Jan 18, 2022 City Council

[00:00:04]

>> WELCOME TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, JANUARY 18TH, 2022, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL ROLL.

>> Y'ALL PLEASE STAND WITH ME FOR THE PLEDGES AND A MOMENT OF SILENT AFTER THE PLEDGES.

ASK I PLEDGE AL LEGIANS TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF OF MARK, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR

WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDIVISIBLE. >> I TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, ONE STATE UNDER GOD ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

>> THANK YOU. >> WELCOME EVERYBODY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN AOUPBS MONTH --

[1. Announcements/Reminders:]

DO YOU HAVE ANY OANYTHING MR. GARZA. >>> COW YES BUT YOU CAN PRESENT

YOURS FIRST. >> I WANT TO PRESENT THIS FLAK CITY RECEIVED FROM THE THEY PRESENTED WITH US A BRONZE CITY AWARD PRESENTED TO VICTORIA PARKS AND RECREATION FOR OUTSTABBING 2020-2021 REGISTRATION REPORT FOR TEENS, INDIVIDUALS AND TRAINING PROGRAMS. SO THIS IS A BIG PAT ON THE BACK FOR THE WHOLE PARKS DEPARTMENT, AND IT GOES WITH ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT SUPPORT THE GAMES WE HOSTED THIS PAST WEEKEND AND WE'LL HOST THE FIRST WEEKEND IN MARCH, BUT I A BIG THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANY WORDS? I SHOULD HAVE ASKED YOU.

>> DON'T TELL HIM THAT. >> THANK YOU. ASSEMBLE NO, WE REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE SUPPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL, OBVIOUSLY FROM EVERYBODY IN THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS AS WELL. IT TAKES A VILLAGE TO PULL OFF TAFF WINTER GAMES.

>>> CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THEM A LITTLE BIT, MR. AL FARROW. >>> ON THE TAFF WINTER GAME?

>> SURE. >> WE HAD FIVE SPORTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY IN IF LAST THREE DAYS ON MLK WEEKEND. WE HAD 900 PARTICIPANTS IN THE EVENTS SO, OF COURSE, WITH ALL THE FAMILYS THAT ARE COMING ALONG WITH THOSE 900 PARTICIPANTS WE'RE EXPECTING 1,000 THE TO 2,000 IN THE CITY. WE HAVE MARCH FIFTH AND 6TH WHERE WE HAD A FEW GAMES LIKE

GOLF AND FLAG FOOTBALL GOING TO PUSH FOR DURING MARCH. >> SO WE'VE RECEIVED AN AWARD FOR THE ORGANIZATION FOR CLARITY HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HOSTED THIS EVENT?

>> THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THE CITY OF VICTORIA HAS HOSTED THIS EVENT.

>> WE'LL CONTINUE TO HOST IT THROUGH 2024? >> YES, SIR.

>> THROUGH 2024 AND AS LONG AS WE HAVE A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH TAFF, WE CAN CONTINUE ON

2025 AND BEYOND. >> AND I THINK THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE EVENTS,

TOO, CAN YOU TALK AABLY ABOUT THAT? >> YEAH, SO WITH SPORTS TOURISM, TAFF BECOME A BIG PART OF THAT BUT WE HAVE OTHER HOPEFUL TOURNAMENTS WE HAVE COME ON, THREE ON THREE SOCCER, FOR INSTANCE, WE'RE LOOKING AT ADDING FOOT GOLF AND ADDING DIFFERENT, UNIQUE KIND OF SPORTS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING AFTER RIGHT NOW.

THAT IS WHAT WE'LL BE WORKING NONTHE INTERIM. >> I ALSO WANT TO SAY, IN YOU GET THE OPPORTUNITY WATCH ANY OF THE GAMES, THEY'RE FUN TO WATCH. I COULDN'T BELIEVE THE SPEED AT WHICH PICKLEBALL IS PLAYED, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE MY AGE. WHEELCHAIR BASKETBALL WAS VERY EXCITING AND FUN TO WATCH. SWIMMING, YOU COULDN'T BUY A SEAT IN THAT PLACE.

IT WAS PACKED A*FPLT LOT OF SWIMMERS FROM 7 YEARS OLD TO 90 YEARS OLD.

[00:05:02]

AND THE CORN HOLE TOURNAMENT WAS GOING FULL FORCE IN THE ANNEX AND IT WAS FUN TO WATCH THOSE PEOPLE, THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF EVERYONE WAS FUN AND EVERYONE WAS HAVING A GOOD TIME, TOO.

>> YES, SIR. >> AND IT IS FREE TO THE PUBLIC TO ATTEND, YES, SIR.

>> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, JASON. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

SO A FAMILY OF ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET TO SOME OF THE FORMAL RECOGNITIONS ON THE AGENDA, TODAY WE SENT OUT A PRESS RELEASE ANNOUNCING DANIELLE WILLIAMS IS OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. SHE FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS HAS SERVED AS OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE MAIN STREET PROGRAM AND HAS DONE AN AMAZING JOB IN CREATING JOBS AND BRINGING BUSINESSS TO DOWNTOWN, THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF PASSION AND ENERGY THAT WE NEED IN ORDER HAVE A MORE ROBUST, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ACROSS THE CITY.

SHE WILL BEGIN THIS NEW ROLE LATER THIS MONTH AND WE'LL HAVE A TRANSITION PROGRAM FORTRANSITION STRATEGY TO TRANTOYS A NEW MAIN STREET MANAGER FOR THOSE ARE NOT FAMILIAR SHE'S BEEN WITH US SINCE SHE GRADUATED COLLEGE ROUGHLY 15 YEARS AGO AND SHE BECAME AN ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IN 2014 AND HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN A LOT OF QUALITY OF LIFE PROJECTS SINCE THEN. AND SO THE ONE THING THAT EVERYONE DELETE S EVERYTHING HAS IN COMMON IS IT ENHANCES LIVEIBILITY.

WE'RE VERY EXCITED FOR HER NEW ROLE AS SHE WILL CONTINUE TO HELP US DO THAT IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CAPACITY, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'RE WORKING VERY INTENTIONAL -- INTENTIONALLY TO ENHANCE LIVABILITY WE'RE EXCITED FOR HER NEW ROLE.

IF YOU CAN HELP CONGRATULATE HER GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> DOES DANIELLE WANT TO SAY ANYTHING SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE WHAT SHE LOOKS LIKE?

>> THANK YOU. >> I'M SUPER EXCITED TO TAKE ON THIS ENDEAVOR.

I CALL VICTORIA FOR 12 YEARS NOW AND I TAKE PRIDE IN THAT AS DO MANY OTHER VICTORIANS.

ALL I WANTED TO DO WAS MAKE IT BETTER AND CONTINUE TO MAKE IT BETTER.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS NEW ROLE IN MAKING IT BETTER, BETTER PLACE TO LIVE.

THANK YOU. >> CONGRATULATIONS. >> AWESOME.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND IN THAT SAME LIGHT, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAT ENHANCE LIVABILITY AND WITH THAT COMES COMMUNITY BEAUTIFY INDICATION.

I WANT TO MENTION TO YOU THAT CHRISTY YOUNGER YOUER CAN WAS RECENTLY PROMOTEED TO COMMUNITY APPEARANCE MANAGER AS WELL. SHE'S DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN ALMOST ONE YEAR THAT SHE'S BEEN HERE IN REALLY RAMPING UP OUR EFFORTS TO KEEP VICTORIA BEAUTIFUL.

BUT AS YOU KNOW IT GOES MUCH BROADER THAN JUST THAT ORGANIZATION.

AND SO IN HER ROLE AS COMMUNITY APPEARANCE MANAGER SHE WILL OVERSEA OUR OPERATION OF THAT DIVISION TO A GREATER DEDEGREE TO EXPAND THE TYPES OF PROJECT WE'RE EXCITED SHE'S CHOSEN US TO BE HER WORK FAMILY AND THE EXCITED FOR THE WORK SHE'LL BRING TO HER NEW ROLE, CONGRATULATIONS TO HER AS WELL. [APPLAUSE] IS SHE HERE? ALL RIGHT, SO, THAT IS WHAT I'VE GOT UNDERSTAND ANNOUNCEMENTS, I CAN TRANSITION INTO SOME OF THE

EMPLOYEE RECOGNITIONS IF THAT IS JANET RENO PLEASE. >> FIRST, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE

[a. Recognition of the City Secretary's Office for receiving the Exemplary...]

>>> APRIL IS HERE. >> APRIL IS HERE. >> SHE'S IN THE BACK.

SO AND FAITH IS IN THE BACK AS WELL. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR HARD WORK, WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. [APPLAUSE]

>> AND WE ALSO -- DID IT TURN OFF ON ME -- WE ALSO AS YOU KNOW LIKE TO RISE RECOGNIZE OUR

[b. Communications Specialist Sam Hankins earns master’s degree in Spanish...]

SHE RECEIVED A MASTERS DEGREE IN SPANISH INTERPRETING FROM UTRGB. THE PROGRAM PROVIDES INSTRUCTION

[00:10:06]

SHE BEGAN WORKING WITH US IN JANUARY OF 2020. AND SO WE'RE VERY EXCITED FOR THAT, BECAUSE NOW I DON'T HAVE TO, YOU KNOW BE THE ONE TO DO THAT.

NOW I HAVE AN EXDUES SAY, SAM, AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS? SO, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONTINUED EDUCATION ACHIEVEMENT, SAM.

[APPLAUSE] >> IS THAT IT? >> THAT'S IT.

[3. Items from Council:]

>> EXCELLENT. WHEN CLOSE PUBLIC RECOGNITION AND OPEN ITEMS FROM COUNCIL.

WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ALREADY LISTED IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO IT MAYOR I THINK THIS IS THE MOMENT WHEN I PULL ITEMS FROM CONSENT. I WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE STAFF IS PULLING ITEM D 2 PULLING IT TO BRING IT BACK AT A LATER MEETING.

THERE IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE'D LIKE TO PUT TOGETHER FOR THAT ITEM.

ALL RIGHT. >> SO WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON ITEMS FROM COUNCIL, ONE IS DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL SPEED LIMIT THERE MR. LOFGREN BROUGHT UP AND MINE IS DISCUSSION OF SPEED HUMPS.

AND I SEE THESE AS GOING HAND IN HAND. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO STAFF IF US AS A COUNCIL COULD COME UP WITH WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE? AND I HAVE AN IDEA IN MY DELETE S MY HEAD ALREADY FORMED BECAUSE I KNEW I WAS GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION. BUT WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE WITH BOTH OF THESE ITEM?

>> WE'RE TRYING TO SLOW PEOPLE DOWN IN NEIGHBORHOODS. >> TRYING TO SLOW PEOPLE DOWN

IN. >> CARE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

EVERYONE AGREE WITH THAT? >> I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH TRYING TO SLOW PEOPLE DOWN.

I'M MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE SAFETY ASPECT OF IT. AND I DON'T WANT THEM GOING OVER THE SPEED LIMIT BECAUSE IN MY MIND WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE BECOME SOME CUT-THROUGH JUST ORGANIC GROWTH OF THE CITY. IT HAPPENS, RIGHT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO BYPASS THE INTERSECTION OF NAVARRO AND THE LOOP AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO IT.

RIGHT. SO GETTING TO THE SCHOOL. WE HEARD ABOUT THE STORIES OF PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH TO GET TO THE HIGH SCHOOL AND ON THE EAST GOING THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SO IT HAS HAPPENED NATURALLY, BUT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THOSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM TRAFFIC GOING TOO FAST AT A CLIP NOT SAFE FOR RESIDENTIAL STREETS.

WHEN I LOOKED AT BOTH OF THESE ITEMS, 30 VERSUS 25. IF WE DID THE 25 WE'RE STILL GOING HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM BECAUSE IT COMES DOWN TO ENFORCEMENT I DON'T CARE 25 OR 30 IF SOMEONE IS GOING 25 ON THE ROAD, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT WITHOUT ENFORCEMENT.

AND WITHOUT INCREASING OUR DEPARTMENT SIZE FOR THE POLICE TO BEEF UP THE ENFORCEMENT OF RESIDENTIAL SPEED YOU KNOW, OR SPEED LIMITS I THINK THAT WE DON'T SOLVE ANYTHING BY LOWERING

TO 25. >> I DISAGREE. BECAUSE WHEN I DRIVE, I LOOK AT THE SPEED LIMITS. AND I TEND TO DRIVE WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS.

SO IT IS LIKE, YES, IT IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE EVERYTHING, BUT IF SOME PEOPLE DRIVE SLOWER IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, IT IS SAFER NEIGHBORHOOD FOR KIDS TO PLAY AND WALK AROUND IN.

I PASSED AROUND THE ARTICLE FROM FLOWER MOUND, BECAUSE I TRIED TO GET AHOLD OF PEOPLE FROM FLOWER MOUND BUT NOBODY HAS CALLED THEM BACK, BUT THEY DID LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THEY LET NEIGHBORHOOD VOTE ON THEM.

AND ABOUT 20 PERCENT OF FLOWER MOUND HAD LOWERED THE SPEED LIMIT AND IT SEEMED TO BE A SUCCESS BECAUSE IN NOVEMBER THEY LOWERED ALL RESIDENTIAL SPEED LIMITS IN FLOWER MOUND TO 25 MILES PER HOUR. AND THEY BROUGHT UP IT WAS A SAFETY ISSUE SOME PEOPLE DO OBEY THE SPEED LIMIT SAOEURPBGS I'M ONE OF THEM. YES, IT NEEDS TO BE ENFORCEED

[00:15:04]

IF IT WAS 25 MILES PER HOUR WHERE PEOPLE CUT THROUGH, AND YOU HAD A POLICE OFFICER THERE, THE TICKET WOULD BE A LOT BIGGER THAN IF IT WAS 30 MILES PER HOUR.

SO, I MEAN, IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE HAVE SOMEBODY DRIVE 35 MILES PER HOUR IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE AND IS A THEM DRIVE AND TELL THEM IF YOU THINK THAT IS SAFE. IT IS NOT.

WE HAVE THOROUGHFARES, WE HAVE SOME THOROUGH FARES THAT ARE 30 MILES PER HOUR.

>>> LIKE LAURENT? >> SO I MEAN, IT IS LIKE RESIDENTIAL AREAS SHOULD BE -- IT SHOULD SPEED BUMPS ARE NOT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BUT WILL HELP THE PROBLEM.

>>> A SPEED HUMP IS A TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICE. AND IT IS THE RECOMMENDED FIRST

STEP WHEN TRYING TO ADDRESS SPEEDING. >> WELL, I THINK I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS. I HAVE A PHIL OF CAL PROBLEM WITH US JUST DECIDEING THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOWER SPEED LIMITS IN EVERY RESIDENTIAL ON EVERY RESIDENTIAL STREET WHEN SOME ARE NOT HAVING A PROBLEM I DON'T LIKE THE PATTERNALISTIC APPROACH THAT FLOWER MOUND TOOK

20% OF THE PEOPLE SAID THEY LIKED IT. >> 20% OR AT 25%.

>> THEY LET NEIGHBORHOODS DECIDE. AND WHEN THEY WENT TO THE 25 FOR THE WHOLE THEY LEFT ENABLEDS THE OPTION OF VOTING TO BE 30 MILES PER HOUR WE DEFINITELY DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOME CUT-THROUGH STREETS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE I THINK THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT SOMEBODY LUCKY ENOUGH NOT TO LIVE ON CUT-THROUGH STREET NECESSARILY

WANTS TO HAVE THE SPEED LIMIT LOWERED IN THEIR AREA ALSO. >> I WOULD GET IT FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT EVERY RESIDENTIAL STREET IS CREATED EQUAL, AND YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM AT 35 MILES PER HOUR MAY BE SAFER THAN OTHERS AT 35 MILES PER HOUR.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF A BLANKET APPROACH IS NECESSARILY WARRANTED COULD LEAD TO SAFETY BUT A SLOWER SPEED LIMIT COULD SOLVE SOME OF THE CUT-THROUGH PROBLEM.

AND SO I SEE THOSE TWO THINGS GOING HAND IN HAND. I LIKE THE IDEA FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT IN THE RIGHT SCENARIOS AND THE RIGHT NEIGHBORHOODSS SOME STREETS ARE WIDER THAN OTHERS. I THINK A MORE FOCUSED APPROACH ON SPECIFIC PROBLEM AREAS MAYBE

THAT IS SOMETHING WE LOOK AT INSTEAD OF JUST A BLANKET. >> I THINK NEIGHBORHOODS GET TO DECIDE LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SPEED HUMP, SPEED BUMP, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PEOPLE GET TO DECIDE AND THEN MAYBE IF PEOPLE LIKE IT, THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT FLOWER MOUND DID, THEY STARTED OUT LETTING PEOPLE CHOOSE AND I THINK WE SHOULD LET PEOPLE CHOOSE. I DON'T LIVE IN A PLACE WHERE THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE GOING FAST ON MY STREET BUT I DON'T WANT THEM GOING 30 MILES PER HOUR DOWN MY STREET EITHER. I REMEMBER WHEN CRESTWOOD WAS DONE AND PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING THAT PEOPLE WERE GOING TOO FAST AND ACTUALLY THEY WERE GOING THE SPEED LIMIT.

IT IS JUST THE ROAD GOT FIXED AND THEY COULD GO 30 MILES PER HOUR DOWN THE STREET IN FACT MY NEIGHBORHOOD THE STREETS ARE SO BAD THAT PEOPLE PROBABLY DON'T GO 30 MILES PER HOUR.

>> THAT ISN'T COST-EFFECTIVE WAY TO SLOW TRAFFIC. >> IT IS NOTTOWAY I LIKE BUT IT DOES WORK. IF THE STREETS GET FIXED I DON'T WANT THE PEOPLE SPEEDING DOWN THE STREET AT 30 MILES PER HOUR. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE JUST LIKE SPEED HUMPS AND SPEED BUMPS THAT NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF GOING 25 MILES PER HOUR.

>> YOU KNOW, SINCE WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS PUBLICLY, I HAVE NOT HAD A SINGLE PERSON CALL ME AND TELL ME THEY WOULD LIKE THEIR STREET SPEED LIMIT LOWERED.

[00:20:05]

>> I HAVE. >> OKAY. >> I HAVEN'T HAD ANYBODY ASK ME THAT AND AND SAY THAT IS AWESOME, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED.

>> ASK THEM NOW THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING WHAT THEY THINK OF IT.

IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T BRING UP SOMETHING, THEY PROBABLY DON'T THINK WE COULD HAVE CHANGED IT TO 25 MILES PER HOUR, NEVER ENTERED THEIR MINE BUT ASK THEM AS WE'RE DISCUSSING IT HOW THEY

FEEL ABOUT IT. >> I BROUGHT THIS UP TWICE AND I GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT WE COULDN'T LOWER IT TO 25 MILES PER HOUR. BUT THEN WHEN I GOT THIS ARTICLE THAT ANDREW WAS NICE ENOUGH TO SEND ME, AND I HOPE HE FEELS BETTER, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN LOWER

THE SPEED LIMIT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO 25 MILES PER HOUR. >> OR AT LEAST TEMPORARILY UNTIL YOU GET CAUGHT. AND NEIGHBOR CITY STAFF COULD CLARIFY THAT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, BEGINNING OF THE DISCUSSION YOU SAID THE STAFF, SO ARE YOU ASKING THE STAFF TO LOOK INTO WHAT AREAS THE PROBLEM IS BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER? OR ARE WE JUST GOING PICK SOME? HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO DO THIS?

