2026-11-03 - City Council Meeting

00:01[music]

00:07[music]

00:24[music]

00:44>> Okay, I now open the regular City

00:45Council meeting of Lubbock City Council

00:46for November 3rd, 2026. The City Council

00:48will recess into executive session in

00:50accordance with Texas Government Code

00:52section 551.071

00:54to consult with and seek the advice of

00:56the city's legal counsel and 551.074 to

00:59discuss personnel matters. The City

01:00Council is recessing at 3:01 p.m.

01:09That was your sign. That was your signal

01:11signal there.

01:12[laughter]

01:15[clears throat] Quit lobbying the

01:17attorneys, the city attorneys there. All

01:19right.

01:20For those of you who don't know, I'm

01:22your mayor Mark McBrayer, not McBriar.

01:25So just want to get that on the record

01:27here first.

01:29So

01:31we will now reconvene in open session

01:34and take up our ceremonial items and I

01:37am going to pronounce this name

01:38correctly too for you. We have the

01:40privilege today of having Dr. Todd

01:43Solsbery, the pastor of First United

01:46Methodist Church to lead us in our

01:47invocation, followed by which our mayor

01:49pro tem will lead us in our pledges to

01:51our flags. Please rise as you are able.

02:00>> Thank you, Mr. and council members. Will

02:03you bow your heads in prayer with me

02:05today?

02:08Almighty God, we thank you that you call

02:10us to live together in community

02:13under the guidance

02:15and the leadership

02:17of governments of every kind.

02:19We look to your word in the Bible that

02:21teaches us that requests, prayers,

02:24intercession, and thanksgiving be made

02:26for everyone,

02:27for kings and leaders and all those in

02:29authority that we may live peaceful and

02:30quiet lives in all godliness and

02:33holiness.

02:34This is good and pleases the Lord our

02:36Savior.

02:38We stand in your promise that you can

02:40guide all those in leadership positions.

02:43And so Father, we pray for our

02:45government leaders

02:47that they will have guidable hearts.

02:50We pray that we will follow the guidance

02:55presented to us

02:57in a way that benefits and glorifies

03:00you.

03:02Help all of us to have a true sense of

03:03service.

03:04Fill our leaders with a healthy

03:06realization that although they may

03:07exercise earthly power, you are the Lord

03:10of Lords and justice and mercy reign

03:12within you.

03:14Fill all of our leaders with a desire to

03:16obey the law of love with which

03:19transcends all man-made laws.

03:22Grant them a desire to serve justice

03:24rather than convenience or personal

03:26political advantage.

03:28Surround each of us with good advisors.

03:32For the grace

03:34provided in Proverbs 19:20 says, listen

03:37to the advice and accept instruction and

03:40in the end you will be wise.

03:43Help each of us to be quick to pray,

03:45quick to deliberate, and quick to seek

03:47advice.

03:48Help us to be slow to speak or act on

03:50impulse out of anger, pride, greed, or

03:53desires to strengthen our own power or

03:55control.

03:57Most of all,

03:59give our leaders and each of us a deep

04:01and abiding faith you.

04:04For when a man's ways are pleasing to

04:05the Lord, he makes even his enemies live

04:07in peace with him.

04:10Give each of us strong trustings

04:11relationships of Christ our Lord, the

04:13good shepherd.

04:15That our leaders might in turn be truly

04:17good shepherds of the positions that you

04:20have entrusted to them.

04:22We pray this in the name of Christ the

04:24everlasting king.

04:26Amen.

04:27>> Amen.

04:29>> Now if you'll join me in the pledges

04:34to the pledges to the United States and

04:35Texas flag.

04:37>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

04:40United States of America and to the

04:42Republic for which it stands, one nation

04:46under God, indivisible with liberty and

04:49justice for all.

04:51Honor the Texas flag. I pledge

04:53allegiance to thee, Texas, one state

04:56under God, one and indivisible.

05:05>> [snorts]

05:07[clears throat]

05:08>> All right. And for the everybody that's

05:09watching today, this is your last

05:12opportunity to vote.

05:15The polls are open till I believe 7:00

05:17this evening. Is that right? So please

05:20go out and vote. We've just taken a

05:22pledge of allegiance

05:23to our flag, one nation under God. And

05:27tomorrow morning we will still be, God

05:29willing, one nation under God. And

05:32we're

05:34I'm so

05:37[snorts] grateful that I live in a city

05:40that understands we are

05:43united. Even though we have different

05:45opinions

05:46about things,

05:48this city has a certain united spirit

05:51that I think that is unique in many

05:53places.

05:54Hopefully

05:56that remains true despite all the

06:00back and forth in election years. But

06:02please go out and exercise your right

06:05because it is one of the most precious

06:06rights that you have. All right.

06:09According to our rules, we have citizen

06:11comments and we have opportunities for

06:13anyone who wants to to come and address

06:15us on any item that is on the agenda.

06:19And we just ask that you provide us with

06:22your name and address prior to the

06:24meeting that you sign up. You have 3

06:26minutes to make your comments. There are

06:28lights at the podium. A yellow light

06:30comes on when you have 30 seconds left,

06:33a red light when you need to wrap up

06:34your comments. And so we have one person

06:38today to speak on an item on our agenda

06:41and that's Mr. Steven Sanders and

06:44Steven, you'll come forward.

06:48>> Thank you Mayor and Council. My name is

06:51Steven Sanders and

06:53glad to see all of you again

06:55in one piece. Here we are.

06:58I live at 3404 75th Street, Lubbock,

07:01Texas.

07:02Good afternoon Mayor and Council

07:03members. My name is Steven Sanders. I

07:05live here in Lubbock.

07:07I founded [snorts] a group called Save

07:08Lubbock.

07:09I'm here about alley paving.

07:12And I'll start by giving the city credit

07:14trying to give neighbors a way to get

07:16better alleys in a good goal. It's a

07:19good goal.

07:20Rough alleys hurt our trash trucks and

07:22drainage, our cars, and our property

07:25values. The mayor himself has said these

07:28alleys are hard on the city equipment.

07:31So we agree on the problem.

07:34My concern is who pays,

07:36who gets left behind?

07:39Under the petition model, families on

07:41block families on a block could be

07:43billed several thousand dollars each and

07:47some would owe more than 8,000.

07:49If they can't pay, a lien goes on their

07:52home.

07:53For a retiree on a fixed income,

07:56a single mother or a young family,

07:59that isn't an improvement.

08:00[clears throat]

08:01It's a threat to the one thing they do

08:03own.

08:05It also means the neighborhoods that can

08:08afford to organize and pay will get

08:10paved alleys.

08:12The neighbor the neighborhoods

08:13[clears throat] that can't will keep the

08:14dirt,

08:16the potholes and the mud.

08:18Over time, that creates two Lubbocks.

08:21I don't think any of you want that.

08:26These alleys serve the whole city. City

08:28trucks use them, city utilities run

08:31through them.

08:32When a public benefit when a when a

08:35public benefit is paid for almost entire

08:38entirely by the people who live beside

08:41it, the cost isn't being shared fairly.

08:46I'm not asking the city to pave every

08:47alley tomorrow.

08:49I'm asking for a fair plan.

08:51Here are some options.

08:53First, raise the city's share above 10%

08:56minimum, especially in lower income

08:58neighborhoods like District 1 and 2.

09:00Second, offer hardship exemptions or

09:02reduced

09:04assessments for seniors, veterans,

09:07disabled residents, and low income

09:09homeowners with no liens on homesteads.

09:14Third,

09:15extend payment plans well beyond 12

09:18months with no interest.

09:21Fourth, look at grants, bonds, funds,

09:25and federal community development

09:26dollars and prioritize the alley

09:29that the alleys that cause drainage and

09:32service problems instead of waiting for

09:34petitions.

09:36Fifth, before any decision, hold public

09:38meetings in every district so the people

09:41who would pay can be heard.

09:44Fairness does not fair fairness doesn't

09:47mean everyone pays the same amount.

09:49It means nobody gets pushed out or left

09:52behind because of the size of their

09:54paycheck.

09:55Let's find a way to make this work for

09:56every neighborhood, not just ones that

09:58can afford it. Thank you.

10:02>> Thank you, Mr. Sanders.

10:04All right.

10:07We'll now take up agenda item 4.1 and

10:104.2, the minutes from the regular city

10:11council meetings held on September 22nd

10:13and October October 13th. Those minutes

10:16were in the packets provided to each

10:18council member. Is there a motion to

10:19approve items 4.1 and 4.2?

10:22>> So moved.

10:23>> Do we have a We have a motion. We have a

10:24second. Any discussion or amendments or

10:26edits to those minutes?

10:29I see none. All in favor say aye. Aye.

10:32Any opposed say nay. I hear none. That

10:34motion passes unanimously.

10:37All right.

10:38We have [clears throat] a

10:39taking up item five, the consent agenda,

10:41and we're

10:42pulling item 5.4

10:46so that councilman

10:48Green may recuse himself from voting on

10:50that item

10:51when it comes up. So at the moment I

10:53would entertain a motion to approve the

10:54consent agenda with the exception of

10:56item 5.4. Is there such a motion?

10:59>> I move we approve the consent agenda

11:01with the exception of the

11:03the motion.

11:04>> Second.

11:04>> We have a motion and a second. Any

11:05discussion?

11:07All right. All in favor say aye. Aye.

11:09Any opposed say nay.

11:11I hear none. That motion passes

11:13unanimously. Now we'll take up item 5.4.

11:16Mr. Green, you can recuse yourself.

11:19[clears throat]

11:29And because that item was pulled from

11:30the agenda, is there a request by anyone

11:32on the council to have the staff brief

11:34us on that matter?

11:39I see none. So is there a motion to

11:42approve item 5.4?

11:45>> So moved.

11:46>> I have a motion. I have a second. I have

11:47a motion and a second. Any further

11:49discussion on that item?

11:52I see none. All in favor say aye. Aye.

11:55Any opposed say nay.

11:56I hear none. That motion passes

11:59six to zero with one recusal. All right.

12:10We'll now take up our regular agenda and

12:12we will consider item 6.1, an ordinance

12:14amending the code of ordinances

12:15establishing a procedure for property

12:17owners to petition the city to pave and

12:20improve an unimproved alley at the cost

12:22of the abutting property owners. So I'm

12:24going to call on Eric, you're already up

12:26here, our assistant city manager to

12:28provide a staff briefing on this matter.

12:38>> It's not very loud. How about now? Okay,

12:40that thank you.

12:41Mayor, council, good to be with you. So

12:43this item is we brought you a relatable

12:45item back earlier this year where we

12:47brought you a draft ordinance regarding

12:50a citizen initiated process to have

12:52their alley paved.

12:53That particular ordinance would have

12:55established a petition process as well

12:58as an an assessment for the abutting

13:00property owner. We took feedback from

13:01the council earlier this year and have

13:04revised that ordinance and in essence

13:05what we're proposing now is to simply

13:07amend the existing ordinances you have

13:08it today versus bringing you an entirely

13:10new ordinance.

13:12But after taking feedback from council

13:13earlier this year, we've updated the

13:14ordinance and have removed the

13:16assessment portion of it.

13:18We've also made some other changes

13:21addressing some concerns that were

13:22presented by council earlier this year.

13:25The ordinance you have before you today

13:26does establish a neighborhood initiated

13:29process

13:30for paving their alley with the cost

13:32being funded by the residents themselves

13:34without the assessment. I'm going to let

13:36Mr. Turpin, our city engineer, walk you

13:39through the details and I'll be

13:40available for questions as well. So

13:45>> Good afternoon, mayor. Good afternoon,

13:46council.

13:50So quickly take y'all through this. So

13:52under our current code,

13:54the way it would work today if a citizen

13:56wanted to pave their alley,

13:59they would be fully responsible for

14:02finding the engineering firm that they

14:04were going to use

14:06as well as once they get the engineer

14:09document and send it through our plan

14:11review

14:13and it gets approved, then they would

14:15have to hire the contractor.

14:17Um, so under the new ordinance, which I

14:19I think is going to be quite a bit

14:21better for our citizens

14:32Lubbock engineering department will

14:34manage

14:36the design, the engineering, the

14:38surveying, and all the way through

14:39construction. So we will be on the hook

14:41for uh bidding that project out.

14:44So some caveats here. Under the new

14:46ordinance, uh we set up what's

14:49a petitioner, which is basically the

14:52person that will communicate directly

14:54with us on behalf of the the citizens

14:57who wish to have their alley paved.

14:59And [clears throat] with that, uh there

15:02are a few rules. The petitioner is

15:06fully on the hook for uh getting all of

15:09the the various people abutting the the

15:13alleyway uh

15:16to gain consent from them,

15:18whether that be they agree to pay or not

15:21pay.

15:22So others could agree to pay on their

15:24behalf,

15:26but they have to gain the consent. So

15:28every person on the block does have to

15:31consent to the alley being paved.

15:34Um, in addition, there is a $1,000

15:37petition fee up front that it will pay

15:40for a feasibility study, which I'll go

15:42over here in a minute.

15:45So the feasibility study will include a

15:47look at a drainage analysis. Um, we'll

15:49do a preliminary survey, high very high

15:52level survey, as well as a utility

15:54investigation to find out if

15:56what utilities are going to be in

15:58conflict whenever we build this

15:59alleyway,

16:00uh which will all play into the costs.

16:02So at the point that we finish the

16:04feasibility study, we'll have

16:06essentially a 30% design

16:09um and a total project cost.

16:12And it is at that point that we will

16:13send them a letter notifying them here's

16:16the total project cost um and we would

16:19notify them and say you have 90 days to

16:22gather together your funding to perform

16:24the project. And it is also at that

16:26point that they could also determine

16:29whether they wish to proceed forward or

16:31withdraw the petition.

16:33So, but the petitioner will be fully

16:36responsible to gather the funds for the

16:39total project cost and bring that back

16:42to the city.

16:44So in the case you want to they want to

16:47have a petition withdrawal, there are a

16:48few rules there as well.

16:51Upon written notice

16:53they can void out and not continue

16:56forward and they can't re petition us to

16:59have the

17:01alley paved within 180 days of the

17:04withdrawal of that petition.

17:09And then so finally on on payment in the

17:12event that the actual cost is within

17:155%

17:17or or less of our cost

17:20there there won't be a refund, but in

17:22the event that the actual cost of the

17:24alley exceeds

17:26our our cost estimated, we will go back

17:29to the petitioner and ask for them

17:32for that additional cost.

17:37[clears throat] And with that I'll take

17:38any questions.

17:40>> All right. Are there questions? Mr.

