Oct 22, 2019 City Council on 2019-10-22 1:00 PM

Welcome everybody to this meeting of the Dent City Council on Tuesday October the 22nd 2019 it is 101 p.m. We're moving through our work session reports just sort of a citizens comment on consent agenda items. I don't have any that I've seen blue cards request for clarification of agenda items list on the agenda. The one thing I wanted to make a note of is I got a communication from Councilmember Davis that he may not be making the meeting today because of a trial he's in for his job, not that he's in. And so he had one of the one minute kind of spiels for work session. So we're probably going to postpone that till the next agenda item because he's not here to present it. So OK, request for clarifications on the agenda. Councilmember Briggs on that is the whole item because I also had one. Is that also going to get postponed or just one is particularly the is it the whole item that's going to get well? No, I mean, if we have I know we're going to have two members absent. Yeah, I mean, Mr. Davis may be here, but my hunch is he won't. I know Councilmember Ryan's out. I'm not sure what the status is of Councilmember Armitage. So I hate to have those one minute going full. I mean, you can give it and we might can or put it off because I hate to do it without pretty much a full council to be able to help give that direction. But that's but that's going to be up to the individuals, I think, that are going to present. So, no, I'm not postponing the whole item. OK. And then I would like to pull L and M for a vote. And then just I'd like to have simple slides on the changes that were made to the contracts. OK. And I think to if we have two people absent, we may since you're pulling them for items for individual consideration, we may go ahead and move those to the next agenda for items for individual consideration so we can have a full contingency of council here on that. Since they're being pulled anyway. OK. Any other question? Yes, Councilmember Armitage. So apologies. I don't know if these have been pulled yet. Has anyone pulled item H for questions? No. OK. I had a question about that. And then item L and M I wanted to pull for individual consideration. Yeah, those are being pulled in because we're going to have two council members absence. Those will be on the next agenda for individual consideration. OK. And H, do you want the questions answered here or do you want them you do you want it as an item for individual consideration in the regular meeting? Just having them answered here would be fine. OK. And depending on the answers. Sure. Yeah, if you wouldn't mind just stating your question, then we'll have somebody come up and. Sure. So, yeah, my question was if you could just explain a little bit about so this is about a contract for all in one services, for temporary labor services for city of Denton departments. If you could explain exactly what kind of labor services this agency provides and if you know what they pay their employees, what the scale is. Yes. Hi, Cassie Ogden, Director of Procurement and Compliance. So the temporary labor contract is for those general labor positions that we we don't hire that we don't need long term. It's just temporary as needed. So for solid waste, they have some activities like cleaning up around the site that they use temporary labor for. It's not long term. It's just as needed as well as parks uses this to supplement their full time employees as well as water, wastewater and streets. OK, and do we know I know that we were going to start collecting that data at least as my impression about what the lowest I do have wages. I did ask the vendor. It's the general labor one. I believe it's the level one that you see on the is is nine dollars an hour. Level two is nine seventy five, I believe. And level three was ten twenty five an hour is what the employee would the temporary labor person receive. OK, so there's an additional markup between what the vendor is charging us to what the employee to what the employees got it. So I would like to then pull that so I could vote separately. I'm going to be voting no no to that because I want all of our employees, including contracted employees, to be making a 15 or adjustable minimum. So thank you. I'm so glad that we collect that information now. We used to not know. So thank you. Thank you so much. OK, anybody else? All right. OK, then we'll move on with our work session reports. Agenda item two, a is report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding the Board of Ethics recommended amendments to the ethics ordinance. Three eight. Good afternoon. Um, Mr. Law, city auditor, I'm going to present this. I still have that problem. It's only a few slides. I know. I'm going to be presenting this report on behalf of the Board of Ethics. Uh, the chair had to she had to, uh, uh, attend a hearing, so she couldn't be here. OK. So far, ethics board has completed more than one year of operation. During this time, the board has ruled on several complaints and conducted two hearings. Now, based on this experience, the ethics board recognized a need for making certain changes to the ordinance. Now, on July 16, 2019, the board chair appeared before this council and made a presentation about the proposed changes. She received guidance to consider certain revisions to that list and proposed changes. And finalized the changes. So of the seven changes that were proposed that day, the board dropped two proposals. The first was to, uh, it included less item to prohibit candidates for Denton elected office, public office from serving on the board. And she did not find a widespread support on the city council, so board ultimately dropped that item. And the second item was, uh, filling the vacancies within 30 days. And although there is intention to fill vacancies as soon as possible. Yeah, uh, it may not be possible to do so each time. I'm okay. Okay, all right. Okay, that's better. All right. It's not good. This is not a PowerPoint. This is PDF. Okay, so board has now finalized their changes. And, uh, if the city council approved, then both would like to get approval and codify these changes. Now, since that time board added, uh, two additional changes. And, uh, uh, please note that this is work in progress. So board may submit additional changes, uh, in the future. Now, thus far, uh, the board has been supported by the external, uh, council, special council. And it is true that the city attorney has conflict of interest in, uh, uh, certain situations. Specifically if the complaint is made against or made by a city council member. However, in some other circumstances, uh, he may not have conflict. And in those circumstances, the, uh, city attorney's assistance to the board may be very valuable. One of the, for example, when it comes to the city council rules, uh, procedures, uh, city attorney is more knowledgeable about that. So items like that, he could be supportive to the board. And, uh, uh, city attorney has agreed to do that. Aaron, do you want to say anything? Yes, if you don't mind, mayor, uh, with the, with respect to complaints filed against anyone other than council members and any of the procedural, uh, issues that the board of ethics faces, we're more than happy to, to assist in that process. And as we have been in the last couple of meetings, it's just, uh, um, you know, we, as you all know, you all are my employers and I have a duty of loyalty to the council and to the city. When you all have a complaint filed against you or you file one, it puts myself in the office in a very, uh, awkward situation of our, uh, and so our bar rules in those cases asks us to step down. And, and so that is the reason why, you know, we more or less explain, uh, we struck a middle ground at the, uh, board of ethics, they completely understood that. So they made that recommendation, um, for us not to be involved when the complaints are filed by ourselves or against ourselves for that reason. >> Good, all right. >> Okay, so- >> Council member, I'm sorry. >> Um, can you speak to, are you aware of what other cities do, other cities that have city attorneys do with, with this issue when they have an ethics ordinance? Uh, I mean, it was, it had been my understanding originally, uh, that the kinds of issues that are dealt with by an ethics committee are not legal issues, or rather they're being brought to the ethics committee, uh, instead of being, uh, you know, brought to, uh, some sort of criminal proceedings. Um, so why, you know, can, can you speak to what other cities do and maybe, uh, speak to the cost of, of using so much outside counsel? And again, my question is not so much, I'm not doubting what you said about the, the conflict, but I'm doubting that external, uh, legal support is needed in so many instances, including the change. I believe, uh, uh, sorry, no, that's 275.3, um, that says regarding every council, regarding any council member that we need outside counsel. >> Sure. >> I, I can tell you, and what other cities would do, especially the bigger cities, is that they do have a general provision that in certain, certain, like we, we currently have in certain circumstances, the, uh, city attorney can ask for outside counsel to step in. That's for this kind of an issue. The, uh, in here, the Board of Ethics wanted to make it very clear that this would, you know, in these circumstances we would step down, but we wouldn't in the general procedural issues to, that middle ground, so the Board of Ethics wanted to incorporate that specific provision. Other cities, they just use the general provision and the city attorney and anybody in the, in any of the attorneys in the office will likewise share the conflict. All of them step down and they will bring in somebody for that. >> So, and so can you speak to what the cost has been to taxpayers so far and whether there have been any circumstances so far when external, uh, help has not been used in a case outside of the usual proceedings of the committee? >> Uh, I, I can tell you that, uh, we have budgeted $25,000 for the upcoming budget year. But I don't think that we are going to be able to exhaust that. So, cost at this time I don't know. This is a new process. >> Okay, and when you say we, you mean the ethics committee? >> Uh, well, city auditor's office. >> City auditor's office. And so, but wouldn't that cost come from the legal department or no? That's more of a managerial question. >> Well, you know, I think that basically the city auditor's office is charged with administering the ethics ordinance. So, if the city auditor is going to need to engage outside council to help with these particular types of ethics complaints that are brought against council members, then that's where it should be properly budgeted in my opinion because that's the department, that's the department that's charged with managing and facilitating the ethics code. >> Okay, and so thus far it hasn't exceeded $25,000? >> No, it has not. >> Mm-hm. >> Because board decided, board was using external council. But then they, after a while, they decided that they don't want external council to attend the meeting because they were merely discussing issues. >> Just regular meetings. >> So they didn't need them. So we don't have enough experience with external council to kind of quantify cost. >> So has external council been to every issue that the every case that has been before the committee? >> Yes. >> Yes, okay, so that was my understanding. Just wanted to clarify. >> Whenever there was a complaint or hearing. >> Yes, yeah, a complaint or hearing. >> Yes. >> That's what I mean by case. Okay, thank you. Yeah, so if we could have a Friday report maybe about what the cost has been, the total cost has been and where it's come from. I can follow that up in writing. >> Thank you. Sorry to take so much time with that. >> No, no problem. Currently the complaint is not available to the respondent until it is placed on the ethics board's agenda. Now what happens is by the time the board hears this complaint, the complaint receives publicity. And actually the respondent doesn't even know if his or her action created any kind of ethics violation. So this puts respondent in a difficult situation. So board proposes that complaint be available to the respondent. Board also felt that retaliation against any person making complaint or participating in the complaint process should be prohibited, and they are making a recommendation. The board wish to provide reference to the Texas local government code to further clarify the definition of relative. It really does not change anything. It just for the definition purposes. In the last changes, section 2-284B, this subsection is applicable to department supervisor. And the ordinance does not apply to department supervisors. So therefore this is kind of out of place and should be removed. Going forward, the board is going to be talking about conflict of interest provision. And any other provision that they wish to talk. And bring those changes forward to the city council for approval. And that's the presentation. >> On the term relative, so it's going to bring it in line. But is it going to be the same degrees of affinity? Or is it one degree less, because I- >> No, it is the same degree of affinity. But it just defines what is the third degree of affinity or, so that is a better definition. >> Okay, okay. >> So it does not change anything. >> Okay. >> Mayor Pro Tem? >> Yeah, so I'm okay with the changes, but for the protection for whistleblower component, just because one, it lacks specificity. I don't know what makes it actionable. And then two, they've not even taken that up. So I think in the answers I received from staff, they're not taking up the kind of defining kind of criteria till the 23rd. So I would just like to, because I don't know how you get your hands around that one. And so, but I at least want them to take a stab at answering it before we move it forward. >> Go ahead. >> I wish the, I know that the Chair couldn't be here, but she probably would be the bus to describe the concern that the Board of Ethics had with protecting individuals who file complaints. And