So, in seeing that we have a quorum, I will now call to order the regular meeting of the
review committee at 530E. Our first item for consideration is item A, number C, our C24021,
receive comments from members of the public. Members of the public who wait to speak must
be present at the meeting and submit speaker cards to staff prior to the item being called.
Five speakers can speak for two minutes each on any items on the agenda. I have one card
in front of me from Liam Blom Whitefield. Liam, if you could take the podium. He's already
taken the podium. Excellent. Hello, my name's Liam. I'm here to speak on, like, the, to
support the vision of trying to get our elections from May to November because a few years ago,
like, after I saw the data, me and some other people worked on trying to get our elections
moved. It's like, on the research that I did, it is, and I think now that, that we have more
data about elections, that we, we are trying to get people to participate in our local
elections. We have tried different things like mailers and other things, but what has
fundamentally doing is just having the election with other, with the more known election,
people will vote it from, like, 8% at best to 44%. That, those numbers, I think, justifies
the movement. And then we can see, like, post, post the 2020 election, it's like, at first,
I thought maybe there's some hope in, like, we could keep at, like, 15%, but we moved
just back down to 8% with the most recent mayoral election. So we've had, we've had a
reversion to the mean, unfortunately. But, and I do think, and, like, I don't think there
should be worry about partisanship, because both Gerard and Deb, both fairly far apart
on issues, won that same, won in that same year. And we'd also be increasing our share
in the state's constitutional elections in those, because that's when the state's
constitutional amendments are in the off years, you know. I can see the rest of my time.
>> All right. Thank you. All right. Our next item is item B, number CRC24-022, consider
approval of the minutes of November 5th, 2024, charter review committee. Is there a motion
to approve the minutes? Motion to approve for minutes four. Also, a motion from Commissioner
Danhoff, or, sorry, second from Commissioner Danhoff. All those in favor, please raise
your hand and say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please raise your hand and say nay. Motion
passes. All right. Before we reach item C, I would like to make a proposal for standing
rules for the committee, given that we have a lot of items to get through that are not
full discussions today. So I would like to propose that for item D, that each individual
item considered under item D, we limit discussion to two minutes in discussion in favor of the
motion from somebody who proposed that amendment. Two minutes if anyone opposes that motion.
And then one in favor and one against. And that's for the discussion for the nine items
under item D. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Second. Commissioner Kohr, any discussion?
Clarification. So you're going to discuss it, or you're going to ask if there's a motion
to do that, to do what, number one? And then have the two minutes?
Yeah. Do you see what I'm saying on that procedure? Are you going to present it and say
yes, I have a motion? And then the discussion, or are you going to discuss it? I would hear
discussion from somebody in favor, discussion from somebody opposed, discussion from somebody
in favor, discussion from somebody opposed, and then hear a motion. I don't want restrictions.
Any other discussion, Commissioner Runke? So just to clarify in my mind, we're looking at
pre-discussion, the motion, and then we will have discussion post-motion. My intention is that we
would move to voting after hearing the motion. I have a second. Just because we have nine items,
nine individual items under that item, and these are not, this is just a motion on whether we want
to even hear further discussion of the motion, so I don't want to get bogged down in these discussions.
I want to respect people's time and make sure that we're moving through all nine of these things.
And that's just to discuss it further and further at a later meeting. So we're just providing
guidance to staff on this is something we even want to consider to consider. But if it's something
we're like we have no interest in and we can vote to say no. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right.
We have a motion for standing rules. Second. I will now take a vote on that. All those in favor of
the opposed standing rule, please raise your right hand and say aye. Aye. One, two, three, five, six,
seven. All those opposed, please raise your right hand and say nay. Ready. One, two, three, four.
Please keep your hands up. Sorry. One, two, three, four, five. Aye. Nay. So that standing item does
not exist. All right. Cool. All right. Moving on to item C, number CRC24-023. Receive a report,
hold a discussion, and give staff direction on increasing the two-year term of the municipal
judge to a four-year term. With the current provision of the municipal court, it basically,
this is the small section from the municipal court that basically sets all of the rules for the
municipal court. The current provision is that the municipal judge resides over the municipal court.
They are appointed and served at the pleasure of counsel and must be a qualified attorney,
licensed to practice law in the state of Texas, and have any other qualifications required by
the government code. They have all of the duties assigned to the municipal judge through the
government code as well, and then compensation is set by the counsel. So as you can tell, there's
nothing currently in our charter that sets the term of the municipal judge, but it does allow for,
the state statutes allow for a term up to four years for any municipal judge in Texas. Currently,
it is two years. It can go up to four years, but it has to be stated in ordinance or in charter if
it is more than two years. So these are just some of those relevant codes. The government code
states that a judge of the municipal court serves for an office of two years unless
mutual municipality provides a longer term, and that is allowable under the same thing that allows
for council members, either elected or appointed city officials, to serve for a term of up to four
years. And then this is our city code that currently stipulates a two-year term appointment
in even number of years, so we just recently reappointed our judge for a two-year term.
And some considerations. I had a really hard time finding any best practices or resources or research
specific to this topic, but some of the considerations provided by our municipal
judge were, you know, stability for judges, continuing continuity for staff and the community
long-term planning and projects, and judicial independence from council.
And then as always, we have our city comparisons. As you can see, the majority of cities around here
do have two-year terms, with Frisco being the outlier having a four-year term, and then whether
or not that term is stipulated either in the charter or ordinance, it's kind of a mixed bag.
And then in comparable-sized cities, it's a bit of a mix between two and four years.
