[0:22] Good evening everybody. I'm going to

[0:23] call the meeting to order. This is the

[0:25] regular council meeting scheduled for

[0:27] Monday, September 14th, 6 p.m. in the

[0:30] council chambers. Present, we have

[0:32] myself, Rick Effer Chase, mayor of city

[0:34] of Newport. Council President Carter

[0:36] Finnegan, Andrew Tuchet and John

[0:38] Manette, both council members present in

[0:40] the room. Council member Sharon Perry is

[0:42] present online. City manager Joe Gunter

[0:46] is with us in the room. Uh, city clerk

[0:49] and treasurer Jim Johnson is here. Uh,

[0:52] looking around the room, I don't think

[0:55] we have anybody else in the room tonight

[0:56] from staff. And Dave Rue is with us

[1:00] who's our attorney from SPNF.

[1:03] >> There's a little feedback. Is that

[1:05] >> Yeah, I think it's

[1:08] >> okay. Sorry. Right.

[1:11] >> It's not

[1:20] » I'll tell you what. Let's just turn

[1:21] yours off for a few minutes.

[1:23] >> Just push it back sometimes.

[1:26] >> Yeah, it was that one.

[1:29] >> Okay.

[1:32] >> I want to apologize to those of you who

[1:33] watched this meeting online because our

[1:36] last meeting, I plugged the cord for the

[1:39] recorder into something that was not to

[1:41] supposed to receive a plug and the

[1:43] battery lasted for about an hour and a

[1:44] half and then just stopped. So, we still

[1:47] had a recording of everything. We always

[1:48] have a backup through the uh Google Meet

[1:51] online and if you go on and look at it

[1:53] on the NEKTV

[1:55] uh YouTube, you'll discover that it just

[1:57] kind of abruptly shifts from one kind of

[2:00] camera work to another in there. That

[2:01] was my fault.

[2:03] Um uh do we have any additions and

[2:05] deletions, council members? Anything you

[2:08] want to add or delete? Sharon, you okay?

[2:11] >> Nothing. Joe?

[2:12] >> Yes, sir.

[2:13] >> And Jim, anything from you? Okay. And I

[2:16] don't have any additions or deletions

[2:18] either

[2:18] >> except for that one. Extra check

[2:20] warrant.

[2:22] >> Oh yeah, probably ought to just mention

[2:23] that here. You're right. Good point. So,

[2:25] we have a lot of AP warrants this time

[2:28] and we had one that was distributed just

[2:30] this morning uh for

[2:34] uh it was uh for the 14th today. Um and

[2:38] it's basically three bills that we owe

[2:41] ourselves for water from the city of

[2:42] Newport. uh totals $1,57.

[2:46] So, we've added that to the list of on

[2:48] the consent agenda. Thank you.

[2:52] Uh before I take a vote on the consent

[2:54] agenda, I want to say that um two

[2:58] things. First of all, uh we have begun

[3:01] trying to make the shift that we

[3:03] discussed at our last meeting. Uh it was

[3:05] the meeting regarding the charter where

[3:07] we agreed that good practice and the

[3:10] charter itself uh mean that we should

[3:13] have uh signatures from all of the

[3:16] council members or at least I think it's

[3:18] three of the council members are

[3:20] supposed to sign before we paid any

[3:22] bills. There's been a long long time

[3:24] that predated me that that has not been

[3:26] happening. There was apparently an

[3:27] action taken long before I came along uh

[3:30] to say that there were exceptions to

[3:32] that rule. We're doing our best to kind

[3:34] of get ourselves back on that track. So,

[3:37] tonight we have a lot of AP warrants

[3:40] from the 21st of August, the 28th of

[3:42] August, the 4th of September, the 11th

[3:45] of September, another one on the 11th of

[3:48] September, and yet another one on the

[3:49] 14th of September. We're doing all of

[3:51] those tonight, none of which have had

[3:53] checks paid out on them yet. So, um,

[3:56] before I take that motion though, I will

[3:58] also say that on the 4th of September,

[4:01] that warrant, uh, includes a payment to

[4:04] Newport Downtown Development, the annual

[4:06] support that Newport Downtown receives

[4:08] from the city of Newport of $30,000. So,

[4:11] I have signed all of the AP warrants

[4:15] except that one personally because of a

[4:17] conflict of interest as director of NDD.

[4:21] >> So, do I have a motion to approve the

[4:23] consent agenda? So moved.

[4:25] >> I have a motion. Do I have a second?

[4:26] I'll second

[4:27] >> and a second. Any discussion about any

[4:29] of that?

[4:30] >> Lori,

[4:31] >> I have a question. I have a question.

[4:33] >> Go ahead, Sharon.

[4:34] >> I was just wondering on the 11 the

[4:37] pressure reducing valve to the total of

[4:40] $20,000. What's the story behind that?

[4:43] >> Yeah. Joe, do you want to speak to that

[4:44] one?

[4:45] >> I wish I could.

[4:46] >> Yeah, I can I can share a little bit

[4:48] about that one. Um, this is

[4:51] >> is that the parent street?

[4:52] >> Yes. This is the item that everybody was

[4:54] paying attention to in town around the

[4:57] water that was being released

[4:58] continuously for much of the summer uh

[5:00] from the Fen Street uh fire hydrant. We

[5:03] had an issue where the east side water

[5:05] tower was, I'm sorry, the westside water

[5:08] tower was overpressurizing people's

[5:10] homes and putting them at risk. And so

[5:14] we had to do a significant amount of

[5:15] troubleshooting to figure that out. And

[5:17] if I remember from when I looked at that

[5:19] warrant, that was um a uh what's the

[5:22] name of the company that we

[5:25] >> Laramie, thank you. That was Laram

[5:28] >> coming in to help us to try and

[5:29] troubleshoot that. It took at least

[5:31] three attempts at ordering parts,

[5:33] replacing, and trying to fix it. And I

[5:35] understand, Joe, if I'm correct, that's now resolved. Right.

[5:39] >> As far as I know, yes.

[5:40] >> To the best of your knowledge, it's not

[5:41] running.

[5:42] >> Yeah.

[5:42] >> The fire hydrant has been shut down,

[5:44] which is a good thing. So, but it was

[5:46] yeah, it was a pretty challenging summer

[5:48] with that.

[5:49] >> Any other questions, Sharon, that you

[5:50] have?

[5:51] >> Thank you. No, that was my big one.

[5:52] >> Thanks for asking,

[5:54] >> Lori. Go ahead.

[5:57] >> Uh, so in waiting to write any of those

[6:01] checks, um, is are we going to run into

[6:04] a risk of any kind of uh, you know,

[6:08] extra payments or uh, penalties or

[6:10] anything for not payment? And how is

[6:12] that going to go forward in the future

[6:15] uh with having to wait so long?

[6:17] >> Good question. We are working on a plan

[6:21] whereby uh Joe and Jim can notify the

[6:24] council members if there's something in

[6:27] between our regular meetings and there's

[6:29] likely to be because we try to do AP

[6:31] warrants once a week. So, on those off

[6:33] weeks from council meetings, our

[6:35] expectation is that uh Joe and Jim will

[6:37] reach out to council members, ask if

[6:39] they have any questions, and ask them to

[6:41] either respond. I think we're

[6:42] determining, we just need to double

[6:44] check it to be sure, that we can do that

[6:46] by email to respond and sign off on

[6:49] them, and then it can go out over my

[6:50] signature or Carter's as needed. So,

[6:53] we're trying to come up with an interim.

[6:54] In the meantime, nothing about these

[6:57] bills, as far as I know, has been

[6:59] delayed. We looked at some of them last

[7:00] week and agreed they could afford to

[7:02] wait this time.

[7:04] Any other questions about the consent

[7:06] agenda

[7:08] hearing? None. I have a motion and a

[7:09] second. All those in favor, please say

[7:10] I. I.

[7:11] >> Oppose? Nay. Motion carries. Thank you.

[7:15] Next item on the agenda is public

[7:18] comment for items that are not listed on

[7:20] the agenda tonight. What do we got

[7:21] there? Andrew,

[7:23] >> Jay Walsh.

[7:26] >> Great. Um, so Jay, I'll just remind you

[7:28] and everyone else in the room, we tend

[7:30] to ask folks to go for two minutes.

[7:31] We'll give you a warning and then give

[7:32] you another minute beyond that. Won't be

[7:34] that long.

[7:39] » Good evening. I'm Jay Walsh, resident

[7:42] for Vermont. Um what I'm here today to

[7:47] uh present is a

[7:49] um

[7:51] a violation of u pursuant to uh 1 VSA

[7:56] 314. It's an open meeting law violation

[7:59] filing the formal complaint alleging

[8:01] violation of the open meeting law.

[8:04] Alleged violation is a warning for the

[8:06] public hearing on the proposed charter

[8:08] amendments amendments does not satisfy

[8:10] the requirements of VS of one BSA 312

[8:15] and set BSA 17 2642.

[8:20] The warning bundles

[8:22] multiple distinct charter changes into a

[8:24] single article failing to specify

[8:27] specifically indicate the business to be

[8:29] transacted.

[8:31] The separate articles are required by

[8:33] 2642. The warning does not provide

[8:36] sufficient notice of the specific

[8:38] questions to be voted on depriving the

[8:40] public of a meaningful opportunity to

[8:42] participate. Um my arguments go on uh

[8:48] today are legal arguments. I'm not going

[8:50] to read through them all. Uh they'll all

[8:52] be posted. You'll have to respond to

[8:54] them anyway. So I'll be presenting this

[8:56] to the uh city uh clerk.

[8:59] Thank you for your comments.

[9:02] Are there any other people on the

[9:05] list? Andrew, you would like to speak.

[9:07] >> Teresa.

[9:17] Hey everyone. Teresa Jer resident of

[9:20] Newport and I just wanted to talk

[9:22] briefly about the recent draft air

[9:24] permit for the bleach treatment system

[9:28] that they have in the Coventry landfill.

[9:30] Um I went to the public meeting. I don't

[9:32] know how many others here were able to

[9:34] go. But I did want to say that in that

[9:36] draft permit, the language that they

[9:39] talk about are that the levels of toxic

[9:42] contaminants that that are produced are

[9:46] estimated

[9:47] and they're not anticipated

[9:50] to exceed regulatory levels. So they

[9:53] pass this permit with no data, no

[9:56] monitoring of what's going to happen.

[10:00] and they claim that there is no

[10:01] technology to monitor real time, but

[10:04] that's not true either. So, I guess I'm

[10:08] just a little concerned that perhaps the

[10:10] state regulators are not really holding

[10:13] the landfill to the level that they need

[10:15] to be held to and providing a permit

[10:18] without data to justify that permit. I

[10:23] also went to the landfill oversight

[10:25] meeting which was held September 2nd and

[10:29] A couple of things that kind of piqued

[10:32] my interest. One has to do with the odor

[10:36] monitoring that they're doing. Third

[10:37] party um twice a twice a week goes to

[10:41] detect if there are offsite odors. This

[10:43] is just a a sniff test. A human being

[10:46] can smell it or not. There's no

[10:48] equipment involved. And 63% of the time

[10:52] that they have those inspections, odors

[10:54] do go off site. So I asked the ACT 250

[10:57] district coordinator,

[11:00] what is the action level when something

[11:02] has to be done? What percentage of the

[11:04] time when they smell odors does it then

[11:06] trigger an action level and there is no trigger. So

[11:12] we could smell the landfill constantly

[11:15] and there's nothing in place to improve

[11:18] that situation.

[11:19] The other thing that I I asked about the

[11:22] um the folks from the Department of

[11:24] Environmental Conservation Solid Waste

[11:27] Management Group were there and they let

[11:29] us know that oh yes, they're they did a

[11:31] um I don't know if you were aware, but

[11:33] they had several meetings last year to

[11:35] talk about future disposal capacity for

[11:38] the state of Vermont for the waste.

[11:41] >> And they were they talked to people from

[11:43] different states, they talked to people

[11:45] in state. Um, and the bottom line in

[11:48] their report is there is no plan for

[11:51] another landfill in the state. They are

[11:54] not going to evaluate another site.

[11:56] They're not going to look into

[11:59] anything but what we have here, which

[12:01] they anticipate will be at full capacity

[12:04] at 2045.

[12:06] They may transport waste offsite.

[12:09] It's too difficult to permit a landfill.

[12:13] However, if a private company came to

[12:15] them with a proposal

[12:19] like Fella who might want to expand what

[12:21] they have, they would entertain that.

[12:23] So, I feel a little bit of a lack of

[12:26] trust of the state. And I'm hoping that

[12:29] if you're involved in any decisions like

[12:31] that that you really read between the

[12:33] lines and ask the right questions and

[12:35] make sure we know what's happening

[12:37] because right now there's just not a lot

[12:39] of data.

[12:41] >> Thank you.

[12:46] Lori.

[12:54] » Uh, it's Lori Graham, president of

[12:56] Newport. Uh, I just wanted to bring to

[12:58] the council's attention and the citizens

[13:01] of Newport, uh, that we have a new, um,

[13:04] group in town called Rule Vermont

[13:06] Rising. It's part of a statewide uh

[13:09] nonprofit, excuse me, nonpartisan group

[13:12] of uh just everyday people who are

[13:16] concerned about things that are

[13:17] happening uh in our legislature

[13:19] specifically started around um Act 250,

[13:22] Act 181, and how that affects our

[13:25] communities. Uh I know that Newport is

[13:27] in a little bit different situation than

[13:29] some of the smaller communities, but

[13:32] important nonetheless. Um I am sort of

[13:35] helping to get the group off the ground.

[13:37] Uh how involved they'll be I'm not sure.

[13:40] But I wanted people to be aware that um

[13:42] we have had a couple of meetings locally

[13:45] and we're looking at having uh hopefully

[13:48] a larger meeting in mid to late October

[13:51] locally um just to get people involved

[13:53] and we'll be getting more information

[13:55] out there. But I want I didn't want to

[13:57] share that with the council.

[13:59] >> Thank you.

[14:03] Okay. Sorry, Adam. You have to sign up.

[14:05] >> No, no, no. Not you. I was trying to get

[14:08] I want to be on your your thing.

[14:10] >> Okay.

[14:12] Next item on the agenda item on the

[14:14] agenda is the second public hearing to

[14:17] consider proposed charter changes that

[14:19] have been brought to us by the charter

[14:21] task force from their work this summer.

[14:23] Uh do I have a motion to to enter into

[14:26] that public hearing? Second public

[14:28] hearing.

[14:28] >> I'll make that motion.

[14:30] >> Motion and a second. Have a motion and a

[14:32] second. Any comment, questions?

[14:36] Hearing none, all those in favor, please

[14:38] say I.

[14:39] >> I oppose. Nay. We are in the second

[14:42] public hearing.

[14:45] So, uh, just a quick review for those

[14:47] who weren't here, uh, at our last

[14:50] meeting where we had the first public

[14:51] hearing,

[14:53] uh, we went through and literally read

[14:55] every line of the proposed charter

[14:58] changes and discussed them at some

[15:01] significant length. And we had a list of

[15:03] a few things at the end of that process

[15:05] that we asked the charter task force to

[15:09] convene and meet again about. And so

[15:11] tonight, anything is on the table. If

[15:13] there's someone in the community or on

[15:15] the council who would like to bring up

[15:17] anything we've already considered, you

[15:19] are absolutely welcome to do that. We do

[15:21] not intend to read the entire entire

[15:23] charter line for line again the way we

[15:25] did at the last meeting. But there's

[15:28] plenty of opportunity to speak if anyone

[15:30] would like to. So I think maybe the way

[15:33] to do this Charlie and Sharon is to ask

[15:36] you folks to report first on the things

[15:38] that you had brought back to uh actually

[15:42] hold on let me just ask a question of

[15:44] the council and the task force. Um

[15:47] Jennifer Hopkins has been kind enough to

[15:49] bring us a couple of pages of her

[15:53] entirely welcome nitpicking

[15:56] and I say that with love. Um, Jennifer,

[16:00] for those who don't know it, has an

[16:02] eagle eye and she's really good at

[16:03] making sure that we've got everything in

[16:05] agreement with each other and

[16:06] appropriately thing things are

[16:08] appropriately capitalized, etc. She

[16:11] suggested that we might want to just

[16:12] take all of those at once and uh agree

[16:16] on them and the council has seen a copy

[16:19] of that document. I have it here in

[16:21] front of me. And I think what we might

[16:23] do is just review the uh changes that

[16:27] she's proposing in this document. And I

[16:29] think it might make most sense to do

[16:31] that first and then to do the charter uh

[16:34] report. And then Dave Rub, please

[16:37] correct me if I'm wrong, but as I

[16:39] understand it, if I read read through

[16:40] these, we could then take action on all

[16:43] of Jennifer's changes simultaneously at

[16:46] with one motion. Is that correct?

[16:50] Um, yes. Unless you want me to take a

[16:53] look at it first, in which case you

[16:54] might want to delay.

[16:57] >> It's just capital.

[16:59] >> So delay as in have you do I'm sorry.

[17:02] Say that again, Sharon.

[17:03] >> It's mostly punctuation and

[17:06] s's and making sure that our grammar is

[17:09] correct. Correct. Right, Jennifer?

[17:11] >> It's a second one. Sharon, it's more

[17:13] capitalizations.

[17:15] >> Yeah.

[17:18] Suffice it to say, what I mean is I

[17:20] haven't had yet had time to review it

[17:22] and um I think that you know I'm happy

[17:26] to implement these uh in conjunction

[17:28] with other changes suggested tonight. Uh

[17:32] they don't necessarily have to be

[17:33] approved tonight. They can be approved

[17:35] uh when we approve the charter to

[17:37] advance it for the special city meeting.

[17:40] Uh as well not saying that I have

[17:42] anything wrong or any concerns about

[17:44] what was changed. I just haven't had the

[17:46] opportunity to review it in conjunction

[17:48] with the other uh changes that are going

[17:50] to be made this evening.

[17:52] >> Okay. So, let me just review a process

[17:53] thing then for folks in the room who may

[17:55] not who who definitely don't know kind

[17:57] of what we have in mind. Our idea was

[17:59] that we would do tonight what we did at

[18:00] the last meeting, which is go through

[18:02] and actually have the council act on any

[18:05] final changes that we would like to see

[18:08] and then uh we would give this document

[18:12] over to Dave and his colleagues and they

[18:15] would create a clean final draft for

[18:18] everyone to for the council to look at the meeting on the 21st, a week from

[18:23] tonight. And that's the point at which

[18:25] the council would then take action to

[18:26] approve the the proposed changes

[18:31] um in the and as well as the language

[18:33] that will be used to warn this item for

[18:36] the November 3rd ballot. So, council

[18:40] members, is it okay with you if we

[18:42] simply give these uh punctuation and

[18:44] kind of uh capitalization kind of

[18:47] questions to Dave to include in that?

[18:52] » Sure.

[18:52] >> Yes.

[18:54] Sharon, that worked for you

[18:58] » because it's not it's not content,

[18:59] right, Jennifer? It's it's grammar.

[19:01] >> Yeah, correct. It's not content. None of

[19:03] this is intended to be content. It it's also important to note, Rick, that

[19:09] while we will have a clean version of

[19:10] the charter uh ready for the next

[19:13] meeting, there's also the law requires

[19:15] us to have the amended form showing

[19:18] changes to the from between the current

[19:21] city charter and those that will be

[19:23] before the council. That amended version

[19:25] will also be in the polling in the

[19:27] ballot box for everyone to review as

[19:29] well as posted um once it's ready to go.

[19:31] So, I just we need a little more time to

[19:34] implement these changes and make sure

[19:35] the documents are in their right form.

[19:37] But I no particular concern or problem

[19:41] with anything Jennifer is raising here.

[19:43] >> Okay. If that's acceptable to everyone,

[19:45] then we're just going to ask the firm to

[19:48] take that on for us. Okay.

[19:50] >> All right. Thank you. So, Charlie and

[19:53] Sharon, where would you like to begin?

[19:57] Um, having not having talked to Charlie

[20:00] earlier,

[20:01] >> I'm wondering if a logical place to

[20:03] start would be our list

[20:05] that we worked on when the task force

[20:08] met last week

[20:11] starting it was I believe starting with

[20:14] section seven. It was all those areas

[20:17] that you, Rick, and the council asked us

[20:20] to look at

[20:22] um to deal with some details.

[20:26] >> Yes. So, for folks in the community who

[20:27] are trying to follow along, if you had

[20:30] the version that was put up online, this

[20:33] was this was titled Charter Task Force

[20:36] Updates, Tuesday, September 8th, 2026.

[20:39] Do you all have that?

[20:41] >> We need it.

[20:43] >> Okay.

[20:44] six six of them.

[20:46] >> So, yeah. Uh, yes. So, let's begin then

[20:49] with that document and section seven,

[20:51] mayor and council members of city

[20:52] council. Um,

[20:55] I'll I'll just go ahead. We're going to

[20:57] I'll read through these the way we did

[20:58] last week. Okay? And then we'll ask if

[21:00] council has any questions, task force

[21:01] members have any questions, anybody in

[21:03] the community has any questions, David

[21:06] Rue has any questions, and then if they

[21:08] don't, we'll take action on on each

[21:10] section. So the first paragraph here

[21:12] under the proposed change reads, "The

[21:14] administration of all fiscal,

[21:16] credential, and municipal affairs of

[21:17] said city, and the government thereof

[21:20] shall be vested in the mayor and council

[21:21] members. There shall be four council

[21:23] members who shall elect one of their

[21:25] number president of said council. The

[21:27] mayor and the council members in their

[21:29] joint capacity shall be called the city

[21:31] council. In the event that the mayor's

[21:34] office becomes vacant, the president of

[21:36] the council shall assume the duties of

[21:38] the mayor until the next annual or

[21:40] special meeting is held, the mayor and

[21:42] council members shall be sworn to the

[21:44] faithful performance of their duties.

[21:46] And this last sentence I'm about to read

[21:47] is new. With the exception of acting as

[21:50] a volunteer firefighter, the mayor and

[21:52] coun city council shall not be otherwise

[21:55] employed by the city.

