[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] The administration finance, recreation, parks, committees, follow-up, public safety, public courts, committee meetings, the date of the 9th, 2016, oom. For the record, council members, Dynand, Eigelhart, Lambo, Dupada are not present, that's a long. First item on the agenda, approval of the minutes from the two lines. Move to approve, second. Thank you, all in favor. Thank you.
[0:26] We're going to skip around a little bit on the agenda.
[0:31] I think we can move to a administration of first iteming considerations.
[0:35] We're going to take all the people to the charities.
[0:37] We've got a lot of right funds in them.
[0:41] $21,000 or $83.
[0:44] Thank you, Kate.
[0:45] That's exactly what it is with C2BG.
[0:47] Charles offered it here.
[0:49] He handles and manages all our C2BG activities.
[0:52] activities and he'll explain what we're doing with this reallocation.
[0:56] Yeah, Barbara Duffy, contact him and ask that her 2016 funds that were awarded
[1:04] in March, be reallocated to a higher priority project, the elevator,
[1:09] the freight elevator group and so then like reallocated those.
[1:15] And just the reason it's coming here is because we have to approve, plan
[1:19] originally of what they're going to use and if they change it we've got to get
[1:22] to prove it in minutes, to prove it because it requires us to do a amendment for the
[1:30] substantial amendments and it requires some proof plus a 30-day public notice, or it took
[1:36] out a mad and say that we could be considering it, and so you guys proved it, and so we got
[1:41] this next counsel with the one right after that.
[1:43] What was the original grant?
[1:46] They were going to renovate some of their office space or renovate the food pantry and down side of it.
[1:54] We can store food upstairs now and turn into a virtual office space.
[1:59] So there's going to be a higher priority budget because they need the free elevator to get the food and supply over now.
[2:06] Move to move for a second.
[2:11] I'm going to skip to finance item.
[2:14] This is consideration from budget amendment to purchase a stormwater backing trot and
[2:18] amount not to exceed $360,000.
[2:22] This item may sound familiar to you because the item was approved in the 2017 budget.
[2:29] However, at the time, staff thought was to use a different financing back in the summer
[2:35] All that has to be explained is about that.
[2:38] Thank you, Kate.
[2:39] This item is in our NFK 17 budget.
[2:42] And we have initially wanted to do it
[2:45] with these purchase programs.
[2:47] However, as we end the NFK 16, we have a substantial fund
[2:51] balance of about $1.00.
[2:54] So I suppose that we need the fund balance
[2:56] to make the purchase of the close to the least purchase.
[3:02] Is that good?
[3:03] That's good.
[3:03] And a second, all in favor.
[3:05] Thank you.
[3:07] Thank you.
[3:08] Thank you,
[3:14] Mr. Gasker.
[3:15] If you'll make your way up, then go to those items.
[3:18] And then go to the next floor.
[3:19] So here,
[3:24] item number four, considerations for the mayor
[3:27] and the administrative design of contact,
[3:29] but an account for the engineering and nine services
[3:31] from the time those roads call her.
[3:34] Just place a card and I can only think
[3:35] to send down one of the dollars.
[3:39] Approval.
[3:41] Relations will be free.
[3:45] I'm sorry I'm sorry on the public safety public works to me second second item of public's work
[3:56] Yeah, so this is a straight forward call version placement on a very complicated
[4:09] So that's the reason we've got a little more engineering involved on this and we hope to get it done quickly so we can go into construction next school.
[4:18] I'll see you in the summer.
[4:23] The motion is back in all in favor.
[4:27] Okay, thanks.
[4:27] The next item is consideration of the mayor and also the administrative and fine contract.
[4:31] I'm playing with mine or the Jordan 25 greenhouse.
[4:34] That was $39,286,025.
[4:38] And when Chathfield contracted to
[4:40] provide replacement amount of $9,142.08,
[4:44] that's one of the two things that
[4:45] they can take place like this.
[4:47] Okay, this is a little more complicated
[4:50] stormwater replacement project with two contractors
[4:54] in the same area, addressing failure that's
[4:58] caused a sinkhole that's going to do the lining.
[5:01] and also has an extension down the river that we're going to do the different technology of HDBD plastic pipes.
[5:09] So that's why we're using the two contractors.
[5:10] Our line contractor laying in liner and chat bill is doing the balance of the work through the golf course.
[5:18] Again, other than that, it's fairly routine, although because of the sinkhole and the failure of this concrete corrugated metal pipe,
[5:25] you really would like to get it done as soon as possible.
[5:27] Well, there's both provided and back, but these are both stand-up contractors.
[5:32] Mr. Brewer.
[5:33] Mr. Brewer.
[5:34] I guess I'm not accepting my counsel.
[5:36] The board is all in favor.
[5:42] So then we're going to play the favor away from what I'm skipping around.
[5:46] Is it a waiting for a fuller committee?
[5:50] I'm going to move to the, and then them that actually I've got,
[5:53] I had to probably just want you to make your practice up.
[5:56] Friday, this is out of number 10 on admin finance, right at the park.
[6:00] So this is consideration for the mayor and
[6:02] university administrators to sign an inter-parcel act
[6:04] session in between King's Market, L.M.C., and
[6:06] the city of Roswell.
[6:08] This is regarding fire station number four.
[6:12] The parcel that the city owns on the corner of Market
[6:14] Boulevard in Oda, Alabama, as you know, is for
[6:17] a construction fire station number four.
[6:20] Staff was directed to sign the fire station
[6:24] with intention of future subdivision of that property.
[6:27] The Interferral Act says this from the parking lot,
[6:30] thereby the old flim deco,
[6:32] owned to property will not be distracted at this time,
[6:36] since we are moving bird about on that parcel
[6:38] and we don't know what future redevelopment of that property
[6:42] might be, but it does give us the ability
[6:44] to have Interferral Act that,
[6:47] and that property is subdivided and in a like a day.
[6:51] They have approved it on their side.
[6:56] I'm going to take a look at the first two questions.int
[6:59] will be returned by Councilmember Ollvis and by Councilmember Fortis by motion. Thank
[7:04] you. Number
[7:19] Thank you.
[7:22] 9. Mr.
[7:24] Reyes and the members of the Councilmember? No,
[7:28] we, of course. I wasapproved
[7:28] too.
[7:32] I was free by
[7:33] Section 21.2.2, I relate to small-scale technology.
[7:38] Did you recall this item was on set of ratings?
[7:41] It was in first so that Sam would have an opportunity to meet
[7:45] with some of the effective self-explications.
[7:48] But if that had happened, the current changes
[7:51] are in your package with a red line or a red line version.
[7:57] I would like to give us a number of you
[8:02] was the same added language, was clarifying the things that the attorneys were about communication
[8:10] supposed wanted at the general meeting, although after we forwarded to them a version of this,
[8:18] willing a comment back from Sprint.
[8:21] They still don't like it, but nobody else commented on it at all.
[8:25] And at the meeting, we acknowledge the men that we fully expect that they will go to the state during the legislature next year and try to get their own business.
[8:35] They are wanting to do, but we need to go ahead and put something on the books.
[8:40] And this accomplishes the main things that we want by having control over and instructing them to the public right away.
[8:48] 45-foot pole if it comes to that preference for co-location and all instances if they
[8:56] do need a pole they've got to seek permission from the city administrator, if the city administrator
[9:01] says no, then it feels to marijuana to get that variance.
[9:06] They're costing in line with our other utilities and we think that this is a clean way of doing
[9:20] I don't know, nothing specific, they just said no.
[9:26] Or the record council members diamond, Palermo, Zipada, or President, Council Member Zipada.
[9:30] Thank you.
[9:31] So how did this change from the regional proposal and transportation department, how much change
[9:37] and what was the main change that we have from the regional proposal?
[9:41] I think the main changes were in clarifying terms so that we match the industry terms.
[9:50] We were using rather generic terms, for instance, they have a small cell technology.
[9:58] We got the other one that was a big deal, but when we looked through it, it's mainly typing
[10:03] up the terms.
[10:04] It didn't really change the concept of what we had asked to regulate.
[10:11] So I did an open loophole for them to a squizz in them.
[10:17] Well I think that's kind of what they don't like about this is that this is a pretty
[10:25] well crafted, you know, we've done it from Dunway, to any way he's had theirs in there
[10:28] for a long time, that the basic premises sound, which is we need it, you know, we certainly
[10:35] They are not trying to harm them or prevent them from doing anything, but within our city limits
[10:41] we need to make sure that they are encouraged to use existing polls and not just the polls
[10:47] all over the place.
[10:48] And that's probably what they don't like.
[10:51] So we made the same.
[10:52] Yes.
[10:53] Yes.
[10:53] The concept is the same.
[10:55] Okay.
[11:23] lusive.
[11:48] As included in your packet, staff has done an analysis looking at the fee in lieu of
[11:54] specimen tree preservation as requested our last committee meeting.
[11:57] Background on this is that the analysis we completed compared the city of Roswell's current
[12:02] tree ordinances as well as our permanent applications with other jurisdictions including the cities
[12:06] of Atlanta, Sadie Springs, Althoretta, Milton, Marietta, as well as Fulton and Cobb County
[12:12] because their ordinances are slightly different. As a result of that analysis in the back of your
[12:17] package was a very large table that compared all of them together, but the summary is that we looked
[12:23] at the minimum requirements included in their permits, applications, in the ordinance specific to
[12:29] the definition of specimen trees, the sizes of those trees, the fees that they were charging in
[12:35] of preservation as well as what other options they may have available and it is within each
[12:41] of the jurisdictions there were a lot of subtle differences between the applications of the
[12:44] ordinance as well as the requirements. Overall the summary I'll cut right to the
[12:50] chase is that the city of Roswell's specimen tree definition is actually on par or more conservative
[12:57] than our other jurisdictions in the area. In other words our tree sizes already did the same or we
[13:03] We have a smaller size, for example, we have a 16 inch mid-story, no one else has a mid-story.
[13:09] Our larger tree size is relatively the same as most of our other counterparts.
[13:15] Some of them have smaller ones, which we'll get to in just a second.
[13:18] In addition to that, the cost per unit of the specimen tree removal is actually more costly
[13:23] than some of the others.
[13:25] I was kind of surprised by it, given the structures.
[13:27] I felt like we might not necessarily be on par with that.
[13:30] In the package, I provide you, there's an example where I established a set number of trees being removed and applied it in three different locations here in Roswell,
[13:39] Citadel, Atlanta, as well as Sandy Springs, I believe, and you'll note that our cost for the same tree removals is over $8,000 whereas it's a $1,000 or $1,500 for the other two jurisdictions.
[13:52] So using that theme project, if you will, and three different locations, I was able to demonstrate that we actually are providing a monetary disadvantage if you will have taken trees down.
[14:04] But what I would like to point out is even though it results in a higher cost, we do have a component of our tree ordinance that allows for a credit to be given to that cost
[14:17] If the developer chooses to plant additional trees to replace those specimen trees, so to
[14:23] put this in kind of simple terms, there's two components in the tree ordinance that
[14:28] have to be met.
[14:29] The first is the actual density of trees provided on-site.
[14:32] So if 20 tree density units are required, they have to have 20 tree density units.
[14:38] In addition to that, if they take out a specimen tree that's worth 10 units, they either have
[14:44] to pay to replace those 10 units pay for those 10 units or plant trees to compensate for
[14:50] that loss. So you can actually have essentially a net zero cost for the actual tree replacement
[14:57] because they're planting a whole lot more trees.
[15:00] Then the minimum requirement for the site. So you may find a situation, for example, a reserve at Coleman is a great example. They had, we'll say, 46 units that were being removed. They're not only planting to compensate for the regular tree density that's required by code for the site. They're planting extra to compensate for the specimen trees that were removed, and it's a lot extra. So they're, instead of paying cash to us, they're paying cash.
[15:30] passion to the site in order to plant more trees on the site than our minimum requirements
[15:34] are. Yes. What size trees for they be? There's a minimum requirement of four inches
[15:42] and a minimum height, I believe it's eight feet, but there's actually a table that is required
[15:46] that when they provide their proposed plant to us that our arborist would compare that to
[15:50] and depending on the specimen of the tree, the type of tree that changes slightly. But the
[15:56] minimum is four inches. I do know that, but based on the tree type, that's I've made up from that,
[16:02] depending on the tree.
[16:08] And there was a time where we actually worked to try and save substantial
[16:13] special entries, and we'd actually take the move plans around based on that. Now we've pretty
[16:18] seen that we pretty much just cut it down into place. The current code. And we do to fix that.
[16:23] That leaves me to my next slide. Perfect. Because right now the code has a lot of different options on how
[16:28] to work around this. Generally speaking, it's pay, plant, or pay into a bank if you can't
[16:34] plant. So those are kind of the three basic options. So our recommendations are that the
[16:38] levels that we have right now, and let me take a second to explain in case there's any
[16:42] questions about tree density units. One of the things that's different about the city
[16:45] of Roswell versus some other jurisdictions that we looked at is some of them actually look
[16:49] at just trees per acre, 20 trees per acre, 40 trees per acre, whatever that may be. And that
[16:55] That doesn't matter the size.
[16:56] That's just physically that's the number of trees you're looking for.
[16:59] We use tree density units and the difference with that is that the only tree size that
[17:04] have a 1 to 1 ratio is a 3-inch tree.
[17:08] So all 3-inch trees, when we're calculating the density on that site, a 3-inch tree counts
[17:13] as a tree.
[17:15] A 4-inch tree counts as 1 and a half trees.
[17:18] The 5-inch tree is 2-trees and it goes on and on and on all the way up to 50 inches I think
[17:22] and then a unit that goes along with that.
[17:25] And that is in the code and it's,
[17:27] I won't go into all the details,
[17:28] but it can get complicated at what makes our calculations
[17:31] and our costs go up with meeting those numbers.
[17:35] The, what's nice about that is the fact that we are able
[17:38] to then look at the value of those larger trees,
[17:41] not just the smaller trees.
[17:43] Some of the other jurisdictions ignore anything
[17:46] under their specimen trees.
[17:47] They don't necessarily count that.
[17:48] So that's where I think we're a little bit more conservative.
[17:51] So, when I looked at comparing applications in our code versus Atlanta, Sandy Springs,
[17:57] Beard, et cetera, the use of our tree density units, in my opinion, in our staff's opinion,
[18:02] is that it's much more conservative because we're getting a bigger bang for our buck as far as that size of the tree.
[18:08] Same thing with the $500 tree density unit.
[18:11] Again, it's not per tree, that's per unit.
[18:14] So, if you have a tree that's worth 10 units, it's 500 times 10, but it's only one tree.
[18:20] is based on the calculations that we ran a very conservative way and approach to doing this.
[18:26] The things that we would recommend doing in order to really look at more of a preservation as the forefront
[18:32] is to maybe flip the priorities around. One of the things that we notice the City of Marietta does
[18:37] is they offer a double unit credit for preserved and it has to be successfully preserved tree.
[18:44] So, for example, if there's a 24-inch tree that they preserve successfully on site,
[18:52] if it's worth 10 points, they actually get 20, so you don't have to plant as many,
[18:57] but that gives us an opportunity to offer a carrot, if you will, that gets our developers
[19:03] to preserve the trees as opposed to taking them down.
[19:05] Now, I have to add that with all this being said, I'm not sure that there's any ordinances
[19:13] out there right now that is a fail safe for making sure that all those trees are
[19:17] preserved. There's going to be opportunities for the developer to say we don't
[19:21] really want you to rather pay out the pocket and that's what we're going to do.
[19:25] So that is one opportunity to offer the carrot version of it. Maybe something
[19:33] that can help but there was a time again where our arborist like you said no you
[19:38] You will say that tree and it will just pay in and then I think this is working.
[19:42] That information to be able to compare that and I wasn't able to track that down so I
[19:46] don't know if it's just wait for what I was able to get a hold of and I don't know if
[19:51] there was any special.
[19:52] I don't know what the office at the time was doing but that was not in the current ordinance
[19:57] and was not in the previous ordinance.
[20:00] Well, it was a practice.
[20:01] It was a practice but it's difficult for staff to say you will do this because we don't
[20:07] have an issue.
[20:09] You don't have a regulation behind us, and we're doing terrible preservation of the trees,
[20:17] and also, what we're dealing with now is the smaller, more confined, more difficult sites.
[20:30] Actually, I initiated the first three ordinance in Roswell going on back to the 90s.
[20:35] We've changed it multiple times, but I think one of the items is where the stake in shake
[20:41] is there was a big specimen tree in that piece of property in the center and we had two or three
[20:47] items to come before us that would not be approved because the tree was in the way basically couldn't be
[20:53] saved and so I think we ended up you know instead of getting some details and taking a land I think we
[21:02] might have made some changes at that point time I don't remember exactly but I think that might have
[21:07] been where we kind of worked around, I'm not being able to do anything to make some
[21:13] option to flexibility.