In Midland and Round Rock, they just have contract terms, so there's not an ordinance or
anything that really stipulates a term. And then in some of the larger cities,
Austin has a four-year term, and that is also a contract and not a charter or ordinance.
And then El Paso also has a four-year term.
So with that, I'll turn it back to the committee for any questions and discussion.
First, do I hear any questions from the committee? Commissioner Jones?
As the current, how often have you switched? You know, how long have you switched?
That's a great question. I don't know, but I can look into that.
Commissioner Danhoff?
Correct. They serve us, yeah, at the pleasure of council.
At the pleasure of council, fire them as well, basically?
Yeah.
So I just, I guess that was like, I don't understand that independence from council is a problem.
Uh, Commissioner Bikes? Oh, I'm sorry. We're even good. Okay, Commissioner Bikes?
So I just want to clarify Mr. Danhoff's question. So if they're appointed for a two-year term
and the council decides in that two-year term that they wanted to make the change,
is that possible within the two-year, their original year, or is it just,
they can only decide at the two-year mark?
I think there are certain things, maybe if there were malfeasance or something like that,
where something could be addressed in the middle of a term, but typically it would be a two-year term.
So if the proposal of four versus two came in and the council didn't necessarily like the
choice that they had made, they would be locked into it for a longer period of time as possibly.
I believe so.
Thank you.
Mr. McClure?
These people elected or appointed?
They're appointed by council.
How many of them are?
Just one. There's one municipal judge and then there are associate judges that are hired by the
judge or appointed by council.
Which one?
The associate judges.
Since you've been appointed by council, or they're hired by the judge?
I think they're hired by the judge, sorry.
Will you clarify?
Yes.
For the remainder of that initial term?
I think so.
And then the follow-up question would be if we contemplated four years that would extend,
there's not a statute limitation where you have to pay them an X amount of time up to,
so it could be four years at that point.
Right, we would have to pay into the importance of this contract.
We have to pull this contract up, so if this contract says, hey, if you let him go before
his term is up, and it says that we have to pay him two years' severance, three years' severance,
whatever in the contract if that comes to that, then we could pay him.
That provision does not apply if the judge is found to have been fired for reasons of
malfeasance or...
Correct.
Commissioner Molina-Pore?
So in this contract, if they do something wildly inappropriate, we don't have to pay
severance, but if it's like we like to bring them cancel and they just don't like the judge,
that if they want to let them go early, that's when severance kicks in.
But if they're found guilty of malfeasance or doing something inappropriate, no severance.
Correct.
Okay.
Commissioner Johnson?
The judges that are underneath the municipal judge, are they paid as well?
Yes.
Commissioner Jones?
And I know we have one municipal judge that's here for a really long time.
All the way.
He was here for a year.
So I guess every two years, he's pre-appointed.
Yes.
And we did find out our current municipal judge, Tyler Atkinson, has served since 2020.
Commissioner Monge-Niguera?
On the, so shifting it to four years, in my mind, does that, does that kind of help us
attract talent that we can guarantee a longer term?
Whereas the two years, they're like, okay, do I want to potentially upend my entire practice
to maybe only work for the city two years and then run the risk for four years to kind of provide
a larger pool of applicants a greater assurance that they will have some job security and
independence to implement programs, things like that.
I'm just trying to think of some good reason.
That would make sense to me.
I think it would take a lot for someone to say, okay, I'm going to step out of either
my personal business or my other job to only work there for two years.
Life is long, but it could be scary for some.
So four years would be thoughtful.
Yeah, I think that's absolutely an interpretation of it.
And I think that was kind of, you know, what part of what was being addressed and considerations
under stability.
Commissioner Brewer, did you have a comment?
Commissioner Fikes?
So I guess the answer to that question is really more speculation that we think that
that is probably the case.
If we could, but I guess the flip side is it doesn't sound like we've ever had an issue
getting talent in that role.
Is that safe to say?
I couldn't say yes or no.
Commissioner Jones?
Did you describe what it is a municipal judge does?
Yeah, so they run the municipal court and the municipal court hears all of the cases
that fall underneath any of the city code of ordinances.
So citations that the city police give out or code enforcement or any other
city department gives out for various city related offenses.
Speeding tickets.
Yeah, yes.
I wasn't able to determine, but in regard to the concern of giving up one's practice
while they are a municipal judge, does the municipal judge have control over the time
that his court is in session?
It could be quite possible that he could hear speeding tickets and other things from
nine to noon and then do his private practice from one to five or that.
I know with being at a couple of trials as a observer with things where a judge
had a trial scheduled, he then ended up changing it.
My other suggestion or question is that if one looks at a four-year appointment time,
according to the code present, you have a municipal judge going into office on even
years. So that would be the point in time where those other council are from the specific
districts. The associate assistant goes in and he would also have if we give him a four-year
term. It would coincide with the odd number of years of every other election that takes
place to put your at-large council members in. So you have an overlap of who puts them
in. You have an overlap for a timing for both positions. And doing it that way on a four-year
term would give some stability to the court. It would also give stability for interacting
with council and things because the different ones between your municipal judge and his
assistant go in at standard times. So if this were this, when you have the election for
say 2025, that would be the point at which an assistant would go in. He would be in from
2025 to 2029. For the election that was held previously, meaning this year in 2024, you
would have your municipal judge going in 2024 and coming out for his term in 2028. Now I
did not, because totally here, if there are term limits on the judges, having that, because
my research said no there wasn't, but I wanted to be sure of that. So with those kind of
thoughts in mind, I think taking it to a four-year term would be appropriate. That's my thoughts
based on those criteria that I thought would be appropriate.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Yeah, gay marriage is a general term for, you know, two women being married or two men being married
or even under current legislative framework. Like if there's a transgender man who is in a straight
relationship to a woman, they'll still kind of get classed as gay by Texas likely given that
their movement on transgender rights reasons. So is there a true definition for that? So when we
ask the city to do that, they'll have guidelines. Civil unions would be the institution that existed
prior to the legalization of gay marriage. So prior to gay marriage being legalized, civil unions
were what queer couples saw when they could not receive a fully legally recognized marriage.