[21:58] Any questions about what I've read so

[22:00] far?

[22:02] I can just add that where that came from

[22:04] was as we were as a task force reviewing

[22:09] um we realized that when we went back

[22:12] and looked at sections that we struck

[22:14] through in the original charter that we

[22:17] hadn't really talked about the fire

[22:18] department a whole lot and and we it's

[22:23] always been practice not to have a

[22:26] council member who is employed by the

[22:28] city but it doesn't state that anywhere

[22:30] in the charter. So that's where that

[22:32] line came from.

[22:34] >> Okay. Charter members, task force

[22:37] charter, anybody want to comment on this

[22:39] in any way?

[22:41] >> Are there comments from the community?

[22:43] Anybody like to speak to this? Jennifer

[22:45] Hopkins.

[22:46] >> Just a correction. Okay.

[22:54] » Jennifer Hopkins. The last line should

[22:56] say not city council but council members

[23:00] of what your the addition

[23:07] » can say for the other ones.

[23:10] >> Yeah, the rest of the paragraph

[23:12] specifies

[23:12] >> it matches the rest

[23:14] >> city and council members. She's right.

[23:17] >> Shall not be otherwise employed by the

[23:18] city. Thank you, Jennifer.

[23:20] >> We missed that. We talked about that.

[23:23] And

[23:24] >> yeah, I just wanted

[23:27] >> take your time

[23:31] and uh city of Newport. Um I wasn't

[23:34] clear. We're not you know we we talk

[23:38] about these things and then I I'm not

[23:39] sure uh who's included in volunteer

[23:43] firefighter.

[23:45] um we have a fire chief and then I think

[23:48] we have two people who are in positions

[23:53] um of some salary uh under him and then

[23:58] we have uh a series of volunteer

[24:01] firefighters as well and I just wanted

[24:03] to know who's included uh in this and

[24:07] who's accepted in this

[24:10] >> good question the only person who is

[24:13] receiving a salary other in the

[24:15] volunteer stipen that's paid when

[24:17] someone is on a call. There there are

[24:19] two people actually. One is the chief

[24:22] and the other is the position we call

[24:24] administrative firefighter which is a

[24:26] full-time position.

[24:27] >> So there are other leadership positions

[24:30] that are are they appointed or elected?

[24:33] Appointed by the chief or elected by the

[24:35] members?

[24:36] >> Elected by the members to serve as

[24:38] assistant chief, captain. Help me with

[24:40] the hierarchy and

[24:42] >> uh and lieutenants. and lieutenants, but

[24:44] none of those are compensated positions

[24:46] beyond the normal compensation one would

[24:48] receive going on a call. Okay, that's a

[24:51] great question. Thank you.

[24:52] >> So, should we specify that in here?

[24:56] >> That's what I was going to suggest. the

[24:58] paid. So, so the chief and the

[25:00] administrative,

[25:02] the fire chief, any any paid

[25:06] different than a volunteer firefighter

[25:08] because

[25:10] there's only two positions that are that

[25:12] are considered paid, which is the the

[25:15] chief and

[25:17] the fire admin assistant.

[25:20] Thank you, David. Do you have a

[25:21] recommendation about that?

[25:34] Um,

[25:38] wonder would you, Andrew, would you

[25:40] classify volunteer firefighters as like

[25:43] officers? Is that the right level? Or or

[25:46] lieutenants? I I just don't I want I want to describe

[25:52] everybody below the chief and uh the

[25:55] administrative firefighter basically.

[25:57] >> So I would just I would specify chief

[25:59] and firefighter

[26:01] uh admin assistant because they are paid

[26:06] separately. anyone. I guess maybe you

[26:08] could you could word it as paid more

[26:11] than voluntarily or I I I don't know how you could

[26:17] >> Isn't there a section

[26:18] >> except with the exception of

[26:21] >> Yes, that's right.

[26:21] >> If we're going to do that, then you've

[26:23] got to put in the chief of police and

[26:25] you've got to put in every other

[26:26] employer.

[26:26] >> You're absolutely right, Sher. That's

[26:28] something to be careful of. Charlie, do

[26:29] you want to speak to this? And if so,

[26:30] please use the mic.

[26:32] Yeah, I mean I don't I didn't get right

[26:35] to it, but I'm pretty sure there is in here um where the fire chief

[26:40] and or department heads cannot be

[26:45] on the city council. So that's already

[26:48] covered. The fire chief because he's a

[26:51] department head. U

[26:54] so

[26:57] that that's the only one.

[27:00] So, so I don't I mean I don't really

[27:02] know. I

[27:03] >> So they're called firefighters, right?

[27:06] >> Every everyone's a firefighter and then

[27:09] >> then you have officers.

[27:11] >> But it's also true if I understand it

[27:13] correctly that the

[27:14] >> but they're not they're not the charter.

[27:16] Maybe it's I was going to suggest maybe

[27:18] we say instead of we say not shall not

[27:21] be otherwise employed or u

[27:25] be given a salary by the city or be paid

[27:27] a salary by the city something like that

[27:30] because that's the difference between

[27:31] the administrative firefighter and a

[27:33] volunteer. volunteer gets a stipen. Yes.

[27:35] But they don't have a salary.

[27:37] >> Salary, right?

[27:39] >> About with the exception of acting as a

[27:45] non salary volunteer firefighter, the

[27:48] mayor in the city.

[27:52] » Yeah, that's fine with me.

[27:54] >> Actually, I think that's a simple fix.

[27:55] We just add that word. with the

[27:57] exception of acting as a non-salaried

[27:59] volunteer

[28:00] firefighter. The mayor and council

[28:02] members shall not be otherwise employed

[28:04] by the city.

[28:07] >> Council members, you ever thought about

[28:08] that?

[28:11] » Anybody else in the community want to

[28:12] raise questions?

[28:15] >> I just was looking up on the state

[28:17] statutes. Not that I'm pretending to

[28:19] know, but just using control F. And it

[28:22] sounds like there's like written rules

[28:24] on who the officers are and the firemen,

[28:28] but instead of like relying on state

[28:31] statute language, I think this is more

[28:34] clear and straightforward. So,

[28:35] >> okay. All right. So, I'm going to read

[28:37] it one more time so we're clear about

[28:39] what we're voting on. Um, we haven't

[28:41] taken a motion on this yet, have we? So,

[28:43] I'm going to read it and invite a

[28:44] motion. So, um, with all of the

[28:47] paragraph up until that last sentence,

[28:49] as I read it earlier, then with the

[28:51] additional sentence, with the exception

[28:53] of acting as a non- salaried volunteer

[28:55] firefighter, the mayor and council

[28:57] members shall not be otherwise employed

[28:59] by the city.

[29:00] >> I have a motion.

[29:02] >> I'll second

[29:03] >> and a second.

[29:04] >> I'll recuse myself.

[29:05] >> And Andrew is choosing to recuse

[29:07] himself. Any other comments?

[29:09] >> Don't forget, we have a second

[29:11] paragraph.

[29:11] >> I'm I'm going to and I want to do these

[29:12] one at a time because they're different

[29:14] topics. Okay.

[29:15] >> Okay.

[29:15] >> All those in favor, please say I.

[29:17] >> I. Oppose. Nay.

[29:20] >> Motion carries. And Jim, if you could

[29:22] please note the abstension on that vote

[29:24] as well.

[29:26] Okay. Moving on to the second paragraph

[29:28] under section seven. The proposal from

[29:30] the task force reads, "The mayor and

[29:32] council members shall receive

[29:34] compensation as follows. Mayor $5,000,

[29:37] president of the council $3,500, and

[29:40] each council member $3,000.

[29:43] Beginning with the next fiscal year and

[29:45] annually thereafter, these compensation

[29:47] amounts shall be adjusted by the

[29:49] percentage change in the consumer price

[29:51] index for all urban customers CPI-U

[29:56] applicable to Vermont as measured as of

[29:58] January 1 of the budget year. Any

[30:00] adjustment shall take effect at the

[30:02] beginning of the following fiscal year.

[30:04] Are there any questions about that

[30:05] language? Council members,

[30:09] >> I asked for specificity.

[30:11] There there's our specificity.

[30:13] >> Charter task force members, you all okay

[30:15] with that?

[30:15] >> No.

[30:16] >> Okay.

[30:16] >> I just want to thank Joe for helping me

[30:18] with that part.

[30:19] >> Thank you, Joe.

[30:20] >> Dave, you're okay with with the language

[30:22] that's being proposed there?

[30:24] >> Um, I'm fine. I I would suggest

[30:26] replacing applicable to Vermont with

[30:28] Northeast because that's the actual

[30:30] study region. It's the CPIU Northeast,

[30:33] but I'm fine with applicable to Vermont

[30:36] as well in case they change the reasons.

[30:38] >> Okay. Okay. So, we'll just leave it as

[30:40] is.

[30:42] >> Okay. Council, uh, folks in the

[30:44] community, any concerns or questions

[30:45] you'd like to raise about this?

[30:48] >> Hearing none, I'll I'll accept a motion

[30:50] to change that paragraph as read.

[30:52] >> I'll make that motion.

[30:55] >> A second.

[30:55] >> Have a motion and a second. All those in

[30:57] favor, please say I.

[30:59] >> I.

[31:00] >> Oppos? Nay. Motion carries.

[31:04] >> Great.

[31:05] >> Done. And thank you to the task force

[31:09] and to Sharon in particular for the way

[31:11] you keep bringing us really clear

[31:13] recommendations. This is very helpful.

[31:15] Next section in the recommendations is

[31:17] section nine. Uh mayoral approval and

[31:20] council members reconsideration of

[31:22] vetoed actions to read as follows. The

[31:25] action of the council members shall

[31:27] require the approval of the mayor except

[31:29] as herein otherwise provided for the

[31:31] enacting of all ordinances and bylaws in

[31:34] the awarding of any contracts, the

[31:35] appointment of any officers or

[31:37] committees, or the passing of any

[31:38] resolution. If the mayor shall approve

[31:42] any ordinance, bylaw, resolution,

[31:43] appointment, or contract made or voted

[31:46] by the city council,

[31:48] the same shall be reduced to writing and

[31:50] the mayor shall sign the same. If the

[31:53] mayor does not sign the saying, the

[31:55] mayor shall return it with objections in

[31:58] writing to the council members at the at

[32:00] their next regular meeting, provided the

[32:02] mayor shall have not less than one week

[32:04] to consider such ordinance, bylaw,

[32:06] resolution, appointment, or contract.

[32:08] The council members shall then proceed

[32:10] to consider such ordinance, bylaw,

[32:12] resolution, contract, or appointment.

[32:14] And if upon such reconsideration,

[32:16] three4s of the whole number of council

[32:18] members shall vote in favor of the same,

[32:20] it shall be valid and take effect.

[32:22] Notwithstanding the objection of the

[32:23] mayor, if any such ordinance, bylaw,

[32:26] resolution, appointment, or contract

[32:28] shall not be returned by the mayor to

[32:30] the council members at their next

[32:31] regular meeting after the period of one

[32:33] week has elapsed following receipt. It

[32:36] shall be valid and take effect without

[32:38] the mayor's approval. Are there any

[32:41] questions about that language? It's all

[32:43] designed I think I see Danny's handiwork

[32:45] here. Um, it's all just been designed to

[32:48] clean up inconsistent language.

[32:51] >> And the big thing the council asked us

[32:53] to do last time was to eliminate gender

[32:56] of the he and the she's.

[32:59] >> Yes.

[32:59] >> And that's what basically other than

[33:03] changing alderman to council members,

[33:06] getting rid of the he and she's this is

[33:07] the original section from the charter

[33:10] that we are all living by now.

[33:13] >> Well, I'll make a motion to approve this

[33:14] section. I have a motion to approve.

[33:16] >> I'll second.

[33:17] >> And a second. Any other conversation?

[33:21] >> All those in favor, please say I.

[33:24] >> I.

[33:25] >> Sharon, you with us?

[33:27] >> Oh, sorry. I

[33:28] >> oppose. Nay.

[33:30] >> Motion carries. Thank you very much.

[33:33] Section 10,

[33:36] police services and fire protection

[33:38] services.

[33:40] I'll just go ahead and read it even

[33:41] though there's no change to the first

[33:42] paragraph, just in addition of a second

[33:44] paragraph. The city of Newport shall

[33:46] provide for police services and law

[33:47] enforcement coverage within the city.

[33:49] Such services may be provided through a

[33:51] city operated police department or

[33:53] through a contract, intermunicipal

[33:56] agreement or other lawful arrangement

[33:58] with another qualified law enforcement

[34:00] agency, including the Vermont State

[34:02] Police or a county sheriff's department.

[34:05] All police officers shall be qualified

[34:07] as per statute and shall have the

[34:10] authority to serve anywhere within the

[34:11] state.

[34:13] And then this material I'm reading next

[34:15] is is a potential addition. The city of

[34:18] Newport shall also provide for fire

[34:20] protection services within the city.

[34:22] Such services may be provided through a

[34:24] city operated fire department or through

[34:26] a contract intermunicipal agreement or

[34:29] other lawful arrangement with another

[34:31] qualified fire protection agency.

[34:34] Uh why don't I just take a motion to put

[34:36] that on the table?

[34:37] >> So move.

[34:38] >> Do I have a second? I'll

[34:39] >> second.

[34:39] >> Okay. Council members, do you have any

[34:41] questions about this?

[34:44] I can just add ahead. I can just add the

[34:47] reasoning behind this one was again as

[34:49] we were doing a final review last week,

[34:52] >> we covered ourselves with the police

[34:53] services, we struck through everything

[34:56] about a fire department because of the

[34:58] old oldfashioned language,

[35:01] but we felt strongly that we need to

[35:04] make sure that um we speak of a fire

[35:08] protection so that we don't know what we

[35:10] don't know. And if we need to contract

[35:12] out some here, who knows? At least we're

[35:14] covered.

[35:16] >> Thank you, Sharon. Charter task force

[35:18] members, anything to add?

[35:20] >> Are there any questions or concerns from

[35:22] folks in the community?

[35:25] >> Hearing none, I have a motion and a

[35:26] second. All those in favor of the

[35:28] >> Oh, hold on, Rick.

[35:29] >> Oh, I'm sorry, Dave. I should have come

[35:30] to you.

[35:31] >> Um, I'd like to add subsections A and B

[35:33] before each of the paragraphs.

[35:36] Oh, just to make it an A and a B in

[35:39] front of the city of Newport shall

[35:40] provide for publicly services and B the

[35:43] city of Newport shall provide for fire

[35:45] protection services.

[35:46] >> Correct.

[35:49] » Uh amendment.

[35:51] >> Maker and and seconder. We're okay with

[35:53] that?

[35:54] >> Yes.

[35:55] >> Okay. Everybody's okay with that change.

[35:56] Thank you, Dave.

[35:58] >> All those in favor of the changes as

[36:00] proposed with this slight amendment from

[36:02] Dave Rue, please say I.

[36:04] >> I. Any opposed? Any opposed? Nay. That

[36:07] motion carries.

[36:09] >> Okay. Moving on to city expenditures.

[36:14] » Except as herein otherwise provided, no

[36:17] money shall be paid out of the city

[36:18] treasury except upon warrant signed by

[36:20] the mayor and approved by council

[36:22] members, such approval to be

[36:24] authenticated by the city clerk.

[36:27] When bills or other obligations are due

[36:30] prior to the next regularly scheduled

[36:32] meeting of the council and waiting until

[36:34] such a meeting would result in a missed

[36:36] payment due date, the council may review

[36:38] and approve the applicable warrants

[36:40] electronically. Electronic approval

[36:43] shall require the affirmative approval

[36:45] of at least three council members and

[36:47] shall be ratified at the next regularly

[36:49] scheduled council meeting. Then it goes

[36:51] on with the original language. A full

[36:53] record of all expenditures shall be kept

[36:55] and a clear statement of all receipts

[36:57] and dispersements of city monies and of

[36:59] the affairs of the city generally shall

[37:01] be annually published under the

[37:02] direction of the city council at least

[37:04] two weeks before the annual city

[37:06] election. No city official shall be

[37:08] directly or indirectly interested in any

[37:11] contract with the city.

[37:15] Let's just do comments and questions

[37:16] before we put it on the table and have

[37:17] to change it around. Anything council

[37:20] members want to ask or add about this?

[37:26] » This basically just formalizes the

[37:28] practice of trying to look at the

[37:30] warrants ahead of time, approve them

[37:31] ahead of time.

[37:32] >> Yes. And it creates a way to do so in

[37:37] between council meetings that is less

[37:40] burdensome for the council members.

[37:44] >> Charter task force members. I'll just

[37:47] because I pretty much drafted this I

[37:49] think. So, um yeah, so the last meeting

[37:53] we we were we were talking about it and

[37:55] it came up again at the beginning of

[37:57] this about warrants and not being able

[38:00] to pay them. And I mean I think the

[38:02] problem last meeting was why don't we

[38:04] get into the 21st century and use what's

[38:07] available to us. I did look up what some

[38:11] of this I didn't just make take this out

[38:13] of the sky. I wish I was that smart, but

[38:16] So, but there are other communities that

[38:18] have incorporated electronic

[38:20] signatures to do so. So, it still holds

[38:23] everybody accountable. It just gives you

[38:25] the ability to pay bills as long as

[38:27] everybody is aware of it up front and

[38:30] pay for it. You still have to ratify the

[38:32] next week.

[38:33] >> Thank you.

[38:35] That's true.

[38:37] >> Any questions, council members, folks in

[38:40] the community?

[38:41] >> Go ahead, Sharon. Just just to add to

[38:44] our to um it kind of goes with what Lori

[38:47] was saying. This also prevents us from

[38:49] having late fees.

[38:51] >> Great.

[38:53] >> Okay. Jennifer,

[38:57] >> want me to introduce myself again?

[39:00] >> For the record, Jennifer, who are you?

[39:01] >> Jennifer,

[39:03] >> city council city.

[39:05] >> Uh well, no, you've got one

[39:06] capitalization there. There's three

[39:08] council members on M. But the more

[39:11] important is the last line which is uh

[39:15] no city official shall directly or

[39:18] indirectly be uh interested in any

[39:20] contract. The question is what is a city

[39:23] official and also is this is sort of the

[39:27] mushy language

[39:29] and so I think you have to define city

[39:32] official which is not defined in there

[39:35] and somebody like a lawyer could work on

[39:38] mushy language. I think that's the old

[39:40] charter.

[39:40] >> It is the old chart.

[39:41] >> It is the old charter. You're asking us

[39:42] to try and clean it up.

[39:43] >> Yeah, that's what you did with the rest

[39:45] of the charter and I thought

[39:48] >> Yeah.

[39:48] >> Drew, do you have a recommendation about

[39:50] how we could how we could clean that up

[39:52] a little bit and make it clear the

[39:53] elected city official?

[39:57] >> I would actually recommend that you

[40:00] should delete that sentence because the

[40:02] municipal code of ethics already covers

[40:04] situations like that and it defines

[40:06] who's subject to it as well.

[40:12] So, we have a recommendation. Go ahead,

[40:14] Sharon.

[40:15] >> No, I just I missed that. Delete which

[40:19] sentence, Dave.

[40:20] >> Um, the last sentence that Jennifer has

[40:23] an issue with, which says no city

[40:24] official shall be directly or indirectly

[40:27] interested in any contract with the

[40:29] city.

[40:30] >> Okay.

[40:31] The municipal code of ethics prohibits

[40:34] uh any official as defined by statute

[40:38] from

[40:40] having a culminary game as a result of

[40:43] their position at in the city.

[40:46] >> And I'm guessing so when that was put in

[40:48] back in 1918, it was probably a big deal

[40:50] and

[40:51] >> and there were no conflict of interest

[40:52] policies or anything else around at that

[40:54] time.

[40:55] >> Yeah.

[40:57] Well, yeah. I mean, most of what was in

[40:58] the original charter went in because

[41:00] there were no other rules or

[41:02] regulations. That's why the city did

[41:04] everything from regulate slaughter

[41:06] houses to to this or whatever. There

[41:09] simply was no other regulation.

[41:12] >> Okay. So, we have a proposal that we

[41:13] have not yet put on the table to strike

[41:16] the last sentence in this section. Are

[41:18] there any comments from charter task

[41:19] force members?

[41:20] >> Yeah, I'll just give you another option.

[41:22] You could put no elected city official

[41:25] and keep and keep it in. I mean, I I'm I

[41:28] don't die on this hill either way, but

[41:30] you want to keep the old language of the

[41:32] charter in there as much, then just add

[41:35] that.

[41:36] >> I I was just going to say I appreciate

[41:38] you elevating this issue because I I

[41:41] don't know how to describe indirectly

[41:43] interested. Like I don't know what to do with that. So, I

[41:49] would propose to strike the sentence and

[41:52] I don't know if anybody else wants to

[41:54] join me on that motion.

[41:55] >> Second.

[41:55] >> I'll second.

[41:56] >> All right.

[41:56] >> Okay. We have have a renegade motion and

[41:58] a second on the table.

[42:00] >> Are there any other comments or

[42:02] questions from the community?

[42:05] >> Okay. I have a motion and a second to

[42:07] strike the sentence upon advice of our

[42:09] city attorneys. The sentence being no

[42:12] city official shall be directly or

[42:13] indirectly interested in any contract

[42:14] with the city. All those in favor,

[42:16] please say I. I

[42:18] >> I

[42:18] >> oppose. Nay.

[42:20] >> That motion carries.

[42:22] >> And if it's appropriate, I'll make a

[42:23] motion to approve article 18 as

[42:26] presented here with the change we just

[42:28] made.

[42:29] >> Okay. So, we have a motion and we have a

[42:32] second.

[42:32] >> If you want to

[42:34] >> I'll capitalize

[42:37] that separately.

[42:38] >> Which the can

[42:40] >> which M was that?

[42:41] >> The um

[42:43] >> the last sentence of Oh, wait.

[42:46] Next,

[42:47] >> three council members have bold.

[42:49] >> Yeah.

[42:50] >> Okay. Let's just call that a friendly.