17:42Brugel.

17:43>> Yes, I want to thank our staff who've

17:45put quite a bit of thought into doing

17:47this right. I think what we have here

17:49today as this ordinance is an example of

17:51good governance.

17:52What we're doing is we're taking a

17:54process that's cumbersome and difficult

17:56for our citizens right now and

17:58streamlining it.

17:59As you may recall, I had raised some

18:01substantial concerns with the initial

18:02draft of the ordinance because it could

18:04put us in a situation

18:06like a previous commenter alluded to

18:08where a citizen could end up paying a

18:10bill for something they didn't ask for,

18:12which is something we want to avoid and

18:14this draft of the ordinance does that

18:15very well.

18:17So with that being said, I don't foresee

18:19my alley ever being paved under this

18:20agreement, because we don't have alley

18:23access garages on 54th Street.

18:25Uh, but for those select handful of

18:27unpaved alleys where we've got garages

18:29exiting to them, this is a great way to

18:32help make sure those homes maintain

18:34their value and uh

18:35those citizens have access to their

18:37garages when it rains.

18:39>> Thank you.

18:39>> So good work, guys.

18:42Mr. Harris.

18:44>> [clears throat]

18:45>> Yes. Um

18:47do you know if

18:49there are grants available? Will that go

18:52through like community development or

18:54something like that?

18:55No?

18:57Is there something that can be looked

18:58into to make grants available to get

19:00this done?

19:01>> I am unsure, Councilman Harris.

19:04Um

19:09we could look at We will look into that

19:10and and run that through committee

19:12development and see if there's anything

19:14available for that purpose. Yes, sir.

19:16>> And one more question. It is for the

19:19majority of the block, right? It does

19:21not have to be the whole block consent.

19:24>> It

19:25It is the whole block, sir.

19:26>> It is the whole block has to consent to

19:28it. Okay.

19:29Thank you.

19:31>> What Remind me, what is it just a

19:34sort of a ballpark cost of paving an

19:37alley, do you think?

19:38>> So when we looked at this it we

19:40determine I mean it can obviously vary

19:42quite a bit depending on

19:44uh if there's utility relocations or

19:46not. If there are not utility

19:47relocations it would be

19:50uh somewhere between $70,000

19:54uh depending off it's a short block or a

19:56long block. And if you have utility

19:58relocations on top of that that would

20:00obviously add some cost to that.

20:03>> All right. And uh Mr. Collins.

20:08>> Thank you, Mayor. Um if I could restate

20:10this to make sure that I understand

20:12fully uh Mr. Turpin what we're doing.

20:15A petitioner, a homeowner brings a

20:17$1,000 deposit to the city in a request

20:21to prepare

20:23an estimate

20:24for the cost of an alley.

20:27That estimate is prepared by our city

20:29staff.

20:30And if in that uh total sum is then

20:34presented back to the homeowner, the

20:36petitioner.

20:37And and let's for round numbers purposes

20:39say that that's $75,000.

20:42The petitioner then has 90 days to

20:45collect 90 uh $75,000 from his neighbors

20:49as well as consent from them

20:52to pave the alley.

20:54There is no force. There is no measure

20:57that requires a adjacent homeowner to

21:01participate

21:02uh in any way. Is that correct?

21:05>> Yes, sir. The only thing that I would

21:07change there is the consent is gained up

21:09front during the petition phase. So they

21:11are required. They have to go up front

21:13and talk to them and gain signatures and

21:16then present that with $1,000.

21:18>> So so every every adjacent homeowner has

21:22to consent to the alley being paved

21:26that does not say that he consents to

21:28pay for it.

21:29>> That is correct. Yes, sir.

21:30>> And so no one is forced to pay or is

21:35under any threat of lien

21:38from the city or his neighbors

21:40to um pay money to pay for this alley.

21:44And if a petitioner chose to write the

21:46check for the full amount, that would be

21:48on that homeowner's um

21:52provided he received permission, he

21:53could do that.

21:55>> Yes, that's

21:56>> could take care of this. So so to answer

21:58what was previously stated and maybe

22:00what was in the uh petition before or

22:04the um ordinance before, there is no

22:07force

22:08to pay. There is no threat of lien on

22:12property. This is to allow our city

22:16staff and their expertise to assist in

22:20improving an alleyway, which we talked

22:22about before, has great benefit to our

22:24waste collection, has great benefit to

22:26our utilities, and and benefit to our

22:29maintenance team in in terms of keeping

22:31these alleys in good shape. But again, I

22:34want to say this

22:35emphatically, no one can be forced to

22:38pay for something they did not want.

22:40>> Correct, sir.

22:41>> And so I I just again, I can't say that

22:43over enough times to say that

22:47I think this is a great process. It

22:49allows for improvements in in alleys

22:52where it's appropriate, but no one can

22:54be forced to do something

22:57and write a check for something they did

22:58not want. So thank you for the work in

23:01this. I'm fully in support.

23:07>> Councilwoman Martinez Garcia.

23:09>> I think the $1,000 is a good way to vet

23:13and see if everyone is all in. And then

23:16I do have one question. Once

23:19say the neighborhood has agreed, they've

23:21paid it and it gets done, who will

23:23maintain

23:24that

23:26that concrete or the alleyway, the pave

23:29the paving of the alleyway? Who will

23:31maintain that?

23:32>> The city of Lubbock will.

23:33>> Okay.

23:34Good answer. Thank you.

23:36>> Yes, ma'am.

23:38>> Councilman Harris.

23:41>> Yes, one more question. I don't know,

23:43something has stuck in my head about

23:45the lien on someone's property. So

23:48you're saying that it has to be paid

23:50upfront in full before the city actually

23:54does it?

23:56>> There are no liens, sir.

23:58There will be no assessment upfront.

24:00>> I don't know where I got that from to

24:02where that if somebody

24:03>> on the previous ordinance, sir. If you

24:05are remembering the previous ordinance

24:06>> All right.

24:07Had a flashback. Okay.

24:09>> we've completely changed away from that.

24:11>> Okay.

24:13Okay. All right. Thank you.

24:16>> All right. I have a question about the

24:1830% design. What is that referred to?

24:21>> The 30% design is just

24:24in engineering terms, it's a level of

24:25design.

24:26>> A level of design.

24:28>> when we go through

24:28>> a a project, we go through a 30, 60, and

24:31a 90, and then a 100.

24:32>> Kind of a preliminary design.

24:33>> yeah, it's a preliminary design that's

24:35very high level that determines any

24:38pitfalls within the project.

24:40>> Now,

24:41does this ordinance, if we have it in

24:44place, preempt any other method of

24:46paving your alley?

24:49Uh, say a guy lives on the alley and he

24:52gets everybody's He doesn't want to go

24:55through this process, but he wants to

24:56contract with someone to pave his alley.

24:59Um,

25:01and this is the scenario I'm I'm putting

25:03out there. Say he gets the consent of

25:0590% of the people, but there's one

25:07person says I don't want to pay for

25:09whatever reason. I'm not paying for it

25:11and he says you don't have to pay for

25:12it, but that person says I know I'm not

25:14paying for it. I don't want it paved,

25:15though.

25:17Is there any way for that person to then

25:19just pay for a contract with someone

25:21other than the city and pave that alley

25:22or is this a preemptive sort of

25:24ordinance that only way you can get an

25:25alley paved now?

25:27>> It is I would say it is not

25:29it would not preempt the ability of Uh,

25:32there are examples where we have

25:34development

25:35um, that will

25:37connect up to an unpaved alley in some

25:40instances.

25:41Um, and in those instances where they

25:43are passing their drainage to those

25:45alleys, we do require them to actually

25:47go in and

25:48and pave those alleys so that the

25:51drainage will not ruin

25:53the

25:54connecting alley, is that so to speak?

25:57And so

25:58that would be allowable as well uh,

26:02in our point of view.

26:03>> Another scenario I could think of is say

26:04someone lives on the end of the block

26:07and he or the alley and he and his

26:09neighbor across the alley agree they'll

26:11pave it as far as their property line,

26:15not the whole block, but just to their

26:18property line.

26:20Could that happen?

26:23>> I don't know that we've thought through

26:24that. Uh, I would probably lean on Matt

26:26Wade for his guidance.

26:28>> I think

26:30and I I need to if it's elsewhere in the

26:33ordinance. So right now, I think the

26:35answer to your question is no. We would

26:37not allow that to happen because we have

26:39defined as what a minimum alley pavement

26:42is, which is a block.

26:43>> Mhm.

26:43>> So you have to pave the whole block,

26:45right? You can't just sit there and do

26:46half an alley

26:48and then and then pave it. I mean that

26:50there'd be lots of and John and them

26:52could tell you all the problems of going

26:53from

26:54unimproved onto improved, especially

26:56with our trash trucks and everything

26:57else, what what that would obviously

26:58cause. So the design is the purpose

27:01behind

27:01>> a lot of concrete at that point where it

27:03goes off of it.

27:04>> So the the it it was set to be a a what

27:08we define as a city block minimum

27:11as far as what you can do. So basically

27:12you have two ways to do it. You can do

27:13it the old way where you're going to

27:15hire your own engineer

27:16and I think that still requires all the

27:18property owner's consent.

27:20And then this way is where we do it,

27:22but it's going to require upfront cost

27:25and it's still going to require all the

27:26property owner's consent. So one one

27:27property owner, even if they don't have

27:29to pay, if they don't sign the petition

27:31then as it's currently drafted, they

27:33could prevent

27:35that block from being paved.

27:37>> And so that was that at least kind of my

27:38other question is why do we have the

27:41like the one person if they're not

27:43paying for it and they're not obligated,

27:45but to prevent everybody else from

27:47getting it paved, what's the reason

27:50um

27:51>> it was that that was brought We've

27:52discussed that internally with staff and

27:54going back and looking at all the

27:56council comments and I know that

27:57probably was

27:59um

28:00probably more related to the lean and

28:02the assessment

28:04um as far as requiring 100% consent

28:06because the previous ordinance said, you

28:08know, I don't know if it was 75% or 2/3,

28:11I can't remember, but it required a

28:12super majority to be able to sit there

28:14and do it,

28:15right?

28:17But there were comments made by the

28:18council that said, look, even if you

28:20don't want you shouldn't be forced if

28:22behind your house you don't want an

28:23alley. Who and you know, thinking of who

28:26might not want their alley paved even if

28:28they aren't paying for it,

28:30you know,

28:31and I'm I'm I don't know for certain,

28:33but there are people who

28:35aren't really happy about pavement,

28:36period. They want more green space, and

28:38they might consider that

28:40a reason why they don't want behind

28:41their house paved. Could you change it?

28:43We could absolutely change it to where

28:46it is,

28:47but then it does lead to the problem of

28:51if you do don't consent, we're going to

28:53have somebody verify that they also had

28:57no obligation or don't pay or whatever.

28:59So leaving it to where it's unanimous

29:01consent on the petition in order to move

29:04forward

29:05was a cleaner way to do it, easier way

29:07to do it, but we certainly could adjust

29:09it if y'all would like to see some other

29:11type of

29:13um

29:14>> Yeah, that that was a little bit of my

29:15concern. I I

29:16don't take me wrong. The ornery neighbor

29:18who says, well, I'm just not I'm I don't

29:20like my neighbors. I'm going to just say

29:22no. And and they prevent everyone else

29:24from getting something that would be

29:25good for everybody else. They have no

29:27obligation to pay for anything. And of

29:29course, as my understanding, the alley,

29:31if you want green space, I mean, I guess

29:33what what the the the strip down the

29:35middle of the alley cuz it doesn't go

29:36over to your fence line. You still have

29:39>> You know, I'm just making up something.

29:40I have no idea why somebody

29:42>> of the reason why, and if that really

29:44isn't preventing a good thing

29:46uh that we might really like to do, and

29:48what are we trying to protect by the

29:51unanimous consent when there's no lien,

29:53no obligation on them?

29:56Um

29:57>> If if if y'all want it if y'all don't if

29:59the council doesn't want that, you could

30:01also probably put in the petition

30:03requirement process that anybody who

30:05does not consent

30:07is not required to actually pay for

30:09anything. You could probably put

30:10something in that um something like that

30:12in the ordinance if you'd rather have

30:14that as opposed to making it unanimous.

30:17So if that's something the council wants

30:18to do, we were trying to sit there and

30:20take your previous comments

30:21>> Right.

30:22>> from several months ago

30:23and try to incorporate that into what

30:25the council was desiring. So if y'all

30:27want something different than that, you

30:28certainly can do that.

30:29>> I I'm just happy to see more alleys

30:31paved, and I'm reluctant to put one

30:33thing in there that might prevent it uh

30:36if it's a good thing and so

30:38um

30:41let's

30:42we don't really have

30:44a motion.

30:44>> There's no there's no motion. Y'all are

30:46just in this draft briefing at this

30:47point in time.

30:48So

30:49>> Okay.

30:50Uh any more questions for Mr. Turpin

30:51while we've got him up there? Dr.

30:53Wilson.

30:55>> I think I was thinking right along the

30:57same lines as the mayor. I mean my

30:58suggestion would be to make the consent

31:00process maybe like 85% with the language

31:03saying this does not require you to pay

31:05for anything within the project, but

31:07then it wouldn't stop the feasibility

31:08study because there may be several

31:11neighborhoods or people on a block that

31:13do the feasibility study and it comes

31:14back at $120,000 and they go, oh yeah,

31:17we can't do that. We thought it was

31:18going to be 60.

31:20But it doesn't prevent the actual

31:21feasibility study to see the cost of the

31:23project. So I would suggest you set it

31:25like 85% so you know you have the

31:27majority of your block owners interested

31:30right within that that says still this

31:33does not obligate even the people who

31:34didn't sign and then if the you know 85%

31:38go that's great, we'll come up with the

31:40money, then you can still move forward

31:41with the project, but it needs to be a

31:42fairly high percent. I would do it more

31:44than 50. You know 85 may not be the

31:47right number, but that would be my

31:48suggestion. That way it doesn't stop the

31:50feasibility process from moving forward

31:52and then all of them collectively can

31:54figure out who's going to pay what

31:56because it doesn't matter, right? The

31:57money just has to come.

32:03>> Councilwoman Martinez Garcia.

32:05>> I know that it's already a process to do

32:08the the first you know application or

32:12and the $1,000, but

32:14would it be possible to think about once

32:17the feasibility study is done maybe they

32:20get you know the neighbors are presented

32:22to each other or whatever and then do

32:26one more

32:27approval from each neighbor?

