[00:00:01]
TO THAT? OKAY.NEXT WAS ITEM THREE L, WHICH IS THE 2025
[ 2025 Rules Of Council]
RULES OF COUNSEL.UM, THESE WERE AT THE LAST WORK SESSION, AND I THINK WE GOT, UH, EVERYTHING SET AND APPROVED FOR THE ITEMS THAT AFFECTED OR WERE AFFECTED, UM, BY THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS.
AND I THINK THE PIECE THAT WAS LEFT HERE, UH, WAS ON THE, UH, THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PIECE AND KIND OF THE WAY THAT LANGUAGE, UH, WAS WRITTEN.
SO WE DECIDED AT THAT TIME TO MOVE THIS ON TO, UH, TO THIS MEETING.
SO, UH, TONY, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL LET YOU, I GUESS, KIND OF EXPLAIN WHAT RYMAN REASONING FOR THE WAY THAT WAS WRITTEN THAT WAY, AND THEN WE CAN EITHER DISCUSS IT FURTHER OR, OKAY.
OR, SO, UH, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT AND AS WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, UM, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE TWO PAGES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOME RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO, UH, SECTION OH, WHICH IS, UH, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS.
SO, UH, I HAD DONE SOME RESEARCH LOOKING AT DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES AND, UM, UH, DIFFERENT BODIES IN TERMS OF HOW THEY HANDLE THAT AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES IN TERMS OF HOW THE FORUM, FORUM FOR CITIZENS COMMENTS HAS BEEN UTILIZED.
UM, AS I THINK EVERYONE ON COUNCIL'S AWARE, WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS WHERE OF THE AGENDA WHERE CITIZENS' COMMENTS CAN BE MADE.
THERE'S, UH, CITIZENS' COMMENTS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO AGENDA ITEMS ON THE, UH, ON THE AGENDA.
AND THEN THERE'S A CITIZEN'S COMMENTS AS GENERAL WHERE SOMEBODY CAN COME AND TALK AT ANY POINT IN TIME.
SO, UH, LARGELY THE ONE THAT I HAD FOUND THAT WAS, UH, I THOUGHT, UM, MOST REPRESENTATIVE OF THE NEEDS OF THIS COUNCIL WAS, UH, THE BETHEL, UH, SCHOOLS, UM, SCHOOL BOARD.
UM, SO THEY HAD A, A REALLY A, A WELL WRITTEN THING.
SO I DIDN'T COPY IT VERBATIM, BUT I DID TAKE SOME PIECES OF THAT AND, UH, APPLY IT TO SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS HERE.
SO, UH, THE FIRST PART OF THESE CHANGES JUST SPEAK TO, UM, YOU KNOW, COUNCILS RECOGNIZES THE VALUE TO CITY GOVERNANCE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND COMMENT ON ISSUES OF COMMUNITY INTEREST OR OTHER MATTER.
AND THEN, UM, IT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE, UH, OPEN TO ALL AND DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE FOR ANY REASON, UH, BASED ON THE IDENTITY OF THE SPEAKER, THE CONTENT OF THE COMMENTS, OR THE VIEWPOINT OF THE SPEAKER.
AND THAT, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL IS ALSO COMMITTED TO CONDUCTING ITS MEETINGS IN A PRODUCTIVE AND EFFICIENT MANNER THAT ENSURES THE AGENDA OF THE MEETING IS FOLLOWED AND COMPLETED IN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.
SO WHAT WE DON'T WANT HAVE IS AN ISSUE WHERE, UH, THE REGULAR BUSINESS OF, OF THE COUNCIL IS GETTING HELD UP BY, YOU KNOW, UH, CITIZENS' COMMENTS IF, IF THE PROCESS IS NOT BEING USED APPROPRIATELY.
UM, BUT WE STILL WANT TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE FAIR AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC, UM, TO PROVIDE INPUT INTO COUNCIL MATTERS.
SO, UM, WITH THAT, UH, ONE ADDITION ALSO IS THAT, UH, UNDERST CITIZENS' COMMENTS.
UM, IT SAYS THAT THE TOTAL PORTION OF THE MEETING, WHICH IS, UH, RELATED TO CITIZENS' COMMENTS OF ANY TYPE, SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE HOUR, UNLESS THAT'S EXTENDED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
SO, IF THERE WAS A PARTICULARLY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE AND GONE AN HOUR, AND THERE WAS STILL PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO SPEAK, COUNCIL COULD, UH, BY A SIMPLE, UH, MOTION ALLOW THAT COMMENT TO CONTINUE PAST THE HOUR, BUT OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE CAPPED AT THAT HOUR.
AND THEN THE LAST PART OF THIS REALLY ALLOWS SOME POWER TO THE PRESIDING OFFICER, WHICH IS THE MAYOR, WHOEVER'S ACTING IN THE PLACE OF THE MAYOR AT THESE COUNCIL MEETINGS, THAT THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UH, CAN INTERRUPT WARRANT OR TERMINATE INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS WHEN THE COMMENTS ARE REPETITIVE AND OR OBSCENE, OR THE COMMENTS AND OR ACTIONS OF A CITIZEN CONSTITUTE, CONSTITUTE A TRUE THREAT.
UM, THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY REQUEST THAT ANY CITIZEN STOP SPEAKING OR, AND OR LEAVE THE MEETING WHEN THAT INDIVIDUAL DOES NOT OBSERVE REASONABLE DECORUM OR IS DISRUPTIVE TO THE CONDUCT AND OR ORDERLY PROGRESS OF THE MEETING.
UH, THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY REQUEST THE ASSISTANCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND THE REMOVAL OF A DISORDERLY CITIZEN WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL'S CONDUCT INTERFERES WITH THE CONDUCT AND OR ORDERLY PROGRESS OF THE MEETING.
AND THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY CALL FOR RECESS OR ADJOURNMENT OF THE MEETING WHEN THE LACK OF A, A PUBLIC DECORUM INTERFERES WITH THE ORDERLY CONDUCT OF THE MEETING TO WARRANT SUCH ACTION.
SO THOSE REALLY ARE, ARE THE, THE ONLY CHANGES, UM, TO THIS SECTION.
UM, ALL THE OTHER, UM, PROVISIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT REMAIN THE
[00:05:01]
SAME AND THEN THE SAME PLACE ON THE AGENDA.AND I DON'T KNOW, I DIDN'T INCLUDE IN HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF COUNSEL WOULD WANNA DISCUSS.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE A, A FIVE MINUTE, UH, LIMIT ON COMMENTS, UH, FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
IT'S MY EXPERIENCE AND MOST PUBLIC BODIES AND, UH, FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS, UM, THAT THAT GENERALLY IS THREE MINUTES OF, I THINK WE'VE ALL SAT HERE WITH SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS.
SOMETIMES WE'RE FIVE MINUTES CAN SEEM LIKE A VERY LONG TIME.
SO, UM, THAT WOULD BE ONE OTHER OPTION IF COUNCIL WANTED TO CONSIDER IT TO CHANGE THAT FROM FIVE MINUTES TO THREE MINUTES.
QUESTIONS? YES, FRED, JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WHERE IT SAYS, OLD PUBLIC, UM, PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS IN LINE FIVE THERE, UM, IT SAYS TO ALL SPEAKERS AND DOES DISCRIMINATE BASED ON THE IDENTITY, SHOULD THAT BE, DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE BASED ON THE IDENTITY OF A SPEAKER? YEAH, IT, IT, IT SHOULD BE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY COMMENT? MAYOR? YES, I COULD SEE WHERE WE COULD GO DOWN TO THREE MINUTES, BECAUSE IF YOU CAN'T CONVEY YOUR IDEAS IN THREE MINUTES, IT, IT'S PROBABLY NOT BEING CONVEYED IN FIVE.
I TELL SOME OF MY FACULTY MEMBERS ALL THE TIME, YOU STRUCK OIL STOP DRILLING.
UM, THREE MINUTES MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT,
SO I'M NOT GONNA DIE IN THAT HILL
ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, ANITA? I FEEL THAT THE MORE THAT YOU'RE PEOPLE, THE HIGHER TEMPER, WE JUST SIT HERE AND KIND OF LISTEN AND DO THAT, THEN I THINK PEOPLE TEND TO OKAY.
I THINK THE, I'M USED TO US NOT HAVING ALL THIS TONIGHT.
I JUST THINK THE MORE THAT WE RESTRICT PEOPLE AND PUT LIMITS ON IT, THE MORE THEIR TEMPERS ARE GONNA FLARE.
THAT'S JUST MY IMPRESSION OR MY THOUGHTS ABOUT IT.
SO, LOOK, I, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE HONEST, I, THE, THE, THE FIVE MINUTES ISN'T SO MUCH AS A, OF A CONCERN TO ME AS THE, I'LL JUST SAY IT, THE REPETITIVE NATURE OF SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT ARE, UM, THEY USE THAT TERM GERMANE, NOT GERMANE TO, TO WHAT COUNSEL ACTION IS HAPPENING NOW.
UM, SO I I, I THINK WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE POINTS THAT PEOPLE ARE DISCUSSING AND TALKING ABOUT, UM, WE, WE KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE.
WE KNOW WHAT THE FEELINGS OF, OF, OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WITH LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN THE ACTIONS BY CITY COUNCIL ARE, ARE FINE.
BUT I THINK THAT COMES TO EITHER FUTURE ACTION OR SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S ON THE AGENDA NOW AND THEY WANNA DISCUSS THAT THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
BUT THE REPETITIVE NATURE OF SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE DONE AND OVER WITH 6, 7, 8 MONTHS AGO, TWO YEARS AGO, THREE YEARS AGO, UM, THAT THAT REPETITIVENESS IS UN IS UNNECESSARY.
NANCY, UM, I, I, I AGREE WITH THE THREE MINUTES.
UM, I THINK THAT IF WE HAVE A CITIZEN HERE WHO COMES TO ENLIGHTEN US ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT THEY HAVE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN THEIR, ON THEIR PROPERTY OR SOMETHING, THAT IF IT, IF THEY NEED MORE TIME, WE CAN GRANT THEM MORE TIME.
BUT TO, UM, JUST COME UP HERE AND JUST SPEAK ABOUT THINGS IN GENERAL, THREE MINUTES I THINK SHOULD BE A LIMIT.
I THINK KIND OF TO YOUR POINT, NANCY, WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S COMING TO SPEAK ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT THEY'RE HAVING, THEY WANT COUNCIL'S ATTENTION.
A LOT OF TIMES WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON IS HEARING THE, THE ISSUE AND THEN CONNECTING THEM WITH THE CITY MANAGER OR SOMEBODY WHO'S GONNA BE ABLE TO ASSIST THEM OUTSIDE OF THE MEETING SO THAT THE, THE BUSINESS PORTION OF THE MEETING CAN CONTINUE.
AND WE'RE NOT HELD UP ON A LONG DISCUSSION.
BUT I ALSO WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR TOO, I'VE, ANYTIME THAT IT'S COME DOWN, UM,
[00:10:03]
YOU KNOW, THE CITIZEN'S COMMENTS AT THE END, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.IT'S COMMENT, IT'S A, IT'S A COMMENTARY.
IT'S NOT A QUESTION ANSWER SESSION, YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM A CITIZEN.
IT ISN'T, UM, IT SHOULDN'T BE AS AN INTERROGATION.
UM, THAT, THAT'S NOT THE PURPOSE OF THOSE COMMENTS.