[42:52] >> Okay. Just making sure it's on the

[42:54] >> Okay.

[42:54] >> So, do I have a second, Carter?

[42:57] >> Yes.

[42:57] >> All right. I have a a motion and a

[43:00] second to approve this section as

[43:02] presented with two changes. One is the

[43:05] capitalization of the M in bold in next

[43:08] to last line of the bold text where it

[43:10] says three council members. And the

[43:12] second is to delete the last line of the

[43:15] section. Are there any questions or

[43:18] concerns?

[43:21] Members of the community

[43:23] hearing? None. All those in favor,

[43:24] please say I.

[43:25] >> I. Oppose. Nay.

[43:27] >> That motion carries.

[43:30] >> Okay. Before we start on section 20, I'm

[43:33] going to ask

[43:35] Sharon or Charlie or somebody from the

[43:37] task force to uh give us a quick summary

[43:40] of a three and a half hour long meeting

[43:42] that took place on Tuesday that

[43:44] eventually ended us up back back where

[43:46] we began. So, somebody want to speak to

[43:48] this and give a little context for us?

[43:52] >> Well, I can start, Charlie, then you

[43:55] open.

[43:57] I just want to remind the council

[44:01] and the public that none of the words in

[44:05] front of you went onto the this paper

[44:08] lightly.

[44:09] Section 20 when we first looked at it in

[44:12] August dur end of July of August we

[44:16] spent a total of four straight hours on

[44:20] just that one section.

[44:23] Last week we spent another hour and a

[44:27] half or two hours on just that section.

[44:31] We had some great conversation. We had

[44:34] some debating. We had some having we

[44:37] were it was very respectful.

[44:40] I will say that

[44:42] um I want to say that we did our

[44:44] absolute best even if we didn't always

[44:47] agree

[44:50] to try to represent the city of Newport

[44:53] and the voters of Newport

[44:56] remembering that all of us are taxpayers

[44:58] and voters of Newport as well. So when

[45:01] we look at 20 again,

[45:04] um I just want everybody to know that

[45:07] this was not done lightly. It was done

[45:11] with a lot of thought and a lot of what

[45:15] do the people of Newport wish for?

[45:19] What do we as taxpayers hope for?

[45:23] What do we all want to live with?

[45:28] » And I think I'll stop there. Thank you,

[45:30] Shirley.

[45:32] >> Charlie.

[45:33] >> Yeah. Yeah, this is this one was a lot

[45:36] of fun.

[45:37] >> No,

[45:40] >> fun isn't the word I do. So,

[45:44] >> I think I think in the end, we just

[45:47] decided that um

[45:50] you know, we have a we have a pretty

[45:51] poor history here of of

[45:55] overspending.

[45:58] um putting us in debt and it's a pretty

[46:02] recent history of trying to decide how

[46:04] to deal with it. And I uh I firmly

[46:08] believe that some of the reason the

[46:11] original

[46:13] proposal went down was because it

[46:15] allowed too much

[46:20] trust in who we elected.

[46:23] um after just going through

[46:27] years of giving us reasons not to trust

[46:30] them. So um we also took into

[46:34] consideration what about an emergency

[46:36] situation? So we had changed things and

[46:38] we've gone back and forth. So there is a

[46:41] clause in here that does allow for

[46:44] emergency situations for the council to

[46:46] go out.

[46:48] So, um, and hazard situations and there

[46:53] are other options in here, but in the

[46:58] end, we just all got back to, you know

[47:00] what, everybody's going to stay within

[47:03] our budget. Cities should stay within

[47:06] theirs. If they know ahead of time that

[47:10] they've had a $40,000 increase, which is

[47:12] one of the things I brought up in an

[47:14] insurance premium that they didn't

[47:16] anticipate when they did the budget.

[47:18] Well, then they know they're going to

[47:19] have to hold the meeting down the road.

[47:21] So, just don't let yourself get into the

[47:23] position where you spend all the money

[47:26] or the anticipated money before you deal

[47:28] with the problem that's there. So, we're

[47:31] hoping you have the foresight to

[47:34] see the problems coming

[47:37] and if they're reasonable

[47:39] and there's something that the city

[47:41] really needs, I think the voters will

[47:42] approve it. And I So, we ended up going

[47:46] back to our original

[47:48] um

[47:51] language

[47:53] >> and I and I think um you know I don't

[47:57] think it's going to be all that

[47:58] cumbersome. I dealt with it for four

[48:00] years. Um when you have a problem, you

[48:04] should know about it. I can't imagine a

[48:06] situation that's going to come up

[48:10] that you're not going to have time to to

[48:13] hold a meeting um when you have other

[48:17] options. I mean, you do have fund

[48:18] balances. One of the things it does do,

[48:21] if you go down a little further in

[48:23] there, it does require you to address

[48:26] this down the road. So we can't have

[48:29] debt rolled over year after year after

[48:33] year and then all of a sudden compiled

[48:35] into one big million dollar bill. So So

[48:38] that's why we did it and I think that's

[48:41] probably

[48:43] the number one important reason

[48:46] um that citizens didn't vote for the

[48:49] last one. So

[48:52] I suggest that you change this at your

[48:54] peril. I guess that's my

[48:58] Thank you, Charlie. Yeah.

[48:59] >> So, what I'm going to recommend is that

[49:01] I'd like to read the language as it's

[49:03] proposed and then I know that our city

[49:06] attorney has at least one or two

[49:09] comments that he would like to make and

[49:12] then we'll have the council respond to

[49:14] those comments and kind of put ourselves

[49:16] on record about where we are and then

[49:17] we'll see if there are any other folks

[49:19] in the community who would like to speak

[49:20] following that. Okay.

[49:22] So here's how the charter task force

[49:25] would like us to manage the new section

[49:27] 20 revenue credits credit and

[49:30] appropriations current revenues of the

[49:32] city shall consist of money raised by

[49:34] taxation fines and other lawful sources.

[49:38] These revenues shall constitute the

[49:39] amount from which appropriations and

[49:41] payments are to be made according to law

[49:44] by or under the authority of the city

[49:45] council. All appropriations for specific

[49:48] purposes made at any annual or special

[49:51] meeting in the city shall unless

[49:53] otherwise directed by the voters be paid

[49:56] out of current revenues for that year

[49:58] and shall be deemed as expenditures by

[50:00] the city council. The city council shall

[50:02] not exceed in expenditures the

[50:04] anticipated revenues of the city during

[50:07] the fiscal year. The city council

[50:09] without special direction of the voters

[50:11] of the city shall not draw, sign, or

[50:14] approve warrants to pay expenditures or

[50:16] appropriations in excess of anticipated

[50:19] revenues. If the anticipated revenues of

[50:22] the city have been expended before the

[50:24] end of the fiscal year and necessary or

[50:26] desirable expenditures need to be met,

[50:28] additional expenditures shall not take

[50:30] effect unless approved by a majority

[50:32] vote at a duly warned special meeting.

[50:35] At least seven days prior to that to the

[50:37] special meeting, the city council shall

[50:39] hold at least one publicly warned

[50:41] informational meeting to present the

[50:43] proposed expenditure, explain the

[50:45] reasons for the deficit, and provide an

[50:48] opportunity for public questions and

[50:49] comment. The city council may authorize

[50:52] and incur short-term indebtedness

[50:54] without voter approval when such

[50:56] indebtedness is incurred in anticipation

[50:59] of the receipt of taxes and is fully

[51:02] repaid within the same fiscal year in

[51:04] which it is issued. A no long-term

[51:07] indebtedness or other obligation

[51:09] extending beyond the fiscal year shall

[51:12] be incurred unless first approved by a

[51:14] majority of the legal voters voting

[51:16] thereon at a duly warned meeting or

[51:18] election. B. Not sub not notwithstanding

[51:22] subsection A of this section. In the

[51:24] case of all hazard events as defined by

[51:27] state statute, the city council may

[51:30] borrow for up to 5 years of debt service

[51:32] to fund emergency infrastructure or

[51:34] service restoration.

[51:37] C. The total indebtedness of the city

[51:39] shall not exceed 10% of the total

[51:42] assessed value of the city's grand list.

[51:47] So, I'm gonna turn to you, Dave. I know

[51:49] you've got at least one or two comments

[51:51] you'd like to make about this for the

[51:53] council's consideration.

[51:56] >> Yes. Thanks, Rick. I have three

[51:58] comments. The first two are are pretty

[52:01] straightforward. Um, for the easiest

[52:04] first in subsection A, I don't think we

[52:07] need to say or election. anytime there's

[52:10] a a special meeting uh to elect city

[52:14] officers, it's a special meeting. U you

[52:17] don't need to have election in there. Um

[52:20] second,

[52:21] uh I think that throughout subsection,

[52:26] the the first section, the first

[52:28] paragraph,

[52:29] uh we should be using anticipated

[52:31] revenues of the city and not current

[52:35] revenues. It's not a deficit spend

[52:39] unless you're exceeding anticipated

[52:42] revenues throughout the fiscal year. Um,

[52:45] you know, you could in theory exceed

[52:47] current revenues all the time, but when

[52:49] you get t the tax installments come in,

[52:52] uh, you will you will not have been

[52:54] accused of deficit spending and you will

[52:56] not have been deficit spending. So I

[52:58] think the appropriate word which is I

[53:00] think a change to the current charter is

[53:02] to talk about anticipated revenues

[53:04] instead of current. Um the last one

[53:08] which is bigger and I know I've raised

[53:10] it before um is our our legal advice

[53:15] that this short-term indebtedness should

[53:17] have a term of no longer than one year

[53:20] consistent with uh existing state law

[53:24] for short-term indebtedness. Um, if you

[53:27] take a note out and it has to be paid

[53:30] back in the current fiscal year, how are

[53:31] you going to do that? If you paid if you

[53:33] take the note out in May, you're not

[53:35] going to be able to have a short a

[53:37] special meeting in time to pay off the

[53:40] debt before the end of the fiscal year

[53:42] with voter approval. It's just not

[53:43] practical. So, u current expense notes

[53:47] have terms of one year or less and they

[53:50] are authorized by general law and I

[53:52] think the city uh would be well advised

[53:54] to to follow that instead of having

[53:56] terms that end in the current fiscal

[53:59] year. I understand this has been debated

[54:01] at at nauseium and you all have heard me

[54:04] before on this so I'm not going to keep

[54:05] going.

[54:07] >> Thank you Dave. So, I think what I'd

[54:08] like to do is take the first two one at

[54:11] a time because I think they're fairly

[54:13] straightforward and then come back to

[54:15] the third one which I think is has we'll

[54:17] will invite more comment. So, the first

[54:20] one is just Dave's recommendation that

[54:22] we remove in in subsection A remove the

[54:27] words or election at the end of that

[54:28] sentence. Council members, do you have

[54:30] any questions about that?

[54:32] >> I'll make that a motion.

[54:34] >> I'll second.

[54:34] >> I have a motion and a second. Charter

[54:37] Task Force members, y'all okay with that

[54:38] change? Is there anybody in the

[54:41] community? Go ahead, Jennifer. Come on

[54:43] up.

[54:48] Jennifer Hopkins, I would wonder whether

[54:50] you want to say city meeting in that

[54:53] subsection A and the same thing of add

[54:56] city into the other section. It's a

[54:59] special meeting. You're going to have

[55:00] special meetings of the city council

[55:04] and it would be duly warned. But the

[55:06] question is you're talking about a

[55:08] special city meeting. So I think you

[55:11] should add city in three places in

[55:14] there. Section A in two sections in the

[55:17] um beginning paragraph.

[55:20] Don't go away yet.

[55:22] So I'm responding just to a it seems to

[55:26] me that it's redundant because we're

[55:29] talking about a majority of people

[55:30] voters, right?

[55:32] >> Yeah.

[55:32] >> So in that one, why do we need the word

[55:34] city? It's obvious that it's a

[55:36] >> it only just occurred to me, so I didn't

[55:37] really review it.

[55:38] >> Okay. The other ones you really

[55:40] >> can you point those out specifically?

[55:42] >> Um Oh, holy hell. I don't have all of

[55:45] it. Charlie, do you have all of it?

[55:47] >> Okay. Um

[55:50] >> first ones are the fourth line

[55:54] >> for specific purposes made at any

[55:57] >> or a special

[56:00] >> city meeting

[56:04] in the city.

[56:06] >> I don't think that we need to make this

[56:08] change.

[56:08] >> You want to speak to that Dave? What are you thinking?

[56:11] >> I just but I mean it the sentence

[56:15] talks Oh, sorry. I may be I'm on the

[56:17] second one. My bad. Let me look at the

[56:19] first one.

[56:20] >> The The first one's further down that I

[56:22] caught, so that might not be the right

[56:25] one. Um, it's one, two, three, four,

[56:29] five, six lines up from the bottom

[56:32] of the paragraph.

[56:35] Additional expenditures shall not take

[56:37] effect unless approved by the majority

[56:40] uh vote at a duly warned special

[56:43] meeting. That does not save city voters.

[56:47] And there's one more.

[56:49] >> I see where you are.

[56:50] >> Yeah. And then at least seven days prior

[56:54] is the next line. Uh one publicly warned

[56:58] informationational meeting. I apologize.

[57:00] I don't mind here.

[57:01] >> That's right.

[57:05] » Dave, do you see where Jennifer is?

[57:07] >> City information.

[57:08] >> No, I'm lost, but that's okay.

[57:10] >> Well, no, let's let's get it right. So,

[57:12] >> I see where she is.

[57:13] >> Okay. So if you see the sentence in the

[57:16] middle of that paragraph that begins if

[57:18] the anticipated revenues of the city

[57:20] right

[57:22] have been okay have been expended before

[57:24] the end of the fiscal year and necessary

[57:26] or desirable expenditures need to be

[57:28] met. Additional expenditures shall not

[57:30] take effect unless approved by a

[57:32] majority vote at a duly warned special

[57:35] and Jennifer would add city meeting.

[57:38] >> Correct?

[57:38] >> Yeah. And then the next line, at least

[57:40] seven days prior to the special city

[57:43] meeting.

[57:46] >> Yeah.

[57:48] I'm fine with that because it

[57:50] doesn't say a majority vote of the legal

[57:52] voters.

[57:52] >> Yeah.

[57:53] >> Okay.

[57:54] >> So I I want to

[57:56] >> Charlie go to the mic, please.

[57:59] I want to suggest rewarding

[58:02] um that line that we're talking about

[58:05] that starts with if the anticipated

[58:08] revenue of the city.

[58:12] So, I would like it to read, and I'll

[58:15] try to explain why, that if the city

[58:19] council realizes the current revenues

[58:23] will be expended before the end of the

[58:25] fiscal year and anticipated revenues

[58:29] will not cover

[58:32] necessary or desirable expenses to the

[58:34] end of the fiscal year, additional

[58:36] expenditures shall not take effect

[58:39] unless approved by a majority vote at a

[58:41] duly warned special city

[58:44] and I'll I'll tell you why. Um

[58:50] it kind of goes with what I was saying

[58:52] earlier. So if you if you realize so the first one I think if you still had

[58:57] current in there and Dave might have

[59:01] mentioned by leaving anticipation if you

[59:04] had current revenues of the city during

[59:06] the fiscal year you couldn't go to vote

[59:10] until you've expended it which would be

[59:13] a problem. So, um, what my wording does

[59:18] is it says if you realize the current

[59:20] expenditure will be expended

[59:23] >> before the end of the fiscal year, um,

[59:26] instead of being they are

[59:37] >> I hear I hear your concern.

[59:38] >> It's similar, but it's just that way it

[59:40] gives you, you know, it's going to

[59:43] happen. You don't have to wait until

[59:46] you know everything's going to be

[59:47] expended. You know the revenues are

[59:49] there. That's just a thought. Uh thought

[59:53] that would clear up

[59:56] any ambiguity on it.

[59:58] >> Council, you have a a response to that.

[1:00:07] » I have feelings about this paragraph in

[1:00:09] general. Um, but and I appreciate that

[1:00:12] rewarding because I think it tries to

[1:00:16] enable the council to act a little bit

[1:00:18] sooner. Um, but could it also

[1:00:23] then prevent a reason for them to act? Like like I

[1:00:28] just think about like five years ago if

[1:00:30] you were to ask council are we running

[1:00:33] into a deficit? Are we in debt? They

[1:00:35] would have said no. And I so I think

[1:00:38] that kind of shrouds and protects them

[1:00:40] from acting on it. Um but I at the same

[1:00:44] time the current language doesn't set us

[1:00:46] up for success either to prevent and I

[1:00:51] and yeah that what

[1:00:54] David just brought up about the end

[1:00:58] taking out a

[1:01:00] >> the

[1:01:02] doesn't make a difference whether you

[1:01:03] use anticipated or current. Right.

[1:01:08] >> John,

[1:01:10] >> well, I agree with David in terms of

[1:01:12] using anticipated

[1:01:14] um including the second word of the

[1:01:18] paragraph, um where it says current.

[1:01:22] Um but I don't think the current

[1:01:24] language would preclude the council from

[1:01:27] acting before the anticipated revenues

[1:01:30] are expended. There's absolutely nothing

[1:01:32] to stop the council from being proactive

[1:01:34] and getting on it, which is what the

[1:01:36] point of your language is anyway.

[1:01:38] >> Okay. I was just trying to make it real.

[1:01:41] >> I'm okay with it.

[1:01:42] >> Yeah. No, there's there's nothing here

[1:01:44] that prevents the council in any way

[1:01:45] from staying on top of the situation.

[1:01:49] >> And you have something you want to add?

[1:01:51] >> Yeah. Um

[1:01:55] the original charter used um a lot of

[1:01:58] this language and it always addressed it

[1:02:01] as current revenue. And when we talk

[1:02:03] about the current revenue at the top

[1:02:06] consisting of taxation fines and other

[1:02:10] lawful sources,

[1:02:12] one of the lawful sources that you can

[1:02:15] have is um a line of credit or a loan

[1:02:22] that would uh put money in the bank. And

[1:02:24] my concern about not using current

[1:02:28] revenues is

[1:02:31] at the beginning

[1:02:33] uh of a year you may have no money in

[1:02:37] the bank. You used it up in the last

[1:02:39] year. You're starting fresh. Uh and

[1:02:42] you're not going to get money until um

[1:02:45] now the end of the first quarter which

[1:02:48] is September 15th I believe. Was it

[1:02:50] tomorrow?

[1:02:51] >> Pardon?

[1:02:52] >> Tomorrow.

[1:02:52] Okay. So there's a big July,

[1:02:57] August, and the first half of September

[1:03:00] that you are writing money and if you

[1:03:04] just think of it as writing it on

[1:03:07] anticipated

[1:03:09] um money that's coming in, you don't

[1:03:11] have anything in the bank. So the way

[1:03:14] you have current revenues for that first

[1:03:17] period um assuming you had none of any

[1:03:21] kind would be to have a line of credit

[1:03:24] um or you started a lo a loan that was

[1:03:27] going to be paid back in anticipation of

[1:03:30] the taxes you're going to receive so

[1:03:33] that there's money in the bank for for

[1:03:35] you to make payments pay your debt for

[1:03:38] those first two and a half months.

[1:03:41] Otherwise you have nothing.

[1:03:44] So uh you know if you started with a new

[1:03:47] city that would be what would be

[1:03:49] happening. You have no money until you

[1:03:51] take that line of credit or that loan to

[1:03:54] get you until so current revenues is

[1:03:57] what you have. And so when that word

[1:04:00] gets used at the beginning and then uh

[1:04:03] that you're not allowed to um exceed

[1:04:08] expenditures.

[1:04:10] Uh the city shall not exceed in

[1:04:12] expenditures the current revenues. The

[1:04:15] current revenues include that loan that

[1:04:18] carries you um when you need it. The

[1:04:22] only thing is that line of credit or if

[1:04:24] you took it as a loan has to be paid

[1:04:26] back at the end of the year. That's why

[1:04:28] I believe the original um charter um use

[1:04:34] current current and that's why you

[1:04:36] should use current. You can't you can't

[1:04:40] uh pay people money when there's no

[1:04:42] money in the bank um because you haven't

[1:04:46] put it there.

[1:04:49] You've got to you've got to have current

[1:04:52] revenues including that money that helps

[1:04:54] you get through the year.

[1:04:57] So it was there originally. I suggest it

[1:05:00] go back. I don't know who wanted it

[1:05:02] changed to anticipated,

[1:05:04] >> but don't be paying. You can't pay

[1:05:07] anticipation. Wrap it up. We got your

[1:05:09] report.

[1:05:09] >> Yeah, that that's that's the point of

[1:05:10] that one. And I I uh agree that uh

[1:05:14] letting it be uh what the council uh

[1:05:18] finally really reasonably believes is

[1:05:20] going to make the council not want to

[1:05:23] know or the council uh act sort of um

[1:05:28] try not to know where they are in the in

[1:05:31] the matter and they should know and

[1:05:33] somebody comes in and tells us, Chip

[1:05:35] comes in and tells us quite often and

[1:05:37] then um the council can can on a a

[1:05:42] minute where we are in in the situation.

[1:05:45] So I don't think we have to wait for

[1:05:48] anything reasonable to occur. And

[1:05:50] finally with respect to that last thing

[1:05:55] anticipated is so important. You expect

[1:05:58] these loans that you take are

[1:06:00] anticipation

[1:06:02] of the monies you're going to receive

[1:06:05] and you know that throughout the year.

[1:06:07] and to take a one-year loan in May to

[1:06:10] cover yourselves the end of the fiscal

[1:06:13] year to cover yourselves. What What

[1:06:16] anticipated money do you have?

[1:06:18] >> Okay, we're not we're not there yet.

[1:06:20] >> Okay,

[1:06:21] >> I hear your point. We're not there yet.

[1:06:22] Okay,

[1:06:22] >> I'm trying to keep it tight and go point

[1:06:25] by point here trying to get through

[1:06:26] this. Okay,

[1:06:27] >> I'll just say on a personal level, I

[1:06:31] think the language between the

[1:06:32] difference between anticipated and

[1:06:33] current is in fact confusing language.