32:30Is that too complicated

32:32after they actually get to see cuz I

32:34think that's where the vetting's going

32:36to happen. That's where it's either

32:37going to happen or it's not, you know,

32:39the first time around, cuz

32:42the $1,000 itself, I think is um

32:46it's a it's a deal breaker.

32:48It's going to happen, or it isn't.

32:51What do you think? No?

32:52>> Yes, ma'am. I I think if if that's what

32:55y'all would like to see, we could

32:56potentially set the ordinance up that

32:58way.

32:59>> But do you think it's a good idea?

33:01Just from dealing with the with the

33:02citizens a little bit more directly?

33:05>> I I I guess the by the way we currently

33:08have it, ma'am, um I would say that the

33:10the petitioner is on the hook for going

33:14and talking for all of the citizens or

33:16talking to all of the citizens. And then

33:18he's also he or she is also going to

33:22um

33:22be on the hook for collecting the money.

33:25And so if they're unwilling to come up

33:27with it, then they won't pay, and then

33:30they'll have to either come up with the

33:31funding themselves

33:33uh by another means or it it won't

33:36happen. So I think uh

33:37>> are just visionaries. They got to see it

33:39to believe it, you know?

33:40>> [snorts]

33:41>> Yeah, so I I think about the the current

33:43uh ordinance with the petitioner

33:45established, um they would be on the

33:48hook for trying to gather that

33:49information and determining enough the

33:51project can move forward or not.

33:54>> Thank you.

33:55>> Yes, ma'am.

33:56>> All right, thank you, Mr. Trump.

33:57Appreciate it.

33:59So is it proper for us to Can we make a

34:01motion

34:02um as a with an amendment at this point?

34:04Is that proper?

34:06>> So

34:07there's nothing

34:09So you have a draft that's before you.

34:11You can move [clears throat] to approve

34:14but changing the approval

34:16percentage of on the petition to

34:18whatever percentage y'all want to do.

34:20>> Okay.

34:20>> And that's completely appropriate.

34:22>> And that becomes in the motion that we

34:24will be uh

34:24>> And that and that will approve the whole

34:26ordinance with whatever percentage y'all

34:27come up with on the as far as

34:30the the number of of neighbors that have

34:34to approve the petition for the alley

34:37paving.

34:38>> Okay.

34:38>> You can just give that percentage and

34:40as far as the motion of approving the

34:42whole thing,

34:43and that would be fine.

34:44>> All right. Mayor Pro Tem.

34:47>> So

34:48I would move to approve

34:51the ordinance but change us to

34:55and I want to ask you Mr. Wade, would

34:56you prefer two-thirds majority of the

34:58owners of the block? Is that legally

35:00better or do you prefer a percentage?

35:03>> No,

35:03it two-thirds is a percentage.

35:05>> I mean

35:06for the language I was just saying do

35:08you want it real clear?

35:09>> It two two-thirds is fine.

35:10>> Okay. Well let's do it that way. I like

35:12that. We We use that on council a lot so

35:14let's I'm going to move to approve this

35:15with changing that from 100% to a

35:18two-thirds majority of the block

35:20and then

35:21for on the consent.

35:22>> Second.

35:24>> We have a motion and a second.

35:26Motion and a second. Any further

35:28discussion on this item?

35:31Um and I guess along with that the

35:33language would also

35:35affirm that there is no payment

35:37due from the non-consenting people.

35:40>> Yeah, it the the way that's drafted we

35:43do not get in at all as to who pays what

35:46of the thing. It is the petitioner has

35:48to bring all the money.

35:49>> I got you. Okay, very good.

35:51>> how they get the money that's up to

35:52them.

35:53>> All right. Okay, we have

35:55uh any further discussion? I see none.

35:57So all in favor of approving item 6.1 as

36:02presented just as presented, right? Not

36:04as amended. As presented uh let it be

36:06known by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed

36:08say nay.

36:09I hear none. That motion passes

36:11unanimously.

36:13All right. We'll now

36:15uh consider item 6.2 a resolution

36:17approving public improvements for the

36:18Highland Oaks municipal water

36:20distribution system improvements. Mr.

36:22Aquino once again.

36:26>> Pull up the PowerPoint here.

36:32Oh,

36:33there we go.

36:39Okay.

36:41Mayor Council, this is an item that

36:43actually goes back several years.

36:45Believe maybe as far as back as 2019,

36:47possibly before, a lot of discussions.

36:50Back in just a little bit of history on

36:51this background, back in 2024 the voters

36:55in Highland Oaks

36:56located over at 146 and Slide, the

36:58southeast corner, voted to voluntarily

37:01annexed by a percentage of almost 70%

37:03into the city of Lubbock to for the

37:05purpose of obtaining city water.

37:08It's important to note that the water

37:10improvement project before you today is

37:12going to be funded solely by the

37:14residents of Highland Oaks through a

37:15public improvement district and

37:17assessment.

37:18You've taken already some action. You've

37:20got some additional action coming up

37:21next week as well as in December.

37:24But Council did previously approve a

37:26reimbursement resolution that allows us

37:28to move forward with the capital

37:29project, the actual water improvements

37:31themselves.

37:33Kind of outlining what those

37:34improvements are on this map here.

37:37If you look over, you see on the

37:38southeast corner you've got 146 to the

37:40north, to the west you've got Frankfurt.

37:43You can see in that maroon red color

37:45that those are the actual improvements

37:48starting on 146 and going into the

37:51neighborhood to bring in water to the

37:52neighborhood again funded by the

37:54neighborhood through an assessment

37:56through a public improvement district.

37:57So there's no burden on the existing

37:59rate payer to fund these improvements.

38:02But city staff has been working with the

38:03property owners for a while and the HOA

38:05leadership and we have actually accepted

38:09and and gone through the bidding process

38:11to bid those improvements. I'm going to

38:13walk you through. We did receive some

38:15very good proposals. We received six

38:18bids.

38:19MH Civil Constructors out of Amarillo

38:22was your lowest bidder and they were

38:24also your highest ranked proposer at a

38:26score of 95.67

38:28with a bid of 5.678 million. So very

38:31very very competitive and very good for

38:33this project.

38:35As far as where we sit, our

38:37recommendation today is that you enter

38:39you allow us to move forward and enter

38:40into a contract with

38:42MH Civil in a contract in the amount of

38:455.678 million dollars. We're also asking

38:48for authorization uh for sure some

38:50additional costs including engineer

38:51engineering fees. Our team in

38:53engineering will oversee this. We'll

38:55also have an outside engineer help us

38:56with the record drawings and that sort

38:59of thing

39:00as well as building in some uh some

39:01contingency as well. Uh but for a total

39:04cost basically of 6.721 million dollars.

39:07Uh the original cost we were

39:09anticipating with the project was just

39:10shy of 7.1 million. So we're actually

39:13better

39:14uh better off than we thought we would

39:15be. So in a very good position. Um today

39:18we're asking you to move forward with

39:19the construction contract. Uh you will

39:22uh see next week a public hearing to

39:23update the service and assessment plan

39:25to reflect the new costs lowering the

39:27assessment for everybody in Highland

39:29Oaks. Uh but that is coming and then we

39:31will actually be issuing the bonds in

39:33December. Uh so but you got a

39:35reimbursement resolution that allows you

39:37to move forward today. We can do the

39:39notice to proceed and begin that

39:41project. Um I think it's a very dire

39:43need for that neighborhood and they've

39:44expressed that and we've been in active

39:46communication with them.

39:48So with that I'd be happy to take any

39:50questions or comments.

39:53>> Are there any questions? Uh Mayor Pro

39:54Tem.

39:56>> Yeah thank you Eric. I know the the

39:57neighborhood is in dire need. Like he

40:00said they have been calling and they are

40:02out of water. So we are glad this is

40:04moving through. I'm glad it's coming

40:05under what we estimated. Um just I've

40:08had lots of questions on timeline of

40:10construction like what when can they

40:12expect completed project?

40:15>> Miss Bailey or John can correct me but

40:17the notice to proceed will be issued in

40:19no later than December.

40:22December 1st.

40:23And then we have 240 days to

40:25construction. And one one thing that the

40:26we worked with the HOA on this is we

40:28were putting this out and they asked

40:29what can we do to incentivize the

40:31contractor to move forward in a timely

40:33manner.

40:34Uh number one we we set the days at a no

40:36more than 240 days

40:38um instead of letting them bid their own

40:39time. We also and they this is something

40:42the HOA we coordinated with them and

40:43they were in favor of. We actually asked

40:45for

40:46have an incentive in there where if the

40:47contractor finishes up to the they

40:49basically get a credit for finishing

40:51before the 240 days. If they finish

40:53early, $1,500 per day additional. So

40:56that's built into your contingency up to

40:5845 days, $90,000 is an incentive to work

41:01quickly and work diligently. So.

41:03>> I appreciate that. Thank you.

41:05>> Uh

41:06is there if they go over the 240 days,

41:09is there a penalty in there?

41:11>> Yes, there's liquidated damages. Yes.

41:13>> All right.

41:14And um

41:17yeah, I know they'll be happy to have

41:18that. And again, this is being paid The

41:20city is basically being paid for this

41:22work by the um

41:25PID.

41:26>> That's correct.

41:26>> Right? All right.

41:27>> sir.

41:28>> All right.

41:29Very good. Any other questions? I see

41:32none.

41:33All right, thank you.

41:35All right. Uh I'll now consider a motion

41:37to approve item 6.2.

41:41>> So moved.

41:42>> So moved. We got a motion. We have a

41:43second?

41:43>> Second.

41:44>> Have a motion and second. Any

41:45discussion?

41:47I see none. All in favor say aye.

41:49>> Aye.

41:50>> All opposed say nay. I hear none. That

41:52motion passes unanimously. All right. Uh

41:55we'll now consider item 6.3, approving a

41:57resolution amending Lubbock's uh 2026-27

42:00legislative package. And we'll call on

42:02our city manager, Mr. Atkinson, to

42:03provide a briefing on this matter.

42:05>> Thank you, mayor, city council. Um real

42:08quick,

42:09your current legislative package or your

42:11legislative agenda was adopted on

42:14September the 8th of this year.

42:17Fast forward just one more meeting. On

42:20September the 22nd, the city council

42:22passed the resolution

42:24that starts us through the process for

42:26you to consider a 90-day moratorium on

42:29data centers.

42:31Included in that same resolution

42:34was also a requirement related to your

42:36legislative agenda. Very Very simple.

42:38It's printed in your backup.

42:40It says that this legislative agenda

42:43will include for discussion purposes

42:46with the city's legislative delegation

42:49an item regarding the impact large-scale

42:52data centers could have

42:54on the city's public utility resources

42:57and the city's public infrastructure.

42:59You have a resolution attached with that

43:01exact language in it. If you will

43:03favorably consider this item today, you

43:06will now have put this into the

43:07legislative agenda and you'll be in

43:09conformance with that later resolution.

43:14>> All right. Are there any questions?

43:18All right. So this is just adding to the

43:20legislative agenda we already adopted

43:22earlier.

43:23>> Correct. And is the only change

43:24proposed.

43:25>> All right.

43:26All right.

43:27I see no questions. So all in favor of

43:30uh is there a motion to approve item

43:326.3?

43:35Is there a second?

43:36>> Second.

43:36>> Motion a second. Any further discussion?

43:40I see none. All in favor say aye.

43:41>> Aye.

43:42>> Any opposed say nay. I hear none. That

43:44motion passes unanimously.

43:47All right.

43:49We will now I guess we don't adjourn

43:51from this. We can go into a work

43:52session, right?

43:55Okay. We will adjourn for

43:5825 minutes.

43:59>> We're recessing.

44:00>> Recess. Excuse me.

44:02I retract that word adjourn. I did not

44:04say that word, did I?

44:05>> Yeah, recessing

44:06>> We are recessing.

44:07>> From 5:30.

44:09>> Uh yeah, adjourn just sort of cuts off

44:11everything. We are recessing for 25

44:13minutes. We will reconvene upstairs on

44:15the second floor and any citizen that

44:17wishes to come for that meeting it'll be

44:20on the second floor.

44:22Just get off the lobby and go to your

44:23left and back in there and that's where

44:25we will have our work session

44:28and we will be taking up

44:31any issues regarding amendments to our

44:35charter

44:37amendments. All right? Thank you very

44:38much.

44:42So this is our work session

44:46here to guide offer any guidance to our

44:48staff

44:50as might be appropriate. This is a

44:52discussion

44:53with the public who might be viewing us

44:56regarding our Lubbock City Charter

44:58review and or amendments to the city

45:01charter and again we're just sort of an

45:04overview of the process

45:06and our charter with our

45:08city attorney Mr. Wade.

45:10>> So real quick I just have a few slides

45:13here um

45:15and I think it's important to kind of

45:16remember the background about city

45:18charters in the state of Texas

45:20where they come from where the authority

45:21comes from.

45:23Uh there's from an amendment to the

45:24Texas Constitution in 1912 which created

45:26Article 11 Section 5 that cities with

45:29population of over 5,000

45:32could adopt a city charter

45:34um basically for self-government

45:36um with certain limitations and then the

45:39constitutional limitations can't contain

45:42any provision that isn't consistent with

45:43state constitution or the general

45:45statutes of the state of Texas

45:47limited to a property tax rate of $2.50

45:51cents per $100 valuation in that

45:53constitutional provision

45:55and the city charters can't be altered

45:58amended or repealed more often than

46:00every two years so if you do amend end

46:03up amending the city charter you can't

46:05do it um can't do it again for another

46:07two years.

46:08Now how that particular article has been

46:11interpreted by the state courts and this

46:13is very important

46:14is that basically they say home rule

46:16cities have all power of self-government

46:18not limited by the state constitution or

46:20state law

46:21and they do not need to look to the

46:22legislature for authority to act but

46:24only need to consider when the

46:25legislature has specifically withdrawn

46:27their authority to act

46:28with unmistakable clarity.

46:30It's really really important

46:32um that that is what how the courts have

46:35interpreted the city charter and while

46:37that's 1975

46:39case that's being referenced there

46:41it was

46:43as recently as 2026 that's that is still

46:46considered good law and they're still

46:48referring to that.

46:51Home rule cities are different than

46:52general law cities general law cities

46:55being they are smaller cities it's they

46:57if you look at it this way, they can

46:58only do what the legislature says they

47:00can do.

47:02As a home rule city, we can do anything

47:04we want so long as they haven't said we

47:06can't.

47:08that's the way to sit there and look at

47:09it. So your city charter is very

47:10important because it is the primary

47:13document that establishes what your

47:15authority is as a home rule city.

