Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

ALL RIGHT.

WELL, WHY DON'T WE GO

[00:00:01]

AHEAD AND GET STARTED THEN? UM, IT'S, UH,

[1. Call Meeting To Order/Roll Call]

UH, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16TH AT APPROXIMATELY SIX 32, UH, CALL THE MEETING OF THE ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMISSION.

UH, THE ORDER AT THIS POINT, TONY, WOULD YOU READ THE ROLL CALL PLEASE? YEAH.

MR. ELLIS HERE, MR. FANNON.

MR. HENDRIX, MR. KITCHEN, MR. OTTO HERE, MR. RAMZI HERE.

MR. WEBB HERE.

ALL RIGHT.

UM, WE HAVE RECEIVED

[2. Approval of Minutes]

IN BY VIA EMAIL COPY OF THE, UM, MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 18TH, UH, MEETING.

UM, I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, UH, ABOUT THE MINUTES AND A COUPLE, UH, AREAS FOR CLARIFICATION, IF I COULD BRING THEM UP.

AND THEN IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS, I'LL BE GLAD TO HEAR THEM.

UM, THE ONE ISSUE THAT I HAD, AND I RAISED THIS WITH TONY WHO RAISED IT WITH, UH, UH, JERRY MCDONALD IS THE LACK OF A DEFINITION FOR THE WORD DESIGNEE, UH, AS IT APPEARS THROUGHOUT, UH, THIS, THE CODE SECTIONS THAT WE LOOKED AT.

AND, UM, AND I, AND I, I, UM, TONY, I GOT YOUR EMAIL FROM EARLIER, THE STAFF LATER, YOU KNOW, LATE THIS AFTERNOON FROM JERRY ABOUT, UH, DEFINING THE TERM DESIGNEE, AS I INDICATED IN MY EMAIL TO YOU AND TO THAT WAS RELATED TO JERRY.

MY CONCERN IS THAT IT, NOWHERE IS THAT ACTUALLY DEFINED ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THE STATUTES, UH, NOR IN THE DEFINITIONAL SECTION.

UM, AND I JUST HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN AS TO THE VAGUENESS OF WHO COULD POTENTIALLY BE A DESIGNEE OF THE CITY MANAGER.

UM, AND IF I MAY I'LL READ THAT, UH, ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT, UH, JERRY MADE WAS THAT WE, YOU ADD A DEFINITION IN THE DEFINITIONS SECTION OF THE CITY CODE THAT WOULD DEFINE DESIGNEE AS A SIT OFF CITY OFFICIAL, AUTHORIZED TO UNDERTAKE CERTAIN ACTS.

AND FOR ME, THAT WOULD SATISFY MY CONCERN BECAUSE AT LEAST THAT WAY WE'RE, WE KNOW THAT HE'S, THE CITY MANAGER WOULD BE DELEGATING TO SOMEONE WHO IS A CITY OFFICIAL AS THAT TERM IS USED IN THE CODE AND THE CHARTER.

SO I'M OKAY WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS OR WOULD WANT TO CHIME IN ON THAT.

UM, WE CAN MAKE THAT AS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE, UH, TO COUNCIL COMING OUT OF TONIGHT'S MEETING THEN.

YEAH, PROBABLY THIS PART OF THE DISCUSSION WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO, UM, WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THE WORKSHEETS.

UM, THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE ACTUAL APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST TIME.

SO TH THE MANAGER WOULD PROBABLY BE APPROVED AND THEN THAT WOULD COME UP.

I DIDN'T KNOW WHEN WE WOULD WANT TO DISCUSS THAT SINCE IT WAS PART OF THE PART OF THE MINUTES.

SO, UM, YEAH.

THEN IS THERE ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS CONCERNING THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED THEN? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE, UH, THEY WILL BE ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED AS PRESENTED, UH, MOVING ON TO THE TOPICS OF DISCUSSION, WHICH NOW IS

[ Legislation Worksheets Review]

THE L THE, THE LEGISLATION WORKSHEET REVIEW, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET AS PART OF THE MINUTES.

UM, AGAIN, I THINK I I'VE, I BROUGHT UP THE ONE POINT THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP REGARDING, UH, THE, THE, THE REVIEW AND THE STATUS.

UM, SO I WOULD, AGAIN, I GUESS AT THIS POINT, RE NEW MY COMMENTS AND MY, MY SUGGESTED, SUGGESTED RE UH, RECOMMENDATIONS GOING TO COUNCIL, IF THERE'S ANY, IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT? OR ANY CHANGES OR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT POINT? OKAY.

IN THE INTEREST OF, UM, SOME ORDER, AND IT IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO DO THESE MINUTES AND, AND TRACK THE WORKSHEETS AND THINGS.

UM, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS, UH, THE LAST TIME WHEN WE DID THE ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMISSION, WE HAD, UM, YOU KNOW, AT EACH MEETING SUBSEQUENTLY REVIEWED THE WORKSHEETS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING TO KIND OF GET A STATUS UPDATE AND WHERE THEY'RE AT AND DECIDE THE NEXT STEPS.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'D BE EASIER JUST TO GO, UH, WITH THAT WORKSHEET FROM THE LAST MEETING

[00:05:01]

AND TO GO DOWN THE LIST IN ORDER AND CORRESPONDENCE TO THE MEMO THAT, UH, MR. MCDONALD DID PROVIDED WITH, UH, THE AREAS WHERE HE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK SO THAT WE COULD DOCUMENT ALL YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY.

THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.

UH, WHATEVER'S THE MOST, UH, UH, EXPEDITIOUS WAY OF PROCEEDING IT'S STUFF.

I'M ALL FOR THAT.

OKAY.

SO, OKAY.

SO WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, THE, UH, THE, UH, ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMISSION WORKSHEET FROM THE NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING, UM, THE, UH, I GOTTA FIND MY NOTES NOW AS WELL.

YEAH.

JERRY TRIED TO DO, UH, HIS FEEDBACK MEMORANDUM AND THE PARALLEL, THE, SO THAT YOU GUYS COULD JUST CROSS REFERENCE THOSE RATHER EASILY THEN.

RIGHT.

UM, WITH REGARD TO HIS, UH, THE MINUTES DEALING WITH, UH, THE FIRST, UH, SECTION, WHICH WAS ONE OH 1.02, UM, HE WAS GOING TO, UH, JERRY WAS GOING TO, UM, REVIEW THE, UH, STATEMENT IF, UH, THERE NEEDS TO BE ANYTHING ADDED REGARDING AUTOMATIC UPDATES.

HIS DEFINITIONS ARE CHANGED THE OHIO REVISED CODE LEVEL.

AND, UM, EXCUSE ME.

AND I BELIEVE HE'S UNDERTAKING THAT REVIEW.

EXACTLY.

CORRECT.

YEAH.

IN HIS MEMO, HE HAD INDICATED THAT, UM, HE HAD REVIEWED ALL THE DEFINITIONS IN THE GENERAL DEFINITION SECTION ONE OH 1.02, HE RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.

UM, FIRST, UH, THAT COUNTY MEANS MONTGOMERY COUNTY OR MIAMI COUNTY CROSSING OUT GREEN COUNTY BECAUSE THE CITY NO LONGER HAS ANY PARCELS IN GREEN COUNTY.

AND THE REST OF THAT SENTENCE, WE'RE SAYING MEANS THE COUNTY WHERE THE PART OF THE CITY IS SITUATED.

UM, THEN HE ALSO RECOMMENDED A STATEMENT LAND OR REAL ESTATE INCLUDES RIGHTS, AND HE'S MINTS OF AN INCORPORATE NATURE.

AND HE CHANGED THE OHIO REVISED CODE REFERENCE NUMBER, UH, THAT, I GUESS THERE'S AN UPDATED ORC REFERENCE NUMBER AT THIS POINT.

UM, HE ALSO INDICATED A CHANGE TO THE SECTION WHERE IT SAYS OWNER WHEN APPLIED TO PROPERTY INCLUDES ANY PART OWNER JOINT OWNER OR TENANT AND COMMON OF THE WHOLE, OR PART OF SUCH PROPERTY AND REMOVE THE ROC CITATION THERE THAT, UM, IS INAPPROPRIATELY APPLIED TO THAT ONE.