[1:06:35] It's hard to know what anybody means by

[1:06:37] either one of those words. I read the

[1:06:40] word current revenue to mean if I don't

[1:06:42] have money that has come in right now, I

[1:06:45] can't spend it. I can't I can't go spend

[1:06:47] it. For me, the word anticipated

[1:06:50] actually is exactly what you're

[1:06:51] describing. If I'm anticipating that we

[1:06:54] are going to collect enough taxes to be

[1:06:56] able to pay these bills, then I can go

[1:06:59] ahead and pay the bills even if I have

[1:07:01] to take a short-term note to the end of

[1:07:03] the year to do so. I think I think

[1:07:04] you're actually making my case, but

[1:07:06] you're doing it for the opposite word,

[1:07:07] which is a little bit confusing to me.

[1:07:09] But for me, the word anticipated is

[1:07:11] actually far more clear because what it

[1:07:14] says is we know we can reasonably expect

[1:07:17] that the city is going to collect this

[1:07:18] amount of taxes between now and the end

[1:07:20] of the year. Therefore, we can spend

[1:07:22] money against that anticipation. That's

[1:07:24] what that loan does. Travis

[1:07:28] >> Travis, resident of Newport. I promised

[1:07:31] Charlie I was going to be remarkably

[1:07:32] silent. I'll be quick. So far so good.

[1:07:35] I'll be quick. I think the difference

[1:07:37] here is that remember, unless I'm

[1:07:40] incorrect. Just be just because you have

[1:07:43] say a line of credit and you take that

[1:07:45] money out and you're using it to assist

[1:07:48] cash flow. It doesn't necessarily make

[1:07:49] it a revenue. It's a liability because

[1:07:52] you do have to pay it back. So I I think

[1:07:54] anticip I think I understand what you're

[1:07:57] saying, but I think it is still

[1:07:58] anticipated revenue because that's not a

[1:08:00] revenue. That's a liability that you

[1:08:02] take it on. even though you get to spend

[1:08:03] it.

[1:08:05] >> Thank you, Dave Rue. I have a question

[1:08:07] for you. Is there a difference between

[1:08:09] using the word anticipated in the first

[1:08:11] sentence where it's describing what

[1:08:14] makes up revenue brought in by the city?

[1:08:17] In other words, should we leave the word

[1:08:18] current there and then change to

[1:08:20] anticipated throughout the rest of the

[1:08:21] paragraph? Do you have an opinion about

[1:08:22] that?

[1:08:25] I think that the language in the first

[1:08:27] sentence should stay as is as well as

[1:08:31] in the second sentence

[1:08:35] and then we start pick up anticipated in

[1:08:37] the third sentence.

[1:08:43] » Okay, council members, do you have other

[1:08:44] questions about this

[1:08:46] comments you want to make? So in other

[1:08:49] words to clarify in the three places

[1:08:51] where in parenthesis and italics it says

[1:08:54] or isn't or is it current anticipated

[1:08:57] would be the correct word in those three

[1:08:59] instances.

[1:09:02] >> Yes, that's what I'm hearing.

[1:09:04] Before we're done, I'm going to read

[1:09:05] this again. The way it's going.

[1:09:08] >> Yeah, we're kind of jumping ahead here,

[1:09:10] but

[1:09:10] >> yeah.

[1:09:13] >> Okay, so let's go back for a moment.

[1:09:15] >> I have I have one other

[1:09:16] >> Go ahead. You're really going to love

[1:09:18] this.

[1:09:18] >> Go to the mic.

[1:09:21] >> So, if we've already defined what the

[1:09:23] revenues are,

[1:09:26] we could cure this anticipate the

[1:09:28] current thing, but just not put either

[1:09:29] one of them in there. So, it would read

[1:09:32] the city council shall not exceed in

[1:09:34] expenditures

[1:09:37] the well

[1:09:39] shall not exceed the current re the

[1:09:43] revenues of the city during this year.

[1:09:46] not even put either one.

[1:09:50] If we're if we're saying that current

[1:09:52] revenues includes anticipated revenues

[1:09:55] from that other lawful source, then why

[1:09:58] don't we just keep revenues?

[1:10:04] » Yeah. Keeps it very basic.

[1:10:06] >> You're not wrong because each time it

[1:10:08] also says for that year, revenues for

[1:10:09] that year in each of those three

[1:10:11] instances.

[1:10:11] >> Yeah. and you're already describing it

[1:10:13] in the first.

[1:10:15] >> Dave Rudy, do you have a response to

[1:10:16] that?

[1:10:22] » I feel like the

[1:10:28] I feel like it's important to define

[1:10:30] what the current revenues are.

[1:10:34] um

[1:10:37] whether they include a I I think he uh

[1:10:41] the previous commenter I'm sorry I

[1:10:42] forgot your name was correct that an LLC

[1:10:45] is really a liability it's not a

[1:10:48] revenue. Mhm.

[1:10:49] >> So to define current defining current

[1:10:52] revenues

[1:10:53] is helpful in that that means what the

[1:10:57] city had council or what the city has at

[1:10:59] the the time they are making a decision

[1:11:03] and instead it's

[1:11:06] you're not deficit spending unless you

[1:11:09] are exceeding anticipated revenues.

[1:11:12] So I think it's important to have that

[1:11:14] word in there though.

[1:11:19] Like it's hard for me to look at this as

[1:11:21] a whole without the word current and

[1:11:23] anticipated in there on the fly. I'll

[1:11:25] admit that.

[1:11:28] >> Thank you. Did we just lose him?

[1:11:31] >> Okay. Oh, now we're on our own

[1:11:33] everybody.

[1:11:41] » Okay.

[1:11:42] >> Council members be before we kind of

[1:11:44] start trying to work on this piece by

[1:11:46] piece. Any other comments about that

[1:11:48] question and the resolution Charlie's

[1:11:51] offering? Do you want to keep the word

[1:11:52] anticipated, change to current, or

[1:11:55] remove the word entirely in those three

[1:11:58] locations?

[1:11:59] >> Well, here's another thought.

[1:12:02] >> Good. Because what we're really short of

[1:12:04] here are good ideas.

[1:12:07] >> I'm a long ways away from all

[1:12:11] the reaching the TV.

[1:12:12] >> What if it or could it say

[1:12:16] permit and

[1:12:19] expect current and anticipated revenue

[1:12:24] >> at the top.

[1:12:26] >> No, she's saying each place where we

[1:12:28] have a question about it.

[1:12:30] >> Put both words in current and

[1:12:31] anticipated

[1:12:35] » or does that muck the water even worse?

[1:12:40] » I think it's you say potato.

[1:12:43] >> I say potato.

[1:12:45] Okay, I'll be quiet now.

[1:12:47] >> No, I think it's an you know

[1:12:49] >> what we're looking for here is clarity

[1:12:50] to the average person who reads this

[1:12:52] plain speak, right?

[1:12:55] >> What about anticipated

[1:12:57] or current?

[1:13:02] » But again, what's the I mean

[1:13:06] >> I'm kind of compelled by Charlie's

[1:13:08] argument actually, which is

[1:13:10] >> each place it says revenues for the

[1:13:12] current fiscal year, right? So why do we

[1:13:14] need the word anticipated or current at

[1:13:16] all in those three locations?

[1:13:19] It just feels like it's raising

[1:13:20] questions we don't need to raise.

[1:13:22] >> Does it does it make a difference in

[1:13:24] terms of cash versus acrruel accounting

[1:13:28] cash in the checkbook versus acrruel

[1:13:30] accounting in terms of budgeting?

[1:13:34] >> Dave, did you hear that question?

[1:13:35] >> I think it does feel current. The

[1:13:38] question John's asking is does it change

[1:13:41] does it matter to have that word

[1:13:44] anticipated because of the difference

[1:13:46] between acral and cash accounting.

[1:13:51] This is uh outside of my area of

[1:13:54] expertise as a lawyer. Unfortunately uh

[1:13:57] I would defer to a CPA who has a little

[1:14:00] bit more understanding of cash versus

[1:14:03] acral basis. Unfortunately I can't opine

[1:14:06] on that. is a little outside of my uh

[1:14:09] wheelhouse.

[1:14:13] I'm also thinking that if you look at

[1:14:15] the three areas, if we look at those

[1:14:17] three areas where in parenthesis it says

[1:14:19] or is it current where we were we as a t

[1:14:22] when I say we meaning the task force and

[1:14:25] then through conversations

[1:14:28] if you look at those separately the

[1:14:30] first one that says the city council

[1:14:32] shall not exceed in expenditures

[1:14:36] and you take out everything there as

[1:14:38] Charlie was saying it makes perfect

[1:14:40] sense. Mhm.

[1:14:41] >> The city council shall not exceed in

[1:14:42] expenditures the revenues of the city

[1:14:44] during the fiscal year.

[1:14:46] >> Done. The next spot

[1:14:50] >> I I think I agree with that one too. If

[1:14:53] there's any place that maybe we need a

[1:14:55] current or anticipated would be the

[1:14:57] third place.

[1:14:59] >> Let's be specific. The next one you're

[1:15:01] saying is the if the ant if the Yeah.

[1:15:04] >> And then we have anticipated current.

[1:15:05] But if the revenues of the city have

[1:15:07] been expended before the end of the

[1:15:09] fiscal year and necessary or desirable

[1:15:11] expenditures need to be met, additional

[1:15:13] expenditure shall not take effect unless

[1:15:15] approved by a majority vote at a duly

[1:15:17] warned city special city meeting. At

[1:15:21] least seven days prior to that, the city

[1:15:23] council shall hold at least one publicly

[1:15:26] warned informational meeting. Is there

[1:15:27] another one here that I'm missing?

[1:15:30] >> I think actually I don't I think I I

[1:15:32] have to agree with Charlie. Why do we

[1:15:34] need either one of those in there?

[1:15:36] >> No, I don't think we do.

[1:15:39] >> Joe,

[1:15:40] >> that makes a lot of sense from a

[1:15:41] management standpoint. That that's the

[1:15:43] clearest way to say this from where I

[1:15:45] sit is to manage his budget is say

[1:15:47] >> nobody's going to sit around three years

[1:15:48] from now and argue about whether it be

[1:15:50] anticipated or current.

[1:15:51] >> Yeah. Yeah. Do you run over your

[1:15:52] revenues or not?

[1:15:55] >> But the third spot the third spot's

[1:15:58] going to end up needing work, I think.

[1:16:00] uh let's if the uh if the anticipated or

[1:16:04] current revenues of the city have been

[1:16:06] expended before the uh end of the fiscal

[1:16:09] year. I don't care if we delete the

[1:16:12] anticipated or current. So if the

[1:16:14] revenues of the city it can't be have

[1:16:16] been because you you want to act

[1:16:17] beforehand when you see that they will

[1:16:20] be right if if you can see ahead looking

[1:16:24] at the budget that they will be extended

[1:16:26] then you need to start arranging for

[1:16:27] your vote. So I think is is probably a

[1:16:30] bad verb tense there.

[1:16:33] >> So So if

[1:16:33] >> that was part of my correction

[1:16:35] >> if if the revenues of the city are

[1:16:39] >> anticipated to be expended

[1:16:41] >> Sure.

[1:16:41] >> before the end of the fiscal year.

[1:16:43] >> Sure.

[1:16:46] Well, what I wrote was if the city

[1:16:48] council realizes I'm going to get rid of

[1:16:50] the anticipated, the revenues will be

[1:16:53] expended before the end of the fiscal

[1:16:55] year

[1:16:56] and will not cover necessary or

[1:16:58] desirable expenses to end to the end of

[1:17:01] the fiscal year. Additional expenditures

[1:17:03] shall not take effect until the meeting.

[1:17:07] >> Okay. But we're trained for simple. So

[1:17:09] why can't I I think the point is well

[1:17:11] taken, Travis.

[1:17:13] Why can't we just say instead of have

[1:17:15] been will be if the revenues of the city

[1:17:19] will be expended before the end of the

[1:17:20] fiscal year and necessary desirable expenditures need to be met

[1:17:25] etc etc.

[1:17:26] >> Yeah.

[1:17:28] >> Or you could put both of them if they

[1:17:31] will be expended or have been expended

[1:17:35] already. So one is predictive but one is

[1:17:39] if it's happened already you certainly

[1:17:41] should act. The first one depends upon

[1:17:44] your estimate of whether they will be

[1:17:47] expended.

[1:17:50] >> Danny speak to this.

[1:17:54] » Now you know why it took eight hours.

[1:17:56] >> Indeed.

[1:17:59] >> I'm thinking that you all are going to

[1:18:00] need a support group when you have these

[1:18:02] meetings anyway.

[1:18:06] M city resident. Um if you refer back to

[1:18:09] actually the original language in the

[1:18:11] original charter, I think they actually

[1:18:14] did try to address what we're trying to

[1:18:16] address now is the original language

[1:18:18] says if it should happen that said

[1:18:20] current revenues of the city shall have

[1:18:22] been expended before the end of the

[1:18:24] fiscal year. And I think that language a

[1:18:26] little more speaks to it maybe will

[1:18:29] happen in the future, not necessarily

[1:18:31] waiting until it has happened. And I

[1:18:33] think when we change the modernize it.

[1:18:36] We may have made it a little more firm

[1:18:38] sounding that it had to be left. So, I

[1:18:41] think if we actually maybe just like

[1:18:44] reverted to the original language a

[1:18:46] little more, that might actually say

[1:18:49] that this whole conversation.

[1:18:51] >> Yeah. Will you read that one more time?

[1:18:52] The original

[1:18:53] >> um if it should happen that said current

[1:18:56] revenues of the city shall have been

[1:18:58] expended before the end of any fiscal

[1:19:00] year.

[1:19:02] If it should happen that said current

[1:19:05] revenues of the city shall have been

[1:19:07] expended before the end of any fiscal

[1:19:09] year.

[1:19:12] » Council members, what do you think about

[1:19:13] that?

[1:19:14] >> So that's that's reactive, not

[1:19:15] proactive.

[1:19:19] » And

[1:19:21] we don't necessarily want to limit the

[1:19:23] city council to only being reactive.

[1:19:26] Ideally, the council would be proactive

[1:19:29] >> by putting current. If you get rid of

[1:19:31] the current You'll be all right.

[1:19:33] >> Well, it's the shall have been reactive

[1:19:37] piece.

[1:19:37] >> Yeah.

[1:19:38] >> Do you think do you think though that

[1:19:40] shall have been I I could see it being

[1:19:44] reactive if it just said have been but I

[1:19:46] think the addition of that shell which

[1:19:48] we admitted actually

[1:19:51] does make it at least coming from a

[1:19:53] historical standpoint and knowing like

[1:19:54] how historically that was meant to

[1:19:56] sound. I do feel like that was actually

[1:19:58] a proactive statement in language 198.

[1:20:01] >> Well, except if they're talking about

[1:20:03] future fiscal years that haven't

[1:20:04] happened yet.

[1:20:07] >> No, I think they're talking about the

[1:20:08] same fiscal year.

[1:20:10] >> They are.

[1:20:10] >> They're talking about if I I think

[1:20:12] they're saying exactly what we're

[1:20:13] talking about here shall have been

[1:20:16] expended in this fiscal year is to say

[1:20:18] we anticipate

[1:20:20] that we could be beyond our means before

[1:20:23] the end of the year and we got to do

[1:20:24] something about it.

[1:20:26] gives us the ability to be

[1:20:28] anticipatory.

[1:20:30] >> I thought it was a lot easier just to

[1:20:32] change the two words have to will be.

[1:20:34] >> I I think

[1:20:36] from the clarity point of view.

[1:20:39] >> Yes. Because we have the word

[1:20:42] anticipated still there.

[1:20:43] >> Yeah. If we say if the anticipated

[1:20:45] revenues of the city will be expended

[1:20:48] before the end of the fiscal year, etc., In other words, proactive language.

[1:20:58] Okay,

[1:21:00] let's do this one first and then we'll

[1:21:02] go talk about this adding the word city

[1:21:03] for Jennifer in a moment here. Okay, so

[1:21:06] we've got a number of opportunities on

[1:21:08] the boards here. John, I feel like

[1:21:09] you've got an opinion. Do you want to

[1:21:10] make a motion related to that?

[1:21:14] And let's do them one at a time, shall

[1:21:16] we? If you want to make a change in the

[1:21:18] first line, now's your moment. If you

[1:21:20] don't, we don't need anything.

[1:21:23] >> Probably the first one in the world. So,

[1:21:24] it would still be the current revenues

[1:21:26] of the city shall consist

[1:21:31] » and then in the in the

[1:21:34] three places where

[1:21:35] >> No, let's do them. I'm sorry. Let's do

[1:21:37] them one at a time.

[1:21:38] >> I don't want to get us bottled up later

[1:21:40] on for having missed something.

[1:21:42] >> One, two, three.

[1:21:43] >> Okay. Okay. Well, in the fourth line,

[1:21:46] um, where it says for specific purposes

[1:21:48] made at any annual or special meeting,

[1:21:50] it should say any annual or special city

[1:21:52] meeting. And I'll make that a motion.

[1:21:54] >> Okay. I have a motion to add the word

[1:21:56] city between special and meeting in the

[1:21:58] fourth line. Do I have a second?

[1:22:00] >> A second.

[1:22:01] >> Motion and a second. Any further

[1:22:03] discussion about that?

[1:22:05] >> All in favor, please say I. I.

[1:22:07] >> Opposed? Nay.

[1:22:09] >> That motion carries. You keeping up with

[1:22:11] us there, Dave? You all right?

[1:22:16] Dave Rue,

[1:22:18] >> doesn't it say but then doesn't it say

[1:22:19] at any annual or special city meeting in

[1:22:22] the city?

[1:22:24] >> Yes, that's what we just did.

[1:22:26] >> Are we going to delete in the city?

[1:22:28] >> Oh, okay. I'll make that my next motion.

[1:22:32] >> Okay. Sorry, but I that's why I got a

[1:22:34] little confusing.

[1:22:36] >> Cleans up the grammar.

[1:22:37] >> Get rid of the end of the city.

[1:22:39] >> Yep.

[1:22:41] >> John, make it. I did.

[1:22:42] >> Okay. Got a motion to delete those

[1:22:45] immediate words in the city following

[1:22:46] special city meeting. Do I have a

[1:22:48] second?

[1:22:49] >> I have a second. All those in favor say

[1:22:51] I.

[1:22:52] >> I. Oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Keep

[1:22:55] going. John, you're on a roll.

[1:22:58] >> Uh then in the se seventh line,

[1:23:02] um

[1:23:04] I move that the word anticipated be

[1:23:06] deleted and

[1:23:12] where it says in italics or is it

[1:23:15] current? Just ignore that. Take that out

[1:23:16] as well.

[1:23:18] >> So the sentence would read, "The city

[1:23:20] council shall not exceed in expenditures

[1:23:22] the revenues of the city during the

[1:23:24] fiscal year."

[1:23:25] >> Second.

[1:23:25] >> I have motion and a second.

[1:23:28] >> All those in favor say I.

[1:23:29] >> I.

[1:23:30] >> Oppose. Nay. Motion carries.

[1:23:34] And then the next one is two lines below

[1:23:36] that. The line begins, pay expenditures

[1:23:40] or appropriations in excess of revenues.

[1:23:42] And again, delete the word anticipated

[1:23:45] so that it reads

[1:23:47] in excess of revenues. Okay, I'm going

[1:23:50] to read the whole sentence. The city

[1:23:52] council without special direction of the

[1:23:53] voters of the city shall not draw, sign,

[1:23:55] or approve warrants to pay expenditures

[1:23:57] or appropriations in excess of revenues.

[1:24:01] Period.

[1:24:02] >> Is that what you have in mind?

[1:24:03] >> Yes.

[1:24:04] >> And do I have a second?

[1:24:05] >> Did I second?

[1:24:06] >> Second.

[1:24:06] >> Oh, okay. You did. It got double

[1:24:08] secondary to

[1:24:09] >> me. Comment on that.

[1:24:11] >> Yes, please.

[1:24:13] >> You know,

[1:24:15] the one thing that it doesn't let you

[1:24:17] know uh is which revenues are you

[1:24:20] talking about? Are you talking about all

[1:24:23] the revenues that the city has ever had

[1:24:25] in any of the years and that and that

[1:24:29] they've put into um special funds?

[1:24:34] Uh, are you talking about the revenues

[1:24:36] that come from that fiscal year's

[1:24:38] budget?

[1:24:43] Do revenues include

[1:24:46] all the other revenues from past years?

[1:24:50] I don't know the answer to that, but I'm

[1:24:52] worried about it.

[1:24:56] I'm not sure why I would be worried

[1:24:59] about it. In other words, if we put

[1:25:00] money aside in a fund for the infamous

[1:25:03] back truck, right, and we're sitting on

[1:25:07] $650,000

[1:25:09] and a smoking deal comes along to buy a

[1:25:11] back truck for $650,000,

[1:25:14] we should buy it. We've we've been

[1:25:15] approving that for years. We've got the

[1:25:18] money and we just got a smoking deal.

[1:25:20] So, that's the only situation I can

[1:25:22] think of off the top of my head in which

[1:25:25] that that distinction would matter.

[1:25:27] Charlie,

[1:25:28] >> in the line above it, it does say not

[1:25:31] exceed expenditures

[1:25:34] the revenues for during fiscal year. The

[1:25:36] very next sentence is what you start. So

[1:25:40] I don't know

[1:25:42] you're talking about the fiscal year in

[1:25:45] this whole paragraph.

[1:25:47] Well, that's where anticipated actually

[1:25:49] become.

[1:25:52] » Say more about that, John.

[1:25:57] Well, if you use the word anticipated,

[1:26:00] then you know you're not trying to bring

[1:26:02] prior years into it. Um,

[1:26:11] anticipate it bring future years into

[1:26:13] it. Then I'm anticipating getting next

[1:26:16] year.

[1:26:17] >> You can anticipate it

[1:26:19] >> 2030. We got it coming.

[1:26:21] >> Yeah, that in every direction. to

[1:26:24] I guess I'll just take the motion as it

[1:26:26] is.