HOWEVER, ANYTIME SOMEONE ON COUNCIL HAS HAD A FOLLOW UP OR IS INTERESTED IN CONTINUING THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE PERSON AT THE PODIUM, I'VE NEVER DENIED.
SO IF SOMEONE GETS THERE FIVE MINUTES THE WAY IT HAS BEEN, UM, AND ANY OF YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION OR WANT TO CONTINUE THAT DIALOGUE WITH SOMEBODY AT THE PODIUM, I, I'VE NEVER STOPPED THAT.
AND SOMETIMES THAT'S WENT ON FOR 10 MINUTES.
UM, SO THAT ISN'T, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, NOW, I MEAN, THAT'S ME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT PERSON THAT SITS IN THIS CHAIR WOULD, WOULD DO, OR HOW THEY WOULD HANDLE THAT, BUT I'VE NEVER STOPPED A DISCUSSION FROM COUNSEL TO SOMEBODY AT THE PODIUM, AND I WOULDN'T, I, I, I DON'T WOULDN'T PLAN ON DOING THAT, SCOTT.
SO WE'RE SAYING ON AGENDA ITEMS, WE'RE GONNA GIVE THEM FIVE MINUTES, BUT ON CITIZEN COMMENTS, GIVE THEM THREE MINUTES.
IS THAT WHAT THE CENSUS IS? I MEAN, I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE HEARD THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
THERE'S BEEN A MAJORITY OF, OF ANYBODY.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S JUST KINDA WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS.
I MEAN, SO ULTIMATELY, WHAT, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN? AND THAT WAS GONNA BE MY NEXT QUESTION IS DO WE, UM, DO YOU WANNA HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PIECES OF THIS? ONE, THE TIMEFRAME AND THEN ONE ON THE, THE, THE REDO OF THE, UM, THE CHANGES, UM, WHERE, WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO, UH, YOU KNOW, A PASS OR FAIL THE WHOLE THING? 'CAUSE SOME PEOPLE MIGHT BE OKAY WITH THE CHANGE LANGUAGE, BUT WANT TO KEEP FIVE MINUTES SOME, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, OF HOW YOU GUYS WANNA HANDLE THAT.
UM, I ACTUALLY, I MEAN, I, I GET EVERYTHING, BUT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN FIVE MINUTES RIGHT BEFORE ALL OF US.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN FIVE MINUTES.
I, I JUST, I THINK THEY, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT TO SPEAK THEIR MIND AND, YOU KNOW, THE WAY THAT IT HAS, I GET THAT SOMETIMES IT GETS REPETITIVE AND, UH, LITTLE LEFT OF CENTER.
BUT, UM, I AGREE WITH THE FIVE MINUTES.
I SAY I, I WOULD SAY LEAVE IT THE WAY THAT IT, THAT IT'S ALWAYS HAVE BEEN THAT IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, DON'T, YOU KNOW, DON'T ADD ANY FRUSTRATION TO PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY FRUSTRATED AND THEY'LL JUST USE THAT AS A TALKING POINT.
I MEAN, COULD USE THAT AS A TALKING POINT TO SAY, WELL, IT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE'RE, THEY'RE TAKING POWER AWAY FROM US, OR THE VOICE AWAY FROM US.
AND I WOULD JUST, I WOULD RATHER JUST KEEP IT THE, UH, THE WAY THAT IT IS.
I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS, BRIAN.
I THINK, LIKE I SAID, BEF YOU KNOW, I, I SAID THAT THE FIVE MINUTES DOESN'T CONCERN ME AS MUCH AS THE, AS JUST THE REPETITIVE NATURE OF, OF SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT ARE, THAT THAT IS LEGISLATION THAT'S BEEN PASSED FOR, FOR MONTHS.
AND JUST TO MAKE EVERYBODY AWARE, UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
SO ANYTHING THAT WE'RE PROVIDING IS, IS FAR IN EXCESS OF WHAT IS, UH, THE MINIMAL STANDARD UNDER THE, UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
THAT ONLY REQUIRES THAT THE, THE PUBLIC BE ABLE TO, UH, WATCH THE PROCEEDINGS, UH, WHICH MEANS THEY COULD BE HERE PRESENT AT THE MEETING.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE FAR EXCEED, UH, THE AVAILABILITY AND THE ACCESS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FROM THE AMENABLE REQUIREMENTS.
YES, MARK, JODY, WHAT PART OF YOUR CHANGES ADDRESS WHAT MAYOR MOORE MENTIONED? UH, THE ABILITY IS THE PRESIDING OFFICER TO, UH, INTERRUPT WARNER, TERMINATE INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS IF, IF THEY, UH, WERE GETTING REPETITIVE OR OBSCENE OR CONSTITUTED A THREAT.
SO THAT WOULD BE A DISCRETIONARY ABILITY AS FOR THE PRESIDING OFFICER.
AND LET'S SAY THE PRESIDING OFFICER DID THAT MM-HMM
IS THERE ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COUNSEL IS ALLOWED TO TAKE TO OVERRIDE THAT, UH, TO OVERRIDE THE PRESIDING OFFICER? YES.
UM, WELL, UH, COUNSEL COULD MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, SUSPEND THE RULES TEMPORARILY OR FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME, ANY OF THE RULES OF COUNSEL.
THERE IS A PROVISION IN HERE THAT ALLOWS FOR THAT BY A MAJORITY BY THE COUNCIL.
SO THAT WOULD SAFEGUARD ONCE JEFF'S NOT THE MAYOR AND WE GET A NEW PERSON IN THERE AND THEY WOULD ABUSE OR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
UM, ALSO, COUNSEL ALSO HAS THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE RULES OF COUNCIL BY A MAJORITY VOTE AT ANY POINT IN TIME.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT TILL THE FIRST OF A NEW YEAR.
SO IF SOMETHING WAS PUT INTO PLACE AND A FEW MONTHS LATER YOU DECIDED IT WASN'T WORKING OUT EFFECTIVELY, UH, YOU'D HAVE THE ABILITY BY A MAJORITY VOTE TO CHANGE THAT.
[00:15:01]
REFERENCING HERE IS, UH, SECTION, UH, 15 AND THE RULES OF COUNCIL SAYS, COUNCIL MAY SUSPEND OR WAIVE THE ADOPTED RULES OF COUNSEL IN FULL OR IN PART FOR A SPECIFIED TIME BY A MOTION.THE MOTION TO SUSPEND OR WAIVE THE RULES OF COUNSEL MUST BE PROPERLY SECONDED AND APPROVED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS CURRENTLY HOLDING OFFICE.
SO, BECAUSE I'M LEANING TOWARDS ANITA AND BRIAN'S POSITION ON THE FIVE MINUTES, WHAT DO YOU TWO THINK ABOUT WHAT TONY'S TALKING? YES.
UM, SO IF WHAT I'M HEARING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
UM, SO REGARDLESS IF IT WAS THREE MINUTES OR FIVE MINUTES, IF, IF SOMETHING IS DEEMED TO, YOU KNOW, TO END THE CONVERSATION, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF HOW MUCH TIME IT IS, RIGHT? SO IT COULD BE THREE MINUTES OR FIVE MINUTES IF THEY'RE REPETITIVE OR GETTING IRATE OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S FIVE MINUTES, IT'S TWO MINUTES IN AND WE CAN, WE CAN, UH, WE CAN STOP THAT.
RIGHT? SO IT DOESN'T, SO I GUESS IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER COULD DO THAT.
I GUESS IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF IT'S THREE OR FIVE.
TO ME, THE COUNCIL AS A BODY COULD, UH, TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY BY A MAJORITY VOTE, AMEND ANY OF THE RULES OF COUNCIL.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU TWO WOULD BE, IF WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON WAS THREE MINUTES, NOT FIVE, BUT IT INCLUDED THAT PROVISION, WOULD YOU BE A YES.
ANITA? THIS IS, I, THIS ISN'T DIRECTED TO ANY ONE PERSON.
I JUST FEEL IN TODAY'S SOCIETY, THE MORE THAT WE DON'T HEAR PEOPLE OR ATTEMPT TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE, EXTREME THINGS HAPPEN.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE OPEN TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE AND WHATEVER AMOUNT OF TIME WE NEED TO, INSTEAD OF GOING, OH, THIS BAD THING HAPPENED, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO SOMEBODY MORE.
AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN OR ANYTHING ELSE, BUT THAT JUST SEEMS TO BE OUR SOCIETY WE LIVE IN TODAY.
SO I WANNA BE AS OPEN AND WILLING TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE REGARDLESS IF WE THINK IT'S REPETITIVE, REGARDLESS IF WE THINK, YOU KNOW, THIS DOESN'T MATTER, IT MATTERS TO THEM, AND WE'RE ELECTED BY THEM.
SO TONY, TO ANITA'S POINT, LET'S SAY IT WAS SOMEONE OTHER THAN JEFF IN THE SEAT AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND THEY STIFLED SOMEONE'S COMMENTS.
WE COULD SUSPEND THE COUNCIL RULES AND THAT PERSON COULD CONTINUE.
SO WITH THAT CHANGE, WE WOULD NOT BE ELIMINATING OUR ABILITY TO HEAR THAT PERSON'S COMMENTS AND VOICE.
UM, YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE THAT OVERRIDING ABILITY TO DO THAT AS A BODY.
AND, YOU KNOW, I I JUST THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, THE TIMEFRAME, WHETHER IT'S THREE MINUTES OR FIVE MINUTES OR FOUR MINUTES, UM, I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO BE PREPARED TO, TO CONVEY THEIR POINT.
UM, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY, UM, AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
WE'VE HAD A WHOLE LONG LINE OF PEOPLE HERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE 12 PEOPLE AND THEY'RE ALL TAKING FIVE MINUTES, THEN THAT'S AN HOUR.
IT ENDED, YOU KNOW, ON TOP OF THE OTHER BUSINESS IN THE CITY AS WELL.
MARK, DO I RECALL CORRECTLY THAT IN THE PAST THE MAYOR, WHO, WHOEVER THAT MAYOR MIGHT BE, WOULD MAKE A STATEMENT AT WHEN THERE'S A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE, MAYBE THAT EVERYONE'S GOING TO GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK, BUT WHEN IT IS REPETITIVE, THEY'LL CUT IT OFF.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE ONE HOUR THING COMES INTO EFFECT TOO, IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING ON AND ON.
UH, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO VOTE TO CONTINUE THAT PAST AN HOUR.
SO THE IDEA IS NOT TO STIFLE, BUT THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE.
THE MAYOR HAS TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
NOT ONLY JEFF, BUT OTHER MAYORS.
BOTH PAST MAYORS AND THE CURRENT MAYOR HAVE ALLOWED EVEN INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE TO GO PAST, UH, THE FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT WHEN IT'S APP, WHEN THEY FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE TO THE SITUATION.
AND JEFF, AS THE CURRENT MAYOR AND PREVIOUS MAYORS HAVE ALSO STATED, IF, IF WE'RE GONNA JUST CONTINUE TO HEAR THE SAME THING, I'M GONNA PUT A STOP TO THAT MM-HMM
SO HERE, I, I, I, I MEAN, LOOK, I MEAN THIS IS, I THINK MY OPINION ON THIS.
UH, AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL GET SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION TO KINDA WRAP ALL THIS UP.
BASICALLY JUST KIND OF READING THE ROOM.
UM, SO THIS IS YOUR, YOUR EIGHT DOING THIS.
