because I had a
>> Okay, I'm going to call the meeting to
order. Thank you all for coming to the
uh May 28th Charter Review Committee.
It's our final meeting in person here.
Anyways, took roll call. Brady begin
>> here.
>> Randy Boulderjack. Hello. Leland Dart
>> here. Grant Harrington, please believe
he's online.
>> I'm here.
>> Here.
>> Sherryon.
» Tom Norcco
>> here.
>> Sophia Pastor
>> here.
>> Alan Rubio
>> here.
>> Mason Rutled
>> here.
>> Liz Stenhouse
>> here.
>> John Trainer.
» La Vasquez
>> here.
>> And Deb Williams
>> here. Great. Thank you all.
Everybody had a chance to review the
minutes that we posted, albeit late this
week uh for tonight's meeting, which is
we know is it was a brief agenda,
although it's pretty packed what we're
going to talk about. Um if anybody has
questions or comments about today's
agenda, please bring them up. Otherwise,
I entertain a motion to approve
uh I'll start with the minutes from the
previous meeting.
>> Have any minutes?
>> Second. A motion and second to approve
the minutes from the previous meeting.
All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Oppose same sign.
>> Chair votes I. Okay. Now let's approve
the agenda for tonight's meeting. Uh any
questions or comments or changes
necessary for the agenda?
Seeing none, entertain a motion to
approve the agenda for tonight.
>> I move the agenda.
>> Seconded.
>> Moved and seconded to approve the agenda
for tonight. All in favor say I.
>> I. I.
>> Oppose. Same sign. Chair votes I agenda
has been approved
being. So the first item of business
we're going to talk about is our
modernization proposal. Jennifer, do you
want to give us a brief?
>> Yes. Um
so this is the language we talked about
at the end of the meeting last week. Um
okay,
you're going to miss something in the
chat. Uh, and it reflects the desire to
remove or to I guess augment the
references to newspaper notification
with um the addition of the opportunity
to post in on the city website as an
alternative. Um, I'll share that out of
the draft report. I didn't do a separate
cover sheet, but it's been there to
>> You're looking at the draft. We're on
page 19.
>> Yes. Um uh so there's four sections
where that appears. Um so 13.9 we added
instead of just four weeks in the city
official newspaper, we added or for four
weeks on the city website. Um 15.5 has
to do with um noticing appointments of
police officers. So we added the or on
the city website there. There's language
in um
16.2 two about amendments proposed by
petition. So again just or on the city
website and then I think the last one is
on the next page
um which is um amendments to the charter
um which um have to be published uh well
this year they'll have to be published
once a week for two weeks in the city
official newspaper um alternatively this
would add or for two successive weeks on
the city uh website.
So,
>> so Jennifer, can I ask a question?
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> I mean,
>> so we're here to discuss. You want us to
ask a question? You want to discuss?
>> It's on this particular just on this
very top one on the ordinances. That's
the only question.
>> Okay.
>> So, it says for four weeks on the
ordinances, but ordinances are three
readings. So, does the clerk just
publish it for an extra week or
>> um
I think that this implies that um
franchise ordinances have to be
published
currently for four weeks before the
first reading
>> this.
>> And it's just for franchises though.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah.
So, not like every ordinance wouldn't
this just applies to that kind. So,
>> so where we're at on this? Go ahead.
>> What's an example of a franchise
ordinance?
>> Um, an agreement with Comcast to let
them be a cable provider in the city or
with We don't have a franchise for
garbage service, but other cities do.
So, those are or like a utility company
could have a franchise.
>> Yeah, we don't very many of them.
>> Yeah.
>> So, where I see we're at as a committee
with this topic, we've discussed this.
We asked for this language to be brought
forward and so this is the proposed
language that we move forward with. So
we need somebody to make a motion that
we adopt this as one of our
recommendations.
>> I move that we adopt this language
>> and you want to second that.
>> Okay, it's been moved and seconded that
we take language that was provided to us
uh for the changes as we just talked
about. Is there any discussion on this
at all? We need to talk about it
anymore. And you know this is one of the
topics that came up early early on when
we first met because we talked about how
antiquated the document was. This is one
of the examples that we used. So it's u
refreshing that we actually got to this
and came up with language that is going
to quote unquote modernize the the
charter. So
no discussion, no further discussion. Uh
entertain a well we'll call for the
vote. Everybody in favor of this uh
proposal to be added as one of
recommendations or say I
>> I
oppose same sign.
>> Okay. Passes unanimously.
>> Cool. All right. Thank you all for that.
>> Yes. Grant voted no. Okay.
>> No, I voted yes.
» Okay. I I just You gotta actually lower
You got to lower the hand, I guess.
I raised it and then I didn't lower it.
>> Okay.
>> All right. We got you. Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Next up is the review of the
final draft submitt that submitted. Did
everybody get a copy of this and a
chance to review it?
» Very good. I uh
as well I got the uh preliminary draft
and I took uh a lot of time. I won't
tell you how much time, but it was a
lot. It may have ever um and went
through it and just found that um
whatever AI bot they use was a little
bit behind on some things and there was
some errors in there. So, I just went
ahead and took the time to edit it a
little bit. And uh I hope you all got
this the one that had my comments in it
or edits and that I didn't miss
anything. I don't know or was pretty off
at all. Yeah. So, the version that um I
distributed and
um and sent out to everyone who's
commented on the charter uh and the
media included all of your edits. And I
also added some kind of mostly similar
vein edits from our um superstar
non-tarter review committee member but
honorary resident or honorary member who
is a resident um Brandon Islib who did
that analysis that I shared with you
guys at the beginning of the process. So
he went through and found like four or
five more things that were mostly kind
of went with track changes. You know you
miss a space or period. I don't that's
very impressive that he found all that
stuff and a couple a couple other small
changes. So those are in there as well.
Um and then I also in the email which I
maybe I could pull that up if we if you
want to walk through there were changes
that the attorney proposed especially on
things that we discussed at the last
meeting two weeks ago. So
>> I think we need to do that.
>> Yeah. Um,
so I'll pull up what I sent you guys. Here
we go.
Uh, okay. So, there were I This is one
without track changes anymore, but um
but it has the things that you submitted
um that you guys all got in an email.
>> Do we say our edits,
like if we notice something?
>> Oh, yeah, sure. Okay. So, Ramsay is
deputy city attorney.
>> Oh, yeah. Thank you.
» Administrative
stuff, but I'm legally
>> Did I put Did I call you the wrong
>> No, you're fine. Thank you. But it's
still legal.
>> Um,
okay.
Yeah, we don't want to promote him quite
yet.
>> Um, okay. So that so this is the
introductory stuff and I'll just scroll
past it but if there is something that
someone wanted to catch I would
appreciate it. I do have one edit Tom
caught a date that I had Ron good eye.