[1:26:27] >> Okay. Could you read the sentence one

[1:26:28] more time, please, John, that we're

[1:26:30] trying to take a vote on?

[1:26:32] >> The city council without special

[1:26:34] direction of the voters of the city

[1:26:36] shall not draw, sign, or approve

[1:26:38] warrants to pay expenditures or

[1:26:39] appropriations in excess of revenues.

[1:26:44] >> Okay, I have a motion and I think we

[1:26:45] have Do we have a second yet?

[1:26:47] >> Andrew.

[1:26:47] seconded.

[1:26:48] >> I did in my mind.

[1:26:49] >> Okay. Uh, all those in favor, please say

[1:26:53] I.

[1:26:53] >> I.

[1:26:55] >> Any oppose? Nay. That motion carries.

[1:26:58] John, you're doing great. Keep going.

[1:27:00] >> Okay. So, the next sentence,

[1:27:03] um, I'll read it as it would

[1:27:09] be changed. If the revenues of the city

[1:27:12] will be expended before the end of the

[1:27:14] fiscal year and necessary or desirable

[1:27:17] expenses expenditures need to be met,

[1:27:20] additional expenditures shall not take

[1:27:23] effect unless approved by a majority

[1:27:25] vote at a duly warrant special city

[1:27:28] meeting.

[1:27:29] >> Okay, I have a motion.

[1:27:32] >> I'll second.

[1:27:33] >> And a second. Did somebody want to speak

[1:27:34] online?

[1:27:37] >> Okay, council members, any questions

[1:27:39] about that? That's two changes in there.

[1:27:41] Actually, it's three, right? We're going

[1:27:43] to remove the word anticipated. We're

[1:27:45] going to

[1:27:47] >> change have been to will be.

[1:27:49] >> Change. Yes. Have been to will be. And

[1:27:51] we're going to add the word city between

[1:27:52] special and meaning.

[1:27:54] >> Okay. Any other comments? Go ahead. And

[1:27:58] >> yeah, I'm still a little worried about

[1:28:00] that. Um,

[1:28:03] let's say grant money comes in and your

[1:28:05] revenues are

[1:28:08] greatly expanded. I mean, because it

[1:28:10] looks like you've got a lot of revenues

[1:28:11] now. I mean, they have a designated

[1:28:13] purpose

[1:28:15] um in the end. But right now, the bank

[1:28:19] the checkbook looks good. You're not

[1:28:22] allowed you're not really allowed to

[1:28:24] spend it on

[1:28:26] other things maybe than other than the

[1:28:28] brand uh that it's designated for.

[1:28:33] But your revenues look good.

[1:28:37] Does that mean that you can uh you're

[1:28:40] not in a in a bad situation with respect

[1:28:43] to being able to pay your other bills?

[1:28:47] >> There's no situation that I can imagine

[1:28:49] a responsible council or city manager

[1:28:53] would suggest that designated funding

[1:28:57] that is received from in the form of a

[1:28:59] grant could be spent on the general

[1:29:01] budget.

[1:29:02] >> But is it revenue?

[1:29:03] >> It happened

[1:29:04] >> and it did. I said responsible and I

[1:29:06] meant it right because a lot of what

[1:29:08] this what this charter revision attempt

[1:29:11] is doing including adding a recall

[1:29:13] provision is creating methods to hold

[1:29:15] people accountable. The truth is at the

[1:29:17] end of the day there are no there's no

[1:29:19] way in the world we can think of every

[1:29:20] situation that someone might take

[1:29:23] advantage of us with or might act

[1:29:25] irresponsibly about. So my answer to

[1:29:27] that would be we have to hold our

[1:29:30] government officials accountable and we

[1:29:32] have the first mechanism in these

[1:29:34] proposed changes to do that with teeth

[1:29:36] through the recall provision.

[1:29:38] >> Well, do we want to call it the budgeted

[1:29:40] revenue which would limit it to the

[1:29:44] budget for that fiscal year?

[1:29:47] >> But then you wouldn't be able to utilize

[1:29:49] the grant if it's not budgeted.

[1:29:53] >> Yeah. You wouldn't wind up in deficit

[1:29:55] mode. Um, you would only wind up in

[1:29:58] deficit mode if you exceeded the

[1:30:02] budgeted um expense the the expenses

[1:30:06] exceeded the amount of money you were

[1:30:08] getting in anticipated

[1:30:11] uh revenue for that year. You're

[1:30:13] expanding revenue is becoming a word

[1:30:17] that could include many things, many

[1:30:19] ways that you were getting money. And

[1:30:22] originally it was just taxation fines

[1:30:25] and other lawful sources

[1:30:28] and it was talking about completion of

[1:30:30] everything within the budgeted year.

[1:30:32] >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is

[1:30:34] pretty close to the original language,

[1:30:37] isn't it? I mean, it was the charter

[1:30:39] task force's intent to bring us language

[1:30:42] that modernized but did not change the

[1:30:44] intent of the original charter. So what

[1:30:46] you may be what you're saying may be

[1:30:48] true, but it's no no more true for this

[1:30:51] than it was for the original charter

[1:30:52] that we're trying to stay close to. But

[1:30:54] it used current revenue, which I believe

[1:30:57] if you looked at that language, the

[1:31:00] language of the original charter, it had

[1:31:03] another sentence in there that talked

[1:31:05] about the ability of the um council to

[1:31:09] uh borrow short-term.

[1:31:12] And that I think that they were um maybe

[1:31:16] mistakenly, but they were including in

[1:31:18] current revenue the fact that you would

[1:31:21] be getting some money um in terms of a

[1:31:24] line of credit or a loan that would be

[1:31:26] paid by the end of the year.

[1:31:30] I'm saying you're you're we're making a

[1:31:32] big decision now to to expand revenue at

[1:31:36] the last minute. You know, this is the

[1:31:37] second hearing. I'm worried about it.

[1:31:39] You could leave current revenues in that

[1:31:41] sentence.

[1:31:50] » Council members, you have an opinion

[1:31:51] about this?

[1:31:53] >> I see somebody in the back that has

[1:31:55] thoughts, but uh I would

[1:31:57] >> Dennis, sorry.

[1:31:58] >> I really do

[1:31:59] >> because he sits in the way back corner

[1:32:00] >> probably.

[1:32:01] >> Come on up, Dennis.

[1:32:03] >> And then I do have thoughts, but really

[1:32:06] just pertains to the example that Ann

[1:32:08] brought up. So, but I really want to get

[1:32:12] >> correct me if I'm wrong, but probably to

[1:32:16] take care of what A is concerned about

[1:32:18] is in the

[1:32:21] fifth line down

[1:32:24] it says that to be paid out of current

[1:32:27] revenues for that year. It doesn't

[1:32:30] specify anything about designated funds

[1:32:32] that have been previously

[1:32:35] saved aside.

[1:32:38] So it shouldn't be touched at all. It's

[1:32:40] just the current funds that you get that

[1:32:43] year and those funds are at delineated

[1:32:46] your very first sentence

[1:32:51] does say

[1:32:53] >> and we have not changed that current. Is

[1:32:55] that correct?

[1:32:57] >> It doesn't say current. No, it doesn't

[1:32:58] say current. It just says the

[1:33:00] expenditures re during the fiscal year.

[1:33:04] But it doesn't

[1:33:05] >> it does does say fiscal year

[1:33:06] >> but it doesn't say um expenditures

[1:33:09] that's appropriations and the word

[1:33:12] appropriations has a special meaning in

[1:33:15] the budget. Those are those special

[1:33:16] appro appropriations

[1:33:19] >> um that we make at the end um for

[1:33:24] special appropriations.

[1:33:26] >> And so that would be it that may only be

[1:33:30] referring to appropriations unless you

[1:33:32] write and expenditures.

[1:33:39] » Carter speaks.

[1:33:40] >> So, a couple sentences down, it says the

[1:33:42] city council shall not exceed in

[1:33:45] expenditures the revenues of the city

[1:33:47] during the fiscal year.

[1:33:49] >> Well, that says expenditures or

[1:33:51] appropriations. So, it's distinguishing

[1:33:53] appropriations from expenditures. So, if

[1:33:56] you're going to put it there,

[1:33:57] >> I think it should be up at the top or

[1:34:00] close to the third line. All

[1:34:02] appropriations for specific purposes

[1:34:07] made at an annual or special city

[1:34:09] meeting and all expenditures unless

[1:34:13] otherwise directed by the voters

[1:34:17] be paid out of current revenues for that

[1:34:19] year.

[1:34:22] doesn't occur.

[1:34:24] >> Well, the hypothesis or example that you

[1:34:27] brought up around functioning in grants,

[1:34:31] um it's pretty rare for you to get as

[1:34:35] money up front. It's very it's more way

[1:34:38] more standard for it to be a

[1:34:39] reimbursement base. And that is one

[1:34:42] thing that the financial task force has

[1:34:44] talked about and we're approving some

[1:34:45] functions and I know Joe is aware in

[1:34:47] working on that too with our active

[1:34:49] grants is to make sure our budget

[1:34:51] reflects both on the expenditure and

[1:34:53] revenue side. Um

[1:34:56] and so I I don't think that this would

[1:34:58] fun as as the I believe the motion was

[1:35:02] made on the sentence.

[1:35:03] >> Um thank you Rick. uh that it would not

[1:35:07] impact that operation. And I and I would

[1:35:09] think again

[1:35:12] as we move forward as we have these

[1:35:15] monthly or at least bare minimum

[1:35:17] quarterly review of our expenditures,

[1:35:20] right? You'll be able to see that

[1:35:22] tracking. So I'm I'm feeling comfy with

[1:35:25] the motion. Um but I appreciate again

[1:35:29] the thoroughess of this. This is

[1:35:32] >> and let's let's remember the point of

[1:35:34] this sentence, right? Just read it

[1:35:36] again. This sentence is saying we're

[1:35:39] going to have to call a special meeting.

[1:35:40] That's the whole point of the sentence,

[1:35:42] right? If the revenues of the city will

[1:35:46] be expended before the end of the fiscal

[1:35:48] year and necessary or desirable

[1:35:50] expenditures need to be met, additional

[1:35:52] expenditures shall not take effect

[1:35:54] unless approved by a majority vote at a

[1:35:56] duly warned special city meeting. That's

[1:35:58] the point of this sentence is to say if

[1:36:01] that happens, we're going to talk to the

[1:36:03] voters about it anyway,

[1:36:06] >> right?

[1:36:07] >> That's the whole point.

[1:36:13] But if you can pull revenues from many

[1:36:16] places, from other years, and we did get

[1:36:19] a whole Arbor ARA fund of $3 million,

[1:36:22] was it $3 million that we got or one

[1:36:25] million?

[1:36:26] >> Some some large amount of money. I mean,

[1:36:28] sometimes large amounts of money come in

[1:36:30] before you get to spend them.

[1:36:33] >> We Yeah.

[1:36:36] >> Yes. When that happened, the council

[1:36:38] took action and I think it was actually

[1:36:40] it was I know that the bond election was

[1:36:43] held in relation to that money and the

[1:36:45] formula that was created for the bond

[1:36:47] that would be taken was the total cost

[1:36:49] of the project $5 million for an east

[1:36:51] side water tower minus the money in hand

[1:36:55] raised by ARPA or other funds would be

[1:36:57] the bond amount that was left. In other

[1:36:59] words, the voters actually that's a

[1:37:01] great example of where the voters did

[1:37:02] get to win.

[1:37:03] >> Yes, we did.

[1:37:04] >> Right. and approved it.

[1:37:07] >> Yeah.

[1:37:08] >> And many of the things that we're

[1:37:10] talking about you I mean you're worried

[1:37:13] about um the voters. The voters have

[1:37:17] been very generous and

[1:37:18] >> we're not worried. That's not what we're

[1:37:20] arguing about here.

[1:37:20] >> Okay.

[1:37:21] >> We're not having that conversation. What

[1:37:22] we're talking about here is just the

[1:37:24] word revenue. And in this sentence, what

[1:37:26] it's saying is if the if additional

[1:37:30] expenditures are needed during that

[1:37:31] fiscal year, we will go and hold a

[1:37:34] special city meeting. That's the whole

[1:37:36] point of the sentence.

[1:37:37] >> You you could set this by just put

[1:37:41] in that sentence

[1:37:43] >> because that would eliminate next year's

[1:37:49] » and your current revenues are already

[1:37:51] defined up above anyways to include all

[1:37:53] your

[1:37:59] Okay. So, I'm gonna ask

[1:38:01] >> it's just defining the revenue.

[1:38:04] >> I'm gonna ask the uh Dave for his

[1:38:06] opinion and I'm going to ask the council

[1:38:07] members for their opinion and we're

[1:38:08] going to move on. Okay. So, Dave, we

[1:38:11] have a sentence that's been proposed

[1:38:12] with a motion that's on the table. And

[1:38:14] the question is whether it seems uh

[1:38:18] helpful to add the word current

[1:38:21] in this sentence where we it was in the

[1:38:24] parenthesis with a question mark

[1:38:26] actually. So it would read if the

[1:38:28] current revenues of the city will be

[1:38:30] expended. Do you have an opinion about

[1:38:32] this?

[1:38:35] >> Um

[1:38:38] not particularly. I think current

[1:38:40] actually does help define

[1:38:43] um

[1:38:47] where what we're talking about a little

[1:38:49] bit more

[1:38:51] um because that's what exists when the

[1:38:54] council is looking

[1:38:56] ahead as to whether they would warrant a

[1:38:59] vote.

[1:39:01] >> Okay. Okay. So, I'm going to ask the

[1:39:02] maker of the motion and the seconder if

[1:39:04] you're comfortable with modifying the

[1:39:06] motion for the sentence to read, if the

[1:39:08] current revenues of the city will be

[1:39:10] expended before the end of the fiscal

[1:39:12] year and necessary or desirable

[1:39:14] expenditures need to be met, additional

[1:39:16] expenditures shall not take effect

[1:39:18] unless approved by a majority vote at a

[1:39:20] duly warned special city meeting.

[1:39:23] >> Okay with the maker

[1:39:24] >> and if I was a seconder, I

[1:39:26] >> it's okay with all of the seconders.

[1:39:29] >> Thirders. Okay, Travis.

[1:39:32] >> I I would annual be better there because

[1:39:34] current sounds like cash on hand. Would

[1:39:37] annual be a better word saying it's this

[1:39:39] year's revenues. It's

[1:39:40] >> almost like you're on the financial task

[1:39:41] force. I want to like Travis.

[1:39:43] >> Yeah. Current current is defined in the

[1:39:45] first sentence.

[1:39:49] » Yeah.

[1:39:50] >> I like

[1:39:50] >> Okay. I have a motion and I have lots of

[1:39:54] seconds

[1:39:56] and so I'm going to read it one more

[1:39:58] time so we are thoroughly clear about

[1:40:00] what it is we're voting on here. Okay,

[1:40:02] if you vote in a fa in favor of this,

[1:40:04] the new sentence will read

[1:40:07] now I've lost where I'm starting. If the

[1:40:09] current revenues of the city will be

[1:40:11] expended before the end of the fiscal

[1:40:13] year and necessary or desirable

[1:40:15] expenditures need to be met, additional

[1:40:18] expenditures shall not take effect

[1:40:19] unless approved by a majority vote at a

[1:40:22] duly warned a special city meeting. I

[1:40:24] have a motion and a second. All those in

[1:40:26] favor, please say I.

[1:40:28] >> Oppos. Oppose. Nay. That motion carries.

[1:40:32] We're twothirds of the way through the paragraph. Keep going, John.

[1:40:35] >> Okay. Um, next sentence. Um,

[1:40:38] we're going to add the word city in one

[1:40:40] place so that it reads, um, at least 7

[1:40:43] days prior to the special city meeting,

[1:40:46] the city council shall hold at least one

[1:40:48] publicly warranted informational meeting

[1:40:50] to present the proposed expenditure,

[1:40:52] explain the reasons for the deficit, and

[1:40:55] provide an opportunity for public

[1:40:57] questions and comment.

[1:40:58] >> I have a motion,

[1:40:59] >> second

[1:40:59] >> and a second. Any comment?

[1:41:03] All those in favor, please say I.

[1:41:05] >> I. Oppose. Oppose. Nay. That motion

[1:41:08] carries.

[1:41:11] All right. Now, we're going to talk now

[1:41:14] about the one that I know Dave Brew has

[1:41:16] got a real opinion about. He's shared it

[1:41:17] in this meeting and in previous

[1:41:19] meetings. We've heard from the council

[1:41:21] from the charter task force that they

[1:41:23] are recommending that we keep the

[1:41:25] language fully repaid within the same

[1:41:27] fiscal year in which it was issued in

[1:41:29] which it is issued. Um, and we have

[1:41:32] Dave's recommendation that we consider

[1:41:34] making it one year or less

[1:41:37] uh as opposed to the same fiscal year in

[1:41:39] which it's issued. I'm going to ask

[1:41:40] council members to state your opinions

[1:41:42] about this matter so that if we are all

[1:41:45] of close to one mind, we don't have to

[1:41:47] do a lot of comment from the community.

[1:41:50] >> Thank you. Yeah,

[1:41:52] >> I would go with our attorney's

[1:41:54] recommendation and going with the one

[1:41:56] year or less clause because

[1:41:58] as we've talked about in previous

[1:42:00] meetings, likely we will recognize the

[1:42:03] deficit beyond the next budget year's

[1:42:07] vote because it takes place in March at

[1:42:09] the top of March. So to rectify that and

[1:42:13] correct, I think it would just be

[1:42:14] appropriate to allow the council to make

[1:42:17] changes within final operations, work

[1:42:20] with the city manager um to repay that

[1:42:22] debt and to work within state statute

[1:42:25] and allow for one year.

[1:42:27] >> Okay. Thank you, Carter. Andrew,

[1:42:30] >> I agree. We should go one year. Um

[1:42:33] because you never know, you know, by the

[1:42:35] time by the time everything gets more by

[1:42:37] the time everything is done, you could

[1:42:39] be 6 to 8 months into the fiscal year

[1:42:41] and to have to pay that back within 6

[1:42:44] months or four months, whatever it may

[1:42:46] be, it's it's a very tight time frame.

[1:42:51] John, you have an opinion about this?

[1:42:55] » I think the circumstances in which it

[1:42:57] would come up would be pretty rare,

[1:42:59] realistically speaking. And I think the one year makes sense because while

[1:43:07] tax anticipation loans are normally

[1:43:09] taken in July right at the beginning of

[1:43:12] a fiscal year. So one year fits um you

[1:43:16] know there certainly could be situations

[1:43:18] that arise in the last quarter

[1:43:22] um that can't be anticipated and

[1:43:26] there may very well not be time to have

[1:43:29] a special meeting to to to

[1:43:34] be able to fully resolve the matter

[1:43:36] within the same fiscal year. Um

[1:43:40] whereas the one year the one year

[1:43:42] creates

[1:43:43] the necessity for a special meeting in

[1:43:45] any event and for instance if we approve

[1:43:48] a budget in March at town meeting

[1:43:51] uh for the ensuing fiscal year beginning

[1:43:53] the next July 1st the issue whatever it

[1:43:56] is arises during the last quarter um

[1:44:02] in order to pay that back in the

[1:44:04] following fiscal year short of serious

[1:44:06] budget cuts somewhere

[1:44:08] uh there would have to be a special

[1:44:10] meeting. Uh but the ability to at least

[1:44:13] borrow beyond the end of the fiscal year

[1:44:17] would at least buy enough time to have a

[1:44:19] special meeting.

[1:44:21] You know, I think just from the point of

[1:44:22] view of practical flexibility, it makes

[1:44:24] sense.

[1:44:26] >> Thank you. Chairman Sharon,

[1:44:30] » I stand by the fiscal year that we came

[1:44:34] up with as a task force.

[1:44:38] You want to say more about that? Nope.

[1:44:44] I

[1:44:45] >> So, if we do that, we might as well just

[1:44:48] discard the whole first paragraph that

[1:44:50] we just spent an hour and a half on

[1:44:52] because now it's giving you if you have

[1:44:56] permission to get into long-term

[1:44:57] indebtedness

[1:44:59] for over a year.

[1:45:01] >> No, it's not for over a year.

[1:45:03] >> Well, it's for a year or less. a year

[1:45:06] beyond the fiscal year. So you could do

[1:45:08] that in June

[1:45:12] and extend it for a year to the next

[1:45:14] June. So now you've gone 11 months over

[1:45:16] your fiscal year. The whole idea of

[1:45:20] holding you guys to line was to not be

[1:45:23] able to do that. And there's no limit on

[1:45:25] this indebtedness could be $800,000 and

[1:45:28] you could just do it as long as it's no

[1:45:30] more than a year. And I personally

[1:45:35] will not approve that myself. So

[1:45:38] >> anybody else on

[1:45:39] >> do that as I said earlier at your own

[1:45:41] peril. I don't I think that's a huge

[1:45:44] mistake.

[1:45:45] >> Thank you Charlie.

