1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:07,280
 In seeing that we have a quorum, I will now call to order the regular meeting of the Charter

2
00:00:07,280 --> 00:00:14,080
 Review Committee at 5.32 p.m. As a reminder to everyone here and all speakers, we are

3
00:00:14,080 --> 00:00:20,840
 using the overhead mics, so please speak up when you talk. We will show on to our items

4
00:00:20,840 --> 00:00:28,320
 for consideration. Item A, number CRC 24-030, receive comments from members of the public,

5
00:00:28,320 --> 00:00:32,960
 who wish to speak, must be present at the meeting and submit a speaker card to staff.

6
00:00:32,960 --> 00:00:36,720
 The staff liaison prior to the item being called. Up to five speakers may speak for

7
00:00:36,720 --> 00:00:41,520
 two minutes each on any items on the agenda. It does not look like we have any speakers

8
00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:50,080
 who wish to speak. We will move on to item B, number CRC 24-031, consider approval of

9
00:00:50,080 --> 00:00:54,680
 the minutes of October 3, 2024 to our review committee meeting. Is there a motion to approve

10
00:00:54,680 --> 00:01:04,520
 minutes? Motion by Commissioner Molina-Ford. Do I have a second? Commissioner Trevino, I

11
00:01:04,520 --> 00:01:15,000
 seconded. All those in favor of approving the minutes, please raise your right hand and

12
00:01:15,000 --> 00:01:19,960
 say aye. And as a reminder, please keep your hands up long enough for staff to note. That's

13
00:01:19,960 --> 00:01:31,480
 unanimous. Thank you, everyone. That brings us to item C, number CRC 24-033, my apologies,

14
00:01:31,480 --> 00:01:37,680
 CRC 24-033, receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction on adding language

15
00:01:37,680 --> 00:01:42,680
 to the charter regarding the increase in rates or fees on citizens or businesses.

16
00:01:42,680 --> 00:01:50,080
 Okay, thank you. So the next three items that we have that were brought to us from Weaver,

17
00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:55,800
 unfortunately he's not here to hear them. And if there had been more wiggle room in

18
00:01:55,800 --> 00:02:01,120
 the schedule, I would have made room for him to do that. But I'll go through the slides

19
00:02:01,120 --> 00:02:07,400
 for each of these items. As you have questions, I did ask for backup on this because I am

20
00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:14,600
 not a city finance guru. So at the back of the room we have our finance A team. Matt

21
00:02:14,600 --> 00:02:21,480
 is our budget manager, Viz is our deputy director of finance, and Terrence is our new grants

22
00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:29,080
 administrator. So we're prepared to get into the weeds with you on it if you so choose.

23
00:02:29,080 --> 00:02:36,880
 So with that, this charge brought to you by the committee yourselves, consider adding

24
00:02:36,880 --> 00:02:41,960
 language regarding the increase in rates or fees on citizens or businesses. The proposed

25
00:02:41,960 --> 00:02:47,880
 language that was submitted was, "Any increase in rates or fees on citizens or businesses

26
00:02:47,880 --> 00:02:53,480
 to retire a debt or obligation of the city shall be discontinued when debt or obligation

27
00:02:53,480 --> 00:02:59,400
 is paid in full. When and if any increase in rate or fee to retire a debt will have

28
00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:07,200
 estimated end date recorded on any invoice or statement where rate increase or fee is

29
00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:12,240
 charged. 100% of the increase in rates or fees referenced above shall be used to pay

30
00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:21,880
 off the reference debt." So some kind of basics on municipal debt. The city utilizes long-term

31
00:03:21,880 --> 00:03:28,120
 debt to finance non-operating expenses, which can include equipment, facilities, and acquisition

32
00:03:28,120 --> 00:03:34,000
 of land. And all debt issued by the city must be approved by the Texas attorney general's

33
00:03:34,000 --> 00:03:40,100
 office prior to the final sale of the debt. There are two types of long-term debt that

34
00:03:40,100 --> 00:03:48,640
 the city uses, general obligation debt, which includes COs and GOs. GOs are what you typically

35
00:03:48,640 --> 00:03:56,200
 call a bond. They are approved by the voters and have the financial maturity of 20 years

36
00:03:56,200 --> 00:04:04,960
 or less. And then COs, certificates of obligation, do not require voter approval. And some examples

37
00:04:04,960 --> 00:04:11,440
 of the pledge revenue that backs those are electric, water, wastewater, and they strive

38
00:04:11,440 --> 00:04:18,960
 to have a final maturity of 30 years or less. And then there's also revenue bond debt, which

39
00:04:18,960 --> 00:04:28,520
 is secured by pledge, typically of the city's utility system. And those strive to have a

40
00:04:28,520 --> 00:04:35,920
 final maturity of 30 years or less as well. Some of the relevant statutes, state statutes

41
00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:45,680
 that apply to municipal debt. The Texas Constitution has a section that covers truth and taxation.

42
00:04:45,680 --> 00:04:52,080
 Like the federal government, cities are not able to, cities have to have debt be funded.

43
00:04:52,080 --> 00:05:00,640
 They can't have unfunded debt. And then additionally, the Texas Tax Code requires that municipalities

44
00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:08,000
 collect a portion of CO debt paid for by taxes each year, and the county is required to verify

45
00:05:08,000 --> 00:05:13,920
 that amount. So there's some accountability within the city and the county there as well.

46
00:05:13,920 --> 00:05:21,840
 Texas Government Code has a couple of sections. One requires reporting for debt obligations.

47
00:05:21,840 --> 00:05:28,640
 Those posts have to be described in newspaper at least 30 days before, and they have to

48
00:05:28,640 --> 00:05:35,200
 describe the purpose, amount, method of repayment, and what the city council vote on those items

49
00:05:35,200 --> 00:05:42,600
 was. And then the other one defines what COs can be issued for, which is typically Public

50
00:05:42,600 --> 00:05:53,200
 Works related items, construction, buildings, plans, rights of way. And then just some considerations

51
00:05:53,200 --> 00:05:59,520
 on this item. COs are most commonly used for long-term, large-scale projects, which have

52
00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:07,760
 a debt service span of up to 30 years. So when we're looking at potentially having a

53
00:06:07,760 --> 00:06:14,880
 debt issued and a rate increased, that debt will not be paid off for 30 years. The cost

54
00:06:14,880 --> 00:06:21,120
 of that debt looks differently in 30 years, right? And our finance team can speak more

55
00:06:21,120 --> 00:06:27,920
 to that more eloquently than I can. State laws and existing city policies require transparency

56
00:06:27,920 --> 00:06:35,320
 and truth in taxation and promote accountability to taxpayers. And the city's website provides

57
00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:40,040
 information regarding the city's budget and budget process, including debt obligations.

58
00:06:40,040 --> 00:06:52,280
 And I can show y'all. So this is on the city website, and it has all sorts of information

59
00:06:52,280 --> 00:06:58,120
 and links about our historical bond projects, all of the different debt reports that were

60
00:06:58,120 --> 00:07:08,440
 required to have by state law, as well as some tables on what our debt looks like. So

61
00:07:08,440 --> 00:07:16,040
 with that, I will take any questions you have and bring up our finance.

62
00:07:16,040 --> 00:07:21,080
 Commissioner Davis. So I really don't want to drag us too far in the weeds of city finance,

63
00:07:21,080 --> 00:07:30,520
 but I think it'd be helpful for us to know, because the language is taxes and rates. So

64
00:07:30,520 --> 00:07:37,600
 could we get a little bit of information about the difference between the M&O tax rate and

65
00:07:37,600 --> 00:07:42,480
 the debt service tax rate, that our tax rate has different components to it, that it's

66
00:07:42,480 --> 00:07:48,480
 not just every year you have a set amount. Anyway, some information on that. And then

67
00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:55,080
 also, I think in fact, it's mentioned, if you can scroll up just a little bit on this,

68
00:07:55,080 --> 00:08:01,560
 the difference between debt that we are paying off as taxpayers, and debt that we're paying

69
00:08:01,560 --> 00:08:08,360
 off as ratepayers to the utilities, the utility debt, and how those are a little different

70
00:08:08,360 --> 00:08:12,040
 from each other and might be impacted differently by something like this.

71
00:08:12,040 --> 00:08:25,720
 One of you guys want to come up and join us? I mean, you came all this way.

72
00:08:25,720 --> 00:08:31,240
 Well, good evening, Matt Hamilton, budget manager for the city. I appreciate the question.

73
00:08:31,240 --> 00:08:39,400
 It's a great question. So there's two components to the property tax rate. One component of

74
00:08:39,400 --> 00:08:44,000
 it is called the M&O, the maintenance and operation rate. And the other component is

75
00:08:44,000 --> 00:08:51,640
 called the INS or debt rate, which stands for interest in sinking fund. So the M&O side

76
00:08:51,640 --> 00:08:58,760
 of the rate funds daily operations. This is personnel, this is materials and supplies.

77
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:05,640
 The other piece of the rate, that INS rate, funds what's called the debt service. And

78
00:09:05,640 --> 00:09:17,200
 debt service is the payment that we make for the debt that we have financed. So the INS

79
00:09:17,200 --> 00:09:25,520
 rate is determined by all the outstanding debt, both GOs and COs, that the city has

80
00:09:25,520 --> 00:09:30,480
 issued in the prior fiscal year, because in that next fiscal year is when that debt service

81
00:09:30,480 --> 00:09:41,000
 starts. So the debt service side of the rates cannot be used for any kind of operational

82
00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:48,880
 expense and vice versa. So there's really two components to that total tax rate that

83
00:09:48,880 --> 00:09:55,760
 you see on your property tax bill. Now, what that rate does not pay for are revenue bonds

84
00:09:55,760 --> 00:10:05,040
 and revenue bonds are issued by the utility to fund utility projects. And revenue bonds

85
00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:13,720
 are secured by that specific revenue stream of the utility. Now, what you'll see is that

86
00:10:13,720 --> 00:10:22,080
 in CO issuance, the utilities are included. What happens internally within the city is

87
00:10:22,080 --> 00:10:28,680
 that the utilities make a transfer to pay that debt service. So it is the utilities

88
00:10:28,680 --> 00:10:36,520
 who are paying all the debt service associated with their utility projects that is not calculated

89
00:10:36,520 --> 00:10:42,200
 into that INS. So when we do the calculation with the county for the INS portion of the

90
00:10:42,200 --> 00:10:47,840
 tax rate, the debt portion of the tax rate, we exclude everything that is determined to

91
00:10:47,840 --> 00:10:59,580
 be self-supporting, which is the utility component of that. So all that is part of the property

92
00:10:59,580 --> 00:11:10,960
 tax bill calculation is only the general government CEOs and NGOs. There's not a utility component

93
00:11:10,960 --> 00:11:16,120
 associated with it. Yeah. So I just want to dive straight into the charge of this and

94
00:11:16,120 --> 00:11:24,000
 find out how it affects our budgeting process. So I have two questions. One, when we retire

95
00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:31,480
 these debts or obligations, does it ever really happen that we would leave that rate there

96
00:11:31,480 --> 00:11:38,080
 for an obligation that no longer exists? And two, what would be the substantive effect

97
00:11:38,080 --> 00:11:45,280
 on our budgeting process of implementing something like this? Yep. So that's a great question.

98
00:11:45,280 --> 00:11:52,560
 And just to back up a little bit, when we budget, let's just say utility, but it could

99
00:11:52,560 --> 00:11:59,200
 be any funder department, there's really two sides to it. One is the revenue side and one

100
00:11:59,200 --> 00:12:08,920
 is the expenditure side. And what we determine based on all the components, all the lines

101
00:12:08,920 --> 00:12:17,220
 in those two groups is what revenue would be required to meet our obligations and that

102
00:12:17,220 --> 00:12:29,040
 level of service. So what that means is that when a debt matures, and as you saw on the

103
00:12:29,040 --> 00:12:36,960
 slide, we usually issue debt for 10 to 20 years. So if a debt matured, let's say this

104
00:12:36,960 --> 00:12:48,640
 coming fiscal year in 2025, it was probably issued in 2005 or 2015, let's say. So all

105
00:12:48,640 --> 00:12:56,920
 else being equal, that rate would go lower because assuming no change in the revenue

106
00:12:56,920 --> 00:13:02,520
 and no change in any other expenditures. In other words, that's already happening. Like

107
00:13:02,520 --> 00:13:08,440
 it's going down if the obligations met. It would, yes. And the reason is because the

108
00:13:08,440 --> 00:13:16,200
 utilities do not budget it to make a profit and neither does the city. And so we budget

109
00:13:16,200 --> 00:13:27,120
 to have revenues equal expenditures and that's it. So there's a lot of pieces in there that

110
00:13:27,120 --> 00:13:39,360
 move. So a debt could mature and maybe revenues are higher outside of rate revenue. Maybe

111
00:13:39,360 --> 00:13:47,400
 it's interest income, for example, that adds a little bit more revenue. So in addition

112
00:13:47,400 --> 00:13:53,840
 to the debt maturing, you also have this other increase in revenue as well that helps rates.

113
00:13:53,840 --> 00:14:03,760
 Conversely, if there was a new expenditure need, maybe a change in regulation, something

114
00:14:03,760 --> 00:14:11,360
 that was different from the prior year, that debt could mature, but there would be a need

115
00:14:11,360 --> 00:14:22,080
 either operationally or the need to issue debt for a new project or infrastructure that's

116
00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:31,760
 needed. So as an example, it might be the case that Dent Municipal Electric has some

117
00:14:31,760 --> 00:14:37,600
 CEO roll off their balance sheet, they paid it off. But then the state comes and says,

118
00:14:37,600 --> 00:14:43,400
 oh, our transmission costs have gone up. And DME looks at its books and says, well, we

119
00:14:43,400 --> 00:14:48,200
 weren't paying $2 million a year on that CEO. And the state has just told us our transmission

120
00:14:48,200 --> 00:14:54,040
 costs are going to be $2 million higher. So even though the rate might not go down, there

121
00:14:54,040 --> 00:14:59,880
 would be, in effect, $2 million in savings because had that CEO not been retired at that

122
00:14:59,880 --> 00:15:11,320
 time, they would have had to pass that cost on. So there may be no apparent change in

123
00:15:11,320 --> 00:15:18,080
 the rate or the tax to the consumer. I say, oh, my bill has not changed and the debt went

124
00:15:18,080 --> 00:15:22,720
 off the books, so why hasn't my bill dropped? But the reason for that might be that there

125
00:15:22,720 --> 00:15:27,640
 are new costs. And so I'm still saving money versus the scenario where the debt didn't

126
00:15:27,640 --> 00:15:32,280
 roll off the books and they would have had to add that additional charge.

127
00:15:32,280 --> 00:15:43,640
 So just, I guess, specifically to the details that you provided, there's a couple of different

128
00:15:43,640 --> 00:15:57,460
 rates within DME. The TCRF and the ECA would be calculated differently than base rates.

129
00:15:57,460 --> 00:16:04,760
 So all else being equal, the maturity of debt and not having to pay that debt service anymore

130
00:16:04,760 --> 00:16:12,960
 would impact the base rates. And there would not be a need to increase rates and the potential

131
00:16:12,960 --> 00:16:17,920
 to lower rates. Commissioner Dix?

132
00:16:17,920 --> 00:16:25,120
 So on the tax rate side, on the property tax side, it's pretty straightforward when council

133
00:16:25,120 --> 00:16:30,280
 approves a new tax rate. There's usually a historical graph provided and we could see,

134
00:16:30,280 --> 00:16:35,560
 well, our INS or debt service rate has been this for the last however many years and our

135
00:16:35,560 --> 00:16:41,480
 M&O rate, the park council is usually, you know, debating over and budgeting on, is the

136
00:16:41,480 --> 00:16:47,840
 other side of the rate. And I'm going to kind of leave aside for a second, the council taking

137
00:16:47,840 --> 00:16:52,920
 the opportunity to fill the rate, like when the debt service rate goes down, saying, oh,

138
00:16:52,920 --> 00:16:57,120
 well, folks are used to a 59 cent tax, well, then we can fill the rest of that rate with

139
00:16:57,120 --> 00:17:03,040
 M&O and it's not really going to hurt anybody. It's really transparent when that takes place,

140
00:17:03,040 --> 00:17:09,160
 when they do just like find some costs to, to necessitate filling the rest of that rate,

141
00:17:09,160 --> 00:17:15,120
 even though the debt service rate came down. If I'm worried about that on the utility side,

142
00:17:15,120 --> 00:17:20,160
 where it's not so straightforward, where I can't just find one council's slide presentation

143
00:17:20,160 --> 00:17:25,560
 and kind of see what those rates are, how do I as a citizen figure out what part of

144
00:17:25,560 --> 00:17:30,800
 my, you know, so DMH is talking about a rate increase, right? How do I know what part of

145
00:17:30,800 --> 00:17:36,320
 that rate increase is debt service? What part of that is, hey, we got a little wiggle room

146
00:17:36,320 --> 00:17:40,360
 in the rate because our debt service went down this year. We can take a little more,

147
00:17:40,360 --> 00:17:46,320
 you can fill that rate just a little bit with some other stuff. How do I watch that and

148
00:17:46,320 --> 00:17:58,320
 how is that made transparent to citizens? Yeah. So, you know, we don't have a comparable

149
00:17:58,320 --> 00:18:09,320
 slide, I guess, or chart. The data is there, you know, to break out the debt service. And

150
00:18:09,320 --> 00:18:15,240
 we do show, you know, that through the budgeting process as it goes through PUB and then, and

151
00:18:15,240 --> 00:18:23,520
 then council and then in the budget book. So, you know, the debt service would be that

152
00:18:23,520 --> 00:18:30,360
 proportional component of the total budget. And in the case of DME, we would need to exclude

153
00:18:30,360 --> 00:18:36,720
 the other revenues. So, you know, the information is there. There may be an opportunity for

154
00:18:36,720 --> 00:18:43,480
 us to put together, you know, a graphic and some information to share with the public

155
00:18:43,480 --> 00:18:50,680
 on, you know, what piece of the, you know, utility rate goes kind of to what function

156
00:18:50,680 --> 00:18:56,160
 of that utility. That's something we could look at. It sounds like right now the best

157
00:18:56,160 --> 00:19:02,800
 information available is, you know, that massive proforma that DME presents during the budgeting

158
00:19:02,800 --> 00:19:07,560
 process with all the little breakouts and things. But there might be an opportunity

159
00:19:07,560 --> 00:19:13,680
 in the future to, you know, and they do a good job explaining the basic breakdown rate,

160
00:19:13,680 --> 00:19:18,680
 but there might be an opportunity in the future to kind of make that more transparent. Yeah.