[21:15] I'm going from memory.
[21:17] So I have a couple of questions.
[21:20] So first off, can you help understand so I see how it works for safe.
[21:24] Let's use the example of 30-inch open.
[21:27] How is it working?
[21:28] What needs to be planted in order to get a credit that would make there be no cost or
[21:35] Okay, I will do my best to answer that, so bear with me when I slip to this.
[21:39] So a 30 inch, you said 30 correct, 30 inch oak is worth 7.5 tree density units.
[21:46] So then what we would expect for the landscape architect who's going to replace that is for
[21:53] example a 3 inch tree is worth 0.5 all the way up to a 9 inch or greater is worth 6.
[22:01] So they would have to do a combination of a variety of trees that add up to the total
[22:07] of the 7.5 in order to do it.
[22:10] So it could be three trees, it could be, so it was quite example then.
[22:13] So you have a 30 inch poke, so you said a 9 inch was equal to 16 inch?
[22:21] Correct.
[22:22] And then you said a 3 inch was equal to what?
[22:25] 0.5.
[22:26] 0.5.
[22:26] So, so the phrase, an example would be you tear down a 30 inch oak, you put up a 9 inch tree, and you put up a handful of three inch trees, and that would correct.
[22:40] Correct.
[22:41] So, okay, that's one thing I might want to discuss a little little later as well, because I do have concerns with that area.
[22:49] Now let me add to that if I may, that would just be for the replacement of the density.
[22:54] On top of that, it has a specimen value.
[22:58] So it would have to, it actually would get double hits if I'm not mistaken, I may have
[23:03] that incorrect, but if I have a site and I take out these trees, I have the density for
[23:07] the general site, I have to replace, and then the specimen's on top of that.
[23:11] So there would actually be an additional value of the seven and a half, so it would really
[23:15] be two.
[23:15] which is why this is very interesting that if they were to preserve that, instead of
[23:20] being more 7.5 on their site, it's worth 15, and so they may not decide to plant a bunch
[23:25] of little ones on site.
[23:27] So I think that looking at something like that as an approach, and it may not be this one,
[23:32] it may be another way to do it, to help encourage the preservation because right now, whether
[23:40] is that they pay $8,000 or they plant 50 extra trees depending on how much
[23:46] tree cost is going to determine probably what the developer is going to choose to do.
[23:50] Right now, and that is, let me add that all of the jurisdictions offer those
[23:54] same things. They can replant as a credit, they can pay into variety of banks, and if they can't plant,
[24:01] there's even another separate bank that they can plant into. So we're not the only ones who
[24:05] offer that just to clarify that. So my next question is if so if the if the
[24:14] arborist finds that a tree is disease and there's no cost for a place
[24:20] correct that's correct so the definition of specimen is that it's good health
[24:24] as well okay and then and I guess two more question one is that is that standard
[24:31] And you see, okay, and then my second question is, what are some other ways that I was a developer and I had, and I had a, where are some other ways where with our current warden, get away with, not paying, not replacing,
[24:46] are there any other way that's possible?
[24:48] Not that I'm aware of.
[24:50] So, I have a couple questions.
[24:53] How is there a maximum, because it seems like I hear you don't want to plant too big, and then they don't have a long term.
[25:01] One of the abs of the armors we're looking at is the sizes, but also how close they're placed together because of the anger and the grow.
[25:08] Because obviously don't want trees to be planted and then have them to die within a certain number of years, because they're not going to get big enough.
[25:15] But I don't know that there's any other maximums necessarily.
[25:18] And to that end, how long do we, so they preserve a specimen tree, how long do we track that tree?
[25:25] That's a good question. I would have to actually look and see further how Marietta processes that.
[25:30] Right now, I do know that if we have new landscaping that goes in, we have performance bonds and maintenance bonds
[25:36] and the maintenance bonds are for two years. So if a tree dies, then that two-year period, we require that developer to replace it at their cost.
[25:42] So I would have to look and see specifically for the preservation if they do anything different that I would imagine
[25:48] That's probably something along those lines. I can't remember seeing any site plan that didn't have a specimen tree that we didn't talk about
[25:54] How we were going to figure out either how to save it or how to mark that off or where the drip line was. I mean we talk about it on almost every
[26:02] Resounding
[26:06] So do you think we should start paying more attention on the scale?
[26:10] You just mentioned about 30 inches oak equals to 7.5 point points, do we need maybe to review the scale and see, you know, if it makes sense, how fair it is and
[26:22] you certainly could, I'm not sure of any other ordnances or jurisdictions locally that are using it.
[26:31] I'm not as familiar with what the industry is looking at as far as those values, but that is, and I believe I'm not mistaken,
[26:37] in that in the overall text changes we were looking at there were some very
[26:42] specific questions like about the minimums and that sort of thing but if
[26:45] Council would prefer that we look at the overall values of those oh not
[26:50] some that we could certainly have staff look at we did not look at it as a part of
[26:53] this evaluation because one of the key points is the scale and the other one you
[26:58] said that they also get credit or debit by pre-planting but they do for
[27:05] For example, they don't use a scale like we do, they do per tree, so for example with
[27:16] the city of Marietta, even though they offer something like this, they look at tree
[27:21] density and say for example that their minimum is 20 trees per acre, so they're not looking
[27:27] at the size of the tree as a value if they're just looking at straight up number of trees
[27:30] over a certain size.
[27:31] And I think that a minimum is three inches.
[27:34] There's specimen sizes are roughly the same as ours.
[27:38] OK, and the other was a criteria to choose this city.
[27:41] That's a valuable.
[27:42] I looked at whatever was local that I
[27:44] knew had tree ordinances that would be similar in environment
[27:47] to us because there has similar tree structure as we do.
[27:51] But we can certainly go broader than that.
[27:53] If we go too far beyond the local geography,
[27:56] the tree types are going to change.
[27:58] The sizes that you may find in that area
[28:00] will not be similar to ours and so I didn't want to go too far and it's not
[28:04] be something that's comparable to what we would expect to find here in the city
[28:08] around. So the indicator might be a good to look at. I can certainly tell if it's
[28:12] right there or not the indicator. Sure, absolutely. There's so much
[28:16] harm. Now, there's barinogins beautifully there. The Argentine
[28:22] fuseline in Argentina is called barinogin. They're talking also a lot of
[28:27] The board to bring us some Argentine free orders.
[28:30] I'm Ted Turner, kind of healthy.
[28:32] He owes lambers.
[28:36] Before this came to committee the last time,
[28:42] I had read in Atlanta Constitution,
[28:45] much higher number relative to what you've got here for.
[28:49] Exactly.
[28:50] So the difference between us and the city of Atlanta
[28:52] is that they not only look at the specimen tree
[28:55] lost, they have what we refer to, I'm referring to it, a net tree destroyed or lost. So what they
[29:03] will look at is if there are ten trees that are destroyed or lost because of impact to the
[29:11] roots, they charge $100 per tree, and then they also add on top of that $30 per net inches of
[29:19] tree lost, which is why you have a difference in the numbers. But again, it depends on the
[29:25] number of trees of what that number is going to actually come out to be. You and I were
[29:31] talking today about hearing a story about this really hard high number, and I can't figure
[29:35] out how they got it personally because I used, in my example, the tree that would have been
[29:41] impacted that would have fallen under the specimen tree category. It was a 30-inch hook, so
[29:47] they would get $100 because there's one tree and then it's $30 times the 30 inches and
[29:52] I thought well that's only about $10. How do we end up? So I don't know if it was a very
[29:56] large site and maybe there were 10 of these which would result in the $10.00.
[30:00] $1.00. But that is, I just believe that it was, it was for that one treat. I mean, I can't believe
[30:08] the media on anything. I fully expected our number to come in, or when I did the analysis,
[30:16] I actually did several times, different people to make sure that I wasn't crazy. I've heard multiple
[30:21] times that we're not cheap on the trees from developers over the years. They're always complaining about the cost.
[30:27] Is there a maximum based on any law or anything else of maps could be charged? Are we choosing these numbers?
[30:33] I am not aware of any of that, right? You said something more for our legal office, but I'm not aware of any kind of state law.
[30:42] I think that the danger you run into, the higher the cost, the closer you get to taking.
[30:47] So, you need to have a rational relationship between the cost and the bill, and as part
[30:56] of that I think what you're going to look at what's surrounding yours is that you're
[30:59] going to do it if you're way outlining higher than it's going to likely to fail without some
[31:06] specific reason given for that.
[31:09] Okay.
[31:10] And what would it take to give flexibility to an arborist or anybody to say that we're going
[31:15] to save this tree, that tree in a plan.
[31:20] Well, I think legally, I don't know
[31:23] that I can give you a hard and fast rule on that.
[31:26] I think you stated goal that you
[31:28] want to save all the specimen trees.
[31:30] I don't think so at all, but I mean, just state as a goal.
[31:33] We want to save all specimen trees possible and start from there.
[31:38] And then you implement these other rules to try to get there.
[31:43] I would say, I don't sit in on the pre-application plans, but I think that
[31:48] Condest staff always emphasizes to the developers that we do want to save
[31:54] through this and we want to have infrastructure in that world maximize tree
[32:01] setting. Now you can try to strengthen that. You can put a little higher cost on it
[32:07] certainly. At what point are we going to get out of line? I would say if you go
[32:12] So 50% higher than other incoherable situations.
[32:16] I was probably about as high as I would say you could go and say that our rational reason
[32:21] is we want to preserve these specimen trees.
[32:24] I would think the counter-argument on that is, and the North-Helps with this is, yes, you
[32:31] want to preserve those over trees that are there in good health.
[32:34] And I think that's got to be emphasized because plus the old story about it in a hundred
[32:41] year old oak is the baby of 300 years dying and it may be magnificent but it's on its
[32:47] way to death.
[32:48] Well, I think a hundred years extra life is probably worth even 50, you know, it's been
[32:54] getting longer than most probably.
[32:55] I think we can craft something with that, it's I would say we need to look at the other
[33:03] jurisdictions, and probably we need to look at the forestry practices. I would say University of Georgia,
[33:12] forestry service, or something, to give us an idea of what economic value trees hold.
[33:21] If I may, and I would also believe when something comes forward for rezoning, at that time, because the tree
[33:30] We plan in part of the rezoning application that could be a condition that you point out for the trees that you want to preserve.
[33:39] Well, that's it in the practice.
[33:41] Fairwood.
[33:43] I think we also have to keep in balance preservation of trees and planting trees.
[33:48] I think our ordinance does a pretty good job of encouraging planting trees.
[33:52] Put this in perspective for folks who haven't been here for 67 years.
[33:57] which is just about everybody in this room.
[34:00] There are more trees and more tree coverage today in Roswell in a town of 95,000 people.
[34:08] Then there were when it was a town of 3500.
[34:12] Now you may look surprised, but it's a fact.
[34:16] So I think we need to look at preservation trees, but in the long run, it's planning trees
[34:25] which creates a healthy forest, and not preservation of trees near the end of their
[34:31] life's land. I see a balance. And we need to keep that balance in mind.
[34:35] Council member, pull out about it. So I definitely do see value of the replant of trees.
[34:40] And I just want to just better understand how that credit works.
[34:43] So another question I add going back to a nine-inch tree is worth six units.
[34:51] Is that any tree or woody dye line on which types of trees, for example, a 30-inch oak is cut down, which is seven and a half units.
[35:01] You're replacing six of those units with a nine inch tree. What tree types are available to them?
[35:09] I'm not entirely sure of the answer to the question. I am pretty sure that there is restrictions on the types of trees that can be planted.
[35:19] it, it would need to be in the classifications of the ones that we've classed, we conclude
[35:24] this specimen.
[35:25] So, for example, they've got to be the specimen types in order to have that value.
[35:30] But I don't know that we have any requirements beyond that on, you know, what a magnolia
[35:36] versus a oak yet, as far as value is going to be based on the side.
[35:39] And that's something I would just like to make sure to be able to see this cut, to be able
[35:43] to be able to see the original.
[35:44] Because I do want to make sure that we are encouraging and really replanting and helping
[35:48] I mean, healthy trees are really the way things
[35:50] are happening in the trees, such as the area
[35:53] of, we can get that information,
[35:56] and sort of get that back.
[35:58] Any other quest for information from staff,
[36:01] obviously, we need to go back and regroup again,
[36:04] and we'll come back to the development presentation
[36:06] in the city center.
[36:07] I have one thing I can add to that.
[36:09] I can tell you that there has to be a balance
[36:10] in understory versus overstory trees
[36:13] and that the ratio, you can't do only,
[36:16] You know, if you can't only do it under, you can't only do it over if it's got to be a balance, which is means you're going to get
[36:22] the
[36:23] Trees will tend to be the 30 inch oaks later would be some of the ones that are planted and just really quickly to add on the other thing that staff
[36:30] Recommends is actually to make a minor revision to the definitions of our
[36:34] Bestment trees right now. As I mentioned earlier, we have an eight inch for our smaller trees which are your dogwoods
[36:40] We have 16 inch for a mid story, which would be your
[36:47] I think it's actually, I remember correctly, and then we have our overstory hardwood, which
[36:52] is oak.
[36:52] Right now is 24-inch, Marietta actually is 18-inch, that's one of the things that we've
[36:56] considered as a recommendation, and then reducing the 30-inch on the softwood overstory, which
[37:01] can be your pines to 24-inch, which again is what Marietta is doing.
[37:05] So that was part of the other leg of the recommendation for me, mate.
[37:08] Longing the discussion we have was sitting at 8-inch dogwood identified that way.
[37:13] All
[37:16] right, the witness will take that back and we'll have that.
[37:20] We're going to move to public safety now to the end of the question.
[37:24] Hey, the witness is the right amount of security in the national context in the law and in the country.
[37:29] I remember lobby at the time that we closed the agenda,
[37:33] we did not have the quote again from the contract,
[37:37] but we now have that quoted back and it provided to you the email and the card.
[37:45] Just to give you some history of the police department and security in the lobby after September 11, 2001, of the police chief at the time.
[37:55] It's better to officer in the lobby just to security purposes.
[37:58] And from time to time, you do have incidents in the lobby where an officer is needed.
[38:06] And I think it's just a thing to have an officer there, we've got to consider removing the officer and leaving him as security as it is, but I just don't think that's a good change in the light of things that are going on in society today, particularly in the community side.
[38:22] I think that's even more.
[38:23] So what we can look at for a while, other alternatives to securing the law, during the last
[38:30] process, we had a plan, and we had to go back and get a new book.
[38:38] But to be honest, at that time, it just wasn't a high enough priority at other issues that
[38:45] were going on and had other priorities.
[38:47] But in light of what's going on now, I'm reconsidering, I think it should be a higher
[38:52] priority to secure the lobby. By securing the lobby, you know, I'll drop that in a second.
[38:59] What that will allow us to do is take that police officer that's in the lobby and put him back or her back out on the street.
[39:06] The cost of the lobby project is going to be $91,000. And the cost of the ballpark cost of an officer will bring benefits to about $60,000.
[39:17] So you can see that in this will be a one time expense, but I asked for another place officer, it would cost us $60,000 a year after a year after a year after a year, but in this situation by funding this $91,000 lobby project, you're going to put a place officer back out on the street for one time cost $91,000.
[39:36] So essentially what we're going to do is I know you've all been into the lobby and there's a desk in there that is typically a lady sits behind an
[39:46] answer is the telephone and it's elevated. What we're going to do is remove that completely and there's also a door right behind where she sits with no window.
[39:56] So what we're going to do is basically put a ballistic window where there is no window
[40:05] now and she will sit behind that ballistic flash.
[40:10] Also the ballistic panels cover in the front part so that she will be behind the ballistic
[40:14] panels as well.
[40:16] So in the rural areas, the ballistic and fuel, so she will be being protected and won't be
[40:20] in the helicopter out there.
[40:22] here. Also, you can pick up a lot of people that walk in and want to follow up some type
[40:27] of report with the police department. The officer that sits out there, that's not his
[40:31] job or her job to do that. So, when somebody walks in and wants to make a report, the officer
[40:37] sits there and calls in another officer off the street and come in and actually take the
[40:41] report so that they can focus on what's going on in the wash. So, the time and time, we
[40:46] don't have to have officers come in and take reports. The lonely have one officer in there
[40:50] for a short time as opposed to the two officers.
[40:54] So in addition to, essentially, fortifying the downstairs,
[40:59] the upstairs to the second floor where we have our record
[41:03] section right now they sit behind drywall and plexi glass.