UM, HE ALSO LISTED PERSON, UH, INCLUDES AN INDIVIDUAL CORPORATION, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, BUSINESS TRUST ESTATE, TRUST, PARTNERSHIP, AND ASSOCIATION.

AND HE ADDED THE ORC REFERENCE TO 1.59 PARAGRAPH C, WHICH IS THE APPROPRIATE CITATION FOR THAT.

AND THEN HE PROVIDED SOME FEEDBACK ON, UM, THERE HAD BEEN A DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMISSION ABOUT DEFINING OFFICERS OR OFFICIALS, UM, VERSUS EMPLOYEES.

AND, UH, HE PROVIDED SOME ANALYSIS ON THIS FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER, UM, IN LIGHT OF A REVIEW OF THE CITY CHARTER AND, AND THE CITY CODE AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS.

OKAY.

UM, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR UP? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON THIS SUBJECT.

I HATE TO INTERRUPT, BUT TONY, I JUST GOT A PHONE CALL FROM JOE HENDRIX.

UH, COULD YOU RE SEND HIM A LINK? YEAH.

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION FOR EVERYBODY, THE LINK IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED IN THE CALENDAR INVITATION.

YEAH.

UM, AND SO THAT WHEN YOU ACCEPT THAT OR GET THAT, THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD FIND IT.

I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THAT.

CERTAINLY DELETED THAT.

AND ADDITIONALLY, I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT THAT.

I WAS LOOKED IN MY EMAIL FOR THAT, BUT I'VE GOTTEN USED TO IT AT THIS POINT.

YEAH.

MY EMAIL, UH, JUST THE, UH, EMAIL PROGRAM I'M USING AUTOMATICALLY SENDS YOUR EMAILS TO, UM, THE TRASH BAN AFTER I HIT ACCEPT.

SO IF I HIT ACCEPT FOR THE MEETING, I DO GET A NOTICE, BUT THE EMAIL'S GONE.

YEAH.

THE EMAIL GONE.

AND THEN IT SHOULD JUST LEAVE THAT LINK IN YOUR CALENDAR.

I THINK NOW I FIGURED THAT OUT TOO.

YEAH.

[00:10:01]

I, I I'VE RE SENT IT TO HIM AS WELL.

OKAY.

YEAH.

PROBLEM I HAVE IS MY CALENDAR IS AT THE COW AT THE COMPUTER AT WORK AND IT DOESN'T TRACK OVER TO MY LAPTOP AT HOME.

YEAH.

OKAY.

WELL, WE CAN TRY TO LOOK AT ANOTHER WAY TO SEND OUT THE MEETING LINK.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTINUE TO DO REMOTE MEETINGS.

YEAH.

OKAY.

WELL, IT CAME UP ON MY WATCH, BUT YOU GUYS WOULD BE REALLY TINY IF I WAS TRYING.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, UM, GETTING BACK TO ONE OH 1.02 AND THE RECOMMENDED, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I, I THINK I WAS SATISFIED WITH, UM, JERRY MCDONALDS COMMENT, AND I THINK PROBABLY THAT, THAT WOULD BE A, WE COULD PROBABLY CHECK THAT SECTION OFF OF OUR TO-DO LIST.

I WOULD, I WOULD GUESS UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO ANYTHING FURTHER IN THAT KATHY ONLY ONE HE KIND OF LEFT OPEN WAS IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL IN AND CONSTRUCTING A DEFINITION FOR OFFICER OR OFFICIAL, UM, HE STATING SOME, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENCES IN THAT, YOU KNOW, IN HIS MEMORANDUM HERE'S JOE.

UM, SO IF YOU, IF YOU WANT TO PURSUE THAT, WE COULD KEEP THAT PART OF IT ON IT, BUT, UH, YOU COULD AGREE TO THE REST OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT'S MADE BASED ON HIS, UH, LEGAL REVIEW OF THAT SECTION.

YEAH.

I WAS OKAY WITH THAT.

MY PERSONALLY, JOE, TO KIND OF BRING YOU UP TO SPEED WHAT WE'RE DOING.

UH, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE, UM, THE WORKSHEET THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 18TH MEETING INDICATING THIS VARIOUS SECTIONS IN THE STATUS OF EACH, UH, WORK ITEM.

AND THEN WE'RE KIND OF CROSS-REFERENCING THAT TO JERRY MCDONALD'S, UM, MEMORANDUM THAT HE, UH, PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTIONS THAT WE THOUGHT THE LAW DIRECTOR NEEDED TO REVIEW.

SO WE JUST GOT STARTED ON THAT.

SO, UM, WE WEREN'T VERY FAR ALONG.

SO THE NEXT SECTION, UH, IN THE WORKSHEET IS ONE OH 1.03, UH, RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

AND, UM, HE REVIEWED THAT SECTION AND ACCORDING TO HIS MEMORANDUM, HE, HE FOUND THAT NO DEFINITIONAL CHANGES WERE NEEDED, UH, TO THE RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

UM, SO I THINK WE CAN, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THAT, UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY ADDITIONAL INPUT WITH REGARD TO THOSE, WE COULD PROBABLY CHECK THAT OFF AT THE WORKSHEET AS WELL AS BEING COMPLETED.

OKAY.

SEEING NONE.

UH, THEN THE NEXT, UM, IS ONE OH 1.99.

AND HE, UM, DID NOT RECOMMEND IN CHANGING THIS SECTION.

UM, THERE WAS AN ISSUE DEALING WITH THE, UM, UH, WHAT CONSTITUTES A DAY, WHETHER THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DEFINED.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT THE LANGUAGE IN OUR STATE IN OUR ORDINANCE IS, UH, UM, WHAT HE CALLS.

HE SAYS A STANDARD AND ACCEPTED LANGUAGE IN THE COURTS, UM, WHICH PROBABLY IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COURTS ARE USED TO USING IN DEFINING, UH, AND, AND MAKING A JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF OUR ORDINANCES, THEN PROBABLY IF THAT'S THE STANDARD PRACTICE, I'D SAY PROBABLY THAT'S FINE.

UM, UH, SO AT THIS POINT, I GUESS WE CAN MARK THAT ONE OFF AS, AS BEING COMPLETED.

UM, THE NEXT SECTION THAT HE LOOKED AT WAS THE SECTION DEALING WITH, UM, THE DATES FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

UH, AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AS TO CLARIFICATION MAYBE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE S THE CITY'S PRIMARY ELECTIONS ARE HELD ON THE SAME DATE AS ESTABLISHED FOR CONDUCTING A PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN THE STATE OF OHIO.

AND HE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE, UH, THAT, UH, THE ADDED, UH, OR ACTUALLY ONE OH ONE OH 7.01 B CHANGED.

AND HE WAS RECOMMENDING THAT NON-PAR, IT'D BE CHANGED TO READ NONPARTISAN PRIMARY ELECTION SHALL BE HELD FOR THE NOMINATION OF CANDIDATES FOR

[00:15:01]

THE OFFICES OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER ON THE SAME DATE ESTABLISHED FOR CONDUCTING PRIMARY ELECTIONS BY THE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND IN THE SAME CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH ELECTION OF APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICERS FIRST.

UM, SO THAT BASICALLY TIES OUR PRIMARY ELECTIONS TO THE ELECTIONS THAT TAKE PLACE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, WHICH I BELIEVE THEN REFERS BACK TO THE STATE OF OHIO PRIMARY.

SO THEY'RE ALL TIED TOGETHER.

AND THAT WOULD, AND I THINK I WAS THE ONE ON THE, RAISED THE QUESTION ABOUT SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT, AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE BEING AT, YOU KNOW, THAT SECTION DIDN'T CHANGE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

UM, THE NEXT SECTION DEALT WITH, UM, SOME QUESTION ABOUT, UM, WHAT KIND OF INSTITUTES, A STATE OF EMERGENCY AND HOW MANY PERSONS MUST BE PARTICIPANT IN THE ACTIVITY, UH, THAT WOULD CREATE A, UH, UH, STATE OF EMERGENCY BEING DECLARED.