47:18What some of the objectives are for city

47:21charter, why you have it, um

47:23generally it's considered to have three

47:25major objectives. To create a favorable

47:26climate

47:27climate for more direct governing of

47:29cities by their citizens.

47:31To secure adequate powers so that

47:33municipalities can meet increased

47:34demands for services and to avoid

47:37interference in local government by the

47:38state legislature.

47:40Now, I know that there has been some

47:42movement in the legislature to limit

47:44some of the authority that home rule

47:46cities have here in the past few

47:47legislative sessions.

47:49Um but there's also some laws that are

47:51still pending [clears throat] out there

47:52regarding whether or not the legislature

47:54actually did that in a manner that was

47:56appropriate to limit something that was

47:58established by state constitution.

48:02In 1917 the Lubbock City Charter was

48:04adopted by its citizens with a pass of

48:07overwhelming majority vote.

48:09And then it has been amended 12 times.

48:12Um and those are all the times and you

48:14can see from when it was done. Now some

48:15of those times when it was amended, you

48:17don't see those anymore because they

48:19amended provisions that have since been

48:21repealed and replaced completely.

48:23So there might have been three or four

48:24amendments to something that's now not

48:26even in our city charter.

48:28So that's real quick the background

48:31understanding of what we're doing when

48:33we talk about our city charter.

48:35Or some reasons why you might want to

48:37amend the city charter.

48:39Policies, preferences established by the

48:40charter have changed.

48:43Necessity for clarification and

48:44interpretation or application or due to

48:47conflicting language that's within the

48:48charter itself.

48:50The laws change making certain charter

48:52provisions unenforceable or necessary or

48:55creating a need to amend the charter in

48:57order to conform with federal law.

49:00And the times have

49:01right? Making certain terms issues

49:03addressed in the charter antiquated or

49:05meaningless.

49:06Or societal changes, population growth,

49:08etc. require new issues to be addressed

49:11in the charter. Those are just some

49:13of the reasons why you might want to

49:15amend the city charter.

49:17Obviously there might be other reasons,

49:19but I think those probably encompass

49:21most of the reasons why you might want

49:22to consider amending them.

49:252021 charter review commission

49:28recommendations. All of you all should

49:29have have that

49:31um report that was given by the charter

49:33review commission from 2021. They

49:35actually proposed 11 charter amendments.

49:38And we'll go through these very fast.

49:40First was add to a provision to allow

49:42for non-substantive changes to the

49:44charter without going to an election.

49:46I will say that there is some of my

49:48research has indicated that I'm not even

49:50sure we can do that. That may not be

49:52enforceable

49:53because

49:55it requires to amend your charter

49:58under chapter nine of the local

49:59government code through a vote.

50:01So even if it's a non-substantive

50:03change, there is an argument that you

50:04still have to do that by a vote.

50:06Increase in compensation for the mayor

50:08and the city council and remove their

50:10money forfeiture provision that's

50:11currently in our charter for missing a

50:13meeting.

50:14Um you forfeit $10 right now if you miss

50:17a meeting um unless you have a reason.

50:20Um

50:22you

50:23clarified and amended the initiative

50:25referendum and recall provisions of the

50:26charter. They clarified and amended

50:29the authority to issue bonds to comply

50:31more closely with state law and to take

50:32out some

50:34language actually that was probably too

50:36detailed because it listed specific

50:38reasons why you should you can issue

50:40bonds. And there was an argument well

50:42perhaps if you didn't hit one of those

50:43very specific issues then you might not

50:45be able to issue bonds. And really all

50:47of it was designed to sit there and do

50:48it for municipal purposes and public

50:50purposes.

50:51That's why you would issue bonds.

50:54Amend the street assessment provision.

50:55We were talking about that earlier that

50:57you actually have a street assessment

50:59provision in your current charter right

51:01now. But there is a very specific state

51:03law that talks about street assessments.

51:06And really, our charter is very close to

51:09what the state law is, and we're going

51:11to Because it's so specific, you're

51:12going to want to comply with state law.

51:14There's really not a need to sit there

51:15and have that specific provision in your

51:17charter. So there was a recommendation

51:19then to take that out.

51:21Amend the public works and provisions to

51:22comply with state law. That was an area

51:24where we actually started talking about

51:26the eminent domain and condemnation

51:28process in our charter.

51:30Again, chapter 21 of the property code

51:32governs that very carefully, and we do

51:34have to follow that, and it really is

51:37Um it really would just be a

51:38clarification to comply with state law.

51:41So that's what they were wanting. Amend

51:42the occupation taxes, licenses.

51:45There's a lot of occupation tax

51:47language. There is currently a lot of

51:48occupation tax language in our charter.

51:51Many of those have already been held to

51:52be unconstitutional or have been

51:53preempted by state law.

51:55And so what their recommendation was was

51:57to eliminate all the superfluous

51:59language and say that we would we could

52:00do whatever is authorized by state law.

52:04Amend the provision relating to payroll

52:06to conform with current business

52:07practices.

52:08[clears throat]

52:09I mean, it it was antiquated language

52:12regarding on how payroll is handled.

52:13Didn't contemplate the idea that you

52:15have automatic

52:17uh deposits into bank accounts, things

52:19of that nature, or that it's

52:21automatically done.

52:23So that they recommended that that be

52:25amended to sit there and conform

52:27with how times have changed. Then the

52:28last three, amend the audit and

52:30examination provision relating to

52:31certain publication requirements. There

52:34was a requirement to sit there and put

52:36the audit

52:37in publish it in the newspaper.

52:40And um we do an audit. We're required by

52:44the state law to do an audit.

52:46And we put it I believe we put all those

52:48the results of that on our website.

52:51Um so it was really more take out

52:53superfluous language

52:55that's currently in our city charter

52:58that where it's been taken care of in

52:59other places.

53:00Purchasing provisions, the

53:02recommendation was to change that to

53:04simply come in

53:05um compliance with current state law

53:07under local government code.

53:10And then there were some general police

53:11powers based mainly deleting obsolete

53:14terms and we talk about velocipedes

53:17and other things in there um

53:19can't

53:20I don't I think we prohibit or have the

53:22ability I should say to regulate blowing

53:25a bugle

53:27um up and down the block

53:28um in our charter. Not sure it's

53:30necessary

53:31to have that language in there. And we

53:33also wanted to add some clarification

53:35regarding

53:36zoning

53:37um in our charter to make sure that we

53:39do have adequate authority set there and

53:43the zoning. So

53:44as you can see from all of those most of

53:47them

53:49um that were recommended back in 2021

53:52really

53:53was cleaning up the charter to comply

53:54with state law I would say.

53:56So with that said

53:58not surprising ones that I recommend on

54:01there are ones that comply with state to

54:04in order to comply with state law.

54:07And we operate without those changes

54:09absolutely we can and we have been. It

54:11just does

54:13there are some things in there that from

54:14our perspective would be helpful

54:17so that we do know what we are supposed

54:19to follow

54:20and not to try to sit there and mesh two

54:22things together.

54:24The other only other one that I would

54:25add right now

54:27for recommendation from the City

54:28Attorney's Office I understand that I'm

54:29not making any recommendations from the

54:31City Attorney's Office

54:33regarding policies or preferences.

54:34That's what you guys

54:37you all sit there and make those

54:38determinations. These are all things

54:40that I think would be helpful. So if

54:42there are particular provisions within

54:44the initiative referendum

54:45recall

54:47I'm not advocating for a percentage

54:50on a on a petition of how many citizens

54:52you need to have to sign a petition I'm

54:53not making recommendation. I do think

54:55that even if it all stayed the same

54:58we could clarify those provisions and

55:00make it easier for me, the city

55:02secretary, city manager

55:05to comply with those provisions when

55:07they come into

55:08come into play. Right now, there is some

55:10difficulty in just understanding exactly

55:14how to comply with our charter. And that

55:17we want to clarify those things. We

55:19don't want to make it difficult to

55:20comply with the charter or for the

55:21public to know how the charter is

55:23supposed to be applied. But I did add

55:25clarify any conflicts between the

55:27charter's election provisions because we

55:29have our own in there, including

55:31requirements for office, etc., and state

55:34law.

55:36There'll be a lot of policy preferences

55:37there, but

55:38how we can we can clarify that, that

55:41would be also helpful for me, the city

55:44secretary, and for you

55:47so that everybody understands what the

55:48rules that have to be played by

55:51for election.

55:53Now,

55:54this is the procedure. It's all governed

55:56by chapter nine, and our own charter

55:58references back to the state law.

56:00Chapter nine of the local government. So

56:02state law governs how you amend your

56:04charter. On your own motion, which is

56:06what we're talking about here at the

56:08last time that we talked about this last

56:10work session,

56:11definitely got felt that there was a

56:13consensus among the council that you did

56:14not want to come up with a citizen

56:17charter review committee.

56:19Um and the only time you have to do that

56:21is if you're going to do a whole new

56:22charter.

56:23And then you have to have a charter

56:25review committee.

56:26If you're just going to amend, then you

56:28can on your own motion sit there and

56:31submit it to the voters for approval at

56:32an election.

56:34The ordinance ordering the election must

56:35be held

56:37after you do that, make that decision on

56:38the first uniform election date,

56:41authorized uniform election date after

56:42you make that decision.

56:45This is a reminder here are the uniform

56:46election dates for 2027, May 1st

56:49is the first one.

56:51You must call the election by February

56:5312th, 2027.

56:56If we're going to put that on the

56:58um on up for election on that in the May

57:01election, if you're going to do it on

57:02November 2nd, 2027, which is the second

57:04uniform

57:05election date in 2027, we've got to have

57:08that done by August 16th.

57:10The way, we got to sit there and pass

57:12the ordinance calling for the election

57:13by August 16th of 2022.

57:17So,

57:18the notice election must must also in

57:20addition to meeting those requirements

57:21under the election code,

57:24chapter nine of the local government

57:25code also requires you to publish in the

57:27newspaper a substantial copy of the

57:29proposed amendments

57:31and that it must be published on the

57:33same day, so Wednesday or Saturday,

57:35whatever it's going to be, in two

57:37successive weeks with the first

57:38publication being at least more than 14

57:41days before the election. So, there's

57:43plenty of time as you can see depending

57:45on when you call the election that we

57:47will be able to publish in the newspaper

57:49what those provisions would be that the

57:51citizens would be voting on if we end up

57:54submitting something to the citizens to

57:56amend the charter.

57:57Each proposed amendment may not contain

58:00more than one subject. So, they as the

58:02report kind of from 2021 outlined, it

58:05had it had [snorts]

58:07it had 11 different

58:09and the voters must be able to approve

58:10or disapprove them

58:12in an individual capacity. In other

58:14words, it can't be an all or nothing

58:15type

58:17situation when it goes to the voters.

58:18So, you could have [clears throat]

58:20if there were 11,

58:22and three pass,

58:23and then eight fail, fine.

58:27Only requires a simple majority when it

58:29goes to a vote

58:31um for something to pass. There is some

58:34requirements just like any other

58:35election where you're going to have to

58:36sit there

58:37and certify the election results.

58:41Mayor is then charged with then sending

58:42that off to the Secretary of State, and

58:44that's when it becomes binding

58:47unless there's language within the

58:49actual amendment itself making it

58:50effective

58:53That's very quick, just designed to give

58:55you a little bit of background. This is

58:56really meant for y'all to discuss what

58:57y'all would like to see

58:59get done, but if you have any questions

59:01about the process

59:03on that, I'll be glad to answer them.

59:05Otherwise, I'm going to go sit down and

59:06let y'all have y'all's discussion.

59:08>> That is great. Yeah, raise your hands

59:09and I'll call on you.

59:11>> Got a question for you, Mr. Wade.

59:13Um if we were to want to draft an

59:15entirely new charter, not saying we

59:17would, but if we did want to do that, is

59:19that process different than drafting an

59:21amendment?

59:22>> Yes, it is. You you would If you're

59:23going to do a brand new charter, you're

59:25going to have to have a a charter review

59:27commission that's outlined on how that's

59:29set up

59:30in chapter nine of the local government.

59:34So it is it is You have to have that

59:35actual commission if you're going to do

59:37a brand new charter.

59:38>> It's not just an advisory committee at

59:39that point in time?

59:40>> No, it's a requirement.

59:49>> I I had a question. So the street

59:51assessments, what what

59:54We don't do street assessments.

59:56>> No, but but in your charter, if if you

59:59have the ability to do so and the

1:00:00ability to put liens on property,

1:00:02exactly what we were talking about

1:00:03before on alleys.

1:00:05>> Right.

1:00:06>> So it's set up to where you have the the

1:00:08ability to sit there and assess a lien

1:00:10on properties if you did an improvement

1:00:12to a street, alley, anything, and have

1:00:15the same language in there that says

1:00:17we would have to pay for at least 10% of

1:00:18it 90% of it being assessed.

1:00:21It had ability for payment terms. I

1:00:23mean, it had all these details

1:00:26in there

1:00:27for street assessments, and currently it

1:00:29is in our street assessments. Very much

1:00:31parallels an awful lot that's in our

1:00:32state statute, and it even references

1:00:35the state statute. So

1:00:37we have applied when we were doing the

1:00:38previous amendment, that's one that we

1:00:40did before, since there's no assessment

1:00:42going on,

1:00:44we don't have to worry about the state

1:00:44statute on that part of it. Since we

1:00:47aren't doing a lien or an assessment,

1:00:49we

1:00:50we're not worried about that with the

1:00:55It does give you the authority.

1:00:58>> I've noticed some cities that

1:01:02have a lien procedure,

1:01:04right?

1:01:06>> Maybe. I do not know whether

1:01:09We We certainly have the authority. And

1:01:11And the state statute gives you the

1:01:12authority. Chapter

1:01:14311 of the Texas Transportation Code

1:01:16gives you the authority to sit there and

1:01:17do those types

1:01:19of assessments if you want.

1:01:20>> so if it's in here, it just allows for

1:01:22us to do it consistent with state law.

1:01:24It has nothing to do with whether or not

1:01:26we actually do the assessment.

1:01:28>> still up to the council to actually do

1:01:30the assessing

1:01:31and not something to require

1:01:33an ordinance to require.

1:01:34It gives you the authority to This whole

1:01:37And that's a good that's a good

1:01:38question, Mayor, because that's a good

1:01:39way to look at the charter. Many things

1:01:41in the charter just gives you the

1:01:42authority to do it. Doesn't require you

1:01:44to Most of it doesn't require you to. It

1:01:46is the document that outlines the

1:01:48procedure that if you want to do it,

1:01:50this is what you have the authority to

1:01:51do.