>> THIS LIKE SPEED BUMPS OR SPEED HUMPS NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO LOWER THE

SPEED LIMIT TO 25 MILES PER HOUR. >> HOW DO YOU PHYSICAL STREETS.

>> WE DON'T PHYSICAL STREETS, THE NEIGHBORHOOD PICK THE STREETS.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE EVENTUAL OUTCOME WOULD HAVE TO COME WITH STAFF, BECAUSE I KNOW WE WOULD APPROVE IT, BUT STILL WE NEED DATA TO PROVE TO SUSTAIN THAT.

>> IF A NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS TO GO TO 25 MILES PER HOUR WHY DO WE NEED DAT TO PROVE THAT.

>> WHAT IF THEY WANT TO GO TO 35? >> I'M NOT INTERESTED IN RAISEING THE SPEED LIMIT. IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT OPTION IN THERE, THAT IS UP TO YOU.

THE WHOLE OBJECT IS TO GIVE NEIGHBORHOODS THE OPTION TO BE SAFER AND BEING SAFEER IS, IT IS NOT JUST SPEED HUMPS, IT IS LOWERING THE SPEED LIMIT AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT OPTION.

IF YOU WANT TO PUT ON THE BALLOT AND ASK THE CITIZEN, I'M 59 THAT.

BUT I THINK NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION. THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TO IT.

THEY CAN LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS. IF WEST CRESTWOOD CAN SIDES, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA,

THAT THAT SEAR TOO FAST. >> IT IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL STREET.

>> THAT IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL STREET. >>> OKAY, AND YOU'RE RIGHT.

BUT IF A NEIGHBORHOOD DECIDES THAT IT IS TOO FAST 95 DELETE S THEY SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET SPEED HUMP, WHY NOT? WHY NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT IN THEIR

NEIGHBORHOOD. >> AND WOULD YOU DO IT FOR NEIGHBORHOOD OR ALLOW THEM TO

CHOOSE STREETS IN THE PROGRAM YOU'RE PURPOSEING? >> THAT IS SOMETHING CITY STAFF WILL HAVE TO WORK OUT -FRPBLG THEY CAME UP WITH A POLICY, WE'RE GOING HAVE TO COME UP WITH A POLICY. I'M NOT GOING WRITE THE POLICY, THEY'RE GOING TO WRITE THE

POLICY. >> AND THEN WE CAN HAVE INPUT INTO IT.

>> IN YOUR VISION, WHICH WOULD YOU DO, STREET BY STREET? OR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> NO. >> NEIGHBORHOODS. >> BECAUSE STREET BY STREET WOULD NOT, I DON'T THINK WOULD WORK AND EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IS DIFFERENT.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SIGNS GOING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SAY 30 MILES PER HOUR.

OKAY, YOU WANT TOING WHAT IT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU CHANGE THE SIGNS TO 25 MILES PER HOUR.

BUT SHOULDN'T NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE THE ABILITY FOR DO THAT? IF THEY HAVE THE ABOUT TO PUT A SPEED HUMP OR SPEED BUMP OR WHATEVER IN THERE, SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOW

TWER SPEED LIMIT. >> THE SPEED HUMP HAS CRITERIA TO PEOPLE GOING OVER THE SPEED

LIMIT. >> REFRESH OUR MEMORY I'M SORRY, SITTING MY BRIEFCASE IN THE

TRUCK. >> KEN KNOWS IT BY MEMORY. HE CAN STAND UP AND VERBALIZE

IT. >> IT HAS TO HAVE SO MUCH TRAFFIC PER DAY WHICH I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RIGHT NUMBER IS ON THAT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND THIN A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE CARS THAT TRAVEL ON THAT ROAD HAVE TO BE TRAVELING MORE THAN 12 MILES PER HOUR OVER THE

SPEED LIMIT BEFORE IT QUALIFIES. >> AS FAR AS SPEED LIMIT IT SHOULD BE UP TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO LOWER

[00:25:04]

NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT. >>> AND BE ABLE TO RAISE IT

ALSO. >> YOU'RE GETTING IN THE WEEDS NOW, LET'S JUST IF THEY WANT TO GO BACK TO 30ING THEN THEY CAN TWO-THIRDS CAN SAY THEY WANT TO GO BACK TO 30.

BUT LET'S JUST DEAL WITH THE IDEA THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THE OPTION TO GO TO 25 MILES PER

HOUR. >> WHAT'S THE COST IMPLICATION? >> WHAT?

>> WHAT IS THE COST? >> WE'D -- THOSE ARE ELEMENTS THAT WE COULD FIGURE OUT, PART OF WHAT WE HOPE COMES OUT OF THIS CONVERSATION IS CLEAR DIRECTION FROM WHAT THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SEE SO THAT WE CAN PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER IS BASED ON SOME, EVEN IF IT IS LIKE THIS, RIGHT, SOME DIRECTION TO GO IN A PATH, SO FOR EXAMPLE IF THE CONSENSEUS IS NEIGHBORHOODS, WHERE WE CAN PUT THOUGHT INTO THAT. I DON'T THINK IT IS AS EASY AS SAYING NEIGHBORHOODS, BECAUSE, THERE ARE PLENTY OF STREETS IN OUR COMMUNITY GO ASK COMMUNITYS WHAT COMMUNITY THEY THEY'RE A PART OF, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TELL YOU.

JUST OFF THE BAT, HOW DO YOU DEFINE A NEIGHBORHOOD. IS IT A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT STARTS HERE AND ENDS HERE? THERE WILL THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE FIGURED OUT IF WE WANTED TO TAKE A NEIGHBORHOOD APPROACH TO IT. BUT IF THERE IS A COMMUNITY THAT ALREADY DOES IT, WE CAN REACH OUT TO THEM AND STAY, WHAT IS YOUR POLICY? HOW DID YOU TACKLE IT? AND LEARN MORE ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF RESEARCH.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL, THAT IS WHAT WE'LL DO.

>> KEN GILL, AREN'T MOST CHANGES IN SPEED LIMITS OR STREET DESIGN OR STREET CHANGES.

ISN'T ALL THAT DATA DRIVEN? >> YES, BASICALLY IT IS, A LOT OF THE STREETS THAT YOU HAVE ARTERIAL COLLECTORS, THE SPEED IS BASED ON DESIGN OF THAT ROAD, IN OTHER WORDS CURVES, DIM MENTIONS, HOW IT IS BUILT. THAT IS A CORRECT RESPONSE. -- ANSWER.

>> HAVING A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAD HAS ONE STREET THAT IS A CUT-THROUGH STREET OR JUST A STRAIGHTAWAY WHERE MOST VEHICLE SPEED, DOESN'T MEAN HAS TO HAVE THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD

DECREASEED TO 20 BUT MAYBE THE. >> SOME NEIGHBORHOODS DUE TO THE WIDTH OF THE STREET.

>> THE DISTANCE. >>> CARS PARKED BUT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BLOCKS, YOU CAN'T GET TO 30 MILES PER HOUR IN THAT SHORT, YOU KNOW, 600-FOOD DEAD-END CUL-DE-SAC IN ARE DESIGNING NEIGHBORHOODS TO KEEP THAT REDUCE TOED NATURALLY, A GOOD EXAMPLE IS YOU'VE GOT THE STREETS OF OLD THAT ARE 37-FOOT WIDE THAT THAT IS A WIDE STREET AND THE SPEED THAT PEOPLE TRAVEL, IT IS HOW COMFORTABLE THEY FEEL DRIVING DOWN THAT ROAD.

>> IN A ROUNDABOUT WAY CHANGES ARE MADE IN SPEED LIMIT, STREET DESIGNS LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE ARE DATA-DRIVEN NOW BECAUSE THE MORE COMPLAINTS THE MORE WE PAY ATTENTION TO THAT.

>>> RIGHT. >> STREET. SO BEING IF IT WAS A BLANKET THING WITH ALL NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE CITY OF VICTORIA WOULD HAVE TO WOULD BE REDUCEED TO 25 MILES PER HOUR. BUT IF IT IS SELECTED ON

COMPLAINTS OR GAT THAT, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT. >> WE MAY NOT HAVE THE EXACT SPECIFICS ON THESE STREETS IN OTHER WORDS EXACTLY WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING, WE CAN PUT OUT THOSE DEVICES TO COLLECT THE DATA FOR THE STREETS TO SEE WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL SPEEDS ON THOSE CARS COMING THROUGH, COLLECT SEVEN DAYS ONE WAY SEVEN DAYS ANOTHER WAY AND THAT GIVES YOU THE DATA

TO FIND OUT IS SPEEDING OR WHAT ARE THE SPEEDS ON THAT STREET. >> KEN, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT 80% OF THE PEOPLE GO THE UP SPEED LIMIT? THIS IT IS JUST THE EXTRA 20%

WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT. >> WE FOUND ABOUT 85% OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN THAT 30 TO 33.

[00:30:07]

THEY CAN FIGURE IT OUT, FLOWER MOUND FIGURED IT OUT HOW TO DO NEIGHBORHOODS.

OUR CITY STAFF CAN FIGURE IT OUT. BUT NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT. A LOT OF THINGS CHANGE TRAFFIC PATTERNS MY NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN THEY PUT THE MEDIAN IN IT STOPPED PEOPLE CUTTING THROUGH ON KING ARTHUR, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SO MANY POTHOLES THAT PRETTY MUCH SLOWED THEM DOWN ANYWAY. BUT, IF THEY FIX THE STREETS IN CASTLE HILLS WEST, CARS WILL GO FASTER AND THEY MAY EVEN CONSULT THROUGH ON KING ARTHUR NOW.

AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT TO 25, BEFORE WHEN I FIRST GOT ON CITY COUNCIL, PEOPLE IN ON KING ARTHUR WHEN I WAS WALKING STREETS A LOT OF THEIR CARS GOT RUN INTO IF THEY WERE PARKED ON THE STREET BECAUSE THERE IS A CURB AND THE PEOPLE WERE GOING TOO FAST AROUND THE CURB AND HIT THEIR TRUCK LOWER SPEED LIMITS ARE SAFER FOR NEIGHBORHOODS AND NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD GET TO DECIDE THAT.

THAT IS ALL I WANT TO DO. GIVE JUST LIKE SPEED HUMPS AND SPEED BUMPS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE A LOT OF TRAFFIC IS CUTTING THROUGH THERE AND THAT IS WHY WHEN WE DO MEASUREMENTS TO MAKE SURE THEY REALLY NEED ONE. BUT IF FIVE PEOPLE GO THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY'RE GOING THROUGH IT 30 MILES PER HOUR AND PEOPLE WANTED TO GO SLOWER, I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE THAT. AND YES, IT COSTS TO CHANGE THE SIGNS. YES, IT SAVES IT IF IT SAVES A CHILD OR OLD PERSON WALKING THEIR DOG. NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD ABLE TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO LOWER THEIR SPEED LIMIT TO 25. IF NOBODY DOES IT, FINE, BUT THEY HAVE THE OPTION.

>> I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MARK THAT HE'S CORRECT. THE LOWER SPEED LIMITS DO SAVE

LIVES. >> I HAVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THAT.

HOWEVER, I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE A BLANKET POLICY OR SITUATION, I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE DATA DRIVEN AND IT APPEARS WE'RE ALL OVER THE BOARD. I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS UNTIL WE GET FURTHER INFORMATION FROM KEN GILL, FROM CITY MANAGER FROM CITY ATTORNEY ON HOW THIS WOULD BE IMPRELIMINARYED THE COST, WE'RE TOO FAR OFF BASE, I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE IT.

>> I SECOND IT. >> NOT JUST TABLE IT, BUT TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION.

WE'VE GONE 20 MINUTES ON IT. >> IF WE GO WITH REDUCEING THE SPEED LIMIT ARE YOU ALSO GOING TO -- IS IT GOING

>> IT WILL BE ONE OR THE OTHER OR BOTH. >> IT SHOULD BE BOTH.

>> I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE CITY SAYING WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE SPEED LIMITS, I CAN SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS BEING ABLE TO DECIDE I LIKE THE CONCEPT THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED TO US WITH THE SPEED HUMPS WHERE IT IS NEIGHBORHOOD DRIVEN. SY NOT THE CITY SAYING, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO LOW WERE YOUR SPEED LIMIT, LET US KNOW IF YOU DISAGREE.

IT IS TOTALLY NEIGHBORHOOD-DRIVEN, WE DO HAVE A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATIONS WHICH MAKES IT FAIRLY EASY FOR THEM IF THEY WANT TO -- IF THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. I KNOW SOME OF THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT, BUT I STILL -- I CAN SEE IT BEING PUT INTO THE SPEED HUMP POLICY,

MAYBE THE TWO OF THEM TOGETHER. >> ONE DATA POINT I WOULD LIKE IS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS HOW

MANY INCIDENT REPORTS DO WE HAVE OF SOMEONE GETTING HIT? >> FOR VEHICLE DAMAGE.

>> KIDS PLAY THE THE STREET IF A CAR IS GOING 30 MILES PER HOUR A DOWN THE STREET, IT IS A LOT HARDER TO GET OUT OF THE WAY. AND NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD GET TO DECIDE.

THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD GET TO DESIDE IF THEY WANT TO LOWER THEIR SPEED LIMIT. IF THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T HAVE TO.

>> I DON'T THINK I WOULD USE THAT EXAMPLE AGAIN, PLAYING IN THE STREET.

>> I REMEMBER THAT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION. DON'T BUILD ANYMORE HOUSES MY

[00:35:05]

CHILDREN PLAY IN THE STREET. NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT. >> THE TARGET IS, THE FAST EAR CAR GOES, THE MORE LIKELY SOMEBODY IS GOING GET HURT MORE SERIOUSLY.

AND NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO LOWER THE SPEED LIMIT TO 25, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYBODY WOULD OBJECT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD VOTING TO LOWER IF SPEED LIMIT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT BUT, THAT'S ALL -- MY CONCERN THE GENERAL CONCEPT, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU ON O. I WANT TO SEE HOW IT IS IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE THERE WILL BE IN THE DETAIL. I THINK REALLY THAT IS GOING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS REALLY GOING BE ABOUT EFFECTIVE POLICY FOR THE CITY, WHAT DOES THE IMPLEMENTATION LOOK LIKE.

I'M HOLDING OFF ON ANY KIND OF DECISION. >> JUST WORKING WITH STAFF TO TRY AND GRAFT SOMETHING THAT HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THOSE DEALS.

>> SURE. -- DRAFT SOMETHING THAT HAS A LITTLE BIT DECISION ASK I'M GOING TO SKIP ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM SPEED HUMPS FROM COUNCIL GOING WILD ON THAT ONE.

SO IF THERE ARE NO OTHER ITEMS FROM COUNCIL, WE'RE GOING GO TO CITIZEN'S COMMUNICATION.

[4. Citizen Communication:]

I HAVE ONE INDIVIDUAL TONIGHT, MR. MICHAEL VON DEROFF. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR, COUNCIL, MAYOR PRO-TEM, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T GIVE THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CREDIT. I THINK I'M THE FIRST ONE TO EVER DO IT.

BUT ANYWAY, EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT "KEEP VICTORIA BEAUTIFUL," SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO KEEP IT BEAUTIFUL AND THAT IS WHEN CODE ENFORCEMENT COMES IN HANDY, YOU KNOW, TO CITE THEM TO FORCE THEM TO KEEP IT BEAUTIFUL AGAINST THEIR WISHES SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY A FINE.

AND THEY MADE SOME ROUNDS THROUGH THE TRAILER PARKS AND THEY GOT TWO ABANDONED CARS TAKEN CARE OF AND THOSE TWO MAT STRESSES ON FAMILY DOLLAR WERE FINALLY PICKED UP.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER THOSE PICTURES, THEY HAD THREE MAT STRESSES.

AND HAPPY BELATEED MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY. YOU KNOW HE HAD A DREAM AND IT WAS TO GET THE CIVIL RIGHTS PASSED IN 1964. AND I HAVE A DREAM AND IT IS TO GET AN ANIMAL TRAP TO GET THAT PIT BULL ON 2203. I'VE BEEN TRYING FOUR WEEKS UNSUCCESSFUL. AND WENT THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT, STILL UNSUCCESSFUL. BUT I'M NOT GIVING UP, YOU KNOW. AND IF SOMEONE COULD HELP ME GET A TRAP, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH, YOU KNOW, THIS PIT BULL GOES AROUND TERRORIZING ALL THE LOOSE DOGS AND THE PEOPLE DON'T OBEY LAWS, ONLY THE GOVERNMENT CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM YOU KNOW THEY DON'T BELIEVE DOGS SHOULD HAVE A LEASH OR YOU SEE STRAY DOGS WITH LEASHES ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND IT IS GETTING OUT OF OHAND. AND SO FAR THE DIMINISHNER'S COURT OR ANIMAL CONTROL HAS NOT HELPED. BUZZ I HAVEN'T GAVE UP AND ANYWAY, THANKS AND HAVE A GOOD DAY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR ALL THE WORK SHE DOES, APPRECIATE IT. THANKS.

HAVE A GOOD DAY. >> THANK YOU. >> I FORGOT TO RECOGNIZE SOMEONE. GOT MR. BLANCHARD FROM HEAD OF THE VICTORIA SALES TAX ASSOCIATION HERE. GOOD EVENING. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING FOR US

TONIGHT? >> NO, OKAY. >> GREAT.

>> GLAD YOU'RE HERE. SO WITH THAT WE'RE GOING CLOSE CITIZEN COMMUNICATION GO INTO

ITEMS WITH PUBLIC HEARING WE HAVE ONE ITEM. >> C 1 IS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND READOPTING TRAFFIC REGULATION SCHEDULES AS PROVIDED IN VARIOUS SECTION DELETE SIONS

OF CITY CODE. >>> GOOD EVENING, I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT RAISEING THE SPEED LIMITS VERSUS LOWERING THEM. THIS IS FOR PLAID DOE BEN INDIVIDUALEZ.

>> KEN WHO WAS THE ONE WHO WANTED TO RAISE THE SPEED LIMIT? WHO WAS IF ONE THAT BROUGHT

THIS? >> YOU BROUGHT IT UP. >> IZE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT IT BEFORE BASICALLY THE WORDING DESCRIBES FROM NAVARRO UP TO THE CONCRETE PORTION WILL REMAIN 35 THERE IS A REASON BEING THERE IS ALOAD OF DRIVEWAY, A LOT OF CONFLICT POINTS IN THAT SECTION AND MAKES GOOD TRAFFIC SENSE FOR IS A COMFORTABLE DRIVE BECAUSE THERE IS THE SIDEWALK THAT IS

[00:40:06]

AND THEN THE OTHER SECTION -- SO DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT PIECE? OKAY. THE OTHER ONE AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THE ORDINANCE, NOTICEED A SECTION THAT HAD A DECREASEED SPEED LIMIT FOR BUSINESS 59 BASICALLY FROM SA*ES STREET ALL THE WAY TO OSTONEER. IT HAD 20 MILES PER HOUR FOR THE CENTER TURN LANE.