Commissioner Danno? More of a question. Is that appropriate for a charter or should that be
separately? I was asking, should that be an ordinance versus being in a charter? So just
a very specific thing, right? Like charters more like overarching how you run the city,
like almost like the constitution. I'm just, I'm just wondering if that should be, I mean,
honestly, I'd vote for it, but should that be a, should that be a like ordinance from the city
council? Like, should that be a proposal in a different way? Should I see what you're saying?
Yeah. Commissioner Mungigware, did you want to respond to that? I think to your point that even
the US constitution does provide civil liberty protections as well as instructions on how to work
back our government. So I think this could very, this could very well be an ordinance, but I think
it being into charter, I think it kind of insulates it from, yeah, like as a year to year political
changes and also just makes it like that more much of a concrete protection as remote as the
possibility is that this could ever, could ever happen. I think it makes it really firm that it
won't be changed. So we would have to come back to what we're doing right now, a separate charter
committee in a different year to discuss repealing it. So I think it just kind of insulates it from
that year to year change. Yeah. My comment on that would just be that a lot of the items that we've
seen, you know, there's the charts where it says other cities do this by a charter, other cities
do this by ordinance. I think a lot of the items that we're discussing do have the potential to
fit in either as an ordinance or as a charter. Commissioner Fice? This is a question about the
legality. If our charter ordinance differs from state or federal, I don't know which one, either or both,
would that expose us to a lawsuit? So, for example, like with the healthcare issue, that would
just be saying that if you're in a civil union, your civil partnership partner can receive the
healthcare that they previously received as your spouse, right? Because healthcare benefits transfer
through marriage. So this would just be saying that we as a city are going to say, even if you're no
longer perhaps married, if that right goes away, God forbid, but even if you're no longer married,
you will still be able to retain that healthcare benefit. And that's something that's within the
city would be my perspective on. But if at some point in the future, the state law changes where
this is in is contradictory to state law, we would expose ourselves to a lawsuit. Is that is that
correct, Ms. Brown? But in the past, we've been sued and then whether we've enforced it or not,
correct or not? So we, I think, are at legal expense to try to defend that position. I would
assume that right. Thank you. Commissioner Molina-Ford? Well, I think it's two different
conversations. The Supreme Court rolling it back would just mean there's not protections offered,
but the city as a private employer folks would protect their health insurance. That's different
than like the state of Texas passed a law criminalizing same sex or civil unions. So this
is just basically us putting in writing and solidifying that like current city employees
in civil unions wouldn't lose their health insurance. I think that's a different conversation
than like if the trigger amendment wouldn't make silly people per se, or having these sort of
criminal. Well, like, but like, okay. Yeah, I will answer your question now. Much like a private
business is allowed to offer health insurance to whoever they want, some businesses offer it to,
if you're adopting other ways that they kind of handle their own open enrollment period,
the city has the option to do that how they want to, to provide the insurance. This, and this,
we would discuss this later we get input from the public. What this would be would just be
protecting health insurance. And that's kind of where it comes down to city benefits are currently
extended to all married couples, regardless of gender identity, and how that goes. So this would
just be protecting that. The conversation does shift. It's a question of like, now it's illegal
to be in a same sex marriage. That's when I assume our counsel would have to step in and say, well,
that's got to come off the books because now it's illegal. And just to echo, again, we are merely
discussing whether we would like to discuss with that in mind, unless there's anything quick.
So this point of clarification to the chair, are you saying this would own this?
No, no, no, it's fine. That's why I want to clarify, because we started
convoluted maybe just city employees with all people. So you want, what is the, what is the
intent, I guess, or what is the scope that we can protect, maybe might be a better with language?
Sure. And I think that's something that we want, we would want to have presented to us by staff.
Should this move on to further discussion? I have not read every single code and ordinance on the
city of Denton folks, of course. So I'm not entirely sure what the scope of those protections or
restrictions might be within the entire scope of Denton's ordinances. But all of the kind of like
equal treatment that's within the city's rightful scope to protect or provide.
So is this just for city employees? Are we trying to force the whole city, any business out there?
Because you put all this cost on them and they don't want to do it. It's really an unfunded
mandate. My intention with this specific proposed amendment is that when the city is involved,
it treats people equally. So if, for example, there is some city provision where, for example,
we have a law on the books that says that you can only have four or three or four unrelated people
living in a house together, which I don't know that we've ever enforced. But within this framework,
then unrelated under that would include these civil unions. So you wouldn't suddenly be subject
to that if you were married and you had six people in the house and then you become unmarried because
of a Supreme Court decision. Yeah, but if the city hires somebody, it's a private business.
Most of the time they have to go by the guidelines the city's got. So you're putting all those
guidelines on anybody that contract. I think we can discuss that. I'll hear a vote on this
just to keep us moving. Or rather, I'll motion in favor of this. Second that. Second from Patrick.
Let's get one point of clarification. We're merely voting on we want to discuss this. Correct.
We're discussing motioning for further discussion. All right. All those in favor
of merely discussing this further and not necessarily recommending it to counsel,
please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.
All those opposed, please raise your hand and say nay.