[1:45:46] >> Travis I have to agree with Charlie and I just

[1:45:50] wanted to add one piece of clarity. It

[1:45:53] sounds like such a small thing. take it

[1:45:55] for a year fiscal year. I and I

[1:45:57] understand what you're saying, but it

[1:45:59] was the the frame of mind behind this

[1:46:02] was looking at it as a line of credit

[1:46:04] that we've used before. my time on the

[1:46:06] financial task force, the line of credit

[1:46:07] was a tool that was used and and I think

[1:46:10] that was specifically we didn't say line

[1:46:12] of credit there, but I think that's what

[1:46:13] we were looking at because lines of

[1:46:15] credit have to be repaid within the

[1:46:18] fiscal year and it would be a tool for

[1:46:20] you to have facilitated cash flow

[1:46:22] through the year, not a tool to

[1:46:24] overspend the budget, which is what

[1:46:27] making it a one-year term would

[1:46:28] basically do. I agree with Charlie. It's a backdoor way into uh approving uh

[1:46:35] deficit spending when the intent uh and

[1:46:39] they can correct me if I'm speaking out

[1:46:40] of pocket here, but I think our intent

[1:46:42] was to not tie your hands in the use of

[1:46:45] a line of credit as a cash flow tool for

[1:46:48] the year, not not a a deficit tool. So,

[1:46:52] >> thank you, Travis. Danny,

[1:47:03] » I would just remind everybody that we

[1:47:05] actually added this whole clause about

[1:47:07] being able to do sub clause about being

[1:47:10] able to encourage short-term indebt

[1:47:12] indebtedness

[1:47:14] as a way to give you guys extra

[1:47:16] flexibility, not take it away because

[1:47:17] there's not any language that allows you

[1:47:19] to take that allows the council to take

[1:47:21] out any short-term

[1:47:24] without voter approval in the original

[1:47:26] charter. So by adding that in by saying

[1:47:29] that any indebtedness without voter

[1:47:32] approval could be taken under certain

[1:47:34] circumstances that was actually to give

[1:47:36] the council flexibility not to tie your

[1:47:38] hands and I think that there's kind of a

[1:47:40] way that's being presented now as this

[1:47:42] is a very strict thing that's really

[1:47:44] inhibiting you from inhibiting the

[1:47:47] council from maybe being able to do

[1:47:48] their jobs. But but really it's actually

[1:47:52] more flexible than what the original

[1:47:53] charter allows. So that was just

[1:47:56] something that I think is worth

[1:47:58] thinking.

[1:48:00] >> Anyone else on the task force want to

[1:48:01] speak to this?

[1:48:03] >> I I just want to add one other thing.

[1:48:06] We felt very strong, as you can see,

[1:48:08] every member of this task force felt

[1:48:09] very strongly about the fiscal year

[1:48:11] part.

[1:48:13] Comments from the community felt very

[1:48:15] strongly. It wasn't just a one person. I think that also um

[1:48:22] the people I've talked to in the

[1:48:23] community, we get the same thing. But

[1:48:26] this isn't to say in five years from

[1:48:28] now, two years from now, if you're

[1:48:30] finding it's not working, we don't get

[1:48:33] together again as a task force with a

[1:48:36] new set of people.

[1:48:40] And you can re-examine this if you say

[1:48:43] it's not working. But I have to agree

[1:48:45] with Danny. We had a huge conversation

[1:48:48] about this is less restrictive than the

[1:48:51] current charter that we have all been

[1:48:53] living with since 1918.

[1:48:57] And I think we need to remember that.

[1:48:59] And I think we also need to remember

[1:49:01] that this one these two little words

[1:49:04] fiscal year do we really want that to

[1:49:07] jeopardize all of the updates we've done

[1:49:09] to this charter?

[1:49:13] » So I want to jump in there and speak to

[1:49:15] that. I I

[1:49:19] um I find myself in the awkward position

[1:49:21] of disagreeing with pretty much

[1:49:22] everybody in the room. Uh I disagree

[1:49:26] with the task force members about what

[1:49:29] this limit does or doesn't accomplish.

[1:49:33] And in part I disagree because

[1:49:37] we've been cleaning up a mess from the

[1:49:39] last year and a half where there was a

[1:49:41] far more restrictive charter in place

[1:49:43] and it it did little or no good in terms

[1:49:46] of keeping really bad decisions from

[1:49:48] being made. So whatever language we put

[1:49:50] in here at the end of the day is not

[1:49:52] we're not going to live or die by that

[1:49:54] language. It's more a question of how we

[1:49:55] build um how we elect

[1:49:59] strong leaders who have good judgment

[1:50:02] and hold them accountable. Having said

[1:50:04] that, council members, I disagree with

[1:50:07] everybody but Sharon around the table

[1:50:10] for largely the reasons that Sharon just

[1:50:12] stated. You know, it's very I spent

[1:50:15] years debating

[1:50:17] um very huge arcane issues before the

[1:50:20] National Presbyterian Church, and it's

[1:50:22] amazing the number of times we would

[1:50:24] come down to the wire and be arguing as

[1:50:26] if it was a life and death matter over a

[1:50:28] couple of words and forget all of the

[1:50:30] work that we had done on the rest of the

[1:50:32] document.

[1:50:33] And it is my judgment that it is a

[1:50:36] political moment in which the the memory

[1:50:41] and the trauma experienced in this

[1:50:43] community is alive and well. And so my

[1:50:46] own feeling is that while I may believe

[1:50:49] that the council should be given the

[1:50:52] latitude that cities are given across

[1:50:54] this state because this is this is by

[1:50:57] far and away more regressive than the

[1:50:59] state statutes would be. While I may

[1:51:02] believe that it would be great to be in

[1:51:04] that position, I don't think we're there

[1:51:06] right now. And I'm not prepared to risk

[1:51:08] what I think has been phenomenal work

[1:51:10] done by both the members of the task

[1:51:12] force and the council and members of the

[1:51:15] community who have invested an awful lot

[1:51:16] of time and energy in this conversation.

[1:51:18] So, my encouragement, though, I don't

[1:51:20] expect you to get to vote unless you'll

[1:51:21] come to a deadlock tonight, is to um

[1:51:25] leave the language the way it's been

[1:51:27] drafted by the charter task force to be

[1:51:29] fully repaid within the same fiscal year

[1:51:31] in which it is issued. And as Sharon

[1:51:33] says, if it's unworkable and we've gain

[1:51:36] gained people's trust, we can come back

[1:51:38] to this two, three, four, five years

[1:51:39] down the road and have the conversation

[1:51:41] again.

[1:51:46] I don't think we need to take more

[1:51:47] comment from the community at this

[1:51:49] point. I think we've heard unless it's a

[1:51:51] new opinion, which I suspect it's not.

[1:51:53] Do you have a new opinion that you

[1:51:54] haven't already shared tonight?

[1:51:56] >> Yes.

[1:51:56] >> All right. I'm concerned with your

[1:52:00] one-year loan and what it's in

[1:52:03] anticipation of. So, let's say it's

[1:52:05] taken in April

[1:52:08] uh just before the fiscal year ends.

[1:52:12] you're taking the only reason you have

[1:52:15] rationale for taking a loan is it's ant

[1:52:17] in anticipation of taxes for which year

[1:52:21] the year that you're in. You can't

[1:52:24] really take a loan for the next year and

[1:52:28] I wouldn't even anticipate another 12

[1:52:30] months of taxes. They weren't ma meant

[1:52:33] for the year that ends in June. They

[1:52:37] were meant for the next year's taxes.

[1:52:40] Um, and you're lucky if the budget the

[1:52:43] budget was in March if you started it in um February. You wouldn't even have

[1:52:50] an approved budget for then to

[1:52:52] anticipate those taxes because the

[1:52:55] budget would not have been approved for

[1:52:57] that then. So, you've got you've got a

[1:53:00] lot of problems with the meaning of

[1:53:02] anticipation. And the second thing they

[1:53:05] have a lot of problems with is when that

[1:53:07] loan is due in April or May of the next

[1:53:13] year. What's to stop any and we can't

[1:53:18] rely on us always having a wonderful

[1:53:21] council? We have to deal with who gets

[1:53:23] voted in.

[1:53:26] And th this charter is meant to deal

[1:53:28] with good good council, bad council,

[1:53:31] good uh city managers, bad city

[1:53:34] managers.

[1:53:35] So

[1:53:37] that loan um who's to stop you guys from

[1:53:41] renewing it? Who's to stop you from

[1:53:43] going from Pumick over to community

[1:53:47] um and taking another one-year loan in

[1:53:50] anticipation of I don't know what taxes

[1:53:53] out forever. So that loan can get

[1:53:56] bigger, that loan can continue. And it defies um the concept

[1:54:02] of um

[1:54:05] only having a short-term loan uh that

[1:54:09] you guys approve and us approving

[1:54:13] longer loans. Longer loans can be one

[1:54:15] year plus one year plus one year. And

[1:54:18] we're not getting our to say anything.

[1:54:20] When you take away

[1:54:21] >> I'm going to ask you to wrap it up.

[1:54:23] >> Okay. When you take away our vote,

[1:54:27] when you diminish, no one no one said on

[1:54:30] this charter change we were going to

[1:54:32] have our votes diminished. When you take

[1:54:34] away our right to vote on this issue,

[1:54:41] I'm not voting for this charter.

[1:54:43] >> Thank you for your comments.

[1:54:45] >> Well, I'm not prepared to live or die on

[1:54:47] this particular issue because I don't

[1:54:49] want to lose the good good work. But I

[1:54:51] would point out that over 80% of the

[1:54:54] communities in Vermont don't have

[1:54:55] charters at all. And the one-year

[1:54:58] concept that David is suggesting is

[1:55:00] exactly what all those communities live

[1:55:02] with. Newport city is the only

[1:55:05] municipality in Orleans County that has

[1:55:07] a charter. And what what you're

[1:55:10] effectively saying is you don't trust

[1:55:13] the Newport City Council to function as

[1:55:15] well as Charleston Select Board or the

[1:55:17] Bington Select Board or the Albany

[1:55:19] Select Board. and for that matter most of the other

[1:55:25] charters in the state aren't aren't this restrictive. But as I say,

[1:55:29] I'm not prepared to live or die on this

[1:55:31] issue at this time. I'm more interested

[1:55:33] in the big picture of

[1:55:36] getting something through that we could

[1:55:38] look at as an improvement over what we

[1:55:39] have now. Thank you, John. Any other

[1:55:42] comments, Sharon, Andrew, or Carter?

[1:55:46] >> Thank you.

[1:55:47] I just had a question um for Joe and I

[1:55:50] hope it's okay if I throw the sign.

[1:55:54] >> If this were to take effect and you I've

[1:55:57] done through these meetings you're

[1:55:58] hearing from the public um and you're

[1:56:01] managing a budget, how would this impact

[1:56:05] your operations if you were to notify or

[1:56:07] identify that we're running a deficit? I

[1:56:09] mean, ideally, we're going to avoid it,

[1:56:11] but there's unexpected things. And I

[1:56:12] think mainly

[1:56:15] previous meetings, we've talked about

[1:56:17] personnel issues changing and market

[1:56:20] variabilities that are completely out of

[1:56:22] anybody in here's control.

[1:56:25] With those things being considered, what

[1:56:27] would be the impact? like how would you

[1:56:29] have to adapt your budget if we couldn't

[1:56:32] get a line of credit that ex you know

[1:56:35] understandably

[1:56:36] how would that impact your operations

[1:56:39] like would that lead to firings would

[1:56:40] that lead to services being cut I just

[1:56:43] want to know what we're entering when we

[1:56:46] accept this

[1:56:47] >> and and I think that's thank you for the

[1:56:49] question so I I think that's an

[1:56:51] important question that maybe the

[1:56:52] community needs to consider um I take

[1:56:56] Ann's point uh to heart that the voters

[1:56:59] have approved the budget and this is

[1:57:01] what you should live within. Um while

[1:57:03] there are extraneous circumstances that

[1:57:05] will impact that budget. Um I do I still

[1:57:08] to that point I understand this is what

[1:57:10] was approved to stay within that budget

[1:57:13] if we get there when we get there

[1:57:14] because you know things happen over the

[1:57:16] next decade if I'm lucky enough to be

[1:57:18] here you'll see services cut because

[1:57:20] this is what this is the number that the

[1:57:22] voters approved. That's just and that's

[1:57:24] what it would be. You see wck cut maybe

[1:57:26] you lose a cop. I I don't know what it

[1:57:28] looks like, but if you want me to stay

[1:57:30] within budget, that's this is what

[1:57:32] you're asking for is is to lose services

[1:57:34] because that's what we provide.

[1:57:37] But I do I take it to heart. This is

[1:57:39] what you approve. This is what we spend.

[1:57:41] >> Thank you, Joe. No, we're not going to

[1:57:42] take more comment from the committee.

[1:57:45] >> So, Carter, anything else you want to

[1:57:46] say before we go to a vote?

[1:57:49] >> I think that underscores it. We're

[1:57:50] having these conversations with the

[1:57:52] financial task force. There's more eyes

[1:57:54] than ever. Um and yeah. Okay.

[1:57:58] >> Thank you. Sharon, any final comments?

[1:58:02] » And Andrew, you you took a pass on this,

[1:58:04] right?

[1:58:05] >> That is correct.

[1:58:06] >> Okay. We don't have a motion.

[1:58:07] >> We do not have a motion on the table.

[1:58:09] So, if someone would like to make a

[1:58:10] motion to change the current language,

[1:58:12] now would be the time to do it.

[1:58:16] The language that is the language that

[1:58:18] the task force has put before us.

[1:58:28] I yield to the financial task force

[1:58:30] recommendations.

[1:58:33] » We can read

[1:58:34] >> the financial task force.

[1:58:35] >> Sorry, sugar. Sorry, that's the one I

[1:58:36] normally

[1:58:37] >> I was going to say I can't take another

[1:58:38] task force.

[1:58:41] >> I yield to the charter task force

[1:58:43] recommendations and we'll revisit this

[1:58:45] in a couple years. I guess

[1:58:48] >> Andrew.

[1:58:51] >> Okay, John, I think you've already

[1:58:52] spoken your mind about this and I know

[1:58:54] Sharon's opinion. So, we do not have a

[1:58:55] motion on the table and we'll move on.

[1:58:59] >> Thank you everyone for a really

[1:59:00] thoughtful and hard conversation.

[1:59:04] » Did we already take action to remove or

[1:59:06] election in a I think we did, right?

[1:59:08] >> I know.

[1:59:11] » To remove the words or election. Yeah,

[1:59:14] that was the first and Dave's nodding

[1:59:16] his head. Yes,

[1:59:16] >> the very first one.

[1:59:17] >> Yes, he did.

[1:59:18] >> Thank you. Um

[1:59:21] B, I'll just read. I don't Well, I don't

[1:59:24] think there's any change we're asking

[1:59:25] for there, right? Is there anybody who

[1:59:26] would like to make a change to B?

[1:59:30] >> Okay.

[1:59:30] >> I I had a question um somebody on the

[1:59:33] legislature.

[1:59:34] Is there some definition of an allhazard

[1:59:37] event as defined by state statute? Is

[1:59:39] that something you guys reference? Okay,

[1:59:40] then ahead. All right. Thank you. Good.

[1:59:43] And C, total indebtedness of the city

[1:59:45] shall not exceed 10% of the total

[1:59:47] assessed value of the city's grand list.

[1:59:49] Any comments or questions about that?

[1:59:50] >> What does that equate to today?

[1:59:53] >> 32 million.

[1:59:54] >> Yeah. Yeah. The grand list is like 320

[1:59:57] million.

[1:59:58] >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:00:00] >> Thank you.

[2:00:00] >> No, thank you. That was a helpful

[2:00:01] comment. Appreciate it.

[2:00:03] >> Okay.

[2:00:06] Charter task force members, you have

[2:00:08] served us so well. So, don't go anywhere

[2:00:10] because there may be some other items we

[2:00:12] want to talk about tonight, but thank

[2:00:13] you for all your work on this and we

[2:00:16] couldn't we clearly could not have

[2:00:17] gotten here without you. So, um I I know

[2:00:21] of at least one other item that someone

[2:00:22] would like to speak to besides

[2:00:24] Jennifer's list of minor changes that

[2:00:28] we've already agreed we'll ask Dave Rue

[2:00:30] to take on. And I think Dave Brew and

[2:00:33] Joe have a question that you all wanted

[2:00:35] to put on the table um that had to do

[2:00:37] with both the charter, the treasurer and

[2:00:39] the city manager sections.

[2:00:43] One of you want to speak to that. Dave,

[2:00:44] do you want to speak to it first or

[2:00:48] go ahead Dave?

[2:00:50] >> Sure. Um I

[2:00:55] it is a question. It's purely a question

[2:00:57] of sort of of how the city

[2:01:00] administration works and it's u the city

[2:01:03] treasurer is given the duty to process

[2:01:06] payroll employee benefits and tax

[2:01:09] withholdings and my understanding is

[2:01:12] that responsibility doesn't or has not

[2:01:15] historically solely rested with the

[2:01:17] treasurer and that the city manager and

[2:01:19] the administration also handles uh

[2:01:22] processing payroll employee benefits and

[2:01:25] tax withholding. things. So, Joe and I

[2:01:28] are thinking of making a two edits, one

[2:01:33] to section 13E

[2:01:35] and another to section 20 sub6 that

[2:01:39] basically says the city treasurer

[2:01:42] and the city manager shall process

[2:01:44] payroll, employee benefits, and tax

[2:01:46] withholdings. So it gives both it gives

[2:01:50] the authority to address those uh

[2:01:53] matters to both um officials I guess for

[2:01:56] lack of a better way of putting it. But

[2:01:58] it it it really does just codify what

[2:02:01] the existing practice is and that city

[2:02:03] manager administration handles payroll

[2:02:05] benefits and tax withholdings and the

[2:02:07] city treasurer is the one that signs the

[2:02:09] check. So that's my understanding of how

[2:02:10] that works.

[2:02:13] >> So just so that we'll we'll take them

[2:02:15] one at a time. Uh Dave, but I see the

[2:02:19] one in s in 13E. Can you tell us where

[2:02:21] to find the change that would take place

[2:02:23] later under the city manager section?

[2:02:25] >> Yeah, I was suggesting adding uh to the

[2:02:29] end of 20

[2:02:32] uh sub6

[2:02:34] 20 uh and I will

[2:02:37] >> 20

[2:02:41] » the city manager duties.

[2:02:43] >> It's 28 I think, isn't it?

[2:02:45] >> Yeah,

[2:02:45] >> 28. Okay. Yes. Sorry.

[2:02:48] >> Yeah.

[2:02:50] >> Yes. 28 sub6.

[2:02:54] And I would just add uh and with the

[2:02:58] city treasurer process payroll, employee

[2:03:00] benefits and tax withholdings to mirror

[2:03:03] 13.

[2:03:05] >> So you're adding a comma.

[2:03:10] And then could you read again what you

[2:03:11] would add behind the comma after and its

[2:03:13] future needs?

[2:03:15] >> Yeah. I would say to keep the city

[2:03:16] council fully advised of the financial

[2:03:18] condition of the city of its future

[2:03:19] needs and with the city treasurer

[2:03:22] process payroll, employee benefits and

[2:03:25] tax reporting.

[2:03:28] >> Is that the way it works currently?

[2:03:31] >> My office does all the processing.

[2:03:35] >> Does the city manager have anything to

[2:03:36] do with it currently? Jim,

[2:03:39] >> he gets the reports.

[2:03:41] weekly and if

[2:03:44] there's any increase in salaries and

[2:03:45] that type of thing, he lets us know. We do all the processing.

[2:03:52] » Joe, do you want to speak to this?

[2:03:53] >> I I do. So the so Sharon, the the reason

[2:03:56] behind uh a proposal like this is not necessarily to have the city

[2:04:01] manager, myself or future managers

[2:04:03] actually do the process, but to have the ability to kind of backs stop

[2:04:08] the treasurer. So, for example, if

[2:04:10] something happens down in Jim's office,

[2:04:12] it would be nice if somebody upstairs

[2:04:15] could have the ability to then help and

[2:04:17] do payroll and do do AP uh to be able to

[2:04:20] cross trainin people to do this work.

[2:04:22] The way this language sits, it says that

[2:04:24] office shall do it. It doesn't give any

[2:04:26] option to let anybody else do that work.

[2:04:29] >> I don't have a problem with having a

[2:04:31] backup.

[2:04:32] >> Thank you, Jim. That's a helpful

[2:04:33] comment.

[2:04:35] >> So,

[2:04:36] >> that was my next

[2:04:37] >> Dave. Could you read it one more time?

[2:04:39] and with the city treasurer, etc.

[2:04:42] >> Yep. Hold on. I was just making uh the

[2:04:44] change up in six, but uh Okay, so this

[2:04:47] is 28 A

[2:04:51] uh six would now read to keep the city

[2:04:54] council fully advised of the financial

[2:04:57] condition of the city and its future

[2:04:59] needs and with the city treasurer or

[2:05:02] Kama process payroll, employee benefits,

[2:05:05] and tax withholdings.

[2:05:08] Okay, council members, you all

[2:05:09] understand the two changes. We won't do

[2:05:11] them at the same time, but you

[2:05:12] understand them.

[2:05:13] >> Yes.

[2:05:15] >> Okay. Are there questions that anyone

[2:05:17] has on the council?

[2:05:22] » Okay. Charter task force members,

[2:05:23] anybody have an opinion about this?

[2:05:25] >> Checks and balances were part of what we

[2:05:28] were trying to do everywhere.

[2:05:31] >> Okay. Folks in the community and

[2:05:34] >> Yes. I'd just like Jim to address what

[2:05:37] he means by process. And

[2:05:42] who's who can sign the checks then? Um I

[2:05:46] thought the treasurer was the person who

[2:05:48] signed off on the checks for all

[2:05:51] employees.

[2:05:52] And now are we saying uh that um the

[2:05:57] city manager or anybody in his division

[2:06:00] can sign off on checks? So, we may need

[2:06:03] to define what the process is. Um,

[2:06:06] >> Dave Rue, can you speak to that, please?

[2:06:14] » My understanding is the city treasurer

[2:06:16] would continue to be able to sign

[2:06:17] checks. It's the city manager that's

[2:06:20] working with the treasurer to define

[2:06:23] what the payroll is, employee benefits

[2:06:25] are, and what the appropriate tax

[2:06:26] withholdings would be

[2:06:30] » because we have another place under the

[2:06:33] treasurer section that states clearly

[2:06:34] that it's the treasurer's responsibility

[2:06:37] to sign off on all checks. Correct.

[2:06:40] >> Correct. I believe that's in here.

[2:06:43] >> What if you

[2:06:46] Go ahead, Charlie. What if you Well,

[2:06:49] I'm loud enough. That's okay. Um, what

[2:06:52] if you just put in conjunction with

[2:06:56] that way? It's not It's not an either or. It's you, city manager would

[2:07:02] have to

[2:07:03] do it in in conjunction with

[2:07:11] » just a suggestion.

