DISTRICT TWO. YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS BEFORE, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT BOTH TO YOU HERE AND TO THE PUBLIC, THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE IS ACTIVELY ENGAG DETERMINING POTENTIAL RENOVATION. RE REVISITING AND CHANGES AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE ADU GUIDELINES. RIGHT. RIGHT THIS MOMENT. THOSE WILL GO TO STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND PLANNING AND ZONING AND EVENTUALLY TO COUNCIL. SO THE CITY IS UNDER CONSTANT RECONSIDERATION OF WHAT'S GOOD FOR DENTON AT THE TIME. AND SO IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR FOLKS THAT HAVE VIEWS, PRO OR CON, TO COME TO SOME OF THOSE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MEETINGS AND MAKE YOUR VOICES KNOWN.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND NEXT SPEAKER IS WENDY RASH. RASH. IF YOU CAN GIVE YOUR NAME, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. OKAY. I'M GOING TO PIGGY BACK OFF OF WHAT SHE WAS SAYING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS TOWN. AND I'M CUTTING OUT THE BACKGROUND BECAUSE I ONLY GOT FOUR MINUTES.

THIS TOWN HAS A TON OF COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO PUT UP.

BUSINESSES. WE LACK RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. SO THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO SWITCH RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL. BUT THERE'S A PRICE DIFFERENCE. SO WHAT THE OUT OF TOWN INVESTORS DO IS THEY BUY OLD, OLD, RUNDOWN RESIDENTIAL LAND IN A GREAT COMMERCIAL LOCATION. THEY LET IT FALL TO PIECES. THEY MOVE IN HOMELESS PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN BURN DOWN THE HOUSES, THEY HOPE. AND THEN THEY GO TO THE ZONING BOARD AND SAY THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS FULL OF TRASH. AND IF WE GIVE THEM A ZONE CHANGE TO COMMERCIAL, THEY'LL CLEAN UP THEIR LOT. THEY CAN'T CREATE A PROBLEM AND THEN ASK TO BE FINANCIALLY REWARDED TO SOLVE A PROBLEM THEY CREATED SPECIFICALLY RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THIS HAS HAPPENED MANY TIMES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. A LOT ON CAROL WAS BOUGHT BY SUSHI BOY, INC. IT IS ZONED R SEVEN. THAT IS STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL. IT HAS TWO DILAPIDATED HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN BOARDED UP FOR OVER TWO YEARS. HE IMMEDIATELY TOOK OUT AN AD ON CRAIGSLIST FOR CHEAP LIVING. IF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE FIX IT UP AND BASICALLY MOVED IN ALL THESE HOMELESS PEOPLE. THE THING IS, HE'S GOING TO TRY TO DESTROY OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN TALK ABOUT HOW IT IS. I'M SORRY. YOU KNOW, AND IT JUST REALLY MAKES ME ANGRY. AND I JUST WANT THERE TO BE SOME SORT OF REGULATION FOR WHEN PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIVE IN THIS TOWN BUY PROPERTIES AND DON'T MAINTAIN IT AND PUT EVERYONE ELSE AT RISK THAT THEY DON'T GET THAT ZONE CHANGE. WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THIS SCAM TO GO ON AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN? THEY KEEP DOING IT AROUND THE SQUARE AND EVERYONE ASKS, WHERE ARE ALL THESE HOMELESS PEOPLE

[03:05:04]

