Oct 01, 2018 City Council on 2018-10-01 11:30 AM

Welcome everybody to this special call meeting of the Dent on City Council here at 112 215 East McKinney Street. To consider the following, we do have a quorum. Councilmember Meltzer is absent. First item is hold discussion, give direction concerning the Mayor's unwillingness to execute an ordinance adopted by council on Tuesday, September 25th, 2018 related to a specific use permit request IDS 17-007B. So I'll just go ahead and start out. First of all, there's not going to be any direction needed because there was never an intention to not sign this ordinance. In fact, on Thursday of last week, the council had the city manager or city attorney had prepared an ordinance that you have at your at your seat regarding the two conditions that he believed were germane to the vote that was taken. I was fully prepared to execute that ordinance until Friday when I became aware of a couple things that I felt that there was a need to bring forward some facts and information that I knew in the spirit of transparency and in the spirit of integrity towards the process. What this is not as well is trying to undo the vote. What it is not as well is to ascertain the understanding for either the applicant or council members based upon what they thought that the ordinance that was passed. What I want to do is simply describe to you and explain to you. You may not understand and you may not agree. But for me, I want to explain to you why I decided not to sign that ordinance on Friday until I could have this discussion with you here today. So I have every intention of signing that ordinance. I'm really surprised that some people thought that there was an intention that I would not sign it. Obviously, they haven't watched me on council for the last 10 years or as mayor for the last four. So having said that, so I want to just basically brief you on my experience of this transaction since the vote on Tuesday night. And I don't think all of you all probably have or privy to some of this conversation. And there are a couple of email exchanges between Council man Melcer and myself. Council Melcer is not present. So I will not be interjecting any kind of editorial. I did not know he was not going to be present until after this agenda was posted. And given all the discussion about motions to reconsider, I figured that there was a good chance that that might not be the case. But be that as it may, he'll certainly have an opportunity to share should he so desire. So the vote was taken on Tuesday, 4 to 3. A couple of conditions added to that ordinance. Regular, normal business, just like any other council meeting council vote. On Wednesday I had a meeting with Councilmember Melcer to discuss a couple of things. But since he's not here, I won't go into those specifically . I don't think that they're germane, but also I think some of the email exchanges will point out some of that. I was contacted by a reporter for the Denton Record Chron icle on Wednesday for an article that they were doing to come out either Wednesday or Thursday. And I believe probably everybody read that article. And I read the article as well. And as I got through the article, I was concerned about a couple of things. And I'm going to read you what piqued my concern in curiosity and need for clarification. One was, and that's your first page in your handout, that's sort of an excerpt from the DRC article where it talked about, interviewed me, and I said that didn't get into the ordinance. We can go into what that is. But the thing that caught my attention was that Melcer agreed the jury was still out on his effort to get that agreement between integrated and the housing authority through his amendment. And this is a quote that is attributed. "We are trying to find a mechanism for it to be enforceable ," Melcer said, adding that he press integrated to set aside a percentage of units for low-income families. But the clock is ticking on this executing the agreement. If I'm not satisfied shortly that our city attorney assures us we have an enforceable arrangement, I may well reconsider. That's pretty fragmented, so I wanted clarification. And so your next page will indicate an email exchange by Councilmember Melcer and I. And so I will just read them. I won't add any commentary to his. If there's commentary needed from mine, I will do that. So I started out on September 26, 2018 at 8.40 p.m. Paul, I'm a little confused. I just completed reading the article in Denton RC, Denton Record Chronicle, regarding the meeting and vote on Tuesday night. The report mentioned that you were still attempting to get your amendment through an agreement with DHA and the developer working through the city attorney. Based upon our meeting, I thought you were waiting on city attorney to determine if you're going to request a motion for reconsideration. The article seems to indicate you're unilaterally trying to negotiate with a developer outside of the deliberative process. I need help with that. The city attorney should not be working on nor reviewing any agreement in which the city is not a party or that does not require city council direction and approval. The amendment did not get into the ordinance as motioned and voted. In fact, your original motion contained your requested conditions, but you withdrew the motion. If the amendment needs to be added, it should be through a motion to reconsider and the