AND IN THE PREVIOUS SEVEN YEARS, WHAT, WHAT I HAVE
[00:20:01]
FOUND TO BE TRUE MORE TIMES THAN NOT IS MOST PEOPLE DON'T USE THE FIVE MINUTES THAT WE GIVE THEM.WHICH, WHICH MEANS I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM KEEPING IT FIVE MINUTES.
'CAUSE MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN USE THE FIVE MINUTES.
AND IN THAT CASE, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF RESTRICTING PEOPLE FROM THAT SITUATION, YOU KNOW, ANYMORE IF SOME, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO, WHO WRITE SPEECHES.
THEY, THEY WRITE THEIR THINGS OUT.
I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY TO COME TO THAT PODIUM AND PEOPLE CAN BE NERVOUS.
MAYBE THEY, THEY SPEAK SLOWER, THEY'RE TRYING TO GATHER THEIR THOUGHTS.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT POSITION, WHAT IT, WHAT IT DOES OR PUTS PEOPLE IN.
SO I'M NOT REALLY IN FAVOR OF, OF REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY GET TO SPEAK, BECAUSE FOR MOST PEOPLE, THEY DON'T USE THE, THE FIVE MINUTES THAT THEY'RE GIVEN ANYWAY, THAT, THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.
MY EXPERIENCE WOULD BE WHERE, AS MARK YOU BROUGHT UP, WHEN THERE IS A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE, WE DON'T MIND HEARING CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES.
I MEAN, THERE WAS A CITY MANAGER ISSUE BACK IN 2021, AND I SAT HERE THAT NIGHT FOR ALMOST TWO HOURS TAKING FIRE.
SO WE, WE LET PEOPLE SPEAK THEIR MIND WHEN THERE'S AN ISSUE BEFORE THIS COUNCIL WHERE PEOPLE HAVE CONCERNS, UM, THAT, THAT DOESN'T BOTHER ME.
AND WE KNOW THAT'S THE PART OF, OF, OF SITTING UP HERE.
UM, AND WITH THE ABILITY TO LET PEOPLE KNOW RE REPETITIVE, REPETITIVE COMMENTS ON THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
WE CAN UNDERSTAND THEIR POINT.
UM, THAT'S WHY, THAT'S THE PIECE THAT I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT FROM A LANGUAGE PERSPECTIVE THAN I AM ABOUT, ABOUT THE TIME.
BECAUSE HONESTLY, OVER THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, I DON'T, MOST PEOPLE WHO COME TO THE PODIUM, THEY KNOW THEY GOT FIVE MINUTES, BUT THEY'RE WRAPPED UP IN TWO OR THREE.
SO, UM, I WOULD BE AGAINST ANYTHING THAT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT WE'RE RESTRICTING THE AMOUNT OF TIME PEOPLE HAVE TO COME AND SPEAK THEIR PIECE.
UM, THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT, ESPECIALLY KNOWING MOST PEOPLE DON'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT ANYWAY.
SO I DON'T, NANCY, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT OF, OF THE SUGGESTION THAT WE'VE REDUCED THE NUMBER.
I THINK THAT IT, I THINK EVERYBODY HERE, UH, RESPECTS THE CITIZENS' RIGHT.
TO COME UP HERE AND, AND TELL US WHAT CONCERNS THEM.
IT'S, IT'S WHEN WE HAVE A CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE, AND I THINK IT IS MORE OF AN ATTEMPT TO FIND SOME WAY TO STRUCTURE THAT CONVERSATION SO THAT THE, THE CONCERNS GET ADDRESSED, BUT THEY'RE NOT DRUG OUT.
AND THAT, AND THAT FOR ME IS WHAT THE NEW, WHAT THE LANGUAGE CHANGE IN O DOES.
SO AS, AS A NEW VOTING MEMBER, NOW, I CAN MAKE MOTIONS, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE HAS OTHER COMMENTS OR WE CAN HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AFTER THE MARK, I CAN WAIT AND DISCUSS IT AFTER THE MOTION IF, OKAY.
SO I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION AND THEN WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION.
AND THEN IF THE DISCUSSION IS NE YOU KNOW, UH, MAKES IT NECESSARY, THEN I CAN WITHDRAW THAT MOTION AND WE CAN MOVE TO SOMETHING ELSE.
BUT, UM, AS IT STANDS NOW, I WOULD, I WOULD MOTION THAT WE, UH, AMEND THE RULES OF COUNSEL WITH THE WAY TONY HAS THESE WRITTEN.
UM, NOW, BUT DON'T DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT PEOPLE HAVE FROM THE FIVE MINUTES TO THREE MINUTES.
I WOULD MOTION WE KEEP IT AT FIVE, BUT ADOPT THE NEW RULES AS WRITTEN.
SO IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION NOW? YES, BRIAN? NO, NO DISCUSSION.
ANYONE ELSE DISCUSSION? YES, MARK.
ALTHOUGH WE'RE SPELLING IT OUT MORE CLEARLY NOW MM-HMM
THAT'S BEEN THE PRACTICE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.
I THINK WE'RE JUST PUTTING TO PAPER WHAT'S BEEN OUR PRIVATE, YEAH.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I NEED NOT ON THIS ONE.
CAN WE GO BACK? CAN WE HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT RULES OF COUNCIL? I'M, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
WELL, UH, LET'S, LET'S DEAL WITH THIS ONE.
SO WE SHOULD DEAL WITH THIS MOTION OKAY.
AND YOUR MOTION IS JUST FOR ADVANCING IT TO THE COUNCIL MEETING? YES.
I WANT EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND IT WOULDN'T BE A VOTE TO ADOPT THIS, THIS EVENING.
'CAUSE YOU CAN'T DO IT IN THIS FORM.
BUT TO ADVANCE THE CHANGES AS PROPOSED.
AND I THINK THAT, AND THAT'S WHICH IS THE REASON WE MOTIONED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A CLEAR CORRECT DIRECTION OF WHAT WAS, WHAT WAS HAPPENING.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WITH LACK OF A, SO ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS THEN TO MOVING THAT MOTION ONTO MONDAY'S MEETING?
[00:25:03]
AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER SUGGESTION AFTER THAT YEP.THEN WE'LL BE FURTHER CHANGE THE RULES OF COUNCIL, THEN THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED.
SO WE'LL MOVE THE, UH, THESE CHANGES ON TO MONDAY, AND THEN WELL DO YOU WANT TO DO IT OFFICIALLY BY A VOTE SINCE YOU MADE A MOTION? OKAY.
SO THAT MOTION CARRIES NINE TO ZERO.
WE'LL SEE THAT AT THE COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY.
ANITA, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE ON THE RULES OF COUNCIL YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS? YEAH, UM, I BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE, SINCE THE CHARTER JUST CHANGED TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, EXCUSED AND UNEXCUSED ABSENCES.
WE HAVE A PRECEDENT THAT WE NEED TO PUT IN PLACE FOR FUTURE COUNCILS.
I FEEL THAT WE NEED TO KIND OF SPELL OUT WHAT'S AN EXCUSED ABSENCE, WHAT'S NOT, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO IT NOW, THEN WE CAN GO ON.
YOU'RE NOT MAYOR NEXT TIME, SAY SOMEBODY ELSE IS HERE, SOMEBODY CAN GO, OH, WELL THEY, THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED BEFORE.
SO YEAH, WE'RE GONNA VOTE THAT THIS PERSON'S NOT EXCUSED.
I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SPELLED OUT WHAT'S AN EXCUSED ABSENCE? WHAT'S NOT AN EXCUSED ABSENCE TO GO ALONG WITH THE CHARTER.
SO, TONY, HAVE YOU GOT SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE? YEAH.
SO THIS HAS, THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY DISCUSSED BY PREVIOUS COUNSELS AND HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH ABOUT WHETHER TO DEFINE IT EXCUSED OR UNEXCUSED ABSENCE.
AND THE CONSENSUS IN THE PAST, OUT OF THE PAST DISCUSSIONS WAS NOT TO, AND IT WAS FOR A COUPLE DIFFERENT REASONS.
UH, PRIMARILY, UM, THERE WAS A FEELING THAT, UH, EVERYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL IS HERE IN A PROFESSIONAL ROLE.
AND THAT, UM, IF YOU SAY YOU HAVE A VALID REASON FOR NOT BEING HERE UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING TO DISPROVE, THAT THERE WAS A FEELING THAT, UM, THE MEMBERS WERE NOT GONNA JUDGE THOSE, UH, CIRCUMSTANCES INDIVIDUALLY.
THE OTHER THING WAS, UM, THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT ONE POINT WAS THE FACT THAT LIKE, IF YOU'RE GOING ON A VACATION AND FOR EVERYBODY TO HAVE A CRITERIA THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE WHETHER IT'S EXCUSED OR UNEXCUSED, SAY, UM, YOU'RE GOING ON VACATION.
PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT THAT TO BE PUBLICLY KNOWN THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE GOING ON VACATION BECAUSE THEN PEOPLE KNEW THAT THEY WERE OUT OF THEIR HOUSE OR OUT OF TOWN, AND, UH, THEY WERE FEARFUL THAT THEIR HOUSES COULD BE BURGLARIZED OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO, UM, IT GETS REALLY DIFFICULT.
WE, WE HAVE THAT ISSUE, UH, HERE WITH EMPLOYEES DETERMINING, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT'S VALID REASONS FOR, YOU KNOW, COMING OR NOT COMING TO WORK.
AND I'M SURE MOST OF YOU HAVE DEALT WITH THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH YOUR EMPLOYERS.
UM, SO, UM, IT GETS REALLY DIFFICULT TO PUT OBJECTIVE CRITERIA TO WHAT NINE PEOPLE FEEL IS, UH, A, A WAY TO JUDGE UNEXCUSED VERSUS IS EXCUSED ABSENCES.
SO I'M JUST GIVING YOU SOME OF THE HISTORY OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACE PRE, PREVIOUSLY ON THAT ISSUE.
I JUST FEEL THAT SINCE THE CHARTER CHANGED THAT IT CANNOT BE THREE.
I MEAN, NOT NECESSARILY SOMEBODY COME UP HERE AND GO, WELL, ANITA'S BEEN ON VACATION FOR THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, SO WE NEED TO EXCUSE HER.
BUT IF THEY FILTER IT THROUGH YOU, TONY, AND THERE'S A LIST, YOU CAN SAY, SUCH AND SUCH HAS ONE OF OUR LISTED EXCUSED ABSENCES, CAN WE VOTE TO EXCUSE THEM? AND IT GOES THROUGH YOU, THEN IT'S, IT'S MORE CLEAR CUT INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW EVERYTHING'S CALM IN THE WORLD HERE,
AND IF WE DON'T KIND OF PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE AS A PRECEDENT LIKE A JOB DOES, THEN THIS COULD GO REALLY ARRAY IN MY OPINION.
SO ANITA, WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOU, SO LET'S JUST START THAT CONVERSATION.
WHAT WOULD BE, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR TOP THREE ITEMS THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS AN EXCUSE TO ABSENCE FAMILY DEATH? UM, ILLNESS OF IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR YOURSELF AND VACATION.
I MEAN, WE ALL HAVE LIVES OUTSIDE OF HERE.
NOW IF SOMEBODY TAKES, YOU KNOW, A FOUR MONTH VACATION, THEN THAT COULD BECOME A PROBLEM, YOU KNOW? BUT I THINK TONY FILTERING THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M GONNA COME UP HERE AND IF TONY SAYS, MARK CAMPBELL HAS ONE OF OUR LISTED EXCUSED ABSENCES, THEN I'M GONNA TRUST JONI'S JUDGMENT OF YES, THIS IS EXCUSED ABSENCE.