AND MY TIME IS UP. I JUST WANT THIS TO BE BROUGHT TO LIGHT. SO WHEN HE APPLIES FOR THE ZONE CHANGE, YOU KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING. OKAY. WE HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU. I'M SORRY. IT IS. NO, NO, BUT BUT THERE'S A QUESTION. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO EMAIL ME OR EMAIL US SOME OF THESE INSTANCES. UNFORTUNATELY I HAVE I DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING. AND SO IF YOU CAN SEND ME SOME OF THE ADDRESSES WHERE YOU'VE NOTICED THIS IS HAPPENING, I WOULD LIKE FURTHER INFORMATION SO I CAN FOLLOW UP. THANK YOU. THE OTHER ADDRESS IT HAPPENED AT I WENT TO THE ZONING BOARD AND YELLED AT THE OLD MAN UNTIL HE CRIED AND HE DIDN'T GET HIS ZONING CHANGE. SO I WILL SEND YOU THAT. IT'S. I BELIEVE HIS NAME IS STRANGE. HE OWNS FIRST STATE BANK, BUT THIS IS SUSHI BOY INC. HE'S. HE'S SELLING FISH OUT OF HIS RESIDENTIAL KITCHEN IN LEWISVILLE. THAT HAS TO BE AGAINST THE HOA THERE, RIGHT? I'M GOING TO GO TO LEWISVILLE AND FILE A COMPLAINT IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD. HE COMES TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND DOES THIS IN. MY NEIGHBOR DOES STUFF LIKE THIS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I APPRECIATE YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. IF YOU COULD GIVE ME YOUR EMAIL, I MEAN, I BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING TO KICK THESE PEOPLE OUT AND HE'S JUST GOING TO BRING IN OTHERS. WE NEED TO GET THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING IT, LIKE GOING AFTER THE HOMELESS PEOPLE AND THROWING THEM IN JAIL. THANK YOU. THAT'S NOT HELPFUL. I APPRECIATE IT. AND DON, DAN OR DON DAN. OKAY. DAN BURNHAM. YES, SIR. EXCELLENT. IF YOU CAN COME DOWN, GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. I'M HERE THIS EVENING TO TALK TO YOU. ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, WHICH ARE AT A BREAKING POINT. THE CHALLENGES THEY FACE TODAY, IF LEFT UNADDRESSED, WILL AFFECT OUR ENTIRE MUNICIPALITY. BECAUSE THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE STRONG PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THE VIBRANT, HEALTHY COMMUNITY IS UNMISTAKABLE. PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACROSS TEXAS ARE IN CRISIS, DESPITE A 26% RISE IN INFLATION SINCE 2019. THE PRE STUDENT BASIC ALLOTMENT HAS REMAINED STAGNANT AT $6,160. RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THIS, LEGISLATORS ARE USING SCHOOL FUNDING AS A BARGAINING CHIP FOR VOUCHERS WHICH WOULD NOT, WHICH WOULD DIVERT EVEN MORE RESOURCES AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. THEY CLAIM THERE IS NO MONEY. YET TEXAS HAS A 21 BILLION SURPLUS FOR EDUCATION IN 2023 ALONE, 4.5 BILLION IN RECAPTURED FUNDS WERE REDIRECTED TO THE STATE'S GENERAL FUND INSTEAD OF BEING REINVESTED INTO EDUCATION, RESTORING THE 2019 FUNDING LEVELS WOULD COST AROUND 9.3 BILLION, WHICH IS A FRACTION OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE. IT'S UNFATHOMABLE THAT TEXAS IS THE EIGHTH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD, YET RANKS 4043 OUT OF 50 STATES ON SCHOOL FUNDING. HERE'S WHAT OUR SCHOOLS NEED AN INCREASE OF 1600 IN THE BASIC ALLOTMENT PER STUDENT AND TIED

[03:10:06]

EVERY CHILD IS IMPACTED, THEIR FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES SHRINK, AND WHEN OUR CHILDREN SUFFER, OUR COMMUNITIES SUFFER. SO WHY SHOULD CITY COUNCIL CARE? BECAUSE UNDERFUNDING OUR SCHOOLS HARM ENTIRE COMMUNITIES. IT'S NOT JUST THE CHILDREN THEMSELVES. IT ALSO CAUSES OUR PROPERTY VALUES TO DROP, SHRINKING THE CITY'S TAX BASE AND REDUCING FUNDING FOR ROADS, PARKS AND ESSENTIAL SERVICES FOR HOMEOWNERS. THAT'S YOUR THAT'S YOUR EQUITY FOR THE CITY. THAT'S YOUR TAX BASE. COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT DECLINE, WEAKENING THE OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE.

CAREER OPPORTUNITIES SHRINK, LEAVING STUDENTS WITH FEWER PATHS TO SUCCESS. BECAUSE INDUSTRIES TEND TO INVEST IN AREAS WITH AN EDUCATED WORKFORCE. SMALL BUSINESSES CLOSED DUE TO THE SHRINKING LOCAL ECONOMY. AND THEN WE OFTEN HAVE HIGHER CRIME RATE AND FOUND BY THE NBER WORKING SERIES PAPER A 10% INCREASE IN JUST THE GRADES K THROUGH THREE FUNDING REDUCES THE LIKELIHOOD OF ARREST BY AGE 30 BY 15%. WHEN WE CAN ALREADY SEE THE WARNING SIGNS DIDN'T ISD HAS A NEW SCHOOL BUILDING WITHOUT STUDENTS. DISTRICTS ARE GOING TO FOUR DAY SCHOOL WEEKS AND OTHERS HAVE CLOSED CAMPUSES. 70% OF OUR TEACHERS ARE UNSURE IF THEY CAN