[41:07] And it was maybe two years ago that in the jail,
[41:10] the person at the counter, if the jail basically
[41:13] was in the same situation, they sat behind drywall and plexi glass,
[41:17] and we had a hard-earned project there where we put in ballistic panels and
[41:21] bullet-resistant glass in the jail. So essentially what we're doing to the lobby is
[41:25] what we've already done to the jail. So I think it's just a prudent thing to do
[41:30] and also another benefit is an official buy-gattles.
[41:36] So I trust your judgment on the CFP aspect. So wherever we think is made best from a
[41:41] safety standpoint, from a financial standpoint, I think it makes a lot of sense
[41:45] where you're telling us if we have a $91,000 one-time cost basically we get a $60,000
[41:51] annuity which is just having an officer back on the screen.
[41:54] That's definitely going to be a nice surprise.
[41:56] And what I've been able to mention is that these funds will be coming out of the F-16
[42:01] savings.
[42:02] Council members of mine.
[42:04] And just to complete Council Member Palermo's math in 15 years is $900,000.
[42:10] Just to keep your logic there, I've been here.
[42:13] So, financially, you know, I think also make a lot of sense to do it.
[42:18] And is that a motion to move it forward?
[42:20] Yes.
[42:21] I'm going to show you a good forward.
[42:23] Councilmember Lerner's second.
[42:25] And just for the record, included in that,
[42:27] not even a valid visit, 10% contingency on building off as Miller is here.
[42:31] When we manage that project, we'll let police to park with police.
[42:35] When we let building off, it was a great job.
[42:38] He's going to manage that project.
[42:39] So, we are requesting a 10% contingency.
[42:41] if it is not needed, we will not use the funding,
[42:43] but the budget limit is to be able to include that.
[42:46] Okay, I have a motion and a second, all in favor.
[42:50] Thank you very much.
[42:51] Thank you, Chair.
[42:51] Thank you.
[42:52] Mr. Stahl, could you make your way back up, please,
[42:54] sir, I know you have a moment here with us
[42:57] and we'd like to go on, so we'll get that item here up.
[43:00] This is consideration to exactly the material change request
[43:03] and the monstrosity of the fans.
[43:05] Supposedly, we're going first side, we've slightly
[43:07] got collected.
[43:09] Thank you very much.
[43:10] All the easing things from environmental public works are now over.
[43:14] We have a request from our recycling contractor against the services
[43:20] to a men air contract due to glass in the mixed recycling screen.
[43:28] And our representative from the media has chose to visit you as well to answer the difficult questions.
[43:33] The short version of this is, this has been a problem in the recycling business, particularly
[43:39] in the metropolitan area in Georgia for at least the last year to two years and probably
[43:44] longer.
[43:46] Janet Lieberman is also here to test to just how long this has kind of been brewing in the
[43:51] industry.
[43:52] And we have what's called a mixed recycling stream that's picked up curbside, so there's
[43:58] a lot of recyclable products that are mixed together in one basket or a bin.
[44:03] And the recycling materials recovery facilities have been designed to deal with that.
[44:11] And that has been the way it's been since those new facilities were built the last 10 to 20 years.
[44:17] What's happened is the market has changed for recycling products.
[44:21] And the last contamination in other recycling products has really become a big issue that's affected the value of recycled paper, as well as just the cost of running the material recycling facilities.
[44:37] So, Charlie can answer questions about that in a much more direct and experienced way than I can.
[44:43] But that's the short version of this.
[44:45] The market has changed and they have made a request to the city to amend their contract
[44:51] to stop collecting glass as part of the mixed recycling stream, and you would still...
[45:11] So I have a two-part question. First off, is there a significant, uh, with, with emitting the contract, is there a cost savings or a cost decrease for the, uh, for the reduced service? There is not a reduced cost being offered.
[45:29] in order to really see when their cost of service really isn't changing and having to go
[45:33] the same round.
[45:36] So unfortunately I understand it's a similar level of work on their side but I see it as
[45:40] a decrease in service to Roswell residents.
[45:43] I take a lot of pride and I know a lot of Roswell residents have a lot of pride in how
[45:46] good Roswell is.
[45:49] So what I'd be looking for or hoping for that we would be looking to not only this provider
[45:55] but other providers out there to see is there one that is able to recycle glasses
[46:01] well whether that's all of the same large bin or if that means there needs to be a
[46:05] separate smaller bin for just glass but I instead of seeing that it can't be done
[46:09] I prefer to just really look and see if there's a distinction.
[46:13] In a moment Charlie, we'll let you come up and talk about those process challenges
[46:18] that we've got to spend our hands up in questions that may have something similar
[46:22] I was thinking maybe going the other way that they could have a second truck go out for
[46:27] the same cost just to pick up glass and then it would be totally separated and it would
[46:32] be totally clean.
[46:33] In the health of that too, Charlie as well, but I believe short version is it could be done
[46:41] to run a solely-do-the-sector ground, well that would have to be handled when the contract
[46:46] changes.
[46:49] It wasn't that long ago that we actually had to bring glass to the second center, right?
[46:54] I remember doing that.
[46:55] When did that change that we actually started picking it up curbside?
[46:58] Well initially we had trucks that had separate bins when we were collecting glass.
[47:04] It wasn't a separate bin.
[47:06] That's it.
[47:06] Maybe that's what I remember.
[47:07] I thought I remember bringing it to the site, the recycling center regularly.
[47:10] So what a great one.
[47:11] Right.
[47:11] So if we change that and you bring it to the recycling center that had to be separated by
[47:16] color at that point. So it's not even, yeah, I'm looking at Jen, I'm sorry.
[47:24] When it comes to people who bring it now, and they've seen a big increase in glass because
[47:29] we are actually the last metro Atlanta cities who still have large curfews. Everybody else
[47:37] has dropped it, so they've seen huge increase. And when it comes to the center, it's color
[47:44] Okay.
[47:45] Okay.
[47:45] Because for whatever reason, I think glass is probably my first or second recycling
[47:50] item.
[47:51] Darker colors.
[47:54] Sure.
[47:55] Do you want to respond to some of the questions?
[47:56] It's always been hyped as the best one for easiest return and use, and also the highest
[48:04] paid for coming in.
[48:05] It used to be that way.
[48:06] But once I get counsel for them, and I'm sorry, I didn't mean it.
[48:08] So, as I remember, the recycle that they pick up, we don't get paid for the material, but
[48:14] But we do get paid when people take it to the recycle center.
[48:17] So is it possible we'll actually see a pretty good increase in our income based on this
[48:22] or something?
[48:22] The more we do this, but glass means fairly steady, but it's not real high.
[48:27] But if you're seeing more people start bringing it to the recycle center, that's income versus
[48:32] not income.
[48:33] Yeah.
[48:33] Recycle material.
[48:34] Charlie's late.
[48:35] Hey, I'm excuse me, I'm trying to say I'm an advanced disposal and I'm going to bring you that.
[48:41] Do you want to ask, Charlie, come on up.
[48:50] That's better than his next council member, Diamond.
[48:52] Yeah, I got it.
[48:53] I think that's about eight years ago.
[48:57] Glash has always been a challenge in so much as,
[49:00] in the early, early days, when we first got into business, my family,
[49:04] we used to have trucks where you separated by a color.
[49:07] It just took a lot of time and a lot of very expensive.
[49:09] Then the industry got together and they decided that they would implement these material recovery facilities
[49:16] where the material could be collected at the house, all together compacted, brought to the facility and separated there,
[49:22] which would enable them to stay on the route longer and reduce the cost of collection considerably.
[49:28] It worked fine for a while, but what was happening with the glass, the glass was getting broken as it was dumped in the back of the truck
[49:33] can go on up the lines and it would cut belts and the conveyor belts and it was also very
[49:38] dangerous for the people who were picking and separating the material.
[49:42] So what they did then was they came in, they we installed a breaker at the front of
[49:47] the line and it actually breaks the bottles and the bottles fall down through a screen which
[49:52] gets it out of the, what the material is sooner.
[49:55] The problem with that is you have things like bottled caps and swizzle sticks and straws
[49:59] that also fell down in there, and that created the problem for the processor, because the
[50:04] processor was trying to process it, getting it ready for the end user, oh, it's corning
[50:09] for fiberglass and carpet back in, things of that nature.
[50:14] So the end user said, you've got to clean it up, we can't take it anymore.
[50:17] The processor comes to us and said, you've got to clean it up, we can't take it anymore,
[50:21] and we're pretty much coming to y'all sand, we just can't take it anymore.
[50:25] At this, the way it is currently being collected and done.
[50:29] It would be very expensive to send out another truck to pick up this material just because right now
[50:35] I think we're at and I'm not 100% sure on this but I think we're somewhere around $2.56 per month, per household for recycling.
[50:43] I am proud to say that my family owned the business in the beginning we actually required by advanced.
[50:49] I have been able to keep that price for eight years. You all have not had an increase of any kind in eight years.
[50:55] So, to answer the question, could we reduce the price?
[51:00] I just don't see that at this time.
[51:04] Even though I understand the question, I just don't think it's feasible, because we do
[51:09] have to go by every half-still, and we still go through the same process.
[51:13] And one more quick thing is, and what's happening in the industry, too, is I don't know if you
[51:18] all realize it, but Georgia is one of the largest paper recycling states in the country.
[51:23] We have more mills here than anywhere else and when this glass gets mixed into that paper now they're starting to complain and sand
[51:30] We want to glass out so we're going to reduce the value of this material cardboard paper and things of that nature, so it's kind of a
[51:38] Cascading effect
[51:41] So is the issue primarily in metro areas because I was telling them that my mother was in Gainesville and they still accept glass
[51:49] You know what's happening is there are
[51:52] An arm aware of the metro area. There are four mercy material curvy facilities advanced owns one which is in
[51:58] South or South County up near McFarland Road
[52:01] waste for owns another one overall full industrial
[52:05] Rock 10 owns one overall of
[52:09] County services road and cop county and then Pratt industries owns one in Congress
[52:15] Whoever's picking up in
[52:18] They're taking it to one of those facilities, and if they're taking it there, they may accept
[52:22] it, but they've started charging for the materials.
[52:24] So in other words, where it used to be, you'd be bringing in pretty much, and we could
[52:28] make the money off of it, separating the materials and selling the materials, now you actually
[52:33] have a tip feed like you do when you take garbage in.
[52:36] It's finally understanding that tip feeds are now approaching $34, $36 a time, but recycling,
[52:41] which is actually higher than garbage being taken into the landfill.
[52:45] So, wherever they may still be taking it, and we have a, the regional VP for our company
[52:51] said that the glass industry has finally gotten the word, the end processors, I mean, the
[52:59] end users have gotten the word, the haulers have gotten the words, and we're hoping to
[53:02] sit in counties, we can all get together, they've actually formed a glass recycling coalition
[53:08] and everybody's getting together to try to come up with a solution for this, because the
[53:12] The glass processors and end users don't want to lose their material.
[53:16] That's very important for like Roswell, y'all, above all the cities around, y'all are probably
[53:21] in one of the best shape, just because you do have a great recycling center where people
[53:25] can continue to bring the material in and have a process.
[53:29] So you know, optimistically, I'm always optimistic, I hope we can figure out a way but unfortunately
[53:34] there's always a cost to everything and so right now the most efficient effective way to
[53:40] to do it is just to get it out of the way stream.
[53:43] The retail BP for our company said,
[53:45] we understand the dilemma here.
[53:47] So he's prepared to continue to take it, if y'all agree,
[53:51] but there would be a fee to take it in.
[53:53] It would be $16 a ton, which is a lot less than 34,
[53:58] on all the recycling collected.
[53:59] And y'all collect about 600 times a month.
[54:01] We collect about 600 times a month of y'all's material.
[54:05] What is that, Clayton?
[54:07] $10,000 a month.
[54:08] About $10,000 a month.
[54:09] for about an additional $0.40 a month.
[54:12] Yes, about $0.40.
[54:13] That's not $0.40.
[54:14] That's not $0.40.
[54:15] Over at $2.50.
[54:18] Correct.
[54:20] That's the...
[54:21] There were a couple of things...
[54:22] I'm sorry.
[54:23] A couple of things I want to say about that also.
[54:25] First of all, he doesn't want to come in for about any more
[54:27] than about six months, because he's afraid that when other
[54:32] companies and cities cut out the glass, the paper and the
[54:35] material coming in will be so much higher quality than our
[54:38] paper that the end-users for our paper would start deducting given us money for
[54:44] that so he'll do it for about a six-month period and the other thing is not
[54:47] just forgot what the other thing was.
[54:50] Tells the members of the product you had for that.
[54:56] What's the experience been that once you say no then people still gonna throw in
[55:00] there I imagine for a certain amount of time how does that happen I assume?
[55:05] And that is when we hope, and if, depending on what you all decide today or at a later point,
[55:12] we will work very closely with the rise over, keep rather beautiful, rather recycling
[55:17] center and the city itself, and educate people on what to do.
[55:21] I don't, I can't speak for what the enforcement aspect are going to be because I'm not in that
[55:26] position, but I just don't see it's leaving the material.
[55:29] But I do think we're going to put on a very strong educational type program to try
[55:34] We have a 20, 20, 60 rule, 20 of the people will never do it.
[55:39] 20 of the people, 20 of the people will always do it.
[55:41] 60% are kind of up in the air.
[55:44] How much you teach them.
[55:46] Okay.
[55:47] So I see that, you know, we have probably now four kind of options.
[55:53] One is to start bringing the glass to the recycle center.
[55:56] The other one is maybe pay $0.40 more bill per month.
[56:00] And just keep it as it is right now.
[56:04] Another one is option is bring into like a regional big
[56:11] container, like a supermarket parking lot that people need by the house that can go down the
[56:17] glass in there. And the fourth one is thinking outside the box.
[56:23] And we use, we're used to have two different bins.
[56:26] you know what we've been here for many years, we're used to put paper in one and cans and glass in another one.
[56:32] So what about if we start doing this again and every other week we get a, one week we get the paper,
[56:40] the next week we get the glass, the next week we get the paper again and we keep it going like that.
[56:45] You think the volume in the garage will be enormous to keep it for two weeks the paper because it's not,
[56:53] He's not a perishable, that's it, it's meld, so do you think this could be an alternative
[56:58] thinking outside the box or?
[57:00] I don't know how long I think I am, but I've been doing this 45 years and I'll be
[57:04] honest with you that it makes all the sense to hear you say it the way you just said it,
[57:09] but I can promise you the person will get confused and they'll put one out and forget the other
[57:14] and the next thing you know that we call him and can you come back and get my recycling
[57:16] that's full and I just remembered what I said, so I think it would be difficult to do
[57:21] that.
[57:22] The one thing that I forgot to say about, even if y'all decide to charge the 40 cents per house to allow it to continue as it's being right now, if we do that, there's a good chance a lot of that material will wind up not being recycled and will be put in the landfill.
[57:39] And the reason being is we still can't market the material with the contamination in the way it's being done right now.
[57:47] So it's going to, I know that in North Carolina they've got some grants from the state,
[57:50] or there's different types of equipment being developed to help separate the glass with
[57:55] optical sorters and things of this nature, very, very expensive, but that's further down
[58:00] the road.
[58:01] And the advance is committed to, well, I'll always be looking at those options, but for right
[58:06] now it's, it's pretty much-
[58:07] As you were saying, the best way to get glass recycled is to, the only way really to recycle
[58:13] cycle glass right now effectively is not to pay more but to take it to the city.
[58:18] That's it.
[58:19] Actually what I'm saying.
[58:20] Paying more is not going to recycle anymore.
[58:21] It's not going to.
[58:22] It's just going to keep the same system relevant for another six months.
[58:25] I also remember that.
[58:26] I don't know.
[58:27] It was one of my concerns because we've gotten emails from people who've seen the stories
[58:30] on the news about cities say, okay, we'll take your recycling and they don't actually recycle
[58:34] it.
[58:35] So the people I've been hearing from are more concerned that it's actually being recycled
[58:39] and used.
[58:40] and that's a justified concern.
[58:43] We have found other uses for glass as an aggregate
[58:46] on road beds and things of that nature,
[58:49] on our facilities.
[58:51] But is that really recycling?
[58:52] It's really reusing, sort of, so to speak.
[58:55] So I wouldn't consider recycling so much.
[58:58] Kelsa, what would you like about it?
[58:59] So I still haven't started going back
[59:01] to just thinking about the residents, think about how
[59:04] we're really always trying to work hard
[59:06] to make sure things are competing with them.
[59:07] In an example, what we've had is it's very convenient through with the recyclable products.