DON, DO YOU HAVE QUICK COMMENT? WELL, YEAH, JUST KIND OF IN THE ABSTRACT HERE.
DO YOU WANT A, UH, NOTE FROM MY DOCTOR? WE'RE GONNA DO DOCTOR'S NOTES.
WHAT ARE OUR EXCUSES GONNA BE?
[00:30:01]
UH, ANITA MENTIONED THREE OR FOUR EXAMPLES THERE.UH, WHAT ABOUT A CONFLICTING MEETING WHERE, UH, ONE OF US HAS TO BE AT, UH, AT SOME, I'M SAYING THAT THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE EXCUSED ABSENCES, QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY OF MY BUSINESS, WHETHER OR NOT YOU, UM, ARE HOME RECOVERING FROM A SURGERY IF YOU HAVE TO MISS A COUNCIL MEETING.
HOW MANY UNEXCUSED ABSENCES HAVE WE HAD TONY? IN THE PAST? THERE'S BEEN VERY FEW UNEXCUSED ABSENCES.
I MEAN, GENERALLY, UH, THE, THE, THE, THE COUNCILS VOTED IN THE MAJORITY TO APPROVE ABSENCES, UM, EXCEPT WHEN THEY FELT THAT, UH, THE SYSTEM WAS BEING GAINED OR MANIPULATED, I GUESS WAS, UH, THE ONLY RECOLLECTION I HAVE OF SOMETHING BEING, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT EXCUSED.
I THINK A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE, UM, A MAJORITY OF COUNSEL VOTES TO DISPROVE AN ABSENCE WOULD INDICATE TO ME THAT A MAJORITY OF COUNSEL IS HAVING AN ISSUE.
UM, AS YOU MENTIONED, WITH THE SYSTEM BEING GAMED OR THINGS LIKE THAT, I MEAN, WE ALL ARE UP HERE, AS YOU SAID, AS PROFESSIONALS.
I JUST CAN'T SEE, UM, ME DEMANDING THAT COUNCILMAN DAVIDSON, UH, BRING A DOCTOR'S NOTE TO THE NEXT MEETING TO EXPLAIN WHY HE WASN'T HERE.
SO I THINK WE CHANGED, WE CHANGED THE RULES OF COUNSEL.
WAS IT LAST YEAR OR THE YEAR BEFORE WHERE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER COULD BE MADE FROM? THAT WAS LAST YEAR.
SO, UM, SO FROM THE OPPOSING VIEW OR THE IN FAVOR VIEW, IT DOESN'T MATTER NOW, CORRECT? NO, IT'S, IT'S STILL THAT, BUT IT ALLOWS SOMEONE TO, UH, MAKE THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER IF THEY WERE ABSENT FROM THE MEETING RATHER THAN JUST HAVING BEEN, UH, WITH THE PREVAILING MAJORITY.
SO IT STILL HAS TO BE SOMEBODY WITH THE PREVAILING MAJORITY THAT THAT'S WHAT I THINK.
SO
SO IT WAS THAT SECOND PART THAT WAS ADDED.
SO, SO FROM THAT PER, SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I THINK, SO IF SOMEBODY, UH, WE, WE HAVE IT SET UP TO WHERE, LET'S SAY SOMEONE WAS, HAD AN, HAD AN EXCUSED ABSENCE, THEY WERE VOTED TO EXCUSE, BUT THEN YOU FOUND OVER THE COURSE OF THE WEEK, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING WAS GOING ON OR SOMETHING THAT CAME UP THAT THEY WERE GAMING THE SYSTEM OR, OR, OR WHATEVER THE CASE IS, SOMEBODY COULD MAKE THAT MOTION TO RECONSIDER, TO UNEXCUSED THAT ABSENCE.
OR YOU COULD DO THE SAME THING.
UH, IF, IF YOU UNEXCUSED MY ABSENCE, IF I'M GONE AND I COME TO THAT NEXT MEETING AND I'M, AND I WAS ONE ABSENT, I COULD MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER TO EXCUSE MY ABSENCE.
AND IF THAT WAS THE CASE, LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT, HEY, THIS IS WHY.
OR IF I SAW THAT YOU UNEXCUSED MY ABSENCE, IT WOULD GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY ABOUT WHY I MISSED OR LET TONY KNOW WHY I MISSED TO RELAY THAT TO YOU.
AND I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER MY OWN ABSENCE.
I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A SITUATION A COUPLE TIMES WHERE, UH, SOMEONE'S ABSENCE WAS NOT EXCUSED, BUT THEN WHEN THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE PROVIDED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, UM, THEY WENT AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING AND WENT BACK AND EXCUSED THE ABSENCE, UH, AFTER THE FACT AS WELL.
SO, UM, SO I THINK THE WHOLE POINT OF ALL THIS TOO IS JUST TO NOT BOX OURSELF INTO THE, THE SPECIFICS.
THESE RULES ARE MEANT TO GIVE PEOPLE THE LEEWAY AND THE OPTION, UM, AND KIND OF A GUIDELINE TO, TO GO BY.
BUT AS ANYTHING GOES WITH THE RULES, AGAIN, THEY CAN EITHER BE SUSPENDED OR THEY CAN BE CHANGED AT ANY, AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
UM, SOME OF US PROBABLY, I MEAN, OH, I DO, I DEAL WITH UNEXCUSED AND EXCUSED ABSENCES IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE, BUT I GUESS THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN.
I MEAN, LIFE HAPPENS, THINGS HAPPEN, YOU GET SICK, YOU HAVE KIDS THAT ARE SICK, YOU KNOW, OR WHATEVER.
I GUESS, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE REASONS THAT WOULD BE UNEXCUSED O OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, MANIPULATING OR BEING DECEITFUL OR JUST LYING? UM, WHAT ARE SOME EXCUSES THAT WOULD BE UNEXCUSED? SO IN SEVEN YEARS, I CAN TELL YOU THE, THE, THE THINGS THAT YOU JUST SAID WERE THE ONLY
[00:35:01]
REASONS THAT THERE'S BEEN AN UNEXCUSED ABSENCE WHILE I'VE BEEN THE MAYOR OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS.PURPOSEFUL DECEIT, MANIPULATION, GAMING, GAMING THE SYSTEM.
DON, I WOULD ONLY ADD THAT WE CORRECTED A LOT OF THAT WITH THE CHANGES TO THE CHARTER.
UM, UH, SPECIFICALLY THE FACT THAT YOU'RE VOTING NOW ELIMINATES THE ROTATING MISSED MEETINGS, SO, UH, HAS TO PREVENT A TIE VOTE.
AND WE'VE DONE A LOT OF THINGS, UM, WITH THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE CORRECTED THE ISSUES THAT EVEN CALLED FOR PEOPLE TO PLAY GAMES WITH, UH, UH, BEING ABSENT.
MARK, TONY, COULD YOU READ OR TELL US WHAT THE NEW LANGUAGE IS REGARDING THIS SUBJECT IN THE CHARTER? UM, YOU MEAN THE, ABOUT THE EXCUSED ABSENCES? YES.
HOW MANY? SO, UH, BASICALLY, UM, IT WAS JUST A, UM, CHANGED IT PREVIOUSLY SAID, UM, UNEXCUSED ABSENCES FROM THREE CONSE, OR I'M SORRY, IT SAID, UM, YEAH, FROM THREE CONSECUTIVE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS MAY RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF A COUNCIL MEMBER.
UM, NOW WHEN IT SAYS IN THE, THE RULES OF COUNCIL THAT YOU ADOPTED TWO WEEKS AGO, UH, UNEXCUSED ABSENCES FROM THREE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS DURING A COUNCIL TERM.
SO THE CHANGES ARE THE REMOVAL OF THE WORD CONSECUTIVE AND ADDING DURING A COUNCIL TERM MAY RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF A COUNCIL MEMBER.
THE OTHER THING I THINK THAT'S RELEVANT TO THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS EVEN IF YOU HAVE, UH, THREE, UH, UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, WHETHER IT'S CONSECUTIVE OR NON-CONSECUTIVE, THAT DOESN'T RESULT IN AN AUTOMATIC REMOVAL OF FROM COUNCIL, IT STILL TAKES A VOTE.
IT STILL TAKES A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE IN A HEARING THROUGH THE PROCESSES THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE CHARTER TO REMOVE A MEMBER OF COUNCIL.
SO NOT ONLY WOULD YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES IN A TERM, BUT THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SIX OF YOUR, UH, COLLEAGUES TO VOTE TO REMOVE YOU AS WELL.
AND WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT WAS THE HEARING.
SO LET'S SAY WE HAVE THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES.
MAKE SURE YOU'RE TALKING, OH, I'M SORRY.
YEAH, JUST MAKE SURE YOU'RE TALKING THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES AND NOW WE'RE GETTING READY TO VOTE.
WHEN DOES THE HEARING TAKE PLACE BEFORE OR AFTER THAT VOTE? UM, IT WOULD TAKE PLACE PRIOR TO THE VOTE TO REMOVE.
AND, AND, AND, AND WHAT WOULD THE HEARING CONSIST OF? WHAT, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE? UM, WHEN WE HAD REMOVALS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THE PAST, IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY LIKE A COURT OF LAW.
UH, THE, THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE.
UH, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE REPRESENTATION.
UM, THE CITY, UH, GETS LEGAL COUNSEL THAT ACTS ON ITS BEHALF.
UM, THERE'S A, UH, A RECORD CREATED OF THAT DISCUSSION.
LET'S SAY I HAD PROOF, I HAD DOCTOR'S NOTES AND, AND I COULD PROVE THAT I WAS SICK.
THAT SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS COULD STILL VOTE 'EM OFF.
AND WHAT RECOURSE WOULD THAT COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE? THEY COULD FILE A, A, AN APPEAL HAD APPEAL AND THEN WHAT? THEN THE COURTS WOULD DECIDE, OKAY.
AND THEN THAT COUNCIL MEMBER COULD ARGUE THEIR POSITION THERE AT THE APPELLATE.
THEY GET DUE PROCESS, THEY GET, IT SPELLS OUT VERY CLEARLY THAT THERE'S DUE PROCESS FOR ALL OF THAT.
SO IT WOULD TAKE A NUMBER OF THINGS TO GET TO THE POINT OF REMOVAL.
AND THAT'S ASSUMING THAT E EVEN IF THE PERSON HAD THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, THE COUNCIL TOOK THE ACTION TO INITIATE THE HEARING AND THE REMOVAL PROCESS.
IT DOESN'T JUST, IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC THING.
SO YOU, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CONSENSUS ON COUNCIL, BE EVEN MOVE TOWARDS THE HEARING, AND THEN THAT WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY NEED TO BE FOLLOWED BY SIX FOLKS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE FOR REMOVAL FOR SOMEONE TO ACTUALLY BE REMOVED.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, LISTENING TO THE, UH, THE CHARTER COMMISSION AND THE WAY THEY REVIEWED ALL THIS, I THINK OBVIOUSLY THE, THE GOAL IN ALL OF THIS WAS JUST COMPLIANCE, RIGHT? THE GOAL WASN'T TO, UM, TO FIND A WAY TO REMOVE SOMEBODY.