So that's in here now too. Um the and we
can talk about this too, but the things
that you've voted on once the attorney
drafted all of them, he had this is sort
of the new piece of this I guess is that
six through nine are all the initiative
amendments. So um they're all they're
separated. They were I I had been
thinking they'd be one because I think
we had combined a couple of them. Um,
and I I think after today I also will
ask him like for instance 11.3 and 11.2
they both have to do with the threshold.
Is there any way to push all of those
guys together? Um, but they're separated
at this point. Um,
>> yeah, initially it was 112 113 together
and one five were missing and five six
were missing I think. Yeah.
>> Right. So issues. Okay. I'm hoping that
there is a way to consolidate those so
that it's one proposition instead of
four separate ones. Um although if
there's different guidance from you guys
because we did talk about gosh if we
make so many changes is that also
confusing to voters maybe there is some
value that there's some ones that are
different but um I think what I would in
particular point out that part of the
112 and 113 change were like kind of
like a a compromise together. So you you
moved up the threshold for initiatives
and you dropped this were the I guess
referendums or or did you drop the
referendum so they matched, right? So
they kind of went together as a concept.
So get a pen,
>> right?
>> Um I'd like to just suggest to maybe ask
because there's I I see the value and
the efficiency particularly as whatever
ends up on the ballot. Um but given that
the council has the real authority here,
uh maybe suggesting as if there are 11
items depending on which ones they may
maybe don't like. Um you know suggesting
that hey we've got all these. If you can
consolidate them obviously so much the
better. But if we preconolidate it might
make it trickier for them to identify
things and they might scrap the whole
thing as opposed to scrapping one part
of it.
>> Okay. is I'm playing the
>> preventive defense.
>> That's that's kind of my feedback, too.
I think of it as like, you know, um like
corporate limit bill, right? Right. If
they don't like something, there's a lot
of things that are going to get lost.
So, if we lumping it all together and
they decide that changes to 11 aren't
what they want, they'll they scrap that
whole idea, we're going to miss some
important pieces. By leaving them all
separately, they can cherrypick that.
And then, yeah,
>> what they decide to take to the vote to
ballot, they can certainly do that. So,
>> okay.
Um, okay. Well, this is just a list of
them, so let's keep moving. Uh, so first
one, we talked about this guy, you know,
feels like a lifetime ago, like two
months ago. Um, eligibility to hold
office. So that's the year um yeah, as a
district or district council seats and
can't have a second um elected office.
Um the county charter commission would
not did not get that that one over the
finish line, so that won't be on the
county ballot.
Yes.
>> I just want to confirm. I think the
feedback that we got was that precinct
committee officer is fine and this does
not exclude that.
>> Yes.
>> Um okay.
>> I can put that though like even in the
text because I think that um like the
understanding is that that um is not
included or that's not um an issue.
>> Yeah. I also think um that it's possible
in their discussion that they might talk
about the idea of the charter review uh
commission over at the county because
this would not allow an Everett city
council member or the mayor to serve on
the charter review commission which is
populated with a lot of elected
officials this year. Um so I don't think
we you guys we don't need to get into
that but that's something that I think
they might talk about. Maybe they want
to exclude bulls or whatever.
Uh although it's debatable whether it's
useful to have a lot of elected
officials on a coming although I was one
10 years ago but uh okay so this
language is the same and you guys have
seen it previously.
Okay. So that's the number one guy. I
want to scroll down to the number of
council meetings proposal a little bit
newer one you actually finalized and I
we'll make sure all the little init
minutes links are updated. Um,
uh, yeah, lot going on the last couple
weeks, but, uh, I'll make sure that's
updated in the final draft that goes to
the council.
Uh, this is, you voted on this two weeks
ago, so you saw the final language then.
It's the 36 times a year.
>> Okay.
Um,
this is kind of came to you as
modernization. Um, although it wasn't
the newspaper piece, we just talked
about that. That's in those four
sections that are at the end. So on this
page which is page four I think of the
or no page
>> um again talked about it two weeks ago.
So it's uh publishing the or the uh
ordinances all ordinances on the city
website um and instead of in a book and
um available in print or electronic copy
uh with the clerk with codes for the
like the ever municipal code. So there's
that. The oath of office we also voted
on last week and this is the one that I think I kind of might have talked
about this is this was police officer
but really it is this like specific
thing around elected officials and it's
clarifying that that's what that means.
So
>> been interpreted as police officer for
years but yes a city official elected
official. Yeah, kind of more of a state
law
then. Yeah.
Um, okay. Although there I think there's
another chapter that actually talks
about the off the officers being you
know approved by the council. So that
process was is not touched by changing
4.10. Yeah.
The civil service one was an early um
item and so there's that guy that uh
that's Proposition five to amend the
civil service piece to match more of
state law.
>> Good.
>> Sorry.
>> It was on
your appropriately scrolling to what I
was going for. Um the second bullet
under uh the petition procedures um
piece notes permitting digital
signatures when consistent with state
law and I don't believe that we approved
that. Um and I would stick opposed to
doing that. Yeah.
>> Okay.
Gonna do
>> Mason has
>> I'm going to mark it down. I'm not gonna
do it in here because I feel like I'll
not save this thing. So
>> um there it is. Yeah. And yeah, Mason
can
>> Yeah, thank you. Um, I'm sorry, I'm
going back a little bit. Section 2.2,
the eligibility to hold elective office.
>> Oh, probably.
>> Um, I know we talked about this and
worked on this a lot. I I just heard
this week that this is being challenged
in another
>> part of the state, not this, but a
similar type of rule. Um, so it just
might be something we want to keep an
eye on between now and when
um
the council addresses this or it goes to
a ballot.
>> Is it the um the residency eligibility
or the two offices part?
>> Residency. Resident residency. Yeah. Um
and I don't know. I just I just read
about it recently and it triggered my
attention because we had talked so much
about it.
All right, thanks for pointing that out.
>> Okay.
>> Um,
we were hereish. Close enough.
>> Okay. So, well, I guess I can I'm not
sure
>> on that same section.
>> Sorry. That was fourth bullet, now third
bullet.
>> Yeah,
>> I actually don't think that one passed.
That's the one that we were we So this
digital signatures I took out of the
second recommendation completely. So we
didn't even talk about it last time. But
this fourth bullet, this is the one that
we did not approve. This went that
>> Oh, you're right. We didn't. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So just remove that one.
>> Yeah. Good. Good call.
» Okay. Um,
» can you get can you give me a page
number you're on or a section number
there? I see it now. Thank you.
>> Yeah, page 13. Uh, so this this is one
of the areas that the attorney suggested
we cut this last sentence about
self-executing.
It's not language that appears
elsewhere. And he said, you know, we
like they are all they all do happen. I
think it made sense when we had the more
of the reference to like the council
shall do this and this was the kind of
like a hey instead of that this is what
you just have to do automatically. So um
that's what that is.
>> Okay.
>> Does it have the same effect?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> There's two by
two.
>> April correct.
>> Oh yeah. Buy the initiative and approve
>> by initiative and ordinances. Oh yeah.