NOW THAT TXDOT IS PUTTING A MEDIAN IN THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE THAT SECTION IN THERE.

AND WHEN YOU GO LOOKING AT TRYING TO ENFORCE THAT THERE IS NO WAY FOR SIGN IT.

THERE IS NO WAY FOR REALLY ENFORCE THAT. AND THAT IS THE SITUATION WITH ALL CENTER TURN LANES. YOU WANT TO DO THE SPEED THAT IS A SAFE MOVEMENT-TYPE SPEED.

WANTED TO REMOVE THAT MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE MEDIAN. >>> THE MEDIAN IS NOT IN YET,

THOUGH, IT IS STILL GOING TO BE SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE IT IS IN. >> RIGHT, BUT THERE IS -- RIGHT

NOW IN IS NO WAY TO SIGN IT. >> IN OTHER WORDS WHERE DO I PUT A SIGN 20 MILES PER HOUR INSIDE

A CENTER TURN LANE. >>> IT NEVER WAS SIGNED. >> IT NEVER WAS SIGNED.

I BELIEVE THAT WAS AN OLD, OLD SECTION. >> I'M JUST.

>> YES, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. >> I ALWAYS KNEW IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SLOWER IN THE TURN LANE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW I KNEW THAT, THOUGH. >> IT IS JUST WHAT IS COMFORTABLE AND SAFE. IF YOU GET INTO AN ACCIDENT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT UNSAFE

SPEED. >> IF YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A TURN LANE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE

SLOW DOWN TO TURN. >> RIGHT, RIGHT. >> NOT SPEED UP AND GET INTO

TRAFFIC. >> THAT IS MY ONLY QUESTION, THOUGH IS THAT GOING CREATE ANY TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM FOR US BECAUSE IT IS NOT COMPLETELY THE ITEM SO WE DO HAVE THE

CENTER TURN LANE. >>> I DON'T THINK SO. >>> OKAY.

>> OKLAHOMA. >> THANK YOU. >> THE CONSTRUCTION IS SLOWING

US DOWN. >> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO

[1. An ordinance amending and re-adopting Traffic Regulation Schedules as ...]

ENTERTAIN ANY MOTIONS. >> SO MOVE. >> SECOND.

>> GOT A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM C 1 ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THOSE OPPOSE SAME SIGN. THANK YOU. ONTO THE CONSENT AGENDA WITHOUT

[D. Consent Agenda:]

D 2. >> Z 1 IS THE ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE JANUARY 4TH, 20 TWAORBGS THE SPECIAL MEETING ON JANUARY 7, 2022 AND SPECIAL MEETING ON JANUARY 10, 2022. ITEM D 3 IS A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A 2022 DODGE RAM 5500 TYPE-I AMBULANCE FROM SIDON OS MARTIN EMERGENCY GROUP LLC IN AMOUNT OF $299,731.

AND D 4 IS APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF 350 HP MOTOR FROM THE VERTICAL TUSH BINPUMP FROM BRADLEY'S, INC. FOR THE SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSAL AMOUNT OF $88,925.20.

>>> MOVE. >> SEC SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE

THE CONSENT AGENDA, ALL KNOWS FAVOR SAY AYE. >>> AYE.

>>> ETHOSE OPPOSE SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM E 1 AND IF IT IS ALL WITH

[E. Action Items for Council Discussion:]

AND AFTER HE'S DEAN AND HAVE STKOUGS IF YOU FEEL ALREADY VOTING ON ITEMS IN ONE SINGLE

VOTE, I WOULD APPRECIATE A MOTION IN THAT MANNER. >>> E 1 IS A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FOR AN AFFORDSABLE MULTI-FAMILY SENIOR HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2513 NORTH NAVARRO REQUESTED BY FISHPOND DEVELOPMENT LLC. E 2 IS A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY SENIOR HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 108 PRIM ROSE STREET AND 702 BINGHAM ROAD WWW.REQUESTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH COMPANIES AND E 3 SUPPORT AN AFFORDABLE MULTI-FAMILY SENIOR HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 901 NORTH JOHN STOCKBAUER DRIVE REQUESTED BY REALTEX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

>>> E 4 SUPPORT AN AFFORDABLE SENIOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ZACK LENTZ PARKWAY AND MALLETTE DRIVE

[00:45:05]

REQUESTED BY KCG DEVELOPMENT. >>> WITH THIS PRESENTATION STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTIONLESS OF SUPPORT FOR FOUR PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING SUBMITED TO THE STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE 9% TAX CREDIT, AS A BACKGROUND MAYOR AND COUNCIL THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ESSENTIALLY ALLOCATES TAX CREDITS. AND THE TAX CREDITS ARE THE PRIMARY WAY TO CONSTRUCT OR FINANCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FINANCE AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE HOUSING TODAY WOULD TAX CREDITS. AND THAT IS NATIONALLY.

SO THE TAX CREDITS ARE ESSENTIALLY ALLOCATED BY U.S. TREASURY TO THIS STATE.

AND THE STATE ALLOCATES THE TAX CREDITS OR AWARDS THE TAX CREDITS TO THE DEVELOPERS WHO IN TERN DELETE S TURN SELL IT, SELL THE TAX CREDITS AND EXCHANGE FOR BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF TAX CREDITS. YOU THE COMPETITIVE 9% TAX CREDITS PROGRAM, AND YOU HAVE THE NON-COMPETITIVE TAX CREDIT PROGRAM.

YOU ASK, MIKE, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO? WELL, THE 9% TAX CREDIT PRA*PL IS EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE. SO THE APPLICANTS OR THE APPLICATIONS ARE AWARDED BASED ON REGIONAL ALOE INDICATION. WHEREAS THE 4% TAX CREDIT IS NON-COMPETITIVE AND APPLICATIONS ARE SCORED, THEY ARE SCOREED AND TAKEN THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THOSE TWO PROJECTS ARE WERE DONE THROUGH THE FORCE% HOUSING TAX CREDITS. SO THE 9% TAX CREDITS ARE THE APPLICATIONS ARE TAKEN ONCE A YEAR. AND THEY ARE SCORED AND RANKED WITHIN THE REGION, OR REGIONALLY. THE PROJECTS ARE FINANCEED THROUGH TAX CREDITS AND CONVENTIONAL LOANS. THAT IS HOW THE 9% ARE FINANCEED. WHEREAS THE 4%, THEY ARE FINANCEED THROUGH TAX CREDITS, CONVENTIONAL LOANS AND THE PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS THAT THAT ARE ISSUEED BY THE HFCS OR PFCS SO THE PROJECT AND PROPOSED ODOM STREET IS FINANCEED THROUGH THE PRIVATE ACTIVITY BONDS TAX CREDITS AND CONVENTIONAL BONDS. THE 9% TAX CREDIT PROVIDES AT LEAST 70% OF THE DEVELOPER'S EQUITY. THAT IS WHY IT IS SO COMPETITIVE. THAT IS WHY EVERY DEVELOPER WANTS THE 9%, BECAUSE IT PROVIDES 70% OF THE TOTAL FINANCEED COST FOR THE PROJECT. WHEREAS THE 4% ONLY 30%.

IT IS NOT AS LUCRATIVE AGAIN TO MAKE THE 4% WORK YOU HAVE TO WORK WITHIOUSING FINANCE

CORPORATION LIKE OUR. >> THE STATE DIVIDE, THE DIVIDES THE STATE INTO REGIONS WE HAVE 13 REGIONS. THERE IS OUR TAX CREDIT REGIONS THAT DEVELOPERS COMPETE IN.

AND VICTORIA IS IN REGION 10 AND REGION 10 CONSISTS OF CORPUS KRIS CITY -- CORPUS CRISTI, VICTORIA AND A COUPLE OF OTHER COMMUNITIES. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A 9% HOUSING TAX CREDIT DEAL OR PROJECT SINCE 2007. YOU SAY WELL, WHY IS THAT? IT IS BECAUSE THE WAY THE APPLICATIONS ARE SCORED THERE THE QUALIFIED ALLOCATION PLAN, IT ESSENTIALLY PROVIDES MORE POINTS TO PROJECTS THAT ARE IN LARGER CITIES.

SO BECAUSE A CITY HAS LARGER POPULATION, THEY GETMORE POINTS. AS ALSO HIGHER JOB DENSITY THEY GET MORE POINTS. WHICH IS REALLY PUNITIVE TO SMALL CITIES LIKE VICTORIA OR MORE RURAL COMMUNITIES. BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LARGE POPULATION AND WE ALSO DON'T HAVE THE HIGH JOB DENSITY. SO REALIZING THAT, THE CITY MANAGEER AND I WENT TO AUSTIN WE MET WITH THE DIRECTOR TO BRING THAT FORWARD TO SAY HOW CAN SMALLER CITIES LIKE VICTORIA BE MORE COMPETITIVE WHEN IT COMES TO THE 9% TAX CREDITS? SO WE LOOKED AT TK*FR OPTIONS

[00:50:02]

THEY AGREED TO ESSENTIALLY EXTENDS THE JOB DENSITY FROM ONE MILE TO TWO TO 4 MILES.

SO ESSENTIALLY IT MAKES IT MORE COMPETITIVE FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES OR CITIES LIKE US, WHERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE HIGH JOB DENSITY. SO WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT, IF YOU HAVE A HOUSING PROJECT WITHIN A MILE OF THAT PROJECT, YOU SHOULD HAVE JOBS.

SO WHAT WE DID IS LIKE WE SAID, WELL, THAT IS FINE, BUT CAN YOU MAKE IT 2 TO 4 MILES? AND BECAUSE OF THAT, IT MAKES US A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPETITIVE SO THANK YOU, JESUS FORGOING TO THE

STATE TO ESSENTIALLY LOBBY FOR THE SMALLER COMMUNITIES. >> AND MIKE, I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY JUMP IN. THAT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS MORE WORK TO BE DONE TO HAVE COMMUNITIES LIKE OURS OR WHERE I WAS MORE COMPETITIVE, BUT BEFORE WE START TALKING ABOUT THE FOUR O 4, AS A REFRESHER, TWO YEARS AGO WE WORKED WITH REAL TX TO SUBMIT 9% FOR SENIOR PROJECT IN A LAND THAT ENDED UP BEING ENCHANTED GARDENS.

THAT PROJECT WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH DEVELOPER TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE POINTS AND LOST OUT TO CORPUS BY LITERALLY ONE POINT. AND SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND, THAT EVEN IN THE BEST OF SCENARIOS AS WE COULD, WE LOST OUT TO CORPUS BY ONE POINT. WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT WITH THIS MINOR TWEAK IN THE QAP WE COULD BE MORE COMPETITIVE AND AT LEAST TIE WITH CORPUS OR DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE WE COULD GO INTO SOME TYPE OF TIE BREAK FORMULA THAT PROVIDES DISCRETION.

KEEP THAT IN MIND AND WE WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS THIS IN THE PRESENTATION TO MANAGE EXPECTATION WITH THE PUBLIC AND EVERYBODY INVOLVED THAT THIS IS VERY COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND IT

IS NOT GUARANTEED. >> DO WE HAVE A HIGHER CHANCE OF OMAYBE GETTING ONE OF THESE NOW

THAT WE HAVE FOUR APPLYING FOR THE. >> WE HAVE A BETTER CHANCE, ACTUALLY HAVING MORE BECAUSE EACH WILL BE SCORED INDIVIDUALLY.

AND SO EACH WILL BE SIFING ITS OWN SCORE SO THE MORE THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY ONE OF THESE SCORES VERY WELLING RIGHT AND EACH WILL SCORE DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF THEIR LOCATION AND THEIR RADIUS ELEMENT, RIGHT? AND A COUPLE OF OTHER FACTOR, TOO THAT ARE SITE-SPECIFIC.

BUT EVERY ONE OF THESE DEVELOPERS VERY INTENTIONALLY CHOOSES A SITE THAT THEIR INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH CONVEYS TO THEM THAT THIS PROJECT WILL BE COMPETITIVE AND EACH COMPANY IS DIFFERENT IN THEIR METHODOLOGY ON HOW THEY DEVELOP AND FIND SITES THEY DEEM COMPETITIVE. AND SO ALL OF THESE PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, HAVE PICKED ALL OF THESE SITES BECAUSE THEIR OWN INTERNAL STAFF RESEARCH HAS INDICATEED TO THEM THAT THIS

SITE IS COMPETITIVE. >> SO THE MORE WE HAVE SUBMITTING IN ESSENCE.

>> THE BETTER CHANCE? >> THE BETTER CHANCE WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE OF THEM.

2 YEARS AGO, FOR EXAMPLE WHEN THE REAL TX PROJECTS WAS ONE POINT AWAY THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE

WE HAD. >> THAT'S THE ONLY ONE. >>> THAT YEAR.

AND WE KNOW A FIFTH IS COMING ON FEBRUARY 1ST. AND MAYBE A 6TH ONE.

WE MIGHT HAVE A TOTAL OF SIX BEING SUBMITED THIS YEAR THAT IS SIGNIFICANT.

>> THE S THAT IN JULY? >> HE HAS THE TIMELINE SLIDE THAT HE'LL GO THROUGH.

AND MIKE, SPEED THROUGH THESE, PLEASE. >> SO THIS YEAR, WE HAVE FOUR THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TODAY, BUT AS JESUS MENTIONED, WE HAVE A ANOTHER DEVELOPER THAT IS ALSO REQUESTING THE RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT. AND WE WILL BRING THAT NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. SO THIS MAP SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE 4 OF THAT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS THAERBG ALL SENIOR HOUSING, SENIOR HOUSEING IS ESSENTIALLY HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE 55 AND OVER. THE UNITS ARE GEARED PRIMARILY FOR THOSE MAKING 60% OR LESS OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, WHICH MEANS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT MAKE MORE THAN $30,300 PER YEAR SO THE GOAL, AGAIN IS TO BRING AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING ESSENTIALLY IS WHERE THE RENTER DOES NOT SPEND MORE THAN 30% OF HIS OR HER INCOME TOWARDS HOUSING. AND AGAIN, IN ORDER TO BE COMPETITIVE, THE DEVELOPER HAS TO RECEIVE A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL AS WELL AS THE 500 WAVEER IN BUILDING FEES. NEXT SIDE I -- SLIDE I WILL GO

[00:55:05]

IT IS ESSENTIALLY ADJACENT TO SHIPLEY'S DOUGHNUTS ON NAVARRO. THE DEVELOP CENTER FISHPOND LLC FROM AUSTIN. THEY'RE LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTING ABOUT 100 UNITS, FOUR STORIES

WITH ELEVATORS ONE TO TWO BEDROOMS. >> CAN I ASK YOU ABOUT THIS ONE

IN PARTICULAR. >> SURE. >> ISN'T THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT? AND AS SUCH, COULD THIS EVEN BE BUILT THERE?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE COLLEGE PARK. >> YES, IT IS.

HAVE A PROHIBITION ON THOSE IMMEDIATELY. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> SO THAT IS THE FIRST PROJECT.

THE SECOND ONE IS THE COMMONS ON PRIM ROSE ADDRESS IS 108 PRIMROSE, YOU MIGHT KNOW THE SITE BECAUSE THIS IS THE BACK PARCEL OF THE DEL NORTHE -- DEL NORTE PROJECT.

ACROSS FROM LOWE'S AND HOBBY LOBBY. THE DEVELOPER IS COMMONWEALTH COMPANIES, OUT OF WISCONSIN FROM WISCONSIN. THEY'RE PLANING TO BUILD 60 UNITS, AGAIN, SENIOR COMMUNITY. 30, ONE-BEDROOMS AND 30, TWO-BEDROOM UNITS.

>> THE THIRD ONE IS THE VICTORIAN. AND THE ADDRESS IS 901 NORTH JOHN STOCKBAUER DRIVE, DEVELOPER IS REAL TX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REALTEXT IS A DEVELOP THEY ARE IS BUILDING THE ENCHANTED GARDENS AND WILL HAVE ONE BEAM AND TWO *F TWO BROOMS 901 JOHN STOCKBAUER. AND THE ADDRESS SAT SPECIFICALLY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ZACH LENS AND MALLETTE, DEVELOPER IS KCG LLC DEVELOPMENT FROM AUSTIN.

THE DEVELOPER PLANS TO BUILD 90 UNITS ONE AND TWO-BEDROOMS ABOUT THREE TO FOUR STORY HIGHS.

IN THAT REGARD TO THE TIMELINE, SO, THE DEVELOPERS WERE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THEIR PRE-APPLICATION TO THE STATE ON JANUARY 7TH THIS IS JUST TO SEE WHERE THE SCORE TO SEE IF THEY WOULD BE COMPETITIVE. AND THEN TODAY, JANUARY, FEBRUARY, SO TODAY WE ARE CITY COUNCIL WILL HOPEFULLY APPROVE THE RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT AND THAT GIVES THE DEVELOPER 17 POINTS. AGAIN THIS IS VERY COMPETITIVE ALL AND POINTS-DRIVEN.

THEY GET 17 POINTS FOR RECEIVING RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FROM COUNCIL.

SO ON MARCH 1ST, THE FULL APPLICATION DUE TO TDHCA AND THAT INCLUDES ALL LETTERS OF SUPPORT, ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, CHARTSOAL CHARTS, ET CETERA. MARCH 1STIS THE DROP DEAD DATE FOR THEM TO SUBMIT THEIR FULL APPLICATION. SO IF ALL GOES WELL, TDHCA WILL ANNOUNCE THE AWARDS IN JULY. AND THEN OCTOBER, DECEMBER, THE DEVELOPER WOULD CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY AND WOULD TAKE ABOUT A YEAR OR SO TO START CONSTRUCTION.

SO ONE OTHER QUESTIONS I'VE RECEIVEED IS THAT CAN HFC, THE VICTORIA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION DO A 4% DEAL FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING? AND THE ANSWER IS YES, THE HFC CAN FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR HOUSING. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE 9%. WHICH MEANS THAT THE HFC WOULD HAVE TO BE A PARTNER, PROBABLY FOR THE TAX EXEMPTION, ALSO, THE DEVELOPER MOST LIKELY WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE HFC PUT IN SOME SOFT COSTS TO MAKE THE PROJECT WORK. SO IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO DO 4% DEALS THAN IT WOULD FOR 9%. BUT NONETHELESS, THE HFC CAN DO A SENIOR HOUSEING DEAL USING THE

[01:00:06]

SUBSIDY REQUIRED. >>> SO WITH THIS PRESENTATION MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THOSE FOUR DEVELOPERS WHO OARE SUBMITTING APPLICATIONS TO THE STATE FOR SENIOR HOUSEING IN VICTORIA. AGAIN, IT IS VERY COMPETITIVE.

WE HOPE TO GET IT, BUT A IT IS STILL HAVE A VERY, VERY COMPETITIVE PROCESS.