161
00:19:18,680 --> 00:19:28,840
 And something that is not as detailed as the proforma that's shared is the budget book

162
00:19:28,840 --> 00:19:34,920
 that's produced. And that does, you know, have the various lines that are a little easier

163
00:19:34,920 --> 00:19:43,960
 to, it's more reader friendly, I think. But something in terms of a, you know, just kind

164
00:19:43,960 --> 00:19:52,440
 of a one page here's, you know, where the dollars go, that's something we could look

165
00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:53,440
 at.

166
00:19:53,440 --> 00:19:54,440
 Mr. Ransky.

167
00:19:54,440 --> 00:19:58,440
 Okay, if I'm understanding this correctly, and I'm going to use some numbers, I know

168
00:19:58,440 --> 00:20:12,320
 they don't have any accuracy, but say my bill is 95 cents a kilowatt hour. Out that 95 cents,

169
00:20:12,320 --> 00:20:23,080
 50 cents goes to the actual generation and function in that for my receiving my electricity.

170
00:20:23,080 --> 00:20:35,080
 The other 45 cents is going in for debt reduction. At the, I think what this proposal suggestion

171
00:20:35,080 --> 00:20:43,080
 is, is there be a mechanism on the billing to assist people to realize that when they're

172
00:20:43,080 --> 00:20:54,880
 paying 95 cents, 50 cents is going to the day to day, 45 cents is going for debt reduction.

173
00:20:54,880 --> 00:21:06,280
 It might be then depending on how many bonds or that they're recovering to break that out

174
00:21:06,280 --> 00:21:16,920
 as to when said debt would be retired. Then if I hear correctly, if 20 cents of that 45

175
00:21:16,920 --> 00:21:29,760
 cents is retired, one can then transfer that over to help pick up that the fact that that

176
00:21:29,760 --> 00:21:39,720
 50 cents no longer covers the generation. And if that's the case, is that not inappropriate

177
00:21:39,720 --> 00:21:49,840
 because you're taking what had been utilized to pay off a debt and you're reassigning it

178
00:21:49,840 --> 00:22:00,840
 to your day to day operations. And my understanding is that the quote, "two shall not mix like

179
00:22:00,840 --> 00:22:12,560
 oil and water" unless residents are notified and whatever other legal processes have to

180
00:22:12,560 --> 00:22:25,000
 be taken care of. And I would infer that the same would apply to managing the cities day

181
00:22:25,000 --> 00:22:34,640
 to day versus paying off a debt.

182
00:22:34,640 --> 00:22:48,440
 So a couple of things. The rate that the utilities charge is not unlike on the property tax side

183
00:22:48,440 --> 00:22:58,720
 where there is a specific INS and O&M or M&O rate. And those dollars do not get mixed.

184
00:22:58,720 --> 00:23:09,080
 On the utility side, there is not an INS portion of your utility bill. As a resident when you

185
00:23:09,080 --> 00:23:16,940
 receive a bill and let's say it's $10, you're absolutely right. Some portion of that is

186
00:23:16,940 --> 00:23:24,640
 and you'll see it on the bill for the transmission cost recovery and the ECA and then your base

187
00:23:24,640 --> 00:23:32,760
 rates. So outside of the transmission and energy charges, that base rate is going to

188
00:23:32,760 --> 00:23:41,400
 cover all the operational expenses, which includes debt service of the utility. So personnel

189
00:23:41,400 --> 00:23:51,760
 materials and supplies, the debt service, the payments that are made for services within

190
00:23:51,760 --> 00:24:06,480
 the city or technology, for example. So when the utility issues debt, and let's say it's

191
00:24:06,480 --> 00:24:17,680
 for a large project, there's not a specific fee associated with that project that would

192
00:24:17,680 --> 00:24:31,100
 stay fixed over some period of time. And the reason is because on the revenue side, customer

193
00:24:31,100 --> 00:24:36,960
 accounts are going to change, other expenditure lines will change, other revenue lines will

194
00:24:36,960 --> 00:24:52,440
 change. So that's going to change that percentage of where your, in the example, $10 goes.

195
00:24:52,440 --> 00:25:06,440
 If I may interrupt to take it further, I understand that what I'm looking for is a more definitive

196
00:25:06,440 --> 00:25:22,500
 line item notated on the electric bills so that the people who move in know when they're

197
00:25:22,500 --> 00:25:31,880
 looking at what their expenditures are, how much is really going to pay for the electric

198
00:25:31,880 --> 00:25:40,680
 generation, your staff and that, versus how much is going because you, and I'm just going

199
00:25:40,680 --> 00:25:48,240
 to pick on this, I know that it was that, to build the beautiful wall fake buildings

200
00:25:48,240 --> 00:25:56,960
 at the corner of Oak and Hickory when you come in off of 35. Because that is a capital

201
00:25:56,960 --> 00:26:07,080
 expense that would come out of your bond portion or that of your revenue. But people ought

202
00:26:07,080 --> 00:26:19,400
 to be able to look at, rather than going on a website and have to find it out. I've interacted

203
00:26:19,400 --> 00:26:30,320
 with groups of people who when you continually tell them to go to the website, they had difficulties.

204
00:26:30,320 --> 00:26:37,040
 So that was where I was coming from. A more thorough, elaborate line item.

205
00:26:37,040 --> 00:26:49,640
 Could you just clarify, are you suggesting that the, I'm sorry, could we go back to the

206
00:26:49,640 --> 00:27:11,760
 slide with this particular commission charge? So the charge that we're discussing is specifically

207
00:27:11,760 --> 00:27:17,080
 when debtors retire, does that should be added to the invoice or statement? Is that what

208
00:27:17,080 --> 00:27:21,920
 you're meaning to say or that there should always be a line item? Because I believe that

209
00:27:21,920 --> 00:27:28,960
 that may be off-posting if you're suggesting that there is just a constant line item.

210
00:27:28,960 --> 00:27:39,440
 Well, if you're asking for, and perhaps I'm understanding it incorrectly, that you want

211
00:27:39,440 --> 00:27:50,920
 to notify your citizens, your businesses about retiring debts and obligations, and then whenever

212
00:27:50,920 --> 00:28:00,960
 increases or rate, they'll have the estimated dates recorded. And in order to have that,

213
00:28:00,960 --> 00:28:08,920
 you'd have to have a line item at some point in time. Perhaps I'm totally wrong on that.

214
00:28:08,920 --> 00:28:16,440
 But how are you going to notify that that has been done?

215
00:28:16,440 --> 00:28:24,320
 I'm going to put a posting in the Debt and Record Chronicle that says, "Okay, on October

216
00:28:24,320 --> 00:28:37,920
 23rd of 1990, we are retiring this debt that we came up with, and such and such. In today's

217
00:28:37,920 --> 00:28:50,080
 computer age, it should be easy enough to elaborate by line item, the expenses."

218
00:28:50,080 --> 00:28:58,840
 So the city does publish the maturity dates and current debt portfolio for all the issuances

219
00:28:58,840 --> 00:29:11,880
 online, and it's also in various documents that the city publishes. Just one item that

220
00:29:11,880 --> 00:29:20,840
 I want to note is, as we began the conversation, we were talking a little bit about debt maturing

221
00:29:20,840 --> 00:29:29,320
 and debt issuance. So just to be aware that it may be the case that debt would mature

222
00:29:29,320 --> 00:29:37,240
 and debt would be issued, and would that then be a notification when there is no change

223
00:29:37,240 --> 00:29:52,240
 or the rate still decreases? So where I'm going is just that there's a lot of factors

224
00:29:52,240 --> 00:30:01,160
 that go into both the budgeting process, both in terms of various revenues and various expenses,

225
00:30:01,160 --> 00:30:11,720
 that a rate increase may or may not be due to debt. It may simply be due to lower revenue

226
00:30:11,720 --> 00:30:18,680
 or higher operational expenses. It's variable.

227
00:30:18,680 --> 00:30:21,720
 Commissioner Mujiguera.

228
00:30:21,720 --> 00:30:29,840
 So I'd like to bring this back into the charge on its face, which is just about kind of forcing

229
00:30:29,840 --> 00:30:35,840
 these decreases, which you said are already happening automatically. So I think you kind

230
00:30:35,840 --> 00:30:39,920
 of got really, really close to saying this, and I'm not asking you to have an opinion

231
00:30:39,920 --> 00:30:45,640
 on this matter, but I have some real concerns that this is going to hamstring council and

232
00:30:45,640 --> 00:30:51,600
 staff in making some really wonky budget decisions. I understand that the intention behind this

233
00:30:51,600 --> 00:30:57,560
 is pro-tax payer, and I think we're all concerned about the rates going up, but are there some

234
00:30:57,560 --> 00:31:02,320
 unintended consequences of this kind of language, the way it's written, when we're already doing

235
00:31:02,320 --> 00:31:08,320
 this effectively, putting this in charter language and creating some really unique or

236
00:31:08,320 --> 00:31:19,240
 challenging budget schemes that don't have the intended effect of saving any of us any

237
00:31:19,240 --> 00:31:20,240
 money?

238
00:31:20,240 --> 00:31:31,000
 I certainly think that there would be some questions and challenges, as I mentioned,

239
00:31:31,000 --> 00:31:40,480
 particularly in terms of is it the debt dollar that is prompting the increase, or is it the

240
00:31:40,480 --> 00:31:47,320
 operational dollar that's prompting the increase? Because in the financials, right, we have

241
00:31:47,320 --> 00:32:02,960
 a $2 increase, and which dollar is it? And so it may be a question as to how that's reported.

242
00:32:02,960 --> 00:32:13,160
 There's a number of issuances that are already outstanding. As with all the utilities, a

243
00:32:13,160 --> 00:32:21,640
 number of infrastructure needs, as the city grows, as infrastructure ages, as regulation

244
00:32:21,640 --> 00:32:39,720
 changes, and so there's sort of the practicality on a bill, how to visualize or put that there,

245
00:32:39,720 --> 00:32:50,680
 and then if that dollar were determined somehow. So I think there's probably some challenges

246
00:32:50,680 --> 00:32:58,840
 that we need to overcome in order to do that. And as far as the budgeting process itself,

247
00:32:58,840 --> 00:33:08,080
 I wouldn't imagine it would have a significant impact. But that would be...

248
00:33:08,080 --> 00:33:11,200
 I understand. Thank you. You can be determined.

249
00:33:11,200 --> 00:33:16,880
 So correct me if I'm wrong, but it can often be the case that capital expenditures might

250
00:33:16,880 --> 00:33:24,000
 save maintenance and operational expenditures. So it might be that, say, DME puts a capital

251
00:33:24,000 --> 00:33:31,000
 item in the budget for like self-restarting credits. And that's a capital expenditure.

252
00:33:31,000 --> 00:33:35,600
 But then because they install these, they are able to go and reduce their maintenance

253
00:33:35,600 --> 00:33:40,680
 and operations expenditure on having to send crews out every time a line gets touched by

254
00:33:40,680 --> 00:33:51,920
 a branch. So it might be that this forces emphasis or onto these expenses, these debt

255
00:33:51,920 --> 00:33:56,520
 expenses, when in fact those debt expenses might be saving us on the maintenance and

256
00:33:56,520 --> 00:34:00,760
 operations side. Yeah. I mean, one example that comes to mind,

257
00:34:00,760 --> 00:34:07,040
 and it doesn't fully recover it, but think about a vehicle. And the vehicle, when it's

258
00:34:07,040 --> 00:34:12,600
 new, you have very little maintenance cost associated with it. But if the vehicle is

259
00:34:12,600 --> 00:34:20,360
 10 or 20 or longer, we don't have any 30-year vehicles. But I'm thinking infrastructure,

260
00:34:20,360 --> 00:34:29,520
 the age of the infrastructure certainly has a maintenance cost, operating cost associated

261
00:34:29,520 --> 00:34:39,160
 with it. Particularly as within the utility, we look at infrastructure with older technology.

262
00:34:39,160 --> 00:34:47,760
 It may have parts that are more difficult to replace and maintain, harder to source.

263
00:34:47,760 --> 00:34:56,600
 So there, to your point, there are operational savings depending on what's being replaced.

264
00:34:56,600 --> 00:35:03,400
 Right. We are over time on this item already. Do I have more questions? Commissioner Davis?

265
00:35:03,400 --> 00:35:11,640
 I'm sure I move that we do not recommend this language to the City Council. I'll second

266
00:35:11,640 --> 00:35:15,680
 that. All right. Motion to second. Any discussion?

267
00:35:15,680 --> 00:35:21,040
 Sure. So I made my motion not because I don't think

268
00:35:21,040 --> 00:35:25,800
 it's a good idea. I think transparency is always a good idea. And I think helping people

269
00:35:25,800 --> 00:35:31,280
 understand the City budgeting process is a good idea. But as presented, it's just not

270
00:35:31,280 --> 00:35:37,400
 especially practical. One reason is from what we heard, that's not really the way that those

271
00:35:37,400 --> 00:35:43,000
 rates work. That it's a little bit that way on the property tax rate. But when you get

272
00:35:43,000 --> 00:35:48,520
 over to the utility side and the other revenue bonds, it just doesn't, that's not the way

273
00:35:48,520 --> 00:35:52,160
 that the debt service works. And it's not the way the rates are set. And if the information

274
00:35:52,160 --> 00:35:56,720
 is available to citizens in other ways, even if they're imperfect. The other reason though

275
00:35:56,720 --> 00:36:02,160
 too is from a practical perspective, when you get your tax statement, it doesn't come

276
00:36:02,160 --> 00:36:08,600
 from the city of Denton. Right. So the city of Denton really can't tell the county or

277
00:36:08,600 --> 00:36:17,320
 the appraisal district or whoever's your particular piece of information is coming from what,

278
00:36:17,320 --> 00:36:23,040
 you can't impose upon them a 50 line long list of all the different bond obligations

279
00:36:23,040 --> 00:36:28,080
 we've got. And that's the other part of it is even on our own side, on our own power

280
00:36:28,080 --> 00:36:33,320
 bills, and this is going to be a very popular answer, but there are simply too many debt

281
00:36:33,320 --> 00:36:39,360
 obligations to list on any particular piece of paper. It doesn't sound great. The city

282
00:36:39,360 --> 00:36:44,080
 has that kind of debt, but our individual debt obligations are just too numerous to

283
00:36:44,080 --> 00:36:49,040
 list. How many spreadsheets, you don't have to answer. It takes a bunch of spreadsheets

284
00:36:49,040 --> 00:36:54,000
 if you go to the city website to even list individual obligations we have. And they change

285
00:36:54,000 --> 00:36:59,080
 all the time. We'll read, we'll, we'll pay some off with a newer shorter term thing or

286
00:36:59,080 --> 00:37:02,200
 a better rate. And we're just, we're moving money around all the time. There's just not

287
00:37:02,200 --> 00:37:07,000
 a good practical way to do what this very well-intentioned thing is. So that's why I

288
00:37:07,000 --> 00:37:08,000
 made my motion.

289
00:37:08,000 --> 00:37:16,040
 I would say that's no different than any large organization. If you ask any company to say

290
00:37:16,040 --> 00:37:20,520
 does every individual piece of equipment over a certain amount of money is capitalized which

291
00:37:20,520 --> 00:37:25,720
 takes that debt service you're talking about. So it would be thousands and thousands of

292
00:37:25,720 --> 00:37:33,560
 pages of individual debt service to account for, right? So it's just, it's not practical.

293
00:37:33,560 --> 00:37:40,200
 It's not just the city. That's if you have a business, it's capital works that way.

294
00:37:40,200 --> 00:37:43,880
 Commissioner Johnson, you came in late. Do you have any clarifying questions?

295
00:37:43,880 --> 00:37:44,880
 No, no.

296
00:37:44,880 --> 00:37:45,880
 Okay.

297
00:37:45,880 --> 00:37:57,080
 All right. I will now call a vote on Commissioner Davis's motion that we do not recommend to

298
00:37:57,080 --> 00:38:04,160
 Council. Can I say the attached language? All right. All those in favor, please raise

299
00:38:04,160 --> 00:38:06,280
 your right hand and say aye.