[59:14] It's picked up for them, they actually do it, there's the service we've been receiving.
[59:20] I just have a lot of concerns in saying that okay, where are you going to start, continue
[59:25] to pay the same exact price, but give them a lot less service and more convenience.
[59:29] that we're looking to increase their points just because of the challenges.
[59:38] I really just want to get some more research from public works to really understand
[59:43] you know it's a fine school we are, other solutions out there that we're not.
[59:47] Technology up there, or something different.
[59:50] I just hate the idea of saying that okay, anytime a service provider is going to have a new challenge
[59:55] we'll just go ahead and amend the contract to create a better community.
[59:58] That's nice.
[1:00:03] So going with Mr. Owlin's thought, which I think he was joking, but if you take a second pick up, obviously, just to double the cost. Come around and get picked last. I think not as much, but it would be close. And, you know, and you're not, you're reducing service in what, how that material handled, all they do is instead of putting in this container, you put it in this container. Well, trash. Right, right. But we pick, you know, I say we, the city picks up the trash, we do the recycling. So the services they get to recycle.
[1:00:33] I'm not just starting on the right, is there any, there's no way to have a second container
[1:00:39] or a third.
[1:00:39] I guess if you're talking trash recycling for glass that can be picked up either on the
[1:00:44] same truck that has a new element to it, that's just too much to, you know, it's, I'm not
[1:00:52] aware of it right now.
[1:00:54] I know that in Decatur, for instance, Decatur is the kind of city who really, really wants
[1:00:59] to recycle.
[1:01:00] And we're not by any means saying that there's not a market for the glass.
[1:01:03] There's a market for the glass just got to be prepared separately.
[1:01:06] I know that Decatur with their contractor has decided to pay an extra $25 a year, two
[1:01:14] dollars in whatever that is per month, to have that material picked up separately.
[1:01:19] But that in essence would double, just about double what the residents are currently paying
[1:01:24] for their service.
[1:01:31] If you think it's going to be a real inconvenience for the residents and you don't think they're going to care that it's not being recycled, then you have the option of 40 cents a house.
[1:01:41] I really believe and I hope that because I'm in the city of Atlanta and that's basically what they told us.
[1:01:46] they said, waste probe picked a process and they said we no longer can market a material.
[1:01:52] The city just came around and said, well, we're going to continue to put it in there,
[1:01:56] but it's going to be landfill.
[1:01:58] And if you have a problem with that, then you need to take it somewhere else.
[1:02:01] Mr. Spada said about setting up separate locations for materials.
[1:02:06] I would highly advise against that only because if it's not a man facility where you can open
[1:02:11] and close it, because typically what happens there is people, they start off really nice
[1:02:15] and do everything you're supposed to.
[1:02:17] Next thing, you've got garbage, six of us out.
[1:02:18] It just becomes a real mess.
[1:02:21] But then finally, with the glass I assume
[1:02:23] that the volume would decrease substantially
[1:02:26] versus what you just put at your curb
[1:02:27] versus what you have to bring to the cycling center,
[1:02:29] the amount that comes in, what's been the...
[1:02:32] It is, we think by weight, there's 600 tons a month,
[1:02:36] and we think by weight, it's about 200 tons is glass.
[1:02:42] Right, but I mean what's been the experience of those who've changed to where you have to bring it personally
[1:02:48] I would think the amount coming in is going to drop substantially versus what you just put at your curve versus if you have to go to the second center
[1:02:57] Right
[1:02:58] Right, because that been 50% drop
[1:03:00] Well now we don't run the recycling center. I know you don't but what those the cities have changed their policies
[1:03:06] What has been their experience? Oh this is due to the last this is all taking place right now
[1:03:11] What's happening? If you're in the city of Atlanta, I don't have an off. I don't have a recycling
[1:03:14] center. So, if I want to recycle gas, I'd have to load it up and come to Roswell. So, there's
[1:03:21] really no options for us. Other than just to continue putting in the recycling bin, with
[1:03:25] the knowledge that's going into the landfill.
[1:03:27] You could move to Roswell?
[1:03:28] Well, we may get more people from the areas going to recycling center, even though we get less
[1:03:37] of our people driving up there, and then our tipping season will go up because more
[1:03:42] that will go into our garbage.
[1:03:44] So how much of our tipping fees per time?
[1:03:47] $32.95?
[1:03:50] It'll be about, the way our not figure about $3600 a month increase in the tipping fees.
[1:03:59] And if we go this way, what has been put together, or have you started putting together an
[1:04:05] educational program and who's doing it who's paying for it and how are we going to go about it and we've only got what you said
[1:04:11] This is October 1st. What we are yeah, a month or so of educational
[1:04:19] Initially got this request. We talked about
[1:04:29] Advanced disposal has gone through the cycle and other
[1:04:35] thought, you know, we could maybe do it a little quicker, but we were in system 908 time frame,
[1:04:42] just to get to this process, so that's how we ended up in targeting October 1. The educational
[1:04:49] materials are largely prepared and drought-borne, and it's
[1:04:59] been sort of, we've been through the drill,
[1:05:02] the advanced disposal and their experience and other jurisdictions that they have a lot of material,
[1:05:13] and how has it worked in your other communities as far as the education to the public as far as
[1:05:22] still getting glass?
[1:05:24] They, it's getting better.
[1:05:25] I mean, there's still issues with, still dirty initially, but they'll come a point where
[1:05:31] they'll, they'll draw the line, and they understand people just aren't going to stop, so they understand
[1:05:36] and it'll be a break-in period.
[1:05:39] But when X-Channey's 70,000 houses,
[1:05:41] they just stop thinking.
[1:05:43] And it will need, as I mentioned,
[1:05:45] we'll need the new sticker to go to the top of her.
[1:05:47] It can, because it tells what you can put in it there.
[1:05:49] And we want her to reading somebody not paying attention.
[1:05:53] So we'll need new stickers for every one of those cans,
[1:05:56] which is about 22,000 to have some extras and so on.
[1:06:02] But I'm wondering if we should
[1:06:06] good or could do any kind of survey of citizens, if there's an interest of paying $2.50 more
[1:06:16] per month to have that second truck go just for class.
[1:06:21] Did you say that in fact would only guarantee that for about a six month period, just continuing
[1:06:31] doing what we're currently doing. We could certainly put out a survey very easily to say would
[1:06:38] you be willing to pay 40 cents for one of the month or whatever it is.
[1:06:42] But that's not sustainable. No, second truck will be 250 a month, theoretically. We're
[1:06:49] about 240 per house now, 256, 256. So as if they want to double their recycling fees, theoretically,
[1:07:03] And that's where I was headed was I think you know we've I don't know that we have a real option in the short term
[1:07:09] But the fact that we're not doing recycling glass for a while will give people a good input as to get feedback on whether or not
[1:07:15] They would pay extra to do that and I think you know
[1:07:18] I was in razzle when they would come to your drive to your back door twice a week. So we've had to adjust with the times
[1:07:26] and it's unfortunate and the bulletproof glass and lobby just makes me sad, but those are kind of
[1:07:31] things that have to happen in here, but I would love to have us talk about a second pick up,
[1:07:36] because I do think there might be a good amount of support for it. Do you know the majority,
[1:07:41] if I'm sure everybody buys groceries, but everything pretty much goes into plastic. If you stop and
[1:07:46] think about it, everything's going to go into plastic versus plastic, but there are a lot of wine
[1:07:58] I don't have any problem with going back and saying if it only makes sense, the one thing
[1:08:06] is that it wouldn't be separated by color.
[1:08:11] That's a very good one.
[1:08:14] That's a very good one.
[1:08:15] Is that practical?
[1:08:16] And that's what I'd have to do is go back and talk to them and see exactly what they're
[1:08:21] talking about.
[1:08:22] You know, perhaps you could do that because I know when I come in on all those questions
[1:08:26] today.
[1:08:27] But so I might hear them and we want to put together and start making questions.
[1:08:32] What is our deadline here?
[1:08:34] October now.
[1:08:35] I don't know how that moves, obviously.
[1:08:38] Well, if this is something the road you want to explore, then I'll go back to them.
[1:08:42] I don't know.
[1:08:46] So what I was going to say is I'm wondering a lot of the questions about different individuals and I think it's, I think it's reason that we need to defer this discussion.
[1:08:54] I think I think staff, I would recommend that I would think staff should have some homework to find more information about what a survey potentially would look like, what the DTO costs are, the different choices, as well as what are some of the other more environmental friendly greenities doing indicator and elsewhere because I would like to see what our peers are doing.
[1:09:15] and what's out there in the area of technology and solutions out there that hasn't been discussed.
[1:09:20] But I think there's definitely some of a lot of valuable questions I heard and I think we should be looking at
[1:09:26] before just automatically amending a contract to either increase our residence fees or increase their
[1:09:32] service. I think that helps with the public. So, well, yeah, I think that we definitely need to
[1:09:37] before this to get more information,
[1:09:40] but that is a big change in the contract.
[1:09:44] And unfortunately, with the negative impact
[1:09:46] for the regime of Roswell.
[1:09:49] So being such a huge impact on the contract
[1:09:52] does it make sense to start looking around,
[1:09:55] opening beats for to see what else other companies offer
[1:09:59] in terms of to maintain the same level of service
[1:10:04] and it's pretty much the same cost.
[1:10:05] Because he's a big he's a big hit on the contract
[1:10:08] So I think for fiduciary responsibility the residents, I think he's one of the least just know and make sure we still aren't in the best deal
[1:10:14] Which I think sounds like we are but we want to be sure right because he's you know, it's a big shift on the on the contract
[1:10:37] There are some states that have positive requirement on glass, plastic, and aluminum cans.
[1:10:49] Maybe that's something that should be proposed to our state legislature because in those
[1:10:55] particular states, you don't find glass bottles lying alongside the road or cans because even
[1:11:04] and the homeless people know that they can get a few extra dollars by collecting glass.
[1:11:10] Ten cents a piece, man.
[1:11:11] Ten cents a piece, right?
[1:11:12] He's a nurse.
[1:11:13] No, I don't have the nurse.
[1:11:14] Tell them the homeless.
[1:11:15] Michelle, I was just going to, yes, as far as other vendors and other bids.
[1:11:22] I've been reading about this happening.
[1:11:24] In fact, I approached Charlie several months ago and asked, you know,
[1:11:29] we're not having an issue.
[1:11:31] We're going to keep doing it.
[1:11:31] At that point in time, he thought there's no problem going forward.
[1:11:35] So what I'm trying to say is I think this is going to be basically industry-wide, because
[1:11:41] it's a problem getting the processes.
[1:11:44] So I don't think we'll find other sources to do it differently.
[1:11:49] It's a matter of all these other thoughts we've had about how we want to approach it.
[1:11:53] I think it's more of our issue.
[1:11:56] Well, John, I think we've already just not picked up last.
[1:11:59] That's important.
[1:12:00] Another vendor would have to bring the material to us for privacy because we have the only facility in the north-side town.
[1:12:07] So I agree with what you're saying. Certainly, I would look and again, in fact, we haven't had any increase in the years.
[1:12:15] I tend to tell you, I think, that the next one's going to be a little bit higher.
[1:12:24] So we've got some homework to do, we've got some of the dental survey questions, Charlie,
[1:12:29] you're going to go back and talk about the math about the math.
[1:12:32] So is there a motion to refer to the contract change in this case?
[1:12:38] That's a good one.
[1:12:39] I'll turn it over.
[1:12:43] Thank you.
[1:12:45] We'll give it to you about the case.
[1:12:47] Thank you so much.
[1:12:49] We'll be able to hold up on solid ways to ask the recognition of this year's
[1:12:54] recognition and parks item and we'll get you back here a little later.
[1:12:58] Moving to item number 7, which is consideration for the mayor and council to approve
[1:13:03] renaming Water Park Extension and Art Center on Fouts Road.
[1:13:08] However, the Rat Commission of Chair and Interior Division has requested that we
[1:13:12] approve the Art Center on Fouts Road.
[1:13:14] and she's going to speak to that tonight and the only consideration would be the
[1:13:19] re-named of Waller Park and St. James Moore.
[1:13:22] Great.
[1:13:23] And I would like to point out that we don't now have Chairman Ewing, but we also have
[1:13:28] Theo Kyfer-Leyton and Jay Smoller, which tonight appreciate their support.
[1:13:36] The naming of several parts have been, the commission has been talking about, one of the
[1:13:43] facility that they were looking at was the art center that's currently located on
[1:13:47] Fouls Road just at East Rausel Park. At their work session and into the at the
[1:13:53] commission meeting there was a motion to rename that to our central Fouls and with
[1:14:00] the indication that we had information from the Rausel Front Arts Alliance that
[1:14:04] that name was okay. Rausel Front Arts Alliance had not met and they made contact
[1:14:10] with with Chairman Ewe and has that they revisit that with the recognition from the
[1:14:16] process planner for Ryan so they put it back on their work session and we'll bring
[1:14:20] bring bringing that forward to the next meeting. The one that is before you
[1:14:24] deny is the renaming of the Wall of Park East inch below the park. I give you a
[1:14:29] little history about Wall of Park East inch and everybody I think everybody knows
[1:14:33] where Walla Parky is at the end of Austria, the property that had on Dodge Drive was owned
[1:14:40] by the city. And in order to do some work with certain grants, they needed to use, so
[1:14:50] it wouldn't start a new project. At the time, it decided to call that Walla Park Extension
[1:14:54] so they could tie onto a grant. It has since been called Walla Park Extension for that day.
[1:15:00] And it gets confusing. Sometimes we have wall apartment, wall apartment extension. You know, those of us that have been here, you know, for a few years, know the difference. But people that are just in the town, or if they have a soccer game, or a basketball game at one of the locations, and they're not for me with it, they almost inherently always go to the wrong location. And they're usually the ones that are rather late that go to the wrong location. So the committee will go to that and we may need the wall apartment extension, but actually look at the possibility of taking wall
[1:15:30] and ground bridge, and making it one park, naming it one park, since they were all connected by the land, but because there's three different entrances and three different, you know, the parks are three different parks, the gargants, they decided that was not a good idea.
[1:15:49] So then the commission looked at just naming, well renamed the Wall of Park Extension using
[1:15:55] the naming part name and policy that was approved by both the commission and by the Mary Council
[1:16:04] through the process and bringing forward renamed the Wall of Park Extension the Grove Way
[1:16:11] Community Park.
[1:16:12] Grove Way Community Park, if you look at the criteria, one of the things is historical
[1:16:18] the historical significance in the fabric of the community.
[1:16:24] We all know that the roadway community was a twist
[1:16:28] because the historically black section of Roswell,
[1:16:31] as Roswell was growing up, the roadway community has always
[1:16:35] that name is stuck in that area.
[1:16:38] There is still a roadway community group that does things
[1:16:42] in the community.
[1:16:44] And the commission thought that that would be a very
[1:16:53] What is strange about it is that the actual Waller Park makes more sense to have that
[1:17:01] neighborhood because that's in-broadway versus Waller Park Extension which is not further
[1:17:08] away.
[1:17:09] Was there any consideration to naming Waller Park,
[1:17:13] for a boy in Navy and the Wall of Park Extension Wall of Park.
[1:17:16] No, because when you go back to the name of Wall of Park,
[1:17:20] that's tied to the Wall of Family and tell the name of the property,
[1:17:23] that Wall of Park is all. So then you get it to that.
[1:17:26] And that's, again, that's in that, um, in the criteria that
[1:17:30] if a name of the park name was because of that and you can't change it.
[1:17:34] So I agree with your, with your synopsis, but the reason that we have
[1:17:38] Wall of Park is because of that. Still the neighbor. Mayor Wood, do you have your hand up?
[1:17:41] I think it's fitting and just that we name it.
[1:17:46] Groveway, Groveway is the oldest neighborhood association in the City of Rosalow.
[1:17:51] It's honoring our African-American contribution of that community.
[1:17:56] I think it would be great for the City of Rosalow to honor this and I'm a big supporter
[1:18:02] of this naming, this Park Groveway.
[1:18:07] I'm a supporter as well of many growing, I mean it's a great idea and it's very fitting.
[1:18:13] My question is more around the community part of it, just like curiosity, just because
[1:18:20] I think it's often easier when it's just a shorter game, I'm just wondering about the significance
[1:18:28] of having the community piece of it, because it's just what a year of your thought, so the
[1:18:33] Just thoughts on having the three words you can tell?
[1:18:36] Right, the commission had that very conversation during their meeting and the reason that
[1:18:41] Groveway Community Park was finally decided on is because throughout the 20 years I've
[1:18:50] been here, I've never heard the word Groveway without community connected to it.
[1:18:54] So when you say Groveway Community, that's just what that's the, that's how you identify.