THE GOAL WAS COMPLIANCE COME TO THE MEETINGS THAT YOU WERE ELECTED TO COME TO.
I MEAN, THAT'S, I THINK THAT THAT'S, I THINK THAT SUMS UP THE CONVERSATION.
HOW DID THE, HOW DID THE LANGUAGE CHANGE? WAS IT JUST THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES IN THAT YEAR? IN A ROW? IN A ROW? IT, IT WAS CONSECUTIVE IN THE OLD CHARTER? YES.
NOW IT'S, THE WORD CONSECUTIVE WAS, UH, STRICKEN.
SO IT'S THREE IN THAT TERM, MAYBE.
[00:40:01]
UH, CHRIS CONARD WAS THAT, UH, THAT THREE, UH, UNEXCUSED ABSENCES WOULD BE CONSIDERED DURING A, WOULD BE DEFINED AS A TERM.AND WE ADDED FURTHER CLARIFICATION IN THE CHANGES THAT WERE JUST MADE TO THE RULES OF COUNCIL TO SAY THAT EACH TERM THAT RESETS SO THAT IT'S NOT THREE UNEXCUSED ABSENCES ON YOUR ENTIRE TIME ON COUNCIL, NO MATTER HOW MANY TERMS YOU SERVE, IT, IT, IT, THE CLOCK RESETS AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH NEW TERM.
SO THE OLD WAY THE CHARTER SPOKE, SOMEONE COULD MISS TWO COUNCIL MEETINGS, BE UNEXCUSED, COME TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
AND TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, AND I THINK DON TOUCHED ON IT, I MEAN, THAT, THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.
SO IT'S MORE ABOUT COMPLIANCE THAN BEING PUNITIVE, AND AGAIN, TO BE PUNITIVE IN TERMS OF REMOVAL.
IT'S NOT JUST THIS ONE PROVISION, IT'S A, A SERIES OF PROVISIONS THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN, UH, BY A SUPER MAJORITY OF COUNSEL IN ORDER TO GET TO THE POINT OF EVEN HAVING THE OPTION OF REMOVAL.
ANYTHING ELSE? I, I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO RESEARCH THIS.
EVEN IF IT'S ON MY OWN OR, OR WITH ANITA.
WE, I MEAN, WE, I MEAN WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, IT CAN BE ADDED AS A WORK SESSION TOPIC AT ANY TIME.
SO WE'LL JUST GO, UH, FORWARD ON MONDAY WITH THE CHANGES ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AS WRITTEN YES.
BASED ON THE MOTION THAT WAS APPROVED.
BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING IN THESE ABOUT CHANGING THE TIME.
THAT'S JUST SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
THIS PROVISION DOESN'T DEAL WITH ANYTHING, BUT WITH TIME.
[ Board And Commission Appointments * Planning Commission - Vacancy]
UH, ITEM 3M, WHICH IS BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.UM, TONY, I'LL LET YOU, SO, UH, THIS WAS, UH, CAME OUT OF THE COUNCIL WORK SESSION THAT WAS HELD LAST WEEK ABOUT, UH, APPOINTMENT FOR THE VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
UM, I THINK IT'S COUNCIL'S WISH TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION AND EXECUTIVE SESSION TONIGHT.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT COUNCIL PROCEED WITH THE, UH, AMENDED ITEM IN WHICH IS THE WATERLINE EXTENSIONS FROM BELL FOUNTAIN ROAD, ADDRESS THAT, AND THEN WE CAN DO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION RELATED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY FOLLOWING THAT DISCUSSION.
[ Water Line Extensions - Bellefontaine Road]
AMENDED ITEM IN, UH, WHICH WILL BE ITEM THREE N TONY, WOULD YOU READ? YEAH, THAT'S WATERLINE EXTENSION BELL.SO, UM, I'LL KIND OF START THE DISCUSSION HERE.
UM, AARON, AND THEN I'LL KIND OF MOVE THIS ON, UH, ONTO YOU TO KIND OF GO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
SO THERE WERE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD SOME SITUATIONS IN THE PAST WHERE PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY REQUESTED OR ASKED, UM, YOU KNOW, WHO DIDN'T LIVE IN AN AREA OF, UH, COLLECTING WATER OR ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, GETTING CITY, CITY WATER OR CITY SEWER.
AND THEY WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT IT WOULD BE TO GET THAT CITY SERVICE TO THEM.
SO IN THIS CASE, UM, A, A RESIDENT HAD REACHED OUT TO ME REGARDING, THEY WERE ON A, WELL, THEY HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THEIR, WELL, SOMETIMES, I MEAN, IT WAS EVEN QUESTIONABLE THEY WERE GETTING WATER, AND THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT IT WOULD BE TO GET THAT, UM, TO GET THAT WATER SERVICE EXTENDED TO THEM.
UM, SO IN THAT CASE, YOU KNOW, I HAD GOT IN TOUCH WITH, UM, WITH JOHN AND AARON, UH, TO FIND OUT WHAT THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE WOULD BE OR KIND OF WHAT THAT COST WOULD LOOK LIKE.
UM, WE HAD, UH, MADE THE OFFER AS WE WERE RUNNING WATER AND SEWER OUT BELL FOUNTAIN TO CURRENT RESIDENCE, WHO WOULD WANT TO DO THAT.
AND COUNCIL PASSED LEGISLATION KIND OF CAPPING WHAT THOSE FEES WOULD BE, AND THEN THE CITY WOULD ABSORB THE REST OF THAT COST.
AND THEN WHATEVER COST WE CAPPED TO THAT, WE WOULD ASSESS THEIR PROPERTY TAXES.
YOU KNOW, WE HAD DONE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS.
I FORGET WHAT THE COURT WAS OFF OF, UM, OFF OF BRANT VISTA.
IT WAS THE, UH, WAS IT, IS IT JEANETTA OR WHAT, WHAT I THINK IT WAS JEAN'S.
WELL THAT I, YES, BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONE I'M TALKING ABOUT NOW.
WE, WE HAD, WHEN YOU TURN ON BRAND VISTA, RIGHT THERE BY THE CHURCH OF GOD, WE HAD THREE CUSTOMERS BACK THERE THAT WERE ON SEWER SYSTEM.
ONE PERSON WAS, UH, GETTING THE BILL FOR THE SEWER, BUT THEN THEY WERE TRYING TO COLLECT THE MONEY FROM THE REST OF THE PEOPLE AND THE COURT MEMBER.
AND THEN WE BACKED IN AND EX EXTENDED SEWER LINE ASSESSED
[00:45:01]
SOME OF THE PROPERTY.UM, THEN THERE WAS A SITUATION ON MARK AVENUE THAT MORE DEALT WITH KIND OF THE, THE WATER LINE, AND WE OFFERED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND WATER OUT TO THOSE CUSTOMERS.
WE HAD SOME, UH, DECIDE TO DO THAT, SOME THAT DIDN'T.
IN THIS, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE WHO WERE INTERESTED, TWO HOUSES ON IS IT, UH, BE COURT AND THEN ONE ON WALMACK, I BELIEVE, UM, THAT WERE INTERESTED.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE SETUP FOR THIS WOULDN'T HAVE THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE THAT TO CAP ANY OF THOSE FEES TO MAKE THIS REASONABLE FOR, FOR THOSE CUSTOMERS WOULD HAVE TO COME THROUGH COUNCIL LEGISLATION, THROUGH COUNCIL ACTION TO KIND OF DECIDE WHAT THOSE CAPS ON THOSE FEES WOULD BE, AND THEN TO APPROVE, UH, THE ABILITY TO ADD THAT TO THEIR, UH, TO ASSESS THEIR PROPERTY TAXES.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE SETUP FOR THIS.
UM, AND THEN AARON, I GUESS I'LL, I'LL LET YOU KIND OF GO THROUGH WHAT WE'VE, WHAT WE'VE FOUND OUT.
UM, SO WE PRICED OUT THE EXTENDING WATER SERVICE TO BE AND WALMACK, UH, AND, UH, THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE IS ABOUT $374,000 FOR 18 LOTS, WHICH WORKS OUT TO BE ABOUT $21,000 PER LOT.
IF WE WERE TO FULLY ASSESS, UM, FULLY ASSESS THAT, UH, I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S A TALL ORDER FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.
UM, WHEN WE EXTENDED THE CHAMBERSBURG WATER AND SEWER LINE.
UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, TALKING TO RUSS, THAT THERE IS LEGISLATION THAT CAPPED THE FEE THERE AT, UH, AT $5,000 TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO, UM, TO, UH, TAP INTO THE, TO THE NEW PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM.
UM, ONE OPTION THAT, THAT WE HAVE IS, AND OUR ASSESSMENT, UM, ORDINANCE PROVIDES, UH, FOR US TO BASICALLY TO CREATE WHAT IT'S REFERRED TO AS A TAP-IN DISTRICT.
UM, AND SO THIS REALLY, THIS QUADRANT OF CHAMBERSBURG BELL FOUNTAIN REALLY UP TO 70, IS REALLY KIND OF THE LAST UNSEED AND LAST UN WATERED AREA.
UM, THERE'S A FEW SMALL STRAGGLERS, BUT THIS IS KIND OF THE, UM, THE, UH, THE, THE CRUX OF IT.
SO ONE, UM, AFTER WE TALKED, ONE IDEA THAT, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD, AND, AND THIS IS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, IS BRINGING FORWARD A TAP IN DISTRICT THAT WOULD SET THE, THE POLICY FOR WHAT THOSE FEES WOULD BE FOR NEW RESIDENTS, OR EXCUSE ME, EXISTING RESIDENTS TO TAP INTO NEW WATER THAT WE EXPAND EITHER DOWN CHAMBERSBURG, IF WE WERE TO BUILD OUT A WALMACK AND BE, UH, EVENTUALLY WE'LL PROBABLY RUN WATER DOWN TAYLORSVILLE AT SOME PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A LOWER, UM, PRIORITY.
UM, AND, AND JUST TRY TO BE TWO THINGS.
ONE, FAIR AND, AND APPROACHABLE.
'CAUSE WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO, TO TAP INTO THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY PERSPECTIVE AND ALSO FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE.
UM, AND SO WE WANNA MAKE IT, MAKE IT APPROACHABLE FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE.
UM, OUR TRADITIONAL ASSESSMENTS ARE OVER 10 YEARS.
COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO EXTEND THAT TO REALLY THE LIFE OF THE ASSET, WHICH IN THIS CASE WE WOULD THINK ABOUT 20 YEARS IS, IS APPROPRIATE, UM, TO, TO COLLECT.
SO THE CONVERSATION THAT THE MAYOR WANTED TO HAVE, UM, AND HAS ASKED STAFF TO, TO, TO DO SOME THINKING IS ONE, CREATING THIS TAP IN DISTRICT AND WHAT IS THE RIGHT, UM, WHAT IS THE RIGHT EITHER FLOOR OR CEILING OF WHAT TO CHARGE PEOPLE TO, UM, TO TAP IN, TO TAP INTO THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE AND, AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO SORT OF EAT AS FAR AS AS THE COST.
KATE AARON, WOULD THEY BE REQUIRED TO CLOSE THEIR WELL, WOULD THAT BE PART OF OUR, OUR, I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE TO, TO CLOSE THEIR, WELL, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WANTED TO USE IT FOR IRRIGATION.
UM, THE ISSUE THAT, THAT, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE ISSUE ON, ON BE IS THAT THE WELL IS RUNNING DRY EVERY NOW AND THEN.