[03:15:04]

THANK YOU. NEXT AND LAST SPEAKER IS MATTHEW MESSER. YEAH. YOU CAN COME DOWN, GIVE YOUR NAME. YOU WILL HAVE FOUR MINUTES. TO. HEY, EVERYBODY. ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT'S HAPPENED? THE LAST TIME THAT I WAS UP HERE, I PASSED OUT A BUNCH OF PAPERS. LITERALLY CALLED TRUMP AN INSURRECTIONIST, RIGHT? AND LEGISLATURE DIDN'T CARE. WASN'T BROADCASTED AND MEDIA WHATSOEVER. SO HERE'S THE DEAL. AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, I'M LOOKING AT MILITARY WHO'S SUPPOSED TO DEFEND OUR NATION AGAINST FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES. WE'RE REPLACING OUR MILITARY WITH, HOW CAN I SAY THIS? ARE THEN BROWN NOSERS. NOW I'M PROTECTED BY MY FIRST AMENDMENT. RIGHT? RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT GOING TO BE LIKE A FOOTBALL PLAYER THAT, YOU KNOW, CHARGES IN AND SAYS, I'M GOING TO BE CIVIL, DISOBEDIENT AND ALL THAT JAZZ. NO, NO. I'M GOING TO STAND HERE TODAY AND DO SOMETHING THAT NO ONE'S EVER DONE BEFORE IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I'M GOING TO COMMIT IN ABOUT FIVE DAYS. I'M GOING TO TRY TO ATTEMPT A CITIZEN'S ARREST OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. I AM GOING TO WALK FROM WHERE I LIVE ALL THE WAY UP TO WASHINGTON, DC. NOW, I LOOKED THIS UP. I AM NOT AND I MEAN, I AM NOT THE FIRST ONE TO EVER THINK OF THIS, BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT, ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT, IS IMMUNE FROM EVERYTHING AFTER HE BECAME PRESIDENT. BUT HERE'S MY THING. HE SHOULD NEVER BE ON THE BALLOT IN THE FIRST PLACE. I SHOWED YOU MY EVIDENCE. I RESPECT YOUR POSITION. AS WHEN I LEFT, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT YOUR POSITION RIGHT THERE. VICKI BYRD, I RESPECT MY NATION. I RESPECT MY GOVERNMENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH FROM THE TOP, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE CITY. I AM AN AMERICAN. I ALSO LOVE MY CATS. I'M JUST

[4. CONSENT AGENDA]

I'LL TAKE A MOTION. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE. MOVE APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE CONSENT AGENDA. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR. MOVE SECOND. SECOND. THAT MOTION. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN. THAT

[A. Consider approval of a resolution of the City of Denton, Texas supporting the legislation relating to the creation of Craver Ranch Municipal Management District No. 1 through special act of the 89th Legislature of the State of Texas; and providing an effective date.]

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, SUPPORTING THE

[03:20:02]