[1:18:59] Community is as much a part of it as a Groveway, it's the Groveway Community, it's the Grove
[1:19:03] community groups, the growing community association.
[1:19:06] So if we could start the accurate,
[1:19:08] they thought the growing community party
[1:19:11] would be the appropriate thing.
[1:19:13] So now they did have that conversation with.
[1:19:15] Council member nine, well, when you look at our things,
[1:19:18] they try to do the three letters
[1:19:19] and when you're doing all the locations,
[1:19:22] everything pretty much has three letters on it.
[1:19:24] We get around while it part with that.
[1:19:25] I forgot how I moved to move this.
[1:19:27] Okay.
[1:19:27] A motion may have to be Guilemon Secondor Btv papers, and item
[1:19:36] Characters, exactly a wish of those members.
[1:19:38] No motion may have to refer to the Federaluvov Board continues that.
[1:19:44] January 20, Macaton.
[1:19:45] Justice Council Pass me the tram which was decided on was the advisory council board.
[1:20:07] That was approved by the elected.
[1:20:13] And I want to just start off with a quick introduction.
[1:20:16] The Department of Community Affairs and the State of Georgia
[1:20:19] has a number of requirements that local governments
[1:20:21] are required to keep up to date on.
[1:20:25] And Solid Waste Management Plan is one of those.
[1:20:28] The law changed a few years ago.
[1:20:30] They used to actually read these and keep them on file.
[1:20:32] Now they just require us to update them.
[1:20:35] I believe it's five years.
[1:20:40] Back in April, we came in and bring you
[1:20:43] on a solid waste business plan, and this is somewhat similar, but this is a regulatory
[1:20:49] driven document, so it has some very specific items that the state wants to see.
[1:20:54] And if you go to the first slide, these up, and what we've done is this really just summarizes
[1:21:00] what's in the document itself. It's a 15-20-page document, and rather dry, but I have a copy of
[1:21:07] And here it can be on the website tomorrow for public review and comment, is our plan.
[1:21:13] But we are required to maintain one of these we've had ones for about a decade or longer
[1:21:19] than this is just an update.
[1:21:21] Most of it is drawn straight from our business plan on a broad range of goals that we have
[1:21:26] for the next 10 years.
[1:21:28] There are some very specific things that the state wants to see.
[1:21:32] And most of it revolves around adequate capacity to dispose of our solid waste.
[1:21:37] Next slide, we have about seven required components of the plan, and that's what these
[1:21:47] next slides go through.
[1:21:48] We're required to include a waste disposal stream analysis.
[1:21:51] We included that in a business plan, no change.
[1:21:54] We keep this up and have been doing it for quite a number of years.
[1:21:58] Next slide.
[1:21:59] Waste reduction, this summarizes all of our recycling efforts and efforts to reduce waste
[1:22:06] going through how we do recycling both herb side and the recycling center, and just
[1:22:13] other programs that we do to reduce our waste stream and encourage the waste
[1:22:17] reduction. Next slide. How waste is collected? So just what streams are collected,
[1:22:24] how it's done, where it goes, and a program for illegal dumping as well. And all of
[1:22:32] these things are things we had in place. So just documents that we do all of these
[1:22:36] things and have a collection program to slide. Finally, disposal, this is one of the key
[1:22:43] elements of the plan, just confirming that we have places identified and that adequate
[1:22:49] capacity exists in those disposal vendors or landfills. So another question that the state
[1:23:00] wants to know is, could you or do you have room for any additional landfills or solid waste
[1:23:06] Yeah, it goes with facilities.
[1:23:07] Yeah.
[1:23:08] A real quick answer to not getting to slide is absolutely not.
[1:23:13] No way.
[1:23:14] There's lots of reasons.
[1:23:17] We're also required to have public education and public involvement
[1:23:22] program, and we have one of the best I've ever seen.
[1:23:26] So that's just one of the great things that I've seen.
[1:23:29] I have a college community in all respects.
[1:23:33] Finally, attend your work plan.
[1:23:34] So, this incorporates, we've incorporated all of our solid ways of business plan components.
[1:23:42] And in addition to those, the goals that we had to add that are required by the state DCA
[1:23:48] requirements are the last three little bullets to review land limitation ordinances for any
[1:23:54] changes annually with community developments.
[1:23:58] That's not going to change.
[1:23:58] I don't see us giving any more land available, but our land limitation is probably going
[1:24:04] to be in place as long as we are here.
[1:24:07] Monitoring changes in landfill regulations,
[1:24:09] we do that routinely, but it's mostly
[1:24:12] to keep track of our suppliers
[1:24:13] and their available capacity in places
[1:24:17] where we currently call and dispose of waste.
[1:24:20] And maintaining current and accurate records,
[1:24:22] the amount of waste collected that we do that
[1:24:24] will continue to do.
[1:24:26] Next slide, the only action item that we are recommending
[1:24:31] or need to follow through here
[1:24:33] is to formally public comments and review this document that we put together that summarized
[1:24:40] this which we begin tomorrow on the website and is available now for anyone who would like
[1:24:45] to review it.
[1:24:46] Janet will be collecting and documenting comments, questions, comments that come in and then
[1:24:53] we would bring a resolution to you in August 22nd hopefully to approve the plan because it
[1:24:59] to be an approved plan, and then we would need a press to
[1:25:01] go on our website and notify it to CA that we updated our
[1:25:05] plan. That's really what I'd like to close with and answer any
[1:25:10] questions that we got.
[1:25:12] No, move on.
[1:25:12] Mr. Major, the resolution forward.
[1:25:15] Second.
[1:25:16] All the pilots.
[1:25:18] Thank you.
[1:25:19] Thank you.
[1:25:20] We'll be back to administration side of number three,
[1:25:32] Thank you very much for the discussion about the kind of usage of the positions that we currently have, one of those being the full time position of the executive assistant for council and the ability to really use that position more for the support.
[1:25:53] individual, each of you individual council members, one of the ways that we can free up that
[1:25:59] position to be able to provide more support to you guys is working through the process of agenda,
[1:26:07] meeting minutes and physically putting the agendas together and those type of things.
[1:26:13] And with that, the recommendation is to put together part time, bringing part time transcription
[1:26:19] sent to the city so that they can do all the transcribing of committee meetings and put together the packets for these packets for these meetings, which would free up the time for your executive system out to be able to do more.
[1:26:34] So, I'll take some requests for some research and some other things to be done.
[1:26:39] For councils to hold the S.D. cost associated with bringing in a part time of transcription
[1:26:45] is $14,942.
[1:26:48] And we can certainly provide those.
[1:26:50] But if they're a legitimate, do the general cannot bring out any contingency of some
[1:26:54] desire?
[1:26:55] Council were done.
[1:26:57] So, I'm not sure what some members of council expressed.
[1:27:01] I guess I'd like to understand, it wasn't very long ago, this position was part-time,
[1:27:06] and now we're talking about a person in a half, so I'd like to understand why.
[1:27:12] Sure, so I'd like to actually respond to that.
[1:27:14] So for clarification, it was actually a short period of time, part-time.
[1:27:19] The number they offered, it was always full-time.
[1:27:23] There was less than a year period or part-time, and then it was quickly moved back into full-time.
[1:27:28] And with that, I think what you have, there's, what I'm seeing is, is multiple factors,
[1:27:35] obviously there's a, there's a lot of council members that would prefer seeing more support
[1:27:41] for both, say council as well as the engagement with the community.
[1:27:46] And I think, I think what we have here is a very engaged council that must be very engaged
[1:27:51] with the residents and staff to really make sure the response is possible and so I
[1:27:59] think one clarification Mr. Fisher, I think what we discussed was it would deal
[1:28:04] with having the executive assistant continue to do the packets but instead I
[1:28:12] think it was discussed the transcriptionists were these specifically four
[1:28:15] minutes both for for the committee minutes as well as I think he said there
[1:28:19] some other systems you felt that other members of staff could use but I think I think it really
[1:28:26] comes down to you that you have six individuals that do require assistance and limited a limited amount
[1:28:34] of assistance that you give them and I think with this council as well you have more individuals
[1:28:40] than perhaps in the past where people actually have full time jobs right now I think I think I've
[1:28:51] You don't know what the report is, but I guess my point would be we had part time one council
[1:29:01] member wanted to have someone sitting at the desk when she needed somebody.
[1:29:06] It was not about workload.
[1:29:08] It was having somebody on call at the time and I'm having I'm going to have trouble explaining
[1:29:14] to the taxpayers why in the history of the city I would disagree that we haven't always had an
[1:29:19] engaged council and that we haven't always wanted to be responsible to the citizens or that we
[1:29:23] haven't all had full-time jobs, kids at home and things other things going on. I don't know what's
[1:29:31] changed other than the people. So what is so much different that can't be done. I mean I do you know
[1:29:45] to work to it and a certain amount of time involved, and sometimes that's at night, sometimes
[1:29:49] that's on the weekends, you do what you need to do, but this is a cost to the taxpayers
[1:29:54] to offset your time.
[1:29:56] So actually I'm glad you brought it up.
[1:30:00] I know what I'm going to say quickly is I think sort of that's been different as you have so many with all respect, council member, or you have some members that do take a good amount of service, and do get a good amount of assistance and support. And so when you have additional people trying to get that level of support, it's difficult when you have individuals that have already getting the support, that's one thing I want to respond to. Another thing is to be honest, my preference, you bring up the tax money for
[1:30:30] or at $15,000 per year.
[1:30:31] My preference is actually that we not
[1:30:34] do a budget amendment.
[1:30:36] I can't support it if that staff's recommendation.
[1:30:38] I do want to support it,
[1:30:39] but what we currently have, again,
[1:30:41] we have six part-time individuals
[1:30:43] that are absolutely all six training
[1:30:45] and full-time road would be out of the city.
[1:30:48] Whereas in what we have is,
[1:30:49] we have multiple executive assistance
[1:30:51] to partner and supporting full-time people
[1:30:54] and full-time staff.
[1:30:55] We also have of course,
[1:30:57] the mayor being a part-time individual
[1:30:58] with executives as well. My preference would really be to find other support within staff
[1:31:06] in which case there's no need to increase the cost but without a staff's recommendation.
[1:31:11] Council members, upon it.
[1:31:13] Yeah, like we put here on the agenda that, you know,
[1:31:20] research is a big part. And I see
[1:31:26] This opportunity, first because I noticed that our executive assistant is very good on
[1:31:34] research and we need research because we need to say with data, data, data, and we have
[1:31:43] to find.
[1:31:44] And also the most important here is that this executive assistant will be an information center
[1:31:51] which does it mean? I would finish in a couple, I don't talk forever. So, so this person
[1:32:00] will focus, we concentrate all the information. So, I found out that you know talking to
[1:32:04] my peers, they say, hey, I found this. Oh, I did the same thing. So, what happened? It's
[1:32:09] very inefficient. So, I spent time looking for some information. Other city council members
[1:32:14] look the same information and begin or make a phone call and then I have you know
[1:32:18] staff answering the question twice or three times the same question because
[1:32:23] three people call at the same time you know different time for the same
[1:32:27] question and this is very inefficient and I'm all for an efficiency and you know
[1:32:32] 14,942 dollars investment is an investment it's only cost I think we'll make
[1:32:40] with the new city council, work much more efficient and don't waste time chasing around
[1:32:47] the same information when we have it in seating in one desk on a website.
[1:32:53] Two things. One, what sort of information is this person gathering? And two, who is this
[1:33:00] information going to? So, you know, after one, if there's information available, would
[1:33:08] like to see that information would like to see what those questions are. If there's
[1:33:12] information, let's share information. I have not seen any information that has come
[1:33:18] from this person. I have seen any of the questions that went to that person. So it's hard for
[1:33:24] me to understand what information is being requested, what's being researched, who that information
[1:33:30] is going to, and what form is that information going out. So that would be, I'd like to hear
[1:33:36] more. Could we ask the same for your assistant? Absolutely, because frankly I support in the council,
[1:33:43] but I do think practically, you have three new members who haven't done this before. I imagine
[1:33:47] there is more support needed. I also found, I don't know, you could probably say that since you asked
[1:33:52] that question, I think I've actually asked for more things than I ever have in the past, whether
[1:33:56] that's a triggered me is to think, hey, there's nobody to do some work. No one yet has shared with me
[1:34:02] What information you're asking for? What information is being available and how it's being disseminated. So those are all just questions
[1:34:12] And that you know, it would be helpful to hear those answers
[1:34:17] As an example and this is not something that everybody on council would want
[1:34:21] But it's something that I felt the need to have and that was I wanted to see some of the early maps
[1:34:28] of the city of Roswell from when the city was first incorporated. I wanted to see how the land
[1:34:35] divisions had taken place and so on. And so we got some of the maps from
[1:34:43] one of the local residents, but we were able to have some of those maps put together with the GIS
[1:34:54] program, and so we can see the progression of land distribution or land division through
[1:35:03] the years, and that was something that I really didn't have access to, or that it was
[1:35:10] something that took a lot of time, and I wanted that specifically, because I have an interest
[1:35:14] in finding out what is the real historic district. I want to find out specifically what
[1:35:22] assets? What historic assets do we have in this community? And it's part of what we're
[1:35:29] going to be moving forward with in terms of getting a grant for doing a historic asset
[1:35:36] inventory. So it was a major effort on Katrina's part to get that information for me.
[1:35:43] That's just one example. There are others too. And it just depends on where some of our
[1:35:51] priorities are as individual council members and some of the things that we
[1:35:56] want to find out about so that we can be more informed and and we didn't push
[1:36:02] policy. So is there any objection to sharing that information? No, I've got
[1:36:06] that. We've got those maps now and we can certainly I don't know if everybody wants
[1:36:12] copy of them but I've got two copies of my office. I think it would be when
[1:36:16] And when research is done, which you blink is appropriate for the city, that the question
[1:36:22] should be floated, the answer should be made available for all of us to share in that
[1:36:29] information.
[1:36:30] And I think that would be helpful.
[1:36:33] We might need a part, a full and part time person just for that.
[1:36:43] I will expect to see on my desk the information that has been available recently, and I hope
[1:36:54] if you all need anything from my office, my office is available to answer questions.
[1:37:00] I always ask from it.
[1:37:01] What Robin does.
[1:37:02] Absolutely.
[1:37:04] I want the same from what Robin does.
[1:37:05] I did talk to Robin.
[1:37:06] Robin makes it available.
[1:37:07] Well, talk to Katrina.
[1:37:09] She'll make it available to you.
[1:37:10] Okay.
[1:37:11] I'm afraid I'm going to post it on the phone.
[1:37:13] I do.
[1:37:14] I'm afraid I'm going to post it on the phone.
[1:37:15] On Thursday, I'd like to meet with you and I'd like all the information that you're currently
[1:37:18] collected available.
[1:37:20] I'm asking the same right now.
[1:37:21] I'm from Robin.
[1:37:22] I'm second round.
[1:37:22] Yeah, the same for Robin's on medical leave.
[1:37:25] So, it makes it.
[1:37:26] Whoever.
[1:37:26] Yeah, we do the same thing.
[1:37:30] Okay, so I can appreciate it.
[1:37:33] So, we'll come together.
[1:37:34] But I need a little clarification, so sometimes things that might come in the mayors of us are the same thing that go to you guys, like from a citizen who's asking about the status of something.
[1:37:46] I'm assuming, but I like to assume anything. You don't mean those emails and things that go to mayor counsel, but if the mayor had requested, let's say, of staff to know how many by-pracks were in the city of your browser, we have provided that information.
[1:38:00] That would be the type of information you would want to share.
[1:38:04] Likewise, if you had asked Katrina how many bike racks
[1:38:06] were in the city of Rosal, that would be the information.
[1:38:09] I think the best way to do is when either one of those is just to share the information
[1:38:13] with Bayard Council on that email distribution unless it's something too big.
[1:38:18] Like it is a map and then you might choose not to want to get a print out of a 60-page document
[1:38:23] or something so they'll need to be some coordination between Katrina and Robin.
[1:38:28] In the interim, when Robin is out, here's why not my office is filling that role on an
[1:38:33] interim basis.
[1:38:34] So we have not had any such requests since Robin was out.
[1:38:38] I can't speak for before Robin.
[1:38:41] So we will get Robin.
[1:38:43] Generally, my request are not to Robin.
[1:38:45] Correct.
[1:38:46] But stay out.
[1:38:47] All right.
[1:38:48] Much of it comes in the mayor's update meetings, which some of you do attend, obviously everybody
[1:38:54] can't attend.
[1:38:55] so we can she does make those minutes available or her notes that the mayor
[1:39:01] provides for those meetings are
[1:39:05] counseling with the product.