300
00:38:06,280 --> 00:38:07,280
 Aye.

301
00:38:07,280 --> 00:38:13,440
 Believe that that is unanimous. All right. Everybody who is opposed, please raise your

302
00:38:13,440 --> 00:38:21,680
 right hand and say nay. All right. We are not recommending any changes on that. That

303
00:38:21,680 --> 00:38:30,080
 brings us to our next item. D, number CRC24-034. Receive a report, hold a discussion, give

304
00:38:30,080 --> 00:38:34,320
 staff direction on adding language to the charter that requires the posting, posting

305
00:38:34,320 --> 00:38:39,520
 the amount of money of an adequate contributions to fund pension or retirement plans required

306
00:38:39,520 --> 00:38:52,440
 to fund pension. Okay. Thank you. So just a quick primer on City of Denton pension. The

307
00:38:52,440 --> 00:38:58,000
 city participates in two pension plans, the Texas Municipal Retirement System, TMRS, which

308
00:38:58,000 --> 00:39:04,040
 is a agent multiple employer, traditional joint contributory. I don't know how to say

309
00:39:04,040 --> 00:39:12,040
 that, hybrid defined benefit plan, which is all of our city employees, including police.

310
00:39:12,040 --> 00:39:18,000
 And then the fire department has its own Denton Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund, which

311
00:39:18,000 --> 00:39:27,200
 is a single employer contributory plan. So a couple of definitions. Funded ratio is the

312
00:39:27,200 --> 00:39:34,720
 ability of the plan's current assets to cover promised benefits. And the amortization period

313
00:39:34,720 --> 00:39:39,600
 is the length of time required to pay off the plan's current pension benefits earned

314
00:39:39,600 --> 00:39:45,880
 to date, plus an unfunded liability based on current contributions. And the pension review

315
00:39:45,880 --> 00:39:51,960
 board of the state of Texas recommends an amortization period of no more than 30 years,

316
00:39:51,960 --> 00:39:59,400
 with 10 to 25 years being the more preferable target. And then this is just a brief summary

317
00:39:59,400 --> 00:40:06,760
 of Denton's current pension plans. As you can see, the TMRS one, we are at an 85.3%

318
00:40:06,760 --> 00:40:18,880
 funding funded ratio and a 13.5 year amortization period, which is within the 10 to 25 years

319
00:40:18,880 --> 00:40:24,520
 being the more preferable target, as well within that. And then the firefighters plan

320
00:40:24,520 --> 00:40:39,360
 is 98.66% funded ratio and a 9.1 amortization period. Some of the relevant statutes, the

321
00:40:39,360 --> 00:40:45,520
 Texas government code has a whole section dedicated to TMRS that sets all of the definitions

322
00:40:45,520 --> 00:40:54,880
 and rules for it. And then it also is mandated to have a Texas Pension Review Board, which

323
00:40:54,880 --> 00:41:00,360
 oversees all of the public retirement systems, both state and local, in regard to their actuarial

324
00:41:00,360 --> 00:41:05,760
 soundness and compliance with state reporting requirements. We have a lot of requirements

325
00:41:05,760 --> 00:41:12,120
 from the Texas Pension Review Board that we have to follow as well. Some considerations

326
00:41:12,120 --> 00:41:20,080
 on this item, and our finance team can speak more to this as well, but state laws and existing

327
00:41:20,080 --> 00:41:31,560
 policies require publication and transparency and pension plans. And our website landing

328
00:41:31,560 --> 00:41:36,740
 page for the pension plans has all of that information that I've already given you. And

329
00:41:36,740 --> 00:41:49,560
 then you can click into either one of these and view the rate of return, as well as all

330
00:41:49,560 --> 00:42:02,240
 of the actuarial value assets and contribution rates. And then the Comptroller, we report

331
00:42:02,240 --> 00:42:11,120
 all of this to the Comptroller so you can also go and look up any public pension here

332
00:42:11,120 --> 00:42:19,560
 and see where it's at. So with that, I will yield for questions.

333
00:42:19,560 --> 00:42:27,480
 So if I'm understanding this correctly, the city is already required to post our contribution

334
00:42:27,480 --> 00:42:33,800
 status? Yes. I think that was the same question. It

335
00:42:33,800 --> 00:42:41,760
 just may be a different way. So we're basically already doing this by state law. Is that true?

336
00:42:41,760 --> 00:42:53,640
 Yes. And I'll confirm with finance. Yeah, yes. It looks like it is. We have a pension

337
00:42:53,640 --> 00:43:01,000
 initiative and it looks very similar to what we have to do.

338
00:43:01,000 --> 00:43:07,480
 Matt Hamilton, Budget Manager. We do publish this information and we do report it to the

339
00:43:07,480 --> 00:43:15,280
 state as well, as Christie had shown. And that is legally required by state law?

340
00:43:15,280 --> 00:43:21,560
 I believe so. Yes, the Comptroller requires that and we put it on the website as part

341
00:43:21,560 --> 00:43:25,000
 of what the Comptroller requires. Commissioner Beresma.

342
00:43:25,000 --> 00:43:31,400
 I don't feel like we need to discuss this anymore. Go ahead and make the motion to not

343
00:43:31,400 --> 00:43:35,880
 pass this charge forward to the city council. I'll second that.

344
00:43:35,880 --> 00:43:41,540
 Motion by Commissioner Beresma, second by Commissioner Kirkpatrick. Any further discussion?

345
00:43:41,540 --> 00:43:43,520
 I just have a quick question. Commissioner Fikes.

346
00:43:43,520 --> 00:43:52,280
 So the way the charge is read is it inadequate contributions to fund the pension. So would

347
00:43:52,280 --> 00:43:58,960
 the inadequate contribution be defined as one minus the funded ratio?

348
00:43:58,960 --> 00:44:15,280
 So that's a really good question. This funded ratio, this is taking a look at the plan's

349
00:44:15,280 --> 00:44:23,600
 current assets versus what the promised future benefits are. So current assets are going

350
00:44:23,600 --> 00:44:31,360
 to fluctuate based on the market value currently. So if we had everyone in the city retire tomorrow,

351
00:44:31,360 --> 00:44:42,880
 we could pay the MRS 85.3% of those benefits. Now that doesn't mean that when individuals

352
00:44:42,880 --> 00:44:51,080
 retire they're only going to receive 85%. What it's saying is that based on the actuarial

353
00:44:51,080 --> 00:45:04,520
 analysis, and our contribution rate, it's going to take 13.5 years to reach 100% based

354
00:45:04,520 --> 00:45:08,600
 on our current future liabilities.

355
00:45:08,600 --> 00:45:15,720
 So yes, the current unfunded portion would be in that case one minus 0.853 which is 14.7%.

356
00:45:15,720 --> 00:45:25,360
 Is that fair? As of today, yes, if everyone, yes, were to

357
00:45:25,360 --> 00:45:26,360
 retire.

358
00:45:26,360 --> 00:45:29,440
 And the only other question, why is there two separate ones? I've always heard that

359
00:45:29,440 --> 00:45:34,600
 firefighters have their own, but what's the?

360
00:45:34,600 --> 00:45:39,960
 I think that that was just a decision that was made a number of years ago, I want to

361
00:45:39,960 --> 00:45:50,180
 say in the 1980s. And at that point, it was a decision whether or not to join TMRS. I

362
00:45:50,180 --> 00:45:56,800
 could be mistaken on that, but I believe that's how that occurred. The TMRS contribution rates,

363
00:45:56,800 --> 00:46:05,400
 I'll just add, are set by TMRS. The city doesn't decide whether to contribute more or less.

364
00:46:05,400 --> 00:46:14,040
 That's based on the direction of TMRS. And then, as you'll see, the firefighter's pension

365
00:46:14,040 --> 00:46:23,600
 is in really great shape, 98% funded, and we anticipate it will be 100% funded over

366
00:46:23,600 --> 00:46:28,880
 the next, I think it was four years or so, so very close.

367
00:46:28,880 --> 00:46:35,760
 So is that a product of different contribution rates between TMRS versus the firefighter

368
00:46:35,760 --> 00:46:42,520
 fund, or is it a difference in the investment returns within the fund?

369
00:46:42,520 --> 00:46:52,880
 Yeah, so I think it's, and I don't have the details on it, but I would presume that it

370
00:46:52,880 --> 00:46:59,200
 has to do with the investment, that asset allocation mix that was used in the past.

371
00:46:59,200 --> 00:47:02,840
 My gut tells me the same, that they're probably contributing the same amount. It's just the

372
00:47:02,840 --> 00:47:09,000
 returns are different. I can tell you that the contributions rate

373
00:47:09,000 --> 00:47:15,320
 matches TMRS. It is no lower than TMRS. The higher?

374
00:47:15,320 --> 00:47:24,760
 In the past, I don't think it's by very much.

375
00:47:24,760 --> 00:47:28,840
 Paralyzed with that. Refilling my water.

376
00:47:28,840 --> 00:47:34,120
 Commissioner Remsky, do you have a question? Well, I don't know, but to kind of give an

377
00:47:34,120 --> 00:47:42,040
 extra background on it, the gentleman commissioner that brought this up referenced it in fact

378
00:47:42,040 --> 00:47:50,600
 of the news about the fact that Dallas's pension fund was really at a risk. And his comment

379
00:47:50,600 --> 00:47:57,200
 and concern was whether or not the city of Denton could get caught.

380
00:47:57,200 --> 00:48:07,320
 And if, this is probably not that you could answer, but if we've got the Texas government

381
00:48:07,320 --> 00:48:16,480
 code in regard to pension systems, as well as the pension review board, how could Dallas,

382
00:48:16,480 --> 00:48:24,520
 I mean I know we're not in Dallas, but how could Denton, if we switch it and say we were

383
00:48:24,520 --> 00:48:30,160
 a Dallas group looking at that, and they would reference, oh boy, Denton's got this big up

384
00:48:30,160 --> 00:48:38,760
 front. How close does this review board keep a track on things?

385
00:48:38,760 --> 00:48:49,080
 Sorry, and absolutely cut me off if this is incorrect. My recollection of the controversy

386
00:48:49,080 --> 00:48:54,320
 in Dallas has specifically to do with their police pension. And I, if I'm not mistaken,

387
00:48:54,320 --> 00:48:58,960
 I may be, but I think that their police union made the same choice that our firefighters

388
00:48:58,960 --> 00:49:04,200
 did years ago with a separate pension, that their police are not TMRS. I could be mistaken

389
00:49:04,200 --> 00:49:12,120
 there, but TMRS, like Matt said, we don't control, it's a statewide system that we participate

390
00:49:12,120 --> 00:49:17,360
 in. And that's why, unless the whole thing's going belly up, that's why Denton's pension

391
00:49:17,360 --> 00:49:21,640
 fund isn't going to, for average employees and police, isn't going to go belly up. My

392
00:49:21,640 --> 00:49:26,720
 recollection of Dallas is that they had a police pension fund that has been plagued

393
00:49:26,720 --> 00:49:31,680
 with problems including mayhem, corruption, lots of different problems that our firefighter

394
00:49:31,680 --> 00:49:38,000
 fund doesn't have and the TMRS is very carefully protected against. That's my recollection

395
00:49:38,000 --> 00:49:39,000
 of the Dallas problem.

396
00:49:39,000 --> 00:49:45,200
 Well, I appreciate that extra clarification because I would really hate to find out if

397
00:49:45,200 --> 00:49:52,600
 you got a, you know, I know we don't control the state, but you know, the concern that

398
00:49:52,600 --> 00:50:01,320
 it's sort of like being in a condominium and find out all of a sudden you've got to pay

399
00:50:01,320 --> 00:50:09,680
 for a roof because nobody funded a contingency follow-through fund. So if you use that as

400
00:50:09,680 --> 00:50:12,680
 comparison, I like it.

401
00:50:12,680 --> 00:50:33,760
 So we have a motion on the floor to not recommend the aforementioned language to council. All

402
00:50:33,760 --> 00:50:39,680
 those in favor of not recommending that language, or recommending no change to the language,

403
00:50:39,680 --> 00:50:47,560
 please raise your right hand and say aye. All those opposed, all those opposed, please

404
00:50:47,560 --> 00:50:56,880
 raise your right hand and say nay. We will now move on to item E, number CRC 24-035,

405
00:50:56,880 --> 00:51:02,880
 to save a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction on adding language to the

406
00:51:02,880 --> 00:51:06,960
 charter that requires reporting the amount of any unfunded mandate incurred by the city

407
00:51:06,960 --> 00:51:13,520
 with information regarding the name of the mandate and the cost to the city complied.

408
00:51:13,520 --> 00:51:24,880
 Thank you. So some relevant statutes on this item is, there actually is a definition, state

409
00:51:24,880 --> 00:51:32,560
 definition of unfunded mandate. It is in the code starting in 1997. It means a requirement

410
00:51:32,560 --> 00:51:39,280
 made by a statute enacted by the legislature that requires political subdivision to establish,

411
00:51:39,280 --> 00:51:45,120
 expand, or modify an activity in any way that could require the expenditure of revenue by

412
00:51:45,120 --> 00:51:50,760
 the political subdivision that would not have been required in the absence of the statutory

413
00:51:50,760 --> 00:51:56,760
 provision. Interestingly enough, this piece of code exists in the state statute, but it

414
00:51:56,760 --> 00:52:03,560
 has no application in any other part of the state, so I would say that it's still a little

415
00:52:03,560 --> 00:52:11,680
 bit ambiguous what that means and what that would apply to in a state law situation. And

416
00:52:11,680 --> 00:52:18,920
 then some considerations on this item, state law doesn't have any application to other

417
00:52:18,920 --> 00:52:27,040
 statutes like I said, so that how we would define an unfunded mandate and then how also

418
00:52:27,040 --> 00:52:34,560
 we would track its cost is not something that is already defined. It would be something

419
00:52:34,560 --> 00:52:43,120
 that we would have to figure out either in this group or with staff at a later date.

420
00:52:43,120 --> 00:52:50,360
 And then just some additional staff impact in conversations with our finance team and

421
00:52:50,360 --> 00:52:56,760
 they can speak to this more as well. Existing finance and database systems do not have the

422
00:52:56,760 --> 00:53:02,600
 operability that would support reporting or tracking unfunded mandates and manual tracking

423
00:53:02,600 --> 00:53:08,760
 would require an estimated three to four hundred hours of staff time and roughly five to six

424
00:53:08,760 --> 00:53:17,480
 people on our finance team. And implementation would require additional staffing and funding.

425
00:53:17,480 --> 00:53:24,600
 Questions for staff. Commissioner Mungivar. So one could say that this amendment is an

426
00:53:24,600 --> 00:53:33,280
 unfunded mandate on the city of death. How did we get there? One could say that. That's

427
00:53:33,280 --> 00:53:39,240
 not that's not a dig. And I and I I've worked on the one side like I've I've heard the

428
00:53:39,240 --> 00:53:44,400
 cries of cities and unfunded mandates and I don't like it. But we do have the Texas

429
00:53:44,400 --> 00:53:51,600
 Municipal League. We do have organizations that track this stuff at a meta level. I don't

430
00:53:51,600 --> 00:53:57,200
 know that there's really any value by asking the city of Denton to track this and put it

431
00:53:57,200 --> 00:54:03,080
 out to the taxpayers. And I think that if there's any concerns that people have about

432
00:54:03,080 --> 00:54:08,720
 taxpayer funded lobbying, like I mean, this borders on that. If we're giving that kind

433
00:54:08,720 --> 00:54:13,520
 of information out, what else are we to do with it? But to hold our legislators accountable

434
00:54:13,520 --> 00:54:17,960
 for putting those costs in our cities. And I think that's a real problem. But I don't

435
00:54:17,960 --> 00:54:24,600
 know that there's really any need for our city to have all these extra staff hours spent

436
00:54:24,600 --> 00:54:29,920
 working on this just to remind us that, yes, we are paying for stuff that we're not getting

437
00:54:29,920 --> 00:54:34,680
 any money from the state legislature. I think we're all acutely aware of that fact. So I'm

438
00:54:34,680 --> 00:54:40,360
 going to make a motion that we don't recommend this to council. Motion by Commissioner Montreguerra

439
00:54:40,360 --> 00:54:49,920
 second by Commissioner Burisma. At what level? You said meta level or metal level? Meta like

440
00:54:49,920 --> 00:54:54,040
 like they're like track like what does this cost the average city or like per dollar or

441
00:54:54,040 --> 00:54:58,160
 something like that. Like there's like kind of like fact sheets like for a city of two

442
00:54:58,160 --> 00:55:01,840
 hundred fifty thousand like you just get these little like flyers handouts like this is what

443
00:55:01,840 --> 00:55:06,240
 this is going to cost our city and like a lot of times it'd be like a malformation of

444
00:55:06,240 --> 00:55:15,120
 like small, medium, large sized cities. Further discussion? Commissioner Davis. In the spirit

445
00:55:15,120 --> 00:55:20,440
 of the concern of knowing that not every citizen is going to necessarily find themselves on

446
00:55:20,440 --> 00:55:29,560
 the website or something like that and kind of acknowledging to the definition provided

447
00:55:29,560 --> 00:55:33,600
 that for some reasons in the government code, no further reference is kind of only half