1:01:52>> But another option might be to strike

1:01:54that from the

1:01:56charter.

1:01:56>> The recommendation from 2021 was to

1:01:59completely strike it and just simply say

1:02:00follow the state law, essentially.

1:02:02>> Yeah.

1:02:04Okay. Uh

1:02:06another question.

1:02:08Uh

1:02:08all our are our city audits required by

1:02:12state law to be published someplace?

1:02:16>> The I believe that there is a summary

1:02:18that has to be And I have I may have to

1:02:20defer to Joe or Jared on that

1:02:23far as our current audits. We do sit

1:02:25there and they're public. There's no

1:02:27question and it does say that they are

1:02:28public documents. They're allowed to sit

1:02:30there and

1:02:31and the public's allowed to see them.

1:02:34Um but I'm not sure if we have And I

1:02:36believe Correct me if I'm wrong.

1:02:38Don't we put those on

1:02:40>> Yes. So we you do we have a 180 days to

1:02:43get that approved from the

1:02:45Yeah. Or Or

1:02:47That's a penalty goes in place if you

1:02:49don't.

1:02:55>> But it does have to be on the website

1:02:57180 days from the

1:03:00Basically you lock up your sales tax,

1:03:01don't you, for a year or something like

1:03:03that since it's a

1:03:07Okay. That's a There's There's a severe

1:03:08penalty for not getting audited. But my

1:03:11my question is does state law require us

1:03:14to publish it if not in a newspaper,

1:03:17whatever it is, requires to put it

1:03:18online. I just want to make sure that no

1:03:20citizen ever has to do a public record

1:03:22request

1:03:24for

1:03:25an audit.

1:03:25>> No, you don't. So it is required by the

1:03:27state to put it online to be in the

1:03:30>> Okay.

1:03:30All right.

1:03:31So that's currently. Um

1:03:34what are the clarifications for zoning

1:03:36that you were talking about? What do we

1:03:38need to clarify

1:03:40>> Well, we so there's a general list in

1:03:43our

1:03:44in the code of ordinances of general

1:03:46police power.

1:03:47And zoning is considered a police power,

1:03:50right? So in 2021

1:03:53they simply added zoning as something

1:03:57that you have the general police power

1:03:58to do. We have that because other

1:04:00language that broad language that's in

1:04:02our charter allows us to do that. And

1:04:05the state statute specifically says this

1:04:07is how you do zoning if you're a

1:04:08municipality.

1:04:10And we have followed all those

1:04:11provisions. But just to clarify that

1:04:13this is a general police power that we

1:04:15do have. That's all that they That's my

1:04:17understanding of why they set their net

1:04:19and put that language. I'm not sure it

1:04:21has to be included in there. The way

1:04:22that I read our charter, we already have

1:04:24the authority to do it. I think it was

1:04:26more of a belt and suspenders not

1:04:29changed to our general police powers

1:04:30that we have listed in the charter.

1:04:33>> It wouldn't really change how we have to

1:04:35do zoning though. That's pretty much set

1:04:37by a

1:04:38state law anyway, I would think.

1:04:40>> That's correct.

1:04:41>> I just don't want people to think that

1:04:42we have some arbitrary power to

1:04:44change the way zoning laws are applied

1:04:46or anything like that.

1:04:47>> No, and and the courts have and

1:04:50and in zoning specifically zoning

1:04:53specifically talks about home rule

1:04:54municipality. So it's one of those

1:04:56instances that's been very clear.

1:04:59This The legislature has complied with

1:05:01Article 11 Section 5 and they spoken

1:05:03with clarity that it applies to you home

1:05:05rule cities.

1:05:07So if we did anything contrary to what

1:05:08the state law said

1:05:11we're not in compliance with the home

1:05:13rule cities.

1:05:14>> Uh

1:05:16and clarifying the initiative referendum

1:05:19and recall, Apart from changing any

1:05:22percentages or anything like that, what

1:05:24clarifications is it?

1:05:25>> You know, it

1:05:27How would How would I describe our

1:05:28current charter?

1:05:30I think our current charter's language

1:05:33>> Will have it So we put that in.

1:05:35>> I I do not have

1:05:37No, but

1:05:38And And when we do this in the future,

1:05:40if that's something that y'all are

1:05:41interested in seeing what specific

1:05:43language that we put up on the board,

1:05:45um I wasn't prepared to sit there as I

1:05:47don't know exactly what y'all want to do

1:05:49yet

1:05:50for specific language. But in 2021

1:05:53Well, let me talk about this. Our

1:05:54current charter

1:05:55has just paragraphs and

1:05:59that go from one to the next to the next

1:06:01to the next, but they're not necessarily

1:06:03giving us steps that go that are in that

1:06:05sequential order. So you might have a

1:06:07paragraph here that's referring to

1:06:08something that you need to do back up

1:06:10there.

1:06:11And then you It's hard to sit there and

1:06:12understand, okay, are we talking about

1:06:15an initiative here? Are we talking about

1:06:16a referendum? Are we talking about a

1:06:18recall?

1:06:20The The way that they did it in 2021 The

1:06:23current charter didn't have to do

1:06:24exactly what they did in 2021. This is a

1:06:26a clean slate. But the way they did it

1:06:28in 2021 is they made it very clear, this

1:06:30is what it is for a for an initiative.

1:06:34This is what it is for a referendum.

1:06:36This is what it is for a recall.

1:06:39And it keeps that language separately

1:06:42so that we know

1:06:43whatever we're given

1:06:45and

1:06:46which procedure we're going to have to

1:06:48follow.

1:06:49They just basically cleared up the

1:06:51processes. It did change the

1:06:52percentages. It did change some of the

1:06:55some of the steps

1:06:57in there. But that was the biggest for

1:06:59me, if we can clear up the process, the

1:07:02step-by-step process. And I asked the

1:07:04city secretary to look at that again in

1:07:07particular to see if that process was

1:07:09helpful. And I believe I don't want to

1:07:10speak for Portia, but I believe she said

1:07:12she was fine with what the 2021 as far

1:07:15as the process goes

1:07:17for them to be able to implement it from

1:07:18there on out. That's a big burden on

1:07:20their office that they have to go

1:07:21through. Obviously, anytime that's

1:07:23happening, right? So, it's important

1:07:25that they are part of the

1:07:26process.

1:07:27>> Were the percentages different for each

1:07:29of those roughly because it is in

1:07:31recalls the percentage were the same?

1:07:33>> Well, in in in the 2021 recommendation

1:07:37they were the same.

1:07:38>> Before that?

1:07:39>> Before that we have 25% for a petition

1:07:43for an ordinance. 25% of the voters who

1:07:45voted in the last municipal registered

1:07:47voters who voted in the last municipal

1:07:48election.

1:07:49>> Which is what we followed through with

1:07:50the last

1:07:51>> That's right. Which which is what we've

1:07:52been doing and been working on. I think

1:07:54it's a different percentage though for a

1:07:56recall.

1:07:57>> Yeah, I have people

1:07:5930%

1:08:00>> 30%

1:08:00>> of those who voted in the last election

1:08:02>> Same last election in that district.

1:08:05Okay.

1:08:06Or for the mayor would be for the

1:08:08right?

1:08:09>> 10% of those individuals have to certify

1:08:10that they voted for that individual

1:08:12also.

1:08:17>> We voted for him and now we want him

1:08:19out, right?

1:08:20Okay.

1:08:20>> The recommendation from and those are

1:08:22the only two that I know of city wise

1:08:24that are in the

1:08:26in there. So,

1:08:28the the one that was recommended

1:08:30by the 2021 said 10%

1:08:34of registered voters.

1:08:36If it's a city wide 10% of registered

1:08:37voters city wide.

1:08:39If it's a recall for a district district

1:08:41wide then it would be 10% of registered

1:08:43voters within that district.

1:08:45It's how the 2021

1:08:49commission committee came

1:08:51to their recommendation.

1:08:53>> And also double the signatures.

1:08:56>> Yeah.

1:08:57>> Double the initiating committee. Right

1:08:58now you have to have five qualified

1:09:00voters to start the process and up to

1:09:0216.

1:09:06>> Okay, this is great.

1:09:08So, in 2021 when this committee was

1:09:10formed

1:09:12formed

1:09:13at the direction of the city city

1:09:15council

1:09:16>> Yes. Yeah, they passed a resolution

1:09:18setting up that committee

1:09:20and giving them their charge what they

1:09:22were formed by the council

1:09:24chose not to

1:09:27>> So, that's not I wasn't

1:09:39>> For me before I sit down and take notes.

1:09:42>> Thank you.

1:09:45>> Well, I'll open the floor now for

1:09:48any discussion.

1:09:51>> You have to like

1:09:56>> Well, I guess maybe the first question,

1:09:58Mr. Harris, is do we want to try to work

1:10:02this through as a council or do we want

1:10:04to go back yeah with what

1:10:06has been worked on by a

1:10:08a committee and you kind of

1:10:11work with it and tweak it or do we want

1:10:12to go back and form another

1:10:14committee to look at this idea. So

1:10:18what's

1:10:19this

1:10:20>> We voted on that.

1:10:21>> Yeah, but we kind of discussed that in

1:10:24one of our meetings.

1:10:25I I don't think we need a committee of

1:10:27the whole. I think we've had two

1:10:28excellent committees that have done very

1:10:30thorough work. Now, I think that this

1:10:32can be tweaked. We knew some other

1:10:34issues had come up that council can take

1:10:36that versus

1:10:38going back and asking them to read in

1:10:39the same thing for a third time.

1:10:41>> Is it it it we're fine just discussing

1:10:44this matter and getting a consensus of

1:10:47how

1:10:47>> is a work session. There are no votes.

1:10:49It's just saying hey

1:10:50and so basically when y'all sit there

1:10:52and come up and say I would like to see

1:10:53this or I like to see that

1:10:55from my perspective, no matter what

1:10:57y'all come up with, if somebody else

1:10:59said I would like to see this,

1:11:01I'm going to work on it.

1:11:02>> going to go do that. All right. Okay.

1:11:04>> Can you give me anybody ask me the

1:11:06history of 2021 and why the

1:11:10why the council didn't act on it?

1:11:13>> Um

1:11:14I'll give you a little.

1:11:16So remember 2021 we were coming out of

1:11:19COVID.

1:11:21We were coming out of

1:11:22a lot of

1:11:24tension.

1:11:26There had been a successful petition to

1:11:29the

1:11:30committee on one

1:11:32ordinance resulting in a lawsuit.

1:11:35And there were two particular items in

1:11:37my recollection, we go back a little bit

1:11:39to

1:11:40the sequence of meetings, that included

1:11:43uh of the topics on there that really

1:11:45kind of ended up

1:11:47where there weren't a lot of

1:11:50there there were not per pass. Uh one of

1:11:52them was the initiative referendum

1:11:55recall

1:11:56and

1:11:58in simplest terms the committee

1:12:00recommended

1:12:02was rather than saying 25%

1:12:05of

1:12:07the voters over the prior election.

1:12:10That's a moving number.

1:12:11You have a really big election, that's a

1:12:13very high bar.

1:12:15You have uh like we have this year

1:12:17a smaller one

1:12:19which is very low bar.

1:12:21They recommended a percentage I believe

1:12:23it's 10%

1:12:25of the registered voters

1:12:29and obviously if that's of interest the

1:12:32the percentage is irrelevant. That's up

1:12:33to you all but you know

1:12:35That really caught a lot of uh

1:12:38a lot of debate

1:12:39that first meeting.

1:12:41The other one

1:12:43was the council pay

1:12:46and a lot of work done what we go ahead

1:12:48and do the pay again at a percentage

1:12:50comparable to the

1:12:55There was uh the committee was really

1:12:57working towards looking at something

1:13:00that was kind of a median average

1:13:03of what had been done in similar cities

1:13:05for council member pay

1:13:08significant public interest that you

1:13:11know it's going to affect their salary

1:13:14and their compensation.

1:13:17And

1:13:18what collectively those two really

1:13:20seemed to set the council back now which

1:13:22did not come to be relevant.

1:13:25And

1:13:26Thank you for that question.

1:13:29And everybody knows I want

1:13:34>> But I guess the question would be if you

1:13:36want to address it Mr. Wade to try to

1:13:40bring that up.

1:13:42Is your of the two possibilities one of

1:13:44the

1:13:46What was the figure today

1:13:48you're proposing

1:13:50for the for council per month 1,300 for

1:13:53mayor from

1:13:55So that was and then there was

1:13:58another group of people that wanted it.

1:14:00Did they ever give a number?

1:14:02>> There were many numbers given. It really

1:14:05bifurcated into

1:14:10Those were based on averages of what was

1:14:11going on at the time throughout the

1:14:14The other argument centered around the

1:14:16living wage.

1:14:20There was not consensus on what that

1:14:23figure should be

1:14:25and number of them.

1:14:33>> The council people

1:14:34>> The significant one was 100,000

1:14:37>> That and that's what

1:14:39>> And that's what shut that down.

1:14:44>> So we're going to dial down to 100,000

1:14:46is okay.

1:14:48>> Well I did they and this would be my

1:14:50question but and I don't want to take

1:14:51away

1:14:52Mr. Harris but did they do a survey of

1:14:54city you say this 800 1300

1:14:57>> Not not staff here.

1:14:59>> Okay. There are I mean

1:15:01salaried cities in Texas are usually

1:15:05my salary of cities like Houston, San

1:15:07Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth.

1:15:10>> Correct.

1:15:11>> Is there a similar size city that

1:15:14salaried for their council people or do

1:15:15you know?

1:15:16>> I feel like at least so I'm not found

1:15:18one.

1:15:19>> I have not found one so

1:15:22But this state had

1:15:23>> the case of Houston

1:15:27Houston's not only the largest city in

1:15:29the state it's the largest city that

1:15:31manager.

1:15:33So in that case the mayor in effect is

1:15:35the city manager,

1:15:37and the council removes to some extent

1:15:47Right. Yeah, so I'll be glad to draft

1:15:49something up for you. Council Harrison,

1:15:51you you contact me directly. What are

1:15:53the questions I would ask?

1:15:55Are you just wanting to increase the

1:15:56monthly pay or are you looking more for

1:15:59a salary

1:16:00and some type of whatever

1:16:02>> It's coming in with steady

1:16:04>> Okay. Then then I will I will draft

1:16:06something up and you can contact me

1:16:07directly. You can be in contact through

1:16:09email or contact or a meeting, whatever.

