WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:26.560 So, in seeing that we have a quorum, I will now call to order the regular meeting of the 00:00:26.560 --> 00:00:37.520 review committee at 530E. Our first item for consideration is item A, number C, our C24021, 00:00:37.520 --> 00:00:41.200 receive comments from members of the public. Members of the public who wait to speak must 00:00:41.200 --> 00:00:45.520 be present at the meeting and submit speaker cards to staff prior to the item being called. 00:00:45.520 --> 00:00:50.400 Five speakers can speak for two minutes each on any items on the agenda. I have one card 00:00:50.400 --> 00:00:55.520 in front of me from Liam Blom Whitefield. Liam, if you could take the podium. He's already 00:00:55.520 --> 00:01:02.000 taken the podium. Excellent. Hello, my name's Liam. I'm here to speak on, like, the, to 00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:08.480 support the vision of trying to get our elections from May to November because a few years ago, 00:01:08.480 --> 00:01:13.680 like, after I saw the data, me and some other people worked on trying to get our elections 00:01:13.680 --> 00:01:20.080 moved. It's like, on the research that I did, it is, and I think now that, that we have more 00:01:20.080 --> 00:01:27.120 data about elections, that we, we are trying to get people to participate in our local 00:01:27.120 --> 00:01:34.080 elections. We have tried different things like mailers and other things, but what has 00:01:34.080 --> 00:01:39.040 fundamentally doing is just having the election with other, with the more known election, 00:01:39.040 --> 00:01:47.440 people will vote it from, like, 8% at best to 44%. That, those numbers, I think, justifies 00:01:47.440 --> 00:01:54.960 the movement. And then we can see, like, post, post the 2020 election, it's like, at first, 00:01:54.960 --> 00:01:58.720 I thought maybe there's some hope in, like, we could keep at, like, 15%, but we moved 00:01:58.720 --> 00:02:03.280 just back down to 8% with the most recent mayoral election. So we've had, we've had a 00:02:03.280 --> 00:02:12.640 reversion to the mean, unfortunately. But, and I do think, and, like, I don't think there 00:02:12.640 --> 00:02:18.320 should be worry about partisanship, because both Gerard and Deb, both fairly far apart 00:02:18.320 --> 00:02:24.960 on issues, won that same, won in that same year. And we'd also be increasing our share 00:02:24.960 --> 00:02:31.360 in the state's constitutional elections in those, because that's when the state's 00:02:31.360 --> 00:02:39.440 constitutional amendments are in the off years, you know. I can see the rest of my time. 00:02:39.440 --> 00:02:47.920 >> All right. Thank you. All right. Our next item is item B, number CRC24-022, consider 00:02:47.920 --> 00:02:52.720 approval of the minutes of November 5th, 2024, charter review committee. Is there a motion 00:02:52.720 --> 00:02:59.280 to approve the minutes? Motion to approve for minutes four. Also, a motion from Commissioner 00:02:59.280 --> 00:03:04.160 Danhoff, or, sorry, second from Commissioner Danhoff. All those in favor, please raise 00:03:04.160 --> 00:03:12.320 your hand and say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please raise your hand and say nay. Motion 00:03:12.320 --> 00:03:20.240 passes. All right. Before we reach item C, I would like to make a proposal for standing 00:03:20.240 --> 00:03:25.840 rules for the committee, given that we have a lot of items to get through that are not 00:03:25.840 --> 00:03:34.400 full discussions today. So I would like to propose that for item D, that each individual 00:03:34.400 --> 00:03:40.640 item considered under item D, we limit discussion to two minutes in discussion in favor of the 00:03:40.640 --> 00:03:47.280 motion from somebody who proposed that amendment. Two minutes if anyone opposes that motion. 00:03:47.280 --> 00:03:52.800 And then one in favor and one against. And that's for the discussion for the nine items 00:03:52.800 --> 00:04:01.200 under item D. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Second. Commissioner Kohr, any discussion? 00:04:01.200 --> 00:04:12.800 Clarification. So you're going to discuss it, or you're going to ask if there's a motion 00:04:12.800 --> 00:04:21.600 to do that, to do what, number one? And then have the two minutes? 00:04:22.800 --> 00:04:27.600 Yeah. Do you see what I'm saying on that procedure? Are you going to present it and say 00:04:27.600 --> 00:04:33.120 yes, I have a motion? And then the discussion, or are you going to discuss it? I would hear 00:04:33.120 --> 00:04:37.600 discussion from somebody in favor, discussion from somebody opposed, discussion from somebody 00:04:37.600 --> 00:04:44.240 in favor, discussion from somebody opposed, and then hear a motion. I don't want restrictions. 00:04:49.360 --> 00:04:56.800 Any other discussion, Commissioner Runke? So just to clarify in my mind, we're looking at 00:04:56.800 --> 00:05:04.160 pre-discussion, the motion, and then we will have discussion post-motion. My intention is that we 00:05:04.160 --> 00:05:09.360 would move to voting after hearing the motion. I have a second. Just because we have nine items, 00:05:09.360 --> 00:05:16.400 nine individual items under that item, and these are not, this is just a motion on whether we want 00:05:16.400 --> 00:05:21.600 to even hear further discussion of the motion, so I don't want to get bogged down in these discussions. 00:05:21.600 --> 00:05:25.520 I want to respect people's time and make sure that we're moving through all nine of these things. 00:05:25.520 --> 00:05:33.840 And that's just to discuss it further and further at a later meeting. So we're just providing 00:05:33.840 --> 00:05:40.800 guidance to staff on this is something we even want to consider to consider. But if it's something 00:05:40.800 --> 00:05:48.720 we're like we have no interest in and we can vote to say no. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. 00:05:48.720 --> 00:05:54.320 We have a motion for standing rules. Second. I will now take a vote on that. All those in favor of 00:05:54.320 --> 00:06:04.640 the opposed standing rule, please raise your right hand and say aye. Aye. One, two, three, five, six, 00:06:07.520 --> 00:06:15.120 seven. All those opposed, please raise your right hand and say nay. Ready. One, two, three, four. 00:06:15.120 --> 00:06:21.840 Please keep your hands up. Sorry. One, two, three, four, five. Aye. Nay. So that standing item does 00:06:21.840 --> 00:06:30.400 not exist. All right. Cool. All right. Moving on to item C, number CRC24-023. Receive a report, 00:06:30.400 --> 00:06:34.800 hold a discussion, and give staff direction on increasing the two-year term of the municipal 00:06:34.800 --> 00:06:48.240 judge to a four-year term. With the current provision of the municipal court, it basically, 00:06:48.240 --> 00:06:56.080 this is the small section from the municipal court that basically sets all of the rules for the 00:06:56.080 --> 00:07:02.800 municipal court. The current provision is that the municipal judge resides over the municipal court. 00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:10.480 They are appointed and served at the pleasure of counsel and must be a qualified attorney, 00:07:10.480 --> 00:07:15.680 licensed to practice law in the state of Texas, and have any other qualifications required by 00:07:15.680 --> 00:07:22.800 the government code. They have all of the duties assigned to the municipal judge through the 00:07:22.800 --> 00:07:28.480 government code as well, and then compensation is set by the counsel. So as you can tell, there's 00:07:28.480 --> 00:07:35.360 nothing currently in our charter that sets the term of the municipal judge, but it does allow for, 00:07:35.360 --> 00:07:44.800 the state statutes allow for a term up to four years for any municipal judge in Texas. Currently, 00:07:44.800 --> 00:07:50.880 it is two years. It can go up to four years, but it has to be stated in ordinance or in charter if 00:07:50.880 --> 00:07:57.920 it is more than two years. So these are just some of those relevant codes. The government code 00:07:57.920 --> 00:08:02.640 states that a judge of the municipal court serves for an office of two years unless 00:08:02.640 --> 00:08:08.480 mutual municipality provides a longer term, and that is allowable under the same thing that allows 00:08:08.480 --> 00:08:14.160 for council members, either elected or appointed city officials, to serve for a term of up to four 00:08:14.160 --> 00:08:24.000 years. And then this is our city code that currently stipulates a two-year term appointment 00:08:25.040 --> 00:08:30.000 in even number of years, so we just recently reappointed our judge for a two-year term. 00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:39.840 And some considerations. I had a really hard time finding any best practices or resources or research 00:08:39.840 --> 00:08:47.200 specific to this topic, but some of the considerations provided by our municipal 00:08:47.200 --> 00:08:53.680 judge were, you know, stability for judges, continuing continuity for staff and the community 00:08:54.320 --> 00:08:58.400 long-term planning and projects, and judicial independence from council. 00:08:58.400 --> 00:09:07.120 And then as always, we have our city comparisons. As you can see, the majority of cities around here 00:09:07.120 --> 00:09:12.800 do have two-year terms, with Frisco being the outlier having a four-year term, and then whether 00:09:12.800 --> 00:09:18.800 or not that term is stipulated either in the charter or ordinance, it's kind of a mixed bag. 00:09:22.000 --> 00:09:30.080 And then in comparable-sized cities, it's a bit of a mix between two and four years. 00:09:30.080 --> 00:09:35.360 In Midland and Round Rock, they just have contract terms, so there's not an ordinance or 00:09:35.360 --> 00:09:43.680 anything that really stipulates a term. And then in some of the larger cities, 00:09:43.680 --> 00:09:50.160 Austin has a four-year term, and that is also a contract and not a charter or ordinance. 00:09:51.120 --> 00:09:53.520 And then El Paso also has a four-year term. 00:09:53.520 --> 00:09:59.280 So with that, I'll turn it back to the committee for any questions and discussion. 00:09:59.280 --> 00:10:05.520 First, do I hear any questions from the committee? Commissioner Jones? 00:10:05.520 --> 00:10:11.760 As the current, how often have you switched? You know, how long have you switched? 