THE PROCESS FOR THIS IS THAT THE CITY RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT TO CREATE THE MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THEN THE DEVELOPER WILL GO THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE TO CREATE A MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THE DEVELOPER WILL THEN COME THROUGH THE CITY, AS WILL WORK THROUGH, AS WE DID WITH COLE AND HUNTER, TO COME TO TERMS ON A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT. FOR WHATEVER THE DEVELOPMENT MAY LOOK LIKE, WHAT THE, THE, THE DEAL POINTS WOULD BE, AND THEN THEY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO GO THROUGH AND DO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD GO THROUGH PNC AND COUNCIL AND A ZONING CHANGE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THE RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATION CREATING THE CARVER RANCH MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. AND I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. HEY, SCOTT. SO THE MMD IS PREDICATED. WELL, THE RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT IS TONIGHT. BUT THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF EVERYTHING IS PREDICATED ON THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPERS REACHING A MUTUALLY A MUTUAL AGREEMENT. ABSOLUTELY. AND IN IN THE CASE THAT THEY THEY DON'T THEN THE RESOLUTION WITHIN THE WITHIN THE LANGUAGE AS YOU HAVE IN YOUR BACKUP, THE RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT STIPULATES THAT THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER WILL COME TO AN AGREEMENT, AND IF NOT, THEN THE RESOLUTION DOESN'T HAVE THE WEIGHT. AND SO THE READING THROUGH THE AGREEMENT OR READING THROUGH THE RESOLUTION, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF STRUCTURE THERE OTHER THAN YEAH, THERE'S 31 PAGES, BUT THERE'S JUST STRUCTURE WITHOUT DETAILS. SO I THINK THE ONLY NUMBER I SAW IN THERE WAS 10% OF THE TOTAL PROPERTY VALUE. AND I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY OTHER KIND OF CONFINING METRICS IN THERE OTHER THAN THIS IS THE PROPERTY. AND, AND WE AGREE TO HAVE BOARDS AND, AND OTHER SORT OF SOCIETAL STRUCTURES. BUT BUT NOTHING NOTHING CONTROLLING THAT. WHEN DOES THAT COME IN. DURING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS. THAT WOULD BE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO WHAT WE DO FOR OPERATION OF THE DISTRICT, AS WELL AS WHATEVER TERMS WE WOULD AGREE TO THAT WOULD ALL COME BEFORE COUNCIL. THAT WOULD BE A COUNCIL DECISION. STAFF WOULD WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER, AS WE DID WITH COLE AND HUNTER RANCH, TO WORK THROUGH EACH AND ALL OF THOSE DETAILS TO DISCERN WHAT IT IS THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. AND SORT OF LAST QUESTION FOR A MOMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, BUT THE IN OTHER IN OTHER SORTS OF DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES, THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS INCLUDED WITH SORT OF RATIONALES WHY YOU RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL. BECAUSE IT MET THIS AND THEY DID THIS AND THESE THESE REQUIREMENTS HAPPENED. WHY IS STAFF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ON ON THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION.

THIS THIS HAS BEEN LIKE I INDICATED IN THE PRESENTATION, ANNEXED BACK IN 2008, 2009. THIS WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOME SORT OF DEVELOPMENT VERY SIMILAR TO THIS. THIS ISN'T ANYTHING NEW.

SHORT OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST THAT EXCLUSIVE. RIGHT? IF WE CAN'T COME TO TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT, IF IT DOESN'T BENEFIT THE CITY OF DENTON, THEN WE WOULDN'T WE WOULDN'T BE MOVING

[03:25:04]