448
00:55:33,600 --> 00:55:38,320
 the definition of the mandate. It doesn't mention the part where there's not money provided

449
00:55:38,320 --> 00:55:47,080
 by the person by the entity mandating to cover the mandate. Is there a short of three hundred

450
00:55:47,080 --> 00:55:55,040
 or four hundred staff hours? Is there a way for city staff to make available very basic

451
00:55:55,040 --> 00:56:00,080
 information about this kind of stuff? You know using things that already exist from

452
00:56:00,080 --> 00:56:07,320
 TML. Is there a more basic requirement that we can reasonably put in place that's not

453
00:56:07,320 --> 00:56:12,080
 going to take three hundred four hundred staff hours? I think that's probably just a little

454
00:56:12,080 --> 00:56:15,480
 bit high because it goes down every year. You know you only have to update it every

455
00:56:15,480 --> 00:56:21,720
 two years when the legislature meets. But is there something where we can accomplish

456
00:56:21,720 --> 00:56:27,120
 the spirit of informing our citizens about what the state's putting on us and not paying

457
00:56:27,120 --> 00:56:35,520
 for that it doesn't take three or four hundred staff hours? I'm not asking you to invent

458
00:56:35,520 --> 00:57:02,080
 it on the spot. Do you have any feedback Matt? I think if the data is already there and has

459
00:57:02,080 --> 00:57:12,320
 been produced and the effort made by another organization like TML or others then absolutely

460
00:57:12,320 --> 00:57:21,680
 it could be something that staff potentially could do. I think the concern is if there

461
00:57:21,680 --> 00:57:31,520
 is a mandate identifying what that liability looks like specifically for the city of Denton

462
00:57:31,520 --> 00:57:40,200
 depending on the mandate and the extent of it we would have to do presumably quite a

463
00:57:40,200 --> 00:57:48,480
 bit of analysis to know what that is and then update you know going forward to track it

464
00:57:48,480 --> 00:57:55,040
 and that's where that kind of tracking mechanism isn't something that's currently available

465
00:57:55,040 --> 00:58:05,320
 in our enterprise system. So I think from a staff perspective there's some unknown as

466
00:58:05,320 --> 00:58:14,800
 to you know how deep does the analysis go for all the mandates and the ultimate cost

467
00:58:14,800 --> 00:58:25,440
 of staff time associated with that. Thank you. So let me make sure I'm kind of understanding

468
00:58:25,440 --> 00:58:32,240
 the big problem why the cost or the time cost could be so much. So there's unfunded mandates

469
00:58:32,240 --> 00:58:36,640
 and there's unfunded mandates. There's the big ones that we hear about every two years

470
00:58:36,640 --> 00:58:40,760
 right like the legislature requires every city to put up a billboard that says don't

471
00:58:40,760 --> 00:58:45,120
 mess with Texas and they didn't give us any money to do it but we all have to spend $100,000

472
00:58:45,120 --> 00:58:50,840
 billboard and then there's the mandates that are like every city has to have water that

473
00:58:50,840 --> 00:58:55,440
 meets these quality standards but there's no state money for running our water plant.

474
00:58:55,440 --> 00:59:00,920
 So we have regulatory duties and statutory duties that are required but we wouldn't really

475
00:59:00,920 --> 00:59:05,880
 put them in the bucket of unfunded mandates or big political splashy items and that kind

476
00:59:05,880 --> 00:59:12,840
 of stuff and within the city budget I mean millions and millions of things that we do

477
00:59:12,840 --> 00:59:17,560
 because we are a city because we're required to by the state but we collect our own taxes

478
00:59:17,560 --> 00:59:28,120
 to do it. Am I kind of close to the mark? Right yeah. Commissioner Danton. I think even

479
00:59:28,120 --> 00:59:34,840
 if you attempted to do this it would get messed up and not be accurate after a year or two

480
00:59:34,840 --> 00:59:39,480
 and that's not a dig on anybody it's just because you have to have some committee meet

481
00:59:39,480 --> 00:59:45,180
 and say is this an unfunded mandate or not? What's the definition? So I understand the

482
00:59:45,180 --> 00:59:49,640
 spirit of it but the practicalities doesn't seem reasonable but I don't think it will

483
00:59:49,640 --> 00:59:54,680
 give you an accurate picture anyway at the end of the day. I don't see how this could

484
00:59:54,680 --> 01:00:09,600
 actually be measurable and be accurate. Commissioner Remsky would you like to speak? I'm toying

485
01:00:09,600 --> 01:00:19,720
 with my question but such a rub. Anyway the fact that it states that it would require

486
01:00:19,720 --> 01:00:30,880
 all of those extra man hours, lady hours, state hours. If it's a unfunded mandate it's

487
01:00:30,880 --> 01:00:41,120
 something that we have to quote pay for. In order to pay for it it would come out of operations.

488
01:00:41,120 --> 01:00:46,880
 Operations goes through and they calculate a budget so isn't there somewhere in that

489
01:00:46,880 --> 01:00:55,760
 process that one knows how much that unfunded mandate contributes to the operational fund?

490
01:00:55,760 --> 01:01:02,280
 Commissioner Mungibar do you have an answer? I think this is what kind of Commissioner

491
01:01:02,280 --> 01:01:08,600
 Danhoff is getting at is the question of what is an unfunded mandate? Is it something is

492
01:01:08,600 --> 01:01:12,920
 it like a sign that we have to put in one year or is it a regulation that we have to

493
01:01:12,920 --> 01:01:18,720
 enforce year over year? It's very technical when you start talking about these. EPA changes

494
01:01:18,720 --> 01:01:24,240
 our greenhouse gas limitation from this to this so therefore we have an unfunded mandate

495
01:01:24,240 --> 01:01:30,200
 to make low knocks burners everywhere. Like is that an unfunded mandate or is that just

496
01:01:30,200 --> 01:01:34,920
 a regulation? And at the end of the day that's where it gets convoluted. I just don't know

497
01:01:34,920 --> 01:01:40,640
 that there's any value added from this. Like I said I think we've got lots of great groups

498
01:01:40,640 --> 01:01:46,600
 that are documenting this at a high level and kind of know when they see it but I don't

499
01:01:46,600 --> 01:01:52,560
 see that there's any value in asking our city staff to spend any extra time to analyze this

500
01:01:52,560 --> 01:01:57,960
 because I don't know that it gives a lot of information that isn't already out there and

501
01:01:57,960 --> 01:02:05,460
 I also don't know that people would even read it when it comes down to it. All right so

502
01:02:05,460 --> 01:02:14,280
 we have a motion on the floor to recommend no change made by Commissioner Davis, Commissioner

503
01:02:14,280 --> 01:02:26,960
 McGuire, seconded by Commissioner Burrisma to recommend not adding language as indicated

504
01:02:26,960 --> 01:02:32,480
 on this item. All those in favor of recommending not adding that language please raise your

505
01:02:32,480 --> 01:02:39,920
 right hand and say aye. Aye. That would be unanimous. All those opposed please raise

506
01:02:39,920 --> 01:02:46,640
 your right hand and say nay. All right that recommendation has been made we now move on

507
01:02:46,640 --> 01:02:55,080
 to and I'm going to call the next two items together. Item F number CRC 24-008. Receiver

508
01:02:55,080 --> 01:02:59,360
 report hold a discussion and give staff direction on modifying the mix of single and at-large

509
01:02:59,360 --> 01:03:08,200
 districts as well as item G number CRC 24-008. Receiver report hold a discussion and give

510
01:03:08,200 --> 01:03:15,000
 staff direction on the need for additional council seats based on population size. We

511
01:03:15,000 --> 01:03:20,800
 had some absences the last time these two items were discussed and we did not have a

512
01:03:20,800 --> 01:03:25,480
 passing motion when they were discussed so I'd like to start off by asking did with the

513
01:03:25,480 --> 01:03:32,400
 members who were not here did you guys get a chance to go back and watch that conversation?

514
01:03:32,400 --> 01:03:37,440
 Point of order. State your point of order. Yeah both these items you called them together

515
01:03:37,440 --> 01:03:42,200
 it's all resting together. Both these items are out of order under the City Council rules

516
01:03:42,200 --> 01:03:49,120
 of procedure and specifically section 2-29 G11. Motions for reconsideration. They're

517
01:03:49,120 --> 01:03:56,360
 items that we have considered. The motions failed. The items failed. We moved forward

518
01:03:56,360 --> 01:04:01,680
 with our work and it's now out of order to reconsider them without a motion to reconsider.

519
01:04:01,680 --> 01:04:09,280
 Such a motion was not made in the proper time so these are out of order. It is my opinion

520
01:04:09,280 --> 01:04:16,560
 as chair that it is the charge of this committee to produce recommendations on these items.

521
01:04:16,560 --> 01:04:23,760
 This committee did not produce recommendations on this item. This question was previously

522
01:04:23,760 --> 01:04:29,320
 I discussed with staff previously and I've not heard recommendations from our professional

523
01:04:29,320 --> 01:04:35,080
 legal team to the contrary of the advice that I received previously. So I'm going to proceed

524
01:04:35,080 --> 01:04:46,280
 with this item. I filled in ruling of the chair. All right. So the procedure here is

525
01:04:46,280 --> 01:04:53,680
 that he has appealed the ruling of the chair so now the entirety of the body wants to move

526
01:04:53,680 --> 01:05:00,080
 forward. All right. So Commissioner Davis has appealed my judgment on these items that

527
01:05:00,080 --> 01:05:07,120
 these items my judgment that these items can return in this manner. So we will now be taking

528
01:05:07,120 --> 01:05:17,240
 a vote a vote aye on this item would be that Commissioner Davis's appeal is correct and

529
01:05:17,240 --> 01:05:25,000
 that these items cannot return and a vote nay on this item for this appeal would be

530
01:05:25,000 --> 01:05:31,800
 that this appeal is incorrect and the committee would like to consider these items once more.

531
01:05:31,800 --> 01:05:46,480
 Give me a further discussion. It's a debatable motion. This is a committee this isn't city

532
01:05:46,480 --> 01:05:56,840
 council. City council has the right it was my understanding and whether or not bringing

533
01:05:56,840 --> 01:06:09,680
 it down to here to do a reconsider. I'm a little curious on that. Number two the fact

534
01:06:09,680 --> 01:06:22,240
 that we decided based on votes that there was not a you know it's not a decision that

535
01:06:22,240 --> 01:06:31,000
 it doesn't move forward a decision to read here the recommendation to the city council

536
01:06:31,000 --> 01:06:40,680
 that said we could not determine whether or not we should do it or not. So is that not

537
01:06:40,680 --> 01:06:48,720
 a recommendation because if that is not a recommendation and we go through reconsidering

538
01:06:48,720 --> 01:06:54,140
 there are probably at least three or four other items that we've discussed that did

539
01:06:54,140 --> 01:07:02,000
 not pass because of a tie or that. Are we going to go back and reconsider all of those

540
01:07:02,000 --> 01:07:07,560
 again and when are we going to get forward on it. I'm trying to look at this globally

541
01:07:07,560 --> 01:07:16,680
 not it's just this one or two items that we are combining. Sure there have been items

542
01:07:16,680 --> 01:07:22,800
 discussed by this committee that did not pass on seven seven votes. I have no intention

543
01:07:22,800 --> 01:07:28,120
 of revisiting those votes because the committee spoke as a full committee on those items.

544
01:07:28,120 --> 01:07:35,960
 On these two particular items there was not a there were several absences on the meeting

545
01:07:35,960 --> 01:07:43,080
 that these items were discussed previously and so is my opinion that the lack of direction

546
01:07:43,080 --> 01:07:51,680
 given from this body was perhaps related to that number of apps and given that there are

547
01:07:51,680 --> 01:07:59,400
 committee members who were here or who are here tonight who are not here then at a minimum

548
01:07:59,400 --> 01:08:03,000
 I would like those committee members who are not present previously to be able to give

549
01:08:03,000 --> 01:08:11,080
 direction given the fact that this did not pass and that there were those absences. If

550
01:08:11,080 --> 01:08:16,520
 ideally I would like to have this committee bring forward some opinion on this item to

551
01:08:16,520 --> 01:08:25,040
 council does that answer your concerns. It somewhat does but if one of the rationales

552
01:08:25,040 --> 01:08:34,400
 is that members were not here we don't have members here again tonight. So unless one

553
01:08:34,400 --> 01:08:41,680
 were to and I know I don't think there's anything like this in rules Robert's rules or that

554
01:08:41,680 --> 01:08:48,400
 but unless the discussion was such that only those that were missing on that night could

555
01:08:48,400 --> 01:08:56,920
 give their vote and see how it would change it because if okay if I was here I've already

556
01:08:56,920 --> 01:09:02,960
 given you my vote so therefore I should not vote again today. I'm going to just pick

557
01:09:02,960 --> 01:09:09,440
 on and say if Commissioner Fikes was not here that night he would get to vote if Commissioner

558
01:09:09,440 --> 01:09:18,080
 Kirkpatrick was not here he votes rather than having all of us here because then you're

559
01:09:18,080 --> 01:09:26,600
 not taking into account the ones that are absent tonight.

560
01:09:26,600 --> 01:09:34,360
 Can we go back to the minutes I guess and figure out on these two particular items what

561
01:09:34,360 --> 01:09:42,040
 the vote was. So was it seven against? Yes it would be the. It was seven I think all

562
01:09:42,040 --> 01:09:45,240
 the people that were absent would have voted in contrary it would have been seven to seven

563
01:09:45,240 --> 01:09:50,000
 so the best they could have gotten was seven to seven correct and then you would have revisited.

564
01:09:50,000 --> 01:09:57,920
 That's kind of why I'm getting that is that if it was already a seven against it this

565
01:09:57,920 --> 01:10:05,760
 substantively doesn't matter because it could only be seven to seven. This committee is

566
01:10:05,760 --> 01:10:12,600
 charged with producing recommendations to council. Point of order Madam Chair on this

567
01:10:12,600 --> 01:10:19,960
 motion each member may speak once. Thank you. Sorry what did he say? On this Robert's rules

568
01:10:19,960 --> 01:10:26,720
 of order dictate that on appeals to the chair each member may speak once and only once.

569
01:10:26,720 --> 01:10:49,040
 Well I didn't intend for that to be my. So in the event my understanding or my question

570
01:10:49,040 --> 01:10:59,920
 is or comment if we didn't have enough then and we're reconsidering today why would we

571
01:10:59,920 --> 01:11:04,920
 reconsider it if we don't have a full full today because that's just going to open up

572
01:11:04,920 --> 01:11:10,080
 to where we can continue to go more because if we don't get seven to seven today based

573
01:11:10,080 --> 01:11:18,040
 on your decision or comment you just made we would go again. The other thing we still

574
01:11:18,040 --> 01:11:28,280
 have council charges that we have not discussed that have not been presented. Why would we

575
01:11:28,280 --> 01:11:33,640
 why would we discuss something a second time prior to discussing those items the first

576
01:11:33,640 --> 01:11:46,960
 time and I'm not done so I don't want to yield if I'm not going to get the floor back. Apologies.

577
01:11:46,960 --> 01:11:53,400
 And then when you talk about the seven to seven vote and that you would not reconsider

578
01:11:53,400 --> 01:11:58,360
 a vote if we had a seven to seven and I think that's false too because the original chair

579
01:11:58,360 --> 01:12:03,960
 vote that we had was seven to seven on two separate occasions and it came back the next

580
01:12:03,960 --> 01:12:09,880
 time even though we had a vice chair that was elected and so we could continue to operate

581
01:12:09,880 --> 01:12:18,160
 going forward but we didn't we came brought it back so back to Commissioner Ramsey's comment

582
01:12:18,160 --> 01:12:23,240
 that there are others that we didn't that would make we have to bring them all in but

583
01:12:23,240 --> 01:12:31,360
 I do agree with Mr. Davis that the council procedures is the only thing that I've seen

584
01:12:31,360 --> 01:12:38,240
 and it appears to me that they have the next session to bring that up and there's nothing

585
01:12:38,240 --> 01:12:43,560
 that deviates from that I still have a hard time getting past that that I think I think

586
01:12:43,560 --> 01:12:50,880
 supports Commissioner Davis's claim. Thank you. Commissioner Mungiwara. We're gonna see

587
01:12:50,880 --> 01:12:58,120
 if she can answer the question. Would you like to address why this would be coming back

588
01:12:58,120 --> 01:13:02,800
 at this meeting as opposed to future meetings? It was placed these two items were placed

589
01:13:02,800 --> 01:13:10,040
 on the agenda at the request of the chair the decision to move the perfecting charges

590
01:13:10,040 --> 01:13:18,520
 which we were planning on having this evening was in order to make time logistically for

591
01:13:18,520 --> 01:13:23,880
 this. So we still we still do have charges that we have not addressed or have not decided

592
01:13:23,880 --> 01:13:31,120
 on at the council similar to this that we have not discussed one time it seems out of

593
01:13:31,120 --> 01:13:35,240
 order to be considered speaking on something else a second time we're discussing if we

594
01:13:35,240 --> 01:13:43,080
 haven't even done that once we only have one more meeting. Commissioner Mungiwara. I'm

595
01:13:43,080 --> 01:13:47,840
 very sensitive to Chairwoman Bray's concern that we need to provide some direction to

596
01:13:47,840 --> 01:13:52,440
 council on this I understand there's some talk about how there was there was seven votes

597
01:13:52,440 --> 01:13:57,440
 how could things change well we did change votes did change for Chairwoman Bray when

598
01:13:57,440 --> 01:14:03,160
 it came down to when we had to make a final decision. Now that's just one example but

599
01:14:03,160 --> 01:14:10,200
 my point is is that in the absence of any direction which we haven't provided any direction

600
01:14:10,200 --> 01:14:13,920
 we've merely had seven folks say they want no changes seven folks say that they would

601
01:14:13,920 --> 01:14:19,960
 like to see some changes in the absence of that council is going to do what they'd like

602
01:14:19,960 --> 01:14:25,240
 and so I think there's a really good opportunity here that if we can reach a consensus on something

603
01:14:25,240 --> 01:14:31,240
 then it could be something that we were at least the majority of us can be happy about

604
01:14:31,240 --> 01:14:38,280
 rather than the council members that directed us to consider this to choose their own plans

605
01:14:38,280 --> 01:14:54,600
 so that would be my consideration. Would you like to make a motion? No I'd like to speak

606
01:14:54,600 --> 01:15:02,800
 to my motion. I haven't debated the motion yet. I made it but I didn't expect a motion.