1:16:12And I'll draft something up that will

1:16:13establish

1:16:14a salary and then you can tweak it

1:16:15however you want to do it.

1:16:18You would bring it back as your

1:16:20proposal to the rest of the council.

1:16:22Does that make sense?

1:16:27>> And

1:16:29raise your hand if you have

1:16:31>> Did you raise your hand?

1:16:32>> Um I guess I'm at this point my question

1:16:35for

1:16:36my colleagues is the process by which we

1:16:39consider and discuss each item.

1:16:43City attorney recommended nine nine

1:16:45items. I think there's one item that's

1:16:47not on this list that

1:16:50we look at.

1:16:52Then would we as a council

1:16:55vote

1:16:56individually

1:16:57to place a bond on an election

1:17:00and then vote

1:17:02likely for the election

1:17:04process

1:17:06So so the way that I see it

1:17:09is I mean I think that

1:17:11y'all can do it of course any way you

1:17:12want to.

1:17:14One that would be helpful is if as the

1:17:16items come up

1:17:18we would simply have okay,

1:17:20yes, let's do yes or don't

1:17:23take that to try to process take it to

1:17:25the election

1:17:26in form of a resolution.

1:17:28Once we have that resolution in hand

1:17:30then we would draft the ordinance that

1:17:31would call for the election with

1:17:33particular items that would be actually

1:17:36elected, be voted upon.

1:17:38Right? So I need

1:17:39a document beforehand saying,

1:17:42we think these should be submitted to

1:17:44the voters for an election. And that

1:17:46would be done in the form of an

1:17:47ordinance.

1:17:49And then we would take that

1:17:51and work with the city secretary and

1:17:53create an ordinance to call the actual

1:17:55election with those items included

1:17:58to be voted on.

1:18:00So that

1:18:01Now how that resolution is created

1:18:04is probably going to be something where

1:18:06you're going to It's going to be a

1:18:07hodgepodge until you get of what's

1:18:10actually going to be included in the

1:18:11resolution, depending on how the council

1:18:14what provisions the council thinks

1:18:16should be in the

1:18:18in the charter.

1:18:24>> This process can be for a few

1:18:26We've got a list of 25

1:18:29items

1:18:30and the council will give us a a yes or

1:18:32no for the three seven

1:18:34>> On all 25 or on each one of them?

1:18:36>> Come out of that individual list into

1:18:38what he's talking about

1:18:39>> Yeah yeah yeah.

1:18:41I mean, I think that's

1:18:44I think that's the the probably the most

1:18:46efficient way to sit there and do that.

1:18:49>> So this

1:18:51right now as this work session,

1:18:53we

1:18:55just feel free to

1:18:57talk amongst ourselves

1:18:59about what we think and we think about

1:19:01each proposition. Like proposition one,

1:19:04I have no issue with whatsoever. It's

1:19:07just correct in grammar and

1:19:09proposition two

1:19:11would be

1:19:14And I I see it both ways.

1:19:19Um

1:19:21And this is a volunteer

1:19:25Then also,

1:19:26only certain people in our section like

1:19:28have

1:19:29to do this job.

1:19:31If they retire,

1:19:33then we have them move in

1:19:35to do this job and the other job or my

1:19:37hope is that

1:19:40So

1:19:41either you know

1:19:43I look at it both sides and I could be

1:19:45don't have

1:19:47and do everything

1:19:48one way or the other you know that

1:19:50but I'd like to know more I'd like to

1:19:53do anybody else

1:19:57that one [clears throat]

1:19:59>> which on that but I think it should be

1:20:00the final vote.

1:20:04That's why it needs to be

1:20:09a a salary

1:20:11in I mean making the city better

1:20:14and not just us few

1:20:15not just us business owners not just us

1:20:18retired

1:20:19people

1:20:22in this city

1:20:24they have a cost of living

1:20:26and it can't come in

1:20:28it is.

1:20:29That's that's my opinion.

1:20:36>> So what and to your point

1:20:38I think this is the perfect opportunity

1:20:41to address an issue like that that

1:20:43probably the majority of this room could

1:20:45see both sides to because

1:20:47we don't get to make the decision.

1:20:49That's why this one I think

1:20:52you can pick a number

1:20:54so you and I can bring a a reasonable

1:20:56number and whether you'd be like I don't

1:20:58need it you know I've I've got a

1:20:59business I'm happy to do it for free but

1:21:02other people

1:21:03can't and you know the citizens vote on

1:21:05it they don't want to decide so it's not

1:21:07decided in this room which I think is

1:21:09the perfect example of something that is

1:21:11great for the voters

1:21:12because we can say neutral and then it

1:21:15falls and what's been talked about is if

1:21:18the voters choose and say that's a

1:21:20that's a reasonable thing for

1:21:22to do it can start with the next

1:21:24election position I mean you write it

1:21:26every month to do that.

1:21:27>> It is it is curious these numbers that

1:21:29they come up with you know they seem

1:21:31arbitrary

1:21:32um

1:21:33I don't know

1:21:36and do how they come to eight numbers

1:21:38how they come to thirteen yeah.

1:21:40I I'm sure that was I

1:21:41>> think they

1:21:42asked around about the center.

1:21:43>> We literally surveyed the city to have

1:21:46some form of council pay to produce an

1:21:48average in the end.

1:21:51>> Well, that's not the average of a

1:21:52median.

1:21:53Yeah, I

1:21:55But my question is I guess you could put

1:21:57two propositions forward. One that is a

1:22:00800 1300 and the one is a living more

1:22:02the living wage and the public vote.

1:22:05I guess you couldn't have

1:22:06because they could vote on both of them,

1:22:08I guess.

1:22:08>> It would I would I would ask

1:22:11Could you do that? Yes. I would ask that

1:22:13you do not do that.

1:22:14>> Because that could be Well, it could

1:22:15pass.

1:22:15>> could pass.

1:22:16>> But wouldn't it be then the Well, I

1:22:18don't know. The larger amount would be

1:22:20>> it's not that it is it is the it could

1:22:22be the order that it shows up on the

1:22:24ballot.

1:22:24>> Yeah.

1:22:25>> It could I mean it it is

1:22:27That that that is

1:22:28>> have to pick your poison with that.

1:22:30>> I would I would I would prefer us not to

1:22:32go to an election to where things pass

1:22:35if they pass to me.

1:22:39>> So ultimately

1:22:40>> don't mind I don't mind.

1:22:44>> Ultimately this body has to decide what

1:22:46it is going to do.

1:22:48>> Yeah, what is the reason for the vote?

1:22:50>> Four of seven have to say 800, no

1:22:53change.

1:22:55>> Or a number 1,000 or whatever.

1:22:56>> Any number. So four of seven is going to

1:22:59have to make a decision about what goes

1:23:00forward.

1:23:01>> That's correct.

1:23:02>> So I guess that's

1:23:04I guess stepping forward with the list

1:23:06of things to address.

1:23:08There are nine.

1:23:10Any others that we

1:23:12raise and individual

1:23:15discussion of each one.

1:23:17Ultimately we get both

1:23:19It's the floor. So we're going to put

1:23:21this

1:23:22on or we're not going to address this at

1:23:24all.

1:23:25>> That's correct.

1:23:26So again going back to the example of

1:23:28the salary. So Mr. Harris he could put

1:23:30his forward if he wanted the salary.

1:23:32Someone else could put theirs forward

1:23:34of a 800 1300 but we as a council would

1:23:37vote on them and neither one may get it

1:23:40to the voters, one or the other one but

1:23:43not both.

1:23:44>> I would feel cuz you would be part of

1:23:45the math.

1:23:46>> lock them in which proposal done

1:23:48and then adjust after that.

1:23:50>> Okay. All right. So again, everybody be

1:23:52clear, you you have a

1:23:54go tell Mr. Wage, you know, what you

1:23:55might like to have out there

1:23:58and so he can bring that to us cuz

1:23:59that's the discussion we'll have at some

1:24:01point.

1:24:04So okay, let's move on. Also about the

1:24:09mayor's term.

1:24:13So we can stand in it.

1:24:15>> Tell me right now and I'll and I'll

1:24:16start working on it before you get it

1:24:19too.

1:24:25>> And again, I in my discussion on that

1:24:27would be my problem with that and there

1:24:30are lots of cities that do it that way,

1:24:32but because of the way we're set up here

1:24:33and we have alternate years where we

1:24:35elect three council

1:24:37you'd have an election where you have

1:24:38three council people and a mayor and

1:24:40then you go to an election cycle, three

1:24:42council people, no mayor.

1:24:44And

1:24:46you know, that's my only problem with

1:24:48it. You it's always going to be three

1:24:49council districts

1:24:51that won't have a mayor on the ballot

1:24:53too and

1:24:55generally that draws out people in

1:24:57addition to who might be interested in

1:24:59the council position as well. So I'm

1:25:01just

1:25:02I like the fact that there's always a

1:25:04mayor voted on when council people

1:25:08are voted on. That's the advantage of

1:25:10it. I

1:25:10I know two years is kind of short term,

1:25:12but if you're doing the job it we'll see

1:25:14in 18 months. You know,

1:25:17start nothing and see it to an end

1:25:19really.

1:25:22That's true, but

1:25:23[clears throat]

1:25:24you know,

1:25:26people like it they'll give you another

1:25:27term, you know. So I don't know that's

1:25:30that's my issue with it, but again, it's

1:25:32something someone can put forward. I

1:25:34just

1:25:35I have a problem with the and I don't

1:25:36know how else you can do it.

1:25:38I just don't know ever

1:25:41unless everybody was voted on every four

1:25:43years, but then you have total turnover

1:25:45in a council and nobody that's that's a

1:25:48disaster

1:25:49um

1:25:50you know when everybody's new nobody

1:25:52might be carried over so

1:25:55it just

1:25:56there's a lot of problems with it but I

1:25:58don't know if we can solve

1:25:59just by adding a few years to it but

1:26:02but again you can propose it and it can

1:26:04be something we

1:26:06anything is possible for us to discuss

1:26:08you know

1:26:10>> would it be appropriate to put each item

1:26:12on our list of

1:26:14ideas or is it questions

1:26:17to the city attorney

1:26:18and the ideas and get this compiled

1:26:21it's all yes it may not

1:26:24>> yes

1:26:25I think the advantage today is just for

1:26:27anybody who has a thought to get maybe

1:26:29some feedback from other people as well

1:26:31that's maybe you'll get a second on that

1:26:33maybe you'll get some support for that

1:26:35idea or maybe you don't want to waste

1:26:36your time on it because nobody else is

1:26:38going to pick that up and run with it

1:26:40you know

1:26:40>> item for me item three is is something

1:26:43that I would like us to discuss

1:26:45>> well if you'll if you'll discuss which

1:26:47is item three because it's all up there

1:26:49>> proposition number three the

1:26:51the the

1:26:52the initiative

1:26:54>> can we get that up there at all

1:26:56I I didn't bring my computer down so I'm

1:26:58not looking at all of those

1:27:06>> the the list councilman

1:27:08do you want to be council

1:27:10>> no what was in 21 proposition number

1:27:13three

1:27:14and it struck

1:27:15a lot of the items that you talked about

1:27:18consolidated the

1:27:20as per

1:27:21your item and in this established a 10%

1:27:25registered voters requirement to

1:27:32percentages up for discussion in my mind

1:27:35but we need to change

1:27:37to a percentage of registered voters I

1:27:40think is

1:27:42just to consider

1:27:43>> is there is there a percentage right now

1:27:47>> it's it's 20 25 percent of the most

1:27:51recent general election.

1:27:53>> Of those who voted.

1:27:55>> Those who voted.

1:27:56>> Yes.

1:27:56>> And as as

1:27:58the city attorney pointed out that

1:28:00number can vary widely.

1:28:03Um and

1:28:04and it so happens the petition is

1:28:07basically seen

1:28:09fall on a on what I would consider a

1:28:11short

1:28:13for one of the counts

1:28:15than normal.

1:28:17And so I think that that

1:28:19deserves a look.

1:28:21And and and the point is 2400

1:28:25plus or minus that we're required.

1:28:27We live in a city of 260,000

1:28:31to 80.

1:28:32It's less than 1 percent of our

1:28:33population, less than 1 percent of our

1:28:35population.

1:28:38And while I'm applaud the effort that

1:28:41was made and

1:28:44idea that was put forward, I don't think

1:28:47that fairly represents the idea

1:28:50of our city in its entirety.

1:28:53>> Okay. Yeah. To that point I would

1:28:57say um

1:28:59yes, but then you have the most recent

1:29:01mayor's election and we only 10,000

1:29:03people voted. So 2500 people

1:29:06is a significant number of people.

1:29:09>> It is a concern in our community.

1:29:10>> But well but neither is 10,000 people

1:29:13voting. So 2500 people want something.

1:29:16That's

1:29:1725 percent of the people who voted

1:29:19bothered to get out and vote.

1:29:21So I you know that's a little bit of my

1:29:23concern is I like tying it to people

1:29:27that actually

1:29:29vote. Um

1:29:31I I don't want that burden to be so high

1:29:33that it makes it basically

1:29:35you ain't never going to do it. You just

1:29:37kill the initiative. You might as well

1:29:38not have it in there.

1:29:39>> I don't disagree, but I don't think that

1:29:41we should let

1:29:44unfortunately and and we all anything

1:29:46you want, but I don't think we should

1:29:48allow voter apathy for a particular

1:29:51amount

1:29:53250

1:29:55arms to city.

1:29:59And and force us push the city into

1:30:02making a decision

1:30:05whether to have an election or not, use

1:30:07means of an election or not, all of the

1:30:08things that we talked about

1:30:11particularly

1:30:12the late.

1:30:14But

1:30:16if if we consider an election

1:30:19and the reasons for the turnout,

1:30:22if we have enough

1:30:23the previous mayoral election attracted

1:30:2630,000 voters, the last one attracted

1:30:30there was underlying reasons for that. I

1:30:33don't know what they all are and I don't

1:30:36>> Proposition A on the ballot.

1:30:38>> Proposition A on the ballot, but

1:30:40and that's that's a very good point, but

1:30:42the difference in representing our

1:30:44community

1:30:46and [clears throat] the decision making

1:30:48process that we have goes from

1:30:537,500 to 25

1:30:55roughly.

1:30:57>> Courtney, was it 25% of the most recent

1:31:00city election or general

1:31:03>> city general election

1:31:05>> So if we didn't have a general election

1:31:07in November

1:31:08>> It would be off the last May general

1:31:10election.

1:31:10>> would be the May.