AND THEN, UM, UH, HE, I ADDED SOME LANGUAGE OR HE, HE SUGGESTED THAT, UM, THAT THE NUMBER CAUSE THE ORIGINAL GORDON SAYS WHEN A GROUP OF THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE ACT TOGETHER WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT A FELONY OR COME TO COMMIT VIOLENCE ON PERSONS OR PROPERTY, AND HE WAS RECOMMENDING OR SUGGESTING, WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER DELETING THAT AND PUTTING IN LANGUAGE THAT IS KIND OF MORE GENERAL, BUT PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES AN EMERGENCY SAYS WHEN THERE IS A TOME TO MALT RIOT, MOB, OR BODY OF PEOPLE ACTING TOGETHER WITH THE INTENT TO COMMIT A FELONY OR TO DO OR OFFER VIOLENCE TO PERSON OR PROPERTY, OR BY FORCE AND VIOLENCE TO BREAK OR RESIST THE LAW OR IN THE EVENT OF A DISASTER AFFECTING LIFE AND PROPERTY, AND WHICH SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIRS THE FUNCTIONING OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT AND ITS ABILITY TO PROTECT THE LIVES AND PROPERTY OF THE PEOPLE, UM, THAT I THINK GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBSTANCE THAN THREE PEOPLE GETTING TOGETHER TO TOILET PAPER, SOMEBODY YEAH.

UH, OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.

UM, AND, UH, HE ALSO SUGGESTED THE SECTION B OF NINE ONE OH 9.1 THAT, UM, THE PHRASE THAT'S IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW SAYS A MANMADE OR NATURAL DISASTER, AND THAT HE SUGGESTED THAT JUST BE CHANGED TO A NATURAL OR OTHER DISASTER, UM, WHICH WOULD OBVIOUSLY INCLUDE A, UH, AN ARTIFICIAL MANMADE OR PERSON MADE OR WHATEVER, UM, CHANGE.

UM, SO WITH REGARD TO HIS CHAIN SUGGESTED CHANGES TO ONE OH 9.01.

IS THERE ANY COMMENT OR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH SUBMITTING THAT TO THE COUNCIL THEN? OKAY.

SEEING AND HEARING NO OBJECTION.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION COMING OUT OF THE COMMITTEE.

UM, THEN ONE OH 9.02, UM, THIS WAS THE FIRST POINT WHERE THE ISSUE OF AN UNDEFINED DESIGNEE BEING, UH, UM, UH, DISCUSSED.

AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT HE PUT OR OTHERIZED OR AUTHORIZED ACTING CITY MANAGER, WHICH I THINK PROBABLY THE, I WOULD, I PREFER THAT ACTUALLY THERE, EVEN OVER A P OF A DEFINED, UM, OF DESIGNEE, BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE CALLING AND DECLARING AN ACTUAL EMERGENCY, I WOULD THINK IT SHOULD BE SOMEONE, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY HIGH UP THE BUREAUCRATIC LADDER TO MAKE THAT CALL.

AND SO I PERSONALLY LIKED THE IDEA OF EITHER THE CITY MANAGER OR AUTHORIZED ACTING CITY MANAGER AND TONY, CAN YOU, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO TELL ME THAT IN YEARS PAST THAT IF THE CITY MANAGER WAS GOING TO BE OUT OF TOWN FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME, TYPICALLY HE WOULD DESIGNATE, OR SHE WOULD DESIGNATE SOMEONE, THE POLICE CHIEF, OR THE FIRE CHIEF, OR SOMEONE TO SERVE AS ACTING CITY MANAGER IN HIS OR HER ABSENCE.

IS THAT STILL THE PROCESS THAT'S STILL THE PRACTICE.

AND, UH, IF IT'S GOING TO BE FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT'S DONE THROUGH IN WRITING

[00:20:01]

AND, UH, IT'S TYPICALLY ONE OF THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS IS THE PERSON THAT GENERALLY PERFORMS THAT ROLE.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S EVEN BETTER THAN PUTTING IN, YOU KNOW, UH, JUST A DEFINITIONAL OF A DESIGNEE.

CAUSE I LIKE PERSONALLY, I LIKE THAT.

SO IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH THAT CHANGE? OKAY.

UM, AND THEN ONE OH 9.03, UM, HE ADDED TO THE LIST OF POWERS THAT THE MUNICIPAL OFFICER, UM, WANTS AN EMERGENCY IS DECLARED CAN DO.

UM, SEVERAL THINGS, UH, THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY LISTED.

ONE WAS ESTABLISH A CURFEW TO PROHIBIT PROHIBIT THE SALE OF INTOXICATING BEVERAGES AND FIREARMS RESTRICT THE ASSEMBLAGE OF THREE OR MORE PERSONS, UH, RESTRICT THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY INTO OR OUT OF THE AREA.

AND THE, HE SUGGESTED WE ADD, TAKES OTHER, SUCH OTHER ACTION ALLOWED UNDER LAW THAT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE.

UM, NOW I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION IS THAT LANGUAGE KIND OF BEGS THE QUESTION IN MY OPINION.

AND WHEN IT SAYS, UH, ALLOWED UNDER LAW, WHAT, WHAT LAW ARE WE, YOU KNOW, TALKING ABOUT IS THE, OH, I THOUGHT THE ORDINANCE WAS THE LAW.

SO I WOULD, I THINK I WOULD LIKE SOME ADDITIONAL MAYBE CLARIFICATION ON THAT, THAT PARTICULAR POINT, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT SAYS UNDER, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A HIGHER LAW, UH, AND ARE THERE, IS THERE OHIO LAW THAT WOULD APPLY INTO A STATE OF EMERGENCY? I MEAN, I JUST PERSONALLY, I JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

I FEEL LIKE I'M RUNNING THE, DOING ALL THE TALKING.

SO JOIN GLENN.

YOU HAVE A QUESTION.

YEAH.

JIM, THANK YOU.

UM, WELL ADDITIONALLY, I WOULD SAY, UH, THAT IS DEEMED APPROPRIATE.

IT'S PRETTY GENERALIZED AS WELL.

WHO DEEMS THE APPROPRIATENESS AND HOW DOES THAT TAKE PLACE? THAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY GENERALIZED STATEMENT.

YEAH.

I THINK THIS THAT'S, THAT NEEDS TO PROBABLY GO BACK TO JERRY FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, UM, INPUT AND CLARIFICATION FROM HIM AS TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, THE ANSWER TO THOSE QUESTIONS UNDER WHAT LAW IS HE LOOKING AT.

AND, YOU KNOW, IS WHEN IT'S DEEMED APPROPRIATE, WHO IS THAT DEEMED APPROPRIATE AS, UH, AS YOU KNOW, BY THE PERSON MAKING THE, UH, ISSUING THE ORDER OR, OR IS IT A COURT OR, YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU'RE RIGHT.

WHO, WHO DEEMED THAT TO BE APPROPRIATE, RIGHT.

JUST BEFORE WE MOVE ON FROM THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BEFORE WE SEND HIM THAT TASK TO KIND OF DEFINE THAT MORE SPECIFICALLY, I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, I THINK MAYBE GLEN OR SOMEONE MENTIONED LAST TIME THAT THEY QUESTIONED THE NEED TO HAVE SUCH A GENERAL STATEMENT THAT, UM, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH CLEANSE, BUT I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, DO WE EVEN NEED THIS BROAD STATEMENT? SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S CONSENSUS AMONGST THE COMMISSION THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS, IS NEEDED, UH, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ADDITION TO THE CODE, UH, BEFORE WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, PERHAPS TRYING TO DEFINE IT IN A WAY THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IS WORKABLE.

I AGREE.

I THINK AGAIN, IF WE SEE IT AS BEING OVERLY GENERALIZED, I MEAN, DO WE NEED IT? UH, IF IT, IF IT DOESN'T REALLY PROVIDE ANY SPECIFIC ACTION IN ADDITION TO, WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN PUT OUT THERE BECAUSE WHAT'S ALREADY, THERE SEEMS, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING TO A STATE OF EMERGENCY SITUATION, YOU KNOW, THINGS SHOULD BE KIND OF SPECIFIC IN THOSE CASES.

IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY WHATSOEVER.

I DON'T KNOW.

YEAH.

I COULD SEE, LIKE IN A STATE OF EMERGENCY THAT WHOEVER'S DOING, IT IS NOT TO HAVE THE GO SEE UNDER LAW.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE LIKE, OKAY, I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE TIME TO LOOK UP OHIO REVISED CODE AND SEE EXACTLY WHAT I'M ALLOWED TO DO.