corresponding process as prescribed by our procedures. If I'm incorrect, would welcome clarification. So the clarification came shortly thereafter on the 26th at 9. Councilmember Meltzer responds, there's no change for what you and I discussed earlier. The amended motion was for the rental grid to be part of their DHA agreement. Both Gerard and I understood that to mean that the conditions of 10% at 50% and 10% at 60% would be part of that agreement, not for our words to be taken literally to only mean that the exact piece of paper would be stapled to the agreement. The applicant did reach out to me today, and that was on Wednesday. I asked that anything he'd like to present go from attorney to attorney, not to me. I will consult with the city attorney, not the applicant, on whether the form the agreement takes is in fact enforceable in any meaningful way. If it is, I have no need to reconsider the motion. If it isn't, and if a valid enforcement mechanism can be crafted with more time, I would be inclined to move to reconsider. Then there's some language addressing the article itself, which is not germane to this particular discussion. On the next page is my response to Mr. Meltzer on September 26th at 918 p.m. I appreciate the clarification, but the motion did not include the percentages. I clarified twice what the motion was and amendment. Neither the movement, excuse me, nor you made any comments reflecting the desire to have any conditions include the motion. In fact, you withdrew those very conditions. Councilmember Armitage stated specifically during the discussion of your motion that she preferred a motion without conditions. Directly thereafter, you withdrew your motion. Therefore, I'm requesting the city attorney stand down on this matter for reasons stated earlier if and until the entire council discusses this issue. So the response back to that was the same evening. With all due respect, what I stood down on was additional measures to enforce the rental grid, not the rental grid itself. And you helpfully repeated that. If the DHA agreement comes through with the percentages in it, I will see that the applicant had the same understanding. So those were the extent of my conversation with Council member Meltzer, and you all aren't privy to that. All right? And in that last email that I pinned, I did ask the city attorney to stand down because there wasn't seemed to be anything in the motion, and we have the motion here with the condition as I'm prepared to sign. In fact, let's just read that. This is the one that is a waiting signature. It's condition two on page two. It talks about the site plan, but this is the condition two in section two that's in my copy, red. I don't know if it is in your copy. It's -- go ahead. >> Can I ask for -- version two is the most recently amended one. It was based on a conversation -- actually, an email and a later conversation with myself and Councilmember Meltzer. So you'll see in version two a slight change to the wording that is highlighted in yellow versus version one. To me, there isn't a substantive difference between the two . It was just a wording issue, so I went ahead and changed that because I thought it reflected the actual transcription that our office had prepared for you that I handed out to you a short bit ago that actually starts with the friendly amendment being made at the meeting all the way until the vote was carried. Thank you, Mayor. >> So as you can see, the condition is the rent grid attached as exhibit C shall be attached as an exhibit that we be part of an agreement between integrated real estate group or its successor related or affiliated entity and premier Denton Public Facility Corporation as referenced by the applicant and representatives at the City Council's meeting on September 25th, 2018. And we had that conversation, the City Attorney and I, and he presented that. I had no problem executing that document, and I believe I expressed that sentiment to you too, did I not? >> That is correct. >> So as far as I was concerned, everything was done. It was tied up. Here's the condition. I just read it. That's all that was asked of the applicant. Well then I get a call Thursday night from the City Attorney. He left a message that simply said he had a couple of things to share with me. And I was not able to reach him that night, but I reached him Friday morning and had a meeting with the City Attorney, myself and the City Manager . I had no idea what the meeting was about. And so the City Manager relayed to me several facts. One is that the -- I'm the City Attorney, excuse me. The City Attorney basically stated he did get a call from the applicant, just simply inquiring as to when the final deadline was for the motion to reconsider. And that it was, you know, a fairly direct conversation. And then at some point the City Attorney called counsel representing the developer, and there was some language, verbiage about, hey, we're just trying to get some documents in that were requested prior to the motion to reconsider date. Okay. Didn't quite understand that, but all right. And then it was reported that the documents actually came in. That there were some documents about a draft language. I have not seen the documents. Because I don't -- there's no need for me to see the documents because they're not a part of the ordinance that we passed. We didn't ask to see those documents. We didn't request to see those documents. We