All right. One, two, three. So we will discuss that at a further meeting. We will now move on to
discussing whether or not we want to further discuss. Consider implementing a one-year residency
requirement for individuals serving on a citizen or committee or commission appointed by.
I do have some information on this one just to clarify the conversation. We did get some questions
on each of these items. So I'll chime in for the ones that we did. But someone asked what the
residency requirement is now. So currently for counsel, the charter states that counsel has to
have a one-year prior to being elected residency requirement in the city of Denton. And if it's one
of the seated district seats, they have to be inside of those district boundaries for one year.
There is not a specific residency requirement, time specific residency requirement for anyone
who serves on a volunteer board, commission or committee. That was changed a number of years ago
in an effort I understand at the time was to make, there were more stipulations and more
requirements for serving on boards and commissions and counsel viewed those as a barrier to people.
Serving on those committees. So they kind of pulled some of those back and some of them were
a residency time requirement and then also being registered to vote and that sort of thing. So
that's just a little bit of background information to frame the conversation.
Commissioner Molina for. Yeah, I'd like to hear more about this. I'm really interested to see
what the one year is and what we would be limiting ourselves out of in terms of like, for example,
somebody moves to Denton and they have amazing qualifications to be on traffic safety and then
they have to wait a year. You know, they're still paying into Denton Electricity, Denton services,
buying their groceries in Denton, being in Dentonite, but they don't get the honor of
serving on a board. I mean, these are volunteer positions. I get a one year requirement for
counsel, like maybe don't move here from Dallas and River City Council without actually being here for
a year. That's different. You make big decisions. I think this should be open to people. If you're
a registered voter, the current, you know, stipulations that are already on serving on a
committee, I would like to hear more on this and get some more staff input of why a one year
requirement is necessary. Commissioner Fikes. Is there a motion? Oh, is that a motion? Can I motion
with my discussion first? We can motion and then discuss. Oh, yeah, so I would make a motion to.
Well, please, please let her finish the motion. I would move to discuss implementing a one year
resident requirement at a later meeting. Is that the recording? Second by Commissioner Fikes.
Discussion. Commissioner Rumsky.
As one who probably within this room is one of the newer that might have moved here in October 14.
Trying to learn about the city, about, you know, further understand the resident.
If I were to try to run less than a year for something or even at a year for city council.
I might clarify. OK, this is not about city council. This is about four dimensions.
True. But I would also like to extend the idea of looking into city council members,
perhaps a two year residency. So that was why I was bringing it up. OK, and I would like to suggest
a two year residency. So taking from. I agree it needs a further discussion.
Now, I know I'm older to me, but anyway, Commissioner Johnson.
So we are discussing the length of a person can be in the city for a year.
But are we talking about?
About a person. You know, Philip said in the same way that we in the same.
What I can say, we're talking about number two. I'm sorry. Yeah, my bad. Oh, OK.
Mr. Daniel, I don't need to discuss people. I'd like to. OK, all right. I'm going to be
voting now just because I'm currently looking at the list of vacancies for boards and commissions.
It's quite long with the current restrictions. So with that said,
everybody who is in favor of further discussion, please raise your hand and say aye.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. All right. All those opposed,
we will hear further discussions on that at a later meeting. Item three,
consider moving municipal elections from May to November. Do we have that presentation?
I don't have a presentation, and maybe Amanda can discuss the legal implications of this just briefly.
Sorry. The current state law really does not allow for them based on the way that it's.
I'm going to start with any further questions on that before.
Witness this be more like a trigger, though, that if those that did change,
if the state legislature saw this, I would just say, you know, we have other stuff to talk about.
It doesn't seem like. Well, personally, I would love all of that. I would love all
elections to be in November. It doesn't seem like the city should invest time and resources
into figuring out how to un-convolute state law when we've got like other things to talk about.
So I would not recommend another discussion about this with the way the state law is written now.
Commissioner Frensky. I agree with your
recommendations having worked the elections as well as being a voter registrar. Since 2015,
knowing that the state under the secretary of state is in control as to whether municipal
elections are, the May elections, besides having the council members, also has your school board.
So that is a consistent audit. Another reason to not discuss or even try it
is that the way the elections run is in May or as well as in November.
Elections board has certain fees that go toward
being expensed out either by the city, by the school board, or when it's a national election,
it's by the state. So the other thing is that having worked the elections
and having several people come in and ask me what's on the ballot, who's on the ballot,
who am I supposed to vote for, what does this bond mean, and as a worker one cannot
lead them to anything other than literature. So if you put everybody and using this year as an
example you're going to have a very full down ballot and if you put the councils on in that
they're going to be way down at the bottom and by that time people will perhaps, and I've seen where
ballots have not been because of going through the app, they don't even vote. So with that in mind,
I agree with you. Commissioner Ezekiel? Okay I just want to understand that the law that we're
working under now says we can't move home. Correct, right now. That's what I want to know.
Is it recent or a long time? No, it's been a while. Okay.