00:10:11.760 --> 00:10:18.160 That's a great question. I don't know, but I can look into that. 00:10:20.800 --> 00:10:21.680 Commissioner Danhoff? 00:10:21.680 --> 00:10:34.320 Correct. They serve us, yeah, at the pleasure of council. 00:10:34.320 --> 00:10:39.520 At the pleasure of council, fire them as well, basically? 00:10:39.520 --> 00:10:40.020 Yeah. 00:10:40.020 --> 00:10:47.120 So I just, I guess that was like, I don't understand that independence from council is a problem. 00:10:48.800 --> 00:10:53.200 Uh, Commissioner Bikes? Oh, I'm sorry. We're even good. Okay, Commissioner Bikes? 00:10:53.200 --> 00:11:00.320 So I just want to clarify Mr. Danhoff's question. So if they're appointed for a two-year term 00:11:00.320 --> 00:11:07.360 and the council decides in that two-year term that they wanted to make the change, 00:11:07.360 --> 00:11:10.800 is that possible within the two-year, their original year, or is it just, 00:11:10.800 --> 00:11:13.520 they can only decide at the two-year mark? 00:11:14.960 --> 00:11:21.440 I think there are certain things, maybe if there were malfeasance or something like that, 00:11:21.440 --> 00:11:28.480 where something could be addressed in the middle of a term, but typically it would be a two-year term. 00:11:28.480 --> 00:11:39.360 So if the proposal of four versus two came in and the council didn't necessarily like the 00:11:39.360 --> 00:11:45.280 choice that they had made, they would be locked into it for a longer period of time as possibly. 00:11:45.280 --> 00:11:46.800 I believe so. 00:11:46.800 --> 00:11:47.940 Thank you. 00:11:47.940 --> 00:11:50.800 Mr. McClure? 00:11:50.800 --> 00:11:52.400 These people elected or appointed? 00:11:52.400 --> 00:11:53.760 They're appointed by council. 00:11:53.760 --> 00:11:54.960 How many of them are? 00:11:54.960 --> 00:12:00.080 Just one. There's one municipal judge and then there are associate judges that are hired by the 00:12:00.080 --> 00:12:03.520 judge or appointed by council. 00:12:03.520 --> 00:12:05.620 Which one? 00:12:05.620 --> 00:12:08.480 The associate judges. 00:12:09.840 --> 00:12:14.000 Since you've been appointed by council, or they're hired by the judge? 00:12:14.000 --> 00:12:16.880 I think they're hired by the judge, sorry. 00:12:16.880 --> 00:12:17.840 Will you clarify? 00:12:17.840 --> 00:12:18.340 Yes. 00:12:40.080 --> 00:12:40.580 Yes. 00:12:40.580 --> 00:12:45.200 For the remainder of that initial term? 00:12:45.200 --> 00:12:46.480 I think so. 00:12:46.480 --> 00:12:53.600 And then the follow-up question would be if we contemplated four years that would extend, 00:12:53.600 --> 00:12:59.440 there's not a statute limitation where you have to pay them an X amount of time up to, 00:12:59.440 --> 00:13:02.720 so it could be four years at that point. 00:13:02.720 --> 00:13:05.120 Right, we would have to pay into the importance of this contract. 00:13:05.120 --> 00:13:09.920 We have to pull this contract up, so if this contract says, hey, if you let him go before 00:13:09.920 --> 00:13:14.880 his term is up, and it says that we have to pay him two years' severance, three years' severance, 00:13:14.880 --> 00:13:18.720 whatever in the contract if that comes to that, then we could pay him. 00:13:18.720 --> 00:13:24.640 That provision does not apply if the judge is found to have been fired for reasons of 00:13:24.640 --> 00:13:25.520 malfeasance or... 00:13:25.520 --> 00:13:26.020 Correct. 00:13:26.020 --> 00:13:29.920 Commissioner Molina-Pore? 00:13:29.920 --> 00:13:34.320 So in this contract, if they do something wildly inappropriate, we don't have to pay 00:13:34.320 --> 00:13:38.560 severance, but if it's like we like to bring them cancel and they just don't like the judge, 00:13:38.560 --> 00:13:42.240 that if they want to let them go early, that's when severance kicks in. 00:13:42.240 --> 00:13:46.800 But if they're found guilty of malfeasance or doing something inappropriate, no severance. 00:13:46.800 --> 00:13:47.300 Correct. 00:13:47.300 --> 00:13:47.800 Okay. 00:13:47.800 --> 00:13:49.600 Commissioner Johnson? 00:13:49.600 --> 00:13:55.920 The judges that are underneath the municipal judge, are they paid as well? 00:13:55.920 --> 00:13:57.300 Yes. 00:13:57.300 --> 00:14:02.640 Commissioner Jones? 00:14:02.640 --> 00:14:06.720 And I know we have one municipal judge that's here for a really long time. 00:14:06.720 --> 00:14:07.220 All the way. 00:14:07.220 --> 00:14:10.400 He was here for a year. 00:14:10.400 --> 00:14:13.360 So I guess every two years, he's pre-appointed. 00:14:13.360 --> 00:14:13.860 Yes. 00:14:13.860 --> 00:14:19.520 And we did find out our current municipal judge, Tyler Atkinson, has served since 2020. 00:14:19.520 --> 00:14:23.200 Commissioner Monge-Niguera? 00:14:25.920 --> 00:14:33.280 On the, so shifting it to four years, in my mind, does that, does that kind of help us 00:14:33.280 --> 00:14:36.640 attract talent that we can guarantee a longer term? 00:14:36.640 --> 00:14:41.520 Whereas the two years, they're like, okay, do I want to potentially upend my entire practice 00:14:41.520 --> 00:14:49.680 to maybe only work for the city two years and then run the risk for four years to kind of provide 00:14:49.680 --> 00:14:55.280 a larger pool of applicants a greater assurance that they will have some job security and 00:14:55.280 --> 00:14:59.280 independence to implement programs, things like that. 00:14:59.280 --> 00:15:02.640 I'm just trying to think of some good reason. 00:15:02.640 --> 00:15:04.160 That would make sense to me. 00:15:04.160 --> 00:15:08.000 I think it would take a lot for someone to say, okay, I'm going to step out of either 00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:13.040 my personal business or my other job to only work there for two years. 00:15:13.040 --> 00:15:16.880 Life is long, but it could be scary for some. 00:15:16.880 --> 00:15:18.480 So four years would be thoughtful. 00:15:18.480 --> 00:15:22.080 Yeah, I think that's absolutely an interpretation of it. 00:15:22.080 --> 00:15:29.360 And I think that was kind of, you know, what part of what was being addressed and considerations 00:15:29.360 --> 00:15:30.800 under stability. 00:15:30.800 --> 00:15:35.360 Commissioner Brewer, did you have a comment? 00:15:35.360 --> 00:15:36.880 Commissioner Fikes? 00:15:36.880 --> 00:15:40.800 So I guess the answer to that question is really more speculation that we think that 00:15:40.800 --> 00:15:42.960 that is probably the case. 00:15:42.960 --> 00:15:48.720 If we could, but I guess the flip side is it doesn't sound like we've ever had an issue 00:15:48.720 --> 00:15:51.200 getting talent in that role. 00:15:52.720 --> 00:15:54.000 Is that safe to say? 00:15:54.000 --> 00:15:57.200 I couldn't say yes or no. 00:15:57.200 --> 00:16:00.720 Commissioner Jones? 00:16:00.720 --> 00:16:03.440 Did you describe what it is a municipal judge does? 00:16:03.440 --> 00:16:12.000 Yeah, so they run the municipal court and the municipal court hears all of the cases 00:16:12.000 --> 00:16:15.280 that fall underneath any of the city code of ordinances. 00:16:15.280 --> 00:16:21.760 So citations that the city police give out or code enforcement or any other 00:16:22.320 --> 00:16:27.920 city department gives out for various city related offenses. 00:16:27.920 --> 00:16:31.200 Speeding tickets. 00:16:31.200 --> 00:16:33.520 Yeah, yes. 00:16:33.520 --> 00:16:48.560 I wasn't able to determine, but in regard to the concern of giving up one's practice 00:16:48.560 --> 00:16:57.520 while they are a municipal judge, does the municipal judge have control over the time 00:16:57.520 --> 00:17:00.080 that his court is in session? 00:17:00.080 --> 00:17:07.600 It could be quite possible that he could hear speeding tickets and other things from 00:17:08.400 --> 00:17:18.640 nine to noon and then do his private practice from one to five or that. 00:17:18.640 --> 00:17:30.000 I know with being at a couple of trials as a observer with things where a judge 00:17:30.000 --> 00:17:35.520 had a trial scheduled, he then ended up changing it. 00:17:36.960 --> 00:17:45.760 My other suggestion or question is that if one looks at a four-year appointment time, 00:17:45.760 --> 00:17:57.440 according to the code present, you have a municipal judge going into office on even 00:17:57.440 --> 00:18:07.920 years. So that would be the point in time where those other council are from the specific 00:18:07.920 --> 00:18:17.680 districts. The associate assistant goes in and he would also have if we give him a four-year 00:18:17.680 --> 00:18:26.960 term. It would coincide with the odd number of years of every other election that takes 00:18:26.960 --> 00:18:36.640 place to put your at-large council members in. So you have an overlap of who puts them 00:18:36.640 --> 00:18:48.720 in. You have an overlap for a timing for both positions. And doing it that way on a four-year 00:18:48.720 --> 00:19:01.680 term would give some stability to the court. It would also give stability for interacting 00:19:01.680 --> 00:19:13.200 with council and things because the different ones between your municipal judge and his 00:19:13.200 --> 00:19:23.760 assistant go in at standard times. So if this were this, when you have the election for 00:19:23.760 --> 00:19:34.080 say 2025, that would be the point at which an assistant would go in. He would be in from 00:19:34.080 --> 00:19:44.400 2025 to 2029. For the election that was held previously, meaning this year in 2024, you 00:19:44.400 --> 00:19:57.600 would have your municipal judge going in 2024 and coming out for his term in 2028. Now I 00:19:57.600 --> 00:20:09.920 did not, because totally here, if there are term limits on the judges, having that, because 00:20:09.920 --> 00:20:20.160 my research said no there wasn't, but I wanted to be sure of that. So with those kind of 00:20:20.160 --> 00:20:29.280 thoughts in mind, I think taking it to a four-year term would be appropriate. That's my thoughts 00:20:29.280 --> 00:20:33.120 based on those criteria that I thought would be appropriate. 