607
01:15:02,800 --> 01:15:08,160
 So I feel kind of like Walter and the Big Lebowski if there are rules there are ways

608
01:15:08,160 --> 01:15:12,240
 that you do things and there are ways you don't do things. Our meetings are governed

609
01:15:12,240 --> 01:15:17,120
 by two things Robert's Rules of Order and the Council Rules of Procedure. It's very

610
01:15:17,120 --> 01:15:22,920
 clear in the city code of ordinances that boards and commissions are to be governed

611
01:15:22,920 --> 01:15:27,340
 by the Council Rules of Procedure. There's some stuff that doesn't apply like what do

612
01:15:27,340 --> 01:15:31,840
 you do to elect a mayor or a pro tem? This doesn't apply to us. There are other things

613
01:15:31,840 --> 01:15:39,160
 that apply very clearly to us and it's very clear in the code that those Rules of Procedure

614
01:15:39,160 --> 01:15:47,080
 in 229 apply to this body. There is a way to revisit an item. The way to revisit an

615
01:15:47,080 --> 01:15:50,760
 item is not that the chair keeps adding it and adding it and adding it until she gets

616
01:15:50,760 --> 01:15:57,240
 the vote she wants. The way that you revisit an item is you follow G-11 which is consideration

617
01:15:57,240 --> 01:16:02,960
 we can put it on the screen if we need to and my motion is not to my point of order

618
01:16:02,960 --> 01:16:08,840
 excuse me and that was overruled and that I've appealed is not really about the substance

619
01:16:08,840 --> 01:16:15,240
 of the item. My point of order was that we didn't follow the rules for putting this back

620
01:16:15,240 --> 01:16:19,840
 on the agenda. The way you put it back on the agenda is you make a motion to reconsider

621
01:16:19,840 --> 01:16:24,440
 under the Texas Open Meetings Act. You have to do that ahead of time so it can be properly

622
01:16:24,440 --> 01:16:29,040
 posted then the body has a vote on the motion to reconsider and that's when we have the

623
01:16:29,040 --> 01:16:32,520
 debate about well did we really have enough people there to talk about it? Did we have

624
01:16:32,520 --> 01:16:37,080
 all the information that we needed? Was that the right time to consider that motion? And

625
01:16:37,080 --> 01:16:41,560
 the only person who can only people who can make that motion to reconsider are folks who

626
01:16:41,560 --> 01:16:48,080
 are on the prevailing side. The motion did not pass so the people who are on the prevailing

627
01:16:48,080 --> 01:16:53,320
 side are the people who voted against the motion. Like I said the last time we talked

628
01:16:53,320 --> 01:16:57,720
 about this there's a hundred ways a motion can die there's only one way it can pass.

629
01:16:57,720 --> 01:17:04,000
 We took action on these items. It failed. The people who voted against my motions on

630
01:17:04,000 --> 01:17:10,200
 these could have moved to reconsider within the time frame specified they didn't do it

631
01:17:10,200 --> 01:17:14,960
 so to take it back up today we are out of order. If this is something that is important

632
01:17:14,960 --> 01:17:21,480
 to you if you find yourself in the minority that voted on these items if you find yourself

633
01:17:21,480 --> 01:17:25,960
 someone who because of your own personal obligations couldn't be at that meeting go to your council

634
01:17:25,960 --> 01:17:30,940
 member and ask them to add this to the charge. Go to your council member and go to the next

635
01:17:30,940 --> 01:17:35,160
 level where all these things have to go and handle it there. You don't go outside the

636
01:17:35,160 --> 01:17:40,880
 rules to create your own rules where we can go back and revisit items that were properly

637
01:17:40,880 --> 01:17:46,160
 considered by the body and put to the side. That's the substance of my motion appealing

638
01:17:46,160 --> 01:17:56,480
 the ruling of the chair. Do we have any other speakers before we would like to vote? Do

639
01:17:56,480 --> 01:18:08,640
 we need a simple majority or eight votes? Eight votes. Eight votes to in favor of Mr.

640
01:18:08,640 --> 01:18:16,600
 Davis' motion go ahead and roll the chair. You would need eight votes yes. Okay thank

641
01:18:16,600 --> 01:18:25,000
 you. Point of entry. So I have a question about that eight votes. I've gone back to

642
01:18:25,000 --> 01:18:31,480
 this is leaving all prior votes about procedural things aside. Chairs and elected aside. I've

643
01:18:31,480 --> 01:18:39,080
 gone back to our enabling statute our charge in the eight vote requirement specifically

644
01:18:39,080 --> 01:18:44,240
 references recommendations of the body. This is a procedural vote and not a recommendation

645
01:18:44,240 --> 01:18:50,720
 to body. So can we can we look at that language and make sure we're we can and and we have

646
01:18:50,720 --> 01:19:02,040
 to look at this a few times in the law department. The body has decided that once you do your

647
01:19:02,040 --> 01:19:05,400
 work by eight votes and the charging document that created this body said eight votes and

648
01:19:05,400 --> 01:19:11,920
 that's kind of how this body has been drawn. Can you speak louder please? The charging

649
01:19:11,920 --> 01:19:19,520
 document says eight votes and how this committee has been run is that you've decided that eight

650
01:19:19,520 --> 01:19:25,080
 votes is where we are and so it would be backwards to go back now and say oh we want to change

651
01:19:25,080 --> 01:19:29,680
 this because it's a procedural rule. Everything has been by eight votes on this committee

652
01:19:29,680 --> 01:19:38,180
 and that's the way we should keep going. Do the charging document also say to abide by

653
01:19:38,180 --> 01:19:43,480
 council's procedures? The charging document does not specifically say that. I can go pull

654
01:19:43,480 --> 01:19:51,120
 it out. No the charging document says this body has to have eight votes to make a recommendation.

655
01:19:51,120 --> 01:19:57,880
 That's what the charging document says. Without eight votes this body is not making a recommendation.

656
01:19:57,880 --> 01:20:01,560
 This isn't a recommendation is what he's saying correct? Right he's saying this is a procedural

657
01:20:01,560 --> 01:20:09,240
 matter. Correct. But even on the procedural matter we've gone with the eight vote rule.

658
01:20:09,240 --> 01:20:16,160
 And those would be what other examples are procedural matters? For instance the one that

659
01:20:16,160 --> 01:20:28,800
 you brought up about voting. We voted until we got a chair. Okay. Does, I'm a little bit

660
01:20:28,800 --> 01:20:37,420
 confused by what you're telling us. Not on what you're saying but if the body has decided

661
01:20:37,420 --> 01:20:43,760
 just out of a you know a spirit of congeniality or to preserve decorum or just to be able

662
01:20:43,760 --> 01:20:48,920
 to move forward that we're going to adopt this eight vote majority thing even if that's

663
01:20:48,920 --> 01:20:56,100
 not what's in our language. How does that constrain us going forward? Like we haven't

664
01:20:56,100 --> 01:21:01,420
 changed anything. We haven't changed any rules. We've said I mean nobody challenged it. People

665
01:21:01,420 --> 01:21:06,360
 who could have benefited by challenging it decided not to. Didn't raise a point of order.

666
01:21:06,360 --> 01:21:12,200
 Didn't raise exactly this point at the time. Does that take away someone's ability to raise

667
01:21:12,200 --> 01:21:17,640
 the valid concern that we're not required to have eight votes? How does that under Robert's

668
01:21:17,640 --> 01:21:22,880
 rules constrain the body going forward just because someone chose not to assert a point

669
01:21:22,880 --> 01:21:27,960
 of order some earlier time? No it doesn't because there's two things. You have made

670
01:21:27,960 --> 01:21:33,040
 that point tonight. You've made that point tonight. And the body is going to vote on

671
01:21:33,040 --> 01:21:38,520
 that point tonight. And Robert's rules are only there to make sure that the majority,

672
01:21:38,520 --> 01:21:42,880
 the will of the majority prevails. That's what those rules are for. And that the voice

673
01:21:42,880 --> 01:21:47,960
 of the minority is preserved and heard. Right and I think we've accomplished both of those

674
01:21:47,960 --> 01:21:57,560
 but the majority vote prevails. The minority cannot award the vote of the majority. We'll

675
01:21:57,560 --> 01:22:05,040
 see what the vote is and we'll see what the points are after. Do you have a point of information?

676
01:22:05,040 --> 01:22:14,880
 I am trying to determine whether or not the agenda is posted 72 hours ahead because I

677
01:22:14,880 --> 01:22:26,920
 didn't print out what came to my home on Monday to bring the copy in. It's listed on here

678
01:22:26,920 --> 01:22:35,400
 that we would cover that item. I do not recall if what was printed 72 hours ahead and falling

679
01:22:35,400 --> 01:22:43,360
 under the Open Meetings Act then it was listed. Does anyone have a copy of what the original

680
01:22:43,360 --> 01:22:53,160
 agenda was as posted now to us on my note? I can speak to that. The agenda that is before

681
01:22:53,160 --> 01:22:58,840
 you is the agenda that was posted on Monday before 5.30 in accordance with our Open Meetings

682
01:22:58,840 --> 01:23:04,280
 Act. I didn't hear part of that last part. Could I ask you to speak louder? Yes. It was

683
01:23:04,280 --> 01:23:09,960
 posted, the agenda before you is the exact same agenda that was posted on Monday before

684
01:23:09,960 --> 01:23:17,560
 5.30 p.m. which is within our 72, which is when our 72 hour period starts. Okay. I guess

685
01:23:17,560 --> 01:23:29,040
 I just didn't recall that. Thank you. All right. We will now vote on Commissioner Davis's

686
01:23:29,040 --> 01:23:35,380
 appeal of the Chair's judgment. As a reminder, a vote aye on this is a vote in favor of Mr.

687
01:23:35,380 --> 01:23:44,520
 Davis's appeal and a vote nay is a vote against Mr. Davis's appeal. All those in favor of

688
01:23:44,520 --> 01:23:53,560
 Mr. Davis's appeal, please raise your right hands and say aye. Aye. All those opposed,

689
01:23:53,560 --> 01:24:07,480
 please raise your right hands and say nay. Nay. I believe that is 8 to 4. Did we get

690
01:24:07,480 --> 01:24:20,600
 that? Excellent. All right. We will now move on to the items. Does anyone have any questions

691
01:24:20,600 --> 01:24:27,200
 on the items before we move into discussion? Commissioner Mungivore. In the interest of

692
01:24:27,200 --> 01:24:34,160
 time, are we wanting to vote on one package, if you will, all at once in the end as opposed

693
01:24:34,160 --> 01:24:41,920
 to the two parts respectively? Or could such a motion be made? If that is the motion that

694
01:24:41,920 --> 01:25:07,120
 is made. Any further questions? Are they going to present it again? I don't believe so. Will

695
01:25:07,120 --> 01:25:08,920
 they? That was not my plan too. But can we? Are you asking to see the information again?

696
01:25:08,920 --> 01:25:13,500
 I should be in your mind. Any presentation? Mike, go over again. If we are all going to

697
01:25:13,500 --> 01:25:17,220
 go over it, if everybody is here and has a discussion, then I think it would be prudent

698
01:25:17,220 --> 01:25:23,400
 to go over it. It is 6.57. Do we need to do this next time or are we going to be in the

699
01:25:23,400 --> 01:25:29,720
 middle of three minutes? We have run over on meetings previously. If Commissioners would

700
01:25:29,720 --> 01:25:35,840
 like to make the motion to delay it, that is the motion that has been made. If we could

701
01:25:35,840 --> 01:25:51,800
 get a quick reminder of the previous discussions or previous presentations. And if anybody

702
01:25:51,800 --> 01:26:20,760
 needs to grab a water. Marsha, please go ahead. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am

703
01:26:20,760 --> 01:26:34,760
 sorry. This information was seen previously on Thursday, August the 8th. If you are looking

704
01:26:34,760 --> 01:26:58,080
 for it in your binders, or on the website. What large is it again, you know? This would

705
01:26:58,080 --> 01:27:22,480
 be charge D and charge M to all of you. I move that these items be postponed to our

706
01:27:22,480 --> 01:27:42,840
 next meeting. We will vote on whether or not to delay these items until our next meeting.

707
01:27:42,840 --> 01:28:08,040
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

708
01:28:08,040 --> 01:28:25,400
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

709
01:28:25,400 --> 01:28:42,360
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

710
01:28:42,360 --> 01:28:58,920
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

711
01:28:58,920 --> 01:29:15,360
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

712
01:29:15,360 --> 01:29:33,760
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

713
01:29:33,760 --> 01:29:49,240
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

714
01:29:49,240 --> 01:30:11,800
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

715
01:30:11,800 --> 01:30:28,160
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

716
01:30:28,160 --> 01:30:48,680
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

717
01:30:48,680 --> 01:31:05,360
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

718
01:31:05,360 --> 01:31:21,840
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

719
01:31:21,840 --> 01:31:37,800
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

720
01:31:37,800 --> 01:31:59,640
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

721
01:31:59,640 --> 01:32:15,320
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

722
01:32:15,320 --> 01:32:32,340
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

723
01:32:32,340 --> 01:32:45,880
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

724
01:32:45,880 --> 01:33:06,640
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

725
01:33:06,640 --> 01:33:24,220
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

726
01:33:24,220 --> 01:33:40,800
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

727
01:33:40,800 --> 01:33:58,320
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

728
01:33:58,320 --> 01:34:13,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

729
01:34:13,600 --> 01:34:29,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

730
01:34:29,600 --> 01:34:44,960
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

731
01:34:44,960 --> 01:35:02,440
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

732
01:35:02,440 --> 01:35:16,960
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

733
01:35:16,960 --> 01:35:35,720
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

734
01:35:35,720 --> 01:35:57,080
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

735
01:35:57,080 --> 01:36:14,320
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

736
01:36:14,320 --> 01:36:29,760
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

737
01:36:29,760 --> 01:36:48,080
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

738
01:36:48,080 --> 01:37:05,560
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

739
01:37:05,560 --> 01:37:24,960
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

740
01:37:24,960 --> 01:37:40,160
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

741
01:37:40,160 --> 01:37:55,800
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

742
01:37:55,800 --> 01:38:14,160
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

743
01:38:14,160 --> 01:38:29,440
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

744
01:38:29,440 --> 01:38:46,320
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

745
01:38:46,320 --> 01:39:02,200
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

746
01:39:02,200 --> 01:39:18,040
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

747
01:39:18,040 --> 01:39:34,800
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

748
01:39:34,800 --> 01:39:52,680
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

749
01:39:52,680 --> 01:40:12,200
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

750
01:40:12,200 --> 01:40:26,880
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

751
01:40:26,880 --> 01:40:46,880
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

752
01:40:46,880 --> 01:41:05,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

753
01:41:05,600 --> 01:41:21,000
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

754
01:41:21,000 --> 01:41:39,300
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

755
01:41:39,300 --> 01:41:54,480
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

756
01:41:54,480 --> 01:42:10,360
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

757
01:42:10,360 --> 01:42:27,040
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

758
01:42:27,040 --> 01:42:47,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

759
01:42:47,600 --> 01:43:04,560
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

760
01:43:04,560 --> 01:43:21,000
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

761
01:43:21,000 --> 01:43:38,440
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

762
01:43:38,440 --> 01:43:58,840
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

763
01:43:58,840 --> 01:44:14,880
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

764
01:44:14,880 --> 01:44:36,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

765
01:44:36,600 --> 01:44:52,880
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

766
01:44:52,880 --> 01:45:07,400
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

767
01:45:07,400 --> 01:45:26,120
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

768
01:45:26,120 --> 01:45:44,400
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

769
01:45:44,400 --> 01:46:00,540
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

770
01:46:00,540 --> 01:46:19,120
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

771
01:46:19,120 --> 01:46:35,040
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

772
01:46:35,040 --> 01:46:52,400
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

773
01:46:52,400 --> 01:47:10,000
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

774
01:47:10,000 --> 01:47:27,320
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

775
01:47:27,320 --> 01:47:43,820
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

776
01:47:43,820 --> 01:48:03,320
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

777
01:48:03,320 --> 01:48:18,020
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

778
01:48:18,020 --> 01:48:37,620
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

779
01:48:37,620 --> 01:48:55,880
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

780
01:48:55,880 --> 01:49:12,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

781
01:49:12,100 --> 01:49:32,540
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

782
01:49:32,540 --> 01:49:47,840
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

783
01:49:47,840 --> 01:50:06,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

784
01:50:06,100 --> 01:50:23,200
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

785
01:50:23,200 --> 01:50:41,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

786
01:50:41,100 --> 01:51:00,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

787
01:51:00,100 --> 01:51:21,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

788
01:51:21,600 --> 01:51:34,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

789
01:51:34,100 --> 01:51:53,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

790
01:51:53,600 --> 01:52:10,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

791
01:52:10,100 --> 01:52:31,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

792
01:52:31,600 --> 01:52:51,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

793
01:52:51,100 --> 01:53:07,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

794
01:53:07,600 --> 01:53:22,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

795
01:53:22,100 --> 01:53:40,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

796
01:53:40,600 --> 01:53:55,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

797
01:53:55,100 --> 01:54:15,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

798
01:54:15,600 --> 01:54:37,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

799
01:54:37,100 --> 01:54:52,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

800
01:54:52,600 --> 01:55:08,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

801
01:55:08,100 --> 01:55:23,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

802
01:55:23,600 --> 01:55:41,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

803
01:55:41,100 --> 01:55:56,600
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

804
01:55:56,600 --> 01:56:15,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

805
01:56:15,100 --> 01:56:30,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

806
01:56:30,100 --> 01:56:50,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

807
01:56:50,100 --> 01:57:14,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

808
01:57:14,100 --> 01:57:33,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

809
01:57:33,100 --> 01:57:53,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

810
01:57:53,100 --> 01:58:12,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

811
01:58:12,100 --> 01:58:27,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

812
01:58:27,100 --> 01:58:46,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

813
01:58:46,100 --> 01:59:01,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

814
01:59:01,100 --> 01:59:16,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

815
01:59:16,100 --> 01:59:36,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

816
01:59:36,100 --> 01:59:54,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

817
01:59:54,100 --> 02:00:13,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

818
02:00:13,100 --> 02:00:32,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

819
02:00:32,100 --> 02:00:51,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

820
02:00:51,100 --> 02:01:06,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

821
02:01:06,100 --> 02:01:21,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

822
02:01:21,100 --> 02:01:43,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

823
02:01:43,100 --> 02:01:58,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

824
02:01:58,100 --> 02:02:17,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

825
02:02:17,100 --> 02:02:32,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

826
02:02:32,100 --> 02:02:47,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

827
02:02:47,100 --> 02:03:02,100
 I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry. I am sorry.