IT'S ON THE FACE OF IT. AN EXAMPLE OF GROWING COMPACTLY. BUT I MIGHT FEEL DIFFERENTLY. I ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO DEVELOP IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. AND I MIGHT FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THIS IF I WERE TO HEAR A LITTLE ABOUT ABOUT FROM THE FROM THE DEVELOPER, ABOUT WHAT THE VISION IS AND HOW THIS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THAN OTHER WAYS IT MIGHT OTHERWISE DEVELOP. IS THAT ORDINARILY PART OF THIS PROCESS? NOT TYPICALLY.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, IS REALLY JUST GOING THROUGH AT LEAST THIS IS THAT FIRST STEP. BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE BILL FILING DATE IS MARCH THE 14TH. THEY HAVE A LIMITED TIME FRAME OR THEY'LL HAVE TO WAIT TWO YEARS. WITHIN THAT, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN INTO SPECIFICS OR DEAL POINTS TO SAY WHAT IT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR EXPECTATIONS WOULD BE. DID COMMUNICATE TO THEM THAT SIMILAR TO WHAT WHAT IT IS THAT WE WOULD WORK WE HAD WORKED THROUGH WITH COLE HUNTER WOULD BE THE SAME EXPECTATION FOR THIS TO WHERE WE HAVE OPEN SPACE, GREEN SPACE. WE LOOK FOR ANYTHING THAT WOULD AGAIN BENEFIT DENTON AND ITS RESIDENTS AND FUTURE RESIDENTS. WOULD YOU BE AVERSE TO OUR HEARING? I, I LEAVE THAT TO THE CHAIR AND LEGAL TO HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER. NO, YOU CAN YOU CAN ASK YOUR QUESTION. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SCOPE OF IT IS. I JUST WANT EVERYBODY COMES UP. ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU. COME ON UP. YEAH. I'M JUST. I'M TALKING TO YOU. HELLO. HOW ARE YOU GUYS? HEY. VERY WELL. SO I'M BUYING THE PROPERTY. I DON'T ACTUALLY OWN THE PROPERTY YET. WE'RE JUST BUYING THE PROPERTY. SO TO. TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS, I BROUGHT MY PLANNER AND ENGINEER TO FURTHER GO INTO DETAIL OF WHAT YOU MAY WANT TO KNOW AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU CAN'T KNOW IT ALL NOW, RIGHT? BUT. BUT I'D BE VERY INTERESTED IN WHAT YOUR VISION AND INTENTION IS AND HOW THIS MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT ELSE MIGHT DEVELOP IF IT WEREN'T YOU DOING THIS? SURE, I UNDERSTAND. SO JIM, JIM AND I. OKAY, FINE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. TEAGUE AND MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS. JIM KNIGHT WITH CFM ENGINEERING AND DESIGN TO MAYBE ADDRESS. DOCTOR BECK'S QUESTION BY GRANTING THE ABILITY TO CREATE THE MD, JUST GIVES US A POSITION TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO CREATE SOMETHING. IF WE CAN'T REACH AGREEMENT, THEN IT GOES AWAY. BUT WE CLEARLY WANT TO CREATE A COMMUNITY HERE WITHIN THE CITY THAT HAS TREMENDOUS VALUE IN THE WORLD TODAY. WE HAVE TO BE EXTRAORDINARILY CAREFUL WITH OPEN SPACE, WITH NATURAL TRAILS, WITH TREES, WITH CREEKS. WE HAVE TO PRESERVE THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE LAND. THE LAND ALWAYS. I HATE TO SAY THIS. WHEN THE GOOD LORD CREATED THE LAND, HE DICTATED TO US WHAT WE SHOULD DO WITH IT. AND WE HAVE TO PROTECT IT, AND WE HAVE TO MANAGE IT PROPERLY. IT'S NOT JUST SCRAPING EVERYTHING AND GOING AND BUILDING AS MUCH CONCRETE AS WE CAN. WE NEED TO BUILD A COMMUNITY WHERE PEOPLE THAT IT'S AFFORDABLE, THAT IT'S SUSTAINABLE, THAT IT'S ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WILL BE PROUD OF FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. IT HAS TO HAVE A VARIETY OF RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY SO THAT PEOPLE ALL. STATUES, STATUES, POINTS OF LIFE CAN AFFORD TO MOVE INTO ANY TYPE OF THAT. IF THEY WANT TO RENT, THEY CAN RENT. IF THEY WANT TO BUY A SMALL HOME, THEY CAN BUY A SMALL HOME. IF THEY WANT A BIG HOME, OR THEY CAN MOVE TO THE COMMUNITY AND THEY CAN AND BUY UP AND MOVE INTO DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES AS THEIR CAREER AND THEIR FAMILIES GROW. AND AS MY KIDS ARE NOW GONE, THEY CAN DOWNSIZE AND GO INTO SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT LESS. BUT IT HAS TO BE PARKS AND TRAILS AND OPEN SPACES. IT HAS TO BE COMMERCIAL

[03:30:01]