'CAUSE IT'S PROBABLY A SHALLOWER WELL, UH, AND SO THIS WOULD PROVIDE SOME CONSISTENCY IN, IN WATER DELIVERY.
IF I HAD A, WELL, I'D PROBABLY HOOK IT UP FOR, YOU KNOW, SWIMMING POOL OR IRRIGATION SO THAT I'M NOT BILLED FOR IT.
BUT THERE WOULD BE NOTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE, THERE'S NOTHING IN OUR, UM, ORDINANCES THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE, THE CAPPING OF THE WELL, OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
DONNA, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? UH, JUST, BUT THERE CAN BE NO CROSS CONNECTION BETWEEN THE WELL AND, UH, CITY WATER.
SO THEY CAN KEEP, KEEP THEIR WELL AND RUN THE SPRINKLERS.
AND IN THE CASE OF, OF, UH, WOMAC OR OR BETO, WE WOULD EXTEND PUBLIC WATER.
THEY WOULD STILL KEEP THEIR SEPTIC TANKS OR THEIR SEPTIC SYSTEM OR THEIR, THEIR ON SITE.
WE, WE WOULD NOT BE EXTENDING SEWER 'CAUSE WE DID NOT EXTEND SEWER UP, UH, BELL FOUND.
AND, AND WATER WAS THE, THE MAIN CONCERN REGARDING THE, THE, THE INCONSISTENCY IN THE, IN THE FLOW OF WATER FOR THOSE CUSTOMERS, SCOTT.
AND DO WE KNOW ALL THOSE RESIDENTS OR HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THEIR WELL OR JUST ONE OR, I, I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
[00:50:01]
OUT OVER THE WEEKEND.UH, AND SO I'M NOT SURE THE EXTENT WE HAVEN'T, WE HAVEN'T REACHED OUT BACK TO ANY OF THOSE RESIDENTS YET TO SEE WHAT THAT EXTENT IS.
I KNOW THE, I KNOW THE ONE AND THERE ARE TWO, THERE WERE TWO OTHERS THAT WERE INTERESTED, BUT I HAVEN'T TALKED TO THOSE TWO.
I'VE ONLY TALKED TO THE, THE RESIDENT THAT CONTACTED ME DIRECTLY.
I'M JUST CURIOUS 'CAUSE I, ONE OF MY PROPERTIES HAS A WELL, AND I'VE HAD TO, YOU KNOW, DRILL IT DOWN DEEPER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO I'D BE CURIOUS ON HOW MANY RESIDENTS ARE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THEIR WELL, THANK YOU.
SO IF THERE'S A NEW DEVELOPMENT, LET'S SAY CURIOUS TRAIL TWO, HOW MUCH DO WE PAY FOR THE WATER LINES GOING IN AS A CITY OR HOW MUCH IS ASSESSED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A GOOD JUDGE AS TO HOW MUCH, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A JUDGE OF HOW MUCH WE CHARGE CITIZENS TO TAP IN.
I JUST DON'T WANNA GIVE NEW HOMEOWNERS A BENEFIT THAT TAX PAYING PEOPLE FOR A WHILE AREN'T GETTING SO, SO NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE WAY THAT IT WORKS IS THE DEVELOPER PAYS FOR ALL OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
THERE'S A TAP IN FEE FOR THE DEVELOPER, UM, TAPPING THEIR MAIN LINE INTO OUR MAIN LINE.
UH, AND THEN, BUT THE COST OF THAT NEW INFRASTRUCTURE IS, IS REALLY PART OF THE PRICE OF THE LOT BEING SOLD.
AND SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST BUILT INTO THAT.
SO THEN IT'S AMORTIZED OVER A 30 YEAR MORTGAGE OR IF, IF THAT'S HOW, OR A CASH SALE, DEPENDING HOW IT'S DONE, THERE IS A FEE THAT WE CHARGE WHEN WE SET A METER.
UH, SO THERE'S A METER FEE THAT THE, IS ALSO JUST PART OF WHEN THERE'S A BUILDING PERMIT PULLED AND WE SET A NEW METER, THEN THAT THERE'S A ONE TIME FEE IF AT SUBSEQUENT TO THAT INITIAL METER, IF THERE'S A NEW METER THAT NEEDED TO BE PUT IN THERE OR REPLACED, LIKE WE, WHAT, LIKE WE'RE GOING TO DO OVER THE NEXT 15 YEARS.
THERE'S NO COST BECAUSE THE CITY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PAID ONCE, IT'S JUST LIKE, UM, WHEN WE UPGRADE, UH, SEWER OR WATER LINES AND WE REPLACE WATER LINES, WE'RE NOT CHARGING THOSE RESIDENTS FOR NEW UPGRADED WATER LINES.
THEY ALREADY PAID THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME WHEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS ORIGINALLY PLACED.
THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE DEVELOPER DOING IT IS, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY NOW, THE LOTS THAT ARE BEING BUILT, THEY'RE SLIGHTLY SMALLER.
UM, THESE ARE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE LARGER LOTS, BUT THEY'RE, THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO, ESPECIALLY THE ONES ON MACK AND BETEL.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY COULD BE SUBDIVIDED AS SMALL AS THEY ARE NOW WITHOUT PUBLIC UTILITIES BECAUSE THE, UH, HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS, HAS INCREASED THE SIZE OF THE ACREAGE REQUIRED FOR, UM, ONSITE WELLS.
SO, SO I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION IS, I MEAN, IS THERE A, A RECOMMENDATION STAFF HAS ON WHAT MAYBE A WHAT MAYBE A, A CAP WOULD WOULD BE LIKE TO KIND OF MAKE, YOU KNOW, TO, TO MAKE THAT, TO MAKE THAT FAIR FOR, FOR EVERYONE? OR DOES ANYONE IN COUNCIL HAVE AN IDEA OR RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT MIGHT BE FAIR? AND THEN THE ISSUE WOULD BE, OBVIOUSLY THE SMALLER THE AMOUNT, THEN IT COULD JUST BE A 10 YEAR ASSESSMENT IF WE GET INTO A BIGGER CAP THAN MAYBE A 20 YEARS, WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAKE IT AFFORDABLE FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WE WANT TO TAP IN? SO I'M A BIG PROPONENT OF COST RECOVERY, UM,
SO I THINK WHAT RUSS AND I WERE, WERE DISCUSSING WAS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN FIVE AND $10,000 BECAUSE WE DO DO WANT TO MAKE IT APPROACHABLE, UM, FOR, FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL.
IF WE ASSESSED THAT 10,000 OVER 10 YEARS OR EVEN FIVE YEARS, UM, IT, IT IS, IT IS MUCH EASIER THAN FOR THAT, THAT HOMEOWNER TO MAKE THOSE PAYMENTS.
AND ON THOSE ASSESSMENTS THERE, THERE'S NO INTEREST CHARGES AND LIKE THAT IT'S, IS IT JUST KIND OF THE, COULD THEY JUST TAKE THE AMOUNT THAT THEY, THAT IT COSTS DIVIDED BY THEIR ANNUAL TAX AND THAT'S IT OR THERE IS, THERE IS AN ASSESSMENT FEE OF I BELIEVE 5% THAT THE COUNTY CHARGES.
UM, THE WAY THE ORDINANCE READS OR THE, I WOULD CALL IT THE POLICY, BUT THE WAY THE THE POLICIES READ IS THAT, UM, IF WE WERE TO ISSUE BONDS, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PASS ALONG THAT INTEREST THAT WE'RE PAYING ALONG FOR THAT ASSESSMENT.
SO IF WE'RE PAYING FIVE AND A HALF, 6% IN, IN BOND INTEREST, THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CARRIED THROUGH AS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT.
THAT BEING SAID, THE TAP IN DISTRICT ALLOWS US TO REALLY CRAFT OUR OWN REGULATIONS.
AND SO WE WOULD PROBABLY NOT CHARGE ANY INTEREST OTHER THAN WHAT THE, UM, AUDITOR CHARGE OR THE TREASURER CHARGES US TO COLLECT THAT ASSESSMENT.
SO IF WE BROKE IT DOWN THE MIDDLE AND SAID $7,500, IF YOU SAID BETWEEN FIVE AND 10, IF WE SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE AT 7,500, DIVIDE THAT BY 10 YEARS, THAT'S SEVEN $50 A YEAR.
UM, AND THAT, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IN ESSENCE ABOUT ABOUT $62 A MONTH IS WHAT THAT WOULD IN ESSENCE COST SOMEONE WHO WANTED TO TAP IN.
AND AND THEY CAN ALWAYS, THE HOMEOWNER ALWAYS HAS THE ABILITY TO PAY.
[00:55:01]
PAY THAT OFF SOONER.PAY IT OFF SOONER, OR JUST PAY IT UP ONE UPFRONT AND, AND NOT BE CHARGED THAT COLLECTION FEE.
WHAT DID WE CHARGE THE FOLKS ON, UH, ON MARK? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT I WILL, EXCUSE ME.
I WILL, UM, I'LL RESEARCH THAT FOR YOU.
UH, I THINK WE GOT IT DOWN TO A, A BREED THAT THEY FELT THEY WERE COMFORTABLE WITH AND THE CITY AGREED WITH IT.
SO THAT MIGHT BE A STARTING POINT.
FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE KIND OF A CONSISTENT POLICY FOR WHEN WE'RE, WHEN WE HAVE THESE AREAS, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS FAIR TO CHARGE $21,000 FOR SOMEBODY ON, ON WOMACK AND THEN, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND FEET AWAY.
THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHY I BROUGHT UP MARK AVENUE 'CAUSE I KNOW WE DID THAT WITH THEM.
WHAT WAS THE STREET AGAIN? HUH? MARK.
THE OTHER THING, UH, THAT, SO IF, UM, IS THIS A SITUATION WHERE WE COULD HAVE, UM, WE COULD MOVE THIS ON TO MONDAY WITHOUT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT UNTIL WE FIND, UM, WHAT THE AMOUNT WAS THAT WE CAPPED MARK AND THEN HAVE THAT ADDED TO THE LEGISLATION ON MONDAY TO, TO PASS? WE COULD AMEN IT TO PUT IN THE AMOUNT OR, OR DISCUSS, DISCUSS OR WE COULD FIND THAT INFORMATION, WE COULD FIND THAT INFORMATION EASILY.
IT'S MORE AN ISSUE OF HOW QUICKLY THEY COULD DRAW UP THE LEGISLATION WITH THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE, THE TAP DISTRICT, I THINK WOULD BE THE BIGGER LEFT OF, OF THE WORD.
IF WE DID IT AS A DISTRICT, WOULD IT BE AT A CHEAPER RATE THAN MAYBE WHAT WE DID ON MARK THAT ONLY INVOLVED TWO HOUSES? I MEAN, THERE, THERE IS A, THERE IS A, UH, A, A MINOR, UM, SAVINGS IN, IN, IN, YOU KNOW, DOING A LARGER AREA, ESPECIALLY WHEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE BUYING, WHEN WE'RE BUYING, UM, THE PIPING AND, AND ALL OF THAT.
WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE, AND, AND WHAT I HAD MENTIONED TO THE MAYOR WAS THAT WE WOULD, UH, WEAVE THIS INTO OUR WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM.
SO WE WERE SPENDING, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR REPLACING WATER MAINS.
WE WOULD START TO PEPPER THESE AREAS IN, UH, FOR EXPANSION AND TO PROVIDE THOSE, UH, THOSE SERVICES, THOSE WATER SERVICES TO THOSE UN UH, UNCERTAIN AREAS, WHATEVER THE COST WAS.