1:31:12But if we did happen to have a say this

1:31:14vote on a

1:31:16amending the charter in November,

1:31:19then the next petition would be subject

1:31:21to

1:31:22that the charter was

1:31:25okay. So that would In other words, it's

1:31:26tied to a city vote, not to a national

1:31:29vote.

1:31:30Which, you know, I think it needs to be

1:31:32tied to the city vote

1:31:34or a percentage to the voters that's low

1:31:36enough that it doesn't become an

1:31:37insurmountable

1:31:39problem.

1:31:39>> So so Courtney, if if for example this

1:31:43November had a city issue

1:31:46and and for round numbers we'll say we

1:31:48have 150,000 voters

1:31:50could show up and vote for this election

1:31:57>> Well, this is this midterm election that

1:32:00>> election that

1:32:02today as

1:32:05has 150 plus thousand voters

1:32:09>> Suddenly any petition requirement is

1:32:11tied to that

1:32:14>> for

1:32:15>> It's just starting municipal general

1:32:17election so it's always going to go off

1:32:18in May currently as it stands so anyone

1:32:21who submits a petition let's say next

1:32:23year we're still going to go back to May

1:32:25of this year's election.

1:32:27>> Even though November is also general

1:32:30election

1:32:30>> if we've had

1:32:31>> city but it's not tied to that.

1:32:33>> It's not for the city.

1:32:34>> It's only for the state

1:32:35>> only for the city okay. Okay that does

1:32:38tie it to May.

1:32:39>> It says the last regular municipal

1:32:41election

1:32:42>> It's always going to be the May

1:32:43>> It's in the charter.

1:32:44>> Because I think in the charter

1:32:45originally the first election was April

1:32:47>> Right.

1:32:49>> change it

1:32:49>> Change it we we we required to do it on

1:32:51a uniform

1:32:52>> Yes, a uniform date.

1:32:53>> municipal election

1:32:55>> So

1:32:56>> I think exception to the variable

1:32:59is is

1:33:00not both.

1:33:02Variable

1:33:03up or down yes you have proposition A

1:33:05you have midterm

1:33:07you have proposition you have no

1:33:08proposition you have a small

1:33:12And that's not variable

1:33:15again in my opinion does not

1:33:19require 100 people

1:33:21to sign your

1:33:24It doesn't need to be

1:33:26insurmountable.

1:33:28I feel like if something you're going to

1:33:31petition

1:33:33it needs to reflect

1:33:35higher percentage.

1:33:39>> I think I think still it's has to do

1:33:40with the vote.

1:33:44>> I mean

1:33:45don't give

1:33:46sit around and wait for them to make a

1:33:48decision when they didn't even make a

1:33:49decision to go and vote.

1:33:51It just only should apply to people that

1:33:53vote.

1:33:54Percentage of that

1:33:56not the whole entire population.

1:33:59>> Well, you got to guess this is

1:33:59>> It's not too bad.

1:34:01>> Uh, this I we can keep discussing it.

1:34:03It's one of those things where we can

1:34:03have several different proposals that I

1:34:05forward it. One to not change it at all.

1:34:08One to maybe change the percentage that

1:34:11uh

1:34:12based on the most recent city election

1:34:15that we felt like we wanted to raise

1:34:16that up. Or one that ties it to

1:34:19um

1:34:20like this one's 10%

1:34:22What do we have? 145,000

1:34:24>> 160,000 164

1:34:26>> So be 16,000 people.

1:34:28>> I agree that 10%

1:34:29>> And that's more than even

1:34:31>> I agree.

1:34:31>> Even in the um

1:34:34election

1:34:36four years

1:34:37two years ago four half years ago where

1:34:3930,000 people voted.

1:34:42In that runoff there was just 16,000

1:34:44people voting for the measure in that.

1:34:46And this would put it above even that

1:34:48the people who bothered to turn out for

1:34:50an election.

1:34:50>> Oh, I I think 10%

1:34:52is too much.

1:34:53>> Okay.

1:34:53>> Way too much.

1:34:54>> I'm advocating for a

1:34:56a more standardized number

1:34:59rather than something that varies every

1:35:01few years.

1:35:01>> That grows with the city but it still

1:35:03>> Grows with the city but it is not

1:35:04insurmountable. In 2009 when the alcohol

1:35:11And it happened in the

1:35:13It was important to the community.

1:35:15>> it's important. It was Well, it

1:35:17it was business. It was a lot of

1:35:19[clears throat]

1:35:23Would you want to put out a percentage

1:35:25then just see if you can get any kind of

1:35:27consensus here today?

1:35:29>> I was over here calculating if you want

1:35:30me to throw some numbers out just here's

1:35:32some numbers. So 2 and 1/2% would be

1:35:34about 4,000.

1:35:36So

1:35:37that's just a

1:35:38>> Five would be

1:35:40>> So 5,000 obviously I mean 5% would be

1:35:44>> Okay.

1:35:44>> almost 8 yeah 9 almost 28 9,000

1:35:47depending and then of course the change

1:35:53>> So you're thinking five is what you're

1:35:55thinking five? Okay.

1:35:56>> I thought 10 was

1:35:59I I want this to be insurmountable. This

1:36:00is an important process

1:36:03We can have a board

1:36:10Are there any Have there

1:36:14talked about any other

1:36:15>> I myself

1:36:1711,000

1:36:18talked about this one

1:36:21basically

1:36:25Is there any other examples

1:36:28remember

1:36:29>> I believe that the Project Destiny

1:36:31>> Destiny

1:36:32>> about six

1:36:37>> If you wish to submit it we can work

1:36:38that that number out

1:36:40>> Well the requirement versus the

1:36:43You know what was the requirement

1:36:44>> Yes

1:36:45May submitted 12 past the number

1:36:48>> In in mayoral elections we're

1:36:5120,000

1:36:52here far different much not not that bad

1:36:56So

1:36:58there was 25%

1:37:01I think it was something along that line

1:37:04Yeah

1:37:0525% but in a 20,000 vote electoral

1:37:09that would be 5%

1:37:11you know

1:37:12>> Basically what we're saying what you're

1:37:14saying is 2400 is too low

1:37:16maybe 10,000 15,000 is maybe too high

1:37:20somewhere in

1:37:21there's some kind of a sweet

1:37:22>> That number established by

1:37:24>> registered voters or that

1:37:27>> And I I I I found I tend to agree 2400

1:37:30is kind of low

1:37:31and

1:37:32definitely 10% has to be

1:37:34too high

1:37:35and 15 18,000% that is is way too high

1:37:39you know

1:37:40>> Just pulling in numbers I think probably

1:37:42my personal would be between two and a

1:37:444%

1:37:48which is not something that's

1:37:49insurmountable by

1:37:50any any means

1:37:51>> But based on

1:37:52>> Based on

1:37:53>> It's the way you get to it

1:37:54>> based on registered voters

1:37:55>> I have those numbers

1:37:56>> You have those numbers

1:37:57>> They submitted 5,800 signatures and they

1:37:59were required to get 3,600 and

1:38:03it dates off of 14,000 to 20,000

1:38:06and may

1:38:07put it

1:38:11>> And that was a pretty you know that that

1:38:13one was

1:38:14pretty passionate

1:38:16um

1:38:18decision

1:38:19and so

1:38:20you know 300

1:38:22not 8,000 not five you know

1:38:25>> That's why I think

1:38:30Then again you then I'm at 11,000 so

1:38:33>> You know I don't remember 2020 election

1:38:35got moved

1:38:36>> Yeah then then then we did have a

1:38:38general

1:38:39>> before that election otherwise their

1:38:41number would have been six months higher

1:38:43so

1:38:44>> Well that confuses me because I thought

1:38:47November didn't count

1:38:49>> Well that was an order

1:38:51that we were right during COVID

1:38:53and the governor

1:38:55in effect ordered the May elections

1:38:57postponed until November

1:38:59So we voted for the mayor and the

1:39:01councilmen in November

1:39:03and it was presidential and

1:39:05would have been a massive

1:39:08>> Kind of a one time deal

1:39:10>> It's not going to happen other than that

1:39:12>> I don't want it to be too large

1:39:15with the citizens are not empowered

1:39:18>> Well I don't want it to be too large

1:39:19>> want it to be too small

1:39:22so that they don't swing the dog

1:39:26so don't you agree there's a sweet spot

1:39:28>> I think 5% is

1:39:31to me something that's workable and

1:39:34you know you can't when people get out

1:39:36to vote it takes effort

1:39:39and if you don't vote you're giving

1:39:42folks that didn't really put the effort

1:39:45in so I think

1:39:475% for me is a is a decent feedback

1:39:50>> feedback

1:39:57>> I think

1:39:58I mean

1:39:59I'm I'm fine with whatever gets you

1:40:00closer around 4,000 I think that's a

1:40:03given the historical number of people

1:40:05about and about

1:40:07That's seems to be a reasonable

1:40:10barrier for people to leave. And it's

1:40:12tied in a percentage that gets close to

1:40:144,000

1:40:16percentage of the registered voters or

1:40:19it's tied to a more recent vote and that

1:40:21seems to be kind of the average. That's

1:40:23kind of where I feel comfortable.

1:40:25>> I don't I don't want that 5,000 number

1:40:27kind of stay simple ahead. So that would

1:40:28be

1:40:29between three and four percent.

1:40:315,000 people is a lot. I mean, you would

1:40:33put in enough work and that's

1:40:35>> You allowed to grow with the registered

1:40:36voters. And I And I'm fine with that. I

1:40:38just I feel like it needs to be tied to

1:40:40something more constant.

1:40:42Whether whether

1:40:44a municipal election attracts a big

1:40:46crowd or not. It's it's very easy for us

1:40:48to not have

1:40:50something on the ballot that attracts a

1:40:53crowd. It's easy for us to have

1:40:55something that does.

1:40:57And that all depends upon the candidates

1:40:58and and a lot of other factors. And so

1:41:01participation level to me is is

1:41:04is

1:41:05is not constant or consistent enough for

1:41:08reasons outside of our own control. But

1:41:10as the number of registered voters is

1:41:12something that is controlled by the

1:41:15individual, by our community.

1:41:18And whether they participate or not is

1:41:20is is

1:41:22depends on the circumstance, not on

1:41:25on this issue and tying those two

1:41:27together seem

1:41:29>> So which one are you registered?

1:41:33>> I'm for registered voters.

1:41:35You can debate the number.

1:41:38At some point going forward decision can

1:41:40be out there.

1:41:41Total of 5,000 or 6,000

1:41:44It's It's to me fine.

1:41:47>> Yeah, I agree with sure voters is just a

1:41:49constant. And then it allows for growth

1:41:51in 20 years, whatever the city is,

1:41:53they're not looking back at this and

1:41:54trying to figure out again. It just it

1:41:56grows with the city.

1:41:57And the percent still reflects the same

1:42:00percentage of whatever that growth is.

1:42:02With voting, would that be registered

1:42:04voters for current time or for that May

1:42:08election.

1:42:10>> Whatever day they filed it'll be as of

1:42:11that date. Or the initiating committee

1:42:13tries to file, then I verify those on

1:42:16the initiating committee and then send

1:42:18them an email stating their deadline and

1:42:20how many signatures are required.

1:42:22>> Mhm. I mean I know that we've already in

1:42:24this midterm election they've already

1:42:26seen a very significant increase of

1:42:29registered voters, so

1:42:31>> Can I make a correction to the Project

1:42:33Destiny numbers? Um

1:42:36Freedom Act, sorry, Freedom Act

1:42:38signatures just so y'all have some

1:42:39clarity as to what's being submitted.

1:42:414,800 signatures based on 19,197

1:42:45voters in May of 2022.

1:42:48So

1:42:495,000 number y'all are talking about

1:42:51seems to be

1:42:53achievable.

1:42:54>> 4,800

1:42:57so

1:42:58obviously a very important issue for our

1:43:00community to reach the 5,000.

1:43:01>> Freedom Act turned in way over 10,000.

1:43:03>> And that's

1:43:05>> So they they surpassed it. We just

1:43:07stopped at a point

1:43:09we think that they were

1:43:11>> Well and that if I recall the pushback

1:43:13when this was discussed last time was

1:43:16people felt like the council was taking

1:43:18whether they're right or wrong the

1:43:20feeling was the council was trying to

1:43:22take a position that would make it more

1:43:23difficult for people ever do what they

1:43:26had done.

1:43:27And we obviously

1:43:30I'm not interested in that perception

1:43:32being perception of our public

1:43:33>> Or reality.

1:43:34>> Again like we're afraid of them having

1:43:36an issue that because I mean we've seen

1:43:38it where councils

1:43:40don't vote for something and you get a

1:43:42petition and

1:43:44with so, you know,

1:43:46you pass some people is a a lot of

1:43:48people are signed up for petition.

1:43:50Takes a lot of work.

1:43:51Well so I just am not interested in

1:43:53anything that will leave that impression

1:43:55with the public that we're trying to

1:43:56squelch their ability to put something

1:43:59on the ballot, you know, to be voted on

1:44:03uh

1:44:04if there's a significant number of

1:44:05people. So

1:44:06how we get to that you know know, at the

1:44:08moment floats between 2,500 and 5,000,

1:44:12you know, based on

1:44:15current iteration.

1:44:17I mean,

1:44:18um

1:44:19I certainly am not against anything

1:44:22more than higher than that.

1:44:26>> I think a principle that we remind as

1:44:27we're continuing to go go through this

1:44:29process is that our form of government

1:44:31is a representative

1:44:33and so we want to make sure whatever we

1:44:35do protects the rights of the majority

1:44:38of voters who did make the decision

1:44:40and can't be subjugated to a smaller

1:44:42population.

1:44:51>> Any other input on this one?

1:44:54>> Yeah, it's just hard to break down where

1:44:56it's language is more clear. We can

1:44:57debate the percent and come up with a

1:44:59number.

1:45:00>> And I'm I'm going to also look at

1:45:02language

1:45:03and I

1:45:04try to probably steal from somewhere

1:45:06else to where you can't bring forward an

1:45:09initiative

1:45:10to

1:45:11put into law something that is clearly

1:45:14against

1:45:15>> Right.

1:45:17>> Exactly.

1:45:18>> Yeah.

1:45:19>> We work on new bills in the legislature

1:45:24to do that but they don't pass.

1:45:26>> Right.

1:45:28>> It's largely in response to

1:45:34Several other cities but they didn't

1:45:36pass.

1:45:37>> And you think that's something we can

1:45:38put in a city charter though that's

1:45:39enforceable?

1:45:41I like that idea. Does everybody like

1:45:44that idea?