00:20:33.120 --> 00:20:52.080 Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:20:52.080 --> 00:21:13.840 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:21:13.840 --> 00:21:32.400 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:21:32.400 --> 00:21:47.760 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:21:47.760 --> 00:22:03.280 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:22:03.280 --> 00:22:20.880 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:22:20.880 --> 00:22:34.320 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:22:34.320 --> 00:22:58.320 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:22:58.320 --> 00:23:23.280 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:23:23.280 --> 00:23:51.440 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:23:51.440 --> 00:24:17.040 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:24:17.040 --> 00:24:40.480 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:24:40.480 --> 00:24:58.960 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:24:58.960 --> 00:25:16.880 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:25:16.880 --> 00:25:32.320 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:25:32.320 --> 00:25:58.240 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:25:58.240 --> 00:26:19.680 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:26:19.680 --> 00:26:38.640 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:26:38.640 --> 00:26:54.000 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:26:54.000 --> 00:27:09.360 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:27:09.360 --> 00:27:27.600 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:27:27.600 --> 00:27:53.520 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:27:53.520 --> 00:28:08.960 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:28:08.960 --> 00:28:27.520 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:28:27.520 --> 00:28:47.600 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:28:47.600 --> 00:29:09.200 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:29:09.200 --> 00:29:30.800 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:29:30.800 --> 00:29:53.600 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:29:53.600 --> 00:30:18.800 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:30:18.800 --> 00:30:44.000 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:30:44.000 --> 00:31:06.400 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:31:06.400 --> 00:31:21.200 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:31:21.200 --> 00:31:44.160 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:31:44.160 --> 00:32:03.520 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:32:03.520 --> 00:32:27.920 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 00:32:27.920 --> 00:32:35.280 Yeah, gay marriage is a general term for, you know, two women being married or two men being married 00:32:35.280 --> 00:32:41.760 or even under current legislative framework. Like if there's a transgender man who is in a straight 00:32:41.760 --> 00:32:47.520 relationship to a woman, they'll still kind of get classed as gay by Texas likely given that 00:32:47.520 --> 00:32:52.720 their movement on transgender rights reasons. So is there a true definition for that? So when we 00:32:52.720 --> 00:33:00.720 ask the city to do that, they'll have guidelines. Civil unions would be the institution that existed 00:33:00.720 --> 00:33:07.120 prior to the legalization of gay marriage. So prior to gay marriage being legalized, civil unions 00:33:07.120 --> 00:33:13.120 were what queer couples saw when they could not receive a fully legally recognized marriage. 00:33:13.120 --> 00:33:22.080 Commissioner Danno? More of a question. Is that appropriate for a charter or should that be 00:33:22.720 --> 00:33:28.160 separately? I was asking, should that be an ordinance versus being in a charter? So just 00:33:28.160 --> 00:33:35.040 a very specific thing, right? Like charters more like overarching how you run the city, 00:33:35.040 --> 00:33:41.760 like almost like the constitution. I'm just, I'm just wondering if that should be, I mean, 00:33:41.760 --> 00:33:48.320 honestly, I'd vote for it, but should that be a, should that be a like ordinance from the city 00:33:48.320 --> 00:33:52.640 council? Like, should that be a proposal in a different way? Should I see what you're saying? 00:33:52.640 --> 00:33:56.400 Yeah. Commissioner Mungigware, did you want to respond to that? I think to your point that even 00:33:56.400 --> 00:34:02.400 the US constitution does provide civil liberty protections as well as instructions on how to work 00:34:02.400 --> 00:34:09.120 back our government. So I think this could very, this could very well be an ordinance, but I think 00:34:09.120 --> 00:34:17.280 it being into charter, I think it kind of insulates it from, yeah, like as a year to year political 00:34:17.280 --> 00:34:23.040 changes and also just makes it like that more much of a concrete protection as remote as the 00:34:23.040 --> 00:34:29.040 possibility is that this could ever, could ever happen. I think it makes it really firm that it 00:34:29.040 --> 00:34:33.520 won't be changed. So we would have to come back to what we're doing right now, a separate charter 00:34:33.520 --> 00:34:38.480 committee in a different year to discuss repealing it. So I think it just kind of insulates it from 00:34:38.480 --> 00:34:43.200 that year to year change. Yeah. My comment on that would just be that a lot of the items that we've 00:34:43.200 --> 00:34:47.200 seen, you know, there's the charts where it says other cities do this by a charter, other cities 00:34:47.200 --> 00:34:52.480 do this by ordinance. I think a lot of the items that we're discussing do have the potential to 00:34:52.480 --> 00:35:00.000 fit in either as an ordinance or as a charter. Commissioner Fice? This is a question about the 00:35:00.000 --> 00:35:09.600 legality. If our charter ordinance differs from state or federal, I don't know which one, either or both, 00:35:12.080 --> 00:35:33.840 would that expose us to a lawsuit? So, for example, like with the healthcare issue, that would 00:35:33.840 --> 00:35:39.360 just be saying that if you're in a civil union, your civil partnership partner can receive the 00:35:39.360 --> 00:35:44.240 healthcare that they previously received as your spouse, right? Because healthcare benefits transfer 00:35:44.240 --> 00:35:50.160 through marriage. So this would just be saying that we as a city are going to say, even if you're no 00:35:50.160 --> 00:35:56.000 longer perhaps married, if that right goes away, God forbid, but even if you're no longer married, 00:35:56.000 --> 00:35:59.120 you will still be able to retain that healthcare benefit. And that's something that's within the 00:35:59.120 --> 00:36:08.480 city would be my perspective on. But if at some point in the future, the state law changes where 00:36:08.480 --> 00:36:14.560 this is in is contradictory to state law, we would expose ourselves to a lawsuit. Is that is that 00:36:14.560 --> 00:36:28.720 correct, Ms. Brown? But in the past, we've been sued and then whether we've enforced it or not, 00:36:28.720 --> 00:36:42.880 correct or not? So we, I think, are at legal expense to try to defend that position. I would 00:36:42.880 --> 00:36:49.760 assume that right. Thank you. Commissioner Molina-Ford? Well, I think it's two different 00:36:49.760 --> 00:36:53.680 conversations. The Supreme Court rolling it back would just mean there's not protections offered, 00:36:53.680 --> 00:36:59.680 but the city as a private employer folks would protect their health insurance. That's different 00:36:59.680 --> 00:37:05.040 than like the state of Texas passed a law criminalizing same sex or civil unions. So this 00:37:05.040 --> 00:37:10.000 is just basically us putting in writing and solidifying that like current city employees 00:37:10.000 --> 00:37:14.160 in civil unions wouldn't lose their health insurance. I think that's a different conversation 00:37:14.160 --> 00:37:20.160 than like if the trigger amendment wouldn't make silly people per se, or having these sort of 00:37:20.160 --> 00:37:30.880 criminal. Well, like, but like, okay. Yeah, I will answer your question now. Much like a private 00:37:30.880 --> 00:37:34.800 business is allowed to offer health insurance to whoever they want, some businesses offer it to, 00:37:34.800 --> 00:37:41.120 if you're adopting other ways that they kind of handle their own open enrollment period, 00:37:41.120 --> 00:37:47.120 the city has the option to do that how they want to, to provide the insurance. This, and this, 00:37:47.120 --> 00:37:55.280 we would discuss this later we get input from the public. What this would be would just be 00:37:55.280 --> 00:37:59.440 protecting health insurance. And that's kind of where it comes down to city benefits are currently 00:37:59.440 --> 00:38:05.040 extended to all married couples, regardless of gender identity, and how that goes. So this would 00:38:05.040 --> 00:38:10.000 just be protecting that. The conversation does shift. It's a question of like, now it's illegal 00:38:10.000 --> 00:38:16.080 to be in a same sex marriage. That's when I assume our counsel would have to step in and say, well, 00:38:16.080 --> 00:38:24.800 that's got to come off the books because now it's illegal. And just to echo, again, we are merely 00:38:24.800 --> 00:38:30.960 discussing whether we would like to discuss with that in mind, unless there's anything quick. 00:38:30.960 --> 00:38:40.160 So this point of clarification to the chair, are you saying this would own this? 00:38:42.640 --> 00:38:46.400 No, no, no, it's fine. That's why I want to clarify, because we started 00:38:46.400 --> 00:38:56.960 convoluted maybe just city employees with all people. So you want, what is the, what is the 00:38:56.960 --> 00:39:03.440 intent, I guess, or what is the scope that we can protect, maybe might be a better with language? 00:39:03.440 --> 00:39:09.680 Sure. And I think that's something that we want, we would want to have presented to us by staff. 00:39:10.480 --> 00:39:16.320 Should this move on to further discussion? I have not read every single code and ordinance on the 00:39:16.320 --> 00:39:21.760 city of Denton folks, of course. So I'm not entirely sure what the scope of those protections or 00:39:21.760 --> 00:39:30.880 restrictions might be within the entire scope of Denton's ordinances. But all of the kind of like 00:39:30.880 --> 00:39:35.760 equal treatment that's within the city's rightful scope to protect or provide. 00:39:39.040 --> 00:39:45.120 So is this just for city employees? Are we trying to force the whole city, any business out there? 