All right so at this time I will call at 11 38 a.m. Wednesday August 10th the
Economic Development Partnership Board meeting. We will begin with items for
consideration under heading 1 subsection A EDP 22-050 which is consider
approval of the minutes of July 20th 2022. That was attached as Exhibit 2 and
sent out to the board prior to today's meeting. At this time I will entertain a motion to
approve the minutes as distributed. All right it's been moved and seconded at
this point. Is there any discussion or suggested edits to the minutes of the
July 20th 2022 meeting minutes. Hearing none I will call the vote. All those in favor
please signify by saying aye. All those opposed please signify by saying nay.
And the motion carries unanimously congratulations minutes. Going down to
section B EDP 22-051 receive a report for discussion and make a
recommendation to the City Council regarding an amendment to the Economic
Development Partnership Board ordinance. That included three exhibits that went
out with the pre-meeting packet including a draft red line of the EDP
ordinance changes. This is something that's been discussed for quite some
time. I think everyone's aware of this coming down the pipeline to make things
easier but we will go ahead and let the change be presented for discussion. Thank
you. Thank you for that. So without further ado we'll get started.
It's working out okay. All right so what's our objective today's we want to
provide the recommended Economic Development Partnership Board ordinance
changes regarding the the chamber the DIT and chambers representation. So the
Economic Development Partnership Board was created in 2003. As hopefully most of
you know you this is an advisory board that's in charge of implementing our
economic development strategies, policy guidance, making recommendations to the
City Council and chamber and reviewing any prospect perspective and Senate
packages and also of course making those recommendations to City Council. The
current structure of the EDP board is two City Council members, two chamber
board members, two top 20 taxpayers, the UNT and TWU presidents, one member with
aviation experience, one member of the Denton Black Chamber and one member of
the Denton Hispanic Chamber and then lastly one at-large. So this current I
guess configuration of the board came about in 2017 when there was a new
ordinance passed which is which essentially added these bottom positions
with the black chamber and Hispanic. So what are the recommended changes so we
can look here and look at the original language and then the language that we
are recommending that we add is we say two members will be nominated by the
Denton Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and those members must reside
or work within the City of Denton and so I think the real substance of change
that we're seeing here is that currently the members from the Chamber of
Commerce from the City of Denton have to be sitting board members so that's
really the substantial change that we're here to talk about. And I'm happy to add
just if there's any clarification needed currently the other two chambers don't
have the requirement that it be a voting board position. The Denton Chamber of
Commerce for whatever reason in the ordinance it has to be two current
sitting board members. The terms are different as far as how long someone can
sit on the Denton Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors than necessarily this
board. What we don't want to do is hamper the continuity and
institutional knowledge of saying hey we have to leave this board if we are no
longer serving on the Denton Chamber of Commerce Board. Also the Denton Chamber
of Commerce is limited in how many seats per our bylaws that we can give and as
we push more with our DEI committee and are trying to be more diverse in all
ways as far as this big business small business it really hampers our ability
to bring in new perspectives and new people to carry the load of the Denton
Chamber of Commerce. So it's been discussed for quite some time and I'm
glad to have the opportunity now to explain that and to say that we would
like on behalf of the chamber for the chamber to have the conduits here to the
EDT board just as the Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce have. But they do not have to take one of the board seats which are
hard to come by. Is there a motion or discussion or question? Yes Mr. Boyd.
On the recommendation that's going to be struck I see that the current such
member must reside or work in the city of Denton. When you say member is member
the organization a member that person is selected. But with the city of Denton how
many people actually live within the city limits? So you're saying if a person
doesn't live within the city drawn limit, an accounting limit, a DISD limit they
are not eligible to serve on this board? These would just be representatives from
the Denton Chamber of Commerce. That's the same these are the same
wordings in with the Black Chamber members as well. It must be reside or live in the city.