IF WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS ALREADY, I APOLOGIZE HA HAVE WE THOUGHT ABOUT ASSESSING THE PROPERTIES? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND, AND IS THAT WHERE WE COME UP WITH, I HEARD A $750 AMOUNT.
SO WHAT WE'VE HAD SUGGESTED IS THAT WE CAP THE ASSESSMENT BETWEEN FIVE AND $10,000, UM, PER PROPERTY.
AND THEN THE CITY IS, IS INVESTING IN OUR PEOPLE.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE COVERING THAT, THAT BALANCE.
AND IS THERE A LIMIT ON HOW LONG YOU CAN ASSESS? UH, NO.
STATE LAW IS REALLY, IT'S, YOU CAN ASSESS UP TO THE LIFE OF THE ASSET.
WE FELT THAT RIGHT NOW, UM, THE, THE LEGISLATION IS FOR 10 YEARS, WE COULD EXTEND THAT OUT TO 20.
UM, WE THOUGHT THAT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT AS FAR AS WE WANT TO GO.
AND THEN I THINK THERE WERE THREE HOUSES ON MARK AVENUE.
AND WE FOUND THE LEGISLATION, IT DOESN'T SHOW WHAT THE PER WAS, BUT, WELL, THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT WAS 50,000.
SO 50,000 FOR THREE, FOR THREE HOUSES.
ONLY TWO OF THEM I THINK TAPPED IN THOUGH, BUT I DON'T IMMEDIATELY SEE WHAT THE RESIDENT CONTRIBUTION WAS.
I'D HAVE TO RESEARCH THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
BUT I THINK THE ISSUE IS WE'D HAVE TO KNOW, I MEAN THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THE AMOUNT, I MEAN, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE AMOUNT OF FEED IS THAT REQUIRES TO GET FROM THE WATER MAIN TO THE SERVICE.
THAT COULD THAT, I MEAN, THAT COULD BE DIFFERENT.
UM, IF WE'RE BORING UNDER THE STREET, I MEAN THERE'S A LOT OF COST VARIABLES AND EVERY, EVERY, UH, LOCATION NEEDS TO BE DESIGNED SEPARATELY.
IT'S NOT, WE JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST OPENING A TRENCH AND DROPPING IN THE PIPE.
SCOTT, I'LL COME BACK TO MARK, SIR.
ONE, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS, WHAT IF ALL THE PEOPLE DIDN'T DECIDE TO DO THAT? THEN IT'S GONNA COST MORE PER HOUSE IN OUR ESTIMATE.
I CAN'T SEE WHERE IT WAS ACTUALLY.
[01:00:01]
WHEN THEY, WHEN, IF, IF THERE WERE A OWNER THAT DIDN'T KIND OF JOIN THE, THE TAP IN OR YOU KNOW UPFRONT, THEY WOULD STILL BE ASSESSED, BUT THEY'D BE ASSESSED AT THE TIME THAT THEY MAKE THE, THE TAP.SO THE CITY WOULD BE PAYING FOR THIS UPFRONT, AND THEN OUR PAYBACK WOULD BE, I MEAN, IT COULD BE 15, 20 YEARS OUT.
THESE ARE DONE BY PETITION SO THAT YOU GET X PERCENT OF THE RESIDENTS, UH, IN THAT AREA THAT HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST.
SO FOR THE, FOR WOMACK AND BE, IF THIS IS A DIRECTION THAT COUNSEL WANTS US TO GO, WE'LL REACH OUT TO THOSE RESIDENTS TO SEE WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, IN TAPPING, UH, INTO OUR SYSTEM, UH, IF WE WERE TO EXTEND THE WATER SYSTEM TO THOSE TWO STREETS.
AND THEN THERE'S A COUPLE OTHERS THAT ARE OFF OF, UH, BELL FOUNTAIN THAT I THINK MAKES SENSE.
UM, AND THEN WE WOULD JUST APPLY THAT SAME POLICY FOR THE, THE WATER SYSTEM THAT WE ALREADY PUT UP, UH, BELL FOUNTAIN ALL THE WAY, UH, NORTH OF 70.
AND THEN AS WE MARCH, UH, THE SYSTEM OUT, DOWN CHAMBERSBURG THOSE EXISTING RESIDENTS.
AND I WOULD, I WOULD, UM, RECOMMEND THAT THIS WOULD JUST APPLY TO, YOU KNOW, EXISTING RESIDENTS, NOT, NOT NEW SUBDIVISIONS.
BE CURIOUS HOW MANY HOUSES ARE INTERESTED IN CHANGING OVER FROM WELL TO, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC WATER.
AND I THINK EVEN LOOKING AT THE, AT THE LEGISLATION RESOLUTIONS FROM 2018, WE EVEN HAD, I MEAN, THERE'S A LIST OF THE ACTUAL, OF THE PETITION THAT WE DID, NOT THAT I, THAT'S, THAT WAS PART OF THE PACKET WHEN WE DID THAT, OF THOSE INTEREST OR NOT.
IT SAID THAT THE THREE LISTED PROPERTY OWNERS HAD TO PAY, UH, IN THE MARK AVENUE SPECIAL TAP IN DISTRICT, UH, $5,000 WITH THE CITY, UH, PAYING THE REMAINING AMOUNT.
AND THAT WAS OVER WHAT PERIOD? PERIOD.
WHAT TIME DID IT SAY? UM, AND WE MADE A REQUIREMENT THAT 60%, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN TWO OF THE PEOPLE, UH, HAD TO, UH, SIGN THE PETITION TO CREATE THE DISTRICT BEFORE THE WORK COULD BE PERFORMED.
SO IT'S LIKE A $50,000 PROJECT, THREE HOUSES, AND THEY HAD TO PAY $5,000 IN ASSESSMENT.
SO WHAT'S THE FEELING OF CAPPING IT THE SAME OR, YOU KNOW, SEVEN YEARS LATER, YOU KNOW, THAT NEEDS TO GO UP A LITTLE.
I MEAN, WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? WELL, WHAT WOULD THAT BE? ABOUT 3% AT THE MOST? YEAH.
I THINK STAFF WOULD BE COMFORTABLE AT SPLITTING THE, SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE AT 7,500.
THAT SEEMS, UH, AN APPROACHABLE NUMBER GIVEN THE CAPITAL COST THAT WE'RE GOING TO, UH, INCUR.
SO IF A CONTRACTOR PUT IN A MAIN, BECAUSE THEY HAD TO PROVIDE WATER TO THEIR SMALL SUBDIVISION AND THERE WERE HOMES ON WELLS UP AND DOWN THE STREET WHERE THEY HAD TO RUN THEIR MAIN, IF THAT HOMEOWNER WANTED TO GO FROM A WELL AND TAP INTO THAT LINE, THEY WOULD PAY THE OWNER OF THAT LINE.
LIKE, SO IF IT WERE ON A PRIVATE STREET, THEY WOULD END UP PAYING WHATEVER THE, THAT THAT COST WOULD BE.
AND DO YOU HAVE, AND, AND MAYBE YOU NEED TO GET BACK WITH US, BUT FROM WHERE THE LINE WOULD START AND STOP, HOW MANY POTENTIAL HOMES ARE THERE THAT MIGHT WANT TO HOOK UP TO THIS? IN THIS PARTICULAR, THE WOMACK BED AREA, THERE'S, UH, 18 LOTS.
AND I THINK THAT IF WE GO TO THIS EXPENSE, WE SHOULD GO AS FAR AS TO REACH OUT TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS AND ASK THEM WITH A PLAN IF THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED.
WE WOULD ALSO, UM, THE THOSE SAME HOME, THOSE HOMEOWNERS IN THAT AREA OF BELL FOUNTAIN AS WELL.
UM, 'CAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE RIGHT THERE.
AND WOULD WE START TO LOWER THAT COST OF THE TAP INS OR WOULD WE HAVE IN THE LEGISLATION WHAT THE TAP IN COST IS? WE HAVE, UH, THERE'S A, OUR ORDINANCE SPECIFIES WHAT THE TAP FEE IS.
UM, THIS WOULD REALLY BE B PER PAYING FOR THE COST OF THE, THE WATER LINES ITSELF.
LEGISLATION REDUCED BY HOWEVER MANY PEOPLE PAID TAP INS.
WE COULD JUST ROLL IT IN INTO, INTO ONE FEE.
THE $7,500 IS YOUR COST FOR, UH, EXTENDING THE LINE AS WELL AS US DROPPING THE METER.
THEY, THEY HIRE A PRIVATE PLUMBER FROM THEIR METER TO THE HOUSE.
SO WE'RE THE DEVELOPER, WE'RE WE'RE INSTALLING THE MAIN, IT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING.
[01:05:01]
CUSTOMER TO TAP INTO THAT.AND ARE WE SAYING THAT'S $7,500? YES.
AND IF ALL 18 PEOPLE TAP INTO IT, IT'S 18 TAP INS AT 7,500.
AND THEN WOULD WE CHARGE A PREMIUM FOR THE WATER SERVICE MONTHLY, OR WOULD IT BE THE SAME AS ANY OTHER BILL? IT WOULD BE THE SAME RATE AS EVERY OTHER HOMEOWNER PAYS.
AND, AND IF WE THOUGHT ABOUT A COMBINATION, BECAUSE IF YOU AMORTIZE THE PROFITS OFF THE WATER BILL LONG ENOUGH, IT'S GONNA PAY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO, BUT I HAVE NOT DONE THAT MATH YET, BUT WE'LL DO, OKAY.
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE FOR A TAP IN, PROBABLY THEY'LL ASSESS THAT THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY TAXES AND THEN WE BILL THEM FOR THE WATER SERVICE.
I MEAN, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, IF WE JUST DID SOME PLANNING IT, IT'D PROBABLY BE SURPRISING HOW LOW WE COULD GET THIS PER TAP.
YEAH, I MEAN, SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE'S ALREADY THERE AND IT'S JUST ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO TAP INTO IT.
OTHERS, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD BE BRAND NEW INFRASTRUCTURE THAT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT.
AND OF COURSE WE'RE CHASING GRANTS, UH, TO BUILD OUT CHAMBERSBURG ROAD AND THAT INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO THAT ALSO LOWERS THE TOTAL COST FOR OTHER REVENUE WE CAN BRING IN.
SO AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, IF IT WAS 21,000, 'CAUSE THE TOTAL COST IS ABOUT 374,000 FOR 18 LOTS.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE GET THE 20.
DID YOU SAY YOU SAID 21,000? THAT'S 21,000.
IF WE CAPPED IT AT 7,500 THEN THAT THE, THE CITY WOULD BE 13, 13 5 FOR, FOR EACH BASICALLY A COST TO THE CITY OF 13 FIVE FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS THAT WANT THAT WANTED TO TAP IN.
IF, IF WE GOT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE LOOK AT THE PETITIONS, WE COULD DO A, OR AS WE'RE TALKING, UM, KIND OF A STAGGERED FEE RATE WHERE, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE GOT TO, YOU KNOW, 30% OF THOSE 18, MAYBE IT GOES TO 7,000.
YOU KNOW, 50% OF THE 18 IT GOES TO 65.
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, THE MORE PEOPLE THAT WOULD GO, WE COULD REDUCE THAT.
SO AT MY HOME, AARON, YOU DIDN'T SUBSIDIZE THE COST OF MY WATER.