This one is a bye-bye. Got it.
Thank you.
Okay.
Um, okay.
Let's see.
This also had some I would say not like
uh like lots of edits but achieving the
spirit of the what you guys voted on.
So, um you had the designation of the
committee. He asked that they include a
notice address for the committee. That's
in like a smart thing because we don't
always want their names. Um and then he
added this sentence about upon filing
the petition is deemed final. No
additional signatures may be added
except as provided in subsection C. So
this is what we talked about a lot about
curing fixing the signatures. So we come
down to C for this purpose. Um so if
it's not certified as validly signed by
so less than 10%, right?
Then the clerk gives that written notice
with copies of documents so that the
sponsor committee can determine which
aren't valid. Then they have 10 calendar
days upon of the delivery to obtain new
signatures from those individuals
and then they send them back to the
clerk who then certifies that they were
all valid and that they reached that 10%
threshold.
odd.
>> Sounds like a lot of work on somebody's
part. I'd say it's going on. But is it
the county that does this, right?
>> Yeah.
>> So, the county would submit the report
to the proposers and they would get a
list of let's say
>> the county gives it to our city clerk.
The city clerk gives it to the propos
Yeah. They'll have to
>> Well, they say they get a list of 100
names. They got to go to those specific
people and ask for a reignature and then
bring it back.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Just
>> Yeah. I think it's not I mean
>> I think that's more valid than like I
think I remember Randy talking a couple
meetings ago is like then saying no
you're you're low by 100 signatures so
you go out and find 100 people you know
in two or three days and bring new
signatures okay use these instead
>> right
>> that's what we trying to avoid
>> um and to the point of who does it the
attorney also added this determination
maybe completed by the auditor instead
of the clerk So it's I guess
theoretically the clerk could do it but
the practice and probably how it would
continue as an auditor does that they
have the voter voter role as it were. So
we don't
um Okay. So that's that section.
I I don't I'm I I want to flag because
we only got a couple we just had a few
comments when I sent out the report. Um,
most folks said that you guys did a
great job and they appreciated receiving
it. Um, Abby Ledwig did send and I sent
it to you guys. Um, but she did send in
comments about the timing of like these
the 30 days and the 10 days and sort of
how the calendar works. So, I don't I
just want to flag it because it was one
of it was a substantive comment you
received, but if you don't have to talk
about it, it's just I wanted to note it,
I guess, so you didn't forget if you did
want to talk about it. Does everybody
get a chance to read that from Abby and
how it applied to this section?
>> Does anybody find anything in there that
we didn't discuss? And go ahead.
>> I guess my only question with it is it
sounds like she wanted to have set
timing and guidelines in here, but it
all of her notes were based on the
November election, but it could
technically be any election and they
would have different time frames for the
like county.
>> That's true. you you this is set up so
that um what I would envision signature
gatherer would do or a petition a
petitioner would do is that they would
say they would choose an election that
they want to work towards. So they would
say like I I think it's going to be the
November one. That's whatever for
whatever reason they pick November and
then they walk back the dates which are
now much more clear than they used to
be. Or they say like we want August so
we're going to try for the primary date
and the kind of similarly like you know
30 days back and then another 10 and
another 30 in the whole timeline. Um
I guess the only thing that was unclear
in that is it was pointing out issues
but I didn't see the solution in there.
>> Um which
>> um
>> I don't know
>> maybe relevant to this as well is that
the attorney also because our part of
our language said down here on page 13
kind of towards the top voters so submit
it to the council after they get this
petition all that process has happened.
The council submits it to voters at the
next regular, which is normally
considered like the November regular
municipal election occurring at least 90
days after certification
>> um or at an earlier special election.
So, I think he added the or at an
earlier special election, which um
wasn't in the copy that um I you know
that we submitted because it's new for
basically tonight. So, so then you could
have it at another um another date.
>> February, April, August.
>> Yeah, those two. Yeah.
Okay. Um,
good.
So, the rest those rest that's crossed
out is similar to what you guys had
before. Um, and the rest of Proposition
6, I hadn't updated it yet to reflect
the two weeks ago. So that's the new
language about the
timing and the streamlining in process
which makes me think you really could
combine the referendum into this
proposition six but um uh so referendum
the next section is the same other than
uh
it's just the um
I guess it kept it at the 10%.
There's a sort of an errant like wait
something get deleted out of this.
>> There's there was there is a whole
section that was recommended that we had
approved on the things that are
exceptions to referendum.
>> Oh yes. That's why I have this space cuz
I cut it so I can pull it back up. Um,
the attorney pointed out that pull up
exactly what he wrote, but I summarized
it that the list was not like exhaustive
and he felt like if you have these
things, it could create confusion about
what isn't listed but is also not
eligible for referendum either like
under state law. Well, probably mostly
under state law. It referenced like I
think fiscal ordinances or something
like that.
>> Emergency ordinance calling elections,
annual budget appropriations and
ordinances required by state or federal
law. This
>> we don't use ordinances to call
elections. We usually use resolutions,
but we could that's a word change. And
then annual budget appropriations. We
also have budget amendments that are
through the year. So like are those
included or are other fiscal items? It
just seems like there are exceptions and
we should
>> lay them out. I don't I guess I don't
understand why it was corrupted.
>> Probably have to take actions. That
seems substantive.
Even if there's legal counsel, don't we
as a body need to act on that
>> to to take it out?
>> We can make a recommendation with bad
language and that would just be well
bad. But it's still the we have to take
an action to do that or undo it, right?
I think we have action that's already
>> been approved to have that.
>> You are right. It can stay. Yeah,
>> it can stay without doing action. Just
the final report needs to reflect it.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> Perfect.
>> I mean, we should change the words that
are wrong like the ordinance for
elections, what whatever we call that.
Um, but that was sort of the biggest
change in this section was adding that
exception. The exception.
>> Mason, you have your hand up. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. And I apologize uh for this
question. Proposition 7 and Proposition
Six, why they seem awfully similar to
me. What am I missing?
Well, I agree with you on I am I think
when I had the city attorney draft all
of the different initiative language,
for some reason he dis he separated the
changes to that you see in seven from
what had been six. So I can I think we
talked a little bit earlier about maybe
not combining everything right now so
that it's a little easier to track like
all the separate issues
>> but six and seven probably should just
be combined because they are
>> effectively the same thing. One changes
the initiative and one changes
referendum. So
>> okay that's the difference. Okay. And
then because six I read and I go, "Okay,
I get it." And seven I read and I go,
"Okay, let me read it again. Let me read it again." And I
just think I we've talked about this
before. I just think that's a loser with
voters. And not so much that they won't
vote for it other than I just think we
look like uh bureaucrats or other people
are dealing with real issues in real
time because I it's it's a lot of words
there. But I understand legal all that
stuff. But that's my thought. I'll
probably say I probably have that
thought a few times as I read through
some of this.