[2:07:12] >> And it's basically the same. So, I'm I'm

[2:07:14] fine with that edit. So it would say to

[2:07:16] keep the city council fully advised of

[2:07:19] the financial condition of the city of

[2:07:20] its future needs and in conjunction with

[2:07:24] the city treasurer process payroll

[2:07:27] employee benefits and tax withholdings

[2:07:29] and we would use the same uh and in

[2:07:32] conjunction with update section 13E.

[2:07:37] >> Okay, any questions about that?

[2:07:40] >> Joe, you want to say anything further

[2:07:42] about it?

[2:07:42] >> No, sir.

[2:07:43] >> Okay. Yeah.

[2:07:45] >> So, does it in conjunction with mean

[2:07:48] that the city manager signs off on these

[2:07:52] checks or not? Because

[2:07:53] >> No, it says the city treasurer signs off

[2:07:56] on payroll checks.

[2:07:57] >> Okay. So,

[2:07:58] >> he helps he helps with tax. He helps

[2:08:00] with the the income tax withholdings and

[2:08:04] the hourly rates and so on.

[2:08:09] » You can't do it. Joel saying

[2:08:11] >> I'm sorry.

[2:08:12] >> We can't do it. Joe's office would do

[2:08:14] it. That's what he's saying.

[2:08:17] For some reason,

[2:08:19] >> well, in conjunction with, but it would

[2:08:21] have to be

[2:08:24] they can't just do it. Has to be in

[2:08:26] conjunction with the That's why I added

[2:08:28] that. So, there wasn't a split pal.

[2:08:32] >> Well, everybody in my office is sick for

[2:08:34] two months. I'll come in in conjunction

[2:08:36] with

[2:08:37] >> Exactly. At least you know what's going

[2:08:39] on.

[2:08:42] » All right. So, let's go back then to

[2:08:46] uh section 13 E. And Dave, I'll ask you

[2:08:51] to invite a motion using the exact

[2:08:52] language that we're proposing.

[2:08:55] So, I I recommend a motion be made to

[2:08:58] alter section 13E. So, it reads, "The

[2:09:02] city treasurer in conjunction with the

[2:09:04] city manager shall process payroll,

[2:09:07] employee benefits, and tax withholding."

[2:09:11] >> I'll make that motion. I have a motion

[2:09:13] >> second

[2:09:13] >> and a second. Any further discussion?

[2:09:17] >> Danny,

[2:09:26] » this is just a question um really, but

[2:09:30] I've been speaking with some people in

[2:09:36] at the state level about authority,

[2:09:39] specifically about the authority of C.

[2:09:41] people to do certain things that mean

[2:09:45] and when we're talking about the

[2:09:47] approval of warrants

[2:09:50] my understanding is that under Vermont

[2:09:53] statute payroll is a warrant

[2:09:57] in the charter language that we just

[2:10:01] we're putting forward that says that the

[2:10:03] city treasurer without special direction

[2:10:05] of the voters of the city shall not

[2:10:06] honor horns in excess of anticipated

[2:10:08] revenues so

[2:10:11] I would just maybe put out there that

[2:10:14] there are more places in the charter

[2:10:16] that we need to revisit if we're going

[2:10:18] to share author that authority because

[2:10:21] if we say, you know, the city manager

[2:10:24] can can do this, but then

[2:10:28] the city treasurer is the only one who's

[2:10:30] not allowed, you know, then then it's

[2:10:31] his it's Jim's authority that we're

[2:10:33] talking about, you know, so so Joe could

[2:10:36] essentially be writing checks that that

[2:10:39] falls I mean, you know what I But but

[2:10:41] that it would be on Jim's

[2:10:45] it would be Jim's responsibility. He's

[2:10:47] the one who would have to answer to it

[2:10:48] by law, not Joe. So I think we should

[2:10:50] just be clear about that because at the

[2:10:54] state level they're really concerned

[2:10:56] about whose authority in the city it is

[2:10:59] to do certain things because of the

[2:11:01] responsibility that's attached.

[2:11:04] >> Thank you, Danny. Stay right there for a

[2:11:06] moment because you may know this answer

[2:11:07] to this question more than anybody else

[2:11:09] does. I just want to ask where in the

[2:11:12] charter proposed charter language do we

[2:11:15] have the statement that I think I know

[2:11:16] about that says that the city treasurer

[2:11:20] shall have the authority is the person

[2:11:22] who has the authority to sign warrants.

[2:11:26] >> It is

[2:11:29] just a

[2:11:31] so many copies of the chart right now.

[2:11:35] >> It is I believe

[2:11:39] It's in that same section, right? In

[2:11:41] section 13,

[2:11:42] >> final section under N.

[2:11:44] >> It's right.

[2:11:45] >> Or is it I or is it

[2:11:48] has it changed?

[2:11:50] >> It's

[2:11:51] >> Do we still not have the language at the

[2:11:53] very end after M was its own clause? Has

[2:11:56] that been updated already? The city

[2:11:57] council without special direction.

[2:12:00] >> That one is that one not there anymore?

[2:12:02] >> We don't have an M. No, we got rid of

[2:12:04] that.

[2:12:04] >> We got rid of it and we moved it. Okay.

[2:12:06] >> Yes.

[2:12:07] >> Right. So, just to be clear, this the

[2:12:09] letter I currently says the city

[2:12:10] treasurer shall certify that there are

[2:12:12] sufficient funds available to pay all

[2:12:14] warrants presented to the city council

[2:12:15] for approval and that the warrants

[2:12:17] conform to to the adopted budget and pay

[2:12:20] all warrants approved by the city

[2:12:22] council. The city treasurer shall notify

[2:12:24] the city council when the city treasurer

[2:12:26] needs to access the approved line of

[2:12:27] credit to cover warrants and

[2:12:29] expenditures.

[2:12:31] So, I'm just trying to make sure the

[2:12:35] concern I I think I hear Danny raising

[2:12:36] is have we muddied that statement

[2:12:40] >> in by by

[2:12:42] changing this other language.

[2:12:45] >> So, we have section 20 going back at the

[2:12:49] end of section 23.

[2:12:52] I'm just confirming that's the right

[2:12:54] number. Uh, no, sorry, that's 15. powers

[2:12:58] and duties of city council.

[2:13:01] At the very end of that one, the last

[2:13:05] sentence says, "The city treasurer

[2:13:07] without special direction of the voters

[2:13:09] of the city shall not honor or pay

[2:13:11] warrants in excess of anticipated

[2:13:13] revenue."

[2:13:18] » There is. So again, that puts the power

[2:13:21] uh

[2:13:24] the treasurer to withhold his signature

[2:13:26] on checks if there's no money available.

[2:13:30] >> Joe, you've been trying to speak and I

[2:13:31] missed you. Sorry.

[2:13:32] >> Yeah. No, no, it's it's confusing and if you don't live it, it's it's even

[2:13:38] more confusing. So processing a payroll

[2:13:40] is different than signing the checks

[2:13:43] like Jim does and then approving the

[2:13:45] warrant like the council does. This is

[2:13:47] exactly the separation of duties that a

[2:13:49] community would want. Right? So you'd

[2:13:51] have an administration like myself

[2:13:53] saying Joe gets paid $10.

[2:13:56] Joe hands that to Jim and Jim says, "Hey

[2:13:59] Jim, s 10 bucks for Joe." And Jim looks

[2:14:02] at it and says, "Yeah, he gets that 10

[2:14:04] bucks." And then it moves to the council

[2:14:06] who then reviews it again and says,

[2:14:08] "Okay, it looks like Joe gets his 10

[2:14:10] bucks." Right? And that's that's the

[2:14:13] manager in the scenario we're talking

[2:14:14] about isn't approving a warrant and

[2:14:16] they're not signing a check. They're

[2:14:18] just making sure that piece of paper

[2:14:19] gets to the next person in a separation

[2:14:22] in a way that separates the duties. So

[2:14:24] that way that person the next person

[2:14:26] gets to do their part.

[2:14:29] I guess I would just

[2:14:33] maybe we should be a little clear about

[2:14:34] that about the difference between

[2:14:36] processing and and approving and what

[2:14:39] that looks like and paying for everybody

[2:14:41] because and actually the the part that I

[2:14:43] was looking for is actually in section

[2:14:45] 15 which is duties of the city council

[2:14:47] and it's the very final paragraph but it

[2:14:50] is also talk about the city treasurer

[2:14:52] there but so there's a lot I guess it

[2:14:55] just speaks to my point that there's a

[2:14:56] lot of places besides these that the

[2:14:58] forum

[2:15:00] that I think we would need to address if

[2:15:04] we make those changes. But that's all

[2:15:05] and I'm not speaking for it against the

[2:15:07] changes. I'm just saying there's more

[2:15:09] places than those two that I think we

[2:15:10] need to.

[2:15:12] >> Thank you.

[2:15:18] » So Dave Rue, let me ask you a question

[2:15:21] about process.

[2:15:23] in the interest of being careful because

[2:15:26] we want a proposal that is unassailable

[2:15:30] to go to the voters that is in

[2:15:32] inherently and internally consistent.

[2:15:35] Um is there a way that we can

[2:15:38] uh act on this tonight that still allows

[2:15:41] us to check for consistency before the

[2:15:43] council takes final action on it next

[2:15:45] week?

[2:15:50] » That's assuming there's an

[2:15:51] inconsistency.

[2:15:52] Correct. That's that's

[2:15:54] >> also assuming that the and this is not

[2:15:56] going to be unassalable. So there's two

[2:15:58] assumptions in your question.

[2:15:59] >> Fair enough.

[2:16:01] >> Not going to play out. Um, with that

[2:16:04] said,

[2:16:05] um, I I can certainly check to see if

[2:16:12] there's somewhere in the charter that

[2:16:14] gives the city manager the authority to

[2:16:17] override the treasurer's

[2:16:20] uh, decision making as to the actual

[2:16:24] expenditure of city funds, meaning

[2:16:26] signing checks

[2:16:28] because that seems to be what everyone

[2:16:30] is concerned about.

[2:16:32] is someone u writing checks without the

[2:16:36] authority to do so

[2:16:40] that I can come back on the 21st

[2:16:44] or I'll have by Friday anyway a charter

[2:16:48] that makes it clear whose job it is as a

[2:16:51] backs stop on city funds going out the

[2:16:54] door

[2:16:58] » Hold on please I I just want to check in

[2:17:01] with council

[2:17:03] How would you like to manage this

[2:17:05] council members?

[2:17:08] >> I guess it's not entirely clear to me

[2:17:11] that we need to do anything with this

[2:17:21] » and in that

[2:17:23] the city treasurer's office is not a

[2:17:25] oneperson office.

[2:17:28] There are two assistants there.

[2:17:36] And if they need practical assistance

[2:17:38] informally in terms of just getting the

[2:17:40] job done, they they certainly can ask. I

[2:17:43] don't think we need to have that

[2:17:49] » Andrew and I looked at this as another

[2:17:51] set of eyes and it to process payroll

[2:17:53] and look at more the the employee

[2:17:55] benefits and tax results to make sure

[2:17:57] everything is current with new employees

[2:18:00] and that sort of thing. That's what I was looking at. I didn't I

[2:18:04] didn't read into the this is signing

[2:18:06] checks or anything. I just assisting

[2:18:09] with a process

[2:18:11] >> with a new hire to make sure you know

[2:18:13] from from all their paper from tags with

[2:18:16] home loans to include 401k make sure

[2:18:18] everything is set up properly with the

[2:18:20] employee for people

[2:18:25] I guess I'm I'm questioning if this is

[2:18:28] really needed in our charter

[2:18:33] >> because isn't that just part of our the

[2:18:36] responsibilities of those offices

[2:18:41] » Joe you want to speak to

[2:18:43] I I missed of the witch offices

[2:18:47] >> of the city man. So I bet Andrew is what

[2:18:49] you're saying is the city manager double

[2:18:52] checking to make sure if there's a new

[2:18:53] hire that everything's the pro that

[2:18:56] everything's in Jim's office. Is that

[2:18:58] what you're saying?

[2:18:58] >> That

[2:19:00] Yeah, that's how that's how I read that

[2:19:03] is to ensure that the

[2:19:07] payroll is set up properly with the

[2:19:09] withholdings and stuff with the

[2:19:10] paperwork. So all the withholdings that

[2:19:13] should be done are set up properly. More

[2:19:16] of a the first time of a for a new hire

[2:19:20] to make sure everything's set up

[2:19:21] properly as opposed to signing their

[2:19:24] payroll checks.

[2:19:26] >> I was looking at it more of a more of a

[2:19:28] you know go down make sure hey this you

[2:19:30] know this employee gets X Y and Z and it

[2:19:33] should be this amount. Do you have just

[2:19:36] double check?

[2:19:36] >> Right. I agree with you. So, I guess

[2:19:38] what I'm saying is isn't that isn't that

[2:19:40] just the role of being a supervisor or

[2:19:43] in char you know the in charge of an

[2:19:45] employee? Does it have to be stated

[2:19:46] specifically in the charter?

[2:19:50] >> Yeah. To speak to that, I was surprised

[2:19:52] to see the treasurer shall process

[2:19:55] payroll myself. Um, most most

[2:19:58] communities that I I have worked with

[2:20:01] and and know of don't. The treasurer

[2:20:03] doesn't do that task. It's it's farmed

[2:20:05] out to a separate employee.

[2:20:10] » That's that's been discussed

[2:20:12] before years back

[2:20:17] » the possibility that someone else might

[2:20:19] be preparing payroll for instance. Is

[2:20:21] that what you're saying?

[2:20:22] >> Contract payroll contract

[2:20:25] >> uh not not nec I'm sorry

[2:20:28] >> please. Um, not necessarily contract,

[2:20:30] but I know Jim's the front office, even

[2:20:32] with three staff, he's swamped right

[2:20:34] now. If you go down there, you see poor

[2:20:36] Robin just banging away at the computer

[2:20:38] trying to, you know, catch your breath.

[2:20:40] But, um, it would be nice if if the rest

[2:20:43] of the staff instead of having a shall

[2:20:45] have the treasurer shall do that to give

[2:20:48] the option to let the rest of the staff

[2:20:49] hover. It's just it seems like a

[2:20:52] practical way to backs stop an employee

[2:20:54] who's swamped. So Joe, if that's the

[2:20:56] case, then I think a possible proposal

[2:20:59] from you would be just to replace the

[2:21:00] word shall with the word may. City

[2:21:03] treasurer may process payroll, employee

[2:21:05] benefits, and tax withholders.

[2:21:07] >> But that creates another set of

[2:21:09] problems.

[2:21:09] >> Shall if you have two assistant

[2:21:12] treasurers

[2:21:13] um you know and cross train them um

[2:21:18] because ultimately the treasurer's

[2:21:20] office is responsible for all of that

[2:21:23] >> and some somebody has to have a shallow

[2:21:25] responsibility

[2:21:28] and and historically that's the

[2:21:30] treasurer's office. I mean Newport's not

[2:21:33] big enough to have a separate, you know,

[2:21:35] payroll

[2:21:38] department.

[2:21:40] >> Yeah.

[2:21:41] >> Can I just say

[2:21:43] >> Can I say something about payroll?

[2:21:45] Newport stays payroll 40 hours in you

[2:21:48] get $10 an hour. There's hundreds of

[2:21:51] codes that have to be the payroll is

[2:21:53] split up 25 or 30 different codes for

[2:21:56] each person and we think about a day or

[2:22:00] day and a half to just do the payroll.

[2:22:04] Can I hold on hold on

[2:22:06] >> I know I've taken a lot of air time

[2:22:08] thanking the charter

[2:22:08] >> Lori I see your hand

[2:22:10] >> um when the charter was written in 198

[2:22:13] 1918 it was a whole other world right

[2:22:16] this is the payroll and accounting is

[2:22:18] nothing it's nothing like it used to be

[2:22:21] so to keep to keep that process as

[2:22:23] solely for a treasurer whose

[2:22:25] responsibilities have also expanded um

[2:22:28] it's a it's it's a very much outdated um

[2:22:32] thought especially Especially with no

[2:22:34] hope at all from the outside.

[2:22:36] >> Thank you, Charlie. And then I have

[2:22:39] another one where fix

[2:22:42] shall oversee all of their

[2:22:47] doesn't require them to do it, but it

[2:22:50] requires them to know what's going on.

[2:22:53] That would even allow them to contract

[2:22:55] it.

[2:22:58] » Joe, just out of curiosity, how do you

[2:22:59] respond to that?

[2:23:04] shall oversee

[2:23:06] >> payroll process. I like the May better.

[2:23:11] » Okay, Lori.

[2:23:20] » Uh, I think I I think we're splitting

[2:23:22] hairs because the charter is supposed to

[2:23:25] be an overarching document of generally

[2:23:29] what's supposed to be happening in the

[2:23:30] city. We have a treasur's office. We're

[2:23:33] talking about a person. And so I think

[2:23:37] that's the first thing is are we talking

[2:23:40] about the treasurer, whoever happens to

[2:23:43] be that role. We're talking about the

[2:23:46] whole office. The other piece is one of

[2:23:49] the things that the financial task force

[2:23:51] has been doing and I think we started

[2:23:52] this last year is talking about the

[2:23:55] segregation of docu segregation of

[2:23:58] duties documents that say this office

[2:24:00] says this and this office says that and

[2:24:03] that's where we pull in the actual

[2:24:08] um

[2:24:10] what's the word I'm looking for the

[2:24:12] actual duties the actual work that's

[2:24:15] being done in those offices. So, I think

[2:24:18] we're getting way off

[2:24:21] um our whole thing tonight uh with this

[2:24:25] because we're we're being too specific.

[2:24:27] I mean, in my opinion, we're we're

[2:24:30] laying out this is what he's going to

[2:24:32] do. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And

[2:24:34] this is like I said, this is for me like

[2:24:36] a standard operating procedure. This is

[2:24:38] how this is kind of an overarching

[2:24:41] document of how it's in general what is

[2:24:44] supposed to happen. and we really need

[2:24:46] to look at policies and procedures based

[2:24:48] on each office and that's where we can

[2:24:50] get a little bit more uh in the weeds.

[2:24:53] >> Thank you, Mar. And please keep it

[2:24:56] brief.

[2:25:00] Somebody would have to clarify it for

[2:25:02] me, but um from what I'm hearing, uh it

[2:25:07] sounds as if the city treasurer does

[2:25:09] process

[2:25:11] uh payroll, employee benefits, and tax

[2:25:13] withholdings, but that information that

[2:25:16] you have comes from somewhere.

[2:25:20] Does it come from the city manager's

[2:25:22] office? And is is what the city manager

[2:25:25] doing

[2:25:26] um preparing

[2:25:28] um the individual employee salaries,

[2:25:33] benefits, and tax withholdings and then

[2:25:36] giving that information to Jim? I don't

[2:25:39] know the answer to that. Is one

[2:25:41] preparing the information and giving it

[2:25:44] to Jim and Jim's processing it? If

[2:25:47] that's so, those are the two different

[2:25:49] words that should be used for it. If

[2:25:51] not, what what is happening uh that gets

[2:25:55] Jim that information about what is the pay of an employee, what are the

[2:26:02] benefits of that employee, and what is

[2:26:04] the tax withholding of the employee.

[2:26:07] >> Thank you.

[2:26:11] » Uh so Jim's office when it says process

[2:26:14] payroll, that's literally what he does.

[2:26:16] His office does when I say treasurer

[2:26:18] Lori, I don't mean I don't mean Jim. I

[2:26:19] mean the office of

[2:26:20] >> right

[2:26:21] >> um he's he in the computer program he

[2:26:25] knows how many the employee hands Robin

[2:26:28] a time sheet she punches that

[2:26:29] information in which code goes to which

[2:26:31] department and she pays it

[2:26:35] >> and where does the the document come

[2:26:38] from that um you codes from that they

[2:26:41] code from

[2:26:42] >> the employee the employee time sheet

[2:26:45] >> the employee

[2:26:46] >> employee time sheet

[2:26:48] >> and is Does that come from you?

[2:26:52] >> Come from the department. Come from the

[2:26:54] department.

[2:26:55] >> So, if I could if I could jump in,

[2:26:58] please, let me just try this. You

[2:27:01] um I like Charlie's word oversee. And

[2:27:04] one possibility would simply to be to in

[2:27:06] I'm in section E now, subsection E of

[2:27:09] section 13. City treasurer shall oversee

[2:27:12] the processing of payroll, employee

[2:27:15] benefits, and tax withholdings. You

[2:27:17] could say there the city treasurer in

[2:27:20] cooperation with the city manager shall

[2:27:22] oversee the processing of payroll

[2:27:25] employee benefits and tax withholding.

[2:27:28] And all we've done is create possibility

[2:27:30] there

[2:27:34] for collaboration and cooperation which

[2:27:37] is what we're trying to encourage.

[2:27:41] Great. because I'm kind of what I'm

[2:27:42] stuck on is the to's point. What does

[2:27:46] process mean with issue work?

[2:27:49] The treasur shall issue payroll employee

[2:27:53] benefits and tax tax withholdings.

[2:27:56] Not trying to throw out another idea,

[2:27:58] but when I thought about the budget

[2:28:01] cycle,

[2:28:03] I guess the most recent one, Carrie was

[2:28:05] the one who was digging into the

[2:28:07] employee benefits.

[2:28:09] And that's not downstairs. that's

[2:28:11] upstairs. And

[2:28:13] so there I think and to Lor's point, I

[2:28:17] think there is more work to be done

[2:28:19] elsewhere on rectifying and trying to

[2:28:21] clarify whose role is what. But

[2:28:23] ultimately I would as a city council

[2:28:26] person like to what you were saying

[2:28:29] build in where we can have more checks

[2:28:32] and balances but without necessarily

[2:28:34] stripping the treasur's role and money

[2:28:38] those waters but ultimately building in

[2:28:40] more checks.

[2:28:43] So I'm good with moving forward with

[2:28:45] some language that you presented.

[2:28:49] I I just say maybe Ann is asking who

[2:28:52] decides what the salaries are and the

[2:28:53] benefits. We don't do that. That comes

[2:28:55] from Joe's office and the council. They

[2:28:58] give us the information that we process.

[2:29:02] >> And in the case of the police

[2:29:03] department, it's the union contract,

[2:29:05] >> right?