AND WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT WE'LL GET ONE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN A 9% DEAL SINCE TWO 2007 SO.

>> THANK YOU MR. ETIENNE. >> I MOVE WE ADOPT E 1, 2, 3, AND 4 AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER COMMENT? KEEP YOUR FINGERS CROSSED.

>> HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET ONE, TWO, THREE AND 4. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF E 1 THROUGH 4 SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSE, THE SAME SIGN. ALL ACTION ITEMS PASS.

[F. City Manager Reports:]

EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO. >> WE'LL BE HERE TO 9.

>> JUST KIDING. >> DID YOU BRING DINNER. >> DINNER, YEAH.

WE GOT CHICK-FIL-A ON ITS WAY. >> ALL. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M HERE TO GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ABOUT CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO THIS IS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MISSION STATEMENT, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE STRIVE TO PROVIDE SOUNDS, PROFESSIONAL ADVICE AND TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, APPLY CODES FAIRLY AND CONSISTENTLY AND HAVE A DUTY TO ENFORCE CITY CODES TO ENSURE A SAFE AND HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT MOST APPLICABLE TO OUR CODE STORM DIVISION.

SO AS YOU KANG SEE FROM PICTURE, CODE ENFORCEMENT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO NEIGHBORHOODS TO CITIZENS, THE BEFORE AND AFTERS REALLY I THINK ALMOST TELL THE STORY ITSELF.

SO OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION IS MADE UP OF FIVE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES, GRACE GARCIA IS OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR AND FOUR OFFICERS TWO SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 2 AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 1 AND THOSE ARE THE FIVE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION. BUT THEN, OF COURSE, RICK MADRID, OUR CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL AND DIRECTOR OPROVIDES OVERSIGHT AS WELL AS MY RECEIVE -- MYSELF.

AND DENISE BUYER WHO DOES ALL OF THE COLD CALL TAKES AND PROVIDES THAT ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT.

WE HAVE OUR PLANNING TECHNICIAN HELP OUT WITH CONTRACTS. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS ONLY FIVE PART-TIME DIVISION, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS A LARGE DEPARTMENT WITH A LOT OF TEAM EFFORT.

SO OUR OBUDGET HAS REMAINED RELATIVELY STABLE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.

THIS LAST FISCAL YEAR WE HAD 125,000 BUDGETED FOR CONTRACT WHICH A BUDGET WAS ABATEMENTS AND 110,000 FOR DEMOLITION. ATTENDS OF THE YEAR WE SOMETIMES MOVE THOSE AROUND AS WE REALIZE WE MAYBE WON'T GET THE LAST BUILDING STANDARD DIVISION CONTRACTS IN PLACE.

AND WE HAVE, WE'VE RUN OUT OF CONTRACT MONEY, SO WE ALWAYS ENDS UP DOING SOME BUDGET AMENDMENT, SOMETIMES IT IS THE OTHER OWAY WE HAVE EXTRA CONTRACT MONEY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN FOCUSING ON DEMOS AND WE PUSH INTO DEMOS, BUT WE ALWAYS DO SPENDS ALL OF THAT MONEY.

SO THIS IS OUR COMPLAINT HISTORY, SINCE 2017, I WILL KIND OF COVER WHY THEY CHANGE SO DRASTICALLY IN 2021 BUT AS YOU CAN SEE OTHER NUISANCE COMPLAINTS WENT DOWN BUT IMPROVEED IN OTHER KINDS OF CASES THE DIVISION WORKED. AND THAT CHANGE IS BECAUSE AT THE BEGINNING OFFICE CAL YEAR 2021 WE MADE A SPLIT IN OUR DEPOSIT.

WE HAD TWO CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS DEDICATED SOLELY TO SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND MUNIS FEDERAL COURT CASES WHICH IS REPEAT OFFENDERS.

AND WE HAD TWO CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT WORKED IN ABATEMENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT ANIMALS AND I'LL GO THROUGH THE PROCESSES FOR EACH OF THOSE, BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, SUBSTANDARD BUILDING, CASES COURT CASES ARE A LOT MORE INVOLVED THAN WE ALLOT.

WE FOCUS ON PRIORITY AREAS. OUR MAIN THOROUGHFARES FOR SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE WE'VE BEEN FOCUSING ON OUR AREA EAST OF DOWNTOWN UP TO QUEEN CITY.

WE ALSO WORKED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WE WERE GETTING A LOT OF CALLS

[01:05:02]

>> JULIE, REAL QUICK, I WANT TO INTERJECT A THOUGHT HERE, CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE.

PART OF THE CHANGE IN STRUCTURE IS THAT A CHANGE IN PROCESS, WE BELIEVE IN THE BROKEN WINDOWS THEORY THAT IF WE HAVE A RUNDOWN STRUCTURE, IT IS JUST GOING FOSTER MORE CRIME AND MORRIS SHOES. IT IS A VERY INTENTIONAL DECISION TO RESTRUCTURE THE DIVISION TO CREATE MORE SUBSTANDARD CONSTRUCTION COMPLAINTS ADDRESSING THOSE WOULD BE MORE TRANSFORMATIONAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN JUST DOING A BUNCH OF THE WEEDY LOT LIEN, HENCE THE PROGRAM WE'RE WORKING WITH THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION THAT WILL BRING BACK IN THE NEAR FUTURE, IT WAS REALLY THOSE TRANSFORMATIONAL THAT TRANSFORM A NEIGHBORHOOD

NOT JUST SIMPLY THE WEEDY LOT. WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. >> HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU MOWED YOUR YARD ON SUNDAY AND THEN THE NEXT WEEK, YOUR NEIGHBORS FALL LIKE DOMINOS.

A WEEK LATER Y'ALL HAVE A BEAUTIFUL STREET BECAUSE EVERYBODY TOOK CARE OF THEIR YARDS. YOU HAVE THAT THEORY EVERYWHERE. SO THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON. AND SO THIS IS JUST A PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CASE.

BUT IF YOU NOTICE, IT WAS OPENED ONE OF OUR SENIOR OFFICERS IN JANUARY OF LAST YEAR AND NOT CLOSED UNTIL NOVEMBER, SO THIS IS WHY SUCH A DECLINE IN OUR NUISANCE CASES.

BECAUSE THESE ARE THE TYPES OF CASES WE'RE TRYING TO WORK ON. FORTUNATELY, THEY'RE NOT EASY, THEY'RE NOT EASILY ABATEED IN 7 TO 10 DAYS. ITTAKE TAKES A WHILE BUT THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE TRANSFORMIVE TO A NEIGHBORHOOD IS SO THE NAME OF THE GAME IS NOTIFICATIONS. IF WE DON'T PROPERLY NOTICE THEN THAT RUNDOWN BROKEN CRACKED COOLER IN SOMEONE'S YARD ALL OF A SUDDEN BECAME GREAT GRANDFATHER ANTIQUE COOLER AND, YOU KNOW, WE GET A LOT OF TROUBLE WE MAKE SURE OUR NOTICES ARE FOLLOW OUR CITY CODES AND STATE LAWS. THERE IS A LOT OF NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.

YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW, CODE ENFORCEMENT POSTAGE BUDGET COMPARED TO MY OTHER DIVISIONS BECAUSE OF THE NOTICES FIRST IS VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE THEY KNOCK ON THE DOOR IF NOBODY IS HOME IF THEY CAN'T HAVE THAT PERSONAL INTERACTIVE, THEY WILL LEAVE A DOOR TAG.

THOSE NOTICES DON'T LEGALLY COUNT BUT THAT IS WHERE THEY GET THE WHOLE STORY AND CAN REALLY FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON O. AND OUR OFFICERS ALSO ARE REALLY REASONABLE, SOMEONE COMES TO SAY I BROKE MY LEG, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME MOWING MY YARD. THEY WILL WORK WITHPEOPLE.

ESPECIALLY IF IT IS YOUR FIRST TIME AS A FIRST-TIME VIOLATOR. THEY ALSO ARE THE BEST AT CALLING PEOPLE OUT AS WELL. YOU HEARD THAT SAME SONG TEN TIMES THERE IS NO LENIENCY ANYMORE. THEY WORK ON VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE THE FIRST OFFICIAL NOTICE IS, YOU KNOW, A LETTER WE SEND CERTIFIED GENERALLY. AND IF THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT FIX THE VIOLATION WE MOVE ONTO ABATEMENT WHERE THE CITY PAYS FOR THE GRASS TO BE MOWED OR WHATEVER. AND WE ALSO USE COURT FOR CASES THOSE ARE REPEAT VIOLATORS OR MORE DIFFICULT CASES OR THING SUCH AS SIGNS, AND THEY'RE GETTING TO USE MUNICIPAL COURT

[01:10:03]

MOST COMMON TYPES OF NEWSANS ARE ENVIRONMENTAL NUISANCES AS THIS SECTION CODE APPLYS TO HIGH GRASS AND JUNK AND DEBRIS AND SHALL BE THE DUTY OF ANY OWNER TO CAUSE OR CUT OR DUES BE CUT AND REMOVE SUCH BRUSH, WEED, DEBRIS, JUNKU STAGNANT WATER AND ALLEVIATE THAT MAY CAUSE DISEASE. PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO ABATE.

IF AGAIN, IF WE PROVIDE NOTICE WHETHER THE PROPERTY OWNER ABATES OR WE ABATE IF THERE IS A SECOND VIOLATION WITHIN A YEAR OF THAT NOTICE, WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE A SECOND NOTICE.

THAT IS THE POSTCARD WE USED TO SECOND SEND OUT AS A SECOND NOTICE, WE ALREADY NOTICED YOU ONCE, YOU'RE IN VIOLATION WE'RE GOING CONTRACT YOUR PROPERTY IF YOU DON'T TAKE CARE OF IT.

WE'VE ELIMINATED THAT AND SO PROPERTY IF IT GETS BAD ENOUGH WE'LL JUST GO AND ABATE.

WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT HOW COULD WE ELIMINATE THE TIME ON ABATEMENTS AND THEY BROUGHT UP OFFICERS BROUGHT UP THE SECOND POSTCARD GAVE ME HEARTBURN, BUT I REALIZED THESE ARE REPEAT VIOLATORS THAT THEY'RE CONTINUING TO CAUSE THIS WORK FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT AND CONTINUEING TO BE A BLIGHT ON THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SO THEY CONVINCED ME OF OIT.

AND OF COURSE, WE SENDS A LOT OF PROPERTYS THAT HAVE SO MUCH JUNK THEY'RE SO COSTLY TO ABATE, AND REPEAT VIOLATOR OS ANOTHER PROPERTY ACTIVITY IS JUNKED VEHICLES.

A LOT OF PEOPLE, I THINK, DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THAT GOES INTO THE JUNK VEHICLE LAWS.

THESE ARE BASICALLY OUR CODE, FOLLOWS CHAPTER 683 THAT PROVIDES REQUIRES US TO PROVIDE NOTICE. AND THEN ANY LIEN KO*ELD HOLD OVER ON RECORD.

AND THE OWNER DOES HAVE AN OPTION REQUEST A HEARING AND DETERMINE IF IT IS NUISANCE.

AND THEN JUNK VEHICLES MUST BE SET SENT TO A SCRAP YARD AND DEMOLISHED.

THEY CAN NOT BE PUT BACK ONTO THE ROAD. THE DEFINITION OF A JUNKED VEHICLE IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE SURPRISING FOR MOST PEOPLE, TOO. IT IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF OEXPIREED TAGS. IT IS AND NOT AN OR. A JUNKED VEHICLE MEAN A VEHICLE THAT IS SELF-PROPELLED AND DOES NOT HAVE ATTACHED OIT AN ATTACHED LICENSE PLATE INSPECTION CERTIFICATE AND PARTIALLY DISMANTLEED OR INOPERABLE AND REMAINED INOPERABLE FOR 72 CONSECUTIVE HOURS. SO WHEN OUR OFFICER GOES OUT THEY MEET WITH PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT JUNK VEHICLES THE VEHICLE OWNER HAS TO PROVE IT IS OPERABLE. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE EXPIREED TAGS, NO INSPECTION AS LONG AS IT IS OPERABLE DOESN'T MEET THE DEFINITION OF A JUNK VEHICLE. AND OFFICERS HAVE GONE OUT BEFORE TO SEE VEHICLE OWNERS PUT IN A BATTERY TO MAKE SURE IT WORKS SO AN OFFICER GETS THERE IF THEY JUST HAVE TO BACK IT OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND BACK IT BACK IN, JUST MAKE IT OPERABLE FOR A

FEW FEET AND THAT IT IS NOT A JUNK VEHICLE. >>> DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? WE'LL GIVE JULIE A MOMENT TO CATCH HER BREATH.

>> THIS THAT PORTION OF CODE, DOES IT HAVE A DEFINITION OF OPERATE SIGNAL IS IT JUST MECHANICALLY? IS IT ALL THE BLINKERS? THE TAILLIGHTS? THE HEAD HRAO*EUG? WHAT PORTION IS SUPPOSED TO BE OPERABLE?

>> WE'LL HAVE TO RESEARCH WHAT THE DEFINITION IS BUT HOW WE'VE ALWAYS ENFORCED IT IT CAN PROPELL ITSELF AND DRIVE. IT IS NOT SAFETY INSPECTTION A VEHICLE THOSE GO THROUGH.

IT IS A MUCH LOWER STANDARD. >> IF IT IS PARKED OUT TO THE STREET AND MOVE IT TO THE DRIVEWAY, DOES THAT CONSTITUTE THEM BEING NOT IN VIOLATION ANYMORE?

>> THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS TO BELIEVE THAT IT IS BEING OPERATED, SO I THINK IF GRAVITY WERE TO COME INTO PLAY OR PUT IT IN REVERSE AND ROLLS OUT, THEY DON'T COUNT THAT.

THEY ACTUALLY DO HAVE TO SEE THE VEHICLE BEING PROPELLED OR OPERATED ON ITS OWN O, BUT YEAH, IT IS NOT -- IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DRIVE TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF TOWN OR NORTH SIDE OF TOWN AND BACK.

[01:15:05]

>>> THE MOTOR HAS TO START. >> UH-HUH. >> BUT YOU COULDN'T JUST TOW IT.

>> NO, IT HAS -- >> NO, THE MOTOR HAS TO START AND START IT UP AND ACTUALLY PUT

IT IN GEAR AND MOVE IT. >> SO IT IS NOT TO NOT JUST A QUESTION WE DON'T WANT THEM ON THE STREET. WE DON'T WANT THEM IN THE FRONT YARDSETHER IF THEY'RE NOT

CAPABLE OF OPERATING. >> RIGHT. >> WE GET A LOT OF CALL ABOUT VEHICLES BEING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. AGAIN, WE GO BACK TO CHAPTER 683 OF THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE. THAT ACTUALLY REQUIRES A LICENSEED PACE OFFICER TO WORK THOSE. SO WE GET LIKE I SAID A LOT OF CALLS AND YOU'LL REFER THEM TO BOTH VICTORIA AND CALL THE VICTORIA POLICE DEPARTMENT NONEMERGENCY NUMBER AND VICTORIA SHERIFF'S OFFICE CAN, YOU KNOW, ANY LICENSEED POLICE OFFICER CAN

WORK THOSE TYPES OF CASES. >> WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF AN ABANDONED VEHICLE?

I UNDERSTAND A JUNK VEHICLE. >>> 72 HOURS. >> UGLY VEHICLES DON'T COUNT.

EVEN IF THEY HAVE EXPIREED TAG. >> WHY 72 HOURS? >> 683 IS 48 HOURS I'M SORRY,

THE JUNK VEHICLE IS 72 HOURS. >> SO ABANDONED IS 48. >>> I ACTUALLY THINK I PASTEED THAT IS OPERABLE, MORE THAN FIVE-YEAR-OLD AND LEFT ON PROPERTY FOR MORE THAN 48 HOURS.

>> THAT IS THE JUNK THAT IS ABANDONED, VEHICLE I'M THINKING SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T DRIVE BY ITSELF, A TRAILER TO HAUL STUFF, IF THAT IS PARKED ON THE STREET FOR MORE THAN 48 HOURS, THAT IS

ALSO CONSIDERED ABANDONED. >> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, OF COURSE, CODE ENFORCEMENT, WE

DON'T WORK THOSE ON THE STREET. >> THE CHIEF IS HERE AND HIDING IN THE BACK BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO COME UP TO TALK ABOUT IT. BUT HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO COME

UP ASK I HAD SOMEONE ASK ME ABOUT TRAILER. >> AND MARK IS HERE TO HELP HIM.

>> I WAS TRYING TO MAKE MYSELF REAL SMALL, BUT LOOK AT ME IT'S NOT EASY TO BE SMALL JO LOOKING AT OUR POLICY AND SPEAKING WITH JULIE ON OOCCASION, WE WORK WELL TOGETHER IS THAT, WHEN WE GET THE CALL ON AN ABANDONED VEHICLE, OR STORED WEEK HAVE PUT AN ORANGE STICKER NOTIFYING OWNER OF VIOLATION. AND WE HAVE A PARKING TICKET FOR THAT AND THEN WITHIN 72 HOURS OF FIRST CONTACT IS WHEN WE TOW THE VEHICLE AND WE INVESTIGATE WHO OWNS THE STREAK TRY TO GET AHOLD OF THE OWNER. THERE IS SOME WORK THAT IS INVOLVED IN THOSE ABANDONED OR STORED VEHICLES AND THAT IS THE WAY WE APPROACH IT BY POLICY THROUGH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

IS THERE A SPECIFIC QUESTION REGARDING THAT? >> IF IT IS NOT MOVEED?

>> INITIALLY WE NARCOTIC THE TIRES. IF WE COME BACK WITHIN 48 HOURS AND HAS NOT MOVED WE GIVE IT A PARKINGS VIOLATION. IF IT IS STILL NOT MOVED THEN WE

COME BACK AND TOW IT. >> FROM THE TIME YOU MARK THE TIRE TO THE TIME YOU TOW IS 72

HOURS. >> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> AND IN BETWEEN THAT TIME WE'RE DILIGENTLY TRYING TO DETERMINE WHO OWNS THE VEHICLE

SO THAT WE CAN COMMUNICATE THE INFRACTION TO THEM. >>> AND 23 WAS A TRAILER AND GOT INTO THE FRONT YARD THAT WOULDN'T VIOLATE ANYTHING ON THAT POINT.

>> NO, MA'AM, IT WOULD BE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AT THAT POINT. >> PICTURE SHOWS THE TRAILER, BUT IT WOULD BE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE CITY THE WAY IT IS PARKED RIGHT THERE.

>> ONCE IT IS IN THE DRIVEWAY IT IS ON THEIR PRIVATE PART. >> ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO GO

BACK AND GET SMALL. >> OR ONCE IT IS ON THEIR PROPERTY ALTOGETHER, RIGHT? WE DO NOT HAVE ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR IS WE DO NOT HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT

[01:20:02]

HAVING CARS PARKED IN THEIR FRONT YARD. >>> AN OPERABLE CAR TALKERED IN

THEIR FRONT YARD. >>> THAT IS DIFFERENT ASK SO AGAIN WE USE MUNICIPAL COURT AND WE USE THEM MORE AND MORE AND ESPECIALLY AS OUR MUNICIPAL COURT HAS BECOME A COURT OF RECORD. WE'RE TALKING TO RUBY ABOUT THE ABILITY TO GET ORDERS AND INJUNCTIONS AND IT IS ALL VERY EXCITEING AND WE'LL BE EXPLORING THOSE AS WE GO THROUGH THE NEXT YEAR. BUT HISTSTOREICALLY WE'VE JUST USED IT FOR REPEAT VIOLATORS AND THEN TRADITIONALLY ITEMS, IT IS JUST TOO EXPENSIVE FOR US TO ABATE.