Commissioner Kirk? To some of those points I forgive you, including I don't know if there's
any cost to us to do this. The idea of this is if we have the opportunity where the state does pass
this and move it to November. Some of the benefits I see, larger turnout, more democracy in play,
as the gentleman noted earlier, much greater percentage of people voting. And I very much
appreciate your service too. I've done that a bit myself but you're always going to have those type
of questions at all the elections. I mean also too that there is a bit of a cost savings to the
city if we're having elections all at one time instead of having them all at one time. There
actually isn't because we have to pay for the May and for the November with the county. So there is,
and then correct me if I'm wrong to the staff on that, but we're paying each time we have an
election. But for me the biggest thing is having more democracy, more people participating in the
process and I'll leave it at that. All right, do we have a motion? Okay, so we have a motion
on the floor to not move forward with further discussion of moving municipal elections from
May to November. All those in favor of not further discussing moving the elections, please raise your
hand and say aye. Aye. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. All those who would
like to vote or all those not in favor of not discussing moving municipal elections from May
to November, please raise your hand and say aye. Ten, two, we will not be further discussing
moving municipal elections from May to November. Item four, consider modifying the total years
allowed for residents to serve on council. Do we have presentation? Yeah, just a bit of a setting
the stage. The current charter stipulates three consecutive terms to one place, but you can serve
consecutive terms in another place up to 12 years consecutively. And then once you've been on 12
years consecutively, you would have to sit out one cycle, one annual, one year. So that's the current,
but you can, there's no, I know. So for example, council member and then mayor Watts, I believe,
did six years as a counselor, six years as mayor, and then was forced to take one year off of council
and then he returned. So that's kind of the maximal amount of council serving that you can do
under the current setup. And he could have chosen to run again for his next term, but he did not.
So he wasn't limited by that. Does it apply to districts versus at-large versus, as you said,
six years? Yeah, so you can do three terms in one seat and then run three terms in another. So that's
six years each, so that's 12. The 12th we have. Correct. It's mayor at-large or? Correct.
Let me see that. Let me see that one year. Further questions for staff before we get to discussion?
I'm sorry. So just the number of districts, one through six, those all count in the same. Sorry,
I'm just clarifying Michelle's point. So doesn't matter if you're a single member, single,
single network? No, at-large versus single district, that still counts as the same.
And then mayors in other categories are just A or B. They're called ABC.
Mayor and at-large are the same. But there's two possibilities. Right, right. Okay. So you could,
for our team member, Amanda, you could run in a single member district, serve for six years,
and then run in one of the at-large or run for mayor for another three consecutive terms for six
years. It's just the maximum that you can serve continuously in any seat is 12 years, and then
you have to sit out one year. Commissioner Kirkpatrick? But then to clarify, they can
repeat the cycle. There's no maximum lifetimes, it's the maximum.
Commissioner Montegor? So I would move that we have no further discussion on this matter
in the future meeting. I think I personally, not for term limits, but I think this is a fine
compromise to say that someone should cycle off. I think 12 years is definitely long enough to
serve in any one capacity. I think we've seen that just because you can't end up a seat for
a long time doesn't guarantee you that necessarily. But I also think that if you have popular support
from the majority of Denton voters, then you should be able to serve, but you shouldn't be
able to serve more than 12. I think you've got that right now. So I would move that we keep it
just like it is, no further discussion. Do I hear a second? Second from Commissioner
Ronski. Discussion of the motion? Just to clarify, it's not a 12-year cap,
because they can repeat the cycle. Just to clarify that. It's not, it's just two points.
Oh, I apologize. That's what I was asking earlier. That was 12, taking you off again, again, again.
They could run into or they passed. They could.
Further discussion? Commissioner Ronski? I was just going to comment. I was
kind of thinking that just because you run doesn't mean you're going to get back in.
So if during that 12 years and they're off for a year, and then they want to come back,
they may not get it. So that would be accountable. But I agree with the motion as presented by Peter
that this really doesn't need to go any further. All right. All those in favor of not further
discussing, modifying the total years allowed for residents to serve on council, please raise
your hands and say aye. Aye. Five, six, seven. All those not in favor of not discussing,
modifying the total years allowed for residents to serve on council, please raise your hands.
I believe that the structure of this is that there should be a consensus and at least eight
committee members to move forward with the item. So I will hear a motion and the affirmative simply
to hit that item. Is that rule applied for everything we vote on or just for will be pushed
to council? Because we're just asking for more discussion. My understanding is that this is
essentially kind of working under the same rules as the two minute pitch over at city council where
majority of city council would need to support it to be further discussed. So based off of the
results of the prior vote, I don't think that we will achieve a majority to bring this towards
further discussion. But the motion was not the affirmative for bringing it to further discussion.
So I'm just gonna hear a motion to that regard so that we can fail that criteria. So this is
different than other things that are on because this is a pre-discussion to have a discussion
on like other things that we said we're going to bring back if they don't make or
if we have this really affirmative and it dies, you know, talk about it again. Correct.
So on that note, I'll motion that we consider or have a further discussion, consider
I think modifying the total years allowed for residents to serve on council. Can I hear a second?
Second. Second. All right. All those in favor of further discussion, please raise your right hand
and say aye. All those opposed, raise your right hand and say nay. Motion fails. We will not have
further discussion of that item. All right. That brings us to item five. Consider modifying
the eligibility for holding elected office and appointments. I'll put this out there. I'll
be really quick on it. What this was supposed to do is that if you could vote, if you took the time
to go register to vote, get on the boards, six months. Thanks for looking at it here up here.
That's my opinion. If you don't care to go register to vote in the city council person
that appointed you can't vote for them. I have a question for staff. Can you give us any
history as to there not being a voter registration requirement?
I would have to do a little bit more research to be sure anecdotally as I understand it a
number of years ago there were requirements that you be a registered voter in the city of Denton
in order to serve on boards and commissions and that was a part of council's decision a
number of years ago. They have to get more information on it to be exact but to remove
some of the barriers for people serving on boards and commissions. Thank you. Any other
questions on this before discussion? Questions prior to discussion? All right discussion.
Yeah I think Terrell and Ray said well we have a ton of vacancies on all of our existing boards.