didn't request to see the documents within a certain period of time. So I called the applicant to try to ascertain what was the purpose of us receiving the documents. And what was the purpose of the hard date of the motion to reconsider. And I don't blame the applicant at all that, you know, he was a little hesitant to answer questions and that was fine. So we ended our conversation. And I decided that I knew too many things that seemed to be , from my personal opinion, you guys can do with these facts what you want. I know that there's some other conversations that were had. That I was concerned about the integrity of the process of this deliberative body. We had a motion that had a friendly amendment attached to it. We took a vote. The vote was 4-3. Still okay with that. I lose a lot of votes. Don't have any problem with that whatsoever. However, when I get an inclination or when I put the pieces together that somehow there's conversation happening behind the scenes and I'm not impug ning anybody in this. I'm just stating the facts. That somehow that documents to be received seem to be somehow connected to a hard date for motion for reconsideration by an individual council member. And I just felt that this body spent a lot of time negotiating and talking in a robust discussion about that agenda item. And what we decided on was the motion that is present today and the motion that I will sign. But for me, I want to make sure that I bring this at least to this body so that they can understand the process that I experienced and that I observed and you can do with it what you will. There are two agenda items posted. One is for the suspension of the rules and another one is for motion for reconsideration. I have no agenda on whether we do that or not. But I also wanted to make sure that there was a procedure available that if any council member, not just one who approved the vote based upon these facts, if they had some comments or if they wanted to do something, this body in its entirety would decide those circumstances and those motions and those actions. So this is all I had was simply to describe why I was hesitant to sign that ordinance on Friday, clearly intending to sign it on Thursday. But when I heard the facts presented and I tied them together with what I read, when I tied them together with the email correspondence, I was just concerned about the process. So that's all I have. You can ask questions or you can certainly make comments. I think the questions I think I've pretty much answered factually. I'm not going to go into editorializing, but for me it was maintaining transparency and maintaining the integrity of this deliberative body to ensure that somehow that there's a procedure that we have as a council to use for whatever reason. But I don't think it's in order to try to obtain certain terms and conditions with that particular procedure that on its face, we did not approve on Tuesday night on September the 25th. Was that the date? September the 25th. So council member Armitage. So first of all, I'll just say I'm relieved that you're going to sign. And I would like to ask you to understand why for myself and for I would think anybody in the public who sees an agenda item for a special called meeting that says hold a discussion and give direction concerning the mayor's unwillingness to execute an ordinance adopted by council, et cetera. Why reading that, we would assume that the mayor was unwilling to execute an ordinance adopted by council, et cetera. And so I would just ask since we're having this conversation that in the future, if you intend to sign an ordinance that there not be a posting stating saying anything about the mayor's unwillingness to sign because it creates a mixed message. And in lieu of any other correspondence on this topic, I had reached out to you privately over the weekend and I hadn't heard back. And so not having heard back, I assumed and I wrote basically begging you to please sign this ordinance that we voted on. I'm thrilled that you are. But I would like for you to understand why this agenda item posting combined with the quotes from you in the paper created a really clear impression that you are not going to sign. But I am thrilled that you're signing. >> Thank you. Yes, Councilmember Duff. >> Let me ask you a question on the reconsidering, okay? If we have a 4-3 vote, okay, and obviously if one of the four asked to have it reconsidered, what is the time limit? What is that? What is -- you know, how much time do you have to do that? I mean, I'm just curious. >> Your council rules of procedure provide that if a councilmember wishes to file a motion to reconsider, it has to be done before the next official meeting of the City Council, which last Tuesday that would be today, and in order to comply with the Open Meetings Act, that request would need to be received by the city manager before 72 hours posting of the agenda in order to comply with the Open Meetings Act . >> All right. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. >> Anybody else? Yes, Councilmember Hussbett. >> No, I'll try to say succinctly, I don't like the motion to reconsider it at all. And it's -- I voiced my very, very clear a few weeks ago, much to the wrong end of things, but it's -- I'm just passionate about it, that it's been weaponized and there's no other way to utilize that tool in my estimation. I've not seen another way that does not factor in actions outside of this body. For example, we have a discussion, we have a vote, and then there's some private moment where someone decides to recall. What feeds into that is not an open process. And that's why I don't like it at all. And so I share your concern about it being weaponized. And I've said so continually. And I don't see a way when it's utilized that it's not -- it is always upon private recollection that it's triggered. And so it's outside of this platform. It's not transparent. And so I agree with you. And so I hope that going forward, I mean, we've had a run of them. And I was terrified about this one, because there's also -- I just think we need to be better about understanding the city's perception out there. And so I'll just say that thank you for sharing your concerns. I share those same concerns. And I hope this body continues to understand that each time you trigger that, it's upon private reflection. And that always -- that's very -- it's polar opposite to transparency. So thank you. >> May I ask? Mayor Pro Tem. >> Well, I believe I want to wait until you read the next caption item before I ask some questions on that. >> Oh, okay. Sure, sure. Sure. Well, and I want to comment to your -- respond to your comments, Councilmember Hussbett. I understand your sentiment, and the only time I've really ever used a motion to reconsider was back when I was on Council, and the applicant believed that his representative had misrepresented him. And I said, okay, we'll take it before Council and see what they decide to do. My concern with this particular one, my concern with this -- and this is just my own personal opinion, all right? This isn't -- it's not meant to be accusatory, but I was concerned when I read that there was certain things that would satisfy the person stating what I read, that if there's something that I receive, I won't make a motion to reconsider. If there's something I don't receive, I may make a motion to reconsider. And I think that's what you mean, at least in a sense of weaponizing. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but I think it's that quid pro quo. I mean, if somebody truly has a change of heart about their vote, I can understand how that would come about. But my intent was simply -- I'm not saying that we should call for a motion for reconsideration. It's on the agenda simply because if somebody wanted to do that, there's an option. And again, for full transparency and respect of this deliberative body, this body as a whole will make that decision. And I thought these facts -- there's no way, if I would have signed this and some of you would have later found out that I knew of these sort of discussions, it would not be a pleasant scene. I understand about the posting and the confusion that that might have created, and I will certainly take that under advisement. I think that most people who know me understand that that probably wasn't going to happen, but advice taken. Or observation taken, excuse me. The reason I didn't respond to your email, we can talk about that later on. So any other questions on this agenda item? No, sorry. You have to fill out a blue card, so we're going to move on to agenda item number two. Do you have a blue card? Yeah. Okay. Did you fill it out? Okay. That's fine. Yeah, come on. Yeah, just give it to me, and then we'll call you up. No, no, I understand. Let me see which one you -- which one do you want to speak on? I just want to get a copy of the revised ordinance so we can look at it and know what you're doing with it. Oh, sure. I'll give you mine. There you go. You bet. I just want to do questions. You bet. Yes, sir. Thank you. I appreciate that. Sorry about that. About not getting that to you. All right. Where's my agenda? Moving on to agenda number two, item number two. B, 1B. Consider a motion to suspend the council rules and procedure relating to motions for reconsideration as provided in City Code Section 2-29G11. Council, anybody? I've got a question for legal on this. First off, is the motion to suspend the rules, is it considered a main motion in kind of asking of that is if it ends up in a tie, would it be considered dying as a non-main or would it continue on to the following week? It's a main motion, but according to your rules procedure, it's not something that you're taking official action on. Usually this is an actual council rules procedure which is based on Robert's Rules of Order, and so this would not implicate the tie vote provision that would require this to go to the next meeting. It's simply a parliamentary procedure process to suspend the rule which I described earlier, the process of making a motion for reconsideration since no one actually filed a motion for reconsideration. So this would be suspending that rule to allow item number three to go forward should you choose to go in that direction. Thank you. Any comment, question on agenda item 1B? I would like to make a motion to postpone until Council Member Mutzler could be here, but I'm not sure how that would affect the reconsider vote since there is a time. How does that? I think since this is now on today's agenda, a motion to postpone takes higher precedence because that's on the Robert's Rules of Order chart, and so this would actually be postponed until a date certain. My recommendation, if you do that for number two, that you would need to do the same thing for number three. That way both of those items would carry