I'M GOING TO ASSUME I'M ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING I WANT.

AND THEN TAKE, TAKE, UH, GET PUNISHED LATER.

WE'RE HERE.

WE GOT SOME ESTABLISHED THINGS THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO.

SO WHAT, WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE GENERAL CONSENSUS TO NOT ADDING LANGUAGE AT ALL, OR TRYING TO, UH, KEEP THE LANGUAGE IN, BUT GIVE IT, BUT TAILORING IT IN SOME FASHION.

I I'M, I'M OKAY WITH, YOU KNOW,

[00:25:01]

LIKE I SAY, I PERSONALLY, I THINK PROBABLY THE ENUMERATED STEPS THAT CAN BE TAKEN UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, THE STATE OF EMERGENCY AND THE ACTIONS ARE TAKEN BY THE CITY MANAGER OR THE, UM, UH, ACTING CITY MANAGER HAVE TO BE RATIFIED WITHIN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME BY COUNCIL AS A WHOLE.

UM, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE, UH, IN PLACE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

SO MAYBE THOSE STATED THINGS THAT ARE IN THE ALREADY IN THE CODE ARE PROBABLY SUFFICIENT.

LEN, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? MY PERSONAL OPINION WOULD BE, UM, UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ACTUALLY NECESSARY.

I THINK WE COULD LIVE WITHOUT IT, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT IN, I THINK IT SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UH, NARROWLY DEFINED TO SAY, YOU KNOW, TO DEFINE THOSE ACTIONS UNDER WHAT LAW AND WHO DEEMS APPROPRIATENESS.

I MEAN, EVEN IF IT'S JUST A SPECIFICATION OF THE PERSON WHO DECLARED THE EMERGENCY, UM, BUT YEAH, I'M OKAY WITHOUT HAVING IT AT ALL, HONESTLY, BUT IF WE HAVE IT, I THINK IT SHOULD BE A LITTLE MORE NARROW AND SPECIFIC.

ANY OTHER COMMENT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO HAVE IT IN THERE OR JUST LET IT GO AND HAVE THE ORDINANCE AS SAM? HUH? YEAH.

JEN, THE ONLY THING I'M KIND OF RACKING MY BRAIN, TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT OTHER ACTION THERE WOULD BE.

UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE GIVEN HIM PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A CURFEW, FIREARMS, ALCOHOL, UH, RESTRICT THE ASSEMBLY OF TWO OR MORE PERSONS THAN RESTRICT THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS IN AND OUT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER APPROPRIATE ACTIONS THAT NEED TO BE GRANTED.

I CAN'T THINK OF ANY OFF HAND, BUT I HAVE A BROAD, IT'S A BROAD STATEMENT.

YEAH.

I'M KIND OF THE SAME WAY IN THE SENSE.

I'M NOT SURE I CAN REALLY THINK OF, YOU KNOW, IN, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, NOW SURE AS WE'RE SITTING HERE, WE'LL HAVE AN EMERGENCY AND WE'LL ALL THINK OF THAT ONE THING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE HAD ON THE LIST.

THAT'S NOT THERE, BUT AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, I AGREE WITH YOU.

I'M NOT SURE.

I THINK PROBABLY THOSE THINGS ARE PROBABLY A BROAD ENOUGH BECAUSE AGAIN, LIKE I SAY, IT'S ONLY FOR A SHORT TERM PERIOD OF TIME IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND COUNCIL WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO MODIFY WHATEVER THE DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY IS TO, UM, ADDRESS AND DEAL WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS A, UH, HAVE PRESENTED THEMSELVES.

SO I THINK THESE PROBABLY THE STATED THINGS PROBABLY ARE SUFFICIENT TO GET US TO THAT POINT, UH, AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE AND THE PROPERTY WITHIN HUBER HEIGHTS IN THE INTERIM.

AND THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE, THE ORDINANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

SO I'M OKAY WITH LEAVING, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST NOT ADDING THING TO THAT.

SO, UM, I, TONY, I THINK, I GUESS THE CONSENSUS THAT I'M SEEING IS FOR THE MOST PART TO GO AHEAD AND, AND RECOMMEND THAT THAT LANGUAGE NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE, UH, RECOMMENDATION.

GOT IT.

OKAY.

UH, ONE OH 9.04 WAS A CHANGE THAT WAS CONSISTENT TO ONE OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS THAT WE DID MODIFY IN 2010, AND THAT WAS ELIMINATING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR A MISDEMEANOR OF A HUNDRED DOLLARS TO TYING IT TO WHATEVER THE PENALTY HAPPENS TO BE FOR A MINOR MISDEMEANOR.

UM, THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP CHANGING OUR STATUTE EVERY TIME THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF A MINOR MISDEMEANOR MIGHT BE CHANGED.

UM, AND THEN ALSO A SEPARATE OFFENSE IS DEEMED TO OCCUR AT EACH DAY DURING ON WHICH THE VIOLATION CONTINUES OR OCCURS.

AND THAT KIND OF GOES BACK TO THE DEFINITION ON THE DAY, BUT I THINK IT'S PROBABLY FAIRLY, UH, IT'S, IT'S ONE OF THOSE DEFINITIONS.

THAT'LL PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, IT PASSES THE SMELL TEST, YOU KNOW, IN THE SENSE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT A DAY PROBABLY IS, AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHANGES WE MADE IN 2010 AND 2011.

RIGHT.

CHANGE ALL THOSE, I THINK THIS ONE LIKELY JUST GOT UP AND WALKED AT THAT TIME.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION GO, UH, FORWARD AS IT'S LISTED ON, UH, UH, THEIR REPORT AND MEMO FROM JERRY MCDONALD.

UM, AND THEN HE ADDED IN SECTION ONE OH 9.05.

THERE'S A REFERENCE TO SECTION ONE OH 9.03

[00:30:02]

SAYS EMERGENCY ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SECTION ONE OH NINE OH THREE AND OR ONE OH NINE OH SEVEN, UM, SHALL BE AFFIRMED BY THREE, FOUR VOTE OF ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AT SUCH MEETING.

UM, AND THEN, UH, ONE OH 9.7, IT SPECIFICALLY DEALS WITH CONTROL OF PUBLIC UTILITY.

SO ONE OH 9.03 DEALS WITH EMERGENCIES GENERALLY, AND THEN ONE OH 9.07 DEALS WITH CONTROL OF UTILITY.

SO IT PROBABLY DOES SINCE THERE'S A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THERE THAT DEALS WITH A STATE OF EMERGENCY, AS IT RELATES TO UTILITIES, IT PROBABLY WOULD, SHOULD REFER TO BOTH OF THOSE CODE SECTION, OREGON SECTIONS.

UM, AND THEN ONE OH NINE, I WAS JUST GONNA TELL TONY, UM, TONY ONE OH 9.05, THE LAST SENTENCE, IT'S A MINOR THING, BUT IT'S A, UM, UM, THREE FORCES NOT HYPHENATED THERE.

AND IT IS, UM, FROM THE PREVIOUS THREE FOURS.

OKAY, GOT IT.

OH YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.

UM, ONE OH 9.07, THE STATUTE OR THE ORDINANCE HAS WRITTEN BASICALLY LIMITS THE MAYOR AS BEING THE ONE WHO MADE DECLARE AN EMERGENCY WITH, AS IT RELATES TO CONTROL OF ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES.

UM, AND YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS IS THE MAYOR'S NOT AVAILABLE.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ADD THE PERSON WHO'S AUTHORIZED TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY IN SECTION ONE OH 9.02, WHICH WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED WOULD BE ABLE TO ISSUE THAT SAME EMERGENCY ORDER AS IT RELATES.

AND I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

UM, I THINK THAT PROBABLY WAS OVERLOOKED LAST GO ROUND AS WELL.

UM, THE NEXT SECTION, UM, THAT WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OR IS ONE 25, UM, OH, WELL LET'S BACK UP ONE 25.02, UM, DEALS WITH THE, UM, CLERK OF COUNCIL, UH, AND TONY, YOU'RE GOING TO REVIEW THE CURRENT, THAT CODE SECTION TO CHANGE THE TITLE, UH, FROM THE ASSISTANT OF COUNCIL TO THE DEPUTY CLERK OF COUNCIL AND TO CHANGE THAT'S CRA A HOURLY TO AN HOURLY.