828
02:03:02,100 --> 02:03:31,100
 At the time that we had this discussion, I made a presentation that commented is that what we need to do is address the aspect of voters as well as what is recommended and considered best practices according to the manual that talks about putting, and I never call it right,

829
02:03:31,100 --> 02:03:48,100
 but it was the 85th, 9th edition bottle city charter. When you look at the bottle city charter with the present number that we have on council, we are right in there with our seven members.

830
02:03:48,100 --> 02:04:17,100
 They also recommend that one has the mix of districts as well as at-largest. One of the reasons that it's stated among us as to the at-large issue is it costs more for them to run because they have to get their signs everywhere.

831
02:04:17,100 --> 02:04:44,100
 I could be totally wrong, but deciding as to what a, as council member Brewer-Isma says, democracy, constitution, charters should be considered based on whether or not Mr. X or Y has the funding.

832
02:04:44,100 --> 02:05:03,100
 If Mr. X, as an at-large, is a decent candidate, he's going to get the funding, because people are going to know it's decent. Okay, people may argue. People may argue with that, and maybe I'm being naive, okay?

833
02:05:03,100 --> 02:05:11,100
 But, you know, are we looking for equity? Are we looking for what is equitable?

834
02:05:11,100 --> 02:05:35,100
 If we go and change the number, and this is a stupid rationale for not doing it, they're going to have to reconfigure the dais because it's only set up right now for seven members plus the city manager plus the city attorney.

835
02:05:35,100 --> 02:06:04,100
 And then I'm just throwing in at them. Again, if you've got your districts and you have your at-large, I as a voter, you as a voter, you as a voter, have four people that you can interact with so that if, for a chance, your district has a dot of a council member, you could go to somebody else.

836
02:06:04,100 --> 02:06:10,100
 If it ain't broke, why are we trying to change it?

837
02:06:10,100 --> 02:06:27,100
 This has been in existence for a length of time. It seems to, and I know people will say, and I'm not one who says we can't change, and I'm not one who says, well, you know, we tried this 30 years ago and it didn't work.

838
02:06:27,100 --> 02:06:46,100
 Well, 30 years ago is not today. However, we are following the best practices as noted in the model city booklet that says what we are to look at.

839
02:06:46,100 --> 02:06:59,100
 The concern that a vote from a single district, you know, equity and equalness of what the strength is of my vote.

840
02:06:59,100 --> 02:07:16,100
 Unfortunately, I did break, but I think several members here got, because I had asked Christine to send off, when I showed what was the percentage of voters per district.

841
02:07:16,100 --> 02:07:37,100
 So you can make 103 districts if you want it, and I know that's exaggerating, but no matter how many districts you want, there are always going to be registered voters who don't show up to vote.

842
02:07:37,100 --> 02:07:59,100
 And if you're saying that I want my vote to count and I want to be sure to have strength, well, you've got to have everybody within that district also vote, even if you're down to the smaller ones.

843
02:07:59,100 --> 02:08:10,100
 And I know that what I am saying is, is really probably creating the need for a big bottle of toast.

844
02:08:10,100 --> 02:08:15,100
 But we went through all of this before.

845
02:08:15,100 --> 02:08:20,100
 And that's going back to that and I probably shouldn't bring it up.

846
02:08:20,100 --> 02:08:34,100
 Yeah, in the interest of time I'd like to move to the previous question.

847
02:08:34,100 --> 02:08:40,100
 Per Robert's rules, if I move the question and I get a second and a two-thirds majority, then we just vote and we're done talking about it.

848
02:08:40,100 --> 02:08:53,100
 We have to have eight. We have to have eight for anything to pass.

849
02:08:53,100 --> 02:09:11,100
 Okay, we'll have eight people. One seconds and we get eight and then we end discussion.

850
02:09:11,100 --> 02:09:17,100
 All those in favor, please raise your right hand and say aye.

851
02:09:17,100 --> 02:09:24,100
 Five, six, seven, eight. All right. I on this is a vote for recommending.

852
02:09:24,100 --> 02:09:26,100
 It's not two thirds.

853
02:09:26,100 --> 02:09:28,100
 It's not two thirds.

854
02:09:28,100 --> 02:09:31,100
 It's a vote of eight and that's what we've been doing.

855
02:09:31,100 --> 02:09:36,100
 That's what happened because Robert's rules said it's two thirds, but we say eight.

856
02:09:36,100 --> 02:09:40,100
 Eight is a majority. Eight is not two thirds.

857
02:09:40,100 --> 02:09:46,100
 You can't downgrade a Robert's rule. Like you can upgrade it. You can say a majority for this committee is going to be eight.

858
02:09:46,100 --> 02:09:48,100
 You can't downgrade a super majority.

859
02:09:48,100 --> 02:09:51,100
 As chair, I will call the question.

860
02:09:51,100 --> 02:09:54,100
 No, no, ma'am. Point of order.

861
02:09:54,100 --> 02:09:57,100
 Thank you. One, violating Robert's rules again.

862
02:09:57,100 --> 02:10:10,100
 Two, you're doing it to cut off debate and I haven't responded to half the things that the new folks, the people who were here to have this debate and hear their voices and respond to, have an interest to respond to this because the previous questions moved.

863
02:10:10,100 --> 02:10:17,100
 If we are annoyed that we're spending this much time on it, I'll remind you of my motion earlier was to take this up another time.

864
02:10:17,100 --> 02:10:19,100
 We're going to spend all of our time on it.

865
02:10:19,100 --> 02:10:21,100
 There are places I'd rather be also.

866
02:10:21,100 --> 02:10:30,100
 There are two different things I'm missing, including the one involved that we were talking about before the meeting involving the schools and our kids are all that kind of stuff.

867
02:10:30,100 --> 02:10:40,100
 This debate is not finished and it is an abuse of Robert's rules to call it finished based on the majority vote that we just had. It's a two thirds.

868
02:10:40,100 --> 02:11:02,100
 So we can follow the rules we don't want information. If there were eight folks that voted in favor of this point of porous motion, there were only four, presumably four that we're going to vote against with that.

869
02:11:02,100 --> 02:11:15,100
 Okay, so then we just work off that assumption so that we don't have to have this whole discussion.

870
02:11:15,100 --> 02:11:32,100
 Is anybody going to change your vote at this point?

871
02:11:32,100 --> 02:11:45,100
 Well, that's what we've been doing this entire time to change that now upsets everything. It is by the vote of eight. That is what is in the charging document.

872
02:11:45,100 --> 02:11:53,100
 And that's how we proceeded thus far for a majority. We have never addressed the question of what is two thirds, but the eight would be two thirds.

873
02:11:53,100 --> 02:12:07,100
 You said it's two thirds of what we have here tonight.

874
02:12:07,100 --> 02:12:24,100
 But when we voted before, we were told that it had to be the eight regardless of whether or not we have enough people here.

875
02:12:24,100 --> 02:12:41,100
 That's right. And we've done both of them. It's two thirds and eight.

876
02:12:41,100 --> 02:12:46,100
 That's procedurally correct. Okay. All right. Commissioner Davis, continuing discussion.

877
02:12:46,100 --> 02:12:57,100
 I promise I will be as brief as I possibly can. I just think some things were brought up tonight that were not brought up the last time that need to be addressed.

878
02:12:57,100 --> 02:13:04,100
 The first there was a valid point made about Hispanic conclusion in the conversation back in 1980.

879
02:13:04,100 --> 02:13:10,100
 And I absolutely don't want this to come across as, you know, well, there was a little bit or there was enough.

880
02:13:10,100 --> 02:13:16,100
 I do want to point out that Councilmember Ravella was one of the council members who passed this next.

881
02:13:16,100 --> 02:13:24,100
 How many years ago was that? 17? In 1980. More than 17? And it's 2024.

882
02:13:24,100 --> 02:13:27,100
 Commissioner Davis has the point. Apologies.

883
02:13:27,100 --> 02:13:36,100
 And again, I'm just giving that information. I'm not saying that information counts for something or represents a certain something.

884
02:13:36,100 --> 02:13:47,100
 The other thing I'll point out is we've been presented this idea that I think is disingenuous that if we create more city council districts, we're going to have more opportunity districts.

885
02:13:47,100 --> 02:13:53,100
 The point was made that the Denton population is at least 30% Hispanic. I think it's higher. I think it's more than 30%.

886
02:13:53,100 --> 02:13:58,100
 And we have to do that for any representation besides acting on the school board. That's it.

887
02:13:58,100 --> 02:14:12,100
 So my point is, in none of the opportunity districts that we've been presented by email, is there a Hispanic population that exceeds 30% or approaches the 32-34% that I think is probably more accurate.

888
02:14:12,100 --> 02:14:17,100
 There's not. I have a fourth. Correct. Apologies.

889
02:14:17,100 --> 02:14:23,100
 That's why those districts represent cracking and packing and not opportunity.

890
02:14:23,100 --> 02:14:33,100
 The other thing I'll point out is that we used to call it the chattering class. I think I like that better than political class or the echo chamber or whatever you want to call it.

891
02:14:33,100 --> 02:14:42,100
 There is a group of people, and I have counted myself among that group of people. We are all sitting here talking about the city charter. That all makes us democracy nerds.

892
02:14:42,100 --> 02:14:50,100
 That makes us people involved in our city government. That makes us people that are part of, whether we want to be there or not, the quote unquote political class, the chattering class.

893
02:14:50,100 --> 02:15:01,100
 There's a whole other group of people who doesn't want this. They're not asking for it. There is no groundswell for, you know, I wish I had fewer at-large members and more single-member district people.

894
02:15:01,100 --> 02:15:06,100
 Those folks aren't out there outside of a couple of folks on a Facebook forum.

895
02:15:06,100 --> 02:15:24,100
 The other thing I'll point out is that when you step outside, if you want to cherry pick examples, you can cherry pick examples from recent elections all you want. I'll give you a couple. You have Deb Armenter, who was elected at-large in a decisive runoff.

896
02:15:24,100 --> 02:15:37,100
 Elected at-large with very little money, with very little support from the quote unquote establishment, you know, the Chamber of Commerce types, or the developers, the realtors, or whatever you want to put in that group, was overwhelmingly elected.

897
02:15:37,100 --> 02:15:49,100
 And that's a person from, I think she'd self-identify as kind of the farther left. And then you have someone who is kind of closer to the center, Brandon Chase McGee, who was again elected twice now at-large.

898
02:15:49,100 --> 02:15:57,100
 And he'll be the first one to tell you he's a regular guy, he's a working guy, he doesn't have a lot of money to put in this himself, that he's got to raise the money from other places.

899
02:15:57,100 --> 02:16:09,100
 So this idea that the problem with at-larges is the inability of regular people to raise money and run, or the regular people to be involved in the process, that is false. That is disingenuous. And we know that it's false.

900
02:16:09,100 --> 02:16:26,100
 The other thing I'll point out is that the cost is not just changing the seats on the dais. It's not just how many computer screens do you have at city council. Our entire city code is written based on a charter that has seven council members, one of whom is the mayor, two of whom are at-large.

901
02:16:26,100 --> 02:16:49,100
 You have to rewrite big chunks of the code. It is not as simple as saying, well, we put it out on the ballot, the citizens vote, and then the next election we're going to elect more city council members. Just like we had the conversation about the Board of Ethics, and once that charter amendment passed, there were months and years and still ongoing debate about what that charter section means.

902
02:16:49,100 --> 02:17:03,100
 The city code of ordinances, especially Article 2, is going to have to be rewritten, and the city council is going to have to adopt code changes to that, and I guarantee you that's going to mean some outside council or some extra staff hours.

903
02:17:03,100 --> 02:17:20,100
 And then finally, I talked about the political classes and the chattering classes and the people who are not agitating for this. There are times that the political science types, myself included, should leave the math to the people who can do math.

904
02:17:20,100 --> 02:17:35,100
 Right now, we have four out of seven. The idea that having four out of seven council members I can vote for is somehow worse than two out of nine is absurd.

905
02:17:35,100 --> 02:17:46,100
 The idea that, well, you know, there's this abstract idea about the voting strength of a community. You can't quite pin that down. You really have to kind of go on these squishy things.

906
02:17:46,100 --> 02:18:07,100
 It's absurd to say that two out of nine is somehow greater voting strength in the city of Denton. When I'm electing the board of directors of my electric company, the people who set my water rates, the people who set my tax rates, the people who are tasked to fix my roads, to say that two out of nine of those people is somehow better than four out of seven.

907
02:18:07,100 --> 02:18:27,100
 The math just doesn't make sense. Take the politics out of it, let the city council do the policy setting, let the voters do the politics. The way we're set up as a city now complies with best practices, has worked, and I've not heard a single based in data example.

908
02:18:27,100 --> 02:18:38,100
 I've heard speculation about how it could be better. I've not heard one example of how it has not been the best way to run the city so far. Leave things how they are.

909
02:18:38,100 --> 02:19:05,100
 Responding to a few of your remarks, perhaps you and I are talking with different people. I do regularly hear frustration about the current way that the voting system is. I will overhear conversations at bars, where people are mostly around election season, not right now.

910
02:19:05,100 --> 02:19:33,100
 During the municipal election season, I do just hear people sporadically express frustration about the issues that you're discussing. With regard to the idea that these maps don't contain anything close to 32% Hispanic, I'm looking at 31.7% Hispanic right now, I call that pretty close.

911
02:19:33,100 --> 02:19:53,100
 And, I mean, you talked about about Fred and Chase McGee, and how he talked about how he had to raise money. I think that if you look at the newspaper coverage if you look at discussions, the fact that he had to raise money is a very controversial thing about him.

912
02:19:53,100 --> 02:20:12,100
 That is something that people very much do not like about his campaign. Just speaking frankly, that's a very common complaint. So I think that, if anything, that is an argument in favor of reducing the amount of money that needs to be spent on an election.

913
02:20:12,100 --> 02:20:15,100
 Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

914
02:20:15,100 --> 02:20:26,100
 I got a lot of notes here, this is very interesting. This is the second time we've gone about this and just a few things for, I just want to state that I find it interesting that we talked for about 45 minutes about not getting to this discussion.

915
02:20:26,100 --> 02:20:38,100
 So that time, and I understand and have appreciation for people who do have other things going on this evening. But at the same time, you know, for me personally when I stepped up for this was on these type of nights, this is my thing.

916
02:20:38,100 --> 02:20:45,100
 You know, now if there's something an emergency or anything outside of that, I get that. Getting back to some of the things I've heard.

917
02:20:45,100 --> 02:20:55,100
 I have not heard anything from the first discussion or tonight which shows me that at large districts is something that gives us anything better than single districts.

918
02:20:55,100 --> 02:21:15,100
 I would put it to just as everybody in their everyday lives when you're dealing with, and forgive me if I have an example or metaphor which may not fit perfectly. But if we all are in a system where we're all customers, residents to an extent, and we have sales representatives and I've got two sales representatives that are trying to look out for all of us or four.