00:39:45.120 --> 00:39:51.760 Because you put all this cost on them and they don't want to do it. It's really an unfunded 00:39:51.760 --> 00:40:00.160 mandate. My intention with this specific proposed amendment is that when the city is involved, 00:40:00.960 --> 00:40:09.920 it treats people equally. So if, for example, there is some city provision where, for example, 00:40:09.920 --> 00:40:17.440 we have a law on the books that says that you can only have four or three or four unrelated people 00:40:17.440 --> 00:40:24.320 living in a house together, which I don't know that we've ever enforced. But within this framework, 00:40:24.320 --> 00:40:32.160 then unrelated under that would include these civil unions. So you wouldn't suddenly be subject 00:40:32.160 --> 00:40:36.000 to that if you were married and you had six people in the house and then you become unmarried because 00:40:36.000 --> 00:40:43.520 of a Supreme Court decision. Yeah, but if the city hires somebody, it's a private business. 00:40:43.520 --> 00:40:49.600 Most of the time they have to go by the guidelines the city's got. So you're putting all those 00:40:49.600 --> 00:40:56.240 guidelines on anybody that contract. I think we can discuss that. I'll hear a vote on this 00:40:56.240 --> 00:41:06.400 just to keep us moving. Or rather, I'll motion in favor of this. Second that. Second from Patrick. 00:41:06.400 --> 00:41:13.200 Let's get one point of clarification. We're merely voting on we want to discuss this. Correct. 00:41:13.200 --> 00:41:19.360 We're discussing motioning for further discussion. All right. All those in favor 00:41:19.840 --> 00:41:25.120 of merely discussing this further and not necessarily recommending it to counsel, 00:41:25.120 --> 00:41:33.440 please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. 00:41:33.440 --> 00:41:38.080 All those opposed, please raise your hand and say nay. 00:41:44.720 --> 00:41:51.360 All right. One, two, three. So we will discuss that at a further meeting. We will now move on to 00:41:51.360 --> 00:41:56.880 discussing whether or not we want to further discuss. Consider implementing a one-year residency 00:41:56.880 --> 00:42:01.680 requirement for individuals serving on a citizen or committee or commission appointed by. 00:42:01.680 --> 00:42:09.280 I do have some information on this one just to clarify the conversation. We did get some questions 00:42:10.800 --> 00:42:16.720 on each of these items. So I'll chime in for the ones that we did. But someone asked what the 00:42:16.720 --> 00:42:24.320 residency requirement is now. So currently for counsel, the charter states that counsel has to 00:42:24.320 --> 00:42:30.800 have a one-year prior to being elected residency requirement in the city of Denton. And if it's one 00:42:30.800 --> 00:42:37.120 of the seated district seats, they have to be inside of those district boundaries for one year. 00:42:37.120 --> 00:42:45.600 There is not a specific residency requirement, time specific residency requirement for anyone 00:42:45.600 --> 00:42:52.000 who serves on a volunteer board, commission or committee. That was changed a number of years ago 00:42:52.000 --> 00:42:59.360 in an effort I understand at the time was to make, there were more stipulations and more 00:42:59.360 --> 00:43:06.880 requirements for serving on boards and commissions and counsel viewed those as a barrier to people. 00:43:06.880 --> 00:43:11.600 Serving on those committees. So they kind of pulled some of those back and some of them were 00:43:11.600 --> 00:43:17.920 a residency time requirement and then also being registered to vote and that sort of thing. So 00:43:17.920 --> 00:43:21.440 that's just a little bit of background information to frame the conversation. 00:43:21.440 --> 00:43:27.760 Commissioner Molina for. Yeah, I'd like to hear more about this. I'm really interested to see 00:43:27.760 --> 00:43:34.400 what the one year is and what we would be limiting ourselves out of in terms of like, for example, 00:43:34.400 --> 00:43:38.400 somebody moves to Denton and they have amazing qualifications to be on traffic safety and then 00:43:38.400 --> 00:43:44.320 they have to wait a year. You know, they're still paying into Denton Electricity, Denton services, 00:43:44.320 --> 00:43:48.160 buying their groceries in Denton, being in Dentonite, but they don't get the honor of 00:43:48.160 --> 00:43:52.560 serving on a board. I mean, these are volunteer positions. I get a one year requirement for 00:43:52.560 --> 00:43:56.320 counsel, like maybe don't move here from Dallas and River City Council without actually being here for 00:43:56.320 --> 00:44:01.040 a year. That's different. You make big decisions. I think this should be open to people. If you're 00:44:01.040 --> 00:44:05.200 a registered voter, the current, you know, stipulations that are already on serving on a 00:44:05.200 --> 00:44:11.120 committee, I would like to hear more on this and get some more staff input of why a one year 00:44:11.120 --> 00:44:20.400 requirement is necessary. Commissioner Fikes. Is there a motion? Oh, is that a motion? Can I motion 00:44:20.400 --> 00:44:26.240 with my discussion first? We can motion and then discuss. Oh, yeah, so I would make a motion to. 00:44:28.000 --> 00:44:35.040 Well, please, please let her finish the motion. I would move to discuss implementing a one year 00:44:35.040 --> 00:44:42.080 resident requirement at a later meeting. Is that the recording? Second by Commissioner Fikes. 00:44:42.080 --> 00:44:45.680 Discussion. Commissioner Rumsky. 00:44:49.120 --> 00:44:58.160 As one who probably within this room is one of the newer that might have moved here in October 14. 00:44:58.160 --> 00:45:08.160 Trying to learn about the city, about, you know, further understand the resident. 00:45:09.600 --> 00:45:21.360 If I were to try to run less than a year for something or even at a year for city council. 00:45:21.360 --> 00:45:26.320 I might clarify. OK, this is not about city council. This is about four dimensions. 00:45:26.320 --> 00:45:35.360 True. But I would also like to extend the idea of looking into city council members, 00:45:36.080 --> 00:45:45.520 perhaps a two year residency. So that was why I was bringing it up. OK, and I would like to suggest 00:45:45.520 --> 00:46:03.040 a two year residency. So taking from. I agree it needs a further discussion. 00:46:05.440 --> 00:46:13.040 Now, I know I'm older to me, but anyway, Commissioner Johnson. 00:46:13.040 --> 00:46:22.080 So we are discussing the length of a person can be in the city for a year. 00:46:22.080 --> 00:46:24.640 But are we talking about? 00:46:28.480 --> 00:46:37.600 About a person. You know, Philip said in the same way that we in the same. 00:46:37.600 --> 00:46:48.640 What I can say, we're talking about number two. I'm sorry. Yeah, my bad. Oh, OK. 00:46:54.320 --> 00:47:01.600 Mr. Daniel, I don't need to discuss people. I'd like to. OK, all right. I'm going to be 00:47:01.600 --> 00:47:06.560 voting now just because I'm currently looking at the list of vacancies for boards and commissions. 00:47:06.560 --> 00:47:11.600 It's quite long with the current restrictions. So with that said, 00:47:11.600 --> 00:47:17.120 everybody who is in favor of further discussion, please raise your hand and say aye. 00:47:19.760 --> 00:47:26.560 One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. All right. All those opposed, 00:47:26.560 --> 00:47:39.200 we will hear further discussions on that at a later meeting. Item three, 00:47:39.200 --> 00:47:44.160 consider moving municipal elections from May to November. Do we have that presentation? 00:47:45.920 --> 00:47:52.720 I don't have a presentation, and maybe Amanda can discuss the legal implications of this just briefly. 00:47:52.720 --> 00:48:02.880 Sorry. The current state law really does not allow for them based on the way that it's. 00:48:02.880 --> 00:48:11.840 I'm going to start with any further questions on that before. 00:48:14.480 --> 00:48:18.640 Witness this be more like a trigger, though, that if those that did change, 00:48:18.640 --> 00:48:28.240 if the state legislature saw this, I would just say, you know, we have other stuff to talk about. 00:48:28.240 --> 00:48:33.280 It doesn't seem like. Well, personally, I would love all of that. I would love all 00:48:33.280 --> 00:48:37.280 elections to be in November. It doesn't seem like the city should invest time and resources 00:48:37.280 --> 00:48:42.480 into figuring out how to un-convolute state law when we've got like other things to talk about. 00:48:42.480 --> 00:48:47.760 So I would not recommend another discussion about this with the way the state law is written now. 00:48:47.760 --> 00:48:52.320 Commissioner Frensky. I agree with your 00:48:52.320 --> 00:49:01.200 recommendations having worked the elections as well as being a voter registrar. Since 2015, 00:49:01.200 --> 00:49:09.920 knowing that the state under the secretary of state is in control as to whether municipal 00:49:09.920 --> 00:49:17.520 elections are, the May elections, besides having the council members, also has your school board. 00:49:17.520 --> 00:49:26.720 So that is a consistent audit. Another reason to not discuss or even try it 00:49:26.720 --> 00:49:35.520 is that the way the elections run is in May or as well as in November. 