CORRECT.

AND, UH, SO, UH, I'M ASSUMING THAT THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE, UH, THOSE CHANGES WILL BE MADE THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE THE COUNCIL, CORRECT.

UM, WHAT I'M ENVISIONING IS KIND OF DOING LIKE WE DID THE LAST TIME TOO, THAT ONCE WE GET DONE WITH A PARTICULAR PART, LIKE WITH THE PART ONE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, I'LL INCORPORATE ALL OF THOSE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE, UH, COMMISSION AND TO AN ORDINANCE.

AND, UH, WE GIVE YOU GUYS ONE LAST OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW, UH, THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN ORDINANCE FORM.

AND THEN, UH, FROM THAT POINT IT WOULD GO ON TO COUNCIL.

SO THAT COUNCIL WILL START GETTING THESE IN PIECES, UH, BY THE DIFFERENT PARTS, UM, SO THAT THEY CAN ACT ON THEM AS THEY'RE COMPLETED.

AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'LL BE KIND OF A HIERARCHY OF ALL THIS MOVING ALONG IN A REVIEW PROCESS FROM THE COMMISSION, UH, TO COUNCIL REVIEW AND FINAL IMPLEMENTATION.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT, THEN.

SO THAT'LL GO FORWARD THAT WAY.

YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

OKAY.

THE NEXT SECTION IS ONE 25.03.

UM, AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION LAST TIME ABOUT CHANGING THE WORD.

UM, MAY PROVIDE INFORMATION TO RESIDENTS IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTIONS ON TAX LEVIES TO SHALL, UH, MAKING A MANDATORY.

AND IT WAS JERRY'S RECOMMENDATION NOT TO MAKE THE CHANGE, LEAVING THE BID BY KEEPING IT, UH, MAY THE COUNCIL THEN HAS THE OPTION OF REMAINING NEUTRAL ON THE MATTER.

UM, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER, AND I DON'T HAVE THAT PARTICULAR CODE SECTION IN FRONT OF ME AT THE, UM, I HAVE IT HERE PULLED UP, IT'S IT? THAT'S THE ONLY, THERE'S ONLY ONE SENTENCE TO THIS ACTION.

UH, THE SECTION TITLE IS INFORMATION TO RESIDENTS THROUGH PUBLIC REPORTS.

AND THE ONLY STATEMENT THAT'S MADE UNDER THAT SECTION IS THE CITY

[00:35:01]

MAY PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ITS RESIDENTS IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTIONS ON TAX LEVIES, BOND ISSUES AND OTHER PUBLIC ISSUES.

AND IN CONNECTION WITH REPORTS TO THOSE RESIDENTS, CITY PROPERTY MAY BE USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES.

AND I, I GUESS, ALL RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND WHAT MR MCDONALD'S IS SAYING.

UM, I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU, THAT THE WORD USING OF THE WORD SHALL, WOULD MAKE IT MANDATORY THAT, UH, OR, YOU KNOW, OTHER, OTHER THAN THAT, THERE IS A VOTE ON THE TAX LEVY AND WHAT THE TAX LEVY COVERS.

UM, UH, I'M NOT SURE HOW BY MAKING THE NOTICE MANDATORY IN ANY WAY IN, UH, WOULD REQUIRE COUNSEL TO TAKE A POSITION ON THE LEVEE GLENN, YOU HAVE A COMMENT.

I THINK YOU MADE IT AGAIN.

YEAH.

I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, WHEN IT COMES TO, IF COUNCIL HAS VOTED TO PLACE A LEVY ON A BALLOT AT THAT POINT, THE BODY ITSELF CAN'T MAINTAIN NEUTRALITY.

IT'S ALREADY MADE A DECISION TO GO ONE DIRECTION.

UM, SO I, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING, BUT I DON'T THINK COUNCIL HAS ANY OPTION OF MAINTAINING ANY NEUTRALITY ON THAT ISSUE.

IF THEY HAVE VOTED AS A BODY TO PLACE THAT ISSUE ON A BALLOT.

IT JUST SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE TO ME, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

NO, I, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

UM, I MEAN, SO BY VOTING IN FAVOR OF THE TAX LEVY, YOU'VE TAKEN A POSITION, UM, AS A CITY, AS A COUNCIL ON THE LEVY, I GUESS MY ONE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE L THE, THE, THE TAX LEVIES, ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT, ARE THEY JUST TAX LEVIES OF THE CITY, OR ARE THEY, ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT OTHER TAX LEVIES AS WELL? I DON'T RECALL DON.

YOU HAVE A COMMENT.

UM, YEAH, JUST THAT IT, IT DOES SAY, UH, LOVE IS BONDS.

UM, AND MY QUESTION WILL BE TO TONY ROGERS, TONY AREN'T, WE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO, UH, POST NOTIFICATION OF THAT.

UM, AS A CITY, WHEN SOMETHING GOES DOWN, ARE WE REQUIRED TO, UH, PUBLISH THAT OR ADVERTISE THAT YEAH.

ANY TYPE OF SITUATION WHERE A COUNCIL'S ACTING IN A LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY, UH, WE HAVE CERTAIN NOTICE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE TO THE PUBLIC, AND THAT'S DONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

UM, I WAS JUST TRYING HERE TO LOOK TO SEE WHAT, HOW THE SECTION CAME ABOUT BECAUSE IT REFERENCES, UM, AN ORDINANCE, UH, IN 2011, WHICH WAS 1875, UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE THIS WAS LAST CHANGE AND THAT IN LOOKING, I JUST PULLED UP THE ORDINANCE 1875 AND IT, UM, IT JUST ADDS THIS LANGUAGE THERE.

I DON'T HAVE IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO ME THE HISTORY OF WHETHER THAT WAS ADDED IN 2011 AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMISSION, OR JUST SOMETHING WAS CHANGED, UH, SPECIFICALLY, UM, IN THAT SECTION AND IT ALREADY EXISTED THERE.

UM, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE A RECOLLECTION THAT PERHAPS THIS CAME ABOUT, ABOUT AN ISSUE OF, OR THE PART WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT CITY PROPERTY CAN BE USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES.

UM, I SORTA REMEMBER SOME CONTROVERSY AT THE TIME ABOUT, UH, IF THE CITY WAS PROPOSING A TAX LOBBY, DID IT HAVE THE RIGHT TO, UH, POST SIGNS ADVOCATING FOR THAT TAX LIBRARY ON CITY PROPERTY OR NOT, OR DID THE CITY AS AN ENTITY AFTER REMAIN NEUTRAL IN TERMS OF, UH, THE, THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES? UM, SO I THINK THAT MAYBE IS WHERE THE GENESIS OF THAT WAS, BUT, UM, WITHOUT DOING SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH, I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TELL YOU TONIGHT, UM, THE ENTIRE GENESIS OF THAT, IF IT'S JUST AT THAT POINT IN 2011, IF IT WAS A MODIFICATION, OR IF THAT'S, WHEN IT WAS, WAS ACTUALLY ADDED.

AND, UH, IF THAT'S IS WHEN IT'S ADDED, WE COULD GO BACK TO THE MINUTES AND STUFF FROM THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

AND, AND, UH, LOOK AT SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE ABOUT WHY THIS SECTION WAS EVEN ADDED OR CHANGED.

SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, I WOULD, UH, SUGGEST THAT I PERHAPS TRY TO GET, UM, SOME FURTHER BACKGROUND, UM, INTO THAT, AND THEN BRING THAT BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT, UH, YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE A MORE INFORMED ANALYSIS OF, YOU KNOW, THE GENESIS OF

[00:40:01]

THAT, HOW WE ENDED UP WITH THAT PARTICULAR SECTION AS IT CURRENTLY READS.

YEAH.

THAT, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.

TANYA COMMENT, DO YOU WANT, THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD TO THAT IS THAT I, I HAVE NO ISSUE AT ALL WITH THE WORD SHELL IN THE FIRST PORTION.

UM, AND, UH, KEEPING MAY, UM, UH, IN THE SECOND SECTION, UH, WITH THE USE OF, UM, USE OF CITY PROPERTY THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE, UH, MAY, UH, BUT THE FIRST SHALL I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MANADO THAT I THINK WE, WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO, UM, PUBLISH A NOTIFY.