919
02:21:15,100 --> 02:21:33,100
 You know the ability to have somebody that I can get in touch with more often has more accountability to me something that I want when it comes to historically what we've seen with Hispanic representation and correct me if I'm wrong in the over 100 years of city council we've had to Hispanic representatives to.

920
02:21:33,100 --> 02:21:40,100
 So that's not a good representation, especially when in the current we have over 30% of our population Hispanic and that number is going to grow.

921
02:21:40,100 --> 02:21:54,100
 I always see it as better, and I've got a number of points here, but as Brewer noted down earlier that you have better democracy when you have better access to your representative.

922
02:21:54,100 --> 02:22:08,100
 I have not seen or heard anything from anybody that's just proven that to me. I don't see how that is in any walk of life when you have less access to somebody and now I've heard the flip where you say well at the at large I can vote for three or four people.

923
02:22:08,100 --> 02:22:24,100
 But I think historically that's been proven out why we've gone to single districts, because when you get in a population and didn't is still majority, a certain demographic that they have a unwarranted control over who's going to be in the city council in those mayor seats.

924
02:22:24,100 --> 02:22:33,100
 So I want us to be moving to something that is more representative of what we have here gives more opportunities to people who are heavily a part of this community.

925
02:22:33,100 --> 02:22:43,100
 And I don't forgive me I don't want to take up too much time because there's been a lot of diatribes tonight but I just, you know, especially when we're talking about historically, I think historically.

926
02:22:43,100 --> 02:22:55,100
 If you go back and say that's not broke don't fix it well, we wouldn't have done civil rights, we wouldn't, we wouldn't have done suffrage, you know it wasn't broke, let's not fix it so I think that's highly problematic.

927
02:22:55,100 --> 02:23:08,100
 We use that that type of rationale. So, you know, and I think one other thing too when we talk about how there's so many things forgive me cherry picking and talking about dead our mentor well that's something to that was in a November election too.

928
02:23:08,100 --> 02:23:30,100
 And when you talk about and I've worked, hold on, I've worked in campaigns that were both single, and I've worked with them at large, and just the logistics of me going, I've got to go meet these three neighborhoods, or I'm going to go meet all 20 of these neighborhoods, I've got to get my signs out there, I'm going to get the voice out there I've got to talk to people all over this community.

929
02:23:30,100 --> 02:23:44,100
 And the idea that that how is not going to be more cost prohibitive is just completely illogical completely illogical I mean, even outside my experience, if you're serving for versus serving 20 you're going to be sporting more money trying to serve 20.

930
02:23:44,100 --> 02:24:02,100
 So for me, us narrowing this and having more opportunities for people and having more direct representation. I don't, I haven't seen or heard anything that pushes back against that and I'll you back to believe you were wanting to address this but Deborah mentor on her election

931
02:24:02,100 --> 02:24:05,100
 during a normal May election cycle.

932
02:24:05,100 --> 02:24:10,100
 I would add that she probably received a lot of free advertising from her opponent.

933
02:24:10,100 --> 02:24:16,100
 Forgive me, forgive me, June runoff, lowest turnout elections we have.

934
02:24:16,100 --> 02:24:18,100
 Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

935
02:24:18,100 --> 02:24:19,100
 Did you have more to say?

936
02:24:19,100 --> 02:24:23,100
 No, no, no, forgive me that was, that was the COVID cycle, correct?

937
02:24:23,100 --> 02:24:24,100
 That was 2018.

938
02:24:24,100 --> 02:24:26,100
 Interesting, okay.

939
02:24:26,100 --> 02:24:30,100
 Okay.

940
02:24:30,100 --> 02:24:31,100
 Commissioner Romsky.

941
02:24:31,100 --> 02:24:40,100
 Put my, okay.

942
02:24:40,100 --> 02:24:43,100
 The comment was made about Facebook.

943
02:24:43,100 --> 02:24:48,100
 I am going to read, if I may.

944
02:24:48,100 --> 02:24:53,100
 What was posted on Facebook on August 26.

945
02:24:53,100 --> 02:25:01,100
 And I found it interesting when I saw it.

946
02:25:01,100 --> 02:25:11,100
 So, full disclosure here, we presented the idea of doing away with at large districts a couple of years ago.

947
02:25:11,100 --> 02:25:22,100
 Mostly it was a tongue in cheek response to the recurring question about a certain neighborhoods influence.

948
02:25:22,100 --> 02:25:31,100
 But no, in actuality, once you get beyond being a devil's advocate, this is a bad idea.

949
02:25:31,100 --> 02:25:35,100
 There are way too many opportunities for abuse.

950
02:25:35,100 --> 02:25:45,100
 There would be way too many battles probably deserving about how these districts would be cut and who would cut them.

951
02:25:45,100 --> 02:25:55,100
 I mean, look at the current district map, and two years down the road, there are some glaring curiosities that we all missed.

952
02:25:55,100 --> 02:26:11,100
 But the fact is, we have historically under-deserved communities that have been bailed out a few times by having that second, third, fourth set of eyes that they at large provide.

953
02:26:11,100 --> 02:26:20,100
 We're looking at single districts. And sorry if you don't think that community, excuse me, we are looking at Southeast Dayton.

954
02:26:20,100 --> 02:26:27,100
 And sorry if you don't think that community could use the help of an occasional backup or two.

955
02:26:27,100 --> 02:26:35,100
 Then let's set a date, have a drink, and we'd like to introduce you to a thing called your privilege.

956
02:26:35,100 --> 02:26:41,100
 So don't kick that down the road, crush it and throw it in a bin.

957
02:26:41,100 --> 02:26:51,100
 You can also say that when they had bit it because they did an asterisk, that we pulled that idea out of our ass and you wouldn't be wrong.

958
02:26:51,100 --> 02:26:55,100
 Forgive me, but that's what's in here.

959
02:26:55,100 --> 02:27:05,100
 Is she just reading a random person's comments on Facebook that are sent in our committees? Is that what she's doing? I'm literally asking.

960
02:27:05,100 --> 02:27:10,100
 I believe that that was a post made within the Denton Matters Facebook group by Matt Croneta.

961
02:27:10,100 --> 02:27:13,100
 Right. Okay. And he is generally one...

962
02:27:13,100 --> 02:27:15,100
 Not on this committee.

963
02:27:15,100 --> 02:27:17,100
 No, he's not on this committee.

964
02:27:17,100 --> 02:27:33,100
 Okay. You keep addressing as part of this underserved and you, Commissioner Kirkpatrick, were referencing the Spanish population.

965
02:27:33,100 --> 02:27:51,100
 When the districting was done, it had nothing to do mainly with worrying about if you had minority Hispanic, black, and Native Americans.

966
02:27:51,100 --> 02:28:09,100
 Okay. It was done as picking on a neighborhood that was typically and continues to use their constitutional right and vote.

967
02:28:09,100 --> 02:28:28,100
 In district three members were very upset that a certain neighborhood was part of them because according to them, we had nothing to do with the city of Denton.

968
02:28:28,100 --> 02:28:32,100
 We should not have been in Denton.

969
02:28:32,100 --> 02:28:41,100
 They would have liked to de-annex us from Denton. And yes, I'm getting a little vocal on it.

970
02:28:41,100 --> 02:28:52,100
 But there is a history here that I think several members of this council are not aware of when it took place.

971
02:28:52,100 --> 02:29:05,100
 And those of us who live in the neighborhood that got readjusted, we volunteer at schools.

972
02:29:05,100 --> 02:29:22,100
 We have put together a scholarship for the music department at UNT because if an out-of-state student gets a $1,000 scholarship, they can pay regular in-state tuition.

973
02:29:22,100 --> 02:29:29,100
 We volunteer at Salvation Army.

974
02:29:29,100 --> 02:29:37,100
 We volunteer at what was the king and that which has changed.

975
02:29:37,100 --> 02:29:45,100
 What I'm getting to is we do an awful lot to support the city of Denton.

976
02:29:45,100 --> 02:29:51,100
 And we pay our taxes, which includes a goodly amount that goes to the schools.

977
02:29:51,100 --> 02:29:56,100
 And you know what? We don't have a member that uses the schools.

978
02:29:56,100 --> 02:30:00,100
 So that is gravy to the city of Denton.

979
02:30:00,100 --> 02:30:13,100
 The only thing we get out of the city of Denton is our water, which of course we pay for just like anybody else, our trash, which we pay for just like anybody else.

980
02:30:13,100 --> 02:30:24,100
 We do not get our city's streets or our community streets swept or anything because we do that within our HOA.

981
02:30:24,100 --> 02:30:38,100
 And we don't even get regular police visits or routes or survey, unless we call them for something like a severe accident.

982
02:30:38,100 --> 02:30:43,100
 Other than that, we have the constable.

983
02:30:43,100 --> 02:30:49,100
 I know you're looking at me, Mr. Kirkpatrick, with wondering, "Hey, what?"

984
02:30:49,100 --> 02:30:55,100
 But that's what life is at this community.

985
02:30:55,100 --> 02:31:03,100
 The people in District 3 said we should be de-annexed from.

986
02:31:03,100 --> 02:31:11,100
 And they were also because of, "Oh, we have amenities. We pay for those amenities."

987
02:31:11,100 --> 02:31:22,100
 Just like those where the students have the amenities to use the basketball courts, their swimming pool, their running track, and their libraries.

988
02:31:22,100 --> 02:31:36,100
 So we are such that we give to the city of Denton a lot more than comes up.

989
02:31:36,100 --> 02:31:54,100
 So we look at this, and you want to take away the opportunity for us to be able to vote for more than one single district.

990
02:31:54,100 --> 02:32:01,100
 The other thing is, going to a number of eight, how are you going to ever have...

991
02:32:01,100 --> 02:32:06,100
 Commissioner Remski, I think I'm going to have to cut you off here.

992
02:32:06,100 --> 02:32:09,100
 Commissioner Johnson.

993
02:32:09,100 --> 02:32:18,100
 You know, it's funny how people that live on the west side of town talk about Southeast Denton, and they've never been there.

994
02:32:18,100 --> 02:32:27,100
 When you look at Southeast Denton now, the history of Southeast Denton, so you'll know, was birthed out of Quaker Town.

995
02:32:27,100 --> 02:32:32,100
 You know Quaker Town was moved to Southeast Denton, right?

996
02:32:32,100 --> 02:32:41,100
 Now there's going to be another Quaker Town movement with gentrification, but still there's people there.

997
02:32:41,100 --> 02:32:43,100
 There's still black people there.

998
02:32:43,100 --> 02:32:46,100
 Where's their voice going to be heard at?

999
02:32:46,100 --> 02:32:53,100
 We need some type of representation or maybe where we can have a voice, someone like that.

1000
02:32:53,100 --> 02:32:59,100
 In that community that's being just spread it all over.

1001
02:32:59,100 --> 02:33:06,100
 So when I hear somebody from Robertson Ranch tell me about Southeast Denton, kind of take a fit.

1002
02:33:06,100 --> 02:33:11,100
 And let's go back to...

1003
02:33:11,100 --> 02:33:15,100
 If it's not broke, why fix it?

1004
02:33:15,100 --> 02:33:22,100
 I'm glad they didn't have that mindset. My people never would have been free.

1005
02:33:22,100 --> 02:33:25,100
 You, Montal.

1006
02:33:25,100 --> 02:33:28,100
 May I just kind of... Mr. Johnson?

1007
02:33:28,100 --> 02:33:30,100
 Very, very briefly.

1008
02:33:30,100 --> 02:33:39,100
 Mr. Johnson, I have nothing against Southeast Denton, and the only reason that came up was when I was reading verbatim.

1009
02:33:39,100 --> 02:33:46,100
 And I know that you have the problem, and the problem exists in regard to Quaker Town and that.

1010
02:33:46,100 --> 02:33:54,100
 And I have interacted on a few of those questions with a couple of council members.

1011
02:33:54,100 --> 02:33:57,100
 Thank you, Commissioner Rice. Commissioner Brewer-Eatsma?

1012
02:33:57,100 --> 02:34:04,100
 Just building off of what Nate was talking about and what Julie was referring to earlier with the model charter, city charter.

1013
02:34:04,100 --> 02:34:11,100
 And the model city charter saying that either a mix of districts or all single member districts are the best plans.

1014
02:34:11,100 --> 02:34:16,100
 What they didn't say is that all at-large districts is a good idea.

1015
02:34:16,100 --> 02:34:22,100
 And there's a reason for that, because generally at-large districts are not the best way to do representation.

1016
02:34:22,100 --> 02:34:30,100
 So they realized that if we have only at-large, we're definitely violating the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, so we can't have all at-large.

1017
02:34:30,100 --> 02:34:34,100
 So let's work this mix. That doesn't mean that the at-large is a good idea.

1018
02:34:34,100 --> 02:34:39,100
 It means that if we have a mix, we won't be violating the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.

1019
02:34:39,100 --> 02:34:43,100
 The single member districts...

1020
02:34:43,100 --> 02:34:51,100
 Excuse me, I know, but we've thrown Robert's rules out the door just about the first five minutes.

1021
02:34:51,100 --> 02:34:54,100
 Commissioner Brewer-Eatsma has the floor.

1022
02:34:54,100 --> 02:34:57,100
 So that was just the point I was trying to make.

1023
02:34:57,100 --> 02:35:08,100
 But I don't think because it says a mix of districts is a good way of doing business in the model, means that that's the best way of doing business.

1024
02:35:08,100 --> 02:35:14,100
 They say it's an acceptable way that isn't going to violate the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, right?

1025
02:35:14,100 --> 02:35:16,100
 That it is acceptable and you can do it this way.

1026
02:35:16,100 --> 02:35:22,100
 I think what we have been charged with discussing here tonight is, is there a better way to do it?

1027
02:35:22,100 --> 02:35:33,100
 And I believe there's a better way to do it that serves all of the members of our community more effectively by increasing the number of members on our council and decreasing the number of people they represent.

1028
02:35:33,100 --> 02:35:39,100
 I just want to make it really clear because we're talking about Matt Granada who made this post.

1029
02:35:39,100 --> 02:35:41,100
 We're talking about how he's referring to ropes and ranch.

1030
02:35:41,100 --> 02:35:44,100
 Matt Granada does not speak for this committee.

1031
02:35:44,100 --> 02:35:48,100
 He does not speak for those who are in favor or against any of these measures.

1032
02:35:48,100 --> 02:35:50,100
 He definitely doesn't speak for Southeast Denton.

1033
02:35:50,100 --> 02:35:57,100
 And I would also say that the comments he's referring to about ropes and ranch are deeply troubling.

1034
02:35:57,100 --> 02:36:04,100
 Everybody in Denton deserves strong representation, whether you live in ropes and ranch, whether you live in Southeast Denton.

1035
02:36:04,100 --> 02:36:13,100
 And it's also important to remember, too, that no matter how much you contribute in tax revenue, you don't necessarily get more of a voice on council.

1036
02:36:13,100 --> 02:36:19,100
 You can show up and vote more, but every community in this city deserves representation.

1037
02:36:19,100 --> 02:36:25,100
 And I want to make it clear, too, we're not throwing the at-large all the way out.

1038
02:36:25,100 --> 02:36:28,100
 We still have a mayor that we get to vote for.

1039
02:36:28,100 --> 02:36:30,100
 We still get two people.

1040
02:36:30,100 --> 02:36:38,100
 And as much as some people would ridicule this as ridiculous or absurd, I believe, and I feel like I have sufficiently explained,

1041
02:36:38,100 --> 02:36:47,100
 and I think a lot of other people have explained, too, that you get more bang for your buck when you have a smaller district

1042
02:36:47,100 --> 02:36:53,100
 and a person who is more directly accountable to you because your vote holds more weight with that one person.

1043
02:36:53,100 --> 02:36:55,100
 I still maintain that that's the case.

1044
02:36:55,100 --> 02:37:06,100
 I know four people sounds really sexy, but I can tell you right now, not all the four people would want to meet with me or want to talk to me.

1045
02:37:06,100 --> 02:37:15,100
 So it's really immaterial whether or not I have four if I, in my vote, don't have power to control their actions

1046
02:37:15,100 --> 02:37:20,100
 or that their actions don't have a consequence when they come up for reelection in two years.

1047
02:37:20,100 --> 02:37:26,100
 So I don't think there's really much else to say. I'd really like if we could move forward with the vote.

1048
02:37:26,100 --> 02:37:33,100
 I'll just add this comment. If I'm going to try to have a conversation with someone,

1049
02:37:33,100 --> 02:37:42,100
 I think my odds of having a conversation with someone about something is better if I have four opportunities than it is if I can only talk to two people about that.

1050
02:37:42,100 --> 02:37:44,100
 But do they have to listen to you?

1051
02:37:44,100 --> 02:37:50,100
 I'm going to give the floor to Commissioner Davis.

1052
02:37:50,100 --> 02:37:54,100
 I'll be very brief and just direct response to what Peter said.

1053
02:37:54,100 --> 02:38:04,100
 The math of four of seven versus two of nine is not just about how many people does this one person represent

1054
02:38:04,100 --> 02:38:09,100
 and how many people does this one person have to worry about or how big a geographical district do they have to worry about.

1055
02:38:09,100 --> 02:38:16,100
 It has to do with the majority of the council that my voting strength isn't just four random people.