[1:39:06] What do you call them?
[1:39:07] Me and everybody jumped in.
[1:39:09] So, counseling with the Orleans.
[1:39:11] Then counseling was a question.
[1:39:16] You know, I can see the research on kind of a strange request on the maps and so forth.
[1:39:22] I guess I wonder if there's that much different type of research coming up.
[1:39:25] Normally, when I've requested certain research,
[1:39:28] it's a matter of her going back to the department
[1:39:31] and it comes from a department,
[1:39:33] not necessarily adds more, a lot of additional work
[1:39:36] for the assistant or Katrina, whoever that may be.
[1:39:42] So I'm not sure we have ongoing research constantly.
[1:39:45] I mean, yes, pops up here there for something
[1:39:49] that may be outside of the department,
[1:39:50] but we do have all the backup of the departments
[1:39:52] and second help without its individuals.
[1:39:56] As far as engaging with the community,
[1:39:58] I mean, I'm out in the community on awful lot
[1:40:01] and going to new businesses and talking to people
[1:40:03] as much as I can.
[1:40:05] And I guess my concern would be that she is not
[1:40:09] used as an engagement with the community
[1:40:11] for political reasons or campaign reasons.
[1:40:13] That's not her purpose.
[1:40:14] And that's not what she should be doing.
[1:40:18] So that is a concern.
[1:40:19] So, I just, again, I'm trying to understand,
[1:40:25] you know, I run my own business, I've been
[1:40:29] working, I've done this part-time job full-time for a while and I'm trying to get a handle
[1:40:35] on what all would be entailed that you guys are needing, other than maybe just educating
[1:40:43] yourselves and getting in the role which would settle down after some time.
[1:40:49] So, for the, I think, a heart percent agree with you.
[1:40:52] There are actually the engagement should not be heard in the
[1:40:56] affirmative or political campaign reasons,
[1:40:58] which is the engagement in general.
[1:40:59] It's more of supporting council to make sure
[1:41:02] that there is the ability to schedule and schedule an
[1:41:05] incentive to be able to be engaged in community.
[1:41:08] But you mentioned you know, you do things where you'll have
[1:41:10] her reach out to the department.
[1:41:12] And that's a perfect example of any other view that you
[1:41:15] should be doing. I think we have to remember is when when she's taking time to type up minutes
[1:41:20] and then when she's not doing that, she's doing one of those things for you. There's six of us.
[1:41:24] So the problem is with six of us, there's not that there's not that availability of all
[1:41:29] utilizing that minimal amount of time. And also I think I guess the part that I'm still not
[1:41:44] well and also all six being very engaged, very active and we the six of us get
[1:41:51] support from one half of the individual and then we have the again I go back
[1:41:55] to the example where the mayor of part time the individual has one full-time
[1:41:59] resource staff department heads have one full-time one source and then again
[1:42:04] as I go back to it there's six of us that are not all being able to get
[1:42:08] our service in that for me there's a number of things that I could use help
[1:42:11] in scheduling, in getting the answer through departments,
[1:42:15] that I need to do myself,
[1:42:16] or I'm not getting the answer out of the ways
[1:42:18] of being able to support residents,
[1:42:20] because again, you have one half a person
[1:42:22] being pulled in by six people.
[1:42:25] And so, I'll stop that for now.
[1:42:28] That's because we're all good.
[1:42:29] So well, I understand that different people
[1:42:31] have different ways of working.
[1:42:33] I'll have it, you know, depends.
[1:42:35] And no one said like, you need to utilize executive assistant
[1:42:40] like no one force you but it's available but other people think that it's more to be utilized
[1:42:46] more and they can use it so you know everybody has to respect that different people have different
[1:42:52] way of working different way to analyze things different way to come to a small decision and no one
[1:43:00] has to force anybody and having the resource there but everybody has access to six people have
[1:43:06] And no one is denying that it's to anybody.
[1:43:09] If someone doesn't want to use it, that's fine.
[1:43:11] They are a choice.
[1:43:13] But a lot of people on city council need to use more.
[1:43:16] And I think the assistant thing is more
[1:43:20] that justifies less than $1,500 investment.
[1:43:26] It's not just research.
[1:43:28] It's not just research.
[1:43:30] I have constituents kind of give me
[1:43:33] frequently about certain issues, certain things.
[1:43:36] I may not know the best person to go talk to to get the thing resolved or get the answer
[1:43:42] to the question.
[1:43:44] And so I give it to Katrina and she knows who to go to and she gets the information, gets
[1:43:50] it back to me.
[1:43:50] And if I happen to be tied up in business meetings in a tired morning or afternoon and I want
[1:43:57] to get that information out to that constituent, Katrina can get that out for me right away.
[1:44:02] So there's, it's a matter of service because they're doing as well.
[1:44:07] So in the past, one of our practices, and I don't know if it's a policy, if you have
[1:44:13] a project that's going to take a lot of staff time, we talk about it because it may not
[1:44:18] be something all of us want to go that direction and to use staff resources of any staff on something
[1:44:25] that may not have any support in the group, it's something that we always talk about.
[1:44:29] And, you know, that's the only thing I'm hearing that is any different.
[1:44:35] I mean, they've always scheduled meetings, they've always returned calls, they've always
[1:44:38] talked to citizens, they've always worked with people, I'm not hearing what's different.
[1:44:44] I mean, there's, I don't see why in the history of Roswell we've had one person and now we
[1:44:51] can't do that.
[1:44:53] And, you know, and we've had 64 something people in this position.
[1:44:58] Everybody works different.
[1:45:00] But I just so many things on the history of Roswell, but anyway, and so I have nothing else to say. Just like emotion. Maybe it's that we utilize. The person differently than other other members have. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
[1:45:30] is the preferred motion before you're going to motion I just asked it's a
[1:45:34] preferred motion that we approved the $15,000 or is the approved motion that we
[1:45:39] make you make her a full-time assistant but instead push the responsibility
[1:45:43] elsewhere and staff I guess is the concern more around the $15,000 or is it
[1:45:49] concerned just that that it's always been done one way and it's just concerned
[1:45:54] with change yeah my concern is that we're taxing staff in a different way than
[1:46:00] and this council ever has.
[1:46:02] And that's not to say that there's any less engagement
[1:46:06] or any less, I mean, we have rewritten the whole code.
[1:46:09] We have upended huge projects in this city.
[1:46:12] We have done massive thing, not we, me.
[1:46:15] But over the years, they have been massive things done
[1:46:18] and huge amounts of time spent.
[1:46:21] And I don't, I just don't see putting an added stuff
[1:46:25] stress on staff.
[1:46:27] I would not support, I would, you know,
[1:46:29] putting it on existing staff if you think you're doing that much more I think it's
[1:46:34] not a workable solution. That's a question for you guys. What is there staff
[1:46:42] available now that would be able to take this time up versus hiring somebody out
[1:46:48] or is that why your recommendation is tired? That's not a recommendation I mean
[1:46:52] what we talked about before you guys know we don't have to mind just sitting
[1:46:56] around 20 hours is half, half time, I mean, and when you talk about a person assigned to
[1:47:03] the department, the department records division, and all of those divisions don't have
[1:47:07] them, and these are just like you're responding to constituents and citizens, we're responding
[1:47:11] to citizens as well, if we have the capacity, and when we spoke with Katrina and the other
[1:47:17] admin, can we do it for a week? Sure, can we do it on-going? No, sir, we can't, and that's
[1:47:26] That means something else is not going to get done.
[1:47:28] So if you're shifting these minutes to somebody else administratively, then that means there's
[1:47:33] some other duties that won't get done at the department level and you don't have a department
[1:47:37] director coming back around and saying, I need some additional assistance here.
[1:47:41] You're just transferring the problem from one place to another.
[1:47:46] If the idea is capacity, you are building capacity.
[1:47:49] We're right now.
[1:47:51] We're good.
[1:47:52] Your building capacity, that means adding people.
[1:47:56] So if you say that it has to be done with the additional
[1:47:59] funding, then we're going to be coming to you as a list of
[1:48:01] things.
[1:48:02] You're not able to do these things at the same level.
[1:48:06] And that might be, is it OK for the phone to ring 10 times
[1:48:09] before someone answers it?
[1:48:10] Because they're doing these minutes now.
[1:48:12] That's your service delivery decision.
[1:48:15] We have a very high level of service here.
[1:48:17] And that's the level that you have established for us and
[1:48:20] We're maintaining it until you change it.
[1:48:23] That changes this, and I have a great concern
[1:48:25] about that being shipped in the morning.
[1:48:29] I move that we push this forward.
[1:48:31] Second.
[1:48:33] Push what?
[1:48:34] Yes, please.
[1:48:34] We propose a consideration of the part-time
[1:48:36] to minstrelationists.
[1:48:37] But in a part-time to minstrelationists?
[1:48:39] At the fundee.
[1:48:40] OK, we have a motion.
[1:48:41] I can't move forward.
[1:48:42] Second, I can't move this apart.
[1:48:44] Any further discussion?
[1:48:45] I'll in favor of the motion.
[1:48:47] That is, Idlehart Ford and Mayor Wood, the pot of Palermo, opposed councilmember Diamond.
[1:48:54] Councilmember Olin, how are you?
[1:48:58] Are you voting against it?
[1:49:01] Again, okay.
[1:49:02] So, that is five, two.
[1:49:04] So, we will move that forward to the office.
[1:49:07] Next item on the agenda is consideration for the international court and commission's member of employment process.
[1:49:15] You have met the legal act of the last committee meeting and come up with some reporting that's in the packet.
[1:49:21] So, do you want to read that? Where do you want to read it?
[1:49:24] Yeah, you both can read the new warning.
[1:49:29] After the discussion of council members are caught up, I wanted to eliminate what you turned the bottom of that.
[1:49:37] I mean, the language that's been proposed would change the charter only to meet the mayor's
[1:49:46] appointment power for the city charter.
[1:49:48] We'd delete the current city code of ordinance references regarding appointments to boards and
[1:49:53] commissions.
[1:49:54] And then you would have the following process, nominations for agencies on city boards and
[1:49:58] commissions.
[1:49:59] I think any number of mayor and councilor, after a nomination is made, and that nomination
[1:50:04] would be made by submitting the name of the City of Administrator,
[1:50:08] thereafter would present any such nomination to Mayor of the City Council in closure for discussion,
[1:50:14] immediately following the next regularly scheduled Mayor of Council meeting.
[1:50:18] After discussion, closing the nomination, or nominations, which I'll be pleased on the City of Administrator's agenda,
[1:50:24] for a vote of the next regularly scheduled Mayor of Council meeting,
[1:50:28] unless the nomination is withdrawn by the nominated member.
[1:50:31] The board of one nomination scheduled for a vote of the meeting of the council nomination
[1:50:36] has been considered an outcome that is recorded.
[1:50:39] These are the last names, appointments for the board of the commission shall apply.
[1:50:42] They are currently moving to this for the council minutes.
[1:50:52] Skipping over the charter amendments and the city charter, which was an existence long before
[1:50:59] I became mayor and has worked well in changing that in the middle of the term,
[1:51:03] removing authority from a mayor who what appears to be could be seen as an action against
[1:51:13] the mayor, not just against the seat. Looking at the details, scheduling concerns
[1:51:21] me. In the past we have allowed opportunity for interviews of these people. This current
[1:51:28] schedule doesn't allow interviews from council members or the mayor. It says it
[1:51:34] goes on the agenda, you vote on it, you move the next meeting, it doesn't allow
[1:51:38] time for the council to interview these people. That's first concern, second
[1:51:45] concern has to do with alphabetical names. I, as Mr. Zapata, you may share
[1:51:52] this with me. As someone who has a W, I've always felt, why does the, you always come
[1:51:59] last in the process? To just, well, me, if there are, if there are two or three members,
[1:52:06] they should all be discussed and all the merits of all three should be considered at the
[1:52:10] same time. To say, we're not going to consider Mr. Wood because Mr. Aaron came up first and
[1:52:17] we're not going to consider his merits at the vote. Doesn't seem to make a bit of sense
[1:52:21] to me. Well, you have to go one by one to vote, right? You can go one if you don't.
[1:52:26] You have to make a motion. You can consider them all. You can get motions and heard, but
[1:52:30] as far as the discussion of the merits of the different members, they should all be considered
[1:52:35] and compared. Who is best qualified? If you're going to be three people forward, you need to discuss
[1:52:42] all three at once. And are we going to be getting public comment on this thing? If it's
[1:52:48] like a normal vote that we make it public comment.
[1:52:51] We're going to have different people there.
[1:52:54] We're going to have a lot more politics, but be as it may.
[1:52:57] I don't think if we're going in alphabetical order,
[1:53:00] that makes no sense at all to me.
[1:53:02] And the last question I've got, where is the Marigold to vote?
[1:53:06] I've got four council members voting.
[1:53:09] Does the Marigold to vote?
[1:53:11] If you're, you know, can I be one of the four?
[1:53:14] If it takes four elected officials, shouldn't it be?
[1:53:18] shouldn't the mayor get a vote? Do I have in my some sort of you know not
[1:53:24] qualified to represent the citizens because I'm the mayor? I should I think I
[1:53:30] don't understand why you left the mayor off of folks who get to vote.
[1:53:38] I'm trying
[1:53:39] to look at this from a logical standpoint and I think mentioned some of this
[1:53:43] last time we started discussing it but right now any council member can put up a
[1:53:48] name for a board of commission and you know hearing things going that only to
[1:53:53] Merrick him or any council member can put it up. The mayor has taken time to hour
[1:53:59] and a half to two hour interview whatever to vet out the person and make them
[1:54:02] understand what it consists of and and has them go to one of the meetings to make
[1:54:07] sure it's something they want to do and comes back to us in closure and it's been
[1:54:13] of practice, you know, used to be a little different, but any more, if any one person has
[1:54:19] not been in favor of that candidate, we've seen additional names, they're new names.
[1:54:26] So basically you have seven people agreeing on somebody that's going to be on a board
[1:54:31] of commission versus now a simple majority of four people coming to a decision who's going
[1:54:38] to be on a board of commission and these are you don't want to get multiple people discussed
[1:54:49] in my opinion anyway in a council meeting and you know somebody volunteers puts them
[1:54:57] so forward yeah we can take you because we run for political office but you know I put
[1:55:03] citizens out there and then they get embarrassed about something that comes up in a meeting or they
[1:55:06] it turned down in a public meeting and we've got a battle going back on 4th on
[1:55:11] them. So I guess from a log to standpoint we've got more agreement on people
[1:55:16] coming through now than we will under a huge system like this. So that's kind of
[1:55:22] how I'm trying to look at it. It makes no sense.
[1:55:26] Well I talked to Bob and David about this and that one of the things that we
[1:55:29] talked about was that we would have an opportunity and I'm not sure it's this
[1:55:34] in what it's been created but to have the discussion in comparison even if
[1:55:40] there are two people who are more at the same time in closure and so I'm not
[1:55:45] sure that deals with that this way but that you know that would be the
[1:55:49] intention where we have that discussion in closure and then just have a vote in
[1:55:52] the public and of course anybody can say anything they want to in the public
[1:55:55] meeting but you know the hope would be that we have most of that discussion
[1:55:59] internally as we do now. I'm not sure this ultimately does that this way.
[1:56:08] It does and that's that's the reason that it was drafted so that it goes to
[1:56:14] clothing in person that you discuss each person whether it's one two three
[1:56:21] to get her one. And just when the council members are part of wanted a way so that there
[1:56:30] would be no hold up between if there's not a consensus that a council you would still
[1:56:36] have a means that they go out and get active. That's what he wanted in there.
[1:56:43] It's the
[1:56:44] the same language we discussed.
[1:56:48] Just wasn't included in the packet.
[1:56:50] I do have a concern about having three or four candidates
[1:56:54] in a public meeting and discussion around three or four candidates.
[1:56:59] I don't understand why we can't bring out candidates.
[1:57:03] If we have, let's say each council member has a candidate for a particular role
[1:57:08] and they bring it to that one meeting and we sit there and discuss
[1:57:11] and we look at their resumes and we discuss merits
[1:57:18] of each individual, and then, by consensus,
[1:57:23] determine which one of those six candidates goes forward in public meeting. Why can't we do that?
[1:57:31] You can do that, but as written, it doesn't do that. This says that after discussion, the nomination,
[1:57:38] she'll be placed on the next agenda. It does not require consensus. It doesn't require a second.
[1:57:43] It says that nomination goes on, but the point is, is the way it reads right now, every
[1:57:55] nomination will go to a vote unless it's withdrawn by the person who makes the nomination.