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FOCUS ON, EVERY COMMUNITY THAT WE PLAN, WE HAVE TO HAVE OPEN SPACE WITHIN A FIVE MINUTE WALK OF EVERY HOME HAS TO BE THAT WAY. IF WE CAN'T DO THAT, THEN IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. YOU KNOW, THE FAMILIES CAN'T GO OUT AND WALK AROUND AND WALK THE STREETS AND THEN DRIVE FIVE MILES TO GO TO A PARK. WE HAVE TO CREATE SOMETHING. SO THOSE ARE THE IDEAS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE. IT'S IF THE PROJECT DOES NOT DEVELOP IN A MASTER PLAN WAY TO SETS GUIDELINES TO PROTECT QUALITY, THEN IT GETS CHOPPED UP OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, AND THERE'S NO CONSISTENCY OF COMMUNITY, OF OWNERSHIP AND OF BELIEF IN THAT, OF THAT FAMILY VALUE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE. SO THOSE ARE THE IDEALS THAT WE TRY TO EMBRACE AS WE PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER. I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE I'LL MOVE APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE? THANK YOU MAYOR. HAPPILY. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND IT REQUIRES A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RATHER. AND SO THIS IS SORT OF JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF WE CAN COME TO THE TABLE. BUT AND I TELL YOU WHAT I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO VOTE TO GIVE YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY. BUT THIS IS A THIS IS A LARGE DEVELOPMENT FAR OUTSIDE OUR BOUNDARIES. AND SO FOR ME PERSONALLY, I WON'T SPEAK FOR ANY OF THE REST OF THEM. FOR ME PERSONALLY, THIS THIS ISN'T COMPACT DEVELOPMENT. YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S A THERE'S A LOT OF LIFT TO GET TO THIS. FOR ME PERSONALLY, I'M GOING TO LET YOU HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF YOU CAN GET THERE, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE LEGISLATURE ONLY MEETS EVERY TWO YEARS. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT PUTS A BIG TIME CONSTRAINT ON IT. BUT BUT THIS IS, BY DEFINITION, SPRAWL AND NOT NECESSARILY IN IN LINE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO IN ORDER FOR IT TO BENEFIT DENTON, I'M GOING TO NEED TO SEE THAT THAT EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT WE CAN GET TO. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX. COUNCILPERSON JESTER, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS. AND I'VE SEEN KIND OF SOME GENERAL PLANS. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT THE AT LEAST THE THOUGHTS AT THIS POINT IS THAT IT WILL HAVE SOME MULTIFAMILY, WILL HAVE DUPLEXES, IT WILL HAVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE CLOSER TOGETHER AND MORE AFFORDABLE, AND THEN A FEW MORE THAT ALSO, I MEAN, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM THAT WE NEED. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED IN DENTON. WE NEED TO HAVE DOCTORS AND WAITERS AND PEOPLE WORKING ON THE STREETS AND PEOPLE TEACHING IN OUR UNIVERSITIES AND AT OUR SCHOOLS. WE NEED ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF HOUSING. AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED FOR THIS PROJECT, AS WELL AS PUTTING SOME COMMERCIAL WHERE APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR BARBER, FOR YOUR NAIL SALON, SO THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT HAVING TO TRAVEL ALL OVER AND HAVE THAT AVAILABLE RIGHT THERE, THAT YOU'VE ALREADY GOT DISCUSSIONS AS FAR AS WHERE THE SCHOOLS ARE GOING TO GO. SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SORELY NEED IN DENTON AND AT LEAST AT FIRST BLUSH, AND WHAT I KNOW ABOUT IT, I THINK IT'S A BENEFIT. AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FIVE. THANK YOU MAYOR.

TWO WEEKS AGO, THIS COUNCIL GAVE APPROVAL FOR A NUMBER OF PROJECTS TO SEEK TAX CREDITS FROM OUR STATE TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND I WAS VERY PROUD TO MAKE THE MOTION FOR ALL OF THOSE. AND I'M GOING TO STAY CONSISTENT HERE. I FEEL THAT FOR ME SITTING IN THIS SEAT, IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE OF ME TO BLOCK PEOPLE FROM TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THE STATE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN ORDER TO BRING HOUSING TO THIS CITY. I APPRECIATE MISS JESTER'S COMMENTS PICKING UP WHERE SHE LEFT OFF. YEAH, WE NEED HOUSING OF ALL TYPES FOR ALL PEOPLE AND ALL INCOME BRACKETS JUST LIKE MYSELF. SO I'M HAPPY TO SECOND THE MAYOR'S MOTION TO MOVE APPROVAL. I WISH YOU ALL GOOD LUCK AS YOU MOVE TO THE STATE PROCESS, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL ON THIS DAIS AS THEY COME BACK FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO SEE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ONCE THE SAUSAGE IS MADE. THAT'S HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS. SO GOOD LUCK TO YOU ALL AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU BACK IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER LEGISLATIVE SESSION IS OVER. AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNS THOSE THINGS HE DEEMS APPROPRIATE INTO STATE LAW.

THANKS, MAYOR. THANK YOU. SCOTT. CAN I BORROW YOU REAL QUICK? JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND SOMETHING. RIGHT. THIS IS IN THE CITY OF DENTON. IT IS RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT. IT'S

[03:35:01]

WELL, THAT DOESN'T SOUND VERY DENTON TO ME. I RATHER LET'S KEEP THE PARTY GOING AND HAVE ANOTHER SEGMENT OF DENTON OUT ON THIS END OF TOWN. AND THIS IS NOT FAR. I MEAN, THERE'S PEOPLE THAT HAVE BOATS OUT ON RAY ROBERTS THAT DRIVE IT EVERY DAY, AND THAT'S BEYOND THIS LOCATION.