I don't know that we can afford to be adding on extra term limits for all of our board members
that would go beyond any one of our council members. I think chair I'm sorry chair commissioner
I believe before pointed out that we want to make sure we get good qualified people on here too
and experience is important on these boards and I worry about someone who does serve on
there for however many terms doing a great job but they have to leave and then wait to come back
and in that gap we lose all that collective experience. I think it's good to have fresh
blood I think it's good to have fresh voices and I would have met I can't really imagine anyone
who's currently sitting on any of our board is not registered to vote but I just hesitate to have any
any further conversation about creating new barriers when we have so many people on the
boards already. The current requirements are just that you'd be 18 years of age or older
and you live inside the city of Denver. Commissioner Ronsky. I believe that the requirement to be a registered voter was removed at the time that a resolution was passed.
I would like to look up what year it was but at that point the suggestion was made the resolution was passed that non-U.S. citizens could be on committees and commissions.
As a non-U.S. citizen you're not registered to vote. That's correct yeah that's that's my understanding of
the history as well. I would add another population that this would eliminate from the pool of
potential folks would be folks who are currently on like felony parole which you know felony is
a scary term but you can get a felony for owning too much right or you might have gotten a felony
for something and have served your time and now you're just on parole and maybe you know the civil
services or the the boards that relate to issues of felons issues right you might want to serve on that
because those are issues that directly affect you and of course we do have a large portion of our
neighbors of our community that may not be able to register to vote because they are not naturalized
citizens yet and so yeah i i would not give further discussion on that but anyone else all right
commissioner uh but kind of in this idea of kind of getting our best and brightest and trying to
recruit people of talent and skill this is a thing that we want to think about i work at the
university more in texas and we have lots of non-citizens who are here and engaged in our
community they're here teaching their own faculty they might have a real like level of expertise to
bring to some of our boards and commissions but they can't push through both our churches and
all right um we are going or do we have a question i'll make a motion not to have any further
discussion motion not to have any further discussion uh second second by commissioner patrick uh all
those in favor of not having further discussion uh please raise your right hand say i
one two four five six seven eight all those opposed to not having further discussion please
raise your right hand say aye commissioner ramsey uh commissioner mccler uh two um so we will not
have further discussion on that for my own sanity uh let's make motions in the affirmative
even even if you uh you're doing so well want to not discuss something please say i do not want
to discuss this but i'm motioning that we discuss it further and i will be voting no on that motion
just to make the motions here um that brings us to item six consider adding language regarding
the increase in rates or fees on citizens or businesses um wait a minute we skipped the other
two bullet points there were two points is part of this oh
oh i thought we took that as a whole item i would that was my understanding as well
um okay um no we can we can return to item five um i will say i did bring up the third bullet
point in regards to the maximum two mile length of boards per year and then having to cycle off uh let's take
the last two items as a vote together so the last two items being all residents all denham residents
who will hold uh or is running for a publicly elected office shall be registered uh in the city
of denham and any registered voters who may be appointed and serve on a maximum of two elected
boards per year at the same time city council members term must wait the same length of time
so uh commissioner mcclar would you like to speak to this yes i mean i think if you're running for
the elected office in denham texas you ought to be at least a registered voter here that that means
that you don't have to be a citizen to be on our elected boards that are running you know in our
city and the second one uh is that i feel you don't want a person it's kind of like someone
what Peter was saying is to be there for a long period of time and they need to cycle off
because if you get the same people on the boards all the time you don't get the same outcomes now
they're gonna be good bad that's why we have term limits for city council commissioner melina for
i have a really annoying technical question so it says little holder is running for public elected
office we're appointed by council so we're not is that that's different this is like if you're
running for any any city elected office so the city yeah so that is really taking care of the
state election code in order to be like i just live in peace you have to be a resident uh for
six months the state of texas has requirements on like what makes you eligible to vote uh i
is being registered voters being eligible is that party in there somebody not a registered voters
not a citizen run get elected in our city city city any elected office in the city
how about the rest of the city
one speaker at a time please one one speaker at a time one speaker at a time please
i don't know there's a lot of elected offices in the city
said city council
so the only elected office we have is the city council and that's already cut
all right um so since we've all clarified with our city attorney that that's already good we
restrict that okay um i i would motion that we not or sorry i would motion that we have further
discussion uh on the term limits for board information that's proposed by commissioner
mcclure i'll be voting no on that i think cycling people out every two years for say planning and
zoning which is highly technical board uh it's not going to be the best so uh do i hear a second
second all right so the motion is in the affirmative for further discussion if you
vote yes for this you're voting for further discussion if you vote no you're voting against
the discussion all those in favor of further discussion of the two-year term limits uh to
summarize uh as proposed by commissioner mcclure please raise your hand say aye
i i don't i guess just further discussion further discussion on the side okay can we
are you voting well no i'm trying to further further just discussion i have okay i apologize
okay what we have are two things number one is serving on a maximum of two non-elective boards
i believe we already have that is already in place i could be wrong so to take this further
i would suggest taking this further in regard to being on the maximum of two non-elective boards
the issue of the same time frame as a city council member's term each each board
has its own term and some of them are three years and some of them are five years and it's based on
it's not based on the city council member's term so really the the meat of this one would be
to serve discuss whether they could be on board and two boards and then after their respective
committee term that they would have to leave out but one of the reasons that people don't
necessarily wait out is because no one else is willing to volunteer to be on the board
so motion again further discussion of term limits and maximum number of boards that you can serve
on all those in favor please raise your right hand say aye to have more discussion on the side