>> Yeah. I mean, I agree. We we talked
about them collectively, too.
>> Yeah.
» Um well, I
>> I don't have a proposal on that. I'm
just noting it. And
>> yeah,
>> great.
» I won't type anymore. We'll just leave
it at that. At least I was able to copy
paste to this. So, this is the language
>> that we voted on
>> that you guys approved and that you we
can we'll just leave it in and um
» Okay.
>> Oh, man. You're
really want us to
Oh,
» all right. Um, let me write that down
here. Although this is saved and I know
that I don't think this was the exact
place of it. So, I'll make sure that it
um returns to the version that you saw
two weeks ago
um with the at least with the list and
like wherever it was supposed to live
whatever extra language that you guys
had that you voted on. So,
um
okay.
So, yeah, try to combine
by so
>> and could that take the form of I
suppose you telling the hey this was a
thought that if you combine those
>> I can separate and then say like we we
really do think six7 could be the same
>> when they go to the ballot say
>> okay I have a question
>> um so I'm sure this is a stupid question
>> um because I've read it so many times
that I've now confused myself but why is
it that it's talking about um 10% total
number. I'm on page 14 and it talks
about um the mayoral election and then
it goes on to talk about the next
regular municipal election. How how does
the August fall into that as well?
>> Oh, there two two election references.
this part that says at the last
preceding mayoral election
um is how many vote like what's your
target for how many signatures you need
on your ballot or on your petition.
>> Yeah.
>> Your initiative or whatever.
>> So you no matter which date you pick as
a as a petitioner like a special
election, August, November, whatever,
you're always looking back to the last
mayor's race to say, "Okay, that's how
many people voted. I got to get 2,000
whatever.
>> Um,
>> that makes sense.
>> Great. Okay. Okay. I'm just scrolling on
back down to
uh we just talked about this adding back
in the stuff that's that is that is not
eligible for referendum in the right
place. We'll fix that later. And we're
moving on. I added a whole page because
I but it doesn't affect the
>> Actually, I might do this while we're
here for
>> Yeah.
No.
>> Okay. Well, that's fine.
>> Yeah.
>> To accept changes for it to bounce back.
>> Yeah.
>> It's not doing it for you.
>> No, I'm not going to I don't want to
mess with it. Um Okay. So, the next
one's Proposition 8. This is the voter
information paragraph. This one I
welcome your conversation on as well.
So, um your what you voted on um was to
ask for
a city finance director written
financial impact statement and that it
be either on the ballot or in the
voters's guide in the in the voters's
pamphlet. I guess um we the city is
allowed 200 words
and so we could use some of those words
to fold in the city finance director
financial impact statement. The city
attorney said, "Dang, the 200 words are
not a lot and we sometimes have trouble
explaining a whole ballot measure in
only 200 words. Could
we have the fiscal impact statement live
on the city website? And inside the 200
words, we'll use some of those to say
find a fight a fiscal impact statement
at, you know, everw.gov
petition or prop one or whatever it is.
But you don't have to accept that. You
could say we want that to be in the most
likely place for people to see it, you
know, inside the voters's panel
statement.
>> I'm fine with it being there. Oh, sorry.
>> Me too. I mean, anytime we can provide a
link somewhere else, it
makes it less words to try to digest and the person has the right to do
whatever they want.
>> So, okay with it just being a link out to
the yes to find it. They're okay with
that.
>> I have a similar point of view, but
slightly different. That doesn't mean
there will be no explanation and only
link. It means there will be a
substantive 200 words as best we can do
and a link. I what I what I'm not okay
with is just a link.
>> Oh, so what what um and Mason has hand
up too. So, uh in the voters's pamphlet,
the city attorney submits a statement to
the auditor that gets printed. Mhm.
>> The concept is that um we the city
attorney writes this and says like this
initiative does these things. This is
the impact. This is how it would work.
You can find the financial impact of
this statement at everyqua.gov/prop
2.
>> Okay. So no fiscal impact on the thing
necessarily.
I mean, unless unless the attorney
chooses to include like
a sentence of it or
>> can a sentence be something like the
fiscal impact of this is believed to be
$1 million and the next sentence behind
that is for detailed explanation of that
figure go to this link.
>> I guess I'm just like
>> well there's no impact. They could say
that in there.
>> It absolutely could. Yeah. But the
intent here is to, you know,
>> there just a simple sentence
>> big numbers on the
>> if there is
>> vote for it
>> and then and then add the link.
>> I just Yeah, I'm a little hesitant to be
to support just a link out
>> when it doesn't, you know,
>> it sort of this is the intent of having
it.
Jason
>> uh affirming as well the link as soon as
you add the link my in-laws are not
going to be happy and them and their
friends write letters and they do not
like anything like that. Um plus not
everybody has access easy access to um
the internet and even in this day and
age. So I just think it's uh dangerous
to add that in there. I I don't know
what the solution is as far as a lot of
words, but that's tough. The link is
gonna is going to create issues. It's
going to kick up dust.
>> Yeah. I like Leland's like you must at
least have this sentence
with blank um kind of filled in at a
minimum.
>> Fiscal impact is X or detail CX,
>> right?
>> Bigger than a bread box, smaller than a
car.
>> Yes.
>> Yeah.
>> Do we need a vote on that to add it?
because that's new.
>> Yeah. Do you So would you I don't really
know what process we decided on this for
this, but would you want to make a
motion to ask that the language say that
the the explanatory statement on the
ballot or voters's guide shall contain a
brief
>> explanation of the fiscal impact?
>> Yeah. What we what we had originally was
for each measure, the city's finance
director shall prepare a fiscal impact
statement of not more than 100 words
estimating the measures financial effect
on the city, which is
>> I would just take out the not more than
100 words just that it's an impact
statement.
>> Yeah.
So, I guess my I guess I'm saying I feel
like we that's what we already approved
and this is a a change that we're being
asked to accept, right?
>> Got it.
>> I'll just follow.
>> So, but I I mean I don't know if
everyone else feels the same. Emily,
>> I guess my only concern with that is 200
words is just not a lot and we're taking
away valuable space to explain what it
is and then all they see is a very small
explanation and then the fiscal impact
is this is going to be $10 million.
They're like vote no even though they
don't realize
>> that's what I
>> what the ex like what they're actually
voting on because we're prioritizing the
fiscal impact. I understand the no
links, but we have to in the middle and
you know if they want
>> email the city council and say hey can I
have that or not city council email the
city and say hey can I have that
physical impact
>> you know they could get it that way or
they can walk in if they're in person
type of person. So the pro the problem
is they have 200 words total right now
and we're saying you must use some of
those words to explain the fiscal impact
>> right
>> and and we're not describing how like
what they have to put in there the
fiscal impact because the fiscal impact
is going to be way more than 200 words
it's going to be
>> it doesn't have to be it can just be the
five words of the fiscal the estimated
fiscal impact is
>> time frame what's going into that I
think that there has to be more
>> and that's what the link solves is
>> it gives them it gives them There's it's
not a perfect.