RIGHT. SO, SO I, I, I'M A LITTLE CURIOUS ABOUT THAT ASSERTION THAT IT'S, IT'S BEYOND WHEN PEOPLE DRIVE BY IT EVERY DAY TO GO TO LAKE. BUT SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW AND THAT'S THE LAKE IS FURTHER AWAY. SO GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE. AND WITH THAT WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN. PASSES SEVEN ZERO TAKES US TO ITEM B WHICH IS ID 25372. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN

[B. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute a Construction Manager at Risk contract with Sundt Construction, Inc., for construction phase services for Neighborhood 1B Improvements for the Capital Projects Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (RFP 8225 - awarded to Sundt Construction, Inc., including the first Guaranteed Maximum Price in the partial not-to-exceed amount of $31,872,570.02). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (4 - 0).]

[03:40:03]

[C. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, a Texas home-rule municipal corporation, authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with ROMCO Equipment Co., LLC, through the Buy Board Cooperative Network Contract Nos. 685-22 and 740-24, for authorized repair services, purchases, and rentals of Volvo construction equipment for the Fleet Services Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (File 8727 - awarded to ROMCO Equipment Co., LLC, for one (1) year, with the option for four (4) additional one (1) year extensions, in the total five (5) year not-to-exceed amount of $5,313,000.00). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (5 - 0).]

DID I JUST MISS IT? WHAT WE, IN TERMS OF THE ACTUAL TRENDS THAT USED TO GO TO JUSTIFY THOSE NUMBERS, THE TRENDS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN A BREAKOUT IN THE BACKUP, BUT WHAT WE INCLUDE FOR OUR ADDITIONS IS BASICALLY JUST TAKING THE AGE OF OUR FLEET. THE AMOUNT OF VEHICLES THAT WE PURCHASED YEAR OVER YEAR AND TRENDING THAT FORWARD. SO I'M NOT GOING TO FIGHT THIS, BUT FOR FUTURE, COULD WE SEE THOSE HISTORICAL TRENDS? BECAUSE IT REALLY GIVES US CONFIDENCE THAT, OH YEAH. NO, THIS ABSOLUTELY LINES UP ON OUR GROWTH AND EXPANSION OR NOT. YEAH. AND THAT REALLY HELPS US MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IF NOT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION. MR. PRESIDENT. OKAY. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT TWO. YEAH I'LL APPROVE. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR SECOND, PLEASE. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. LET'S BEFORE WE DO THAT, I'M GOING TO COME DOWN FOR JUST A SECOND. THANK YOU. SO HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE CITY? 14 YEARS. 14 YEARS. WOW. AND SO. AND HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU PRESENTED TO US? THIS IS THE FIRST. REALLY, MAN. THAT'S ALL. THAT'S A GREAT PLAN. YEAH.

RIGHT. YEAH YEAH, YEAH. SO WE HAVE AN ELEPHANT THAT DOESN'T HAVE A NOSE BUT WE'LL SWAP THAT OUT. BUT SO YOU'LL HAVE TWO ELEPHANTS, ONE WITH A NOSE, ONE WITHOUT. EXCELLENT. YEAH. YES.

THANK YOU. SO IT'S CERTAINLY YOU'LL REMEMBER THIS. YES. YES. HERE WE GO. YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OH, NO. YOU DID. YES. YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT WORK NOW OKAY. YEAH. Y'ALL CAN Y'ALL CAN. NO. IT'S ALMOST LIKE A LIKE IT'S MORE LIKE A PUPPY ELEPHANT. OKAY. LET'S LET'S LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN. AND THAT PASSES SEVEN ZERO.

[D. Receive the certification from the City Secretary regarding the City of Denton Districts 1 and 4 Unopposed Candidates for the General Election to be held on Saturday, May 3, 2025.]

[E. Consider adoption of an ordinance declaring unopposed candidates in the May 3, 2025 General City Election, declaring Vicki Byrd elected to office and canceling the election in District 1, declaring Joe Holland elected to office and canceling the election in District 4; and providing an effective date.]