one two uh all those opposed please raise your hand seven uh we will not have further discussion
on that item um items six can't we if we don't get a motion or a second to a motion then it
just dies as well so if we don't get a motion to discuss it you see what i'm saying so like
if we didn't have a second to that motion or we don't get a motion instead of making a motion
and the negative if we just don't get a motion then nobody can hear us like that makes sense
we can all sit here quietly for two exactly yeah but that might be easier too we can move forward
all right item six consider adding language regarding the increase in rates or fees on
citizens or businesses uh do we have no staff presentation on this uh would whoever's item
this is like to speak to it i did it okay i did it so what what this is the city it bought two
gas turbine power plants built up so we got two massive power plants and so in 21 we had a freeze
and the gas got cut to those plants so we had to go out go out on the grid and buy electricity
at a high price so what i understood when they raised our rates city range for electricity
like in july 20 to 30 percent it was to retire those bonds that cost that debt that we have
well my concern is once that debt is paid are they going to take away that fee to the citizens
are they going to leave it on there and what i'm asking them to do is once that debt's paid reduce
it down for the citizens your amendment would be that if a bond is retired that the any increase
of fees or anything to retire that debt needs to go away and not be continuing to stay on there
so the city citizens have to pay commissioner malino for information so let's say winter from
yuri we all got a surcharge like we the electricity customers were paying whatever the city incurred
debt whenever they paid that debt off you're asking that like our rates would go back down
i think they might raise the rates somewhere else yeah but we wouldn't be paying like a continual
you know because if they keep doing that sooner or later you know it's kind of like when we get to
the end point they say well we need money for something like what's going on does staff have
a comment here i would like to get more about i would i would like to discuss this further i think
it's a really interesting idea and i think it's worthy of our time in discussion so i would make
a motion that we put this on the agenda to consider motion by uh for the discussion
all those in favor of further discussion please raise your right hands and say i
all those opposed all right all right uh moving on to um item seven consider adding language
regarding the cost of new regulations uh commissioner mcclure again in other words if they pass something
to the citizens they need to tell the citizens you know what it's going to cost
because if we have a vote on it you don't know it's going to cost you whatever then they may not
you might vote against it to clarify is this regulations in terms of like the city putting
something on itself and the cost to the city or would this be like if we pass something that says
businesses must do this or must do that we have to calculate the total cost of business you know
anything that they come down and at least that gives the citizens a chance to say well that's
too much it's just so having worked in the in the legislature a couple times they do something like
this we do a fiscal note and they have something called budget council that is an army of attorneys
and budget analysts about a couple hundred people that they'll call into municipalities and try to
ascertain how much something's going to cost i think they do a great job but even the information
that they provide is extremely limited and it's a lot just based on self-reporting like they're
not they don't have like economists and they're like running like econometric schemes like they're
not hiring very frequent i think it was named to do like giant fiscal analyses i think the the idea
itself in principle is really good but i'm really concerned that we would have to hire additional
city staff or put extra work on our current city staff to do budget analysis that
is really only being done at the congressional budget office in washington dc they can look at
like how far out does this thing go to affect the entire economy so i'm just concerned about
what what the cost would look like on the taxpayer whether or not we're going to see any kind of
budget savings or if it's going to be offset by any increase that we're not already getting from
our local news outlets or from concerned citizens who can crunch the numbers by their private
experience i understand that if the citizens are not over this kind of cost they have to do this
budget inside work where it's going to cost you a hundred dollars on office and the citizens will
know i that's maybe that's too much yeah but it's moving back and they might not they're not passing
yeah i'm just concerned with how i get that information in the first place
uh commissioner melina for are there any you know like current examples or something like does the
city mandate i don't know energy efficient lighting i i i'm having a record to wrap it around like i
get to take on a big right i get a big picture you want to make sure that like private businesses are
not like running a town because the city is passing regulation that's a million dollars i'm just
smaller examples or i'm really like hands-on so like narrowing the staff from a big picture is
why the question do you mean okay there is something that has been discussed it's in the works
not sure when it's going to formally come up in council but what i think that commissioner
mcclure is referring to is what is a unfunded mandate if it's something that's done as a bond
with the bond commission or group and recommended it to the council the council put it on the ballot
the citizens vote for it so any expenditures to finance that bond to repay it would come out of
being known you know and and expensed if somebody comes up with an unfunded mandate and the one i am
looking for right now is building a new city hall that was something that did not go through
the bond committee it did not go on the ballot but yet there is discussion on that it doesn't mean
that i'm against a new city hall but if it's an unfunded mandate it means where's the money
your general fund for your expenses and your interest is coming from taxes the thing is like
a 55 million dollar new library is supposed to come from getting out bonds so we therefore
have something that's unfunded the expenses are there is it going to totally come out of the
general fund and if it comes out of the general fund that's going to increase the city's yearly
budget which is then going to be reflected on what millage which is what we call it okay
but what your tax rate is based on 100 percent um you're not 100 the hundred dollar breakout
of your home there so i think that people should have a little bit more
input on these unfunded mandates and to that end taking it a little bit further within our
discussion and utilizing some additional information from city staff thank you
all right i think commissioner ross makes a great point i think that's more applicable to point nine
which specifies unfunded mandates one seven which is the question of the regulations
i would like to just hold a space for someone to potentially make a motion or not make a motion
uh because i think we're having two different regulations versus unfunded mandate are both on
the agenda yeah can i start my word i'm a little confused because i've i've only ever used the term
unfunded mandate in the context of of like a state law coming down to the local and it is not there's
no funding to implement that like when the state texas recently passed laws on school safety and