THANK YOU, JOHN.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'LL, WE'LL HEAR BACK.

WAIT UNTIL WE HEAR BACK A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION FROM YOU, UM, ON THIS PARTICULAR SECTION, UM, IN TERMS OF THE HISTORY, AND THEN, UM, WE CAN REVISIT THAT NEXT MONTH.

UM, THEN THE NEXT SECTION IS ONE 31.03 DEALS WITH COMPUTER PROGRAMMING AND, UH, JERRY MCDONALD AGREED WITH THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES OF UPDATING THE, THE PHRASIOLOGY FROM COMPUTER PROGRAMMING TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE, UH, INCREASING WHAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INCLUDES, UH, THAT IT'S NOT JUST LIMITED TO COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, THAT'S DEVELOPED EXCLUSIVELY BY CITY EMPLOYEES.

UM, SO IT WOULD ALSO ANY CITY DEVELOPED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, IT WOULD APPLY.

BUT I THINK AS WE DISCUSSED, I THINK TONY, YOU HAD MENTIONED LAST GO AROUND THAT THE CITY REALLY DOESN'T, UH, ACTUALLY CREATE ITS OWN, UH, SOFTWARE ANYMORE.

THAT IT PRETTY MUCH BUYS PREPAID PROGRAMS FROM, UH, COMPANIES AND THEN APPLIES IT TO THE CITY'S PARTICULAR USAGE.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

SO I THINK THE LANGUAGE THAT'S ADDED, I DID NOT HAVE ANY PROBLEMS, ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS WITH THAT? THE ONLY, I ONLY HAVE A COMMENT, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S MORE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WOULD EXPAND IT TO THINGS TO INCLUDE, UH, I DON'T KNOW, LITERATURE DRAWINGS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO LONG AS THEY'RE NOT LAWS, AS FAR AS THE CITY OWNING IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE OR ANYTHING.

IT'S JUST A THOUGHT, I GUESS THE IDEA IS THAT ANY, UH, WORK PRODUCT THAT'S GENERATED WHERE AN EMPLOYEE IS GETTING PAID TO DO THAT USING CITY RESOURCES BECOMES PROPERTY OF THE CITY.

YEAH.

YEAH.

I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT IT WAS JUST THE THOUGHT THAT IT DOES EXPAND IT BEYOND COMPUTERS.

YEAH, I THINK IT, YOU KNOW, BUT AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S LIMITED TO, UM, OWNERSHIP OF CITY DEVELOPED.

SO IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GETTING, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE CODIFICATION, UH, SOFTWARE THAT DOES OUR CODES, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT DEVELOPED BY THE CITY IT'S, IT'S DEVELOPED BY THAT COMPANY THAT WE JUST BUY THE LICENSED AND THE ABILITY TO USE THAT.

SO, ALL RIGHT.

UH, THEN ONE 31 OH SIX, THAT WAS THE SECTION THAT, UH, I HAD MENTIONED, UH, ABOUT WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT OR HIS DESIGNEE.

UM, AND, UM, I HAD A PROBLEM WITH DESIGNATE NOT BEING, UH, DEFINED ANYWHERE.

UM, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY, I GUESS IT'D TAKE A LUDICROUS EXAMPLE.

I SAID, SEE MANAGER COULD APPOINT HIS OR HER SPOUSE, UM, TO BE THE DESIGNEE.

AND IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE ORDINANCE.

AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT WE WOULD HAVE A CITY MANAGER THAT WOULD DO THAT, BUT I THINK THAT'S, UH, UH, SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE TIGHTENED UP.

AND AGAIN, JERRY MCDONALD IN HIS EMAIL THAT HE SENT, UM, TO TONY THAT I GOT TODAY.

AND TONY, IF, I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO RE YOU KNOW, SHARE THAT WITH, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY WAS COPIED IN, ON THAT AND EMAILED TODAY, YOU KNOW? SO, UM, JERRY SAID, YOU KNOW, HIS, HIS, HE PREFERRED KEEPING IT JUST AS DESIGNEE, BUT IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO, REMACK RECOMMEND SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THAT, HE WOULD SUGGEST ONE OF TWO OPTIONS.

UH, ONE, IF YOU'RE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE DESIGNEE IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION ONE 31 OH SIX, AS IT RELATES TO THAT SECTION, THEN HE SUGGESTED THAT, UM, UH, YOU COULD JUST USE THE LANGUAGE CITY MANAGER OR ANOTHER CITY

[00:45:01]

OFFICIAL DESIGNATED BY THE CITY MANAGER.

UM, IF IT'S A CONCERN ABOUT A DESIGNEE IN GENERAL AND PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE DESI, UH, UH, DEFINITION OF THAT THROUGHOUT THE CODE, THEN HE WOULD SUGGEST, UH, CREATING A DEFINITION IN THE, UH, BEGINNING SECTION WITH THE DEFINITIONS THAT DESIGNEE WOULD BE DEFINED AS A CITY OFFICIAL, AUTHORIZED TO UNDERTAKE CERTAIN ACTS.

AND, UM, AND THEN WE WOULD JUST LEAVE DESIGNEE WHERE IT APPEARS IN THE CODE AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS WITH THE DEFINITION IN PLACE.

UM, BOTH HIM AND I AGREE THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BURDENSOME TO GO THROUGH AND, UH, YOU KNOW, STRIKE DESIGNEE EVERYWHERE BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S QUITE WIDESPREAD THROUGHOUT THE CODE.

IT'S ALSO TERMINOLOGY WE USE, UM, AND OTHER FORMS OF LEGISLATION THAT AREN'T CODIFIED AS WELL.

SO IT'S A PRETTY STANDARD TERM.

SO WE THINK IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THIS MORE BROADLY, THE BEST WAY TO GO ABOUT IT WOULD BE TO, UH, INSERT THE DEFINITION FOR DESIGNEE AS RECOMMENDED IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE CODIFIED ORDINANCES.

YEAH, I PERSONALLY, I LIKE THAT IDEA THAT WAY.

AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT EACH CODE SECTION THAT USES THAT TERM TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT WHAT, WHO THAT DESIGNATION SHOULD BE UNDER THAT CONSENT, THAT PARTICULAR CODE SECTION.

UM, AND MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT IT'S SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, CAUSE WE'VE, WE TALKED EARLIER THIS EVENING ABOUT WHAT IS IT WHO IS AS A CITY OFFICIAL.

AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DEFINITION OF THAT OR THE, THE, THE USAGE OF THAT TERMINOLOGY, UM, AND THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF THAT WOULD AT LEAST WOULD LIMITED ENOUGH THAT I I'M OKAY.

THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO A POINT OR THE MAYOR IS GOING TO A POINT OR WHOEVER HAS THE AUTHORITY IS GOING TO BE DESIGNATED SOMEONE WHO HAS THE APPROPRIATE TIES TO THE CITY ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNMENT.

SO I WOULD RECORD MY PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT BE A DEFINITIONAL SECTION ADDED TO THE ENTIRE, AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF SECTION 1.0101.

SO IF THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYBODY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATION, THE COMMITTEE SAYING NO OBJECTIONS THAT, AND THEN, UH, LET'S SEE, THE NEXT IS THE, UM, ONE, UH, LET'S SEE, ONE 31.06.

UH, THAT'S WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

ONE 31.09, THE MAILBOX REPLACEMENT, UM, TONY, YOU WERE GOING TO, UH, REVIEW THE POLICY AND WITH, UH, CITY STAFF TO SEE IF WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE ORDINANCE IS WHAT IS BEING DONE AND IS IT WORKING? AND WITH THAT SECTION ONE 31 OH NINE AND ONE 41 OH ONE, UH, BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS IN THAT HAVE BEEN OFF ON A SICK LEAVE AND UNAVAILABLE.

SO, UM, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE ANY PROGRESS ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. OKAY.

SO WE'LL CARRY THOSE OVER TO NEXT MONTH THEN.

YEAH, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE, EITHER OFF SICK OR IN QUARANTINE, SO, ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

UM, THEN THE NEXT SECTION WAS ONE 41.07.