from any kind of retaliation, I mean, they could do a much better job than I can. I know that they struggle with that and wanted to provide some protection for that person in case, so that if they did file something, they wouldn't be retaliated against another city official. What was the genesis of that concern? I don't know. But I know they did struggle with trying to define the proper provision to recommend to you. >> Did you have, well, okay, Council Member Riggs. >> Well, yeah, just on that, I'm okay with leaving that in there. I think it's really important to make sure that there are whistleblower protections and that retaliation is not allowed, so I don't really have a concern with leaving that part in. >> Council Member Armitage. >> I also support whistleblower protections. I'm thrilled to see that they're in there, and if anyone wants to know what that involves, it generally depends on a case-by-case basis, but there's a lot of precedent for that and other ethics ordinances and also just, I mean, cities and states, there's federal definitions. So again, I'm really supportive and it depends per situation on what a whistleblower is. I did want to add, although I was thrilled with that, I was disappointed to see that the recommendation of that council members, or candidates for council, rather not be allowed to serve on the committee. As I understand it, that suggestion had originally come from the committee and they decided not to include it because there wasn't enough support for that on council, is that correct? So my disappointment is not necessarily with the committee, although I would definitely have supported them if they decided to include that. I'm strongly in support of it, and I'll just state why. I know I've mentioned this before, but given that the entire purpose of having an ethics ordinance is for public trust. And we want to avoid the appearance of self-policing because self-policing is dangerous for public trust and destroys it. So if we have somebody who's a candidate for a city council who can serve on there, it is not a good look no matter who that person is, so I think it's really important. And I would support the ethics committee if they want to revisit that and put that in there for the sake of, really the sake of this whole committee in general. And you mentioned, just to clarify, that the next thing coming to us, I mean, sorry, coming to the committee will be discussions of conflict of interest. >> That is correct, but in addition to that, we may consider additional changes. >> Additional, yeah, at any point, yeah, so I mean, and I've not to go into it at length, but I've been publicly critical about the piecemeal approach. I prefer choosing a model because there's so much that's broken, they're doing a commendable job to fix it. But choosing a model, including the standard model that the committee themselves, the head of the committee has cited in a previous memo, and moving from there. One thing that I will mention is I do think that in the definition of what a business entity is, it's unusual that university is mentioned in there. That doesn't appear in other ethics ordinances, so I think that that should be struck. There are a number of different ways that can be done. Again, that doesn't preclude anybody from being accused of conflict of interest for any reason. But to just have that there as just a general category is pretty broad and unprecedented. So that's a red flag for me. As for, again, the right of way carve out that defines what I believe what a contractor is, anybody who does business with the city except someone in the business of selling rights of way to the city, that's another one that is kind of a red flag that doesn't appear in any other ethics ordinance that anybody I know has seen. So those are just a few things for now. But again, I hope they do consider taking a more comprehensive approach and know that I would support them and that many members of the public as well. That's member Melter. >> I'm fine with including the whistleblower thing. I think some of these points are very well advised. The idea that the no longer to be called accused respondent doesn't know what they're being accused of while the other party can prepare their case is kind of blatantly bizarre. So I think that's a good catch. It would be, I've troubled by the reasoning on the item about a candidate not serving. Because the idea that they don't want to make a recommendation to us because what they think our response will be is kind of convoluted. And if they're unwilling to tell us what they really think, that's okay. But then I think we ought to talk about it. The ordinance wisely includes a passage about how amendments can be considered. And it says the Board of Ethics, this is 2-277, aye. The Board of Ethics may recommend amendments, but a recommendation from the Board of Ethics is not required for the City Council to exercise its discretion in amending this article. So I think we ought to exercise our discretion, at least talk about it. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's a bad idea, but not just to be second guessed. I'd be very interested in knowing more specifically what is being contemplated that they'll come back to us with a point of view on, yay or nay. Simply because I also have items that I've suggested they consider. If they're not going to consider them, I'll bring them up myself. Whether in this session, I don't know if that would be germane to the posting, or through a shot clock procedure. To the example of the right of way one, I raised that previously, just because I just could not figure out what it was doing in there, and so I'm not an expert. I just took a look to see, what does it even affect? So the word vendor appears in two places that I've seen. Maybe there's others, and someone else can correct me. So vendor appears in the definitions, and that's where it excludes those who are owners of right of way or other real estate the city acquires. And then it appears again under prohibited gifts. So a vendor can't give a gift to city officials exceeding $50 or multiple gifts exceeding 200. So the effect is to say if you sell right of way property or other property to the city, you can give unlimited gifts to city officials. I think that maybe that's just an error, but it's screwy and really should be fixed. >> Mayor Pro Tem. >> Thank you, yeah, just want to revisit. So on the whistleblower provision, for those watching, just to have a clear record, there was an email sent out to staff that you can open, to council that you could do open record searching. But the response is this, when I ask about how this provision would be implemented and what the rules are, the response is the board has not made determination about the punishment or conflict of interest. And is scheduled to talk about these issues during the October 23rd meeting. And will provide an update when it is decided by the board. So here's a, we're waiting on their recommendation. And one of my peers today has mentioned broad, that is to me the textbook definition of broad. Had not decided what to recommend on how to proceed with this particular provision. But yet we would, as a council, jump in front of them and say, let's move forward. And I just can't get behind that. I think we should hear them, and that's the caution, is to hear them play it out. And I will continue to listen for statutory suggestions, because I've heard none from the desk. So from this work session, so I want to hear what people would propose if they're willing to move forward. So that I can make a decision if I'm comfortable with that. But I've not heard anyone put forward any statutory suggestions on how to protect a whistle blower. Because again, I think it is overly broad and details matter. And so I will continue to listen to see if someone puts forward actual details on how they would see that not to be punitive. Because all of these changes came from good intentions, but had negative consequences, and thus the changes. So I look forward to hearing them. >> So let's realize what we're doing here today and what we're not doing. We're receiving a set of recommendations from the Board of Ethics that we've charged them with bringing forward. This is in no way a complete list of recommendations. And so I would be very hesitant to start trying to define and make amendments per your comments. Until we have this completion of the process that we asked them to do, which was bring back recommendations. And if they're not to our liking, we can take those up at this time. And I really, and we can say whatever we want, but I just have to respond to the whole notion of university being excluded from a business entity. I don't care where you put it. But we have two universities in this city which most cities do not have universities. And we do business with these universities. We have contracts with these universities. And so I absolutely, unequivocally, would hope that we maintain that if you're an employee or you have a relative who's an employee, that that falls within the definition because we have business contracts with them. So I understand that there may be a difference of opinion and there may be some subsets of that that have been talked about before as far as different issues. Certainly open to those discussions. But I think let's let this process run through that we've asked the Board of Ethics to do to give us their recommendations. I think the more we say from this dais, we say we don't want them to be influenced. We want them to give us their true recommendations and things such as that. I think we need to let them do that unencumbered by what they may hear from this dais. And also encourage them, as you did Councilmember Melser, to not worry about what this body thinks. But to give us their recommendations as they've deliberated as a body. So I don't think this work session is going to be trying to figure out all these specific amendments and all these kinds of things. In fact, we're supposed to give direction, but I'd say, okay, we've seen these. That's going to come back to us in one large document when we go. They've heard the input from their recommended changes, at least at this point. And so these are all fluid. I just, this is the first time they've come back with something like this. So, Councilmember Melser. >> Actually where I was going to go, I think you might have thought I was going someplace different, because I was influenced by what Mayor Portem said, that if they are in fact going to say more to us about that particular item, that I'm happy to hear what that is. Just as a little more input, and I'll kind of frame it broadly so they can kind of respond, and I appreciate the nature of your remarks. Specifically on educational institution, something else to contemplate would be whether it fits more. I mean, certainly there's, we have a lot of issues that relate to these large organizations. One thing for them to contemplate is whether it would fit better under the treatment that's given in the ordinance today for non-profits. And the difference is kind of what level of control the employee is assumed to have. In a non-profit, it's a conflict of interest if the council member or family member of the council member is a board member, someone who guides policy. So I would tee that up at least for consideration. But we're obviously kind of dancing around the issue around polling places. And I've said this previously in the days, and I would again, I would tee it up for consideration by the Board of Ethics for their response. I don't know for sure that I could settle the biggest, broadest questions without having some kind of unintended consequences. I mean, this is tricky stuff, but I could suggest that they look just at the very narrow issue of whether polling places that aren't paid for are pending matters. And they might say, they absolutely are, it's absolutely, intrinsically a conflict. But I understand they've ruled currently the way it's worded, they had no choice but to view it as a pending matter. But perhaps, given that nobody including the complainant in those issues thought that really made sense, that they'd take up whether that ought to be excluded from pending matters since it's not, well, I'll just leave it at that, let them chew on that. >> Council Member Armitage. >> Yeah, I just wanted to add a final comment on my end. Of course, I agree that voting on polling places don't count. I would want to encourage, and I'm speaking, I'm looking at you, but I'm also kind of speaking to the committee, assuming that they're going to be watching this and thinking about it. I would encourage them to look at other ethics ordinances and how they talk about the idea of appearance of conflict of interest. And the importance of letting that be a guiding principle for an ethics ordinance. Because the alternative is to make carve outs every time something comes up that we think doesn't count like polling locations and, or to do what we're doing here by including universities, which is not included by anyone else. To draw the broadest possible circle around potential conflicts and other things that don't have the appearance of conflict at all, to preclude committees. And I'm not saying this is why they're doing it, but I worry that it precludes committees from doing the work of dealing with individual items as they come before them and considering the individual merits of the case. Otherwise, we just have these general categories and are treating it like a litmus test or a pregnancy test where it's plus or minus, red or green. And then we could just put it through a computer, right? So we do want to keep it broad and to treat individual cases. If someone who's employed by a university, for instance, with a polling location, I believe doesn't have a conflict of interest because no personal gain or in the appearance of conflict and personal gain, in another case, there might be a kind of situation where there's a contract being voted on and the person who the complaint is against, the respondent, directly benefits or has the appearance of directly benefiting in that case. So I just want to encourage them to look