>> Yeah,
>> this is this is We're not going to get
perfect on
>> Yeah,
>> I definitely think we can't take up a
hundred words.
>> No, I It says no more than I don't want
to take up 100 words, but um I also
think it's important to put a fiscal
max.
>> So really what you're looking at is just
uh the fiscal impact of this could um
amount to $10 million and then see
fiscal impact statement.
>> Yes. a number.
>> It's just a statement um basically
summarizing that one one line that
summarizes the impact
>> the fiscal impact.
>> So the fiscal impact number needs to be
listed.
» One more follow-up question. Are those
fiscal impact statements always over the
same time frame or could it be over
different time frames by different
ballots? Like do we need to specify that
the time frame has to be in there
because it could be one mill they could
say the physical impact is $1 million
over the course of one year or is that1
million
>> typically they would put a time frame.
>> Okay.
>> I've only seen them with the time frame.
It's sort of
>> misleading I think just to put a number
with it.
>> Right.
>> So I think if we'reing that dollar
amount in that statement it should also
have the time frame.
Let's take out more words.
>> Yeah. a legal question. Um
I'm concerned about lawsuits if it's so
truncated that um you know, hey, this
will cost $10 million but doesn't
>> then it's like not it's still but it's
not
>> disagreements from folks. Is that
inviting
more litigation over well that's not how
I'd frame it and I think you're doing
such a bad job of it. It's so
disingenuous that I need to sue to get
this statement changed in in court.
>> I actually
because it's
>> I mean I think it's been I think there's
a probably a risk there. There's I mean
>> every
and it's it needs they people need to
know that it's it's a fiscal impact
statement but it's also an estimate
because we don't have exact numbers
until the process starts because a whole
bunch of stuff comes up along the way
that we can't foresee or else you know
>> so
is it a risk? Absolutely. Saying an
attorney is going to write the report is
a risk. Saying the city's finance
director is writing this is a risk. You
know, people may not like that word
either because it's they work for the
city. So,
>> is a 200word um cap etched in stone?
>> It's in state law.
» I asked the auditor about like, you
know,
>> change that.
>> Can you make can you make it happen for
us? And he was like, absolutely. You get
200 words.
But also, what page are we on in this
big?
>> No, not this, but like in the pamphlet
because once people like are voting,
they're going to end up stop reading
>> because a lot of the voters
>> are in a different generation or the
more voters that we're trying to get are
in a different generation and they're
not going to be reading pamphlets.
We want them to to be educated, but
>> a combination of people that really
meticulous, right, that it just glazes
over.
>> Yeah. and they're like, "Sure. Who's
that?" I like that they have
>> Yeah. I just um you know, listening to
this discussion, which I think is a
really good discussion. Um one of the
things and the stadium immediately came
to my mind and I thought about all the
meetings that we had where we couldn't
say the amount, not because we didn't
have an amount, but because it was just
like could be $10 to $10 million. And um
some of the response back that we got
from constituents was um well we saw
this meeting and this is where you said
it's going to cost $10 million so we're
holding it to you that to the $10
million. So to the points that have been
brought up that is a concern that I too
share is that once you put a number in
there um it doesn't matter if you say
that it's a fiscal impact statement.
means invoice like it's real
like that's it what it's going to be.
That's how it can be perceived to be.
And I'm a little concerned that we will
lock everything that we've got down to
or folks will feel like that's what it
has to be and it can't be anything else.
So I'm a little nervous about how um
exact in that words the 200 words that
we would want to put something like it
would be $10 million etc.
>> So you can just keep the language that
you all voted on
>> which is up on the screen right now. But
>> yeah I
>> we can get rid of the attorneys from the
previous one. Yeah, we can say this was
what the group um what you approved. Um
this
>> staff has a chance when it goes to the
council to explain I mean the attorney
has his chance to talk to the council
and explain like their concerns. Um I
think we can definitely explain
>> this conversation and like the idea of
wanting more voter information. Um,
another path could be that um, it's
better if it's in the charter, but if
this is complicated because of those
limitations on the voters's pamphlet,
the council could, you know, pass an
ordinance that has the finance director
prepare this and then maybe we're not
limited to 100 words. It could be a
little more substantive um, as part of
um, ballot measures.
Yeah,
>> I do I would say that there like of the three ballot measures that we had
most recently um the minimum wage one
the fiscal impact like to the city was
like relatively minimal because our the
employees that are that are closest to
that wage are already generally above
that. Um I don't know that the director
would estimate like a re you know
citywide impact what that would look
like. The watershed one I it would have
been it might have been really
complicated because there were there are
lots of thoughts about what the cost
could be to
future development on kind of all sides
of that. So certainly
>> I think I'm going to note my two cents
on this is that in the battle of
logistics within those 200 words versus
the value statement of transparency that
we were going for that I I lean toward
that transparency and asking for the
statement and recognizing that we are
that in that advisory role that the
statement to the council be that there
is something missing in this process and
uh this is us saying that transparency
is what is missing. Um and we've got to
figure out those logistics.
>> We we're going to I'd rather vote for
the value than picking apart the
logistics.
>> I agree.
>> Okay. Well,
>> we can just leave it. I'll fix it so
that it's the way that you voted on two
weeks ago. And if that's
>> that's kind of what we're all talking
about. Exactly. Yeah. Go back to the way
it was.
>> Great. Great. that will I will make it
happen. Um, fix. Great. Uh, okay. Moving
on to what which should be your page.
Oh, now I got another random page in
there. You you just tell the pages
because they're not going to be right on
screen because I've added all this text.
>> We're on page 17.
>> Yes.
>> 116.
>> Okay. So, this one uh this should be
fine. This is the just kind of a
modernization thing, but it relates to
the um posting and adding in the website
language and the using the website or if
none exists the newspaper of general
circulation and doing the things that
Right. He didn't make any changes to
this one, did he?
>> I think so. I think that's what we voted
on.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> He might Oh, you know what? What's
different? He put the ABCs. They're not
like they're all in a paragraph form.
That's what's different. Which is nice.
>> I If we wanted to though, I was gonna
say if we wanted to cut down
propositions, this might fit in that
modernization one rather than
>> Yeah, that was just one recommendation.
>> Yeah,
>> it is pretty well the same.
Okay, that's Yeah, I think it's like I
mean we did add these a couple little
things but dates and stuff but
>> is that
>> Oh, yeah. N
>> Yeah. Yeah. The um Proposition Nine.
It's good as we said. It is this what
would show up on a ballot?
>> The
>> basically
>> the shall ever charter part. Yes.
>> Yeah. It's our suggestion. Yeah.
>> So if I read that I'd be I they don't in
this they don't know we're solving a
problem.
>> Yeah.
>> Like you're saying as oo it currently
states that this is to be placed in a
newspaper
because if I was like well why are they
putting that on the website? I don't
want I don't even know what it is. I
don't know why it's on a website. I
don't want to look at the city website.