00:49:38.640 --> 00:49:43.840 Elections board has certain fees that go toward 00:49:43.840 --> 00:49:53.600 being expensed out either by the city, by the school board, or when it's a national election, 00:49:53.600 --> 00:50:01.120 it's by the state. So the other thing is that having worked the elections 00:50:02.400 --> 00:50:09.760 and having several people come in and ask me what's on the ballot, who's on the ballot, 00:50:09.760 --> 00:50:17.920 who am I supposed to vote for, what does this bond mean, and as a worker one cannot 00:50:17.920 --> 00:50:28.320 lead them to anything other than literature. So if you put everybody and using this year as an 00:50:28.320 --> 00:50:36.400 example you're going to have a very full down ballot and if you put the councils on in that 00:50:36.400 --> 00:50:45.360 they're going to be way down at the bottom and by that time people will perhaps, and I've seen where 00:50:45.360 --> 00:50:55.680 ballots have not been because of going through the app, they don't even vote. So with that in mind, 00:50:55.680 --> 00:51:07.360 I agree with you. Commissioner Ezekiel? Okay I just want to understand that the law that we're 00:51:07.360 --> 00:51:12.240 working under now says we can't move home. Correct, right now. That's what I want to know. 00:51:12.240 --> 00:51:24.000 Is it recent or a long time? No, it's been a while. Okay. 00:51:26.640 --> 00:51:31.760 Commissioner Kirk? To some of those points I forgive you, including I don't know if there's 00:51:31.760 --> 00:51:37.040 any cost to us to do this. The idea of this is if we have the opportunity where the state does pass 00:51:37.040 --> 00:51:43.200 this and move it to November. Some of the benefits I see, larger turnout, more democracy in play, 00:51:43.200 --> 00:51:49.520 as the gentleman noted earlier, much greater percentage of people voting. And I very much 00:51:49.520 --> 00:51:55.520 appreciate your service too. I've done that a bit myself but you're always going to have those type 00:51:55.520 --> 00:52:00.880 of questions at all the elections. I mean also too that there is a bit of a cost savings to the 00:52:00.880 --> 00:52:05.200 city if we're having elections all at one time instead of having them all at one time. There 00:52:05.200 --> 00:52:08.960 actually isn't because we have to pay for the May and for the November with the county. So there is, 00:52:08.960 --> 00:52:13.440 and then correct me if I'm wrong to the staff on that, but we're paying each time we have an 00:52:13.440 --> 00:52:17.680 election. But for me the biggest thing is having more democracy, more people participating in the 00:52:17.680 --> 00:52:34.080 process and I'll leave it at that. All right, do we have a motion? Okay, so we have a motion 00:52:34.080 --> 00:52:39.840 on the floor to not move forward with further discussion of moving municipal elections from 00:52:39.840 --> 00:52:46.960 May to November. All those in favor of not further discussing moving the elections, please raise your 00:52:46.960 --> 00:52:56.560 hand and say aye. Aye. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. All those who would 00:52:56.560 --> 00:53:04.880 like to vote or all those not in favor of not discussing moving municipal elections from May 00:53:04.880 --> 00:53:10.320 to November, please raise your hand and say aye. Ten, two, we will not be further discussing 00:53:11.840 --> 00:53:17.840 moving municipal elections from May to November. Item four, consider modifying the total years 00:53:17.840 --> 00:53:26.160 allowed for residents to serve on council. Do we have presentation? Yeah, just a bit of a setting 00:53:26.160 --> 00:53:33.840 the stage. The current charter stipulates three consecutive terms to one place, but you can serve 00:53:33.840 --> 00:53:42.000 consecutive terms in another place up to 12 years consecutively. And then once you've been on 12 00:53:42.000 --> 00:53:50.800 years consecutively, you would have to sit out one cycle, one annual, one year. So that's the current, 00:53:50.800 --> 00:54:00.800 but you can, there's no, I know. So for example, council member and then mayor Watts, I believe, 00:54:00.800 --> 00:54:07.360 did six years as a counselor, six years as mayor, and then was forced to take one year off of council 00:54:07.360 --> 00:54:14.160 and then he returned. So that's kind of the maximal amount of council serving that you can do 00:54:14.160 --> 00:54:20.800 under the current setup. And he could have chosen to run again for his next term, but he did not. 00:54:20.800 --> 00:54:27.920 So he wasn't limited by that. Does it apply to districts versus at-large versus, as you said, 00:54:27.920 --> 00:54:37.920 six years? Yeah, so you can do three terms in one seat and then run three terms in another. So that's 00:54:37.920 --> 00:54:44.480 six years each, so that's 12. The 12th we have. Correct. It's mayor at-large or? Correct. 00:54:46.640 --> 00:54:59.920 Let me see that. Let me see that one year. Further questions for staff before we get to discussion? 00:54:59.920 --> 00:55:08.240 I'm sorry. So just the number of districts, one through six, those all count in the same. Sorry, 00:55:08.240 --> 00:55:12.640 I'm just clarifying Michelle's point. So doesn't matter if you're a single member, single, 00:55:13.520 --> 00:55:17.840 single network? No, at-large versus single district, that still counts as the same. 00:55:17.840 --> 00:55:20.800 And then mayors in other categories are just A or B. They're called ABC. 00:55:20.800 --> 00:55:32.000 Mayor and at-large are the same. But there's two possibilities. Right, right. Okay. So you could, 00:55:32.000 --> 00:55:38.960 for our team member, Amanda, you could run in a single member district, serve for six years, 00:55:38.960 --> 00:55:44.320 and then run in one of the at-large or run for mayor for another three consecutive terms for six 00:55:44.320 --> 00:55:52.160 years. It's just the maximum that you can serve continuously in any seat is 12 years, and then 00:55:52.160 --> 00:55:56.800 you have to sit out one year. Commissioner Kirkpatrick? But then to clarify, they can 00:55:56.800 --> 00:56:03.040 repeat the cycle. There's no maximum lifetimes, it's the maximum. 00:56:05.360 --> 00:56:10.160 Commissioner Montegor? So I would move that we have no further discussion on this matter 00:56:10.160 --> 00:56:16.960 in the future meeting. I think I personally, not for term limits, but I think this is a fine 00:56:16.960 --> 00:56:22.240 compromise to say that someone should cycle off. I think 12 years is definitely long enough to 00:56:22.240 --> 00:56:28.320 serve in any one capacity. I think we've seen that just because you can't end up a seat for 00:56:28.320 --> 00:56:34.480 a long time doesn't guarantee you that necessarily. But I also think that if you have popular support 00:56:34.480 --> 00:56:38.880 from the majority of Denton voters, then you should be able to serve, but you shouldn't be 00:56:38.880 --> 00:56:43.840 able to serve more than 12. I think you've got that right now. So I would move that we keep it 00:56:43.840 --> 00:56:48.800 just like it is, no further discussion. Do I hear a second? Second from Commissioner 00:56:48.800 --> 00:56:53.680 Ronski. Discussion of the motion? Just to clarify, it's not a 12-year cap, 00:56:53.680 --> 00:56:58.320 because they can repeat the cycle. Just to clarify that. It's not, it's just two points. 00:56:58.320 --> 00:57:04.480 Oh, I apologize. That's what I was asking earlier. That was 12, taking you off again, again, again. 00:57:04.480 --> 00:57:08.240 They could run into or they passed. They could. 00:57:08.240 --> 00:57:19.280 Further discussion? Commissioner Ronski? I was just going to comment. I was 00:57:19.280 --> 00:57:24.240 kind of thinking that just because you run doesn't mean you're going to get back in. 00:57:24.880 --> 00:57:32.640 So if during that 12 years and they're off for a year, and then they want to come back, 00:57:32.640 --> 00:57:41.440 they may not get it. So that would be accountable. But I agree with the motion as presented by Peter 00:57:41.440 --> 00:57:52.400 that this really doesn't need to go any further. All right. All those in favor of not further 00:57:52.400 --> 00:57:58.160 discussing, modifying the total years allowed for residents to serve on council, please raise 00:57:58.160 --> 00:58:11.200 your hands and say aye. Aye. Five, six, seven. All those not in favor of not discussing, 00:58:11.200 --> 00:58:16.080 modifying the total years allowed for residents to serve on council, please raise your hands. 00:58:19.680 --> 00:58:25.120 I believe that the structure of this is that there should be a consensus and at least eight 00:58:25.120 --> 00:58:29.840 committee members to move forward with the item. So I will hear a motion and the affirmative simply 00:58:29.840 --> 00:58:40.640 to hit that item. Is that rule applied for everything we vote on or just for will be pushed 00:58:40.640 --> 00:58:47.440 to council? Because we're just asking for more discussion. My understanding is that this is 00:58:47.440 --> 00:58:53.440 essentially kind of working under the same rules as the two minute pitch over at city council where 00:58:53.440 --> 00:59:01.440 majority of city council would need to support it to be further discussed. So based off of the 00:59:01.440 --> 00:59:06.560 results of the prior vote, I don't think that we will achieve a majority to bring this towards 00:59:06.560 --> 00:59:11.600 further discussion. But the motion was not the affirmative for bringing it to further discussion. 00:59:11.600 --> 00:59:18.240 So I'm just gonna hear a motion to that regard so that we can fail that criteria. So this is 00:59:18.240 --> 00:59:23.200 different than other things that are on because this is a pre-discussion to have a discussion 00:59:23.200 --> 00:59:26.880 on like other things that we said we're going to bring back if they don't make or 00:59:26.880 --> 00:59:30.480 if we have this really affirmative and it dies, you know, talk about it again. Correct. 00:59:30.480 --> 00:59:40.960 So on that note, I'll motion that we consider or have a further discussion, consider 00:59:40.960 --> 00:59:45.760 I think modifying the total years allowed for residents to serve on council. Can I hear a second? 00:59:45.760 --> 00:59:50.960 Second. Second. All right. All those in favor of further discussion, please raise your right hand 00:59:50.960 --> 00:59:56.800 and say aye. All those opposed, raise your right hand and say nay. Motion fails. We will not have 00:59:56.800 --> 01:00:05.520 further discussion of that item. All right. That brings us to item five. Consider modifying 01:00:05.520 --> 01:00:14.160 the eligibility for holding elected office and appointments. I'll put this out there. I'll 01:00:14.160 --> 01:00:20.960 be really quick on it. What this was supposed to do is that if you could vote, if you took the time 01:00:20.960 --> 01:00:27.120 to go register to vote, get on the boards, six months. Thanks for looking at it here up here. 01:00:30.320 --> 01:00:38.960 That's my opinion. If you don't care to go register to vote in the city council person 01:00:38.960 --> 01:00:48.720 that appointed you can't vote for them. I have a question for staff. Can you give us any 01:00:48.720 --> 01:00:52.480 history as to there not being a voter registration requirement? 01:00:54.960 --> 01:01:01.520 I would have to do a little bit more research to be sure anecdotally as I understand it a 01:01:01.520 --> 01:01:07.040 number of years ago there were requirements that you be a registered voter in the city of Denton 01:01:07.040 --> 01:01:13.280 in order to serve on boards and commissions and that was a part of council's decision a 01:01:13.280 --> 01:01:20.400 number of years ago. They have to get more information on it to be exact but to remove 01:01:20.400 --> 01:01:29.680 some of the barriers for people serving on boards and commissions. Thank you. Any other 01:01:29.680 --> 01:01:34.880 questions on this before discussion? Questions prior to discussion? All right discussion. 