>>> AND HOW THAT WORKS IS OUR OFFICERS COME TO COURT TO FILE THE CHARGES OR CITATIONS CAN BE ISSUED BY PD FOR VIOLATIONS THAT GENERALLY CODE ENFORCEMENT USUALLY HANDLES JUST STREAMLINES THE PROCESS. STRUCTURES OF BROKEN WINDOW, HOLES IN THE ROOF, COLLAPSING FOUNDATIONS, ALL OF THOSE BEAUTIFUL HOMES OUT THERE, WE WORK PRIMARILY USING THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE HAVE OUR OWN CITY ORDINANCES ABOUT THE MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURES AND THEN, OUR BUILDING STANDARD COMMISSION REGULATIONS WHICH BASICALLY MIMICS STATE LAW. SO THIS IS PROS FOR SUBSTANDARD BUILDINGS. FIRST WE HAVE -- WE RECEIVE A LOT FROM CITIZENS OR POLICE DEPARTMENT ALSO FORWARDS A LOT OF OHOUSES TO US THAT THEY WANT TO LOOK AT.

AND SOMETIMES OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS JUST DRIVING AROUND TOWN SEE SOMETHING. FIRST WE SUSTAINED NOTICE VIOLATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, HEY, WE'VE IDENTIFIED YOUR BUILDING AS A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE THIS DOESN'T KICK OFF THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION OFFICIAL PROCESS YET. BUT BASICALLY IF THE STRUCTURE IF WE GET NO RESPONSE OR THE STRUCTURE IS NOT REPAIRED WE BEGIN THE BUILDING COMMISSION PROCESS AND THAT BEGINS WITH A TITLE REQUEST, A TITLE COMPANY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOTIFYING ALL OF THE OWNERS ON RECORD. AND WE MAIL THOSE AND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES CERTIFIED AND REGULAR MAIL AND WE PUBLISH AND FILE THOSE NOTICES IN THE PAPER AND PUT THEM ON THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE AND WE'LL PUT THE NOTICE IN ADDITION TO THE ORANGE TAGS THAT YOU'LL SEE.

AND AT THE TIME THAT IS WHEN OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS DO A THOROUGH INSPECTION TO COMPILE THEIR STAFF REPORTS. THEY PILE ALL THE CASE NOTES AND INSPECTION RECORD INTO A STAFF REPORT AND MAKE FINDINGS. AND THEN, OF COURSE WE PUBLISH THAT THROUGH ICOMPASS AND REENINSPECTS ALL THE STRUCTURES AND PRESENTS THEIR CASES TO THE COMMISSION WHICH WE HAVE A REALLY GREAT COMMISSION WITH A LOT OF EXPERTS IN THE BUILDING IN OUR CONSTRUCTION FIELD RIGHT NOW SO WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST THANKFUL VOLUNTEER JOBS I THINK IN THE ENTIRE CITY IS SERVING ON ROLLING STANDARDS COMMISSION. AND THOSE ORDER OS GENERALLY

GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER 30 DAYS TO ABATE. >> SO YOU SAW OUR BUDGET EARLIER THIS IS KIND OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON A DAILY BASIS SO WHEN WE CONTRACT A PROPERTY, WE, YOU KNOW, ISSUE THE CONTRACT TO THE CONTRACTOR AND ACTUALLY SET THE PRICE.

AND THEN THE CONTRACTOR GOES TO THE PROPERTY AND TAKES BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HASN'T ALREADY ABAILED THAT. THEY COME BACK TO US, GIVE US THEIR RECEIPT AS WELL AS THEIR BEFORE AND AFTER PICTURES. OCCASIONALLY WE WILL REDUCE THE PRICE IF THE PROPERTY OWNER STARTED. THE PROPERTY WAS HALFWAY MOW OED, WE NEGOTIATE A REDUCE PRICE OR SOMETIMES IF THE CONTRACTOR COMES BACK AND SAYS, NICE JOB, WE OVERESTIMATEED AND IT TOOK US TWICE AS LONG AND WE WILL ADD SOME.

AND WE LIST OUT THE AMOUNT BILLED. AND SO WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CHECKBOOK EVERY DAY. AND BASICALLY OUR 125,000 RUNS TO $10,000 A MONTH. SO WE ARE ABSOLUTELY TRIAGEING WHICH PROPERTIES GET ABATEED

[01:25:02]

WE'VE WORKED WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR THE SOLID WASTE BRUSH PICKUP.

SO WHEN PEOPLE PUT OUR THEIR BRUSH AND BULKER DELETE SINGY WITHOUT CALLING IT IN THE DRIVERS WILL TAG THAT AND SEND THOSE ADDRESSS TO CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR US TO START THE VIOLATION NOTICE PROCESS. INSTEAD, SOLID WASTE IS GOING TO SEND OUT THOSE OFFICIAL POSTCARD NOTICES. AND THEN AFTER 7 DAYS, THEY WILL JUST PICK IT UP AND CHARGE PEOPLE THEIR, YOU KNOW, EXTRA RATE OF $1.50 A MINUTE. WHICH IS A LOT LESS THAN IF CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS TO KA*UL CONTRACT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO PICK UP AND CHARGE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE AS WELL. WE'RE HOPING TO STREAMLINE THAT PROCESS.

CODE ENFORCEMENT WILL CONTINUE TO PROCESS CASES ON PROPERTY WITHOUT ACTIVITY UTILITY ACCOUNTS. AND ANOTHER BIG CHANGE WE WOULD LIKE TO IMSETTLEMENT MOVE AWAY FROM CONTRACTOR TO HAVE AN IN-HOUSE CONTRACTING CREW. IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THESE FEES AISLE SEE AVERAGE MOWING IS OVER O$100. WE THINK WITH TWO-PERSON CREW IN-HOUSE THAT WE COULD GET A LOT MORE WORK DONE. WE WOULD STILL NEED A CONTRACTING BUDGET TO CONTRACT OUT THINGS THIS TWO-PERSON CREW COULDN'T DO.

BUT AS FAR AS LIGHT, BULK OR JUNK PICKUP AND ALL OF THE MOWING, WE DO THINK THAT GOING TO HIREING A 2-PERSON CREW COULD MAKE US STRETCH OUR DOLLAR MORE. CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY WOULDN'T REALLY CHANGE. WE WOULD STILL BE ISSUING CONTRACTS.

BUT INSTEAD OF ISSUING CONTRACTS TO OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS, WE WOULD ISSUE THEM TO THE ENVIRONMENTRAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT THAT WOULD MANAGE THE 2-MAN CREW. AND THEN THAT WORK THAT IS PERFORMED WOULD STILL BE BILLED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IN ADDITION TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. AND HOPEFULLY NEXT YEAR WE WILL WORK WITH UTILITY BILLING OFFICE TO MOVE OVER OWATER LEAK INVESTIGATIONS TO THEM. THESE CAN TAKE A LOT OF TIME, AND BASICALLY ULTIMATE HAMMER ON THAT IS TURNING OFFER WATER SO WHAT THAT IN HOUSE CONTRACTING CREW LOOKS LIKE IS, TWO FULL-TIME PLOY EYES AT A SALARY OF LESS THAN -- 38,000 PLUS BENEFITS. WE HOPE TO REDUCE THE CONTRACTING TIME BY ABOUT SIX DAYS. IT WOULD BE MANAGED BY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND AGAIN, CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD CONTRACT IN THE SAME WAY.

AND WE WOULD ALSO CONTINUE TO BILL THE PROPERTY OWNERS THE AMOUNT WE CONTRACTED TO THEM PLUS ADMINISTRATIVE FEES SO WE WOULD SET THOSE CONTRACT FEES THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY AND I WAK

[G. Work Session:]

[01:36:41]

[01:36:45]

I'M NOT ASKING FOR FORMAL ACTION TONIGHT. I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANY FORMAL DECISION TONIGHT. BUT I WOULD LIKE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE IN YOUR PROPOSITIONS. BECAUSE THEN I'LL NEED TO GO BACK TO WORK OUTSIDE COUNCIL ON CRAFTING WHAT THAT ORDINANCE WILL LOOK LIKE WE'LL NEED TO HAVE THAT TRANSLATEED INTO SPECIAL. TO -- SPANISH. TONIGHT WE'RE LOOKING ON CONSENSUS WHETHER YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE RECOMMENDED CHANGES.

EACH OF YOU HAS A NOTEBOOK THAT INCLUDES THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.

I JUST WANT TO VERY QUICKLY REMIND YOU WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS, THE COMMITTEE HAD PREVIOUSLY MET THROUGH THE SECOND HALF OF LAST YEAR. ON DECEMBER 10TH THEY DELIVERED THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU AND HERE WE ARE ON JANUARY 18TH WHERE YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER WHAT THOSE LOOK LIKE. THE DEADLINE TO ORDER THE ELECTION IS FEBRUARY 18TH. SO WE HOPE TO BRING BACK THE RECOMMENDATION, THE ACTUAL ORDER FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY. THAT IS DEPENDENT UPON TRANSLATION TIMELINES. AND ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IF YOU ARE PROPOSING THESE TO THE VOTER, THE ELECTION WILL BE ON MAY 7LET OF 2022. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MAY TIMELINE FOR VOTING. I WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ON-LINE AT VICTORIA TX.COM/CHARTER IS IT NOT MY INTENTION TO PUT ALL OF LANGUAGE UP ON THE POWER POINTS SLIDE TONIGHT. AND FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING AT HOME AND AREN'T SEEING THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSED MEASURES, I WANT THEM TO KNOW WHERE THEY CAN GO TO FIND THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. EACH PROPOSITION AND MEASURES IS LISTED ON THAT WEBSITE FOR THEIR REVIEW AND CONSIDERING SOME ARE QUITE LARGE AND WON'T FIT ON POWER POINT SLIDES.

I'M TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THE POWER POINS TONIGHT. I WANT TO SAY OUR OUTSIDE COUNCIL CHARLIE INTENDED TO BE HERE TONIGHT AND UNFORTUNATELY HE FELL SKILL WAS NOT ABLE TO JOIN US. I BELIEVE I SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TONIGHT. AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEYOND MY SCOPE, I WILL SAY, AGAIN, HE IS THE EXPERT AND WITH WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU AN ANSWER TO ANY QUESTION THAT

YOU MIGHT HAVE AS WE GO FORWARD. >> WITHIN YOUR NOTE BOOK. >> COULD BE CLARIFIED.

THESE ARE ALL CLEANUP PROVISIONS. THE MEASURE THAT FOLLOWS BEHIND

[01:40:04]

IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE I'D BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN THOSE DISCUSSIONS OR

DISCUSSION ABOUT PROPOSED CHANGE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT

LANGUAGE THAT WASN'T ADDRESSED. >> OKAY. >> IN WHICH ARTICLE AND SECTION

IN THE CHARTER? >> LET ME FIND. YOU USED THE WORD -- IT IS A

LEGAL TERM. >> CAN YOU TALK INTO THE MIC A LITTLE BETTER.

>> I'D BE HAPPY TO. >> LET ME FIND IT. ARTICLE 12 SECTION 1 THE LAST SCIENCE. "NO ACT OF ANY OFFICE OR EMPLOYEE OF CITY SHALL WAIVE

COMPLIANCE ON ES STOP OF THE CITY -- IT IT'S A LEGAL TERM. >> YES.

>> WOULDN'T BE NICE IF IT WAS PLANE ENGLISH FOR PEOPLE TO READ, LIKE BAR WOULD WORK,

WOULDN'T IT? >> I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

AND GENERALLY SPEAKING IT IS MY REFERENCE TO BE CLEAR AND CONCISE WHEN WRITING DOCUMENTS THAT THE PUBLIC MIGHT READ. HOWEVER IN THIS CASE -- AND I HAVEN'T FOUND EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE REFERRING TO, BUT THE WORD STOPED IS A WELL-DEFINED TERM IN LEGAL VERNACULAR AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE EASILY INTERPRETED IF THE NEED AROSE.

TYPICALLY THAT IS IF TIME I WOULD CHOOSE TO RESORT TO SPECIFIC LEGAL LANGUAGE.

>> WHEREABOUT ARE YOU? THERE IS R NO PAGE NUMBERS ON THIS.

>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ARTICLE 12 SECTION. >> IF YOU'RE IN THE FIRST SECTION WHERE THE ENTIRE CHARTER IS ARTICLE 12 SECTION 1 AND IN THE BOOKLET IT IS THE VERY LAST

LINE ON THAT PAGE WITH ARTICLE 12 SECTION 1. >> AND I JUST HAVE TO SAY, IT IS

VERY CLEAR TO ME. >> AS A LAWYER. >> I HAD TO LOOK UP THE WORD.

IT WASN'T A WORD THAT WAS -- AFTER I LOOKED UP THE WORD I UNDERSTOOD WHAT I MEANT.

BUT MOST PEOPLE READ A CHARTER IT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY COULD REID UNDERSTAND IT WOULD GOING

TO A LEGAL DICTIONARY. >>> I UNDERSTAND. >> IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT --

THE WORLD WON'T END IF WE LEAVE IT. >> HERE IS THE REASON I PREFER TO LEAVE THAT LEGAL LANGUAGE WHAT IS THAT IS SAYING IS ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE CITY WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WORE NOTICE PROVISIONS REGARDLESS OF ANY ACTION OF ANY OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE. SO THAT IS ACTUALLY SETTING A DEFINED STANDARD FOR CITY CONDUCT AND I WOULD PREFER TO LEAVE WITH IT THE LEGAL LANGUAGE IN CASE OF CHALLENGE ON THAT ONE

POINT. >> THAT IS FINE. >> THAT BEING SAID, AS WITH ANYTHING IN THE CHARTER THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO PROPOSE CHANGES.

AND IF IT IS THE WILL OF MAJORITY OF COUNCIL THAT WE CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE, I THINK IT WOULD BE ROUGHLY SIMILAR IN MEANING TO CHANGE THE WORE ESTOP TO PROHIBIT.

IT WOULD NOT PROHIBIT THE CITY FROM REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THESE PROVISIONS.

SO IF IT IS YOUR DESIRE TO MAKE IT MORE EASILY UNDERSTOOD AND MAJORITY OF COUNCIL WISHS TO GO

THAW WAY, WE COULD DO THAT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENTED ON SECTION.

>> I LIKE THAT FIVE AND 6 WAS ADDED. NOW THE AGREEMENTS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THIS WOULD BE FOR FUTURE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, AM I CORRECT.

>> AGAIN, GIVE ME A SECOND. >> IT IS ARTICLE 6. >> ARTICLE 6.

THANK YOU. >> SECTION 4. >> SECTION OUR.

>> IT WILL NOW BECOME SECTION 1 AND 5 AND 6. I LIKE THOSE THEY WOULD APPLY TO

FUTURE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS. >> CORRECT. >> THAT IS A GOOD THING YOU PUT IN THERE, I LIKE THAT. THAT MEANS IF WE HAVE A FRIEND WE CAN TELL THEM WE WANT INTERNET ON THEIR POLES. I'M FLIPPING HERE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE NEW LANGUAGE.

[01:45:05]

>> THAT IS ALREADY IN THE CHARTER? IT EXISTS IN THE CURRENT

CHARTER. >> IT APPLIES TO CURRENT ORDINANCE.

>>> IT APPLIES TO CURRENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT? >> YES.

>> WE DON'T HAVE TO DO DUPLICATE POLLS. >> IT IS HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE IT

IS GOING FROM SECTION 14 TO. >> FROM SECTION 4 TO SECTION 1 BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS THREE

SECTIONS ARE BEING. >> AND AGAIN ON THE WHAT YOU HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN IS WHAT

WHAT WE CAN EXPRIME MINISTER ON THE BALLOT? >> CORRECT, THE LANGUAGE ON THE SCREEN THE PROPOSITION LANGUAGE IS WHAT THE BALLOT WILL LOOK LIKE.

WHEN VOTER GOES TO THE POLLS THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THEY WILL SEE.

>> WE WOULD AS PART OF THE MEMBER EDUCATION CAMPAIGN WOULD HAVE TO DEVELOP, YOU KNOW, VOTER GUIDE THAT IS QUICK AND EASY TO WORK THROUGH EXPLAINING WHAT WHAT IS BEHIND OF PROPOSITION A AND WHAT IS BEHIND PROPOSITION B. WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT

EXERCISE. >> BUT YOU CAN'T SAY, CONSEQUENCES OF VOTING, YES OR

NO, RIGHT? >>. >> IF A NO-VOTE IS CAST ON THIS,

IT MEANS THAT. >> IT WILL HAVE THE PROVISION. >> THIS EFFECT.

>> THE PROVISIONS WILL BE UNENFORCIBLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH STATE LAW.

>> CORRECT. CORRECT. >> BUT THIS LANGUAGE LIKE ON THE SCREEN IS THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE TO USE BECAUSE I MEAN THIS IS RIDICULOUS, THE FIRST ONE SAYS WE'RE GOING TO DELETE AND AMEND PROVISIONS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.

AND THE SECOND SAYS WE'RE GOING DELETE AND REVISE THINGS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. THAT LOOKS LIKE THE EXACT SAME THING TO ME.

>> IT IS VERY SIMILAR, THE FIRST IS REDOESN'T UNDER THEABOUT OR DUE PLICATIVE OR CONCONTRARY TO.

HERE IN PROPOSITION A WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPOSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUPERSEDEED BY IT IS A DELETE S STATE LAW AND A ARE THEREFORE UNNECESSARY. IN PROPOSITION B WHICH I'LL GET TO VERY SOON, I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS WHERE STATE LAW HAS CHANGEED AND OUR CHARTER IS NOW CONTRARY TO STATE LAW SO THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR, YES.

BUT OUR OUTSIDE COUNCIL AS VIED -- ADVISED US THAT THAT NEEDED TO BE TWO SEPARATE

PROVISIONS AND COULDN'T BE COMBINEED INTO A SINGLE ONE. >> THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TELL PEOPLE WITHIN WHAT IS RUN ON THE BALLOT IT IS NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT.