[1:58:03] And before the meeting, so I can imagine if this had been in practice to fill the HBC
[1:58:15] We see which we recently filled with a nomination by Mr. Horton.
[1:58:19] We would have had five votes before we got to that vote, or four votes, as I recall.
[1:58:26] Bob, I think that just, if I could point out, the reason I think this even became an
[1:58:35] issue is because there were several
[1:58:41] candidates, you brought forward several candidates,
[1:58:46] There was one candidate that I did not bring forward that you wanted to bring forward.
[1:58:52] I brought four candidates in which there was four votes in favor of and two votes killed
[1:59:00] it.
[1:59:03] So, by the clarification regarding the discussion and closure while they can't vote, can
[1:59:10] and there not be consensus pulling up what Canada to move forward.
[1:59:17] Yes.
[1:59:18] There's always been informal.
[1:59:20] We want to move forward with this.
[1:59:22] Right.
[1:59:23] We're done with that if you'll bring this forward, guys.
[1:59:25] We're done with that.
[1:59:26] So if there were three, like...
[1:59:28] That's not going to happen anymore.
[1:59:29] Let's say there were three two council members in the mayor,
[1:59:33] each brought an individual forward for a particular position
[1:59:36] and after discussion, then there's consensus to bring one of the three forward and then they
[1:59:42] can absolutely do that. They're not voting, but aren't they agreeing to move forward?
[1:59:48] I mean, this is the problem. We're mixing a political process with a legal process.
[1:59:54] The only way legally with the open meetings act and the other, that's why we have to withdraw
[1:59:58] all of them in there.
[2:00:00] If there's a consensus to move on, then it's incumbent upon the members to withdraw the others. That is the answer that we'll comply with. I ain't complying with it, guys. You push this through, we're going to have multiple candidates. Now, just so I'm just on clear, is an eagle where if I feel there's, if I'm bringing someone forward, I feel there's not consensus if I ask, if I ask Jerry, Jerry, you just point out.
[2:00:29] I can't, it says no.
[2:00:30] And I ask everybody else, and they all say, no,
[2:00:32] individually to me, then I can say, you know what?
[2:00:35] Even though I brought this person forward,
[2:00:37] I am not going to bring this person forward
[2:00:39] to the councilman, is that something that's legal
[2:00:40] and that would work?
[2:00:41] Right, this is the point of discussing this
[2:00:45] in a closure, so you'd have to get them to the job.
[2:00:50] So talking about the embarrassing issue that seems
[2:00:53] to be the most, the hot topic, like we know,
[2:00:57] So like this stipulate is not a bit discussed in closure.
[2:01:01] So like Councillor Valera Polaro said that if his or her candidate doesn't have any vote
[2:01:06] only his vote then he has two choices and choices is good.
[2:01:11] I mean why not?
[2:01:12] We're not child.
[2:01:13] We are adults.
[2:01:14] You know.
[2:01:15] We have choices.
[2:01:16] So you have to choice it either.
[2:01:18] You tell your candidate I'm sorry but I couldn't get you the vote so I'm going to withdraw
[2:01:23] your name before the next meeting with one option.
[2:01:28] I think that you and me, we are going to get embarrassed in front of everybody, and I'm
[2:01:33] going to bring your name forward, and I'm going to fight your name like nobody else.
[2:01:38] It's a choice.
[2:01:39] I mean, it's a choice of the city council member, and it's a choice of the volunteer for the
[2:01:48] position.
[2:01:49] So why to eliminate the choice?
[2:01:51] I mean, it's their choice, their adults, they are, you know.
[2:01:54] And then, which, you know, really will happen, I don't know, which I don't even see a scenario
[2:01:59] that if you don't have four votes or four people who support your candidate, why are you
[2:02:06] going to bring it forward?
[2:02:07] I mean, you can do it, but you know, you are in your own.
[2:02:10] So then the other issue that I want to address is no interview.
[2:02:14] I don't know where this came from because, you know, if Marley has in advance all the candidates
[2:02:19] updates on the database with the resume because now you can apply online, you know, thanks
[2:02:25] I've been pushing for two months, finally everything was put online, clearly all the
[2:02:30] boring positions available, when expire and now it's available, people can submit resumes
[2:02:36] online that they are available for everybody immediately, so resumes and then if you want
[2:02:42] to do personal interviews, phone numbers are there to coordinate through our executive
[2:02:47] in a system of mayor executive assistant to coordinate an interview formal face-to-face
[2:02:53] interview.
[2:02:54] So I interview, I don't see much of the point.
[2:02:58] Alphabet, you don't see the point of an interview?
[2:03:00] No, I don't see your point that you said, no, let me explain it to you.
[2:03:03] I said you have to interview and you have the data to make possible, if you want, if you
[2:03:07] don't want, you don't interview.
[2:03:08] Well, let me explain it to you.
[2:03:09] So no one prohibit in this to interview anybody who is the name with...
[2:03:16] You probably weren't listening when I, when my comments were made.
[2:03:20] This were, this was my plan again.
[2:03:22] This process does not allow enough time.
[2:03:25] Because if it says once a nomination is made,
[2:03:31] it goes immediately the next meeting.
[2:03:33] Now, I don't know when that nomination will be made.
[2:03:36] I don't know how much time there is.
[2:03:37] I don't know whether there is sufficient time to schedule it.
[2:03:41] It's a matter of scheduling.
[2:03:43] If you've got time to schedule, which in the past,
[2:03:46] We've held off on these moving forward until if someone wants to do a to interview we've held off if we follow your process
[2:03:54] It immediately goes to the next meeting whether or not there is time whether or not that person's available
[2:03:59] Whether or not you've had a chance to interview them. So if you're so if your suggestion is interview everybody who goes online and makes a request
[2:04:10] If unless some until someone brings them forward
[2:04:14] There's not time to interview everyone who potentially is interested in a job.
[2:04:20] You have to say those potential in which they're coming forward.
[2:04:23] So, the point is, I didn't say there was no opportunity, I was saying, you're scheduling
[2:04:31] the way you've got it scheduled.
[2:04:32] You don't leave enough time for the interviews.
[2:04:35] Okay.
[2:04:35] You've got a very body point.
[2:04:37] I mean, if you are bringing your candidate the day of the closure that never heard anybody
[2:04:42] But before, yeah, I mean, that is an issue.
[2:04:45] You don't have time to maybe close you.
[2:04:47] You can read the resume.
[2:04:48] You can talk about your candidate.
[2:04:50] But if you want to bring this name forward with the resume
[2:04:52] to mayor and city council and distribute the executive assistant
[2:04:58] can distribute this by email the resume.
[2:05:02] So then you have plenty of time to read the resume, analyze,
[2:05:05] study, make a face-to-face interview if he's needed.
[2:05:10] But if you bring the name, you're right.
[2:05:12] If you bring the name on closure or Friday before closure, then that might be an issue.
[2:05:18] Yeah, I agree.
[2:05:19] But if you bring the name in advance, like a week, two, three, four weeks in advance closure,
[2:05:26] then you do have time to interview and talk to the people and see who is the candidate.
[2:05:31] And also, let me say something.
[2:05:34] You know, everything comes, you know, let's look on this on what is bacon.
[2:05:40] We have one, two, three, four bacon.
[2:05:45] And this proves the system is, no, can I finish please?
[2:05:48] So we have four bacon.
[2:05:51] One of them actually is more than six months, which means that we don't have anybody sitting there.
[2:05:56] So, and then we have next month expiring one, two, three next month and no one even brought
[2:06:04] a resume, nobody even looked for people because, you know, that is a problem, that is a
[2:06:11] problem.
[2:06:11] Here is a problem, here is a proof of the problem and then the other one is the level of
[2:06:15] participation, the diversity, you know, we have 95,000 people in the city now and with a very
[2:06:22] good background, experience, interest to volunteer in the city. So we have to give the chance
[2:06:29] to these people also to participate and bring diversity, diversity to the board and commissions.
[2:06:37] So the other point that was made was alphabetical. I mean alphabetical, if you are AOC, I mean
[2:06:46] I mean he's fair, I mean he's no one pick any from they have, no one pick by finger anybody, he's alphabetical so I'm seeing, so think about, I'm proposing alphabetical and I'll be the last one and I was always the last one in every list, but you know, being the last on the list doesn't mean being the last one accomplishing thing so, I think a alphabetical, you know, you can debate about it, one quick point I would like to make.
[2:07:15] Okay, and then Councilmember Diamonds inviting very favor.
[2:07:17] Mr. Zippata, I have not received one suggestion from one council member for any of these
[2:07:24] vacancies that you say are open.
[2:07:27] So if this council member wants to start making suggestions, get off your ass.
[2:07:33] Send me some resumes.
[2:07:34] I have not received one resume from anybody that hasn't already been brought forward to this
[2:07:41] council.
[2:07:41] I have it.
[2:07:42] He's not true.
[2:07:42] We have a park on wreck commission available, I know, they've submitted a resume and the resume has been submitted and the name has not been brought hasn't come to me. The name has not, they've known you know, I mean, we have a knowledge by email.
[2:07:56] Well, please furnish it to me because my office hasn't seen it. I haven't seen it. I have reviewed, I have interviewed everyone who's come forward and considered every name that's come forward.
[2:08:05] And Mr. Zapata, I challenge you to bring forward and showing that you've delivered something
[2:08:10] to my office because I haven't received it.
[2:08:13] I have a copy of the email or...
[2:08:15] Counselor, we're done.
[2:08:16] We have a copy of our knowledge and...
[2:08:18] I have email.
[2:08:19] Yes.
[2:08:19] And my office has emails.
[2:08:21] And I have a respond from you about that.
[2:08:23] Well, let's see it because I don't recall a response.
[2:08:26] Okay.
[2:08:26] We can get that to the Mayor of London.
[2:08:29] So let's get back on top of here, Counselor, we're done.
[2:08:33] I'm trying to get to what the end game here is because the emails I'm getting are the
[2:08:37] mayors, the only one who can pick Canada's, which is absolutely not the case.
[2:08:40] No, nominations, nominations, which is absolutely not the case.
[2:08:44] And when I look at the appointments that have come up in the six and a half years I've
[2:08:48] been here, I cannot see any or think of any where he originated the nomination.
[2:08:54] Now, he vets them, but I've never seen him not bring one forward for a discussion.
[2:08:59] And, you know, they're, I mean, well, that's not true, they've been a couple that you've
[2:09:03] decided that you come in and you say, okay, this person thinks they should be in charge
[2:09:08] of code enforcement or that person, you know, this is not something that will fit with us
[2:09:12] and we can have that discussion, we can revisit it, I've seen you re-interview people, I'm
[2:09:17] trying to get to where we're going to go with this because I'm telling you, when you deal
[2:09:22] with volunteer citizens, it's all about respect and honoring their time and their willingness
[2:09:28] to do this and we had a time at one time where we didn't do the unanimous part and we had a public
[2:09:34] vote. I had nothing to do with the city at that point. I just came to it and it was a very
[2:09:39] contentious public vote split vote on a volunteer citizen in a public forum and it still harbors badwill.
[2:09:48] You are going to divide the city by having four people and three people voting on citizens
[2:09:53] for volunteering in a public forum.
[2:09:56] And there are a lot of times there are reasons
[2:09:58] why you don't want to do that in a public forum.
[2:10:01] You know, people aren't always
[2:10:03] suited to be in that position for 100 reasons.
[2:10:07] Some of them have all kinds of issues
[2:10:10] that I won't go into in a public forum.
[2:10:12] But those are things you have to be respectful of.
[2:10:16] And the one thing that we have not always done well
[2:10:19] and we have worked very hard and we've done well
[2:10:21] the last few years is honoring the volunteers that come in here and this
[2:10:27] system I have huge concerns if you think you don't have time to do the job now
[2:10:30] and you need help how are you going to interview everybody that comes online
[2:10:35] you're going to take that on I mean it just you're going to do what you're going
[2:10:40] to do but I think you're setting us up to be at the more divided city than we are
[2:10:44] right now.
[2:10:46] I do think it's valid points on the timing because there's nothing in
[2:10:50] that prohibits someone from putting a name in on Monday when we have pleasure that night.
[2:10:54] Or even in the two weeks before that, that probably doesn't give time to have somebody
[2:11:00] interview even if we wanted to.
[2:11:02] So I think it probably doesn't make sense to look at whether it's a 30-day window after it's
[2:11:07] put in before it's actually brought forward.
[2:11:10] But I think, and I understand where you're going on the word nomination, I think, at least
[2:11:16] what I talked about is consideration or something so that it's in the pool or
[2:11:21] the person is in the pool but it's not necessarily brought forward and not
[2:11:25] maybe that's one of the issues that you guys have to have to be a nomination
[2:11:29] or to go through that process but is there maybe a two-step process to where
[2:11:34] because we really want to be able to have those discussions internally
[2:11:38] enclosure to the extent possible and then you know people decided to go say
[2:11:42] something out beyond that, that's their choice, but you know, I think the better situation
[2:11:47] is where you have, whomever it happens to be in that list, is discussed internally
[2:11:51] and then it brought forward beyond that, but I do think this does make it more contentious
[2:11:58] if we do it that way.
[2:12:01] We could take a different approach on this and we could take the same approach we've done
[2:12:06] on a DDA where there's seven on each of our boards. We label them post one through six
[2:12:13] in the mayor. Each person's responsible for bringing, suggesting, proposing that one
[2:12:21] person to fit their post on every of the boards. So we could take that route, similar to
[2:12:26] what we've done with the DDA.
[2:12:27] Okay, council member, whoever.
[2:12:29] So, and I definitely have fun, but I want to say what my concern is,
[2:12:35] because I think that's, then there's many different ways to accomplish this, I think.
[2:12:39] I think with some, some refinements to, to this document we have here, I think the guest will be me.
[2:12:45] I think come along, that could be another example that perhaps guests will be me.
[2:12:49] My biggest concern is that currently today, you have, you could have a situation
[2:12:53] where 4 council members or even 6 council members have someone that they really feel would be great for this and currently the mayor has the sole discretion decided this person is not right to be nominated.
[2:13:09] And so that's really what my concern is and again as I said in the last meeting was discussed but I don't want this situation where there ends up being 3, 4, 5 whatever the number is of people being brought forward.
[2:13:21] of them that fit the bill fit that fit the need when there are people that are
[2:13:27] being suggested and that doesn't have a good amount of support on councils. That's
[2:13:30] what I feel like is that is involved in the solve.
[2:13:33] But if he brings it to closure, you as one person can stop it too. I mean that's
[2:13:39] the whole point of being seven people on a team to accept a person in. So he's
[2:13:44] expressing his vote early on for whatever reasons. But I mean it's been that way
[2:13:49] We've got one person is not in favor of it. We've passed and gone to look for other people and we've done.
[2:13:57] I think it's pretty a job of seven people in the ring on people over the years.
[2:14:02] So, I mean, you can kill them after it comes in as one person.
[2:14:06] I was simply going to make the point that Jerry is so able to make it.
[2:14:12] Right now, one person can block it.
[2:14:18] And that is not efficient neither.
[2:14:21] So this is how we can get this and then we can go forever like that.
[2:14:25] I mean, we've been bringing names that you didn't want to nominate.
[2:14:29] Even though they have enough votes, then you brought names that we're not happy.
[2:14:33] So if we get into this game, this is going to be every time the expire is not going to be
[2:14:37] renew.
[2:14:37] So it's going to be in maybe what was the last one expire, maybe three, four years, it would
[2:14:41] be blank.
[2:14:43] So I mean, that is not efficient.
[2:14:45] I'm looking for a fashion and then you know looking for the six folds then if you are not
[2:14:52] going to have a six fold wide to even bring it just you know because you know if you have
[2:14:57] diversity council tool then probably you will never get
[2:15:00] If you get six votes, you might get four, five, and maybe eventually, if you bring a super star, will be six votes. So, the system is not efficient, it's not working, and he is approved. So, I'm trying to fix this problem. And I'm trying to fix the problem of nominations. So, because it's also not fair for people here that they could stay six months. You know, they, legally, they can stay six months after expiring the term. But then it's not fair for them to what I'm going to be reappointed.
[2:15:29] They're going to nominate someone else so it's not fair for these people and you know
[2:15:34] I'm sure these people they'll be happy to know as soon as expired what is going to happen with them
[2:15:39] So it's also fairness for the volunteers who does a great job in these boring commissions
[2:15:46] Mr. Sepada from the way I hear it you've said this system is doomed to fail. It came work
[2:15:52] Is that a fair statement? He's not working right now that this system has been working
[2:15:59] to my knowledge for 60 years, if I count, well, 50, 30 years with bug and 20 years with
[2:16:06] me. It's been working for 50 years. Now, sometimes it works smoother than others. But to
[2:16:15] say this system is not going to work, I remember you saying, well, no one has had a double
[2:16:21] crisis in a neighborhood with one entrance, so it's never going to happen before. Statistically,
[2:16:27] So, you're saying this system is not working, this system is working.