1056
02:38:16,100 --> 02:38:18,100
 It's four out of seven. It's a majority.

1057
02:38:18,100 --> 02:38:28,100
 It's a group of four people that have to compete every two years for my vote, who have to answer to me and my neighbors for my vote and their vote every two years.

1058
02:38:28,100 --> 02:38:32,100
 And those four people have combined voting strength that is the majority.

1059
02:38:32,100 --> 02:38:40,100
 Two out of nine isn't a bad idea just because it's fewer votes that I get to cast on the city council.

1060
02:38:40,100 --> 02:38:49,100
 It's because I have less of an opportunity to influence the majority decision of the city council.

1061
02:38:49,100 --> 02:38:55,100
 There has been speculation about the kinds of folks who might run or the kind of opportunity that might come up.

1062
02:38:55,100 --> 02:38:58,100
 I'm just going to point out again, that's not what we're talking about.

1063
02:38:58,100 --> 02:39:02,100
 We're talking about just across the board, all other things being equal.

1064
02:39:02,100 --> 02:39:13,100
 However, city council eventually decides or their lawyers decide to draw the districts the best way to represent the city, the best way to constitute the city council.

1065
02:39:13,100 --> 02:39:18,100
 And my vote on a majority of council is much stronger.

1066
02:39:18,100 --> 02:39:31,100
 I just can't see any historical data that tells me that people in Denton who want to vote don't vote, that people who on city council, because people don't traditionally show up for city council stuff.

1067
02:39:31,100 --> 02:39:37,100
 The people who vote on city council are the people who know the most about city issues and care the most.

1068
02:39:37,100 --> 02:39:44,100
 Even when we were in a presidential year, even when it was the COVID year, the undercount on city offices was ridiculous.

1069
02:39:44,100 --> 02:39:50,100
 Even people who are shown up to vote were not voting on their city council members and mayor and stuff.

1070
02:39:50,100 --> 02:39:59,100
 The idea that having fewer districts, fewer constituents per district is going to increase turnout.

1071
02:39:59,100 --> 02:40:02,100
 There is no historical empirical data for that.

1072
02:40:02,100 --> 02:40:06,100
 The data doesn't exist because this is not a data driven idea.

1073
02:40:06,100 --> 02:40:09,100
 This is a politically driven idea.

1074
02:40:09,100 --> 02:40:16,100
 The idea here is not, with all respect to my fellow committee members, the idea here is not to make better government for Denton.

1075
02:40:16,100 --> 02:40:20,100
 The idea here is have government of a certain type for Denton.

1076
02:40:20,100 --> 02:40:25,100
 The frustration about one part of town is politically driven.

1077
02:40:25,100 --> 02:40:33,100
 The idea that one part of town or even the people who move into the Hunter Cole area like we talked about the first time around, the first first time around.

1078
02:40:33,100 --> 02:40:43,100
 That conversation was all about how do we find a way to dilute those new folks' voice because they're going to overcrowd district four and they're going to take it over.

1079
02:40:43,100 --> 02:40:45,100
 They're going to overcrowd district three and they're going to take it over.

1080
02:40:45,100 --> 02:40:47,100
 We need more districts to cover them.

1081
02:40:47,100 --> 02:41:02,100
 From the beginning, this has been driven by, I have to tell you all, my friends on the other side, I have to tell you all, an incredibly short-sighted drive from the political chattering class to redesign the way the city votes.

1082
02:41:02,100 --> 02:41:13,100
 And I'm telling you, look back the 80s to the 90s to the 2000s to now and look to the demographics in 2030 and 2040, the shoe always ends up on the other foot.

1083
02:41:13,100 --> 02:41:15,100
 Incredibly short-sighted.

1084
02:41:15,100 --> 02:41:16,100
 We're not.

1085
02:41:16,100 --> 02:41:19,100
 It's not that if it's don't, if it's broke, don't fix it.

1086
02:41:19,100 --> 02:41:22,100
 If it's working, don't fix it.

1087
02:41:22,100 --> 02:41:25,100
 Nobody is saying if it's don't, if it's not broke, don't fix it.

1088
02:41:25,100 --> 02:41:27,100
 We're saying it is working.

1089
02:41:27,100 --> 02:41:29,100
 There's not a reason to fix it.

1090
02:41:29,100 --> 02:41:31,100
 I think there's a big difference.

1091
02:41:31,100 --> 02:41:34,100
 Commissioner Manjiguera and then I think this will be our last.

1092
02:41:34,100 --> 02:41:37,100
 Yeah, just two brief points.

1093
02:41:37,100 --> 02:41:42,100
 I've never made, and I don't think anyone here is making the argument that creating these districts will increase turnout.

1094
02:41:42,100 --> 02:41:43,100
 That's not my argument.

1095
02:41:43,100 --> 02:41:45,100
 I'm not maintaining that there's doubt on that.

1096
02:41:45,100 --> 02:41:49,100
 I'm saying that it's going to increase the voting strength of people in single-member districts.

1097
02:41:49,100 --> 02:41:51,100
 Could it maybe increase turnout?

1098
02:41:51,100 --> 02:41:52,100
 Perhaps.

1099
02:41:52,100 --> 02:41:56,100
 That's not the argument I'm making, though, and I'm not supporting any vacuous data to that effect.

1100
02:41:56,100 --> 02:42:00,100
 And once again, and I'll be straight, I brought up the 100 coal development.

1101
02:42:00,100 --> 02:42:02,100
 I think it's exciting that they're coming to Denton.

1102
02:42:02,100 --> 02:42:05,100
 And then that's, and I'm in the Eagle Creek development.

1103
02:42:05,100 --> 02:42:07,100
 That was a new development that came to Denton.

1104
02:42:07,100 --> 02:42:14,100
 And I think it's important that communities like that, that we're accounting for that in our growth and making sure that we're creating new districts.

1105
02:42:14,100 --> 02:42:21,100
 Perhaps in a new configuration, Robeson Ranch might have their very own single-member district when it comes down to it.

1106
02:42:21,100 --> 02:42:26,100
 That's exactly the point.

1107
02:42:26,100 --> 02:42:31,100
 And once again, I'll never disparage any single community.

1108
02:42:31,100 --> 02:42:34,100
 I believe Robeson Ranch deserves representation.

1109
02:42:34,100 --> 02:42:37,100
 I appreciate everything they do for this community.

1110
02:42:37,100 --> 02:42:40,100
 I'm thinking about all the communities, though, in this proposal.

1111
02:42:40,100 --> 02:42:43,100
 And I think everybody here has made some really, really great points tonight.

1112
02:42:43,100 --> 02:42:47,100
 And I know we're talking about best practices, but I think this is about what's right for Denton.

1113
02:42:47,100 --> 02:42:58,100
 I think we have a really great opportunity to forge a new path that preserves our communities of interest, that preserves the character of Denton, and accounts for the growth that we're going to see over the next couple of decades.

1114
02:42:58,100 --> 02:43:07,100
 And that even though we made a great stride 50 years ago by implementing this, I think it's time we take a next step.

1115
02:43:07,100 --> 02:43:09,100
 So I think it's time to vote.

1116
02:43:09,100 --> 02:43:10,100
 All right.

1117
02:43:10,100 --> 02:43:12,100
 You have 30 seconds.

1118
02:43:12,100 --> 02:43:13,100
 You have 30 seconds.

1119
02:43:13,100 --> 02:43:14,100
 All right.

1120
02:43:14,100 --> 02:43:18,100
 Number one, I don't know that Robeson Ranch wants us over.

1121
02:43:18,100 --> 02:43:25,100
 Number two, in regard to your wanting eight, I'm going to suggest that if we do anything, we go to nine.

1122
02:43:25,100 --> 02:43:31,100
 And we do it so that we then have four at large.

1123
02:43:31,100 --> 02:43:36,100
 And we up the number of individual districts to five.

1124
02:43:36,100 --> 02:43:38,100
 Would that meet your needs?

1125
02:43:38,100 --> 02:43:42,100
 Would that take it out of the political aspects?

1126
02:43:42,100 --> 02:43:50,100
 Would that meet the requirements of the concerns that we don't have Spanish at that?

1127
02:43:50,100 --> 02:43:59,100
 But rather than going to eight and having them being all at large, or all as individual districts, we keep the mix.

1128
02:43:59,100 --> 02:44:11,100
 And we add one at large, and we add one individual district because we're doing both of these things together of, "Do we change the mix?"

1129
02:44:11,100 --> 02:44:13,100
 Or how many?

1130
02:44:13,100 --> 02:44:15,100
 I think we need to vote on the motion on the floor.

1131
02:44:15,100 --> 02:44:16,100
 But I just want to make it really clear.

1132
02:44:16,100 --> 02:44:18,100
 I resent the idea that this is political.

1133
02:44:18,100 --> 02:44:30,100
 I know we're talking about politics, and we're talking about all these other things, but there's been a lot of allusions to some kind of nefarious political plot going on.

1134
02:44:30,100 --> 02:44:37,100
 This is about making sure that we have the best possible democracy, small d democracy, for the city of Denton.

1135
02:44:37,100 --> 02:44:40,100
 I think we've all laid out great nonpartisan reasons.

1136
02:44:40,100 --> 02:44:44,100
 I know we've offered anecdotal examples of recent political history.

1137
02:44:44,100 --> 02:44:45,100
 I think that's helpful.

1138
02:44:45,100 --> 02:44:49,100
 But I think a lot of it's not instructive about what we need to do moving forward.

1139
02:44:49,100 --> 02:44:51,100
 I think they're great counterpoints.

1140
02:44:51,100 --> 02:44:57,100
 But I think as a matter of course, we need to think, like, all of that aside, what is the objective best goal?

1141
02:44:57,100 --> 02:45:01,100
 I don't think that adding a single and another at large is a solution.

1142
02:45:01,100 --> 02:45:06,100
 I think we need to vote on the eight-single member and mayor.

1143
02:45:06,100 --> 02:45:08,100
 Thank you, Commissioner Madriguera.

1144
02:45:08,100 --> 02:45:15,100
 Not to prolong the meeting, but I really appreciate that Peter said that this isn't about a political perspective.

1145
02:45:15,100 --> 02:45:17,100
 It is about a philosophical perspective.

1146
02:45:17,100 --> 02:45:19,100
 There is philosophy behind this.

1147
02:45:19,100 --> 02:45:24,100
 It is not about counting votes and doing some sort of Machiavellian practice here.

1148
02:45:24,100 --> 02:45:31,100
 That this really is philosophically where I stand on creating smaller districts so people have better representation.

1149
02:45:31,100 --> 02:45:36,100
 I think we've got to vote on it twice, make sure it goes.

1150
02:45:36,100 --> 02:45:38,100
 With that, let's vote.

1151
02:45:38,100 --> 02:45:40,100
 All those in favor?

1152
02:45:40,100 --> 02:45:42,100
 Let me clarify, just real quick.

1153
02:45:42,100 --> 02:45:44,100
 What are we?

1154
02:45:44,100 --> 02:45:46,100
 We've talked a lot.

1155
02:45:46,100 --> 02:45:48,100
 Can we restate the motion?

1156
02:45:48,100 --> 02:45:57,100
 Because I understand the motion was just to combine, the motion was to combine the two topics.

1157
02:45:57,100 --> 02:45:59,100
 That was the motion.

1158
02:45:59,100 --> 02:46:01,100
 No, when I introduced the topic...

1159
02:46:01,100 --> 02:46:03,100
 They said that was it.

1160
02:46:03,100 --> 02:46:08,100
 When I introduced the topics, I called them together.

1161
02:46:08,100 --> 02:46:10,100
 I called the two topics together.

1162
02:46:10,100 --> 02:46:14,100
 We had a few motions about whether or not I could call the topics.

1163
02:46:14,100 --> 02:46:17,100
 Those succeeded, the topics were called together.

1164
02:46:17,100 --> 02:46:24,100
 And Commissioner Madriguera introduced a motion for eight at-large districts.

1165
02:46:24,100 --> 02:46:25,100
 So adding two districts.

1166
02:46:25,100 --> 02:46:27,100
 Eight single member districts.

1167
02:46:27,100 --> 02:46:46,100
 Eight single member districts and the mayor, so adding two districts to the total count and converting the two at-large positions that are not the mayor to being district seats as well for a total council balance of eight district seats and one mayoral seat that would be an at-large position.

1168
02:46:46,100 --> 02:46:51,100
 All those in favor, please raise your right hand and say aye.

1169
02:46:51,100 --> 02:46:57,100
 One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

1170
02:46:57,100 --> 02:47:00,100
 All those opposed, please raise your right hand and say nay.

1171
02:47:00,100 --> 02:47:01,100
 Nay.

1172
02:47:01,100 --> 02:47:03,100
 One, two, three, four.

1173
02:47:03,100 --> 02:47:04,100
 The ayes have it.

1174
02:47:04,100 --> 02:47:08,100
 We will now move on to concluding items.

1175
02:47:08,100 --> 02:47:10,100
 Does anyone have any concluding items?

1176
02:47:10,100 --> 02:47:12,100
 Commissioner Davis.

1177
02:47:12,100 --> 02:47:17,100
 I'd just like to make my regular PSA announcement about the Texas Open Meetings Act.

1178
02:47:17,100 --> 02:47:21,100
 The walking quorums, this is properly a part of concluding items.

1179
02:47:21,100 --> 02:47:22,100
 It's a statement of fact.

1180
02:47:22,100 --> 02:47:27,100
 It's a properly part and then I'll be quiet.

1181
02:47:27,100 --> 02:47:30,100
 Those of y'all who had your conversations offline.

1182
02:47:30,100 --> 02:47:34,100
 Those of y'all who had your walking quorums with the folks who weren't here last time.

1183
02:47:34,100 --> 02:47:41,100
 Those of y'all who called your friends and neighbors to make sure that this vote turned out the second time better than it did the first time.

1184
02:47:41,100 --> 02:47:42,100
 Denton is watching.

1185
02:47:42,100 --> 02:47:44,100
 The city council has to vote on this, is watching.

1186
02:47:44,100 --> 02:47:46,100
 God forbid it reaches the ballot.

1187
02:47:46,100 --> 02:47:48,100
 The voters are watching too.

1188
02:47:48,100 --> 02:47:49,100
 Everyone knows.

1189
02:47:49,100 --> 02:47:53,100
 Everybody's watching you.

1190
02:47:53,100 --> 02:48:01,100
 Any other concluding items?

1191
02:48:01,100 --> 02:48:03,100
 Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

1192
02:48:03,100 --> 02:48:05,100
 Commissioner Davis, that's interesting.

1193
02:48:05,100 --> 02:48:14,100
 You brought that up kind of on numerous occasions and forgive me, but that sounds a little almost threatening to the rest of the members.

1194
02:48:14,100 --> 02:48:19,100
 I would leave it at that, sir, and bid you a good evening.

1195
02:48:19,100 --> 02:48:21,100
 If you heard it threaten that, you're listening for a while.

1196
02:48:21,100 --> 02:48:24,100
 That's weird to say.

1197
02:48:24,100 --> 02:48:25,100
 Commissioner Maguiguera.

1198
02:48:25,100 --> 02:48:34,100
 I would also say it's offensive to one of our commissioners who did change their mind in the intervening period and that people are allowed to make persuasive arguments.

1199
02:48:34,100 --> 02:48:35,100
 They're allowed to change their mind.

1200
02:48:35,100 --> 02:48:40,100
 So I'll say that too.

1201
02:48:40,100 --> 02:48:42,100
 Commissioner Ransky.

1202
02:48:42,100 --> 02:48:46,100
 I apologize for talking a little bit louder.

1203
02:48:46,100 --> 02:48:49,100
 I didn't put my hearing piece in today.

1204
02:48:49,100 --> 02:48:53,100
 So I end up bad.

1205
02:48:53,100 --> 02:49:06,100
 I also feel a little bit of umbrage because either the way I phrase things or what I read.

1206
02:49:06,100 --> 02:49:16,100
 Yes, Commissioner Maguiguera, Matt Granita is not part of this group or that.

1207
02:49:16,100 --> 02:49:30,100
 However, by reading something like that, is that not the same as the fact that somebody says, well, you know, my constituent came to me and said I wanted to vote this way.

1208
02:49:30,100 --> 02:49:36,100
 And the constituent said no, vote this way. I'm just using the resource.

1209
02:49:36,100 --> 02:49:40,100
 And also, again, Mr. Johnson, I apologize.

1210
02:49:40,100 --> 02:49:44,100
 I was not taking a front or trying to that.

1211
02:49:44,100 --> 02:49:51,100
 You know, I was just reading what he said and that was where he put it in.

1212
02:49:51,100 --> 02:49:54,100
 So I have nothing against that.

1213
02:49:54,100 --> 02:50:00,100
 I know I'm one of the new, well I'm not the newest PIP person sitting here for a change.

1214
02:50:00,100 --> 02:50:03,100
 But, you know, I've still got a lot to learn.

1215
02:50:03,100 --> 02:50:08,100
 I've hit my 10-year anniversary, but I've got a lot more to learn than I did.

1216
02:50:08,100 --> 02:50:10,100
 All right. Thank you, Commissioner Ransky.

1217
02:50:10,100 --> 02:50:18,100
 With no other concluding items, I will call this meeting to a close at 822 p.m.

1218
02:50:18,100 --> 02:50:23,100
 God bless. You all have a good night.