01:01:34.880 --> 01:01:43.680 Yeah I think Terrell and Ray said well we have a ton of vacancies on all of our existing boards. 01:01:43.680 --> 01:01:51.600 I don't know that we can afford to be adding on extra term limits for all of our board members 01:01:51.600 --> 01:01:57.440 that would go beyond any one of our council members. I think chair I'm sorry chair commissioner 01:01:57.440 --> 01:02:02.640 I believe before pointed out that we want to make sure we get good qualified people on here too 01:02:02.640 --> 01:02:08.080 and experience is important on these boards and I worry about someone who does serve on 01:02:08.080 --> 01:02:14.080 there for however many terms doing a great job but they have to leave and then wait to come back 01:02:14.080 --> 01:02:18.800 and in that gap we lose all that collective experience. I think it's good to have fresh 01:02:18.800 --> 01:02:24.160 blood I think it's good to have fresh voices and I would have met I can't really imagine anyone 01:02:24.160 --> 01:02:30.080 who's currently sitting on any of our board is not registered to vote but I just hesitate to have any 01:02:30.080 --> 01:02:35.520 any further conversation about creating new barriers when we have so many people on the 01:02:35.520 --> 01:02:47.280 boards already. The current requirements are just that you'd be 18 years of age or older 01:02:47.280 --> 01:03:05.840 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. 01:03:05.840 --> 01:03:24.720 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. 01:03:24.720 --> 01:03:32.800 As a non-U.S. citizen you're not registered to vote. That's correct yeah that's that's my understanding of 01:03:32.800 --> 01:03:38.400 the history as well. I would add another population that this would eliminate from the pool of 01:03:38.400 --> 01:03:44.960 potential folks would be folks who are currently on like felony parole which you know felony is 01:03:44.960 --> 01:03:51.440 a scary term but you can get a felony for owning too much right or you might have gotten a felony 01:03:51.440 --> 01:03:58.080 for something and have served your time and now you're just on parole and maybe you know the civil 01:03:58.080 --> 01:04:06.720 services or the the boards that relate to issues of felons issues right you might want to serve on that 01:04:06.720 --> 01:04:12.800 because those are issues that directly affect you and of course we do have a large portion of our 01:04:12.800 --> 01:04:19.280 neighbors of our community that may not be able to register to vote because they are not naturalized 01:04:19.280 --> 01:04:29.520 citizens yet and so yeah i i would not give further discussion on that but anyone else all right 01:04:29.520 --> 01:04:37.840 commissioner uh but kind of in this idea of kind of getting our best and brightest and trying to 01:04:37.840 --> 01:04:41.280 recruit people of talent and skill this is a thing that we want to think about i work at the 01:04:41.280 --> 01:04:45.680 university more in texas and we have lots of non-citizens who are here and engaged in our 01:04:45.680 --> 01:04:51.040 community they're here teaching their own faculty they might have a real like level of expertise to 01:04:51.040 --> 01:04:54.800 bring to some of our boards and commissions but they can't push through both our churches and 01:04:54.800 --> 01:05:03.440 all right um we are going or do we have a question i'll make a motion not to have any further 01:05:03.440 --> 01:05:12.080 discussion motion not to have any further discussion uh second second by commissioner patrick uh all 01:05:12.080 --> 01:05:16.880 those in favor of not having further discussion uh please raise your right hand say i 01:05:16.880 --> 01:05:26.720 one two four five six seven eight all those opposed to not having further discussion please 01:05:26.720 --> 01:05:33.520 raise your right hand say aye commissioner ramsey uh commissioner mccler uh two um so we will not 01:05:33.520 --> 01:05:37.600 have further discussion on that for my own sanity uh let's make motions in the affirmative 01:05:40.560 --> 01:05:47.200 even even if you uh you're doing so well want to not discuss something please say i do not want 01:05:47.200 --> 01:05:52.400 to discuss this but i'm motioning that we discuss it further and i will be voting no on that motion 01:05:52.400 --> 01:06:00.000 just to make the motions here um that brings us to item six consider adding language regarding 01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:05.440 the increase in rates or fees on citizens or businesses um wait a minute we skipped the other 01:06:05.440 --> 01:06:12.240 two bullet points there were two points is part of this oh 01:06:12.240 --> 01:06:19.200 oh i thought we took that as a whole item i would that was my understanding as well 01:06:19.200 --> 01:06:28.800 um okay um no we can we can return to item five um i will say i did bring up the third bullet 01:06:28.800 --> 01:06:35.600 point in regards to the maximum two mile length of boards per year and then having to cycle off uh let's take 01:06:35.600 --> 01:06:40.800 the last two items as a vote together so the last two items being all residents all denham residents 01:06:40.800 --> 01:06:45.200 who will hold uh or is running for a publicly elected office shall be registered uh in the city 01:06:45.200 --> 01:06:50.320 of denham and any registered voters who may be appointed and serve on a maximum of two elected 01:06:50.320 --> 01:06:54.560 boards per year at the same time city council members term must wait the same length of time 01:06:54.560 --> 01:07:01.120 so uh commissioner mcclar would you like to speak to this yes i mean i think if you're running for 01:07:01.120 --> 01:07:06.640 the elected office in denham texas you ought to be at least a registered voter here that that means 01:07:06.640 --> 01:07:13.760 that you don't have to be a citizen to be on our elected boards that are running you know in our 01:07:13.760 --> 01:07:23.280 city and the second one uh is that i feel you don't want a person it's kind of like someone 01:07:23.280 --> 01:07:28.800 what Peter was saying is to be there for a long period of time and they need to cycle off 01:07:28.800 --> 01:07:34.880 because if you get the same people on the boards all the time you don't get the same outcomes now 01:07:34.880 --> 01:07:42.880 they're gonna be good bad that's why we have term limits for city council commissioner melina for 01:07:42.880 --> 01:07:46.640 i have a really annoying technical question so it says little holder is running for public elected 01:07:46.640 --> 01:07:51.680 office we're appointed by council so we're not is that that's different this is like if you're 01:07:51.680 --> 01:07:57.840 running for any any city elected office so the city yeah so that is really taking care of the 01:07:57.840 --> 01:08:02.480 state election code in order to be like i just live in peace you have to be a resident uh for 01:08:02.480 --> 01:08:07.760 six months the state of texas has requirements on like what makes you eligible to vote uh i 01:08:07.760 --> 01:08:16.160 is being registered voters being eligible is that party in there somebody not a registered voters 01:08:16.800 --> 01:08:24.080 not a citizen run get elected in our city city city any elected office in the city 01:08:24.080 --> 01:08:29.040 how about the rest of the city 01:08:29.040 --> 01:08:39.600 one speaker at a time please one one speaker at a time one speaker at a time please 01:08:39.600 --> 01:08:45.760 i don't know there's a lot of elected offices in the city 01:08:46.800 --> 01:08:47.680 said city council 01:08:47.680 --> 01:08:58.640 so the only elected office we have is the city council and that's already cut 01:08:58.640 --> 01:09:08.800 all right um so since we've all clarified with our city attorney that that's already good we 01:09:08.800 --> 01:09:19.760 restrict that okay um i i would motion that we not or sorry i would motion that we have further 01:09:19.760 --> 01:09:25.920 discussion uh on the term limits for board information that's proposed by commissioner 01:09:25.920 --> 01:09:31.280 mcclure i'll be voting no on that i think cycling people out every two years for say planning and 01:09:31.280 --> 01:09:38.560 zoning which is highly technical board uh it's not going to be the best so uh do i hear a second 01:09:38.560 --> 01:09:45.360 second all right so the motion is in the affirmative for further discussion if you 01:09:45.360 --> 01:09:49.440 vote yes for this you're voting for further discussion if you vote no you're voting against 01:09:49.440 --> 01:09:56.800 the discussion all those in favor of further discussion of the two-year term limits uh to 01:09:56.800 --> 01:10:01.520 summarize uh as proposed by commissioner mcclure please raise your hand say aye 01:10:01.520 --> 01:10:10.480 i i don't i guess just further discussion further discussion on the side okay can we 01:10:10.480 --> 01:10:19.520 are you voting well no i'm trying to further further just discussion i have okay i apologize 01:10:19.520 --> 01:10:27.680 okay what we have are two things number one is serving on a maximum of two non-elective boards 01:10:27.680 --> 01:10:38.320 i believe we already have that is already in place i could be wrong so to take this further 01:10:38.320 --> 01:10:46.080 i would suggest taking this further in regard to being on the maximum of two non-elective boards 01:10:47.040 --> 01:10:54.720 the issue of the same time frame as a city council member's term each each board 01:10:54.720 --> 01:11:06.320 has its own term and some of them are three years and some of them are five years and it's based on 01:11:06.320 --> 01:11:16.400 it's not based on the city council member's term so really the the meat of this one would be 01:11:17.120 --> 01:11:28.800 to serve discuss whether they could be on board and two boards and then after their respective 01:11:28.800 --> 01:11:39.520 committee term that they would have to leave out but one of the reasons that people don't 01:11:39.520 --> 01:11:47.520 necessarily wait out is because no one else is willing to volunteer to be on the board 01:11:47.520 --> 01:11:57.600 so motion again further discussion of term limits and maximum number of boards that