IT DEALT WITH THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND JERRY, UH, RECOMMENDED, UH, THAT I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S CO THAT ORDINANCE BE CHANGED, I THINK, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND REWRITTEN.

UM, CORRECT.

AND IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, WHAT THE SA, WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS THAT HE'S BASICALLY JUST SAYING THAT OUR DEFERRED COMPENSATION HAS TO COMPLY WITH WHAT THE STATE OF OHIO IS REQUIRING UNDER THE CONCEPT AND PROGRAM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION.

WHEN I READ THAT, THAT'S WHAT I TOOK AWAY FROM THIS.

AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT, FOR THAT SECTION I CONSIST OF THOSE ABA OR THE ABCS ON THE LAW DIRECTORY REVIEW.

NOT THERE WOULDN'T BE A DRE.

UM, YEAH, MY, YEAH, THIS WOULD REPLACE THE SECTION ENTIRE.

OKAY.

SO THAT, THAT'S THE END OF THE LAW DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS.

UM, AND THEN, UH, ONE 45.04, UM, THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN,

[00:50:01]

UM, TONY, HAVE YOU HAD ANY CHANCE TO ADDRESS THAT ONE? EITHER THAT PERSON'S IN QUARANTINE.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'LL CARRY THAT ONE OVER TO THE NEXT MONTH.

AND THEN THE REMAINING ONES LISTED THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

UM, THEY'RE JUST, UH, EITHER GRAMMAR CHANGES OR TERM CHANGES.

UM, AND THOSE WOULD BE PART OF THE, THE ORDINANCE REWRITES THAT WOULD COME IN AND, AND THE TOTAL PACKAGE WITH THE, UH, UH, PART ONE ADMINISTRATIVE COACHING.

OKAY.

UM, WERE YOU, WERE YOU EVER RAPED? WERE YOU EVER, I'M JUST CURIOUS, DID YOU FIND OUT ANYTHING ABOUT WHERE THE TWO-THIRDS REQUIREMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE, UH, UH, ARTS AND BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE CAME FROM? YEAH.

UM, IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE LEGISLATION THAT AUTHORIZED THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME.

UM, SO, UH, THAT WAS A CONSCIOUS DECISION THAT WAS DONE.

UM, I DID TALK WITH, UH, JERRY MCDONALD ABOUT IT.

WE BOTH AGREE THAT IT'S, IT'S TECHNICALLY IN A CONFLICT WITH THE CHARTER PROVISIONS THAT REQUIRE MEMBERS OF, UH, CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS TO BE VOTING MEMBERS OF CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, UH, TO BE ELECTORS OF THE CITY.

SO, UM, WHAT THE, THE, THAT WILL BE CHANGED IN THERE TO, TO, UH, CORRECTLY IDENTIFY THAT, UM, AS, AS VOTING MEMBERS AND, UM, THAT THEY HAVE TO BE ELECTORS.

AND THEN WE'LL JUST REMOVE THAT TWO THIRDS REQUIREMENT WE DO, AS I THINK I MENTIONED LAST TIME, HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPOINT SPECIAL LIAISONS TO THE CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS THAT ARE BASICALLY NON-VOTING MEMBERS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE, UH, TO THE WORK OF THAT COMMISSIONER BOARD IN SOME WAY.

UM, AND COUNCILS STILL WILL RETAIN THAT POWER TO DO THAT BY EMOTION.

UM, BUT WE CAN'T HAVE VOTING MEMBERS, UM, THE NON ELECTORS OF THE CITY, UH, BY THE CITY CHARTER.

OKAY.

UM, AND THEN ONE OTHER POINT THAT, THAT, THAT, I THINK YOU RAISED GLEN AT THE LAST MEETING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT IT BRIEFLY OR, AND THAT IS THE ISSUE OF COMMITTEES OF THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES THAT, YOU KNOW, EXIST IN THE CITY OF HUBER ICE.

UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP, I THINK WAS, AND I THINK TONY, YOU MENTIONED THAT SOME OF LIKE OUR BOARD, WE HAVE A HAND THERE'S A DOOR AND HANDBOOK THERE'S RULES ARE THAT WE ARE WE'RE BOUND BY.

UM, AND I GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT NOT ALL OF THE COMMISSIONS, UH, CREATED BY THE, BY ORDINANCE, IN, UH, IN HUBER HEIGHTS HAVE SIMILAR BYLAWS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THAT'S CORRECT.

UH, THEY ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN BYLAWS AND PROCEDURES AND SOME DO, AND SOME DON'T, UH, THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT REALLY WOULD BE COUNCIL'S ADOPTED A BOARD AND COMMISSION HANDBOOK THAT OUTLINES THE PROCEDURES, UH, FOR THAT, UM, UH, ANYTHING RELATED TO THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, INCLUDING THE SUB UNITS OF, OF THOSE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, WHICH WOULD BE COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES.

THE, THE OTHER POINT THAT, UH, PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE IS THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WHICH IS AN OHIO STATE LAW, UM, YOU KNOW, DEFINES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS AND, UH, COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF A PUBLIC ENTITY OR A PUBLIC, UM, UH, BORDER COMMISSION AS PUBLIC MEETINGS AS WELL, ANY MEETINGS OF THOSE COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES.

AND SO NOT ONLY DO THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR PROCEDURES, BUT THEY ALSO ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE NOTICE, UH, MAINTAIN MINUTES, UH, POST AGENDAS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND FOLLOW ALL THE RULES OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PUBLIC ENTITY OR A PUBLIC BODY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO.

I'M WONDERING IF IT WOULD, AND THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING YOU MIGHT WANT TO, AGAIN, DIRECT TO JERRY MCDONALD, IS, IS THAT SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT TO ADD TO ORDINANCES CREATING THE VARIOUS COMMISSIONS THAT THEY BE REQUIRED TO ADOPT OR AN ACT AND COMPLY WITH THE HANDBOOK AS PART OF THEIR, UM, THE, THE ORDINANCE THAT CREATES THEM RATHER THAN GIVING THEM THE OPTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO, OR DON'T WANT TO THAT'S ASIDE FROM THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT ALL COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND MEETINGS HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, OPEN? UM, I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY ELSE.

I MEAN, I HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CITY GOVERNMENT FOR A WHILE, SO, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S EVEN A, UH, AN ISSUE

[00:55:01]

OR A PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD NEED TO BE EVEN ADDRESSED.

I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THIS HANDBOOK, BUT NOT EVERYBODY'S REQUIRED TO GO BY IT.

WELL, I THINK THEY ARE, I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME INCONSISTENCY IN APPLICATION.

THERE'S REALLY ONLY TWO, UH, COMMISSIONS THAT, UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING WITH, UH, SUB COMMITTEES OR COMMITTEES, AND THAT'S THE, UH, MILITARY AND VETERANS COMMISSION AND THE CULTURE AND DIVERSITY COMMISSION.

UM, SO, UM, I THINK THERE IS A BETTER HANDLE ON IT NOW THAN THERE WAS MAYBE IN THE LAST YEAR.

UM, ALL OF THOSE COMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE NOW BEING, UH, LIVE STREAMED AND BROADCAST IN ADDITION TO, UH, YOU KNOW, PUBLICLY NOTICED AND ADVERTISEMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, PUT OUT AS WELL AS MINUTES BEING TAKEN.

SO, UM, I THINK THAT, UH, STAFF HAVE WORKED IN THAT DIRECTION, UM, AND THE STAFF LIAISONS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE COMMISSIONS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

UH, BUT THERE PROBABLY HAS BEEN SOME INCONSISTENCY THAT'S EXISTED IN THE PAST.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

LIKE I SAY, I, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY, I JUST LIKE TO SEE SOME, YOU KNOW, E IF, IF NOTHING ELSE THAT COUNT CITY COUNCIL, IN TERMS OF, IN THE ENABLING LEGISLATION, WHEN THEY CREATE A COMMISSION OR A COMMITTEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT BEING INCLUDED IS ONE OF THE, BE A RESOLVE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE ENABLING LEGISLATION.

OKAY.

YEAH.

WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT AND, UH, UM, BRING BACK SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT.

OKAY.

SO I THINK THAT COMPLETES OUR REVIEW OF THE, UM, THE LEGISLATIVE WORKSHEET FROM LAST MONTH.

IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY.

SO NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO TONIGHT'S CONTENT.

UM, AND ORIGINALLY

[ City Code - Part One Administrative Code - Review - Title Seven - Finance - Title Nine - Taxation - Title Eleven - Judicial]

WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT, UH, UH, PART ONE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE SEVEN, TITLE NINE, TITLE 11, BUT WE ALL RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM YOU INDICATING THAT, UH, JERRY MCDONALD HAS, UH, INDICATED THAT WE WERE, ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE REVIEWING TITLE NINE, THE TAXATION, BECAUSE APPARENTLY THERE'S BEEN SOME STATE LAW CHANGES THAT IS GOING TO IMPACT THAT PROVISION, OR HAS THE FACT THAT THAT PROVISION EXACTLY.

HE INDICATED THAT THE LAW CHANGED IN 2015 EFFECTIVE JANUARY ONE OF 2016.

AND SO, UM, ONE OF THE MAJOR EFFECTS OF THAT LAW CHANGE WAS IT TOOK AWAY THE CITY'S RIGHT TO HAVE ITS OWN TAX ORDINANCE INCONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW, EXCEPT FOR SOME VERY MINOR EXCEPTIONS.

UM, SO HIS ADVICE WAS THAT THERE'S REALLY NOT A LOT THAT THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO CHANGE ANY LONGER IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE CODE, THE SECTIONS THAT ARE THERE ARE LARGELY DETERMINED BY A STATUTE AND THE OHIO REVISED CODE.

AND SO, UH, HE ASKED US TO, UH, NOT REVIEW, UH, TITLE IX TAXATION WORK IN THIS CONDITION.

SO BASED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION, UH, THIS COMMISSION WILL NOT BE LOOKING AT, UH, THE TITLE NINE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

UH, OKAY.

SO THE FIRST SECTION THAT WE WERE TASKED AT LOOKING AT WAS THE, UH, WOULDN'T BE TITLE SEVEN, WHICH IS FINANCE, UM, AND THE ORDINANCE OR THE ORDINANCES UNDER THAT SECTION WERE, UM, DISTRIBUTED TO MEMBERS OF THE ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY FOR US TO REVIEW.

UM, AND, UH, LIKE WE DID LAST TIME, I WOULD SUGGEST WE KIND OF JUST WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THE ORDINANCES.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S A, AT LEAST FROM MY OPINION, THERE WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF CHANGES THAT WERE NEEDED, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST MY REVIEW, UH, LOOKING FIRST AT ONE 71.01, WHICH IS PURCHASING AGENT, UM, THE CODE SECTION DELINEATES, THE CITY MANAGER, UM, TO BE THE PERSON PURCHASING AGENT OR DOES ANYTHING RIGHT.

WELL, WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT ISSUE, SO WE'RE FINE.

UM, BUT, UH, AND SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT'S THE, UH, THE CITY MANAGER IS DOING THAT OR SOMEONE EITHER IN FINANCE OR ONE OF THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER,

[01:00:01]

SOMEBODY THAT HE HAS DESIGNATED, UM, TO, TO SERVE IN THAT ROLE, UH, GLEN AND DON, YOU PROBABLY CAN GIVE A BETTER INPUT ON THAT.

AND TONY, SINCE YOU GUYS DEAL WITH THIS ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS, AND IN LARGE PART, LIKE WHEN LEGISLATION IS DRAFTED, IT DOES AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE A PURCHASE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

SO TYPICALLY THAT'S DONE THROUGH A RESOLUTION, UM, AND NOT ORDINANCE.

UM, BUT THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THERE THAT DESIGNATES THAT THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS, OR HER DESIGNEE TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AS THE PURCHASING AGENT.

OKAY.

SO I TAKE IT, NOBODY, ANYBODY HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OF ANY CHANGES OR MODIFICATIONS THAT CODE SECTION? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON ONE 71.02, UM, WHICH IS THE GENERAL PROVISIONS.

AND BASICALLY AS I READ THAT CODE SECTION, IT KIND OF DEFINES THE PROCEDURES, UH, DEPENDING UPON THE AMOUNT INVOLVED, UM, IF IT'S LESS THAN $7,500, THEN THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE, ARE GIVEN A LOT MORE, YOU KNOW, ABILITY TO PURSUE AND TO MAKE PURCHASES FOR SMALLER AMOUNTS.

THEN THERE'S ANOTHER, THE NEXT CATEGORY IS 7,500 UP TO 15,000.

AND THERE'S, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE CITY THAT CAN HANDLE THAT THEN 15,000 TO 25,000.

AND THEN LAST IS ANYTHING OVER 25,000 OR MORE, I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE, DO WE NEED TO CHANGE THOSE DOLLAR PARAMETERS, UH, OR ARE THOSE AMOUNTS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON? UM, I THINK GLEN HAS HIS HAND UP.

OH, I'M SORRY, GLENN, GO AHEAD.

I WOULD SAY THAT, UH, I, I THINK THE PARAMETERS FALL IN LINE TODAY AS THEY DID BEFORE.

I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'D RECOMMENDED 10 YEARS AGO WAS ADJUSTING THOSE NUMBERS TO KIND OF MORE FIT, FIT OUR, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT, WHATEVER.

UH, SO, AND I THINK THOSE NUMBERS STILL SEEM TO FALL IN LINE, IN MY OPINION.

UH, I, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY ISSUES WITH, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, A LARGE NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE, THERE ARE ISSUES WITH DUE TO AMOUNTS.

UM, IT APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE STILL.

OKAY.

YEAH.

THE OPERAND WHERE, UH, THE FORMAL COMPETITIVE BIDDING KICKS IN AND IN COUNCIL APPROVALS REQUIRED, UH, AT THE LAST GO AROUND WAS AT 15,000 AND THAT WAS RAISED TO 25,010 YEARS AGO.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE IT STANDS NOW.

AND I DID, UH, GIVE ALL OF THIS TO THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL PEOPLE.

IN-HOUSE UM, WHEN, WHEN THE COMMISSION RECEIVED IT AND ASKED THEM TO LOOK OVER IT AND RECOMMENDED, UH, ANY CHANGES.

AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF, UH, PROPOSED CHANGES LATER IN THIS, UH, CHAPTER, UH, UH, FROM JERRY MCDONALD, BUT NONE OF STAFF PROVIDED ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO AMOUNTS OR OTHERWISE.

OKAY.

UM, AND THEN ON ONE 71.03, THE FORMAL COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE.

AND AGAIN, WHEN, IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, WHEN THE AMOUNT OF THE PROCUREMENT IS BETWEEN 75, 25 AND 75,000, IT'S BASICALLY A ONE STEP PROCESS.

AND THEN ANYTHING OVER AND OVER 75, THEN THERE HAS TO BE, IT'S A TWO-STEP WHERE BASICALLY COUNCIL AUTHORIZES THE EXPENDITURE.

AND THEN BEFORE THE EXPENDITURE IS MADE, IT'S GOT TO COME BACK THEN TO COUNCIL AGAIN FOR APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

AND IN A LOT OF CASES, EVEN BETWEEN 25 AND 75, UH, STAFF HAVE DECIDED TO BRING THOSE BACK TO COUNCIL BEFORE AWARD EVEN, UM, AFTER THEY'VE BEEN GRANTED THE AUTHORITY, JUST TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL'S ON BOARD WITH THOSE DECISIONS.

SO, UH, I THINK THAT'S STILL APPROPRIATE.

OKAY.

AND AGAIN, THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THAT.

DOES THE BREAKDOWN.

YEAH, LIKE I SAID, I HADN'T RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM STAFF ON A NEED FOR ANY CHANGES.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

UH, THE NEXT SECTION IS ONE 71.031,

[01:05:01]

AND THAT IS A SECTION THAT DEALS WITH BASICALLY, UH, TWO TYPES OF, OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS THAT THE CITY, UH, HISTORICALLY HAS USED.

ONE IS WHAT THEY CALL A DESIGN BUILD, WHERE BASICALLY THE CITY CONTRACTS WITH ONE FIRM TO NOT ONLY DESIGN THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, BUT ALSO TO BUILD IT AS WELL.

SO YOU BASICALLY HAVE ONE ENTITY THAT THE CITY IS DEALING WITH.