>>> CORRECT. CORRECT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IS VERY DIFFICULT WITH REGARDS TO THESE FIRST TWO PROPOSITIONS BECAUSE THE MEASURE INCLUDES SO MUCH LANGUAGE, RIGHT BUT I BOTH OF THESE TWO PRIMARILY BEING CLEANUP IN NATURE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT PROPOSITION A? AND IS THERE CLEAR CONSENSUS TO INCLUDE PROPOSITION A ON THE ORDINANCE WE'RE BRINGING BACK? YES.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. PROPOSITION B AND I'LL SHOW YOU MS. SCOTT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A AND B. IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH OF MEASURE B AND THIS IS LANGUAGE THAT IMPACTS ARTICLE 1 SECTION 5. WITHIN THAT SECTION AND ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE, THERE IS A LINE THAT SAYS, WELL, THE VERY FIRST WORD OF THE LINE IS ACCEPTING ASSENTING AND ADDING. THE SENTENCE THAT BEGIN IN THAT LINE SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO FIX THE BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF VICTORIA AND PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF SAID BOUNDARIES ADDITIONAL TERRITORY LYING ADJACENT TO CITY WITH OR WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OS. ALL RIGHT, THAT WAS A LEGAL POWER OF THE CITY AT THE TIME THE CHARTER WAS ADOPTED, BUT IN RECENT YEARS, STATE LEGISLATURE CHANGED THE ANNEXATION AUTHORITY AND SPECIFICLY TOOK THAT POWER AWAY FROM CITIES IF WE WERE TO LEAVE THAT IN OUR CHARTER, IT IS NOT DUE PLICATIVE OF STATE LAW, IT IS CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.

IT IS SUPERSEDEED BY STATE LAW AND INAPPLICABLE IN OUR CHARTER AND THAT IS WHY IT IS BEST TO TAKE IT OUT THEY WOULD HAVE NO UTILITY FOR OUR MANAGEMENT THIS ENDELETE S AGAIN IS A CLEANUP

[01:50:03]

>> THE CHANGE ON THE QUALIFICATIONS THE NEXT SECTION, A PREVIOUSLY WAS IF YOU JUST HAD TO BE A RESIDENT BY ELECTION DAY, A YEAR PRIOR TO ELECTION DAY.

AND NOW WE'RE CHANGING IT TO THE LAST FILING DATE. >> THE FILING DATE.

>> YES. >> AND JUST TO CLARIFY, TOO, YOU KNOW, THE REASON FOR A MATCHES THIS SOMEWHAT FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT WE HAD THINGS IN THE CHART THEY ARE TRACK STATE LAW. SO YOU SEE AN EXAMPLE HERE OF STATE LAW CHANGEED BUT OUR CHARTER SAID THE SAME THING STATE LAW DID. SO THE REASON FOR A IS TO TAKE OUT THE THINGS THAT TRACK STATE LAW SO IF THAT CHANGES OUR CHARTER STILL A GOOD, VALID DOCUMENT SO WE, I'M IN ANOTHER HERE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMITTEE EVEN THOUGH I WAS ON IT. ONE OF THE THINGS WAS TO MAKE OUR CHARTER MORE STREAMLINE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND MAKE AMENDMENTS WHEN THEY CHANGE FROM STATE LAW EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS WHEN THEY COME INTO SESSION. THAT WAS THE POINT, PROPOSITION K A MEANT TO SOLVE QUA I WOULD EXTENDS THAT FIRST TIME IN SECTION 5 IF YOU SEE THE VERY FIRST LINE THAT IS UNDERLINEED THERE IN THE THIRD LINE OF THE PARAGRAPH, IT NOW SAYS SQUINT THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW, PERIOD. THERE ARE SEVERAL CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE CHARTER THAT WE'VE DONE WHERE WE'VE CHANGED LANGUAGE SO IT SAYS WE'LL BE DIDN'T WITH WHAT STATE LAW SAYS RATHER THAN TRY TO CALL IT OUT YOURSELVES TO PREVENT US FROM FALLING OUT OF STATE LAW IN THE FUTURE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT PROPOSITION B? PROP SITS C IT WILL GET EASIER FOR US FOR DISCUSS BECAUSE THERE IS LESS MATERIAL AND PERHAPS MORE INTERESTING FOR YOUTO ATAZ YOU WANT TO GET ENGAGEED IN THIS AND LET ME START PROPOSITION C, WELL, FIRST LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT CIRCUITS PROPOSITION C WOULD AMEND THE CITY CHARREDER TO PROVIDE THAT ALL CURRENT AND FUTURE ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE INELIGIBLE TO SERVE IN THE SAME OFFICE FOR A PERIOD ONE YEAR AFTER SERVING FOUR CONSECUTIVE ELECTED TERMS IN THAT OFFICE THIS IS A TERM LIMITS PROVISION. AND LET ME PLEASE CLARIFY SOMETHING I SAID AT THE LAST MEETING, I WAS ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THIS TERM LIMIT WOULD APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO SITTING COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND I ANSWERED THAT QUESTION INCORRECTLY.

I SAID IT WOULD NOT. THAT IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE THAT IT WOULD APPLY ONLY GOING FORWARD. ONE OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS STOPPED ME AFTERWARDS AND SAID THAT WAS NOT HIS RECOLLECTION OF THAT CONVERSATION. I'M PERSUADEED HE'S CORRECT.

HIS RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT WOULD APPLY TO CURRENT AND FUTURE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M PERSUADED THAT HE'S CORRECT BECAUSE IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FIRST LINE SAYS.

NO CURRENT OR FUTURE ELECTED OFFICIALS SHALL SERVE MORE THAN FOUR TERMS AND SO I WANT TO CORRECT THAT AND I WANT TO THANK THAT COUNCIL MEMBER FOR GIVE NEGATIVE OPPORTUNITY CORRECT WHAT I SAID AT THE LAST MEETING IF PROPOSITION C WERE TO PASS, A COUNCIL MEMBER COULD SERVE FOUR CONSECUTIVE TERMS IN THEIR SEAT AND THEN COOL DUES RUN AT OR SIT OUT A YEAR BEFORE RUNNING FOR COUNCIL AGAIN FOR EXAMPLE, IF MR. DELAGARZA SERVED HIS FOUR TERMS IN HIS SEAT HE COULD RUN FOR A SUPER DISTRICT WHICH WOULD BE DISTRICT 5, CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY AND THAT WOULD NOT VIOLENT THE TERM LIMITS, HE WOULD THEN HAVE FOUR ADDITIONAL TERMS HE COULD SERVE WITHIN THAT SECOND SEAT AND AT THE OWNED THOSE FOUR TERMS HE COULD CHOOSE TO RUN FOR MAYOR OR CHOOSE TO RUN FOR HIS DISTRICT 1 SEAT AGAIN, AS LONG AS HE CONTINUES TO MOVE TO A DIFFERENT SEAT HE CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? LIKEWISE IF YOU REACH THE ENDS OF YOUR FOUR TERMS AND CHOOSE TO SIT OUT FOR AT LEAST ONE YEARING THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RUN FOR THE SAME SEAT. A SEC TIME AND HAVE FOUR MORE TERMS AVAILABLE TO YOU. THAT IS THE WAY IT IS SET UP TO OPERATE.

>>> DID THE CHARTER COMMITTEE LOOK AT HOW THAT WOULD EAST COAST MAGICALLY WORK, THOUGH? -- REALISTICALLY WORK, THOUGH? I'M IN A SINGLE DISTRICT AND IF I I GUESS TERM-OUT.

THERE ISN'T ANOTHER POSITION I CAN RUN FOR AT THAT TIME. I WILL HAVE TO SIT OUT FOR AT

[01:55:06]

LEAST A YEAR. >>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IF I WANTED TO RUN FOR THE SAME SEAT, I WOULD HAVE TO SIT OUT FOR THE THREE YEARS UNTIL IT CAME OPEN AGAIN.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. YES. AND THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION. THE WAY THAT MOVING FROM ONE SEAT TO ANOTHER WOULD WORK FOR THOSE OF YOU IN A SINGLE-MEMBER SEAT. YOU WOULD ACTUALLY ESSENTIALLY RUN FOR THE SUPER DISTRICT PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF YOUR TERM OF YOUR FINAL TERM, RIGHT --

>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO GIVE UP YOUR SEAT. >>> WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE FOR

YEAR AFTER. >>> AT THE TIME. >> IF YOU WAITAD ONE YEAR LATER YOU COULD RUN FOR THE SUPER DISTRICT, YOU WOULD STILL BE IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR FOURTH TERM,

RIGHT. >> BUT YOU WOULD AND THAT WOULD RESTET CLOCK AT THAT POINT SO

YOU COULD STILL SERVE FOUR TERM. >> BUT YOU WOULD BE GIVING UP YOUR SET.

>> YOU WOULD CREATE A VACANCY. >>> SO YOU WOULDN'T SEE THE FULL FOUR TERM.

>> YOU WOULDN'T TERM OUT. >>> YOU WOULDN'T SERVE THE FULL TERM.

>> LIKEWISE SOMEONE IN A SUPER DISTRICT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RUN AGAIN FOR SUPER DISTRICT OR MAYOR FOR ANOTHER THREE YEARS. OR THEY COULD CHOOSE TO WAIT TWO YEARS AND RUN FOR A SINGLE

DISTRICT. >> I THINK THE INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE WAS TO HAVE PEOPLE

WAIT. >> SO NOT ONLY THE CASE OF A VACANCY THAT IT MATTERS, IT IS

GUARANTEED ONE YEAR AT LEAST. >>> AGREED. >> UNLESS THERE IS A VACANCY.

>> AGREED. >> OKAY. >> THOMAS, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE LANGUAGE ON THIS ONE SO THE LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING PROPOSEED IN THE ACTUAL CHARTER IS TO READ

"NO CURRENT OR FUTURE ELECTED OFFICIAL" CORRECT? >> YES.

>> MY QUESTION IS, BE THIS PASSES AND THIS IS TEN YEARS FROM NOW, IT IS KIND OF IRRELEVANT TO PEOPLE BEING INVOLVED WITH THIS TEN YEARS FROM NOW WHETHER THEY'RE CURRENT OR FUTURE. SO WOULD IT MAKE MORE SENSE FOR THIS TO BE WORDED AS, YOU KNOW, NO ELECTED OFFICIAL SHALL SERVE MORE THAN FOUR CONSECUTIVE TERM AND HAVE THE ISSUE OF WHEN IT STARTS BEING EFFECTIVE ADDRESSED IN SOME OTHER WAY INSTEAD OF BEING IN THE CHARTED NO FUTURE

OR CURRENT ELECTED OFFICIAL. >> I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT WOULD ELIMINATE KHRAEURTDTY ISSUES DOWN THE ROAD SO THAT WE WOULDN'T NEED TO COME BACK IN TEN YEARS AND AMEND THIS

TO. >> IN TEN YEARS YOU'D COME BACK IN ANOTHER CLEANUP AND WE'RE GOING FOR ELIMINATE CURRENT AND FUTURE AND PUT NO ELECTED OFFICIAL.

>> RIGHT. ANYWAY, JUST A THOUGHT. I MEAN, CLEARLY THE INTENT IS FOR IT TO APPLY TO CURRENT, BUT AT THAT POINT IT IS A MATTER OF WHEN THE CHARTER GOES INTO

EFFECT. NOT SO MUCH -- >> RIGHT.

>> IN NO OTHER PART OF THE CHARTER DOES IT SPECIFY. >> THE PHRASE CURRENT OR FUTURE.

>> THE PHRASE CURRENT OR FUTURE WAS PUT IN THERE IN ORDER TO CLARIFY IT DOES APPLY TO CURRENT

COUNCIL MEMBERS. >> THAT S MAY BE A SMALL THING BUT SOMETHING THAT STOOD OUT TO

ME. >> IF COUNCIL HAS CONSENSEUS TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE, WE COULD REMOVE THE LANGUAGE BUT THAT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE INTENT OR IF IT IS YOUR DESIRE TO CHANGE THE INTENT YOU CAN HAVE THAT CONSENSUS AS WELL THIS IS YOUR PROPDITIONSITION -- PROPOSITION.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERYONE'S PLANS MAY BE UP HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO STAY FOR 20 YEARS. I DON'T KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE CHART REVIEW COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT. BUT IT WAS NOT MY INTENTION THAT IT APPLIED, BECAUSE -- I DON'T WANT TO CALL YOU OUT, BUT I DON'T THINK SKIT FAIR TO MS. SOLEIS WHO ALL OF A SUDDEN BECOMES THIS IS MY LAST TERM. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. THE RETRO PART I'M NOT QUITE ON BOARD WITH, I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO SOME TYPE OF COMPROMISE ON OR AFTER AND PUT A DATE SOMEWHERE IN THE PAST BUT NOT ALL THE WAY BACK TEN YEARS AGO, RIGHT? THAT IS MY THOUGHT ON IT AND SAY ANY ELELECTED OFFICIAL ELECTED AFTER SOME CERTAIN DATE MUST COMPLY WITH THE TERM LIMITS BUT AT LEAST GIVES SOME LEEWAY. AND I'M NOT TRY TO SAY ANY OF US DESERVE TO SERVE LONGER THAN FOUR TERMS. I'M JUST SAYING I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR TO PUT IT IN.

>> IS THERE A SPECIFIC DATE YOU WOULD RECOMMEND? >> I HAVEN'T DISCUSSED THIS WITH

MS. SOLE GIST THE ADOPTION OF THE MS. SOLIZ. >> THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW

[02:00:08]

>> THAT IS GOING TO NEED OTHER LANGUAGE, TOO. BECAUSE IF YOU JUST MAKE IT EFFECTIVE WITH THE DATE OF THE NEW CHARTER, IT IS STILL GOING TO READ NO CURRENT OR FUTURE

SHALL SERVE FOR MORE THAN FOUR CONSECUTIVE TERM. >> YES, MA'AM.

AND IF IT IS THE DESIRE OF COUNCIL TO REMOVE THE RETROACTIVE EFFECT HERE I RECOMMEND WE REMOVE THE PHRASE "CURRENT OR FUTURE" AND RECOMMENDED TO APPLY STARTING

WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW CHARTER. >>> HOW ABOUT MAY 1ST -- OR

WHATEVER THAT DATE WAS, MAYBE MAY 2017. >> OKAY.

>> WHY DON'T YOU SPLIT IT IN BETWEEN. >>> PRIOR TO 2017.

>> WHATEVER THAT ELECTION DATE WILL BE. >>> WHATEVER DATE IT WAS.

>> OKAY. THAT GIVES YOU WOULD HAVE FOUR TERMS, BUT EVEN MS. SOLIZ THE MOST TENUREED OF US COULD GO FOR TWO MORE TERM AFTER SHE FINISHED THIS ONE IF SHE REALLY WANTED TO BUT I JUST WANT IT TO BE FLEXGIBLE SHE MIGHT BE ARGUING. IS BUT I JUST WANT TO HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS SAID Y'ALL ARE THE BEST COUNCIL I'VE EVER WORKED WITH.

BUT THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION IS PICK 2017 EFFECTIVE ANYBODY ELECTED ON OR AFTER THAT DATE.

>> AND TAKE OFF THE CURRENT AND FUTURE ELECTED OFFICIAL? >> I WOULD REWORK THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THAT IS INTENDED TO CONVEY IF THAT IS THE CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL.

>> OKAY. >> AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE COMMITTEE LOOKED AT THIS, I CAN STAY THAT -- I CAN SAY THAT WE LOOKED AT THESE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS AND, YOU KNOW, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF YOU NOT KNOWING WHAT ANYBODY'S PLANS ARE, THE COMMITTEE CERTAINLY DIDN'T KNOW AND THOMAS REMINDED US REPEATEDLY, THESE ARE JUST RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT STANDPOINT WE WERE KIND OF PUT OUT THERE AS NEW CENTRAL, HERE IS A RECOMMENDATION TO WORK OFF OF OFOR COUNCIL TO THEN WORK THROUGH. AND SO CERTAINLY THERE WAS NO INTENT THERE OTHER THAN TO PUT FORWARD A NEUTRAL POLICY THAT COUNCIL COULD CONSIDER THERE.

SO. >> I HAVE -- GO AHEAD. >>> I WAS GOING SAY FOR CLARITY OF THOSE WATCHING THAT EACH OF OUR TERM IS THREE YEARS REGARDLESS OF THE POSITION WE

SERVE IN. >> I WAS GOING FOR MAKE A COMMENT REAL QUICK TO KEEP IN MIND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE VOTERS AND DEVELOP MARKETING MATERIAL AROUND. THINK OF THE MESSAGING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO CONVEY TO SOMEBODY, SUPPORTING THIS CHANGE AND HOW THAT WOULD COME ACROSS TO A RES DENT TO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND AS YOU HAVE THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT PER SPECTIVE AS WELL, RIGHT. IF WE CHANGE IT, TO BE REFLECTIVE OF BENEFITING EXISTING COUNCIL, WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF HOW THAT GETS COMMUNICATEED TO THE PUBLIC WHO ULTIMATELY WOULD VOTE FOR THIS SO JUST KEEP THAT ASPECT OF THIS IN MIND.

>>> AND THOSE DISCUSSIONS WERE HAD, I CAN TELL YOU AS PART OF THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSION WHICH IS WHY WE WENT FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS NEUTRAL ACROSS THE BOARD AND COULD BE REEVALUATED

BY COUNCIL. >> SO IS THEIR CONSENSUS AROUND CHANGEING THIS TO A 2017 DATE AND BRINGING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL? OR BRING THAT BACK AS PART OF

THE ORDINANCE? >> THAT'S OKAY. >> IT IS JUST WEIRD, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO THE

CITIZENS WHY IT IS KIND OF WEIRD, IT IS 2021, BUT. >> 2022.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, YES. IT IS 2022. >> IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT

THE PROPOSITION ITSELF WOULDN'T PASS? >> YES.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> THEN WE WOULD SNOT HAVE TERM LIMITS ADDED TO THE CHARTER.

>> UNTIL THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW ATTEMPT. >> IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE,

[02:05:01]

>> IF COUNCIL IS TRYING TO COME UP WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE, IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER TO CONVEY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC A DATE THAT IS IN THE FUTURE VERSE AUST DATE IN THE PAST.

AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN '23? OR, YOU KNOW, JUST THINKING OUT LOUD ABOUT IT, IT IS JUST EASIER TO CONVEY TO THE PUBLIC SOMETHING THAT WILL GO INTO IN EFFECT THE FUTURE OPPOSEED TO TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE DATES

RETROACTIVE TO A PAST DATE. >>> JUST A POINT OF OCLARIFICATION WE WILL NOT HAVE

A ELECTION IN 2023, THAT WILL BE OUR OFF-YEAR. >>> WE CO COULD HAVE ANOTHER IN

2024. >>> FOR EXAMPLE IF THE EFFECTIVE DATE IS NEXT YEAR, THOUGH, THERE COULD PROBABLY BE SOME LANGUAGE TO OWHERE -- I'M JUST THINKING OUT LOUD.

>> IF THERE WAS GOING BE A DATE LIKE THAT, I WOULD JUST MAKE IT MAY 27, 2022.

>> IT WOULD PASS. >> THAT RESTARTS THE CLOCK, RIGHT?