But if you say this currently is in the
newspaper everybody will go well duh.
This needs to be changed.
>> Yeah.
Thank you.
>> Um
>> I that that totally throws things off. I
know. But right now, if I read this, I
would vote probably against this because
I'd like I don't want this on a website
and I don't want it on a and I I don't I
don't want to go to the website. I I
wouldn't even know what it's talking
about really.
>> I will I'll I can pass that on to the
Yeah. Thanks. As soon as you say
newspaper, I go, "Oh, yeah. I see those
in the Herald." And I've always wondered
what those things are.
I think um Mason, to the point you just
made, if you look at page 20, this is
why I think we should put it. This is
another reason why it should probably be
with this Proposition 11
>> because it just in here it says
published on the city's website instead
of allowing notices in a newspaper.
>> It's more clear on that one.
>> There it is. Thank you. Good job. That's
it.
>> Okay, great. I won't I'll
uh
>> Yeah, we put that
>> combine.
>> Are we combining it with 16.3?
>> We're gonna do Do you want to like
I don't know like 100% affirmatively or
just ask that it be combined or
>> uh we're just going to do this add this
one to
>> section 163, right?
>> Yeah.
>> And it's just another modernization
language.
>> Okay. You know what? I think it makes
sense. We'll just
>> It's proposition 11, right? We just add
it to
>> Yeah. So,
>> I don't think it works against us under
our other theory of having too many.
>> Correct. It's very simp.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. I will make that change in the
report. Got it.
That we only have like kind of one left.
We already talked about the other ones.
So, okay. Uh this this is the relatively
simple periodic review changing this so
that not later than February 15, 2031 in
five years and at least once each 10 or
each 5year period after 2026. This is
what the attorney wrote. Um
uh we we do this again. So this was the
we talked about this right at the end of
last meeting and this is the language.
So
good enough to all right get a chance to
read this because this is something that
we voted on without proposal language at
the last reading and this first time you
get a chance to see it. So if you have
anything to add or discuss on this,
please pick up.
>> Is is there any way to make it larger? I
can't I can't read it. Yes, I can do two
things to make it larger. I can do this.
And
>> there we go.
>> Oh,
that work for you, Grand
250%.
Yes. Okay. Okay, good. Sorry about that.
Thank you for asking to make it larger.
Appreciate it.
So I guess that what this does is say
that in five years and at least once
every five years after this year we
convene the charter review committee.
>> The current format is on the 10th year
each thereafter. Right.
>> Yes. So if we
>> within each you could do it in 31 and 32
and then not do it again for nine years.
Um
>> I I I Is there any way we can get it so
the mayor is not appointing 10 members?
Um
just I I just think that Yeah. Is there
any way that um we can get it? So let's
see the mayor where where is it? The
committee shall be composed of not less
than seven no more than 10 members
appointed by the mayor. I think we
should keep that number to I don't know
the is I think that number needs to be
less.
I mean if we're to if the charter is
supposedly supposed to be like a totally
hands-off thing um which it wasn't this
year um I think that number should be
less but I mean
that's just my opinion. How many did she
appoint this year?
>> Seven. She appoints seven. So she's
seven council members. She appointed
seven and then each council member
appointed one this year.
>> Exactly. And then the committee
>> right
>> the 10 in case there's like a
resignation.
>> Um
>> what's the world in which American
looked at it was that it was a little it
was just like a little more
straightforward for council. If she
picked seven, there's seven of them.
They each pick one versus you guys, the
seven of you fight it out and find nine
people that you couldn't, you know, like
how did how do you pick the last two?
Like
>> I think his qu your question is um why
up to 10 instead of just seven?
>> Yeah. I don't know.
>> I mean I don't
it's effectively up to the mayor. She
could pick seven, eight, nine or 10 and
then the council picks they get the same
amount.
>> Yeah.
The council gets to pick the same.
The council could pick 10 as well.
Right.
>> Right. If she picked 10, they pick 10.
>> Mason.
Go ahead, Mason.
>> Yeah. I do think that is the key is that
if the mayor picks if we lower the mayor
to four,
>> then the council gets four. If it's
seven, it's seven. If it's 10, it's 10.
So there should be a balance between a
hope for for a balance between the
council and the mayor. This is something
to think about because it is with with
our strong mayor system, there should be
a balance of power between the mayor and
the city council. And so it's it's
important to talk about it. But I like
that it's seven and seven or 10 and 10
or one and one. Doesn't matter. It's
just the same between the two branches.
>> Yeah. Listen,
>> I was going to say similar to what Mason
said, but also just add that all these
recommendations then also go through the
city council. And so I I I think there's
a little bit of additional balance there
as well.
>> Okay.
>> That's what you were going to say.
>> No,
I mean what I was going to say has to do
with, you know, the end of a sentence
where it says a like number appointed by
city council. So, so that makes people
probably feel like it's not rigged.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> Go ahead, Grant.
>> Well, and one of the other issues was
this year for some reason they did it
privately behind like closed doors
instead of more publicly. So there
wasn't there could have been
there there could have been ones where
um
oh it's hard I'm I'm I'm sorry I'm in
the middle of doing 10 different things
but basically
also how they're chosen
um for some reason it was different this
year and how they did it versus how they
did it 10 years ago.
Um and um I was just having this
conversation with somebody that was on
the charter 10 years ago and they said
well the they were they were saying like
it was more open versus this year it was
like private or closed. Um, and there
could have been circumstances where like
the mayor could have chosen
eight, but since they didn't know who
everybody was being chosen, then like
the like somebody else could have chosen
somebody that, you know, the mayor also
chose making it a larger number. But I I
don't I don't know. I I'm just not in a
place to where I can like clearly think
or back to it. So, um I think it was
John that was on the charter review 10
years ago. I don't know if he would be
able to better explain the differences
of how they chose 10 years ago versus
this last year.
>> I was there 10 years ago, but I'd be
damned if I can.
» So, I don't know. I just at the end of
the day um
you know that's just just my thoughts
are that and my experience level was to
this was we're still in a situation
where if the mayor wants something to be
passed then it's probably going to get
passed and if the mayor does not want
something to get passed um they're
probably not going to get it passed um
because they're already you know you got
to it's you you know, 8 to 8 and if you
got to get to a threshold of 10 that the
mayor can pass through whatever they
want and um you know I just don't I I
don't think that that is
you know um I I I don't think that that
is hands off enough for me. So um
thanks.
>> I have my hand up if that's okay.
>> Yeah, go ahead. Uh this this aligns what
Grant's talking about aligns with what I
brought at the end of last week's
meeting. Grant exactly what you talked
about. I mean a lot of these things
you're talking about I can't say exactly
but and there's some alignment here and
we had a really good discussion about
this about do it does the council
approve everybody is it done in the city
council meeting and it was a really good
discussion and at the end of it I
withdrew my proposal because I really
felt like it wasn't going anywhere. I
don't I don't think it lost. So, we kind
of went down this road and had I thought
we had a really good discussion in our
last meeting about it and I I don't you
know your your your concerns are are um
are real and
at this point I don't think there's
energy to change anything about how it's
done as far as being public or in or or
approved in a city council meeting
generally.