you can serve 01:11:57.600 --> 01:12:04.000 on all those in favor please raise your right hand say aye to have more discussion on the side 01:12:04.800 --> 01:12:14.720 one two uh all those opposed please raise your hand seven uh we will not have further discussion 01:12:14.720 --> 01:12:25.920 on that item um items six can't we if we don't get a motion or a second to a motion then it 01:12:25.920 --> 01:12:32.400 just dies as well so if we don't get a motion to discuss it you see what i'm saying so like 01:12:32.400 --> 01:12:37.280 if we didn't have a second to that motion or we don't get a motion instead of making a motion 01:12:37.280 --> 01:12:42.800 and the negative if we just don't get a motion then nobody can hear us like that makes sense 01:12:42.800 --> 01:12:49.040 we can all sit here quietly for two exactly yeah but that might be easier too we can move forward 01:12:49.040 --> 01:12:57.680 all right item six consider adding language regarding the increase in rates or fees on 01:12:57.680 --> 01:13:04.800 citizens or businesses uh do we have no staff presentation on this uh would whoever's item 01:13:04.800 --> 01:13:16.400 this is like to speak to it i did it okay i did it so what what this is the city it bought two 01:13:16.400 --> 01:13:25.120 gas turbine power plants built up so we got two massive power plants and so in 21 we had a freeze 01:13:25.120 --> 01:13:33.680 and the gas got cut to those plants so we had to go out go out on the grid and buy electricity 01:13:33.680 --> 01:13:40.720 at a high price so what i understood when they raised our rates city range for electricity 01:13:40.720 --> 01:13:48.240 like in july 20 to 30 percent it was to retire those bonds that cost that debt that we have 01:13:49.040 --> 01:13:56.160 well my concern is once that debt is paid are they going to take away that fee to the citizens 01:13:56.160 --> 01:14:01.360 are they going to leave it on there and what i'm asking them to do is once that debt's paid reduce 01:14:01.360 --> 01:14:12.480 it down for the citizens your amendment would be that if a bond is retired that the any increase 01:14:12.480 --> 01:14:18.400 of fees or anything to retire that debt needs to go away and not be continuing to stay on there 01:14:18.400 --> 01:14:25.920 so the city citizens have to pay commissioner malino for information so let's say winter from 01:14:25.920 --> 01:14:31.520 yuri we all got a surcharge like we the electricity customers were paying whatever the city incurred 01:14:31.520 --> 01:14:35.600 debt whenever they paid that debt off you're asking that like our rates would go back down 01:14:35.600 --> 01:14:41.600 i think they might raise the rates somewhere else yeah but we wouldn't be paying like a continual 01:14:41.600 --> 01:14:46.000 you know because if they keep doing that sooner or later you know it's kind of like when we get to 01:14:46.000 --> 01:14:52.080 the end point they say well we need money for something like what's going on does staff have 01:14:52.080 --> 01:15:03.680 a comment here i would like to get more about i would i would like to discuss this further i think 01:15:03.680 --> 01:15:07.040 it's a really interesting idea and i think it's worthy of our time in discussion so i would make 01:15:07.040 --> 01:15:16.560 a motion that we put this on the agenda to consider motion by uh for the discussion 01:15:16.560 --> 01:15:22.240 all those in favor of further discussion please raise your right hands and say i 01:15:23.840 --> 01:15:38.480 all those opposed all right all right uh moving on to um item seven consider adding language 01:15:38.480 --> 01:15:44.880 regarding the cost of new regulations uh commissioner mcclure again in other words if they pass something 01:15:44.880 --> 01:15:50.720 to the citizens they need to tell the citizens you know what it's going to cost 01:15:51.840 --> 01:15:57.200 because if we have a vote on it you don't know it's going to cost you whatever then they may not 01:15:57.200 --> 01:16:05.280 you might vote against it to clarify is this regulations in terms of like the city putting 01:16:05.280 --> 01:16:10.800 something on itself and the cost to the city or would this be like if we pass something that says 01:16:10.800 --> 01:16:15.760 businesses must do this or must do that we have to calculate the total cost of business you know 01:16:15.760 --> 01:16:24.080 anything that they come down and at least that gives the citizens a chance to say well that's 01:16:24.080 --> 01:16:37.440 too much it's just so having worked in the in the legislature a couple times they do something like 01:16:37.440 --> 01:16:42.960 this we do a fiscal note and they have something called budget council that is an army of attorneys 01:16:42.960 --> 01:16:48.960 and budget analysts about a couple hundred people that they'll call into municipalities and try to 01:16:48.960 --> 01:16:54.800 ascertain how much something's going to cost i think they do a great job but even the information 01:16:54.800 --> 01:16:59.920 that they provide is extremely limited and it's a lot just based on self-reporting like they're 01:16:59.920 --> 01:17:04.480 not they don't have like economists and they're like running like econometric schemes like they're 01:17:04.480 --> 01:17:12.960 not hiring very frequent i think it was named to do like giant fiscal analyses i think the the idea 01:17:12.960 --> 01:17:20.240 itself in principle is really good but i'm really concerned that we would have to hire additional 01:17:20.240 --> 01:17:27.040 city staff or put extra work on our current city staff to do budget analysis that 01:17:27.040 --> 01:17:33.840 is really only being done at the congressional budget office in washington dc they can look at 01:17:34.480 --> 01:17:38.640 like how far out does this thing go to affect the entire economy so i'm just concerned about 01:17:38.640 --> 01:17:44.480 what what the cost would look like on the taxpayer whether or not we're going to see any kind of 01:17:44.480 --> 01:17:50.800 budget savings or if it's going to be offset by any increase that we're not already getting from 01:17:50.800 --> 01:17:55.840 our local news outlets or from concerned citizens who can crunch the numbers by their private 01:17:55.840 --> 01:18:03.840 experience i understand that if the citizens are not over this kind of cost they have to do this 01:18:03.840 --> 01:18:13.680 budget inside work where it's going to cost you a hundred dollars on office and the citizens will 01:18:13.680 --> 01:18:19.600 know i that's maybe that's too much yeah but it's moving back and they might not they're not passing 01:18:19.600 --> 01:18:23.200 yeah i'm just concerned with how i get that information in the first place 01:18:23.200 --> 01:18:29.760 uh commissioner melina for are there any you know like current examples or something like does the 01:18:29.760 --> 01:18:35.360 city mandate i don't know energy efficient lighting i i i'm having a record to wrap it around like i 01:18:35.360 --> 01:18:39.200 get to take on a big right i get a big picture you want to make sure that like private businesses are 01:18:39.200 --> 01:18:43.440 not like running a town because the city is passing regulation that's a million dollars i'm just 01:18:43.440 --> 01:18:50.560 smaller examples or i'm really like hands-on so like narrowing the staff from a big picture is 01:18:51.200 --> 01:19:04.720 why the question do you mean okay there is something that has been discussed it's in the works 01:19:04.720 --> 01:19:10.800 not sure when it's going to formally come up in council but what i think that commissioner 01:19:10.800 --> 01:19:19.280 mcclure is referring to is what is a unfunded mandate if it's something that's done as a bond 01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:30.160 with the bond commission or group and recommended it to the council the council put it on the ballot 01:19:30.160 --> 01:19:41.520 the citizens vote for it so any expenditures to finance that bond to repay it would come out of 01:19:43.280 --> 01:19:50.960 being known you know and and expensed if somebody comes up with an unfunded mandate and the one i am 01:19:50.960 --> 01:20:00.240 looking for right now is building a new city hall that was something that did not go through 01:20:00.240 --> 01:20:11.680 the bond committee it did not go on the ballot but yet there is discussion on that it doesn't mean 01:20:11.680 --> 01:20:19.280 that i'm against a new city hall but if it's an unfunded mandate it means where's the money 01:20:19.280 --> 01:20:31.440 your general fund for your expenses and your interest is coming from taxes the thing is like 01:20:31.440 --> 01:20:42.080 a 55 million dollar new library is supposed to come from getting out bonds so we therefore 01:20:42.080 --> 01:20:50.160 have something that's unfunded the expenses are there is it going to totally come out of the 01:20:50.160 --> 01:20:57.040 general fund and if it comes out of the general fund that's going to increase the city's yearly 01:20:57.040 --> 01:21:04.880 budget which is then going to be reflected on what millage which is what we call it okay 01:21:04.880 --> 01:21:15.200 but what your tax rate is based on 100 percent um you're not 100 the hundred dollar breakout 01:21:15.200 --> 01:21:22.640 of your home there so i think that people should have a little bit more 01:21:24.080 --> 01:21:32.800 input on these unfunded mandates and to that end taking it a little bit further within our 01:21:32.800 --> 01:21:40.800 discussion and utilizing some additional information from city staff thank you 01:21:40.800 --> 01:21:46.880 all right i think commissioner ross makes a great point i think that's more applicable to point nine 01:21:46.880 --> 01:21:52.080 which specifies unfunded mandates one seven which is the question of the regulations 01:21:52.960 --> 01:21:57.120 i would like to just hold a space for someone to potentially make a motion or not make a motion 01:21:57.120 --> 01:22:02.640 uh because i think we're having two different regulations versus unfunded mandate are both on 01:22:02.640 --> 01:22:09.760 the agenda yeah can i start my word i'm a little confused because i've i've only ever used the term 01:22:09.760 --> 01:22:18.240 unfunded mandate in the context of of like a state law coming down to the local and it is not there's 01:22:18.240 --> 01:22:24.800 no funding to implement that like when the state texas recently passed laws on school safety and 01:22:24.800 --> 01:22:30.800 said that there needs to be