I PAID WHAT THE DEVELOPER PAID AND A PROFIT, CORRECT.
WE'RE SUBSIDIZING THESE HOMEOWNERS.
SO IS IT FAIR TO BILL THEM PER MONTH THE SAME AS YOU BILL ME? I PAID FOR MY INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET MY WATER SUPPLIED TO MY HOME.
WHAT YOU'RE REALLY PAYING FOR THE COMMODITY, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY CHARGING FOR IS THE COMMODITY.
NOW THERE IS, THERE IS A, A, THERE IS A LITTLE MARGIN.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT PAID FOR, RIGHT? THERE'S A MARGIN THAT GOES INTO OUR FUND FOR REPAIR.
AND YOU TALKING ABOUT THE COMMODITY BEING THE WATER, CORRECT? YEAH.
SO PUT THAT OVER TO THE SIDE FOR A MINUTE.
I PAID FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET THE COMMODITY TO MY HOUSE.
WE'RE SUBSIDIZING THESE RESIDENTS SO THEY GET THE SAME COMMODITY TO COME INTO THEIR HOME AND WE'RE SUBSIDIZING IT PER HOME.
SO IF I'M GOING TO SUBSIDIZE AS A CITY ONE RESIDENT COMPARED TO ANOTHER RESIDENT AND THE WATER SERVICE, THE COMMODITY IS THE SAME.
IS THAT FAIR? AND, AND, AND I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION.
YOU'RE SUBSIDIZING A RESIDENT JUST LIKE ME, $13,000.
SO WHATEVER I PAID FOR MY HOUSE, I COULD HAVE PAID 13,000 LESS WITH THIS DEAL.
AND THEN MY WATER CHARGE PER MONTH WOULD BE WHAT IT IS TODAY, CORRECT? MM-HMM
BUT PART OF THIS SUBSIDY IS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY BE ON THE PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM RATHER THAN MAINTAIN, CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE WELLS.
BUT I THINK IT'S THE PRICES, THE PRICE OF THE SUBSIDY THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED.
AND, AND WE CAN, WE WILL PUT, UM, WE WILL PUT OUT VARIOUS SCENARIOS FOR, FOR YOU TO CONSIDER.
WE DO HAVE GRADUAL, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE, NOT ALL OF OUR WATER RATES ARE FIXED.
WE CHARGE DIFFERENT FOR COMMERCIALLY WATER USERS AND INDUSTRIAL WATER USERS THAN WE DO FOR YOU.
YOU CHARGE RESIDENTIAL DIFFERENTLY? WE DO.
BASED ON SIZE OF THE METER CONSUMPTION, THAT KIND OF THING, AND WHERE THEY'RE AT.
YEAH, THERE ARE DIFFERENT BILLING AREAS.
COULD A, COULD A WATER ASSESSMENT BE DONE ON THEIR WATER BILL FOR THOSE THAT TAP IN THAT, THAT YOU PAY AN EXTRA FEE UNDER THEIR, LIKE THAT SPECIFIC BILL WHERE THEY'RE PAYING AN EXTRA MONTHLY SERVICE INTO THE WATER? YEAH, WE COULD BILL TO, TO RECOUP.
I MEAN, WE COULD CREATE KIND OF A,
[01:10:01]
A NORTHEAST DISTRICT THAT WOULD HAVE A SLIGHTLY HIGHER RATE, UM, WHILE WE PAY OFF SOME OF THIS INFRASTRUCTURE.YEAH, I MEAN I THINK I, I'D BE IN, I MEAN, I'D BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.
I THINK THE, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU TAKE SOME OF IT IN A PROPERTY ASSESSMENT, UM, AND THEN, AND THEN THE REST OF IT COMES IN THE FORM OF A, UH, A SPECIAL FEE ON THAT PARTICULAR TAP DISTRICT'S WATER BILL.
UM, AND THAT'S JUST A LINE ITEM THEY SEE ON THEIR WATER BILL, YOU KNOW, FOR YEAH.
AND, AND IT'S EASY TO DO SINCE ALL OF OUR METERS ARE, YOU KNOW, TIED SPECIFICALLY TO AN ADDRESS AND AN ACCOUNT.
SO SETTING UP THOSE, WE JUST NEED TO HAVE THE, THE RIGHT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ENABLE US TO DO THAT.
UM, BUT THE MECHANICS OF IT ARE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
YOU KNOW, FLIPPING A HOUSE AND INVESTING IN YOUR HOME ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
SO IF YOU INVEST THE SAME MONEY IN A FLIP OR AT YOUR HOME ONE, YOU'RE GOING TO FLIP IT AND GET THE RETURN.
THE OTHER ONE YOU HAVE TO LIVE THERE.
ARE THOSE HOMES, ALEX WORTH MORE ONCE THEY'RE ON PUBLIC WATER? YES.
BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT BUYING A HOME THAT MAY BE THE WELL DEFAULTS AND YOU'RE LEFT WITH NOTHING, RIGHT? MM-HMM
BECAUSE A HOME WITH NO WATER PROBABLY ISN'T TOO VALUABLE.
AND YOU ALSO HAVE, UH, INCREASED FIRE PROTECTION BECAUSE THERE'S HYDRANTS THAT COME ALONG WITH, WITH THIS AS WELL.
SO THAT ALSO HELPS THE, THE LOWER THE COST OF OWNERSHIP.
BUT WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING WITH THE ADDED EXPENSE IS GIVING THEM A WAY TO PAY FOR THAT.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT FLIPPING THE HOME, THEY'RE NOT MAKING THE INVESTMENT AND THEN FLIPPING IT.
SO THERE'S GONNA HAVE TO BE AN OFFSET.
I THINK THE OFFSET COULD BE A, A PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT AND THEN SOME TYPE OF INCREASE IN THE WATER AND WATER FOR THEM.
BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, I MEAN, YOU COULD, THEY COULD PUT A, AN ASSESSMENT ON THEIR PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS, BUT THEY SELL THEIR HOUSE IN FOUR YEARS AND THEY'VE GOT THEIR MONEY BACK AND THAT ASSESSMENT STAYS WITH THE PROPERTY FOR WHOEVER, FOR WHOEVER BUYS THE HOME IS STILL, IS STILL BE PAYING THAT, BUT THAT PERSON GOT THAT INCREASED VALUE OUTTA THEIR HOUSE THAT THEY PUT ON THE MARKET AND SOLD IT.
SO YEAH, I THINK SOME TYPE OF A COMBINATION OF PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT AND A AND A WATER BILL.
SO MARK, I'M GO TO NEED REAL QUICK AND I'LL COME RIGHT BACK TO YOU.
SO THERE'S THREE THAT'S ASKING HOW MANY ARE OUT IN THAT AREA THAT COULD POTENTIALLY WANNA HAPPEN? WELL, IT COULD BE 18, I MEAN 18 LOTS OR 18 IS IN THAT AREA THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT NOW.
JUST THAT THERE'S, THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT MORE, BUT THE UNIVERSE OF HOMES THAT ARE OUT THERE, PROBABLY CLOSE TO A HUNDRED TOTAL.
THERE'S THE SOLUTION RIGHT THERE.
IS IS MARKETING THIS AND GETTING AS MANY USERS AS WE CAN.
WHEN YOU DEAL WITH MATT VACA, THE APARTMENT DEVELOPER, HE'LL WANT AS MUCH PUT ON THE PROPERTY TAX AS POSSIBLE AND AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO OVER BILL HIM IN THAT AREA BECAUSE HE KNOWS HE'S GONNA FLIP THE APARTMENT AT SOME POINT AND THE NEW BUYER'S GONNA PAY FOR IT.
THAT'S YOUR POINT WITH SELLING THE HOUSE.
THEY COULD PUT IT ON THE MARKET SIX MONTHS AFTER IT WAS COMPLETED TO GET THEIR MONEY BACK PLUS SOME.
AND THE NEW ODOR IS PAYING THE ASSESSMENT AS WE'RE LOOKING AT IMPROVING OUR WATER LINES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY IN THE HUBER CITY LIMITS DON'T HAVE OUR CITY WATER? YEAH, I'M JUST CURIOUS.
I CAN GIVE YOU A GOOD SOLID ESTIMATE.
AND THE REASON I WON'T DO AMEND THE AGENDA TONIGHT, I'M JUST BEING FRANK, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOMEONE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE TO FIND A SOLUTION AND, AND GO DRILL THEIR WELL DEEPER TO MAKE SURE THEIR WATER'S CONSISTENT.
I MEAN THEY'LL, I MEAN IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS, THIS WOULD BE DONE OVERNIGHT ANYWAY.
SO WE HAVE TO KIND OF SET THAT EXPECTATION, BUT AT LEAST IN, YOU KNOW, THREE OF THOSE CASES, THEY'RE ANXIOUS TO GET A SOLUTION.
WELL, AND IF THIS IS THE, THE WILL, UH, THE DESIRE OF COUNSEL, WE WOULD WANT TO START WITH THE DESIGN SOON.
'CAUSE IT, IT'S A NINE TO 12 MONTH PROCESS FROM THINKING ABOUT IT, DESIGNING IT, BIDDING IT, INSTALLING IT.
AND IT WOULD BE AN ASSET THAT THE TAXPAYERS OWNED.
UM, I DID SOME MATH OF $7,500 ASSESSMENT TIMES TWICE A YEAR.
I DIVIDED BY 40 PAYMENTS FOR 20 YEARS, SO IT'D BE ABOUT $187 A HALF ON THEIR TAXES.
IF YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF HOUSE, YOU, YOU PROBABLY HAVE $187.
SO AT THIS POINT WE WILL, UM, WAIT, YOU GET, SO APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION AND UM, I'VE GOT SOME INFORMATION I CAN GO BACK TO THE, TO THE HOMEOWNERS WITH
[01:15:01]
AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF START WHAT THAT PROCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE MOVING FORWARD.SO YEAH, WE'LL WORK WITH THE LAW DIRECTOR, START TO DRAFT THE REGULATE, UH, THE, THE DISTRICT, UM, BOUNDARY LEGISLATION FOR CONSIDERATION.
PROBABLY NOT FOR MONDAY, BUT CERTAINLY FOR, UM, THE NEXT ONE.
THAT'S IT FOR THE, UH, ITEMS EXCEPT FOR, UH, THE EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR ITEM 3M.
SO IS THERE, UM, ATTORNEY REEB WITH A MOTION WOULD NEED TO BE IN A MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.
IS THERE A MOTION? ANITA? SO MOVED.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO SECOND OR DISCUSSION.
MAYOR, I HAVE TO, UH, UH, LEAVE THE MEETING, UH, SOME, UH, UH, ISSUE AT HOME.
MOTION CARRIES NINE TO ZERO QUICK BEFORE EVERYBODY LEAVES.
PART OF THE CITY'S BACK ON POWER.
THE ENTIRE NORTH END IS STILL WITHOUT, WE HAVE OPENED UP WAYNE HIGH SCHOOL WITH THE SCHOOLS AS A WARMING CENTER.
WE'VE SENT EVERYTHING OUT THROUGH CODE RED AND THE, UM, SOCIAL MEDIA.
SO JUST THAT'S YOUR UPDATE RIGHT NOW? A S IS SAYING PROBABLY 10 O'CLOCK AS AN ESTIMATE FOR THE NORTH END TO GET BACK POWER.
UM, AARON, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION? NOT ONLY THAT.
IT'S 8 54 AND WE HAVE COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AND NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN.
SO THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED AT 8 54.