>> Well, that's because the mayor has eight
people on there. So,
>> well, I was the one that I was the one
that brought the proposal and and I was
not appointed by the mayor. So,
>> well, that's what I'm saying, though.
So, like Mason, if it's if it's not good
for the mayor, there's already eight
people there that aren't are are going
to vote it down or they're going to play
games and do whatever. You know, I also
there's a lot of people in that room
that have significant conflicts of
interest that probably shouldn't be on
the board anyways. But
>> this room Yeah.
>> Are you talking about this room, Grant?
>> Yeah, I am. There I there there are
people in that room that have conflicts
of interest that probably
>> I think this is inappropriate, too. All
right. I definitely
>> Thanks for your feedback, Grant. We're
gonna move on. Okay.
>> Go ahead. Oh, this is
>> I'm just going to say that um I um was
not appointed by the mayor. Um I have
been through the last three charter
reviews with the city and I saw no
difference this time and I worked for 29
council members and so I definitely saw
different council members and how they
selected the charter members and I saw
no different and my I am not in favor of
changing the number for the mayor to be
less than the council. I think the
process the way it is um would be
something that I would be in favor of
now. So,
>> so we're still on uh page 18 and anyone
going to change this to a 5-year period?
That's what we voted on last meeting.
>> Mhm.
>> Any other discussion on this?
No motion.
Okay. On to page 19.
>> All right. Um Oh, right. This is the
website piece. So I walked through this
earlier.
Um
it's the
this and then we want to add the
prop 9 the yeah 11.6 stuff and Mason has
>> yeah these are all simply adding
something other than a newspaper I think
and which wanted to include that last
point to this
>> it's makes it a newspaper or website
>> right
Mason go ahead. Grant is just asking a
question in the chat. I could see it
because I'm online, so it's easier for
me. Do we need him for a quorum?
>> Um,
>> hang on. We'll bring it up in a second.
>> Well, one, two, three, four, five, six,
seven, 13, nine, 10, 11. No, we don't.
So, Grant, you're
>> We do not need Grant for a quorum. We're
okay. Grant,
>> if you need to head out for whatever
reason,
>> I've got to go. Get I got I got child
duties. Okay. Bye. Yeah.
And as a reminder, we did have a motion
and a second and a vote on this one
already,
>> right? To to get it here sort of to move
it to the same phase as all the other
ones that we've been walking through.
So,
>> and it was a versioning vote, too.
>> Is that right?
>> Yeah, I think we have two that are
absent.
Can
>> I just make a quick question on here?
Um, do we think that there's any concern
over the or because know this is an if.
Could it be like for one thing it's
posted in the newspaper and then for
another thing it's posted on the website
where there's not a consistent spot
where it's going to be where the
constituents know I always go here or
this information
now that there's two potential places
where it's a or is that an issue or can
you put and or
>> with with a changing media landscape I
think I just leave the flexibility of
the or we don't know if a newspaper
record will close
>> because we The city is going to maintain
its website.
>> I I I I don't think it's an issue. I
guess is is my short answer to to
>> Well, so you're saying we have to post
it in the newspaper right now.
>> Right now, yeah.
>> Oh, the official option, but once it
prickles out and it goes away, Ben,
um the study's website is the backup and
that's why it's built in.
>> Okay. But the goal of this is still to
use the newspaper as the primary and
then if it were to go away then it would
go on the website. But we're not
choosing it to go on the website from
here forward. Well, for instance reason,
>> good question. This doesn't do that.
This just says
>> either one. So like after this passes in
January, we could just
>> not post in the newspaper even though
the Herald is amazing and going strong
and
>> and still read widely.
>> It won't be happy
right now.
>> Yeah. I I mean that's I would presume
that the city would probably do both
until such time as either the city
website disappears or the Herald goes
away. I know that was kind of the
initial concern was what happens if
there's not a city newspaper. I'd
presume the city is going to do both
until as long as it exists.
>> Can that explanation be covered and kind
of noted for the council
>> that we are hoping for?
>> Yeah.
just asing that the Herald is here and
you're using it.
>> Yeah.
>> We don't want to make you in violation
of the charter by saying you have to
publish it somewhere that doesn't exist.
>> And ordinances are already on the
website. They post them like right as we
get them in and signed. So that's
already being done anyway. So I
>> I do actually think everything that's
listed is already on the website. There
might be,
you know, like maybe this petition
thing, which is not as common. Like
there might be a couple instances in
here that are less likely to be like
really obviously on the website. So,
this might um
encourage that. But I I could definitely
note that your intent was not to just
>> not to eliminate the newspaper,
>> get rid of the newspaper posting, but to
allow for flexibility and in fact maybe
even encourage it to also be on the
website because that's another good
access point.
Okay.
>> Yeah. I think our conversation was not
everybody gets a newspaper anymore.
Having another
>> having another way. Yeah,
>> I was thinking.
>> Okay.
Uh, okay. That's that guy.
And
>> right,
>> those are all the propositions. There's
the table at the back. I sent you guys
the source of this which had everybody's
like who submitted. I could put the the
full table in here. Um, I don't know why
I didn't. I can't remember anymore. Um,
they're all here because so a few of
them at the back were
there may be redundancies.
>> Yeah,
>> was like, "Hey, can you combine some
stuff?" And I started to go in, but then
I was like, "But these were this was a
specific thing that a individual
submitted even though their name isn't
there anymore. So, I didn't feel like I
could edit it out, but I'm I'm happy to
talk about if there's a way to combine
and make it cleaner.
>> Yeah.
So, this is a public report, too, in
addition to going, you know, so my
concern is about the office of the
report that
what the hell are we doing if all this
stuff has no response?
I don't know how you how you get around
that. Um, it's just my own personal
observation.
» Was it included in the last report? A
similar table?
>> Yes, they had a similar table. Um,
I have it in here. Let me find it in
there.
So everything that's in the inventory is
including your Jennifer. Is that true?
>> Yes. Just not all the columns.
The column the columns might kind of
make it clearer. So their table they had
um
they did have more explanatory language.
Um they've got like one, two,
three.
» Yeah,
» I'm not suggesting changing this thing.
This would be good for the next charter
review,
>> the starting point.
>> And so the
>> that's the we use too, right?
>> But just a question on this. These are any public comment suggestion
or anything that we brought up when we
first started. Remember everyone was
>> and then the
>> and council input, right?
>> Yeah. Was she from council?
>> But council member Ryan said like I
think some of these were her list. Um
>> maybe this is a better wording. So they
used instead of not discussed they put
no motion.
>> That's what I like.