>> I WAS TRYING TO COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE WITH WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR THE

COMMITTEE. >> CERTAINLY EASYIER TO AGREE TO EX9 THE PUBLIC IF YOU DON'T PUT A SPLIT DATE, EITHER IT APPOLITE RETROACTIVELY OR DOES NOT. WHETHER IN THE PAST OR IN THE

FUTURE WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN TO THE FUTURE. >> IT HAS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE

UPON PASSAGE OF THE LAW. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THE CHARTER WOULD PECULIAR EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. HOWEVER, TATES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING NOT A PROBLEM TO IMPLEMENT THIS AS WE'RE DISCUSSING. IT IS JUST AS MR. GARZA SAID, IT IS A MAR OF EDUCATING THE PUBLIC AND WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE PUTTING A

SPLIT DATE IN THERE. >> OR ONE OPTION WOULD SIMPLY BE TO JUST HAVE FOCUS ON THE FUTURE PIECE AND MAKE IT TO WHERE IT DOESN'T IMPACT ANY OF THE IMCOUPLE BENTS AT ALL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, I MEAN, I GET THE OPT OICS OF THAT, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE UNCOMMON DOESN'T ALY TO THE CITY AND COUNCIL, YOU KNOW, AND THAT IS -- THE OPTICS WERE DISCUSSED COMING IN WITH THIS LANGUAGE OR COMING UP WITH THIS LANGUAGE CURRENT OR FUTURE. THEY'RE REALLY THE REASON BEHIND THAT IF THIS IS GOOD FOR THE CITY THEN IT IS GOOD FOR THE CITY NOW MIND SET WAS KIND OF

THE DISCUSSION. >> IF WE'RE GOING KIND OF TRY AND SPLIT THAT RESPECT FOR THE COMMITTEE TO TRY AND SPLIT THAT AND USE THE 2017 DATE AS WE I WAS ELECTED IN 15 A SINGLE MEMBER, WHICH MEANS THE NECK YEAR, '16 WAS THE SUPER DISTRICTS, WHICH MEANS IN '17 WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ELECTION AT ALL. SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO USE A MAY DATE, IT WOULD BETTER EFFECTIVE

JANUARY 1, 2017. >> RIGHT. >> 2018.

>> OR YOU COULD SIMPLY SAY ANY MEMBER ELECTED AFTER 2017. >> RIGHT, RIGHT.

>> PERIOD. >> AND THAT MIGHT -- I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE ELECTED

MR. DELA GARZ ZARK DID YOU COME IN '17? >> JUST GOT REEELECTED.

>> WHEN WERE YOU FIRST. >> THERE WAS NO ELECTION IN 2017.

>> RIGHT. >> '18, NOT '17. >> BUT HE HAD A TERM -- SO THAT IS A GO QUESTION. I KNOW OBVIOUSLY MAYOR BALK KNIGHT WAS ELECTED THROUGH A SPECIAL ELECTION AND SO TRACKS THERE IS A THUNDERS LANGUAGE ALL OF YOU VOTED DURING A

[02:10:04]

THE COMMITTEE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE DEFINEING THIS IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF TERMS YOU SERVE OR THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT YOU SERVE. AND THE COMMITTEE'S PERFORMS WAS TO DEFINE THE TERM LIMITS IN NUMBER OF TERMS THAT YOU HAVE SERVED.

AND SO THEN HOW DO WE DEAL WITH PARTIAL TERMS? AND THE ANSWER THE COMMITTEE CAME UP WITH WAS TO TREAT A PARTIAL TERM FOR WHICH YOU WERE ELECTED AS A FULL TERM.

BUT IF YOU ARE APPOINTED -- AND THAT IS A SEPARATE AMENDMENT THAT WILL COME LATER, IF YOU WERE APPOINTED TO YOUR POSITION THEN IT WOULD NOT COUNT ADDRESS A FULL TERM.

>>> THOMAS, I THINK THAT ONLY ADDS TO TAKING AN APPROACH OF IT NOT APPLYING TO THIS COUNCIL BECAUSE WHEN THEY WERE ALL ELECTED IN THE SPECIAL ELECTION THERE WAS NO OPTION FOR APPOINTMENTS, SO THE RATIONALE AND THE LANGUAGE IT IS RUN NOW IS THAT DEPENDING ON WHEN THE VACANCY OCCURS IF THERE IS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME LEFT IN THE TERM, THEN IT IS AN APPOINTMENT. AND IT IS ONLY AN ELECTED FILLING OF THE UNEXPIREED TERM THERE IS A LONG ENOUGH PERIOD LEFT IN THE TERM AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THAT IS 12 MONTH?

>> 180 DAYS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET. >> IT WAS 180 DAYS AND THAT IS

WHERE THE APPOINTMENT PART CAME IN. >> FOR ALL THREE OF YOU, YOU DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE, RIGHT? I MEAN IT WAS WHAT IT WAS HAS WE HAD THE EXISTING LANGUAGE, I

MEAN YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN APPOINTED, MAYBE? >> THERE IS THE OPTION IN THERE COUNCIL CAN TAKE TO APPOINTED OR CALL AN ELECTION THAT COUNTS AS A TERM FOR YOU UNDER THIS

LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THERE NOW. >>> I WOULD HAVE TO REALLY CHANGE THIS TO EFFECTIVE IN 2025

IF WE WANTED TO NOT APPLY. >> I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD PUT A DATE BECAUSE PEOPLE TURN OVER

WHENEVER. >> ESSENTIALLY SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR WHEN WE

WOULD START THE TERMS. >> I THINK WE'RE IN A GOOD POSITION TO MAYBE CONVEY SOME OF THAT BECAUSE I THINK OTHERWISE -- IT WAS ELECTED PARL IN THAT SEAT, TOO.

>> I'M ALL RIGHT LEAVING IT LIKE IT IS, IT BUNT MY INTENT TO LEAVE IT THAT WAY YOU WANT TO LEAVE IT AS ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL AFTER MAY 7TH, 2022 WHICH AT THAT POINT WOULD SIMPLY BE ELECTED OFFICIAL, BECAUSE IF IT PASSES BY DEFAULT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT AFTER THAT DATE.

>> WE WOULD SIMPLY BEGIN COUNTING AS OF MAY 7 OF 2022. >>> IT WOULD READ NO ELECTED OFFICIAL SHALL SERVE MORE THAN FOUR CONSECUTIVE TERM AND THE MOMENT IT BECOMES EFFECT IT IS AFTER IT PASSES WHICH WOULD BE ON THE 7TH. SO THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO

REITERATE THE DATE OF MAY 7TH. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THAT ELIMINATES THE CORRECT IN FUTURE YEARS OF WHY IS THIS CURRENT AND FUTURE LANGUAGE IN THE CHARTER? WHY IS THIS DATE IN THE CHARTER? WE WOULD SIMPLY CLARIFY THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS THAT THIS IS INTENDED TO START UPON ADOPTION OF THE NEW CHARTER

PROVISION. >> THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. >> NO ELECTED OFFICIAL SHALL

SERVE MORE THAN 4 CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF OFFICE. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

[02:15:09]

>> THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT BE EFFECTIVE -- SHALL NOT INCLUDE TERMS SERVED PRIOR TO OR TIMES.

>> YES. >> IF NECESSARY WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, ABSOLUTELY.

>>> YOU NEED TO CLARIFY THAT IN THERE. ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE WE'RE GOING HAVE TO CHANGE THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND BRING IT BACK INTO CHARTER FOR FINAL MASSAGEING IF YOU WANT TO TWEAK THE LANGUAGE FURTHER.

IF YOU TELL ME WHAT YOUR CONCEPT IS, I CAN GET THE LANGUAGE, THAT IS THESE PART.

THE HARD PART IS WHAT IS THE CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE IN.

>> I DON'T LIKE GOING AGAINST THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE EITHER YOU KNOW, DID THEY EXPECT US TO HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH THIS? AND DO THEY EXPECT US TO REJECT

IT? OR WHAT WAS THEIR THOUGHT. >> IT WAS VERY CLEAR EXPECTATIONS DIVEN TO THE CHARTER COMMITTEE AND HEARD FROM THE CHARTER COMMITTEE MANY TIMES THAT THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION THEY'RE MAKEING TO COUNCIL NO EXANTICIPATION THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE WORDS TAYE T WAY IT WAS THEY UNDERSTAND THEIR ROLE IN THE PROCESS.

>> THOMAS REMINDED US OF THAT MANY TIMES. >> AND THE FACT THAT EVEN AFTER

THAT, STILL HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. >> COUNCIL PROPOSALS BUT THE

CITIZENS WHO VOTE. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> OKAY, WE HAD AN AGREEMENT

POINT? >> LEAVING IT EXACTLY. >> REPEAT THE AGREEMENT POINT.

>> THE AGREEMENT POINT IS NO CURRENT -- OR NO ELECTED OFFICIAL SHALL SERVE MORE THAN FOUR CONSECUTIVE TERM OF OFFICES, TERMS THAT OCCUR PRIOR TO.

>> I WOULDN'T BOTHER GETTING HUNG UP ON THE LANGUAGE. I THINK THE CONCEPT IS THAT THE TERM LIMITS WOULD STAY THE SAME AS PROPOSED HERE FOUR TERMS, HOWEVER IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO

SITTING COUNCIL MEMBERS THE TIME ALREADY SERVED. >> AND I THINK THAT THE PRAISE AND SAME OFFICE FOR PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WOULD BE INELIGIBLE EITHER TAKE IT OUT OF THERE AND PUT IN A SEPARATE SENTENCE BECAUSE IT IS KIND OF CONFUSING BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING, OKAY, NO MORE THAN 4 TERM LIMITS, BUT, INELIGIBLE TO SERVE, WELL, SOMEBODY COULD CONFUSE THAT TO

SAY, WELL, OKAY. >> WHY HAVE THAT IN THERE IT OPPORTUNITY WORK?

>> BECAUSE OF THE SCENARIO OF THERE BEING A VACANCY THAT TAKES, PLACE RIGHT? Y'ALL ARE THINKING A 3-YEAR TERM BUT IF SOMEBODY STEPS OUT, RIGHT, AND THERE IS A TURNOVER BECAUSE LIFE HAPPENS, RIGHT THAT THAT PERSON WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT, OR ELECTION OR

BE A CANDIDATE IN A SPECIAL ELECTION IF IT IS AFTER A YEAR. >> MS. SOLIZ, LET ME CONFIRM I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE SENTENCE THAT SAYS TERMS OF SERVICE IN ONE OFFICE SHALL NOT COUNT TOWARDS TERMS OF SERVICE IN ANOTHER OFFICE NO.

>> THE TOP PART ON THE PROPOSITION THAT SAYS AFTER NO ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE INELIGIBLE TO SERVE IN THE SAME OFFICE FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN -- FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER SERVING FOUR CONSECUTIVE ELELECTED TERMS IN THAT OFFICE THAT PERSON WOULD BE INELIGIBLE TO FOR ONE YEAR THAT HAS LESS TO DO WITH A VACANCY THAN CREATE A CLEAR SPRAPGS BETWEEN YOUR FIRST FOUR

TERMS IN OFFICE FOUR TERMS IN OFFICE. >> AND PICKING UP THE LAST

SENTENCE OF THE LONGER LANGUAGE IS THE ONE-YEAR THING. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> AND AS MS. SCOTT POINTED OUT EARLIER THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTANDS BECAUSE OF OUR STAGGERED TERM, THAT ONE YEAR WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE ONE YEAR. IT IS GOING TO BE SOME DIFFERENTIATION. BUT THE COMMITTEE WANTED THERE TO BE A MINIMUM SEPARATION TIME BEFORE YOU GOT TO START SERVING ALL OVER AGAIN. AND SO THEY BELIEVEED THAT THE BEST WAY TO PRESERVE THAT CONCEPT WAS TO PUT A ONE-YEAR GAP IN THERE BETWEEN YOUR FIRST

[02:20:02]

FOUR TERMS AND ANY TERMS THAT FOLLOW AFTER THAT. >> BUT IF YOU READ THE LAST SENTENCE IN THE FURTHERED LANGUAGE, IT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THAT PERSON WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT OR FOR APPOINTMENT, I SHOULD SAY, AFTER BEING OUT FOR A YEAR.

>> WOULD BE. >> WOULD BE. >> AND SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR ELECTION OR APPOINTMENT TO THE SAME OFFICE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE.

>> CORRECT, ONE YEAR. IF YOU TERM-OUT, AND THEN 13 MONTHS LATEER THERE IS A VACANCY BECAUSE SOMETHING HAPPENED, THEN THAT PERSON IS ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO THAT SAME SEAT AFTER ONE YEAR OR EVEN ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR THE SPECIAL ELECTION THAT MIGHT TAKE PLACE.

>> OH, OKAY. >> I THINK THE ONE-YEAR IS GOOD. >> THAT IS WHY THAT IS IMPORTANT, RIGHT? JO YOU COULD HAVE SOMEONE IN THAT TERMS OUT, AND THEY GO RUN,

GET ELECTED, RESIGN AFTER A MONTH. >> HAVE YOU BEEN WATCHING "HOUSE

OF CARDS?" >> IT PREVENTS SOMETHING NEFARIOUS LIKE THAT.

>> IN THE ONE YEAR, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE ONE-YEAR ONLY APPLIES TO THE SAME OFFICE SO IT DOESN'T APPLY TO MAYOR SPECIAL DISTRICT, SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT.

IT APPLIES TO THE ONE OFFICE THAT YOU'RE IN. >> RIGHT.

>> SAME OFFICE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. >>> IT SEEMS TO ME -- I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE LANGUAGE. THE ONLY PART THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IS STARTING -- AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 2022. EFFECTIVE WHENEVER THIS PASSES, NO ELECTED OFFICIAL SHALL -- AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS CORRECT AND THAT WOULD PREVENT ANYBODY THAT WOULD MEAN IT STARTS ON

THAT DATE. >> YEAH. >> AND GOES FORWARD.

>>> AS I UNDERSTAND THE DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW WE'RE COAL EESING ON KEEP -- COALESCEING WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS.

IS THERE CONSENSUS TO BRING IT BACK THAT WAY ON THE ORDINANCE? BECAUSE I CAN MASSAGE THE LANGUAGE AND MAKE SURE IT SAYS THAT IF WE HAVE CONSENSUS OBTAIN WHAT THE CONCEPT SHOULD BE.

>> YEP. >> 83. >> OKAY, WE'LL MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

>> MAKING MYSELF A NOTE. ALL RIGHT, THAT MOVES US ONTO PROPOSITION D.

PROPOSITION D IS THE PROPOSITION THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR APPOINTMENT IF THERE IS LESS THAN 180 DAYS REMAINING ON A VACANT TERM, A TERM WHERE THERE HAS BEEN VACANCY CREATED.

IF THERE IS LESS THAN 180 DAYS -- FOR CONTEXT, AT THE TIME OF MAYOR MCCOY'S PASSING THERE WAS MORE THAN 180 DAYS SO EVEN IF THIS PROVISION HAD BEEN PUT IN PLACE WOE COULD NOT HAVE APPOINTED. OUR CURRENT CHARTER SAYS THAT VACANCIES MUST BE FILLED BY ELECTION. BUT STATE LAW ALLOWS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THIS LIMITED SITUATION. AND SO THE COMMITTEE WAS SEEKING TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL

FLEXIBILITY THAT WE DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE. >> I THINK IT IS FINE.

>> I AGREE. >> IT'S FINE. AND I WENT BACK TO THE TERM LIMIT ONE TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT APPOINTED SOMEONE FOR TWO MONTHS WOULD ACCOUNT AS A 3-IER TERM, BUT IT DOES NOT, VERY CLEARLY SAYS THAT PARTIAL TERM 2 WHICH THEY WERE ELECTED.

>> THAT WAS DELIBERATE LANGUAGE, YES, MA'AM. >> VERY GOOD.

>>> CONCONVENIENCEUS TO BRING BACK PROPOSITION D AS PROPOSED. >> YES.

>> PROPOSITION EE IS AMENDING THE CHARTEDER TO AUTHORIZE LEASES OR CONCESSIONS OF PARKLAND BE CONDUCTED CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW.

HERE IS THE PRACTICAL CHANGE THAT IS HAPPENING IF THIS PROPOSITION PASSES CURRENTLY OUR CHARTER SAYS YOU CANNOT SELL PARKLAND UNLESS THE VOTERS APPROVE THAT SELL.

IF THAT PROPERTY HAS BEEN DEDICATE AS PARKLAND IT CANNOT BE SOLD.

STATE LAW SAYS THAT. OUR CHARTER THEN GOES ONTO SAY, LEASES CANNOT BE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. STATE LAW DOES NOT SAY THAT. AND SO IF WE CHANGE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, WHAT WE ARE REMOVEING IS THE 20-YEAR LIMITATION ON LEASES.

THAT WOULD ALLOW A LONG-TERM LEASE IF A BUSINESS OR DEVELOPER WANTED TO DEVELOP A PARK AMENITY THE CITY COULD THEORETICALLY INTERA 100-YEAR LEASE TO USE THAT PURPOSE.

IT WOULD BE A LEASE, NOT A SALE, AND IT WOULD THEREFORE BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW EVEN IF IT WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE STATE VOTERS. EVEN IF THIS CHANGE DOES PASS

[02:25:04]

>>> MOVING ONTO PROPOSITION F WOULD AMEND THE CITY CHART THEY ARE IF THE MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO-TEM ARE ABSENT OR SICK AND UNABLE TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF OFFICE THEN THE NEXT SENIOR

MEMBER ULD SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES. >> MAYOR PRO-TEM SOLIZ FILLED IN ADMIRALLY FOR SEVERAL MONTHS BUT THERE WERE TIMES SHE COULD NOT MAKE IT TO A MEETING WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE FOR WHAT HAPPENS THEN. SO THIS IS MERELY ADDING IN AN ADDITIONAL FAIL-SAFE HOW DO WE HANDLE SITUATION IF MULTIPLE PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO BE AT THE

MEETING. >> AND SINCE THE ENTIRE COUNCIL WILL BE REELECTED ALTOGETHER,

HOW WILL WE FIGURE OUT SENIOR? THAT WAS THE A JOKE. >> THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR AN

ENTIRE TO BE ELECTED, YES. >> OR AT LEAST ALL THE SINGLE DISTRICT?

HOW WOULD YOU DO SENIOR? DEAL WITH IT WHEN YOU GET THERE? >> YES.

I THINK CONVERSATION CAN QUICKLY DEINVOLVE INTO TRYING TO ANSWER EVERY PARTICULAR SCENARIO, AND WE'LL CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE GET TO IT. WE.

>> AND FOR THE RECORD, THAT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON AGE WHEN IT SAYS SENIOR MEMBER.

BASED ON TENURE. >> TENURE NOT AGE, THANK YOU. ALSO, I WOULD POINT OUT FOR MS. SCOTT'S BENEFIT, SHE POINTEDED OUT A TYPO IN THIS PROPOSITION TO ME THAT WE WILL CORRECT. IT CURRENTLY SAYS THE MOST SENIOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AT THE MEETING SHALL ACT AS MAYOR SO THERE WILL BE A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE THE MATERIALS POSTED ON-LINE AND COMES BACK IN YOUR ORDINANCE IF WE GET TO THAT POINT I THINK THAT IS IS THE SOLUTION THAT WOULD HAPPEN STATE LAW OR WE WOULD HANDLE IT THE SAME WAY, AMONG THE FOUR OF YOU

WHO WANTS TO BE APPOINTED TO BE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> ALL RIGHT, PROPOSITION G AND MOVING ALONG A LITTLE MORE QUICKLY NOW, PROPOSITION G FLIES THE MAYOR PRO-TEM SHALL BE ELECT BY THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE FIRST REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOLLOWING EACH REGULAR CITY ELECTION. CHART CURRENTLY SAYS THE MAYOR PRO-TEM APPOINTED SERVED FOR TRE MAINEDER OF THEIR TERM IN OFFICE AT THEIR SEATS WHICH MEANS IT MIGHT BE A ONE-YEAR APPOINTMENT OR TWO-YEAR APPOINTMENT DEPENDING ON WHEN THEY GET APPOINTED, ALL RIGHT.