[03:45:02]

REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS, DOESN'T THIS SEEM TERRIBLY, TERRIBLY UNFAIR? BUT I'M JUST ME, OKAY. YEAH. CONGRATULATIONS. AND PEOPLE IN DISTRICT IN DISTRICTS ONE AND FOUR CAN STILL GO AND VOTE ON SCHOOL BOARD RACES, RIGHT? YES, ABSOLUTELY.

AND AGAIN, WE DO HAVE THE CHARTER ELECTION. THAT IS ALSO A SPECIAL THAT WILL BE ON THE BALLOT IN THOSE DISTRICTS AS WELL. SO PLENTY OF REASONS TO TURN UP. YES. THANK YOU.

REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT ONE. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. WILL OUR NAMES SHOW UP ON THE BALLOT AND ARE WE WOULD WE BE ENCOURAGED FOR CITIZENS TO PUT TO CHECK MARK OUR NAMES ANY WAY,

[03:50:03]

AND SO I'M JUST ASKING YOU BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. I'M, I AM WHEN I DID IT TWO YEARS AGO AND RAN UNOPPOSED, I JUST DID NORMAL CAMPAIGN FILINGS AT EIGHT DAYS BEFORE AND 30 DAYS AFTER AND ALL THAT. I JUST DID THE NORMAL STUFF. BUT IS THAT REQUIRED NOW SINCE THEY'RE DECLARED THE WINNER? THE REGULAR ORDER OF FILINGS IS THE REGULAR ORDER? YES. OKAY. IT STILL APPLIES. ALL RIGHT. YES. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. SO THIS IS ON ITEM E THAT WE'RE VOTING ON REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT SIX. COUNCILPERSON JESTER. IT IS AN HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO MAKE THIS MOTION. I'M VERY PROUD TO SERVE WITH THESE COLLEAGUES.

CONGRATULATIONS. AND THE RESPECT AND CONFIDENCE THE CITIZENS HAVE IN YOU BOTH IS WELL EARNED. SO I MOVE APPROVAL. THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT THREE. I HAPPILY AND VERY, VERY JEALOUSLY. SECOND, SECOND. THAT SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. LET'S VOTE ON THE SCREEN. ALL RIGHT. YOU KNOW SCREW THIS UP. I'M GLAD

[6. CONCLUDING ITEMS]

WE, THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY OF DENTON HAVE A FRIEND IN JESSIE DAVIS. JESSIE HAD A HEALTH SCARE NOT VERY, VERY LONG AGO. AND HE'S AT HOME DOING WELL AND RECUPERATING. AND I JUST WANTED TO WISH HIM THE VERY, VERY BEST AND GODSPEED. THANK YOU. LIKEWISE. AND THEN, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? THEN I'LL RATTLE THESE OFF FAST AS I CAN. UNT MEN'S AND WOMEN'S BASKETBALL CONTINUE TO DO GREAT THINGS, SO CONTINUE TO GO MEAN GREEN UNT WOMEN'S DIVE TEAM JUST WON LIKE

[03:55:07]

AND THEN T.W.U IS I THINK THEY'RE RANKED. THEIR BASKETBALL TEAM IS RANKED NUMBER ONE. AND YEAH NUMBER ONE SEED. AND THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO GO DO AMAZING THINGS. SO PROUD OF THEM. GO PIONEERS. AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT I GOT TO GO VISIT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FOR THEIR BLACK HISTORY PROGRAM AND AMEND THE FUTURE. DENTON IS SO BRIGHT AND THAT AREA IS AMAZING AS FAR AS THE GROWTH. BUT BUT REALLY GREAT THINGS HAPPENING THERE. LOOKING FORWARD TO THEIR NEW SCHOOL. AND IT WAS JUST GREAT TO BE WITH THE FIFTH GRADERS THAT DAY. AND THEN IF YOU IF YOU'RE NOT, IF YOU DON'T HAVE PLANS ON FRIDAY IS THE YOUR BEAUTIFUL LUNCHEON WHERE THOSE AND THAT'S FEATURES CANCER SURVIVORS AND IT'S ALWAYS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO FUNDRAISE. SO PLEASE SUPPORT THEM. AND THEN LASTLY DENTON FREEDOM HOUSE THAT SAME FRIDAY, THIS COMING FRIDAY HAS A GALA.

SO THEY DO AMAZING WORK IN OUR COMMUNITY. THEY HELP WITH SOME OF OUR CLEANUP PROGRAMS, THAT SORT OF THING. SO THEY'RE DOING GREAT THINGS. SO WITH THAT AT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.