>> Maybe it's
>> I like that we got a lot of stuff. I
actually think you there's some of these
that you kind of I mean like we kind of
did talk about I might have mentioned at
some point about the translating
documents being
>> and franchise renewal modernization.
>> We actually did that. I'm going to
update that. So I'm like wasn't that
didn't he ask about franch
that one there. I think that was from
Commissioner Rubio.
» No motion
>> or no action. Yeah. No motion. So what the language that's in the 2016
report is no motion and then there is
some other like most of them have an
explanation of
um not all of them but
>> yeah I like that just yeah there's no
motions brought forward on the topic
>> I can yeah
>> because we talked about everything yeah
>> well then couldn't we put discussion
comma no motion since we did I mean we
did talk about everything we just didn't
We only have so much time, but at least
we discussed it. We didn't ignore it all
together. So maybe if we put something
like that so that they at least know we
addressed it.
>> Yeah, we can hopefully you guys feel
like that's accurate. So
>> I don't think we talked about everything
on here.
>> Yeah, I was think
>> not everything like
>> ran out of time.
>> Equity lens reports and commissions. I
don't think we
>> we didn't discuss that. We didn't
discuss
>> Yeah, that's true. We did not.
>> I would just say yeah. No motion.
>> Okay.
We're going to fight the keyboard, but
no motion.
>> I don't know why I even cry.
Um, and I'll So, I will also look
through these and if there I'll catch if
there's any others. We definitely did
this 13.5. You actually voted on that
tonight. Um, we we might have done this
14 one. I don't remember, but I'll go
look I'll go take another look. And um
so I'll catch if there's any duplication
that way that we might have missed
earlier. Um
and then just change the not discussed
to no motion.
>> I think that's fair.
>> Okay.
Yeah.
Um Oh, okay. Yeah. So the I put some
language here at the back for things
that we did talk about. So, the this
conflict in petition language, like I
said, was in there, and here's where I
said it wasn't.
I tried to put a bit more together on
the Office of Neighborhoods because we
did talk quite a bit about that. And um
uh and so there's a blurb from the code
which was what um Holly James kind of
spoke to when she came to your public
hearings and then some language about
like the neighborhoods are important.
There's loss of funding. These are you
guys raised concerns about that. You you
think that we could um should do better
to reach residences and yeah residents.
Uh and then um I hope committee member
Harrington is happy to see that debt
transparency is in the report back here
with um some discussion of of that issue
too and your discussion about it. Um and
I think
I guess at the end also noting that you
know future consideration outside this
cycle um
and the desire you know your general
desire for transparency I think is kind
of my part of the theme of your work.
though.
Okay,
>> that the end kind of basically. Yes,
please.
>> Is it worth putting in a small thing of
discussion in here about how because we
discussed at length of numerous
different avenues how we're building a
bench and encouraging
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> in the neighborhoods part um or just
>> could be in there, but I think a lot of
it is even outside of the neighborhoods.
There was just a lot of discussion of
>> we talked about part-time counsel.
>> Yeah, we talked about full time.
>> I remember that.
>> How can we build a bench and get more
people engaged and you know we talked
about it with term limits too. Like if
we put in term limits does it then
encourage building a bench. So some some
language about that to push that that we
really want to see.
>> So I know we have some junior boards and
council. I don't know. I've seen
something about that, but like
>> yeah, boards and commissions are
opportunities for folks to get engaged
and there's other places.
>> Something about that.
>> When you say bench, you're talking about
city council.
>> Yeah. For the city council specifically
because we're we're to get more turnout
um and more engagement with that
some succession planning. I know you
can't force the council members to pick
a successor or mentor someone, but I
think that that should be strongly
encouraged that they're out in the
community thinking about who could be a
good candidate.
>> That's true. I probably should have put
the um
I term I think these are just like the
last things we talked about, but so from
earlier when we talked about the term
limits and full-time counsel and
>> and then the salary too and the salary
>> pay that shifts.
>> Yeah. Yes.
And and um
yeah,
>> we forgot about it.
>> What we got first?
>> Um yeah, I was say I don't necessarily
want to add like a ton more text to the
report, but um the second paragraph of
the introduction does say the committee
show dedication in public. So maybe it's
just something that be expanded a little
bit in there. Stephen,
>> yeah, good place for it.
>> It does. It would highlight it if we
kind of flesh out the like
>> on engagement and transparency and that
>> covered all of these item these
>> areas including
>> um what you just said that I wrote down
term limits and full-time counsel and
the salary commission all of those other
things too. So, um,
» I think we need to make a motion on the
final report, don't we? Your hand.
>> Go ahead, Randy.
>> Uh, move I
move acceptance of this report with the
edits to be made by city staff before
June 1.
>> I second. Yeah,
>> June.
>> I got to get it done for the council
packet. Don't worry. I have an earlier deadline than that.
So, okay.
>> Yeah. I think we have to be done by
that.
>> Nothing alive, you know.
>> No pressure here.
>> Fair enough.
>> Wow.
>> That's wonderful.
>> Cool.
>> And that'll not be a long email chain.
>> Just an overall report. So, I'm not
going to go into specifics because
from this and a little bit of what was
discussed in the two things that were
passed, but it's not going to be like
any other minutes because there's no one
to approve them. So, yeah. Okay.
>> So, it's moved and second that we
approve the final report that we
discussed tonight with including all the
edits and changes that you all have
made. Is there any other discussion on
this at all?
>> Online any? Seeing none, take the vote.
All in favor of approving the final
report of the 2026 charter review
committee. Raise your hand. Say I.
>> I.
>> All oppose. Same side.
>> Zero.
you guys.
Good job.
>> Photo or something.
>> Zoom high five.
» I'd like to thank the people that are on
that took the time to serve on this
thing you've been especially you
Jennifer and Rod for your leadership.
Thank you.
>> Thanks.
>> Ashley, too.
>> Ashley as well. Yeah, it's been a it's
been a little bit of a truck. It's been
fun. Uh I'm not quite done yet. Just
what's happening once Jennifer finishes
the final report. I will get that copy.
I'm going to draft my own statement and
then I will do the presentation on June
10th in front of council. Uh we're on
the agenda, right?
>> Yeah.
>> I made the part sheet.
>> Yeah. Okay. Great.
>> Last night we'll sit behind you.
>> So I want to encourage anybody who wants
to come to the June 10th council
meeting. It's a 6:30 council meeting
downstairs. Feel free to show up
>> or watch on YouTube.
>> I'm going to just I'm not going to read this thing at all.
Then you all go and get a copy of it.
I'm just going to briefly talk about us
as a group and how we made decisions and
how we all collectively worked together
and uh put a lot of hard work and a lot
of great thought into moving our city
forward. I think is great. So, thanks
everybody.
>> Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Maybe we'll see you guys again in five
years.
>> Bye.
» Motion to adjourn. Anybody
>> motion
second? All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Meeting is adjourned.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks everybody. There was three of
them.