1:45:45>> You can't petition for something that's

1:45:47against the law

1:45:48and enforce the city to enforce

1:45:50something that's illegal.

1:45:51>> The the question is who interprets that

1:45:53it's against the law.

1:45:54>> Well, that's what I'm that's what I'm

1:45:55going to sit there and

1:45:56>> I to take that one, all right?

1:45:58>> I agree with the concept.

1:45:59>> Yeah.

1:46:00>> The concept, yes, but how you pull that

1:46:02off so that people don't say, oh well,

1:46:03it's just you, you know.

1:46:05>> And we [clears throat] may be able to

1:46:06effectuate that through a legislative

1:46:08change. I was talking to a couple of

1:46:09principles.

1:46:10>> the better place for it to come from

1:46:11that

1:46:12>> Absolutely.

1:46:13>> If they will do it.

1:46:13>> Absolutely.

1:46:14>> Well, and I think what we could do,

1:46:16legislature would agree, is we could get

1:46:18the attorney general's office to handle

1:46:20that determination just like they would

1:46:21with ethics requests and things like

1:46:24that.

1:46:24>> So it's not falling on

1:46:25>> And and that would be great if if we

1:46:27could put that

1:46:28>> And if you're right, it would take some

1:46:29legislation to sit there and

1:46:31for the attorney general to accept that.

1:46:33>> Yes.

1:46:34>> If the legislature solves that problem

1:46:36for us then

1:46:37the problem solved

1:46:39basically.

1:46:41Okay.

1:46:44Um

1:46:49>> Is something else.

1:46:50>> Another suggestion to be amended for for

1:46:52the charter.

1:46:55>> Let let me just ask this question. Of

1:46:57the things that might have been called

1:46:59>> Yeah. So for that we in 2021 we did do

1:47:02some research on other charters and

1:47:04their initiative and referendum

1:47:05provisions. I can refresh that list and

1:47:08bring that back to some out to you all

1:47:10as well.

1:47:10Just to kind of see where other how

1:47:12other cities are doing it. I know some

1:47:14cities have had more recent charter

1:47:15amendments. I know

1:47:16I believe Odessa has something on the

1:47:17ballot today and just kind of see

1:47:21what modern times look like because our

1:47:23charter

1:47:27>> Is there a general consensus that the

1:47:32what I would call almost non-substantive

1:47:34cleanup

1:47:35matter

1:47:38okay with

1:47:44I guess

1:47:45>> I'll go back over the language and make

1:47:47sure that there's nothing

1:47:49um

1:47:51that we our office will go back through

1:47:52it again.

1:47:58>> And

1:48:01I guess my other only other question on

1:48:03that was is if all we're going to deal

1:48:05with is non-substantive things, is this

1:48:07really something we need to call a

1:48:09special I mean not a special election

1:48:11but have an election on

1:48:13next year because that would be the only

1:48:15issue

1:48:17out there. There's not a household

1:48:19election next year.

1:48:23>> And you could, you know, that that's a

1:48:25great question and something you would

1:48:27definitely want to take into

1:48:28consideration, I think.

1:48:31When the council passes a resolution

1:48:33that has all the

1:48:35as the state statute requires it once

1:48:37you make the determination that you

1:48:39should go to the election, after you are

1:48:41required to sit there and put it on the

1:48:42next

1:48:44next election coming up. So before you

1:48:47take action on that,

1:48:48that would be a discussion for the

1:48:49council to have to see when you want to

1:48:52time it, if you want to time it for a

1:48:53different election date.

1:48:57>> And the only issue I think that really

1:48:58kind of comes up that maybe needs to

1:49:02that we've talked about that might need

1:49:05to be a next year

1:49:07decision

1:49:09because the council elections and mayor

1:49:10elections would be the following year

1:49:12because the residency

1:49:14requirement. And if we think that is

1:49:16important enough

1:49:18to take on and call an election that

1:49:19would cost the city

1:49:21I don't know how much money.

1:49:23How much do these elections cost when

1:49:24it's

1:49:24>> 400,000 or

1:49:27>> you know, is it is it something we

1:49:28absolutely need to do next year or can

1:49:31we get through another cycle with our

1:49:35city charter the way it is and then

1:49:37bring it forward so that we don't have

1:49:39to spend that money? That's my concern,

1:49:41spending $400,000 on an election.

1:49:43Certainly not for what I consider

1:49:45non-substantive items. There's no point

1:49:47in doing that. There's got to be

1:49:48something

1:49:49substantive on it to justify the expense

1:49:52next year.

1:49:53Otherwise, carry it forward to the

1:49:55following year. That's

1:49:56my thought.

1:49:57>> So I think that's a very good point that

1:49:59um

1:50:00you could probably put it off maybe

1:50:03one more year just so that we are

1:50:05mindful

1:50:06of the type of money we would be

1:50:08spending for some very

1:50:10minor changes but

1:50:13>> Well, I don't think residency

1:50:14requirement for holding a seat within

1:50:16our office is a minor.

1:50:18>> It's not minor.

1:50:19>> Not a minor change, but we are

1:50:21considering multiple things to go out

1:50:23for election on relating to downtown

1:50:26convention center. There are other

1:50:27things and when we call those, there's

1:50:29not been any decision made that I

1:50:31wouldn't say today that that may not

1:50:32happen within the next year. And so I

1:50:34think you bunch some of that together to

1:50:35[clears throat] say

1:50:36>> If we do have another election, I just

1:50:38didn't I don't think this is a

1:50:39standalone thing in my mind.

1:50:42We have another election

1:50:43May or November

1:50:45on downtown, then yes, we could bunch

1:50:47it. But I think we need to continue to

1:50:48work on this and be prepared

1:50:51for that.

1:50:53But my thought would be

1:50:55don't have election

1:50:57I'm anticipating in

1:50:59May or November.

1:51:01>> I think we will have to.

1:51:02>> I think we kind of got to have to. Yeah,

1:51:04at least

1:51:05>> them all together so we don't waste the

1:51:06money.

1:51:07>> But tying this one with that one I think

1:51:10is the important thing. So

1:51:12two $100,000 elections next year.

1:51:16>> I will share just to make my own opinion

1:51:18known that that

1:51:19[clears throat] we have so many groups

1:51:21of citizens that have worked on proposed

1:51:23charter changes. Before the end of my

1:51:25term, I want to make sure we can get

1:51:27something to the ballot to get some of

1:51:29these changes and updates done.

1:51:31I have respect to their work, but just

1:51:33because it's it's time to get it done.

1:51:34>> I agree.

1:51:38>> Well, I think it's likely we'll get

1:51:39something next year. I think so. I just

1:51:41it needs to be tied with some other

1:51:43issue.

1:51:45>> Clarify for us, Mr. White.

1:51:47Is that about we could prepare it ready

1:51:50to go

1:51:52charter election and and sit on it or

1:51:53no?

1:51:55>> You just don't take official action.

1:51:58As long as we don't as long as you don't

1:51:59take official action understanding too

1:52:01that if you don't take official action

1:52:04then by the time it does come before the

1:52:05council

1:52:07change it again.

1:52:09No, until you vote

1:52:10it's not anything that's going to be set

1:52:13in stone. All right? So it would be more

1:52:15of a work session and an understanding

1:52:18as to what we want to do it, but then

1:52:20also

1:52:21the decision that we don't want to we're

1:52:22not ready to sit there and put this what

1:52:24what to vote.

1:52:25>> But if we voted as if

1:52:28discussing earlier, we take these eight,

1:52:3010, however many items, we vote on the

1:52:33language for those items

1:52:36and then we hold them.

1:52:39>> Well,

1:52:41when we work through that

1:52:43um

1:52:45it would be um

1:52:48what we probably would do is the only

1:52:50official action that you would take is

1:52:53after you voted on those items, one of

1:52:54the things would be that we are not

1:52:56taking this to vote.

1:52:58An actual affirmative vote that we're

1:53:00not

1:53:01this time we're not voting.

1:53:05And I I would probably add some language

1:53:07in there

1:53:09that leaves it open-ended that there

1:53:10might be other items. In other words,

1:53:12this is a work in progress.

1:53:17I I I can get us there.

1:53:19>> The dates are February 12th that we want

1:53:21to hold the election and August 16th if

1:53:25we want another

1:53:27and hopefully,

1:53:28you know, a couple of months we'll know

1:53:30if we're going to have a mayor in the

1:53:31November election next year.

1:53:33>> And and the other thing when and and so

1:53:36as y'all go through this, another

1:53:38I know that you mentioned the residence

1:53:39requirements and that we already have

1:53:41the term for the mayor, we have

1:53:44the um

1:53:45we have all the the cleanup language. We

1:53:47also have the

1:53:48paying [snorts] the council members.

1:53:51So all those things I'll be working on.

1:53:53Please understand too that

1:53:56you I encourage any of y'all if y'all

1:53:57come up with ideas, send them to me.

1:53:59There are some things

1:54:00that not only do I draft the language, I

1:54:02have to sit there and overcome some

1:54:05first the there's just the straight

1:54:06legality, right?

1:54:08We also have a 1983 federal court order

1:54:11that applies to us. It's what set up the

1:54:13single-member districts to begin with.

1:54:16So

1:54:17I'm going to have to look at that to see

1:54:18if it impacts the term of the mayor

1:54:20because that may be a federal court

1:54:21order that if we wanted it changed, we

1:54:23may have to actually go back to federal

1:54:25court

1:54:26and get that.

1:54:27And so

1:54:28that's the type of research that my

1:54:30staff will be doing

1:54:31at the same time that we're drafting

1:54:33language for y'all to sit there and

1:54:34discuss

1:54:36whenever y'all talk about this again in

1:54:37the future.

1:54:40>> Let's discuss the residency thing though

1:54:42cuz we really haven't thrown that one

1:54:44out cuz at the moment it's just on the

1:54:46day you register you're a resident of

1:54:48that district. So

1:54:50[clears throat] I think we talked about

1:54:52a six month which is going to be default

1:54:54under state statute.

1:54:55>> State law is six months for council

1:54:57member districts, 12 months for a

1:55:00citywide like a mayor.

1:55:02>> So

1:55:03>> I think those are reasonable.

1:55:04>> Comply with state law.

1:55:08>> Anybody have any other

1:55:10thoughts or

1:55:11issues with the six and a 12?

1:55:15>> And that aligns with state.

1:55:17>> Yeah, that's correct.

1:55:18>> It's default with the state.

1:55:21>> And it does it's not in the charter now?

1:55:25>> Nothing.

1:55:25>> That's why we're here.

1:55:27>> Yeah.

1:55:27>> It was solid.

1:55:28>> there.

1:55:29>> The the Seventh Court ruled that the

1:55:31language is

1:55:32just the day you register you have to be

1:55:35uh

1:55:36so it's it's it's one day at the moment.

1:55:39So

1:55:40>> People are having a problem with that?

1:55:43I mean I know the last election I know

1:55:45it became a

1:55:46>> makes a case for if you're running I

1:55:48mean you have to make the case to the

1:55:49public, why should you elect me if I

1:55:51just

1:55:52>> [clears throat]

1:55:52>> moved into your district.

1:55:53>> in today and if the public doesn't buy

1:55:55it they're not going to vote for you.

1:55:56But if you're a great person they want

1:55:57to vote for you.

1:55:58You're giving them the opportunity to

1:56:00vote. You're not cutting somebody out

1:56:01disqualifying them because they haven't

1:56:03lived there long enough. That's up to

1:56:05the voters to decide if that's an issue

1:56:07for them or not. That's how I would kind

1:56:09of look at it on the positive side of

1:56:11that.

1:56:12Uh

1:56:14the positive benefit maybe is it

1:56:15prevents what I would call

1:56:19district jumping, you know,

1:56:21just so you can run for an office.

1:56:23>> It it causes the district lines to be

1:56:25meaningful at that point, because it's

1:56:27very easy just to rent an apartment in

1:56:28some other district.

1:56:30>> That's happened before.

1:56:32>> I'm sure it has.

1:56:35Um

1:56:36so, you know, it puts some skin in the

1:56:38game. You you committed to that district

1:56:40at least

1:56:42some period of time.

1:56:44I mean, again, it's the case can be made

1:56:45for either one and I don't have a

1:56:47I don't.

1:56:48>> So we want to amend the charter six

1:56:51months at least

1:56:52>> have to We have to clarify it is if we

1:56:54want it six months, because otherwise

1:56:55it's just one day.

1:56:57>> All right. Okay.

1:57:01>> Is any I mean

1:57:02>> I like the state law, six and 12.

1:57:04>> I'm good with state law.

1:57:06>> That could probably That would probably

1:57:07good.

1:57:08>> It's easy.

1:57:10>> We take care.

1:57:12>> Any Any other issues?

1:57:20So you got anything you want to throw in

1:57:21the pot?

1:57:22>> No. No, I think y'all are having a good

1:57:24discussion.

1:57:25>> Are you done?

1:57:27>> I don't know.

1:57:28>> The camera is just It can't decide who

1:57:30it loves. I

1:57:31>> What is that with the camera?

1:57:33>> That's the shine off my head.

1:57:34>> Whoever's talking, is that who it tries

1:57:36to focus on or something?

1:57:37>> to follow the speaker.

1:57:39>> Okay. Well, I just thought it loved mad.

1:57:42[laughter] It just was It loved mad, you

1:57:44know?

1:57:45>> I have a face for radio.

1:57:48>> I love those bald-headed people.

1:57:50Um

1:57:51>> Do we want to continue this discussion

1:57:53next Tuesday? Another council meeting.

1:57:56I think maybe the mayor

1:57:58we had a different event, but do y'all

1:58:00want to continue this?

1:58:02>> If you're expecting language from me, I

1:58:04would appreciate more time than next

1:58:06Tuesday.

1:58:07>> How about the first meeting in December?

1:58:10>> Do we have enough time?

1:58:11>> Yes.

1:58:13>> Yeah, that's better.

1:58:14>> And um

1:58:16and I and I like this arrangement. Mr.

1:58:19Collins kind of suggested we do this,

1:58:21because it's it's awkward to talk to one

1:58:24another

1:58:25this way, you know, down the day.

1:58:28So, I like this little

1:58:31this way next time.

1:58:35>> mentioned earlier but anyone that has

1:58:37anything if you'll submit it to Matt and

1:58:38his team

1:58:43We'll try to have a bunch of research

1:58:44done by the time we get back in.

1:58:49>> All right.

1:58:50Good job everybody.

1:58:51>> Thank you.

1:58:52>> Thank you.

1:58:53>> Bye everybody.

1:58:55>> Have a good next week.

```*