over should you wish to do that. Go ahead. Well, I would like to make a motion to postpone, and also in that conversation, I would also like to see -- well, I'll just leave it at that for right now. Can I -- you had a question? Can I -- I want to ask you a question of the postponement, because you said so Council Member Mutzler can be here. Because I certainly intend, and I think this body would intend to give Council Member Mutzler an opportunity to speak to these matters. And I'm okay with him speaking to these matters outside of it still being an active agenda item that is open. In other words, that I don't mind having this conversation for a policy discussion on motions to reconsider and things such as that, but as far as keeping it open, which keeps this agenda item open, is that what you're wanting to do, or are you wanting just to make sure that he has a chance to respond? Well, I guess I assume that if there is a motion to reconsider, he would have that chance. So then I'll withdraw my motion to postpone. Okay. Are you withdrawing the motion? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. I'm going to recognize you just to ask a couple of questions of clarification if you don't mind. Yes. If you'll just state your name and address for the record, that'd be great. I'm here tonight, 2728 North Harwood, Dallas, Texas. So you're wanting to speak to which agenda item? I'm getting a little confused here, but the only thing I wanted to say is that we're all right with the ordinance has changed. So that hopefully based on the earlier conversation, ought to resolve this matter. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you for that input. Council member Briggs, you had a question or comment? Yeah. And then I want to recognize council member Armitter. Okay. Let me recognize Armitter for since she withdrew your motion. Council member Armitter? No. No comment? Okay. All right. Council member Briggs. So on that confirmation of the ordinance being accepted by them, does that mean that the, I'm not exactly sure. That just means that the original motion that was postponed without the document and the restrictions on income and all of that stuff, that's not anywhere included in this ordinance, right? The thing that they just approved. It's listed as exhibit C. Okay. Yeah. The grid that was presented by the applicant at our work session was attached and the ordinance states that it's to be attached as an exhibit to a part of the agreement between the parties. Okay. And so that is based upon the SUP? Yes. Is that right, Mr. Chair? That is correct. Yes. Okay. So we have a withdrawal. Any other discussions on this item? Because if we don't get passed, if this item sort of, there 's no motion, then we don't go to agenda item three. Is that correct? Okay. Council Member Dufton, Council Member Armitage. Sign the ordinance and let's go home. Okay. All right. Council Member Armitage. I was going to ask, are you going to sign it today? Yes. Yes. Of course I am. Great. Thanks. Okay. Council Member Briggs. I'll make a motion. To do what? To suspend the rules of procedure. Is that, yeah. Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second to suspend the rules. And if I can, can we discuss that? Yes. I just wanted to clarify the spending the rules as it relates to a motion for reconsideration. Yes, sir. Okay. So is the, help me understand. So it's my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that there's a desire to get to agenda item three. Okay. All right. Okay. And I'm going to vote to suspend the rules, but I'm going to be honest. There's going to have to be some pretty clear reasons in the third one to, for me to go along with that because I think that my goal in this was not to necessarily, but it was to provide information and provide council an opportunity to do something different. So we have a motion. Yes, Council Member Duff. I don't know. I get to thinking about this and I don't want this council to become a place that people don't want to bring things, bring projects in their city because this council jerks them around. That's my opinion. Cause I think, I think these people are being jerked around and I've seen several other cases of it and I don't like it. Well, Council Member Duff, I appreciate your sentiment, but wholly disagree with it. I think if you want to use that kind of language and sentiment, the reason that we are here today, the reason that we are here today is because it seemed that based upon some verbiage in a newspaper article and in emails and then receiving of actual documents before a motion to reconsider deadline that we got that, that's why we're here today. So I totally disagree with your sentiment because I will tell you, I trust this process and if we don't have the integrity of this process, nobody 's coming. Trust me. So we have a motion and a second for suspension of the rules. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed by like sign motion carry a motion ties. So that, what does that do? It's not an official action of the city. It's a parliamentary procedural rule. So therefore the item dies. Okay. All right. So say that one more time. The noes were Councilmember Armitage, Councilmember Hutsb eth and Councilmember Duff. Okay. Since we, since item number two or B did not, was not approved, therefore we do not have an agenda item C and since there are no concluding items, we will now stand adjourned at 1 45. Thank you.