at that guiding principle and see how other ethics ordinances handle it, including the model ordinance cited by the chair. >> Councilmember Briggs? >> So a couple of questions. On the purpose, it says the board seeks city council approval to codify these changes. And so but your comment earlier that it's fluid, so there are changes that are going to come to us and then no direction, but then eventually all come to us. So it's not like these few, yes, let's codify them and then we'll take up conflict of interest next and then we'll codify that. >> So I'm just trying to understand the process. >> I think it's both. I think that we can give direction on we're okay with some of these. There's been a question raised about the whistleblower and as far as is that really a complete set of information. So the committee will have an understanding, okay, the respondent, the other ones that they had, those are okay. But in the end, all of this direction that we're giving will come back to us in complete ordinance. We're not going to pass an ordinance piecemeal. So we can give direction as we go, and there may be things that needed further discussion like on the whistleblower situation. And I'm sure when we get to the other ones like conflict of interest and things such as that when they bring back their recommendations, we may have some discussion on that. So yeah. >> Okay, yeah, well just to follow that up on the whistleblower, when I read back through the email, there wasn't anything specific to the whistleblower. When I read it, it just seemed in general about the changes. So if there are specifics that we need to get into, I'm willing to listen to them. But in general, that being added I think is a good thing. >> Yeah, board did attempt to put something for a whistleblower in the red line version of the ordinance that is attached. So you might want to look at that. >> Yes. >> What the ordinance does not have is what if somebody violates that provision? What are the consequences? Those consequences are not included in the ordinance at this time. But that is what the board is going to be working on. So you're right. I mean, it's not a complete package at this time. >> Right, okay. So I think we've heard today the difficulty in this, because a comment was made that it should be more about direct impact, not indirect at universities and employees. But then we've received complaints about the ethics ordinance that it's not broad enough. So it's going to be an interesting conversation as we get into that to discuss about, because Council Member Meltzer, you talked about a sphere of control. Yet when you look at, in a business, some of the ones that may have to recuse themselves here because of some level of consequentity doesn't mean that those people have any sphere of control either within that business. So I mean, it's just going to be very interesting to have that conversation. It's going to be quite fascinating to see all the different perspectives. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Okay, so I think the direction is we're generally okay with all the changes. There seems to be, and if they're saying we're through with the whistleblower part of it, then we'll have to take that up as far as if there's any other discussion that's needed or any other items that need to be added to that, and if not, it'll go forward as it is. >> Sure. >> Yep, okay. All right, the next item is 3B, Receive Report, Hold Discussion to Give Staff Direction Regarding the Board of Ethics Recommended Amendments to the Board of Ethics Rules of Procedural Ordinance. Oh, did you hit, okay, okay. Well, basically, with the proposed changes to the ordinance, there are certain changes that needs to occur to the rules of procedures, and the changes that are proposed, they're not going to make a material change to the rules of procedure. For example, the terms, I mean, the sections related to amendments and alternate members are part of section related to hearing that needed to be moved out, but it's just a reorganization. Board wanted to put pagination because current ordinance does not have page numbers, so it's hard to refer that way. They also wanted to put the sites of the ordinance wherever is missing in rules of procedures. The body of the rules of procedure deal with representation, however, the table of content has got legal representation, so they want to fix that. And consistent with the earlier recommendation, they wanted to change rules of procedures wherever the word accused appear, they wanted to change it to respondent, but those are the all changes made to the rules of procedure. So those sort of mirror some of the changes they brought forth today. Yes. Thank you. Any questions about those? Mayor Pro Tem? No. I'm fine with those. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Yeah. I think they'll just be part of the list incorporated when we take up this matter. Yes, sir. Once we get -- We have a meeting scheduled tomorrow, so hopefully we will have a complete list of changes. Sure. Soon. Okay. I don't know how soon it is. Yeah. Fantastic. I'm just a messenger. That's right. I understand. Okay. I'm going to receive a report, hold discussion, give staff direction regarding an internal audit of the police overtime process. Hello. Mayor and City Councilman, I am Madison Rorschach, the staff auditor for the City of Denton. I'm going to present our audit of police overtime. So this audit evaluated the police department's controls over overtime in order to provide assurance that the city is spending its funds economically and efficiently. During the audit period, we found that the police department expends about $1.7 million in overtime costs and records about 30,000 overtime hours annually. The police department's overtime costs are likely to decrease in the next fiscal year because communications and animal services have been moved to different departments. However, we did not estimate the cost transfer associated with this. In addition, we reviewed the alignment of the city's policies with the Fair Labor Standards Act requirements, and the findings from this review have been addressed in a separate ISR that we included in last week's Friday report. So to talk about the findings, they can most simply be divided into two categories, administration of overtime and management of overtime. And to begin, I'll discuss the administration of overtime, which includes the separation of duties and compliance with policies and procedures. So according to best practices, the duties of preparing a payroll, authorizing a payroll, and creating the payroll payments, which include overtime, should be segregated between different individuals as shown in the figure. However, we found that in the police department, the same individual is responsible for preparing and authorizing the payroll. We found that overtime was calculated correctly for all pay stubs in our sample. However, this segregation of duties issue could lead to fraud or abuse. In addition, we found that the current police overtime policy did not reflect current practices, specifically regarding the approval of overtime. We recommended that this policy be updated and that the police department consider including best practices within the policy, such as codifying an overtime cap. These policy changes should help to facilitate productivity. According to management's response, police staff are working on implementing improved controls as we recommended and are in the process of updating the policy manual. The police department has also identified a maximum number of combined work hours of 76 as that cap. And that includes regular duty, department overtime, and any outside overtime hours. So on to management of overtime, which includes a review of supervision and monitoring. To begin, we found that about 57% of pay stubs in our sample had inappropriately approved overtime, as shown in the figure. Specifically, we found that the police administrative supervisor approved a significant portion of overtime. While this admin notifies the employee and their supervisor when they approve overtime, this compensating control does not adequately mitigate the risk of abuse, since the administrative supervisor would not really have any way of knowing if the overtime was actually worked. However, the payroll cannot be prepared and authorized for payment without all of the overtime being approved, which is why this situation was occurring. Similarly, we found that about 3% of overtime was self-approved due to system access rights. Most of this overtime was attributed to a deputy or assistant chief, and these employees have recently been reclassified as exempt, so they are no longer capable of receiving overtime. Just being said, employees involved in the payroll process, such as the police administrative supervisor and the special events coordinator, have been granted self-approval rights as well. While the department may gain in efficiency by granting these rights, the risk of abuse is greatly increased, since these employees do not need authorization to receive overtime pay. These self-approval rights are especially risky, as they were not being regularly reviewed for appropriateness. During our audit, we identified two individuals who had this self-approval right and it should have been removed, but they had not been. But this access has since been revoked. And according to management's response, police staff have begun addressing these approval issues. Finally, we found that the police department relied on front-line supervisory review when monitoring overtime during the audit period, but these monitoring efforts have greatly improved since January of 2019, and they now include monthly reports and analysis, which help to identify opportunities for savings. In summary, we issued five recommendations, all of which the department concurred with, and we believe their responses will address the findings, but we'll verify in a future follow-up audit. Any questions? >> Councilmember Briggs. >> Well, my question is for the chief, so... >> Okay. Any questions for the auditor? >> Auditor, councilmember Amater. >> So anyway, thank you for doing the study. I'm thrilled that these issues are being addressed, and I was wondering, this is not a police question, but it's an overtime question, so in that sense it's pertinent, is the auditor's office seeing overtime issues or overtime concerns in other departments, or have you not looked at that in other departments? I know that you have done and are doing audits of other departments, so I'm curious if this is just particular to this one department. >> Well, again, police overtime being the magnitude, we studied this overtime separately. In the future, we will be looking at overtime in different departments, but at this time, this is all we have studied. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? For the auditor? Chief? You had a question for the chief? >> Yes. >> Hi, chief. >> Good afternoon. >> So I want to thank you and your department for concurring with these changes and implementing them. My question is about the amount of overtime and if it was or is because of the shortness of officers, and so I know that we are looking to expand the department and you're looking to grow your department because our city is growing, and so I know that we have a lot of events in Denton, and so I'm just -- my question is, one, about the amount of officers, and then, two, they have to be willing to do the overtime as well, and so I don't know how the cap is going to affect that. If you -- if we have all of the events and then, you know, there are certain officers that do not want to participate, but others that do have reached their cap, how are we going to handle that? >> So good afternoon, mayor and council, Frank Dixon, chief of police. I'll kind of talk about them in reverse. So in trying to get people to come into work events if they don't want to and they're already capped out or we can't get others, there's always in policy where I can supersede it because it's in the interest of public safety, so we can take those on a case-by-case basis if we need to. I don't foresee that as being an issue. We took best practices from other police departments across the state when looking at the capped hours, the 76-hour mark for officers, so I think it's very reasonable. It meets both the needs of the individual officer, but more importantly, meets the needs of the city. When you're talking about the expenditures and possibly the cost savings, is that because of vacancies or what? I think it's a combination of vacancies, the amount of events we have here in the city, and trying to strike a balance between people that call in sick as well to fill those patrol backfill positions. So it's a pretty dynamic situation where some days you may have to backfill two positions because of training, vacation, and sick, and then there may be a case the very next week where you have to hire ten officers to work an event. So trying to really hone in on what exactly is the causation is pretty complex. >> Just a follow-up. Thank you for that. It's good to know that we've looked at best practices for the time and others. I just know that some other cities don't have as many events that we have, especially with a shortness in our department that we're working towards, so I appreciate your answer. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Chief. >> Appreciate it. >> Any other questions for this agenda item? Seeing none. Okay. We'll move on to agenda item 3D, and before we have the presentation, just to get some direction from the city attorney, because I know we have two people absent, and one of them was supposed to present, and he's not going to be presenting, and I think Councilmember Armater and both Briggs, I believe, are just -- yes, okay. So city attorney, we've talked about that to move forward from agenda item requires a consensus of the council, which in the context of what we've discussed, it's consensus of an entire council, not just the consensus of who's present. Am I understanding that correctly, or has that not been decided? >> That has not been decided. The rule of procedure doesn't specifically address consensus in terms of your work session items, only on action items, so what I've seen this council do in the past is a consensus of who's present. >> Okay. For these particular things? >> Not for this particular type of item, but for just general work session items. >> So I'm going to -- I don't necessarily want to have that -- I mean, if we're going to do it this way, I think it should be a consensus of the entire council. I mean, you can certainly present, because I think that was the whole purpose and intent of us doing this, and that was the whole intent of the survey, was to try to get an idea based upon the numbers, and that didn't work out, but this seemed to be working fine, so I just bring that up, because we've got five people here. Whether we get four or not, I don't know. If we get three or two, we may be able to do that. I personally don't know if I feel comfortable -- I mean, I don't necessarily control it, but to say to move that forward, I think really undermines the spirit of what we're trying to do. So councilmember, go ahead, and then we'll go with the presentation, and we all can -- go ahead. >> Okay. So just to respond to that, I mean, just my two cents. I think we should go by quorum rules. I think we should respect the rights of -- the wishes of individual requesters, you know, if they have a certain request about their own presentation, when they want it to be, you know, rescheduled for, how they want that to be prioritized, you know. As for me, I would like to go forward with mine, given that we have a quorum, but, again, that's just my two cents. >> Oh, I'm not saying to not go forward with your one minute. I'm saying that if you don't have four that would give an affirmative to move it forward to either a work session or an ISR, then, you know, we could either move that to the next agenda where we're all present, or if we decide to do it on the quorum basis, which I don't agree with, I will make sure that we have a work session where we clarify that rule so that we don't have this situation happen again. >> And yes, I do understand, and I wouldn't want to -- you know, I wouldn't see the point in speaking for a minute if we weren't going to deliberate, so I would like to have us deliberate, but, again, that's just my view, and I understand it's unprecedented because it's a new process, but just as we do for any other direction that we give to staff, you know, we do it if a quorum's present, I don't see how this is all that different. >> I don't know if that's necessarily -- I mean, I think most of the time we give direction -- there have been isolated incidences, and I don't think there's an official rule on it, but the practice has been the direction to counsel has been when you have at least four council members who are -- because there's been times when we haven't when we had to go back and deliberate and make some changes, so I don't know if I would agree wholly with that statement, that it's been a -- that that's been the practice. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yes. Mayor Pro Tem. >> I'm fine -- the individual presenter, I leave it to them, but my only, I guess, caveat would be no two bites at the apple, so it's -- I don't want to -- it shouldn't be a minute today, minute next week, you know, concurrently, it should be if you waive that opportunity to wait for a full counsel to give you your best shot at it, then that's your prerogative, but I don't think you get a minute each opportunity. >> Yeah, and I don't think that's what she was saying. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Council Member Briggs? >> But to that point, it was my understanding when we were talking about rules and procedures for this action that it was up to a council member if they did not get their majority to leave that item on and talk about it again if they so chose, that it wasn't done one and gone, and you can't talk about it anymore. It was not unanimous by any means, but there were a few people -- >> And I think I remember that conversation. We may have to revisit some of these. >> So that if a council member chose to keep that one item on until next time, it would fall within those parameters. >> Yeah. I'd have to defer to the city attorney on that or to management. >> I think, Aaron, you'll have to add, Sarah Hensley, Assistant City Manager, but I think, one, yes, it can come back, but there was a period of time that I think we mentioned that it would have before it could be brought back. >> I think you're right. >> And so we'll get that and get that back out, but, yes, it can be brought back up, but just there's a period of time. >> Okay. All right. So go ahead. >> All right. I'm going to channel my steward here. I'm not going to read this to you all other than to go straight to the items. There are three items, one of which will not be heard today, which was Councilmember Davis, but the first one is Councilmember Briggs, and I'll turn it over to you. >> Okay. So I'll just start, and this generally has been, was answered in the Friday report. We had information from parks saying that they were going to get three independent experts to review this plan, which I was really happy to see, so my request has kind of changed a little bit, so that parks could come back to us before that and can go over what experts they're talking about and hear some of Council's individual concerns so that afterwards in the end, those concerns or issues are addressed by those experts and we're not still left asking questions about it. So it would be my request that we have a short work session from parks on who the individual experts are, and then they can make a list of Council's questions so that those experts can see those specifics. >> I don't have an issue with that. >> I'm fine with that. >> I don't understand, I guess my minute is, I don't understand why each individual Councilmember wouldn't meet with parks independent of a work session to share their concerns. So I don't know if there's a way to get that answer, but I don't understand the difference in me meeting with parks department and sharing my concerns about this ongoing and having that recorded and baked in or meeting with each individual expert individually. I don't know the value of the work session. >> All right, yes. >> So yeah, just to speak to that, so I have met with park staff, they were very generous with their time on more than one occasion, and it's important that if there's going to be big policy changes that Council weigh in on that together, I'm concerned, I support this request because I'm concerned about pesticides, city-wide pesticide use, I'm glad we banned Roundup, I'm concerned about the costs and effects, how they were chosen, I'm concerned about the need for artificial fertilizer and the effect on trees, a number of other things. Weed tolerance levels on Council that we've discussed, so I would like for us to all discuss this together because the IPM is, as they say, a work in progress, I'm also concerned about who these three experts are, why three of them, what subject matters are they experts in, I would just like the scope of that work to come before Council, so I do support this request. >> Looks like there's four to move that to a workshop, but it sounds like Parks was going to have a workshop anyway, so yeah, okay. >> The next one is Councilmember Armenter. >> Okay, this involves a number of different things, so I'm going to try to speak quickly. These are updates to the gas well ordinance and also safety concerns regarding gas wells. One, notification to new and subsequent home buyers of the proximity of gas well sites to their homes is inadequate as presented in the current ordinance. Renters receive no notice of all. We need disclosure of public health impacts, especially children and the elderly should be given within a 500 feet at least of a well site. Two, line compressor stations, there was recently an accident in the North Texas area, not addressed in the current ordinance. And they should be Fort Worth regulator, regulates line compressor stations. Three, continuous air monitoring of well sites, 500 feet or closer. Four, soil testing, which we need. And five, a presentation by Dr. Hildebrand to Council and a question and answer. As an expert on gas well safety, I could help to inform us for a work session on this topic. >> Okay, Councilmember Briggs. >> It was my, I recall that there were several gas well items on the agenda and then we kind of shrunk them down a little bit so that we could all have a large conversation generally about all of these things. But the conversation focused in on the setback and all of these other conversations that were on the I guess the future agenda item list to talk about kind of just got pushed away a little bit. So I would be in favor of discussing these as well as we're talking about. After we get the setback situation settled and talked about, I think these are also important. >> Councilmember Messer? >> I support having the work session. >> Okay, Mayor Putnam? >> I don't know that I understand, this process is difficult because you don't get to ask questions. But it says work session request on all those items. No, we've talked about the bulk of those and I'm trying to, I was hoping to hear a more nuanced presentation on what's been missed. And kind of what would be the highlights, and I didn't pick that up. And so I think we can bake these into the setback conversation that's coming. And I think here, I guess what we've missed. I guess if there's something that we've missed, I was hoping that would be redlined to say, hey, this is what we've not talked about. This is what I would advocate for us having a work session on. >> Yeah, I don't mind having a work session. What I don't want to have is a work session that has a bunch of legal conclusions in it. I know during the request, the presentation of the minute request, it's sort of presented and we've had certain emails and things that seem to indicate that there's definitive answers to a lot of these things and there's not. So if it's an objective analysis of the data, if it's an objective approach, if it includes our legal department. Because I've read almost every one of these studies that people have sent to us and I don't get the same information as far as the definitiveness of some of the conclusions that have been drawn. So I don't mind having the conversation, but I don't want it to be based upon a premise that there's certain things that are considered to be true. I want it to be a presentation of the facts. Because we do air monitoring at the pad site. We don't air monitor every well, so I want that data included as well. And I've read the Fort Worth study as well and would like that available for discussion as well. Thank you. So sounds like we're going to have a work session on this at some point. Okay, that's it for our work session reports. What we're going to do is move the closed session items to the end simply because we don't want to necessarily have the public looking at a blank screen and then moving people out and moving them back in. Plus our special call meeting is not that long, if that's okay with council? Is that all right? Okay. All right, so then we will defer the closed meeting to after our special call meeting. So now I will convene the special call meeting at 2 05, 2 06 PM here at the work session room in the city of Denton for this city of Denton council meeting. Do y'all want to take a quick break right quick or just move forward? >> Move forward. >> Move forward, okay. Well, yeah, all we got is the consent agenda and we've got two items for consideration. We might can blow those out and then we'll go on to the closed sessions. One other thing of housekeeping. I'd like for staff to contact the two council appointees that we're reviewing today to see how they feel about moving forward with the review and any decisions to be made based upon the absence of two council members. So if we could just get an idea from them, because if they'd rather have a full contingent, I'd rather give them that opportunity to do that. So if we could find that out prior to moving into those closed sessions, that'd be great. >> Okay, so we've got, I think we had one item that was pulled from the consent agendas for an item for individual consideration. >> That's true. >> Oh, yeah, that's right, but we're going to postpone this, so who wants to make a, okay. Yes, council member Briggs. >> I move approval of the consent agenda items except for L and M and H. >> Okay, all right, second? Chair would entertain a second? >> I'll second. >> All right, we have a motion to approve the consent agenda except for items H. I'll just call the numbers, except for items one H, one L, and one M, which will be taken up for individual consideration. All in favor of said motion, please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed by like sign carries five to zero. On L and H, I'm sorry, L and M, those are two contracts. So we thought we would move those to the next agenda for items for individual consideration so everybody can be here to vote on those. So, do we need to make an official motion to postpone on that or can we? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, all right, so council member Briggs. >> I'll motion to postpone items L and M from consent to items individual for consideration to the next meeting. >> Okay, can she make that motion for both of those or they have to be separate? >> They have to be separate. >> Okay, so that one was for L. >> Okay, do we have a, chair would entertain a second for that motion to postpone council member Meltzer? >> I'll second. >> All right, we have a motion to postpone agenda item L to date certain of the next meeting to be considered on items for individual consideration. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Passes unanimously or five to zero. >> Yes, I would like to make a motion to postpone item M for the consent agenda item and move it to individual consideration on the next posted meeting. >> Okay, council member Meltzer? >> I'll second. >> All right, all in favor of said motion, please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed by likes, aye and none, carries five, zero. Agenda item H, consider adoption of an ordinance of the city of Denton at Texas Home Rule Municipal Corporation authorizing the city manager to execute contract with all in one services. I believe we had a presentation on that. Does anybody need a presentation on that, council member Briggs? >> I don't need a presentation. I just looked in the backup and I noticed that in the bid tabulation that the one that's chosen as the less cost of the city but it also is the one that pays less to its employees. And so I just want to take this time to see, to make sure. I mean, if we're going to use the item as the less cost of the city as an approval, then we're going to need to talk about that at some point on what's more important. Pay for our contractors or less cost to the city. >> So that's a policy discussion that we've had and will probably continue to have, yes. >> Yeah. >> Council member Armitage. >> So I'd ask for it to be pulled. I would like a presentation. >> Okay, are you asking- >> If somebody is able to make one, if he was able to make one. >> You're saying a presentation now? >> Right, isn't that what the question was? >> Yes, yes. When you said pulled, I'm like- >> Sorry, yeah. >> Okay, all right. So do y'all have specific questions for the presenter that might be helpful? I mean, so council member Armitage, what would you like? >> Well, I mean, I had mentioned, I mean, I agree with what council member Briggs had said. I had already mentioned that I'm going to be voting no based on the original question I had asked. Which was, what is this company, all-in-one services paying these part-time workers? And the answer was, it was about nine something. >> By nine dollars, just ma'am. What the actual worker receives, what the city gets charged is actually, there's a market to that. >> Exactly, yes. And so, and I think that council member Briggs expressed it really well, that if we're going by cost, the cheapest thing for this city is to not pay people enough, that's how I see it, to pay people less. And so, but I was wondering if maybe the presentation, that's my biased view, is whether your presentation could speak to how these decisions gets made, the request for proposals, and I also just wanted to, again, thank staff for collecting this information, because I know it wasn't collected before, so that's something new. >> So what I can speak to, so this item was done as what we call on, an invitation for bid, and so, an invitation for bid, we only look at, if a company meets our specifications, our requirements, and then the only, the only deciding factor is pricing when we're looking at the overall cost of the contract in the city. So this is not a request for proposals, but that could be additional considerations that are made that were prices in the sole determining factor. In this particular case, it's about pricing, it's about cost, and so based on those parameters, that's how this all in one was selected. >> Yeah, yeah, so thank you. So going back to what the Mayor said, it would be a process change, and what Council Member Briggs said. In other words, this process kind of predetermines what the result will be. If we want to change that, we'd have to have a separate policy discussion. >> Correct, so if the council's desire was to have a minimum requirement of a certain dollar amount, we would put that within the specifications, and so then all the contracts would know when they're bidding, that they would have to submit those, or like not submit, yes. >> Yeah, yeah, okay, well that was very helpful, thank you. Mayor Pro Tem? >> Okay, so Tony, that last, so invitation for bid, who sets the, who regulates that requirement, if you will? >> Generally, that's done through our procurement office, and certainly there may be state law requirements that if there is an item that you're selecting for goods and services above a certain dollar amount, then you're required to do a competitive bid process if there's no exceptions. And so generally, this would fall under that category because of the total dollar amount. >> Yeah, and so my comments would be that, first, I think there's some logical leaps here, and I don't know if we need to go in a closed session to discuss what we actually pay, but I think there's been a logical leap that the city doesn't pay 15 an hour. I don't know what that number is, I've not, you know, what the employees receive has been discussed, right? But did I miss what we actually? >> Yeah, so that's, I think that's the kicker is that that hadn't been discussed here. So it makes it, even if it hasn't, even if it's in the documents and I missed it, the fact of the matter is it's not been alluded to. So someone tracking along just thinks we're, you know, they have no idea what we're paying. And so, but furthermore, I think it's a slippery slope for the city to start. I absolutely understand the logic overall. But in detail, I don't know if the city wants to get into the business of mandating certain rates. And if we do, if that's the decision of this body, we need to have a contingency plan for if no one pays that or no one bids, then what do we do? So the park, like the parks department is now short staff, do we bring on FTEs, do we pay overtime? What's, there's consequences for those decisions. >> So what, I don't want to, I mean, everybody can vote their conscience on this. But we have not had a, well, we have had a policy discussion about living wage $15 and that policy discussion ultimately resulted in the city staff, you know, the city council raising the budget, increasing the budget to cover people who work full time for the city and our city employees in order to do that. What this council did not decide was to begin to apply that to contractors. Now, whether we want to have another discussion about that or not, fair enough. So this is not the time to necessarily have that discussion. This is a contract before us. If you want to vote for it, if you want to vote against it, that's fine. I guess I would ask the city manager if it gets voted down, Mr. City Manager, because it does require four affirmative votes in this part of the meeting, is that correct, for it to pass? >> Yes. >> Okay, so if it gets defeated, it still can be put on a subsequent agenda when we have more full council contingency to reconsider it. >> That's something that we're gonna have to look into because this is purchasing law, there are unique works. >> In other words, it may have to go back out or something like that. >> Okay, that's fair enough. Is there a timing constraint here? Is there a timing issue on this? >> I don't know that for a fact, Mayor, but I would probably say probably so. >> Okay. >> We can confirm that, but yeah. >> I have a question about the different bid tabulations in the hourly rate. It was very informative to know that there's a markup on labor. I didn't know that until this presentation, or until I read the AIS. And my question is, so if they're paying $9, and then we're paying $12, is that really saving the city any money if we're contracting? So I'm just curious, because that's why we do it, right? I mean to- >> Well, we do it primarily because some of these jobs are seasonal in nature. And so you don't need somebody there for 20, 80 hours the entire year, or even part time. You just need them sporadically throughout the year, depending on mowing season, or what's going on in the landfill. And so you just need people for a very short period of time. >> Councilmember Meltzer. >> We also considered a budget item previously about seasonal employees. And we elected to leave city seasonal employees. >> Yes. >> And we elected to leave their pay structure as it is. But if we have that structure already for the city to have seasonal employees, why wouldn't we cover our needs that way, rather than through the contractor? >> We could, I think it's really more of having that readily available pool of individuals. And I think these agencies tend to have those more readily available than the city. And of course, having to go through the whole posting process and getting those individuals, that is quite a bit of administrative labor time. So the other thing too that I'll point out for the council too is that we are working on an update to our procurement manual as well. And so that will be forthcoming to the council in the next several months. And so I think if there are desires to change some of the requirements within the bid structure or specifications, that might be also a good opportunity for the council to have that discussion as well. >> Councilmember, Mayor Pro Tem. >> Yeah, and what is the timing of the contract? Do you know how fast it can get up and running? So if approved, the funds are available, what's that timing? >> That is correct. And so these dollars are all budgeted in the current year. So as soon as we have a contract executed, if we need someone relatively in short order and they have them within their pool, then certainly we can have them here relatively quick. >> And so as a follow up, so then if there's someone that works for this institution that has worked for the city before, delaying this basically puts that job on hold? >> Potentially, yes. >> All right. >> Yeah, I think what, I mean, this is sort of got caught up in a policy discussion that we really haven't had in earnest. So I'm going to ask, I'm going to make a motion, Chair can make a motion. I'm going to make a motion to postpone this to the next date, certain of the next council meeting, to allow the full council to weigh in on this in any policy discussion that may ensue from that particular. Because this is a need the city has, and I think it's important. So my motion to postpone may not even get a second, it may not even pass. So, Mayor Pro Tem? >> Second. >> Okay. We have a motion, second discussion. Council member Armada, I think, had her hand up. >> My hand was up to actually make a motion to vote against, but since we don't have buttons, I'll leave it, so that's fine. So I was going to make a motion to vote no. I'm going to be voting no to postpone. Just to say for the record, that following up on what council member Meltzer mentioned, yes, we did have a discussion, it came to council. Did we want to include contractor? I had actually brought forward to council that, I think it had been brought in years past, I believe, by council member Briggs. Maybe I'm conflating that with the family leave issue, which is a related issue. But anyway, we still have, as happy as I am, that we're now offering our full-time and part-time employees with benefits, $15 an hour minimum. We still have the issue of part-time seasonal workers who don't have benefits. And there are many of them who need to be lifted up. And so the issue of contractors was also for consideration. >> I'm just correcting for the record that we have, that has been- >> If you could wrap it up, because we've gone over this- >> I'm exactly wrapping it up. >> Considerably. >> Yep. >> And we have a motion on the floor. >> Yes, so I was just saying, again, because I didn't get to make my motion. I just wanted to reiterate, this has come before us, and that I myself have been entirely consistent. That I believe that anybody who works for the city in any capacity should have at least $15 an hour adjustable. >> Okay, all right. There's a motion, Council Member Briggs. >> Yeah, so I have a request if this does get, this motion to postpone gets approved, that when this comes back to us, because I'm interested to know if it has to be three years. Or if it can be less a year, because there's items, there's things coming up for potential other contractors, or things like that. It would be better if we could shorten that, if that's possible. >> We can check. >> And also, with the markup, if it is actually saving us money, I'm just curious. >> We can certainly take a look at that and bring that back to the council on the 5th. >> Okay, thank you. >> Council Member Meltzer. >> Yeah, if you could take another question, Tony, for seeing whether you've had a second for your motion to respond. >> I think we did have a second, Mayor Pro Tem seconded. >> Okay, so discussion. When these contracted employees were doing work for the city, do they appear to the public in their clothing, or how they're presented to be city employees? Or do they appear to be part of that contractor's crew? You know what I'm saying? Do they wear city insignia? >> Yeah, my understanding, and I really haven't been in kind of all the operation units that are impacted. I think that normally they'll wear some type of vest or some other identifying information that at least people know that they work for the city. Now I just want to be very clear, so for tax purposes, for IRS purposes, these are not considered employees. We actually will 1099 the company, that's who the contract is, who the city pays, and then they are actually employees of that company. They get a separate 1099 from the company themselves, so just for IRS purposes, I just want to clarify that. >> Okay, I mean, just to kind of follow up with a comment. I don't necessarily believe that a summer lifeguard is going to be like a living wage job or I don't think that's necessarily true of all jobs. I kind of thought when I saw this item at the AIS that the rates were similar to what we pay our seasonal employees. You're knowing that it's a markup, that what they actually get paid is much less. I think the question is balancing whether you would raise taxes on somebody who possibly makes less than that in order to make these people make more, that's a thing to weigh. But also, what do we think we ought to do as a good employer? If you just keep peeling the onion back, you're eventually going to look at well, we buy manufactured goods that are manufactured overseas, and what do they make, and you get to a lot of sort of degrees of separation. But when you've got people who are actually going to appear to the public to be employees of the city, then I think it ought to reflect what we think our practices ought to be as good employers. So I'm very interested in having the vote and having the discussion, the policy discussion, and I'll see how the vote goes. >> Okay, sure, sure. So we have a motion to second, to postpone. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion fails for a lack of 400 votes. All right, did you vote for the postpone? >> Mayor. >> I thought I saw three, you need four to postpone. >> No, not to postpone. For simple procedural rules, it's just a simple majority. It's when you're taking official action in the name of the city, which is an approval or denial of a contract, that requires four votes. There's a distinction there. >> So is it simple majority based upon the seven or the quorum present? >> The quorum present, sir. >> Okay, all right, then motion to postpone passed, okay, all right, thank you. Thank you for that clarification, I appreciate that. Okay, that I believe wraps up, no, we got one more item for individual, two item for individual considerations. Gosh, we're, okay, let's take a five minute break. Yeah, let's take a five minute break. We're not going to plow through these. Welcome back to this meeting of the Denton City Council on October 22nd, 2019, it is 2.34 PM. We're moving on to the rest of our items for individual consideration, which is agenda item 2A. Consider approval of a resolution by the city of Denton recognizing the necessity of protecting the natural areas adjacent to creeks and other waterways. >> Good afternoon, Council, Mayor, Deborah Vieira with Environmental Services. In front of you, you are considering the adoption of a resolution that will provide support of the Denton County Greenbelt Plan. The presentation is broken down into three sections. First, we will go over a quick overview of the conditions of watersheds here in the Denton County. Then we will go over the history of events that took place that led to the creation of the Greenbelt Plan. And lastly, will be the recommendation and any questions that you may have. The plan actually identified that there are a little bit over 1,200 miles of stream and creeks in Denton County, therefore there is that amount of repair and buffer of green belts that could be developed. Just to keep in mind, there are three major lakes that resides within our county. Ray Roberts, Lake Louisville, and Grapevine. There are already existing hike and bike, especially within the premises of those lakes and some other cities that have actually set aside hike and bike for that purpose. But with the adoption of, or the implementation, I should say, of the Denton County Greenbelt Plan, that number could increase. As we might be aware, or we are aware about the growth that Denton County is experiencing, not only from population standpoint, but in the amount of development that we are facing. And that development is especially particular along Highway 380. For ten years, the Denton County will reach the one million population mark. That's a major milestone. And with that, there will be a lot of changes in land uses. And more people will be residing within our county. For that, as a way to cope with that, it is important to realize that the protection of natural assets changes upon the economic growth of any region and the quality of life of the residents of that region. Because the future land uses that we might experience with the amount of demand for water, we cannot and we should not rule out problems in the future with water quality. So we need to start paying attention to that. And from a fiscal standpoint, anything that we can prevent, any problems in the future, will translate in cost savings because prevention is cheaper than remediation. So what led to having the Greenbelt Plan in front of us? So in 1989, the opportunity regional water district was created by the state. And in 2007, the opportunity water district hired UNT to actually put together a water quality corridor management model. And what that model allow us was to prioritize the areas that they understood should be protected for the sake of water quality. In 2010, the opportunity created the Opportunity Conservation Trust, which is a non-profit arm of opportunity for the implementation of this plan. And finally, I will say two, three years ago, the Greenbelt Plan was put together. This is a snapshot of what one of the output of that management model looks like. Pretty much it assigns priority to the sub-watersheds that should be protected before others. So what is the Denton County Greenbelt Plan? Mainly, it's a guide for preservation. It identifies strategies that communities and private developers can use to set those areas aside. This, it advocates for a regional vision to be shared among all the entities and communities within the Denton County for the preservation of greenbelts. It provides for a toolbox for other communities to actually implement and get the greenbelt protected. And most importantly, it's a complete voluntary plan. So what is the Denton Plan, I'm sorry, the Greenbelt Plan in the context of the City of Denton? The City of Denton have already regulations that meet or exceeds what the Denton Greenbelt Plan advocates for. We have regulations within the Code of Ordinances. One of the most critical one would be the protection of environmental sensitive area. We protect or regulate development within floodplain. We require those development to calculate fully developed conditions. We require for habitable houses to be constructed 18 inches above the water surface elevation of floodplain and so forth. We set aside repairing buffers of different width and we provide protection for those habitat. Not only the setback of it, but also the protection of the habitat within those repairing buffers. And we advocate for the use of green infrastructure anytime that we could. Those are the 11 entities that so far have adopted resolutions in support of the Greenbelt Plan. And staff recommendation is to adopt the resolution in support of the plan. The adoption will help to create additional funding opportunities for staff in the form of grants. I have been participating with the Opportunity Conservation Trust in the creation of the Denton Greenbelt Plan. We already have regulations that align and go above and beyond what the plan requires or calls for. And we have a permit with TCQ for storm water. And that permit stipulates that we will do regional stakeholders initiative and this will align with that. So with that, that's all that I have for you. If you have any questions. >> That's much a question. Just wanted to thank you for the presentation and for you and staff and everybody from the community who is involved weighing in on this. In the region at large, so I would like to make a motion in favor of this, in support of this. >> Okay, Council Member Meltzer? >> Yeah, I applaud the regional effort. So important that especially because we're growing quickly that we pay attention to preserving quality of life and quality of environment and I second that motion. Any other comments? All right, we have a motion and a second for approval of agenda item 2a. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hand. Motion carries four to zero. Agenda item 2b, do we know, is there any estimate on when Council Member Briggs may return? Do we know? >> No, but I can certainly- >> Well, yeah, I just want to make sure that we have enough here. If anybody has any questions or if there's any opposition to something and then we've only got four people here, so we'll go ahead and go with the presentation. And if we need to move forward, then we will do something different. So I'll call the item, agenda item 2b. Consider approval of a resolution of the city of Denton, Texas adopting the vision, value statement goals, policies, recommendations, and the implementation matrix proposed in the Denton Historic Preservation Plan. >> Good afternoon. John Romigato, Development Services Mayor, Members of Council. This item, as you all recall, this was presented to you all about two weeks ago on October 8th. This is just a continuation of our discussion regarding the Historic Preservation Plan update. During that presentation, there were some questions and some direction. And so what I'm going to start off with is really just starting off with the recommendations and what we heard in the last meeting, the Historic Landmark Commission recommended approval 60 with a few comments related to, again, you've seen this already, the language under page 25, that is under African Americans and other diverse populations in Denton. This is what was crafted as part of their discussion. Also, the matrix that we changed the term parties into partners. And that we will also be adding a note under each of the matrix to read as follows. The city and the Historic Preservation Officer will lead the presentation, I'm sorry, the implementation of the Historic Preservation Plan recommendations working with the partners as listed in the matrix. They also wanted to establish a program related to property taxes. As you see here, that's what they're proposing or what was proposed. Planning Zoning Commission heard that recommendation and offered that it be explore rather than establish, and I think that is consistent to what council discussed. >> Okay, so I want to make sure as we're going through these, that we've gone through these in a work session. And that you're going to, the ones that we're finalizing or that we're winding up on, like this one here. That council has weighed in on these and you'll- >> Correct. >> Okay, just want to make sure for the public. >> Yes, just want to make sure we recap that. >> Yeah. >> And I'm ashamed that the council's direction was to continue with that recommendation, but use the word explore. >> Okay, all right. So we get to the council items that was presented again two weeks ago. This item or this particular comment is related to National Register of Historic Places. There was a direction to not necessarily encourage or pursue National Register of Historic Places, but rather just identify them and offer some informational language related to this program. And that is what we've done. We just provided a short summary of what National Registers of Historic Places are and provided direction or note references to where there's more information. In fact, we created an appendix, appendix two, that speaks primarily related to National Register and Historic Places. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> So it was my understanding that the term idiot's hell was going to be changed to something that's less offensive. >> And I've got a slide for that. >> Okay, awesome. >> Yes. >> It scared me seeing that, I hadn't noticed that going through it. >> Right, I'll get to that Councilman Armentor. In the same request of the National Register of Historic Places, there was a map identifying those areas. Council's direction was to not again not promote that, rather we did as we removed it and now that exhibit is just primarily an existing national register that it's looking to expand, not necessarily promote others. The other comment that we received was related to this summary under recommendation 2.5. This is what staff receives from the council and this is what's being proposed as changes. So you see there are underline and strike throughs. Primarily, as needed basis is what we are promoting or recommending when it comes to any conceptual pro forma analysis through a consultant. So it's just an as needed basis. We also heard that the council wanted to reword the description of Historic Den Inc. It now reads Historic Den Inc. is a local non-profit preservation advocacy organization, plain and simple. We also wanted to add Denton Main Street Association. They play a big role in historic preservation, at least in their part within the downtown area. We included them as partners under the list that's provided on page 56. Again, this is just adding them on the list with a short description of who they are. And then I think we already mentioned this, the implementation matrix. We wanted to include this note and that note again, as you can see here, is that the city and the historic preservation officer will lead the implementation of the recommendations working with the partners listed in the matrix. Along with those comments, staff is also proposing that we add dedication under this summary, which is on page 24. Just to give it further clarification of what this preservation program is about. It's about recognizing, dedicating, and conserving, as well as protecting our structures and areas. And then last, before we get to the request, is policy 2.2. We wanted to add this under that summary statement to get into further the explanation of how important conservation districts are in our community. So these are some of the areas that we're discussing, and yes, you're right, Councilman Armentor. We still have Idiot's Hill. What staff is proposing is that we keep the term Idiot's Hill. However, reaching out to the community as part of a neighborhood effort to identify the appropriate name of that area. I think that it's important that we make sure that we ask the community what they feel is suitable for that area. And if they decide it is not Idiot's Hill, then certainly we can propose something different. >> Yes, Councilmember Arntor. >> Can I ask that that be put forward to the Committee on People with Disabilities? Because I'd like them to weigh in on it as well. >> Sure. >> People, thank you. >> We can certainly add that part of our- >> Thanks. >> Yeah, yeah, let's, you're almost through. >> Yeah, this is my last slide. I wanted to just cover the request. Mayor, you asked where was demolition delay mentioned in the plan. We didn't have a quick response at the time, but it's in three locations, page 24, I'm sorry, 22, 54, and 129. And then Mayor Pro Tem Hutsbeth asked for a flow chart. We're certainly working on that as well, and we want to make sure that we address that with the plan as well. Then the last one that we just briefly discussed was a request that we change the name of Idiot's Hill. It is staff's recommendation proposal that we keep that for now until we fully understand the context and what really the name should be. For now, that's put on hold for this purpose. >> Okay, all right, Councilmember Briggs? >> Yeah. >> Then we'll go around the corner. >> Thank you, because I think, because that's kind of what the area is known for. And I think have just somebody individually changing that without talking to the neighborhood and the residents there. I would like to continue with that survey in the neighborhood meeting to find out what they think is best. >> Certainly, we've already started looking at locations. The Wilson Elementary would probably be a good location to have that and send out proper notification and notices so that we get a good understanding. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, just to follow up, and in that, just the history of the name and if all of that can be in that presentation too for the neighborhood. >> Sounds good, yes, no, definitely. >> Thank you. >> Councilmember Meltzer. >> Yeah, if the purpose is historic preservation and this is about historic preservation, I would at least want the members of the neighborhood and those in the meeting and those being conducted from surveys being conducted for them to know what the historic name is, I'm pretty sure it's Avondale. I think that's how they came up with Avondale Park. I'm not positive, I think if you look up real estate listings, they call it Avondale. >> It's the subdivision name. >> So, but if they want to, if history moves forward from today too. So if the folks want to call themselves anything else henceforward, that's fine too. But I think they should know, in the context of historic preservation, what the historic name was. >> Sure. Mayor Potem. >> I was just curious, can we have a conversation, or what is the process for mandating something down to a board or requesting it down, is that an individual request or is that a body? >> Yeah, that's a good question. >> Because I think it could be offensive to assume that's the place it goes. I mean, I just checked the definition to make sure I wasn't off. But the definition's a bit offensive to say this goes there in my just first reading. And so I just don't know, I think I want to understand that better. >> That's a good question, I don't know if the council is fully weighed in on that from a policy perspective. Yeah, I agree with that. So, and I want to address that because I'm not, I don't understand, I certainly understand from comments prior to this meeting about the name and how that can be offensive. I don't understand the connection between the Committee on Disabilities having a say in what it's named. I think it would be more like, hey, if the community comes up with a name, let's make sure that it's not offensive to anybody. So I don't understand what the deliberation is about. And I'm just going to give you a couple minutes to do that, because we're not saying we're telling them to do that. We need to have the council decide on that. Yes, go ahead. >> I understand, I just want to clarify, I don't mean that I'm not asking that that committee weigh in on what the name should be. But weigh in on their feelings, on their thoughts on this term. If they think it should be changed or not to another term that is non-offensive. The reason, I'll just mention briefly, Council Member Hutspeth. I mentioned Committee on Disabilities, of course it's up to them if they want to consider it. But because it is a term that has been used to disparage people who have developmental disabilities and people with a number of other issues. You kind of come under the umbrella of people with disabilities who are covered under the American with Disabilities Act. And it's the kind of issue that people in the committee are very, or people who are concerned about disability issues are very proactive on and can help educate us on. So they're not experts on the neighborhood, but are experts on kind of terminology. It's just, that's what I was recommending. I hear that, but I'm still confused because I think this body has said, we're moving away from this nomenclature. And that we're going to ask the neighborhood based upon maybe a subdivision name and these kinds of things to come up with it. So I'm not sure exactly what you're asking them to do other than what we're already doing. And that is, we're saying, we don't want to continue this kind of label. And we're going to try to find something that is obviously more appropriate and less offensive. So what are they going to be, if they're not going to weigh in on the name, the new name, what are you asking them to do? >> Okay, well, so that wasn't clear to me, so maybe I misunderstood. I thought that it sounded like you're saying that staff recommends to keep it for now until they find out what the neighborhood thinks, I support getting input from the neighborhood. But I also wanted the disability committee to just weigh in, maybe come out with a statement, maybe if they have something to say on the issue. But I hadn't realized that the determination is it definitely won't be Idiot's Hill, if that's the decision, then great. >> Well, I don't, okay, yeah, do what? Council Member Briggs. >> Yeah, so can we just say that if for some reason the neighborhood decides that they want to keep it, then they can come through that committee so that they can weigh in on it? >> Yeah, or educate, sure, I mean, yeah. >> Or educate, yeah, or something. >> I mean, if it's the neighborhood's desire to keep it, then maybe it can flow through that line. But if not, then it would not be necessary. >> Mayor Pro Tem, Mayor Pro Tem, you look. >> No, I'm just confused because that sets up an interesting conversation, right? Because if the neighborhood says they want to keep it and a body of the city says no, we don't. It puts us right back at square one where we make a decision. Why don't we just move to this- >> And you're pitting those two against each other. How about we just have an opportunity for the public, that neighborhood, to chime in. And we publish it, and then everyone chimes in at once, and we don't pit organizations against each other. >> Let's take it one step at a time. We've got a process whereby we're going to have the neighborhood, have some meetings, have some historical context. People are going to have an opportunity to weigh in. Let's move forward with that. And then whatever comes out of that, we can address that as a body to move forward. I mean, because I think it's, I mean, we're, I don't want to say we're putting the cart before the horse, but it seems like we're a couple of steps ahead that we really don't know. >> Right. >> So I have a question. I'm looking on here for those references to demolition delay. And you said page 22? >> Yes. >> And that's 22 of the plan, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay, could you help me see that, because I want to make sure that I'm okay with what it says. Because my understanding is that these demolition delays are not prescribed by law as far as for historical district. These aren't properties in historic districts. Or if you know where the place is where it gives a certain timeframe of delay. >> Give me a few seconds here to find it. >> I didn't, so 22, 2054. >> I know there's some discussion on length of time. But again, it's a very, here we go, 54, policy 3.2, and it's under the last paragraph. >> Policy 3.2? >> Yes, policy 3.2, if you scroll. >> Okay, I'm looking, I'm seeing recommended, is it policy 3.2 recommendation? >> Policy 3.2. >> And that's on page 54? >> 54, or is it 51, if you scroll down, if you scroll down past that and then it's. >> I see 3.2 is maintained and certified local government status. That's what my recommendation 3.2 says. >> Policy, policy- >> 3.7, okay, 3.7. Update the historical preservation ordinance. >> And then further down, Mayor, if you continue, there's the last paragraph. It starts with in addition- >> A delaying period could range from 60 to 180 days. I can't agree with that, I mean, I can't agree with that range. I mean, that's, I mean, we have to tell developers now, based upon state law, you have to give them an up or down in 30 days on plans that are submitted. So that's saying that you're going to delay a developer for 60 to 180 days from doing something that they're lawfully able to do. Now, if you're just wanting to give someone a chance to talk with them and try to convince them, I think the maximum should be 60 days. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, Council Member Briggs. >> Yeah, I recall that conversation in the gentleman that was here. He said 30 to 60 days, I thought, was- >> Maybe so. >> When you asked him about the time period, he's usually around 30 days. >> Right, this, and I don't mean to cut you off there, Council Member Briggs. >> Okay, was that different? >> No, it's stated here as a recommendation. Certainly, when this becomes something that we do consider, we can certainly state that timeframe when and if we do that, we can certainly amend this plan to reflect 30 to 60 days, but ultimately, an ordinance would establish that time frame. And that's when we fully put it into play. >> Yeah, again, I appreciate that. But this is a recommendation that we're passing, it's a resolution. >> Correct. >> But it's saying this is what we're recommending to be put in the ordinance. And if there's something that we know, I mean, I may not have the support of this council to do that. But I can't say, well, let's leave it this way, and then when it comes back, because I'm okay with a maximum of 60 days. But I really struggle with that, because I don't want it to be left in the city's hands to say, hey, you can't do anything for 60 days. I mean, that's just like a waiting period, so I struggle with this one. >> Okay, well, if there's a option, we can certainly lower or lessen the days, outline in the plan, and then move that whenever we consider the ordinance. >> Sure, Councilmember Armitage. >> For what it's worth, I still support the 60 days. I think it's important that we have a window, and since we can legally do that, as I understand it. >> I don't think we can, we only legally do it if we pass it as an ordinance. >> Well, that's what I mean, I mean, that it's legally possible if- >> Yeah, okay. So you're okay with 60 days? >> Yes. >> Maximum of 60 days? >> At least. >> Okay, so that wasn't my question. Are you okay with 60 days, as the maximum number of days that a demolition delay could occur? >> So I almost feel like it's a trick question. I know you don't mean it as a trick question, so currently it says, remind me, because I checked out this other slide up. >> It says 60 to 80 days. >> 60 to 80 days, I mean, so I would report- >> I'm sorry, it's 180 days, 60 to 180 days, but that's certainly something that we can- >> Yeah, I mean- >> Adjust. >> Can you speak to why it was 180, why that number? >> I don't, but I just know that it further states that a standard delay is 90 days, but I don't know the reasons why it goes up to 180 days. >> Yeah, so I'm fine with having, and the reason I hesitate to answer is because 90 days would be great, too. But I'm fine with leaving it as a range and then waiting for an ordinance that to make it more specific. 60 to 180, 90 to 180, whatever. >> Okay. >> But- >> Yeah, I simply made my position now. >> Yeah. >> That's my answer. >> I wonder if you could just indulge me and do it again slow. What is the issue, how might it create a problem, the issue that you're highlighting? >> Sure. Well, I think it's a philosophical position, number one, in interest. Because what this is saying is someone who has an individual private property right that is not governed by an overlay of a historic ordinance. Historic preservation ordinance or a conservation ordinance. It's just their property that is subject to all the rules and regulations of the city ordinances outside of those. So what we're saying is we want you to not do and move forward how you want to do it until someone has talked to you to convince you either to do it differently and to see it differently, which is okay. And so we're mandating or we're saying you cannot move forward with your project for X amount of days until we have an opportunity to share with you and possibly persuade you to do it differently than what we think you're going to do it differently. >> And what triggers that? That's any demolition or that's specifically- >> Yeah, demolition. >> Yeah, that's any demolition, correct? That's any demolition. So that's my concern because if you've got a property that somebody's going to demolish. First of all, you have to pull a demolition permit, which those are public record. And there could be some kind of vetting process or notice process to the Historic Landmark Commission or people who are interested in historic preservation to say, here's a demolition permit. Let's gather our forces. Let's gather the experts and set up a meeting with these property owners to see if we can't somehow share with them the importance of maintaining that or doing something different than what they're planning. I have no problem with that process. Absolutely not. I'm just saying, I don't think it needs to extend out 93 months to six months, half a year. >> How would that rub up against the development shot clock? >> Well, I don't think this is really, this isn't affected by that ordinance because it's not a plan. A demolition permit is just a permit. It's when they go to submit their project, if they have a rezoning or whatever the plan is defined, that's when the 30 days comes in from the shot clock. I'm just saying that if we're saying you've got to turn your plans in within 30 days or you turn them in, we've got to get back to you within 30 days or it's denied, I just don't think we should extend out this kind of, I'm going to say arbitrary period that the city can impose upon someone who's demolishing any property in the city to say you can't demolish it. >> Yeah, there's always a wait period. >> The properties on Oak and Fry Street, all right. So that means if this was in place as an ordinance, that could have been held up six months depending on how those conversations went. And also within this is no recommendation of how do you make the decision, who makes the decision, is it up to the property owner to decide, well, thank you all for talking, I appreciate it, I'm going to move forward. Or is this a hard date, who decides how many days it is? There's just too many unanswered questions in this for me. So I don't want to drag it out. I mean, I'm just sharing with you my thoughts. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Council Member Armitage and then, Council Member Briggs, yeah, go ahead. >> So I need some clarification because I'm going back to the presentation when the consultants were here who actually helped us with this. And I thought it was homes within the conservation district that were talked, not just any home in the city. It's homes that are in a conservation district. And so it's ultimately, he answered you when you asked the homeowner's decision to say, no, thank you. It's just the city has a chance to send in someone to say, hey, this house is pretty significant. If you do it this way, you can be entitled to certain tax benefits. Or it's just, or if you give some time, it's just a little bit of time. It's a cooling off area time period. Okay. >> Here's the language. >> Okay. >> It says, within the historic preservation ordinance that would add temporary layer protection for properties identified and evaluated as architecturally and historically significant, but not designated as a local landmark. A delay period could range a length from this and this and this for most communities. So there is some truth in what you're saying that they've got to be identified by somebody, I'm not sure who. For their architectural and historical significance, but they're not protected. >> Right, and so just- >> So that they would belong to some of those groups in some of these neighborhoods that aren't actually official, but have some significance. >> Right, so if I can interject real quick, he did mention surveys. So the surveys that we have, that typically identifies those architecturally significant buildings. And of course, that's where we would get into it further, those that are higher, we could assign a certain amount of days. Or if they're not, then we wouldn't. So there's a lot of stuff that we need to work on, of course, before we can get an ordinance in place. If we do decide to do something like this, I think just putting a range is fine. Ultimately, what is the council's comfort on what that range is? >> Well, I hear you, but if the range stays this way, I'm going to vote against it. So I mean, there's no reason we can continue the discussion. So I'm just saying there's just too much subjectivity. We've got a survey, we've got people who are looking at it architecturally. We have people who have a certain interest in that, which is fine. But we also have a private property right that someone has that is not being influenced by anything other than our regular ordinances. That's all I'm saying, so, yes. >> I wasn't finished with my question. So that it's tied to a survey or a conservation district makes me feel more comfortable with it. The timing of 180 days, say if it has no significance at all and it's has been through our Habsco and it needs to be demolished or something like that. There's no reason that that should be held up for that long. So my question is, is there a way to put the maximum of 80 but start at no time and then maybe 30? I mean, I know that we have different types of buildings and different districts. But I agree that it shouldn't be 180 days. But I do think that some of the buildings say like the one downtown that was burned, that was demolished. >> Which one? >> The mini mall. >> Okay. >> I mean, if there was a time period there where it could have been saved or there was some time where, I don't know, just something could have happened where it didn't have to be demolished, where that owner would have gotten some sort of reward. I'm just saying there's situations where that would have been beneficial. >> I think that's an iffy example because that building was basically destroyed. I mean, there was a public safety issue for that one. So if you're saying that there's a house that somebody's going to bulldoze to put up some development. And it's architecturally significant and it's been surveyed to give those people time to have a conversation, I'm not opposed to that. >> Right, well, I mean, just on that one, say the inside, yes, but the facade, there were some questions on if the facade could have been saved. >> Yeah, so yeah, I mean, it's not a perfect example, but it's a small one. >> Yeah, and if I can interject, I think we can work with a maximum of 60 days. I mean, that's a lot of time to speak to the property owner, to get it on whatever agenda. I mean, that is what I would recommend, if that's the council's. >> Okay, I just got, sorry, I got stuck on your, to put it on an agenda. I don't know. >> Meaning if there was something else that we need to follow up. But certainly the max of 60 days, I think, gives us enough time. >> Council member. >> Staff. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> So my concern would be, say there's a case where the method of destruction of demolition of a building in that area, raises some environmental issues, and that some environmental agency needs to test something. Or somebody else needs to go, something needs to get tested or sent to a lab, and we need to wait on that. In other words, something that's beyond staff's control. That would be my concern is, if that exceeds the window of 60 days, then it would just be a matter of, well, it's the private property owner's decision to demolish. Or are there other means in the city, outside of the historic preservation issue, that would cover that, if that makes sense? I'm thinking of, for instance, in the case of the scripture normal SRO, say there had been a hold there, a delay. That would have allowed more time for independent study, something like that. >> That is exactly my concern. Because that was a private property right, whether we agree with what's happening there or not. But what I'm hearing you say, to allow time to find a way to defeat that, to defeat, to undermine. >> That's not what I said. >> So I'm going to make a motion to postpone. >> Can I hear the answer to my question, though? >> Yes, go ahead. What's your answer, what was your question? >> So the question, if there was additional review or additional approval. >> External, if there was an issue, if staff, the community wanted external, some sort of external review. >> I think in any application, we would have to look at the building code, and I'm not an expert in the building code. But if there was any requirements per the building code, that would be something, in my opinion, something separate that would be done to address those environmental issues. >> And the best is the best. >> Yes, I think what we're wanting here is really the intent of this provision is to have an opportunity to talk to the property owner to see if there's any other options or other options that we can try to save that building. That's really what that intent is, is save the building. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Yes. >> I think to the question of the who decides, I think that would logically be the HPO. If it needs to be specified. >> The H what? >> The Historic Preservation Officer, HPO. >> To decide on what? >> Whether or not to invoke the time period. Wasn't one of the questions raised? The discussion was who decides whether to invoke the issues. So I think that's who. If it's a landmark structure, then you can't demolish it, is that correct? >> It has to go through the Historic Landmark Commission. >> Okay, so there's that protection if you're kind of all the way on that side. So I'll just offer my opinion that if it's not landmarked I think 30 days is too little because sometimes you need to develop some kind of a plausible plan. Like in the case of the facade on Main Street. Like to explore whether something is technically feasible. I think 60 days is responsible, motivating, and reasonable. So I'm comfortable with that. >> All right, well, I'm just going to stay at 60 days. I'm not going to make a motion. I withdraw my motion. So we're just going to vote on it up or down. I wanted the other council members to, it seems like this is an important discussion. So I wanted the other council members to be able to weigh in on that. But I don't want to be the one always making a motion to postpone. >> Sure. >> I'm going to withdraw that. Yes. >> Do we have an opportunity to amend here to address this point? Or is it just, we're going to vote now, yes or no? >> No, I think we can amend it here. >> Yeah, yeah, I mean, I've got here the direction, general direction. If again, the maximum days is 60 days, I think that's easy to do. >> To change. >> To change. >> And I'm hearing you say, yeah, we could actually. >> As staff. >> You know, as staff. >> Correct. >> We can work with that, you know, constructively. >> If not less. >> Yeah, yeah, less is always an option. >> Yeah, so I'm not in favor of postponing, and I think I heard you say you would. >> Yeah, I would agree. >> I mean, this has been like the third time it's on our council, so. >> Well, and it's going to come back for a vote anyway. No, this is the vote. >> This is the vote. >> This is the vote. >> Yeah. >> In the work session room, so I'm confused. >> Right. >> Okay, thank you for that, appreciate that. Mayor Pro Tem. >> Yeah, so I think, gleaming from the conversation, I think that the timing should start at zero. And I think it should be 60 days max. And then I think a formula for that would be one extension of 30 days. So I think 30 days is by statute, and then you have the opportunity to extend the 60, versus it triggering going all the way through, because I think that serves as a stop gap for those that would try to weaponize it. But if it's a legitimate concern and there's time, hey, we've made progress. The property owner can then request an extra 30 days to then explore other options, financing mechanisms, et cetera, et cetera. But it doesn't give a non-property owner the ability to prevent you from doing what you need to do with your property for two months. >> I just look for clarification. I just don't understand what would trigger the extra 30 days. I mean, I don't understand why it would be the property owner who would say, I want 30 more days to be held up, you know what I mean? I get where your thought is there. >> If you think you're going to, if you think that you, well, it comes from your statement. You said that 30 days is not enough. So if you've gained traction, then you need more time to execute that. But if you've not gained traction, there shouldn't be an automatic trigger for someone to be held up 60 days to continue to browbeat you. >> I just think that the browbeating is coming from staff, right? They're the ones looking for the time to do it. >> Either way, the net results the same. Whoever is doing it, the net results the same. If you have a property owner that's not complicit and not hearing what you're saying, an extra 30 days of whoever isn't going to fix it, right? The ship has sailed. If you can't convey your point in 30 days, then that should be, okay, we're going to move on. Wish you would have done a different and move forward. I don't know that, I guess someone would have to give me a compelling reason what was said in the first 30 days that wasn't. Something that's not said in the 31st 30 days that's now said in the second 30 days is going to be compelling is a tough argument to make. I think an argument to be made is, hey, you have some financing mechanisms. You have some opportunities that we need to make you aware of and see if there's traction. I think all that can be accomplished in 30 days. >> Okay, yes. >> Clearly we- >> We know that staff is not brow-beating anybody. >> I think- >> Willing to stipulate. >> I think simply zero to 60 days in the plan and then we can work out the details. I think that's what, I think what we're missing, the details when, if and when we bring this as an ordinance. >> So I'll move, if I may. >> Yes, yes. >> I'll move approval of this. >> Okay. >> Amended to, with that point amended to 60 days. >> Okay, just a point of clarification. So in the plan where it says a range of 60 to 180 days, you're saying to go from zero to 60 days. >> Yes. >> Correct? With a, okay, just want to make sure that that's your motion. Okay, Council Member Briggs? >> I will second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second with only one, sorry, go ahead. >> I'm sorry, is that with all the recommendations? >> Yeah, with all the other, yeah, yeah. >> Yes. >> So let me restate the motion just to make sure we got it right, correct me if I'm wrong. So there's a motion to approve agenda item, what is this one? 2B, is that right, 2B? Yeah, 2B, with staff and council recommended changes as presented. >> Right. >> And then also to change the range on page 54, I believe, from 60 to 180 to zero to 60. >> Got it. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> I'm assuming that you're sort of taking under advisement all the input on how to conduct the, the fundale, whatever, you know, separate discussion. >> Yes, which was part of the, okay. >> That will be something that we'll be doing forward. >> Okay, all in favor with the motion, please signify by raising your right hand. All opposed by like sign. Motion carries four to one. Thank you all very much. >> Thank you. >> We'll move on to our concluding items. Council Member Briggs. >> So I would just like to thank Danny Shaw for coming to the district two meeting on Sunday. It was a very great presentation and we had a good turnout. So I just want to thank her for her time on Sunday. >> Okay, thank you. Any other concluding items? Going once, twice? All right, we will now stand adjourned in our closed meeting, I mean our open meeting. I will now convene the closed session at 322 PM. We will consider the following items. Consultation with attorneys under Texas Government Code section 551.071. The deliberation regarding personal matters has been moved to the next council meeting for clarification, for the review of the auditor and the municipal judge.