[2:16:38] If you're saying it could, you know, the most efficient system, the most efficient
[2:16:44] government out there, Mr. Zapata, is a dictatorship.
[2:16:50] Democracy by its nature is inefficient.
[2:16:53] And if you want to, you know, and I'm not suggesting, and I've never suggested a dictatorship
[2:17:00] in the city of Roswell.
[2:17:02] Maybe they have those in Argentina.
[2:17:04] I think they've had those in the past from time to time in Argentina.
[2:17:08] But it has never been part of the American system to have dictatorships and inefficiencies
[2:17:14] are built into the system but the job is getting done.
[2:17:18] I think we've had, at the last appointment, was a good appointment.
[2:17:23] I was desperate bringing a lot of folks forward because that position was, it was critical
[2:17:30] to fill that position.
[2:17:32] We had an MTC.
[2:17:33] Right now, we have folks that are serving beyond their six-month term.
[2:17:38] We need to fill those.
[2:17:40] Some have, and there are different reasons that we haven't moved on with some of these people.
[2:17:44] I encourage you to bring nominations to me in the interim.
[2:17:48] We're not going to change this charter overnight.
[2:17:50] And if you've got nominations, I apologize if my office has overlooked them.
[2:17:55] I have not consciously overlooked any nominations.
[2:17:59] My practice is to interview everyone that it comes from.
[2:18:03] I've always followed that practice.
[2:18:06] I have not always supported that nomination.
[2:18:10] But you all haven't always supported my nominations.
[2:18:13] and I understand that.
[2:18:15] So, yeah, it's good to know about the relationship
[2:18:18] and the system today is the dictatorship
[2:18:20] because the only one who can nominate is the mayor.
[2:18:24] So, this dictatorship, if you want to go this route.
[2:18:29] So, what I would say that
[2:18:33] not only, you know, they have to get to you
[2:18:35] but also you have to bring to us the names
[2:18:38] and it's not happening.
[2:18:39] I've been keeping an eye on for, you know, six months.
[2:18:43] And I keep tracking of this from day one.
[2:18:48] And I see that every time it's even getting worse and worse.
[2:18:50] We have now, let me just, you know, we have on a DDA
[2:18:56] who expired on January 9, 2016.
[2:19:00] So now the person is not even feeling the six months
[2:19:05] after the expiration.
[2:19:06] So I mean, if this is working efficiently,
[2:19:10] You know, I, I say well, I disagree. I don't think that this is efficient to have the
[2:19:17] situation we have right now. And we, and we know what we have this situation. We have
[2:19:23] this situation because we bring names. You don't want to nominate and then you bring name
[2:19:27] that we don't want to vote for. And then we keep going back and forth like that. And then
[2:19:33] this is what it happened. So we have to resolve this.
[2:19:35] So what are the names that you've brought forward that didn't go through?
[2:19:42] Which, who have you nominated that we haven't seen that the mayor hasn't got it?
[2:19:49] Okay.
[2:19:49] You have one.
[2:19:50] It seems like there was a mistake in the email.
[2:19:52] It's standing right here and receiving an email from Mayor saying that this vacancy is going
[2:19:59] to be filled.
[2:20:01] Sorry.
[2:20:03] Uh, there were no vacancies on for the red commission.
[2:20:06] Which we know that we just appointed one recently and what they were actually two to vacancy. They're not vacancies. They are in a sense that there's no one there.
[2:20:18] Nancy Diamond made a request that one of the members who is the only member who is serving the undisturbed be allowed to continue to serve a little bit longer.
[2:20:28] And that was at a deferral to a council member, which I have not brought forward a nomination
[2:20:33] on that.
[2:20:34] But I have not received any other nominations from any council member for any other
[2:20:38] seat.
[2:20:39] I challenge you to tell me that we have made a nomination for HBC with it.
[2:20:44] And you said no.
[2:20:44] No, I interviewed that person.
[2:20:46] Okay.
[2:20:46] And you didn't like.
[2:20:48] And the point is, there was one occasion where I brought one person forward that I would
[2:20:56] not bring him forward. I had multiple occasions where I brought people forward where their
[2:21:00] majority was in the favor of their nomination, and a minority of one or two block those.
[2:21:07] So Jerry Orland is the point.
[2:21:11] Yeah, comment about that, though. I remember one nominee in particular, and my, I made one
[2:21:21] comment. I said, I really don't see this individual spending the time that would be necessary.
[2:21:27] I don't see him having the time and you say, OK, that's it.
[2:21:34] I didn't know that that was the end of it.
[2:21:35] I didn't know that my word would kill me.
[2:21:39] Be careful what he's saying.
[2:21:41] Is that it?
[2:21:42] I mean, that was it.
[2:21:44] So there was no discussion.
[2:21:46] Well, it's like an option, don't raise your hand.
[2:21:50] Well, if you had set up in the mud, my practice
[2:21:55] was if I received an objection to withdrawal
[2:21:58] nomination, if you're saying I should have been more
[2:21:59] insistent, that's different.
[2:22:02] No, you said you knew this person?
[2:22:05] You knew him well, you didn't think he was going to put
[2:22:07] in the time, and I felt that was a credible argument.
[2:22:12] You knew him better than I did.
[2:22:13] Right.
[2:22:14] You didn't tell me that.
[2:22:16] OK, that's it.
[2:22:18] I'm sorry.
[2:22:20] Well, you know, there is an adjustment
[2:22:25] period when you're okay.
[2:22:28] Here's the team.
[2:22:28] It's a team, all for our own self.
[2:22:31] Okay, everybody's talking at the same time.
[2:22:33] So can we get the pleasure of this committee related to how and for our seating?
[2:22:37] I think we need to agree.
[2:22:37] I move that we defer this decision until we've had a chance to really vet the ordinance.
[2:22:44] We're still figuring it out.
[2:22:45] So I think we need to figure it out.
[2:22:47] Who would they do what then?
[2:22:49] In the meantime, I encourage you to bring forward your nomination.
[2:22:55] You know, Mrs. Apollo, I apologize if you have submitted a name and I didn't see it.
[2:23:00] Me too.
[2:23:02] That name was, you know, no one has, you know, if you...
[2:23:06] And I see a hand waving the audience, that's Kay's job to do it.
[2:23:09] I have not received one nomination from one council member in my term as mayor,
[2:23:16] in which I did not interview that person.
[2:23:18] I have not always brought those people forward.
[2:23:20] Since this new council has been seeded, there's only one person which I interviewed which I did not bring forward.
[2:23:28] That is a point, no interview. That is already on the code. We've not been doing exactly like the charter said, but it's a nomination.
[2:23:39] So if we're going to defer, but I don't want to defer this just to keep deferring different.
[2:23:43] So if you want to, you know, if no one agrees, that's fine, we just say we don't want, we want to keep our cities working perfectly and then just vote for, you know, so I don't want to waste anybody else time.
[2:23:56] It is not working perfectly because, because Mr. Horton didn't know he had the power of veto.
[2:24:04] And Mr. Zapata has made a nomination which my office hasn't received.
[2:24:12] I never saw it so maybe you guys need to give a little bit of time for the system in your own months
[2:24:24] Council member Horton have made a motion and is trying to make a month
[2:24:29] So what is your motion council?
[2:24:31] Motion is to defer this to a work session so that we can work more than you
[2:24:37] Okay, we have a motion to defer to a work session. Is there a second?
[2:24:41] I don't think we need a work session.
[2:24:42] Okay, that fails for a lack of a second.
[2:24:44] I'll second it.
[2:24:45] Okay, any further discussion?
[2:24:47] Would you be willing to change into a committee meeting?
[2:24:53] I think I support studying this further, but I don't want to...
[2:24:57] We've got enough work sessions, guys.
[2:24:58] We need a work session.
[2:24:59] I withdraw that move.
[2:25:00] Okay.
[2:25:01] So we have to be able to research, research, dig out the details and have something that we can all feel comfortable with for it, let's say I have a floor.
[2:25:15] I didn't see your hand up.
[2:25:17] Well, we have a train room.
[2:25:19] So I would like for you to set a deadline for us and that way just like you don't want other things.
[2:25:25] You know, staff bring back wording to the next committee meeting.
[2:25:29] Give yourself 30 days.
[2:25:30] Staff are here to help you figure out what process you'd like to put in place.
[2:25:35] So, if you would want to send it down on, otherwise it's up to you guys.
[2:25:38] Let's have Katrina research.
[2:25:40] How much time do you need to research?
[2:25:41] The question is, how much time do you need to research?
[2:25:43] I guess you have to answer this question.
[2:25:47] Thanks, committee.
[2:25:48] Let's move this to the next committee.
[2:25:50] Okay, so we have a motion to defer this for further research.
[2:25:54] to the next committee meeting, which would be September.
[2:25:58] This committee, not just our next committee, okay?
[2:26:01] Yes, sir.
[2:26:01] This committee, which would be, I believe, the 14th.
[2:26:05] We moved that meeting.
[2:26:06] We moved council meeting from Monday to Tuesday.
[2:26:08] Committee from Tuesday to Wednesday.
[2:26:09] I believe that's the committee.
[2:26:11] What would be the committee?
[2:26:12] Five.
[2:26:12] We will not be here then.
[2:26:14] What would be the committee?
[2:26:14] Five was that.
[2:26:15] I have to inform the 14th.
[2:26:17] I mean, you don't have to do that without us, but.
[2:26:20] Well, there will be a lot of committee meetings.
[2:26:22] Lots of conversation between now and now.
[2:26:24] Yes, there'll be discussion.
[2:26:26] All right, so we have a motion to defer this to the September and the
[2:26:29] Finance Reconparks Committee meeting.
[2:26:31] There's that second, but also are we going to consider my
[2:26:36] thought about I think for I think that should be I think it's worth
[2:26:39] on it with our area.
[2:26:41] Yes, it's a spot I would appreciate copy of the email which you'd
[2:26:44] save you sent to.
[2:26:46] Okay.
[2:26:46] Okay, it's a problem that we don't have day to present day to
[2:26:50] rather than just hear say.
[2:26:51] And we have a motion at a second, all in favor.
[2:26:55] That would be Councilmember, aye.
[2:26:57] Okay.
[2:26:58] Thank you very much.
[2:26:59] All right.
[2:26:59] So our last item is consideration to review the
[2:27:03] Tribunal's vision and vision statements.
[2:27:06] Thank you.
[2:27:07] Thank you.
[2:27:08] This item was after we finished up doing some of the logo
[2:27:12] in the branding initiatives.
[2:27:13] There were some questions in looking at our vision statement
[2:27:17] and mission statement here to see actually Councilmember Horton
[2:27:21] was asking about that. He had a lot of interest in the way it was wording. So as we got to look,
[2:27:26] so you've got a whole bunch of information in your packet, by the way. I just want to let you
[2:27:30] know that there's a reason that this is just for discussion for right now. In meeting with
[2:27:35] Council Member Hort, we were sort of looking at what is the vision statement, what is the mission
[2:27:39] statement? We looked at a lot of different examples that are out there and it's really confusing.
[2:27:46] Some people look like they have a vision statement that should be a mission statement.
[2:27:49] Some people's mission statement looks like it ought to be a vision statement.
[2:27:54] So what you have in front of you is our current vision statement for the city, our current
[2:28:00] mission statement, and then you have the regular boring old everyday businessdictionary.com
[2:28:08] definitions of a vision and a mission statement.
[2:28:10] The reason I started off with that on this page is so we're all starting from the same
[2:28:15] place.
[2:28:16] Now, with that, we could maybe get some discussion, Council Member, let me also say then
[2:28:22] the next several pages are division statements that we've had at the city as far back as
[2:28:26] we can find mission statements, core values, strategies.
[2:28:31] So that's kind of what you have in front of you, and then Council Member Horne, I think
[2:28:34] what I want to talk about, is that something we want to look at to update, remind us of what
[2:28:38] I saw as a mission statement for the city.
[2:28:42] looked more like a mission statement based on what I know mission I've done
[2:28:47] these mission statements, vision statements through several corporations I've
[2:28:52] been with and every one of them had the approach that I've made with and so I
[2:28:59] thought and we don't have to discuss this tonight we've got the information here
[2:29:05] I would like to take a look at it we can decide not to move forward
[2:29:09] to any change, but once you've had a chance to review the material, I think then we can
[2:29:14] have more discussion. I don't think it's appropriate tonight to discuss, because I think
[2:29:20] you need to take a look at the material. There's a lot of people out of me for that.
[2:29:23] Can you view as a, you know, how to approach these? I mean, how to, well, you know, a mission
[2:29:29] statement is supposed to be a succinct idea of actions you want to take to be who
[2:29:39] you want to be, okay? And it's very succinct. It should be short enough that every employee,
[2:29:48] every person can recite it from memory with a gun pointed their head, just plain and simple.
[2:29:56] That is the mission statement.
[2:29:58] A vision statement is
[2:30:00] Actually, more detail of how you get there, and what you ultimately want to be, years down the road. So, the mission statement is more a tactical aspect, whereas the visual statement is more strategic.
[2:30:19] I don't disagree but I think it might be helpful because I know we've done this at
[2:30:23] least twice that I can remember maybe more where we've literally had like every
[2:30:26] tree and we spent the whole day on this kind of stuff and I've never I guess
[2:30:32] ultimately there's point to it but I've never been a huge doing on spending too
[2:30:36] much time on this but we literally had everybody had their posted notes and we
[2:30:40] put them on there and then we put it all together and then we had you know try
[2:30:44] and meld them together, and then we had, you know,
[2:30:46] three or three more meetings.
[2:30:47] So, we've had a lot of process to do this.
[2:30:49] Now, you know, it's totally valid to reconsider
[2:30:52] and see if this is the best way to do that.
[2:30:54] But, I just want to be careful, and it may be helpful
[2:30:57] to say this is where this came from
[2:30:59] as a process where this was created.
[2:31:01] Because it was, I think, it was not just
[2:31:03] the council this last time for this.
[2:31:05] It was actually.
[2:31:05] It was community, yes, you know, group.
[2:31:08] I could give you all was there.
[2:31:09] We've had, and we can go back kind of pull that chronology
[2:31:15] And I'm just saying, you know, my understanding of these two items is different than what I'm
[2:31:23] seeing here.
[2:31:25] And I would just like to, you know, I don't have any objections to seeing what we have.
[2:31:31] I just think that we're different counsel.
[2:31:36] If we can improve.
[2:31:37] I'm all for improvement.
[2:31:38] And I do think generally, you probably should re-look at these every now and then I'm not
[2:31:46] and we were here for business changes.
[2:31:50] And that was part of the reason in our discussion that we thought we would bring what we've
[2:31:55] done in the past, and we gave you an idea to look at what characteristics were important,
[2:32:01] what's changed and what's in there today.
[2:32:03] So we just pulled all that together for you to take a look at.
[2:32:08] There's other things in there like Corvai,
[2:32:11] he's strategically going to strive
[2:32:12] with these others.
[2:32:12] There's kind of a lot of things,
[2:32:14] the council report was calling,
[2:32:17] that there may be able
[2:32:18] to make better straight lines
[2:32:20] or use some different warning.
[2:32:22] So the wording, actually then,
[2:32:23] if I'm to correctly,
[2:32:24] should be the mission shorter than the vision.
[2:32:28] Right.
[2:32:28] Mission statement is typically muddle shorter.
[2:32:30] So the key is opposite.
[2:32:31] The key is opposite.
[2:32:32] You absolutely should be able,
[2:32:33] every employee for the city of Roswell
[2:32:36] should be able to have it right at their fingertips, right at the end of their tongue.
[2:32:41] Anybody calls and said, well, what's the mission statement they shouldn't be able to recite it right now?
[2:32:45] Every important.
[2:32:47] Telling what's your job, and there's that old example about the janitor, and that's on,
[2:32:51] somebody says, what's your job, and he said, is the man on the moon?
[2:32:54] Right.
[2:32:55] It's the same concept, and I'm pleased to count.
[2:32:59] Okay, so I think it's great yet to review these and update them.
[2:33:02] I think there's no time crunch on this.
[2:33:10] So what I would like to see is that we take time to study these things between now and
[2:33:18] I would say two committee meetings from now.
[2:33:21] So you have time to review it, I promise, I have time to put it aside.
[2:33:36] Okay, so we will then regroup on this topic in the October maybe anything else for me all right thank you very much
[2:33:46] Thank you.