AND SO IN ORDER TO PROVIDE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY, WE'RE NOW RECOMMENDING THAT THAT MAYOR PRO-TEM ELECTION HAPPEN AFTER EACH REGULAR CITY ELECTION. YES THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED WHETHER SPECIAL ELECTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, WHETHER WE SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SKIP YEAR BECAUSE OF OUR ROTATION. AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT IT BE ELECTED AFTER EACH REGULAR

CITY ELECTION WHICH HAPPENS TWO OUT OF EVERY THREE YEARS. >>> WHAT ABOUT A RUN-OFF?

>> THAT WOULD NOT BE A REGULAR CHECK ELECTION. >> GOT IT.

>> SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS YOU WOULD DO THE POEUPLD OF MAYOR OPRO-TEM BEFORE THAT RUN-OFF

GETS DECIDED. >> OKAY. >> AND WE DO ALWAYS CANVAS THE RESULTS OF THE REGULAR ELECTION BEFORE THE NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING?

>> WE TYPICALLY CANVAS THEM AT THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING.

IT HAS TO BE BETWEEN 3 AND 11 DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION. >> RIGHT.

>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE THE CANVASING, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY DO IT. I DON'T KNOW THE LANGUAGE SHOULD BE AFTER THE CANVASING OF THE RESULTS OF THE CITY ELECTION AS OPPOSED -- ANYWAY. IF IT IS A NON-ISSUE, IT IS A

NON-ISSUE. >>> I THINK IT IS A NON-ISSUE. WE DEBATED MULTIPLE SCENARIOS AND DECIDED THAT WOULD BE THE CLEANEST WAY. I'M HEARING CONSENSUS ON

PROPOSITION G? >> SORRY, I DON'T WANT TO OVERCOMPLICATED.

>> WE WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE ELECTED MAYOR TO BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION ON WHO IS MAYOR

PRO-TEM. >> THE MAYOR CAN'T BE ELECTED TO BE MAYOR PRO-TEM.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. >>> THAT WAS THE DECISION, NO PART OF THE

>> POTENTIALLY THE MAYOR PRO-TEM THAT IS ACTING IN YOUR SCENARIO WOULD NOT BE THE MAYOR PRO-TEM

[02:30:04]

BY THE END OF THE MEETING. >> SO IF ALL THREE RACES GO INTO A RUN-OFF THIS MAY, THEN THE ONLY PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT MAYOR OPRO-TEM WOULD BE THE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT COUNCIL

MEMBER. >> NO, NO, BECAUSE THE OTHER MEMBERS ARE STILL SERVE UNTIL

THE RUN-OFF. >>> THANK YOU. THE HOLDOVER PROVISION SAYS THEY

CONTINUE TO SERVE. >> IT WOULD BE SMART TO APPOINT SOMEBODY WHO IS GUARANTEEED TO

STILL SERVE. >> THE MORAL OF THE STORY WENT OUT RIGHT.

>> WHAT IS THE THE STATION WITH MAYOR PRO-TEM IS ELECTED AND THEY DON'T SERVE THEIR WHOLE

TERM IS THERE ANOTHER PROVISION SOMEWHERE. >> THEY RESIGN.

>>> THERE IS A FILLING VACANCY. >> THAT WOULD BE A VACANCY IN THE MAYOR PRO-TEM POSITION AND

COULD NAIL LIEU APPOINTMENT OR FUTURE MOMENT. >> PROPOSITION H IS TO PROVIDE THAT THE ADOPTED ORDINANCES AND CODE SHALL BE PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND ELECTRONICALLY. CURRENTLY OUR CHARTER SAYS MAY BE PUBLISHED ELECTRONICALLY, TECHNOLOGY HAS SIMPLY REACHED A POINT, THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE CITIES EXPECT TO ACCESS THIS INFORMATION ELECTRONICALLY, SO WE SHOULD REQUIRE THAT IT BE PUBLISHED ELECTRONICALLY. THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE OUR CURRENT PRACTICE AT ALL.

ALL OF THIS IS CURRENTLY PUBLISHED CURRENTLY. >> I AGREE.

>> NEXT. >> OKAY. PROPOSITION I WOULD PROVIDE THAT ALL ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS TO BE APPOINTED AND REMOVED BY THE CURRENT CITY ATTORNEY.

THERE WERE A COUPLE OF OCHANGES. CHARTER SAYS SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CONFIRMED BY CITY COUNCIL. THIS WOULD STRIKE THE CONFIRMATION BY CITY COUNCIL FOR

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS, NOT FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY MYSELF. >> AND SECONDLY THIS ADDS IN THE PHRASE "AND REMOVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY" BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME AMBIGUITY ABOUT HOW AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY COULD BE REMOVED WHETHER WHETHER THAT REMOVAL NEEDS TO BE CONFIRMED BY CITY

COUNCIL OR NOT. >> WE HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING OUR CHARTER?

>> WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING OUR CHARTER. I HAVE BEEN FIRED ANY ASSISTANT

CITY ATTORNEY SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. >> YET.

>> I WAS GETTING READY. >> I AGREE. >> ALL RIGHT, SEEING CONSENSUS

ON THAT. >>> HE WAS WAITING TO CHANGE THE CHARTER THAT'S WHY.

>> PROPOSITION J IS CLARIFICATION OF SOME ANTIQUATEED LANGUAGE.

THIS ALSO GOES INTO THE DUTYS OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE LANGUAGE HERE, IS ANTIQUATEED AD PROVIDES FOR CLARITY AS WELL. THE NEW LAKE PROPOSED HERE WOULD SAY THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF VICTORIA AND ALLOWS COUNCIL TO HIRE SPECIAL COUNCIL ON PROJECTS THE CITY ATTORNEY MAY HAVE A CONFLICT, YOU'VE ALREADY DONE THAT LAST YEAR WHEN IT CAME TIME TO NEGOTIATE MY EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, YOU REACHED OUT TO UTE SIDE COUNCIL AND HIRED THAT ATTORNEY DIRECTLY. IT DID NOT GO THROUGH MY OFFICE THIS IS SIMPLY MODERNIZEING AND CLARIFYING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE WITH REGARDS TO THE DUTIES OF MY OFFICE ON THE SECTIONS OF DUTY OF CITY ATTORNEY SAYS THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL AND WORD "AND" WAS STRUCK OUT AND SAID "SHALL"

AGAIN WE HAVE "SHALL" TWICE. >> THANK YOU, THAT IS A VERY GOOD CATCH.

LY MAKE SURE TO GET THAT CHANGED. >> I HAVE ONE COMMENT.

I KNOW WITH WE'VE BEEN INTENTIONAL TO CHANGE IT CITY ATTORNEY AND AWAY FROM LEGAL

DELL. >> CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RATHER THAN LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

>> BUT SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE IS THE CITY ATTORNEYS SHALL DO THIS, THE CITY ATTORNEYS SHALL DO THIS, COULDN'T THAT BE INTERPRETED THAT YOU COULDN'T HAVE ANYBODY IN YOUR DEPARTMENT DO THAT? AND I KNOW THAT IS NOT THE INTENTION.

>> IF YOU READ THE BOTTOM IT SAYS ALL POWERS AND DUTIES UNDER CITY ATTORNEY MAY BE EXERCISED

BY ANY ASSISTANT. SO I THINK IT CAUGHT IT THERE. >> GOOD JOB, COMMITTEE.

>> IT IS ALMOST LIKE THEY HAD AN ATTORNEY ON IN THE GROUP. >>> MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEVERAL

ATTORNEY. >> MAYBE LESS ATTORNEYS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE ROOM BUT SEVERAL ATTORNEYS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. SO WE MOVED ONTO PROPOSITION K

[02:35:01]

ALL WITHDRAWALS FROM THE DEPOSITORY MUST BE SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE AND COUNTER SIGNED BY THE CITY MANAGER. WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE A DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BECAUSE THAT TITLE HAS BEEN CHANGEED TO CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ALL RIGHT. LIKEWISE, I THINK THIS CHARTER PROFESSION WAS ADOPTED AT A TIME WHEN PAPER CHECKS WERE THE NORM. AND WE ARE MOVING INTO AN ERA WHERE ELECTRONIC EFT PAYMENTS ARE THE NORM. AND IT IS APPROPRIATE, I THINK TO PROVIDE FOR FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THAT IS HOW THOSE FUNDS ARE AUTHENTICATED.

THIS DOES NOT SET THAT POLICY OUT, THOUGH. IT SAYS CITY COUNCIL SHALL ADOPT THAT POLICY. SO THAT IT CAN BE CHANGED FROM TIME TO TIME BUT ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED, IT WILL BE FIRM AND CAN ONLY BE CHANGED BY CITY COUNCIL.

>> ATTEMPTING TO STRIKE A BALANCE BETWEEN FLEXIBILITY AND ACCOUNTIBILITY.

>> AGREE. >> ANY CONCERNS WITH THAT? >> MOVING ONTO PROPOSITION L.

>> THIS IS ANOTHER CLEANUP PROVISION. THE TERM "KWAOUFLD VOTER" IS USED THROUGHOUT THE ARTICLE THAT DALES WITH INITIATIVE, REFER RENDSUM AND RECALLS SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS WHO MUST SIGN PETITIONS AND THAT TERM "QUALIFIED VOTER" CAN BE CONFUSING IF IT IS INTERPRETED TO MEAN PEOPLE ONLY 18 YEARS OF AGE, RIGHTS AND HAVE NOT HAD THEIR ABILITY TO VOTE REMOVED BY FELONIES OR SOME OTHER DISABILITY WE'RE SAYING REGISTERED VOTER AS IT IS CURRENTLY INTENDED TO BE WRITTEN, BECAUSE THE PROCESS OF VALID DATING THOSE PETITIONS REQUIRES THAT APRIL CONFIRM THE VOTER REGISTRATION NUMBER OF EACH QUALIFIED VOTER. IN MY MIND THIS IS A CLEANUP. IT IS NOT A STRUCTURAL OR

SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO THIS PROVISION. >> THOMAS I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT

DOES IT DEFINE THE FORMAT IN WHICH THIS PETITION IS SIGNED? >> THERE IS EXTENSIVE PROVISIONS

RELATING WHAT MUST BE INCLUDEED IN THE FORMAT. >> DOES HAVE IT TO BE PAPER?

J CAN IT BE ELECTRONIC? >> IT MUST BE PAPER AND SIGNED WITH INDELIBLE PENS ILL.

>> AND THAT IS SPECIFIED? >> THAT IS SPES INSIDE THE CHARTER, YES.

>> IT MUST BE SIGNED ON EACH PAGE BY THE PERSON CIRCULATEING THE PETITION.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS REQUIREMENTS. AND IF A PETITION WERE TO ARISE, IT IS THE CITY'S SECRETARY JOB

TO MAKE SURE IT IS VALID. >> AGREE. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> WE'RE IN THE HOMESTRETCH NOW. PROPOSITION M, WOULD REQUIRE CITY OFFICIALS TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW REGARDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. HOUR SOUR LANGUAGE -- OUR LANGUAGE REGARDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WAS BOTH AIN'T QUATEED -- ANTIQUATED COMPLICATEED AND POTENTIALLY PROBLEMATIC, ALL RIGHT. THERE IS STATE LAW THAT GOVERNS WHAT CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS ARE. AND IT ALREADY PROHIBITS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM BEING ENGAGED IN CONTRACTS WHERE THEY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WHAT WE'RE CHANGEING IN THIS PROVISION, SHOULD THE VOTERS APPROVE IT IS TO SIMPLY FOLLOW STATE LAW INSTEAD OF CREATING

OUR LOAN VERY COMPLICATED PROCESS. >> WHEN WE MAKE THE PRESENTATION, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO SAY WE'RE NOT TRYING TO REMEDY ANY CURRENT

VIOLATIONS? >> YES, IT IS APPROPRIATE RIGHT NOW TO SAY THERE HAVE R NO KNOWN CURRENT VIOLATIONS THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE FEEL THE NEED TO REMEDY, NOT SEEKING TO ADD ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ENGAGE IN CONTRACTS THAT MIGHT BE DODGEY OR ANYTHING. THIS, WE'RE INTENDING THIS TO FOLLOW STATE.

>> I AGREE. >> ALL RIGHT. GOOD.

>> ALL RIGHT, AND THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION IS PROPOSITION N AMENDING THE CHARTER TO PROVIDE FOR A PROCESS OF RECUTEING THE CITY COUNCIL, IF A QUORUM OF CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN LOST DUE TO MULTIPLE DEATHS OR INJURIES THIS IS THE LANGUAGE IN HERE IS VERY COMPLICATED.

BUT THE EFFECT OF IT WOULD BE TO ALLOWS TO REAPPOINT COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ORDER TO CREATE A QUORUM FOR ORDERS OF PURPOSE OF ORDERING AN ELECTION TO REDUE TO CITY COUNCIL.

THERE HAVE BEEN A COUPLE OF EXAMPLE IN THE THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE SOMETIME I'VE BEEN CITY ATTORNEY IN THE CITY OF VICTORIA WHERE CITY COUNCILS LOST A QUORUM OF THEIR CITY

[02:40:04]

IN THOSE SITUATIONS THEY WOUND UP GOING TO COURTS AND HAVE A COURT ORDER THAT THERE BE AN ELECTION TO FILL THOSE. VERY COMPLICATED AND TROUBLESOME PROCESS.

SO THIS LANGUAGE AT TEMPTS TO CREATE A PROCESS TO RECUTE COUNCIL SHOULD THE WORST OCCUR.

IT IS COMPLICATED. AND WE COULD WORDSMITH THIS LANGUAGE.

I PROMISE YOU WE WORDSMITHED TKPWHAEUBT THE COMMITTEE AND THERE ARE SITUATIONS THAT MAY FALL OUTSIDE OF THE LANGUAGE, IT IS NOT PERFECT BUT SOMETHING IN OUR CHART THEY ARE INDICATES WE

HAVE A DESIRE TO RECUTE AND ABILITY TO. >> THOMAS, ONE SUGGESTION I MIGHT MAKE ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSITION ITSELF, THAT DUE IS D D-U-E NOT D-O-DUE TO MULTIPLE DATES OR INJURIES, BUT IF YOU READ THE ACTUAL SECTION, IT ALSO ACCOUNTS FOR THE SITUATION YOU JUST CALLED OUT, WHICH WAS A RECALL ELECTION. THE PROPOSITION ITSELF ONLY TALKS ABOUT MULTIPLE DEATHS OR INJURIES I SUGGEST WERE RECALL ELECTION SO IT CAPTURES ALL THE

SCENARIOS IN THE PROPOSITION. >> I THINK THAT IS A GOOD CHANGE.

>> DOES THAT THAT MAKE INNOCENCE. >> IT DOES, THANK YOU.

TOOK ME A MINUTE TO FIND WHERE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. I CORRECT IT ON MY POWERPOINT.

>> THIS WAS COPY FROM LAST TIME. I'M SURE THE NEW ONE IS GOOD. WE'LL MAKE THAT TYPO CORRECTION AS WELL. AS WELL AS ADDING IN "OR RECALL."

>> WHAT WILL BE THE PROCEDURE NOW, YOU BRING BACK ANOTHER AMENDED VERSION TO US?

>> SO THE NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS IS THAT I WILL TAKE YOUR NOW PROPOSITIONS, THEY'RE NOW GOING TO BE PROPOSITIONS, NOT JUST RECOMMENDATIONLESS. AND CHARLIE AND I WILL DRAFT THE ORDINANCE -- EXCUSE ME, THE ORDER THAT CALLS THE ELECTION. THAT WILL INCLUDE BOTH THE PROPOSITION AND MEASUREED LANGUAGE. AND IT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK AS A VERY LARGE DOCUMENT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. HOPEFULLY AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, BUT GIVE ME SOME LEEWAY IF WE CAN'T GET IT DONE AND TRANSLATED BY THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. IT MIGHT BE ON THE FEBRUARY 14TH, VALENTINE'S DAY -- 15LET. MISSED IT BY ONE DAY. EITHER OF THOSE DATES WILL MEET THE DEADLINE BEFORE THE 18TH. THAT GIVES US ADDITIONAL LEEWAY SHOULD WE GET TO THAT MEETING YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

THAT IS MY PREFERENCE BUT IT WILL DEPEND ON HOW QUICKLY WE CAN GET THIS VERY LARGE DOCUMENT

TRANSLATEED. >> AND AT THAT MEETING WE COULD EDIT OR CHANGE DOCUMENT.

>> YES, SIR, YES, SIR. AT THAT MEETING YOU WILL HAVE AN ORDER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

AND THREW NORMAL ROBERTS RULE OF ORDER YOU CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS TO AT THAT TIME.

>>> THAT WILL BE FEBRUARY 1 JUST THAT IS THE PLAN. >>> WE HAVE TWO IN-HOUSE

TRANSLATORS, FLIGHT. >> SPLIT THE DOCUMENT AND GIVE HALF TO ONE AND HALF TO THE

OTHER. >> THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO.

>> DUE THE NATURE OF THIS, WE OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE SEEKING A CERTIFIED TRANSLATOR AND WE DO

NOW HAVE ONE ON STAFF. >> RIGHT. >> THANK YOU, THOMAS, THANK YOU

FOR LEADING THIS EFFORT. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS.

THIS IS VERY, VERY COMPLICATED. AND I WANT TO ENDS BY, AGAIN, THANKING THE COMMITTEE THAT WORKED ON THIS. THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION.

YOU CAN SEE HOW QUICKLY YOU CAN DEINVOLVE INTO VERY DETAILED DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE LARGE IMPACTS ON OUR COMMUNITY AND THE COMMITTEE TOOK EVERY ONE OF OTHOSE DISCUSSIONS SERIOUSLY, WE MET UNTIL 9:00 MOST NIGHTS HAVING THOSE DISCUSSIONS. THEY TOOK IT VERY SERIOUSLY AND

THEY BROUGHT BACK A VERY GOOD PRODUCT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. >> YES.

>> GETTING READDY TO SAY THE SAME THING, THE CHARTERO VIEW COMMITTEE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB AND APPRECIATE THE TIME THEY PUT INTO IT AND THE THOUGHTFULNESS THEY PUT INTO IT.

>> ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING TO RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL RECONVENE IN

[H. Executive Sessions:]

EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> CITY COUNCIL WILL RECESS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION ON 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 AT 7:45:00 P.M., THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THEECT ANDIVE SEAS DELIBERATION

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.