It's work or live. So that member must work or live or the other Denton
Black Chamber address must be in the city. I don't know I don't have the
language. You don't have that many members in the Black Chamber that actually live within the
tax city limits of Denton. Corent, Lulham we have members like that but not in the
city. I don't think I think there's one thing this the only one we're updating
is for the the the overall chamber. Right. The other two policies are staying the
same. We're not updating those am I correct? That's correct. Well I'm saying
that's when regulation in this ordinance that the Black Chamber members and his
Senate chamber member must reside in the city. Or work. Or work. Must reside or work in the
city of Denton. This being a city of... That member or you say that member? Yes
according to the ordinance. I'm not arguing it away I'm just saying that's
how it's worded. That they reside or work. Whoever is appointed on this board
needs to either reside or work in the city of Denton in order to be talking
about the city of Denton's actions. If that's the case I need to submit my
resolution today because I don't live in the city of Denton. I live 10 yards in
Corent. So according to this I shouldn't be on this board as of today. Do you work
here? No I don't. You volunteer somewhere. We'll consider that work. No but you're right I'm just talking. Assume assumptions you know. I get a little confused with assumptions. That will probably have to be
something that one of the city attorney addresses that's not something that's
under my purview. Councilmember Davis. Yeah. One of the reasons why I like the
change of discussion today is because it mirrors what's already in place for the
other two chambers. Does the other two chambers have the requirement you're
talking about? The member has to reside or work in the city. That's the only
qualification that's currently on the other two chambers. So this language
would be duplicating that. It's not changing it. That's what's already in
place. It's mirroring it and copying it for Denton Chamber if that makes sense. So I
don't think what's proposed is any change to the black chamber and Hispanic
chamber but the same broader requirement on the Denton Chamber if that makes
sense. Why does he have to live in the city? And back to my point I need to
then excuse myself. Well so that's so outside of this order for what's already
in place is an issue that you're talking about. So what's the current policies in
place? Maybe we need to because we do want retired people because that's a lot
of wisdom for our city. We need to address that somewhere in our policies
because work or have worked or retired we need to add that wording from our
policy. That's actually a very good point. For this specific issue we're
lining it up so all three chambers are the same. But for our policy I think we
should put on our notes to maybe come back around and check that. Can we take
a recess for five minutes? Is that meaningful to everyone? Are there any
objections to a quick recess? And not to be adversarial but for this item or for what he's
talking about? I need to discuss something with staff and with the chair. I will say I think that Mr. Gore your point is
heard and that is something that you know can be addressed. It's not something
that can be voted on today because it has to be published in the agenda so much
ahead of time etc. I think it's part of the conversation that's something that
can be continued and I don't know if that has to do with the break that we
need but I know that we can't vote on that change today. It's just part of a
conversation that we're having regarding the proposed change. Is that right?
Councilmember Davis? I agree with that and then just one thing I'd like to kind of put
on the record before we take a break is the language and the ordinance regarding
qualification and nomination and appointment. If these organizations
nominate a person, the City Council approves and appoints that person and the
ordinance says that person shall serve at the City Council's pleasure. So which
is common language right? So I think questions of qualification and who's to
be on the board and who's not to be on the board are to be determined by the
City Council. Now could somebody else bring something else up later on about
that? Sure, but I think the ultimate decision about does someone meet the
qualification in the ordinance is the council when they appoint, when they
accept the nomination from the organization to appoint them. I just want to put
that on the recording on the record. I think that maybe what we can do is
request that be added to the next agenda that it be researched and looked into as
far as where the requirement comes from if that's a requirement for all city
boards. Is that a requirement just for this board and what kind of leeway the
City Council has for the appointments? Does that sound acceptable to the City
Attorney representative and the rest Mr. Gorey and the rest of the board?
Right now it is 1150. We will reconvene at 1155 for a short break. Thank you
everyone for your patience. Thank you everyone for your time. I certainly appreciate everyone and
everyone's transparency and input. At this time we are going to conclude
today's meeting because of the advice of the City Deputy Attorney that we may have
lost form. This is something that's going to be further researched and looked into
by the City Attorney's office today and as soon as there's a determination or
suggestion of change or what have you we will let everyone know as soon as
possible but because of the Open Meetings Act, because of other regulations
that this work could run afoul of, it is on the City Attorney's office advice that we
conclude today's meeting. I would ask that Councilmember Davis and Mayor Huxford would
you mind staying just for five minutes for a quick conversation regarding this
matter, the potential vote that didn't happen on the change of the order. It's not on the matter of who was in the board.
Can I speak before we conclude the meeting just so I can have it on the
record? Yes, now I don't think we have reforms, I don't think actually we have a meeting, but you can
certainly speak to us. You can read my mind, but you've dealt with me enough. I'll talk to Mac more
succinctly, but here we sit in a city where the charter is being challenged at
every turn and we move forward, where the legal rights of officers are being
challenged at every turn and yet we move forward. And in this advisory body we
conclude because of a failure to nail down a detail, a miniscule detail,
because if you want to drill down, if someone has a complete definition of
work, because I know he's in the insurance business, so if he's getting
residual from someone indenting and he checks on that, is that work? We don't
have a fine definition of work. And so if we're gonna get down to this level of
detail for an advisory committee meeting, then I expect the same shutdown at every
level of this city and I will make that abundantly clear in the legal department.
I want them to have the same approach everywhere, where not to be
inconveniencing citizens for something that I think is absolutely miniscule.
Quite taken. Thank you. And with that we are concluded for today. Thank you.