additional sros in our public schools there was not money attached to 01:22:30.800 --> 01:22:37.600 that it was a an edict and then they said find the money so that to me is what an unfunded mandate 01:22:37.600 --> 01:22:45.120 is i'm confused what we're talking about because this makes i understand commissioner mcclar's 01:22:45.760 --> 01:22:52.560 number seven right here as being about regulations but to me number nine would be the exact same 01:22:52.560 --> 01:22:58.880 thing i guess i don't understand number nine is what you're saying is unfunded is coming from 01:22:58.880 --> 01:23:04.720 the state or whatever is forcing it on to the state nobody said unfunded mandate like you're 01:23:04.720 --> 01:23:09.920 talking about exactly cost us a lot of money i think if the citizens know that 01:23:14.320 --> 01:23:19.040 that's what comes out of fiscal notes from protectors like to like they they provide those 01:23:19.040 --> 01:23:23.440 numbers on what they think it's going to cost or at least that they say that the cities are saying 01:23:23.440 --> 01:23:29.120 it's going to cost what i do think is so the citizens can look at the city commissioner 01:23:29.120 --> 01:23:37.520 just real briefly i mean i guess an example i'm still not sure that an example would be like every 01:23:37.520 --> 01:23:44.400 for any business to get a co they had to have fire suppression like spring instead of some other i 01:23:44.400 --> 01:23:54.480 guess then you would want some i'm not sure the regulation like that would be through or notified 01:23:54.480 --> 01:24:07.680 such different do i hear any motion on this 01:24:07.680 --> 01:24:20.960 i make a motion that we take the item in regard to the city council vote if the city council 01:24:20.960 --> 01:24:26.960 votes to change or new regulations and that could come into also 01:24:26.960 --> 01:24:42.560 as well as item nine be taken up for further discussion at a future meeting 01:24:42.560 --> 01:24:46.160 you would your motion is that we hear both seven and nine 01:24:47.840 --> 01:24:58.400 correct we took this aspect in line okay i move that the second floor on your aspect number nine 01:24:58.400 --> 01:25:05.360 or seven rather as well as number nine be consolidated 01:25:08.080 --> 01:25:21.840 and taken to further discussion do i hear a second on that 01:25:21.840 --> 01:25:28.560 all right hearing no second uh that motion will not proceed do i hear any other motions on this item 01:25:28.560 --> 01:25:37.120 all right we will move on to item eight consider adding language that requires 01:25:37.120 --> 01:25:41.120 posting the amount if any of an adequate contribution to fund pension or retirement 01:25:41.120 --> 01:25:45.920 plans for city employees including fire and police time check we are at six fifty six 01:25:45.920 --> 01:25:51.120 all of you are discussing further discussion of the clerk this is great number eight is 01:25:51.120 --> 01:26:04.240 lying to the city employees the city has to fund that every year and if you get an actuary that 01:26:04.240 --> 01:26:11.920 doesn't know what to do and they say okay you put this much money here you think we'll make eight 01:26:11.920 --> 01:26:19.040 percent on well you go down 20 and 30 years and only make two percent then you're going to the 01:26:19.040 --> 01:26:24.640 city is going to be a big Dallas guy in this trouble so we need to know i think a year to 01:26:24.640 --> 01:26:34.480 a year where they're at on that are you going to get down in the tax credit is going to get big no 01:26:34.480 --> 01:26:39.440 staff yeah just can't assistant to the city manager i just wanted to add that 01:26:39.440 --> 01:26:45.440 uh the city participates for its employees and a tmrs which is a statewide municipal retirement 01:26:45.440 --> 01:26:52.720 system um city employees make contribution other paychecks because match and uh actually exceeds 01:26:52.720 --> 01:27:08.720 that and then we are guaranteed to turn five percent every year so are they adding more money 01:27:08.720 --> 01:27:14.880 to that because the five percent is not no i don't think that they had anything else for inflation 01:27:14.880 --> 01:27:24.480 um can i ask is this defined contribution or defined benefit uh retirement plan yeah i mean um 01:27:24.480 --> 01:27:30.160 i i don't remember exactly if we have the how much flexibility we have i tell you that for mine i put 01:27:30.160 --> 01:27:37.120 in seven percent of my pay and the city puts in 14 percent and then it's guaranteed to grow at 01:27:37.120 --> 01:27:43.200 either whatever the market rate is and then uh if the market goes down or doesn't grow very quickly 01:27:43.200 --> 01:27:49.840 like it's guaranteed five percent return uh more questions for staff richard jones and it's managed 01:27:49.840 --> 01:27:57.280 by the team are i'm not a benefits expert commissioner manjiguera and the contributions from the city 01:27:57.280 --> 01:28:05.200 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 01:28:05.200 --> 01:28:09.920 wages and earnings so i put in seven percent of my wages and earnings and the city puts in 01:28:09.920 --> 01:28:16.080 14 percent of my wages so they really have an option under funding their obligation if you will 01:28:16.080 --> 01:28:22.240 so that so then we don't necessarily need this i i'm not you're saying 01:28:22.240 --> 01:28:30.160 yes sorry to to be clear you're not answering your position of expertise within the city 01:28:30.160 --> 01:28:35.360 you're answering it's somebody who just has one of these plans yep i am i am one of these plans 01:28:35.360 --> 01:28:42.000 enjoyers thank you thank you is that the same for the fire police they are on different pension 01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:47.440 systems so where are we at with them how does that work i don't know we can get some information on 01:28:47.440 --> 01:28:52.960 that i i just don't want to get the city down 10 or 20 years from now we've got this 01:28:52.960 --> 01:29:00.640 that was a big problem specifically i agree so i would like to motion that we have another 01:29:00.640 --> 01:29:08.240 discussion specifically narrowing to fire police pensions uh 01:29:08.240 --> 01:29:26.160 those in favor please raise your hand say aye all right all those opposed please say next 01:29:28.000 --> 01:29:34.000 all right uh moving on to uh item nine consider adding language that requires reporting the amount 01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:40.240 of unfunded the amount of any unfunded mandate incurred by the city with information regarding 01:29:40.240 --> 01:29:45.600 the name of the mandate and cost of the city to comply commission report this year why i came up 01:29:45.600 --> 01:29:52.480 with this it may not be something we want to do but if the state or somebody puts an unfunded 01:29:52.480 --> 01:29:59.040 mandate on us at least the citizens will know and it just won't be the tax rolls be raised just to 01:29:59.040 --> 01:30:04.720 cover it up and go on i think as long as the citizens know the voters know and they've got 01:30:04.720 --> 01:30:18.560 to that point i think what we were talking about are coming into schools and i don't think there's 01:30:22.480 --> 01:30:24.560 anything to cost them 01:30:24.560 --> 01:30:35.840 so i i do think that since the people know 01:30:35.840 --> 01:30:46.080 commissioner for adding on to what kisha jones said that there have been as a result of that 01:30:46.080 --> 01:30:51.280 sro being required in cuts within the schools that i think are leaving parents scratching their 01:30:51.280 --> 01:30:58.240 heads and wondering like why does my school not have a library assistant anymore and part is 01:30:58.240 --> 01:31:02.320 because of that a shortage because other costs that were incurred through these other mandates 01:31:02.320 --> 01:31:07.280 i really like this proposal i was thinking but you know so this is why this is what the deal 01:31:07.280 --> 01:31:16.080 i could i could make the motion and say yes i would like to hear staff report on this and have 01:31:16.080 --> 01:31:21.840 our group consider it further discussion commissioner mandibora just a quick quick comment 01:31:21.840 --> 01:31:29.280 i will be supporting further discussion and i would love to hear from staff what is already 01:31:29.280 --> 01:31:36.000 being done like internally or like these would be the public as far as communicating how unfunded 01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:43.200 mandates from the state government affect our city and like how these conversations are happening 01:31:43.200 --> 01:31:48.560 and whether or not that information is because i have sat in on presentations with one presentation 01:31:48.560 --> 01:31:52.640 with the superintendent where he explained a lot of the things that were unfunded just in the school 01:31:52.640 --> 01:31:56.800 district uh these kind of presentations are happening with the city but i think that would 01:31:56.800 --> 01:32:03.520 all be very helpful education as well so i support further discussion just to reinforce that the 01:32:03.520 --> 01:32:08.640 disd is doing a committee on that which probably many of you or maybe some of you know about just 01:32:08.640 --> 01:32:13.600 happened last night but very good points because this information is out there per se but it's not 01:32:13.600 --> 01:32:17.360 out there to the level i think we would like to see the transparency is not deep 01:32:17.360 --> 01:32:24.240 i'll second second by commissioner mandibora my only concern would be that maybe there are some 01:32:24.240 --> 01:32:29.920 mandates that are like the cost of use and hard to calculate but i would like to also hear more 01:32:29.920 --> 01:32:34.960 information on this all those in favor of having further discussion i'm considering adding language 01:32:34.960 --> 01:32:39.120 that requires reporting the amount of any unfunded mandate incurred by the city regarding the name of 01:32:39.120 --> 01:32:46.400 the mandated cost of the city to comply all right all those opposed please raise your hand 01:32:46.400 --> 01:32:55.280 all right um that brings us to concluding items does the committee have any business to discuss 01:32:55.280 --> 01:33:05.280 at this time that is birthdays anniversaries all right uh with no other business i will adjourn the 01:33:05.280 --> 01:33:15.040 meeting at seven oh three p.m we did it guys we were mostly on time congratulations