said that there needs to be additional sros in our public schools there was not money attached to
that it was a an edict and then they said find the money so that to me is what an unfunded mandate
is i'm confused what we're talking about because this makes i understand commissioner mcclar's
number seven right here as being about regulations but to me number nine would be the exact same
thing i guess i don't understand number nine is what you're saying is unfunded is coming from
the state or whatever is forcing it on to the state nobody said unfunded mandate like you're
talking about exactly cost us a lot of money i think if the citizens know that
that's what comes out of fiscal notes from protectors like to like they they provide those
numbers on what they think it's going to cost or at least that they say that the cities are saying
it's going to cost what i do think is so the citizens can look at the city commissioner
just real briefly i mean i guess an example i'm still not sure that an example would be like every
for any business to get a co they had to have fire suppression like spring instead of some other i
guess then you would want some i'm not sure the regulation like that would be through or notified
such different do i hear any motion on this
i make a motion that we take the item in regard to the city council vote if the city council
votes to change or new regulations and that could come into also
as well as item nine be taken up for further discussion at a future meeting
you would your motion is that we hear both seven and nine
correct we took this aspect in line okay i move that the second floor on your aspect number nine
or seven rather as well as number nine be consolidated
and taken to further discussion do i hear a second on that
all right hearing no second uh that motion will not proceed do i hear any other motions on this item
all right we will move on to item eight consider adding language that requires
posting the amount if any of an adequate contribution to fund pension or retirement
plans for city employees including fire and police time check we are at six fifty six
all of you are discussing further discussion of the clerk this is great number eight is
lying to the city employees the city has to fund that every year and if you get an actuary that
doesn't know what to do and they say okay you put this much money here you think we'll make eight
percent on well you go down 20 and 30 years and only make two percent then you're going to the
city is going to be a big Dallas guy in this trouble so we need to know i think a year to
a year where they're at on that are you going to get down in the tax credit is going to get big no
staff yeah just can't assistant to the city manager i just wanted to add that
uh the city participates for its employees and a tmrs which is a statewide municipal retirement
system um city employees make contribution other paychecks because match and uh actually exceeds
that and then we are guaranteed to turn five percent every year so are they adding more money
to that because the five percent is not no i don't think that they had anything else for inflation
um can i ask is this defined contribution or defined benefit uh retirement plan yeah i mean um
i i don't remember exactly if we have the how much flexibility we have i tell you that for mine i put
in seven percent of my pay and the city puts in 14 percent and then it's guaranteed to grow at
either whatever the market rate is and then uh if the market goes down or doesn't grow very quickly
like it's guaranteed five percent return uh more questions for staff richard jones and it's managed
by the team are i'm not a benefits expert commissioner manjiguera and the contributions from the city
they're they're depending on how much y'all put in like there's right yeah it's it's based on your the
wages and earnings so i put in seven percent of my wages and earnings and the city puts in
14 percent of my wages so they really have an option under funding their obligation if you will
so that so then we don't necessarily need this i i'm not you're saying
yes sorry to to be clear you're not answering your position of expertise within the city
you're answering it's somebody who just has one of these plans yep i am i am one of these plans
enjoyers thank you thank you is that the same for the fire police they are on different pension
systems so where are we at with them how does that work i don't know we can get some information on
that i i just don't want to get the city down 10 or 20 years from now we've got this
that was a big problem specifically i agree so i would like to motion that we have another
discussion specifically narrowing to fire police pensions uh
those in favor please raise your hand say aye all right all those opposed please say next
all right uh moving on to uh item nine consider adding language that requires reporting the amount
of unfunded the amount of any unfunded mandate incurred by the city with information regarding
the name of the mandate and cost of the city to comply commission report this year why i came up
with this it may not be something we want to do but if the state or somebody puts an unfunded
mandate on us at least the citizens will know and it just won't be the tax rolls be raised just to
cover it up and go on i think as long as the citizens know the voters know and they've got
to that point i think what we were talking about are coming into schools and i don't think there's
anything to cost them
so i i do think that since the people know
commissioner for adding on to what kisha jones said that there have been as a result of that
sro being required in cuts within the schools that i think are leaving parents scratching their
heads and wondering like why does my school not have a library assistant anymore and part is
because of that a shortage because other costs that were incurred through these other mandates
i really like this proposal i was thinking but you know so this is why this is what the deal
i could i could make the motion and say yes i would like to hear staff report on this and have
our group consider it further discussion commissioner mandibora just a quick quick comment
i will be supporting further discussion and i would love to hear from staff what is already
being done like internally or like these would be the public as far as communicating how unfunded
mandates from the state government affect our city and like how these conversations are happening
and whether or not that information is because i have sat in on presentations with one presentation
with the superintendent where he explained a lot of the things that were unfunded just in the school
district uh these kind of presentations are happening with the city but i think that would
all be very helpful education as well so i support further discussion just to reinforce that the
disd is doing a committee on that which probably many of you or maybe some of you know about just
happened last night but very good points because this information is out there per se but it's not
out there to the level i think we would like to see the transparency is not deep
i'll second second by commissioner mandibora my only concern would be that maybe there are some
mandates that are like the cost of use and hard to calculate but i would like to also hear more
information on this all those in favor of having further discussion i'm considering adding language
that requires reporting the amount of any unfunded mandate incurred by the city regarding the name of
the mandated cost of the city to comply all right all those opposed please raise your hand
all right um that brings us to concluding items does the committee have any business to discuss
at this time that is birthdays anniversaries all right uh with no other business i will adjourn the
meeting at seven oh three p.m we did it guys we were mostly on time congratulations