[2:29:05] >> Yeah. Then contract police and work

[2:29:09] contracts specify what and that wording

[2:29:11] is in the chart under the city.

[2:29:16] So Joe, let me just ask you. If we went

[2:29:18] with something like that, does that does

[2:29:20] that respond to your concern? The city

[2:29:22] treasurer shall in consultation with the

[2:29:25] city manager oversee the processing

[2:29:29] of etc.

[2:29:37] » We can work with that. Like like you

[2:29:39] said, we would scuttle the whole process

[2:29:41] for one,

[2:29:42] >> right?

[2:29:44] Council members, your opinion?

[2:29:46] >> I think Sharon.

[2:29:47] >> Well, I think this all I just think this

[2:29:49] all goes in line with kind of what Laura

[2:29:52] was saying. We're trying to tighten up

[2:29:56] policies and procedures, and this is one

[2:29:58] of those procedures. This is also a good

[2:30:00] example of what the task force went

[2:30:02] through all summer long and the rabbit

[2:30:03] holes we would go down and the

[2:30:05] conversations we would have. And remember, we are an overarching

[2:30:11] document as well. We aren't there for

[2:30:13] every minute detail

[2:30:16] or as a micromanager of each of the

[2:30:19] offices and departments.

[2:30:21] >> Yes. And that's

[2:30:22] >> so by saying

[2:30:24] sorry

[2:30:25] >> sorry I thought you were done if I

[2:30:26] didn't mean

[2:30:27] >> oh so no I was just so I'm kind of I'm

[2:30:29] and and checks and balance was a up in

[2:30:33] the forefront of our work and so in

[2:30:36] consultation with works I say we we get

[2:30:41] that in there and move on.

[2:30:44] >> Yeah. All I was going to say is that a

[2:30:45] lot a lot of this discussion really

[2:30:47] falls into policies and procedures

[2:30:50] and

[2:30:51] financial task force recommendations. It

[2:30:53] really doesn't rise to the level of the

[2:30:55] charter

[2:30:56] >> exactly. That's that's how I'm feeling,

[2:30:59] but I didn't know if that was correct or

[2:31:01] not.

[2:31:02] >> Well, I think that I think one of the

[2:31:03] issues is that

[2:31:06] by saying that the city treasurer shall

[2:31:10] process, it implies that no one else has

[2:31:14] the authority to do has a say in that.

[2:31:18] And so in reality the function of the

[2:31:21] city in doing these things flows from

[2:31:24] the city manager council city manager

[2:31:27] treasurer to process. So by adding in

[2:31:30] the in section E in consultation with

[2:31:33] the city manager overseeing the process

[2:31:36] it removes that u

[2:31:40] inference that it's only the city

[2:31:42] manager's responsibility.

[2:31:46] Okay. If I remember correctly, we have a

[2:31:48] motion on the table. I

[2:31:49] >> need to amend it. I made it. I

[2:31:52] >> Or you can just withdraw it as it. All

[2:31:54] right. Withdraw it.

[2:31:56] >> Does that work for the second? Did

[2:31:58] anybody make a second?

[2:31:59] >> No.

[2:32:00] >> Yeah. Andrew did.

[2:32:01] >> Andrew.

[2:32:04] Okay.

[2:32:05] >> Okay. So, I have a withdrawal of the

[2:32:08] motion that's approved by the second.

[2:32:10] >> And

[2:32:10] >> would you like me to uh suggest

[2:32:13] >> Yes, please. again.

[2:32:14] >> Yes, please.

[2:32:15] >> All right. So, uh that section 13E of

[2:32:20] the draft charter

[2:32:23] read, "The city treasurer in

[2:32:25] consultation with the city manager shall

[2:32:28] oversee the processing of payroll,

[2:32:30] employee benefits, and tax reporting."

[2:32:33] >> I will make that motion. Thank you,

[2:32:35] Danny, for bringing that up.

[2:32:36] >> I have a motion,

[2:32:37] >> a second,

[2:32:38] >> and a second. Any further discussion

[2:32:40] about this?

[2:32:42] All in favor, please say I. I.

[2:32:44] >> Opposed. Opposed. Nay. That motion

[2:32:47] carries. Now, Dave, do we need to look

[2:32:49] to the section 28?

[2:32:51] >> Yeah, I would make a I would suggest

[2:32:53] that uh the counselor make a motion to

[2:32:57] amend section 28A

[2:33:00] 6. So it reads to keep the city council

[2:33:04] fully advised of the financial condition

[2:33:06] of the city and its future needs and in

[2:33:10] consultation with the city treasurer

[2:33:13] comma oversee the processing of payroll

[2:33:17] employee benefits and tax withholdings.

[2:33:20] >> So I've got a motion and a second. Any

[2:33:24] questions about this?

[2:33:27] Yeah, I'm I'm concerned

[2:33:30] with um

[2:33:32] two people overseeing when one pe one

[2:33:36] person is responsible for a certain part

[2:33:39] of it of a city treasurer. We've made

[2:33:43] responsible for um keeping you know the

[2:33:46] council apprised with respect to the

[2:33:49] situation with respect to warrants and

[2:33:51] he's certifying that warrants. uh

[2:33:54] there's money in the bank to pay them,

[2:33:56] etc. And now some of that might be going

[2:34:01] over to the city manager, which he

[2:34:04] didn't we the um the charter next day,

[2:34:08] the city manager.

[2:34:09] >> Okay. I think

[2:34:11] >> you're in the wrong section, man.

[2:34:14] >> I'm sorry.

[2:34:14] >> The city manager who keeps the city

[2:34:16] council fully advised of the financial

[2:34:18] condition of the city,

[2:34:20] >> not the treasurer.

[2:34:21] >> Yes. Yes. But now you're are writing and

[2:34:23] in consultation

[2:34:25] oversee

[2:34:28] >> and that means the city manager is

[2:34:30] overseeing the same thing that is the

[2:34:33] treasurer's uh that

[2:34:36] >> I I hear the point. I hear your point.

[2:34:38] >> Okay.

[2:34:38] >> And it seems it seems like a fairly easy

[2:34:41] fix because we're not proposing here

[2:34:44] that the city manager is responsible for

[2:34:47] the processing at the end of the day.

[2:34:49] They're responsible for consulting with

[2:34:51] and supporting.

[2:34:52] >> It's just a system.

[2:34:53] >> Yeah. So, you know, in that in that way

[2:34:56] it could read and in uh and consulting

[2:34:58] with the city treasurer in the

[2:35:00] processing of payroll, etc.

[2:35:03] >> Okay.

[2:35:04] >> And consulting with the city manager.

[2:35:09] >> No, with the city treasurer.

[2:35:10] >> No, city treasurer

[2:35:12] >> in the processing of payroll.

[2:35:14] employee

[2:35:16] benefits and tax holdings. So the motion

[2:35:18] would read to amend 28A6

[2:35:23] to keep the city council fully advised

[2:35:25] of the financial condition of the city

[2:35:27] and its future needs and consulting with

[2:35:30] the city treasurer in the processing of

[2:35:33] payroll employee benefits and tax

[2:35:35] withholdings. almost sorry for for

[2:35:38] Jennifer's sake what it needs to read

[2:35:40] and to consult with

[2:35:43] because otherwise you've got a consult

[2:35:44] you've got a to keep and a consulting

[2:35:47] they don't match

[2:35:48] >> right so it would read

[2:35:49] >> yeah okay

[2:35:50] >> see it

[2:35:51] >> so read it one more time for us Dave

[2:35:53] please

[2:35:54] >> to keep the city council this is 28A6

[2:35:58] to keep the city council fully advised

[2:36:00] of the financial condition of the city

[2:36:02] and its future needs and to consult with

[2:36:06] the city treasurer in the processing of

[2:36:09] payroll, employee benefits, and tax

[2:36:11] withholdings.

[2:36:12] >> There it is. Is there somebody would

[2:36:14] like to make that motion?

[2:36:18] » Okay.

[2:36:19] >> And a second.

[2:36:21] >> Any further discussion about this item?

[2:36:24] >> All those in favor, please say I.

[2:36:27] >> Opposed? Nay. The motion carries.

[2:36:31] Okay. Now, what we're going to do is go

[2:36:34] back

[2:36:36] to the very beginning and we're just

[2:36:38] going to go I'm not going to read it.

[2:36:40] We're just going to go to make sure

[2:36:41] everyone has had a chance to say their

[2:36:42] piece about anything in here. We're

[2:36:45] going to go section by section and I'm

[2:36:47] just going to pause and ask if the

[2:36:49] council members or any member of the

[2:36:50] charter task force or the community has

[2:36:52] anything left to add or suggest. Okay.

[2:36:56] So, beginning with section one,

[2:36:59] establishment of the city, are there any

[2:37:00] further changes that people would like

[2:37:02] to contemplate? Hearing

[2:37:06] none. Section two, uh, that's actually

[2:37:09] transitional provisions, so there's

[2:37:11] nothing there. Section three, city

[2:37:13] boundaries and corporate powers. There's

[2:37:14] been no change proposed.

[2:37:19] Section four, form of government and

[2:37:21] voter qualifications. We worked on this

[2:37:23] a lot at our last meeting. Are there any

[2:37:25] other concerns or or questions that

[2:37:27] people would like to raise?

[2:37:33] Section five on the warning and

[2:37:35] convening of annual meeting.

[2:37:38] It has four sections A, B, C, and D in

[2:37:41] there. Subsections. Any concerns or

[2:37:44] questions that folks would like to

[2:37:45] raise?

[2:37:49] Section six, election term appointment

[2:37:52] recall and removal of city officers.

[2:37:55] This has an A, B, C,

[2:37:59] and D. each with sub points. Are there

[2:38:02] any further changes? And I'll just pause

[2:38:04] there for a moment. I don't want to get

[2:38:05] going too fast.

[2:38:07] Come on.

[2:38:17] » So, I'm Robert from Newport. I'm also on

[2:38:21] um the school board. And um

[2:38:26] I know that you had the task force had a

[2:38:30] couple people come into the school board

[2:38:32] um to a meeting. I think it was very

[2:38:35] last minute. They were they were invited

[2:38:37] to the task meeting and I don't know

[2:38:38] that all of their what they um all the

[2:38:44] thoughts were

[2:38:46] shared at that meeting because it was so

[2:38:49] quick that they were invited to that

[2:38:51] meeting. So, um I'm seeing where you're

[2:38:55] at with this. Um, so I feel like we're a

[2:38:59] little behind on getting our thoughts

[2:39:02] into this charter. Uh, but I do think

[2:39:06] that I

[2:39:08] as a school board, we just met, which is

[2:39:10] why I was like getting to this meeting

[2:39:12] because our our meetings conflict. Um,

[2:39:16] but I do think we we did talk about it

[2:39:18] in our school board meeting. we would uh

[2:39:21] appreciate the um the time to to put our

[2:39:26] thoughts together and bring them

[2:39:28] forward. Um

[2:39:31] so that's where I would like to leave it

[2:39:33] tonight. I just want to voice that the

[2:39:35] school board has not um done due

[2:39:38] diligence with the this charter and I

[2:39:41] don't feel like we were given that

[2:39:43] opportunity um for that.

[2:39:48] >> Thank you.

[2:39:50] Gabriu, is there

[2:39:53] is it possible is it within our

[2:39:56] uh power to

[2:39:59] uh hold out this section for final

[2:40:02] conversation at the next meeting

[2:40:06] um and final decisions based on anything

[2:40:08] that the school board members would

[2:40:10] bring forward.

[2:40:14] I'm not sure you have an opportunity to

[2:40:17] warrant another public hearing

[2:40:21] to consider those changes.

[2:40:24] >> That's what I was afraid you were going

[2:40:25] to say.

[2:40:27] >> Wait,

[2:40:29] Sharon. Well, yeah. I take I take um

[2:40:35] offense isn't really the right word, but

[2:40:37] I need to know for my own use here what

[2:40:40] exactly

[2:40:43] isn't setting well because

[2:40:46] the school has always been in the

[2:40:49] charter. The school is the current

[2:40:54] charter that we live by

[2:40:57] that was developed back years ago has

[2:41:00] always been there. It has not changed

[2:41:04] and now I think if anything it's just

[2:41:06] making it more modern and up to-date

[2:41:08] with what current practice is.

[2:41:12] So I guess I'm a little confused.

[2:41:14] you want to speak to that?

[2:41:24] » Uh so I think um two things uh that

[2:41:29] again we we haven't gone through it old

[2:41:32] versus new um to the detail that we

[2:41:35] probably need to. Um, but one of them is

[2:41:38] how uh we're electing and appointing uh

[2:41:43] school board members and I think the

[2:41:46] other is

[2:41:48] uh the new lease that we put into place

[2:41:51] um with the the school.

[2:41:54] >> Okay. So, can we talk about the first

[2:41:56] one?

[2:41:56] >> Stay right there. Go ahead, Sharon.

[2:41:59] >> I don't I don't know that if I'm in the

[2:42:01] position to

[2:42:02] >> Well, here's our problem. Tonight's our night. We really have to

[2:42:06] make some decisions.

[2:42:07] >> I mean, we had this conversation at

[2:42:09] length with Mary Ellen and with Aaron

[2:42:12] and I don't think there's anything that

[2:42:16] that's surprising with I mean you still

[2:42:18] have five board members. Correct.

[2:42:21] >> We do. Yes.

[2:42:22] >> Not now. Okay.

[2:42:23] >> And it's all three year staggered term

[2:42:26] and they're elected. Is that the only

[2:42:28] time in the current charter that we have

[2:42:32] now?

[2:42:33] The current charter says that when you

[2:42:36] have a position that's not able to be

[2:42:40] filled, that's when the city council can

[2:42:43] appoint.

[2:42:46] That hasn't changed any. That's been

[2:42:48] that way for almost 100 years.

[2:42:52] Um, so that shouldn't be a surprise. is

[2:42:54] I mean Charlie can say that he was

[2:42:56] actually appointed to the high school

[2:42:58] board when they were in the same

[2:42:59] situation. So we always will have

[2:43:02] elected board members. The only time the

[2:43:04] appointed part comes in is when you

[2:43:07] can't find somebody to fill a vacancy.

[2:43:10] That's nothing new. I mean and I believe

[2:43:14] that's state statute too, isn't it?

[2:43:19] » I think that's only till the end of the

[2:43:21] term.

[2:43:23] So am I correct that the only items here

[2:43:27] that are referring to the school board

[2:43:30] school trustees in particular are are

[2:43:32] subsection A and B

[2:43:36] >> for this section for this section and

[2:43:39] then there are some other sections

[2:43:42] >> okay but am I also correct that there is

[2:43:45] no substantive change between the

[2:43:48] current charter and the proposed charter

[2:43:51] in the language in A or B

[2:43:55] is that is that let me ask the charter

[2:43:57] task force members is there anything

[2:44:01] >> go ahead

[2:44:02] >> se section six is electionter term

[2:44:05] appointment recall and removal of city

[2:44:07] officers

[2:44:09] that's what section six is and so that

[2:44:12] is why school trustees is put in here

[2:44:16] under a as the election and term of city

[2:44:19] council members ers and school trustees

[2:44:22] because we're all elected officials.

[2:44:25] And then it gets into the in the

[2:44:28] original charter, remember it's talked

[2:44:30] about the first year we have two, then

[2:44:32] we have three, and then D. And now that

[2:44:35] we're established, an established city,

[2:44:39] the city council has we have that

[2:44:42] staggered out. And then the school

[2:44:44] trustees is staggered out and all school

[2:44:49] um officials aren't elected the same

[2:44:52] year.

[2:44:54] It's staggered. That's why we put the

[2:44:56] word staggered in there so that you're

[2:44:57] not electing five people in the same

[2:44:59] year.

[2:45:03] And then that's basic that's it in

[2:45:06] section six for the school. Then the

[2:45:09] school has its own section.

[2:45:13] later on in the charter.

[2:45:14] >> So, let's hold on. Let's hold on there.

[2:45:16] Let's just I just want to talk about

[2:45:17] section six.

[2:45:19] It doesn't look to me

[2:45:22] as if there's a substantial change here

[2:45:23] from the current charter.

[2:45:26] Am I missing something?

[2:45:28] >> No, there is a section B that reverses

[2:45:31] school

[2:45:36] » in section

[2:45:37] >> in vacancies

[2:45:38] >> in section.

[2:45:40] >> Yes. But it doesn't change from the

[2:45:42] current meaning of the chart.

[2:45:43] >> Doesn't change anything.

[2:45:44] >> Right. Jennifer Hopkins,

[2:45:46] >> they they are affected by section D,

[2:45:49] which is that they could be kicked out

[2:45:51] of office. But I think the discussion of

[2:45:54] the charter committee was that that

[2:45:56] would only be done by the school board.

[2:46:03] » Yeah.

[2:46:04] >> I think my answer at this point is that

[2:46:07] we had the charter members come meet

[2:46:09] with the board and there was a first

[2:46:13] public hearing and we could even have

[2:46:15] taken action tonight if there were a

[2:46:16] clear proposal, but I don't think we

[2:46:18] have time to try and we can't I I take

[2:46:21] the the attorney's advice to heart, we

[2:46:23] don't have the op the option of holding

[2:46:26] off on trying to make decisions about

[2:46:28] this part of the content.

[2:46:30] So unless the council would like to

[2:46:32] propose something different, my

[2:46:34] recommendation is that we move on and we

[2:46:36] pause for a moment when we get to that

[2:46:38] later section 20 whatever it is

[2:46:40] >> 27 and just have a conversation again

[2:46:43] about it there for a moment.

[2:46:45] >> Okay. Unless you see something here that

[2:46:47] you think is different than the current

[2:46:49] practice or

[2:46:50] >> I would have to

[2:46:52] >> release it. I mean there was there was

[2:46:54] in fact due diligence in the sense that

[2:46:56] the charter task force

[2:46:58] >> met with

[2:46:59] >> I think there was a

[2:47:04] I think

[2:47:06] there there was I don't want to say

[2:47:09] understanding maybe

[2:47:12] um

[2:47:14] what do I want to say uh

[2:47:18] like not clear understanding of what the

[2:47:20] process would be and how

[2:47:25] what was being what was going to be

[2:47:27] recommended would come back to the

[2:47:29] school board.

[2:47:32] Okay. I apologize for the

[2:47:33] miscommunication.

[2:47:37] » Okay. Is there anything else that anyone

[2:47:38] would like to address in section six?

[2:47:42] I'd like to address car. Go ahead.

[2:47:48] » So, it appears that the argument here

[2:47:52] not having an additional u public

[2:47:54] hearing is timeline. I'd like to know

[2:47:56] what that timeline is that can't be

[2:47:59] crossed. Uh also uh there's no prohibit

[2:48:04] you're not prohibited from having a

[2:48:06] third or fourth or fifth meeting. Uh if

[2:48:09] it's only for the purpose of um holding

[2:48:13] this vote on November 3rd,

[2:48:16] uh that shouldn't be a restriction of

[2:48:19] having another meeting. We're going to

[2:48:21] another annual meeting in March. This

[2:48:24] can be addressed. The charter can be

[2:48:26] addressed then. Thank you,

[2:48:30] council members. Anything else on

[2:48:31] section six?

[2:48:34] Okay. Section seven, mayor and council

[2:48:37] members of city council. Any changes?

[2:48:39] We've worked that section tonight. I

[2:48:41] don't think there's anything

[2:48:44] on excuse me on on seven. That should be

[2:48:48] a city a special city meeting in on line

[2:48:53] six if we're changing

[2:48:57] um all of those to reflect it's an

[2:49:01] annual meeting or the next special city

[2:49:05] meeting.

[2:49:06] >> Fair enough.

[2:49:07] >> Somebody want to make that motion to add

[2:49:09] the word city between special and

[2:49:10] meeting in the six line.

[2:49:12] >> I've got a motion from Andrew in a

[2:49:13] second. Roger.

[2:49:15] >> Section seven, line six,

[2:49:18] >> adding the word city to special city

[2:49:20] meeting. All those in favor say I.

[2:49:23] >> I.

[2:49:24] >> Oppose. Nay. Motion carries.

[2:49:27] >> Just a point. I had corrections of the

[2:49:30] city in the section six which David's

[2:49:34] going to do. So

[2:49:35] >> those will be brought up later.

[2:49:36] >> Okay. So nobody's going to

[2:49:38] >> if you've got anything covered that

[2:49:39] comes up, please reassure us and we'll

[2:49:41] move on. Okay. Thanks.

[2:49:43] Okay, moving on to

[2:49:46] what is now section eight, powers and

[2:49:48] duties of the mayor. Are there any

[2:49:51] concerns that people would like to raise

[2:49:52] about this section?

[2:49:59] Hearing none, section nine, mayoral

[2:50:02] approval and council members

[2:50:03] reconsideration of vetoed actions. We

[2:50:05] worked this section tonight as well. Is

[2:50:07] there anything further people would like

[2:50:09] to add?

[2:50:14] Okay. Section 10,

[2:50:16] uh, which has new language, right? We've

[2:50:19] already agreed on police and

[2:50:22] >> what's it?

[2:50:22] >> Fire protection.

[2:50:23] >> And fire protection. Yes. Anything that

[2:50:26] people would like to suggest in section

[2:50:28] 10.

[2:50:32] Okay. Section 11, Board of Civil

[2:50:34] Authority and Board of Abatement.

[2:50:37] Any concerns here? Can we go back to 10

[2:50:40] for just a moment? Only because the 10

[2:50:43] that I received outside doesn't have the

[2:50:46] doesn't have that fire department on it.

[2:50:49] >> No, it's because we were working from

[2:50:51] the proposal that was on the website

[2:50:53] this week from the charter task force.

[2:50:56] >> Oh, I'm sorry. That is so modified to

[2:50:59] that.

[2:51:00] >> Correct.

[2:51:00] >> Appropriate.

[2:51:01] >> Yes.

[2:51:02] >> Okay. Section 11, Board of Civil

[2:51:03] Authority and Board of Abatement. There

[2:51:05] any concerns that people would like to

[2:51:07] raise here?

[2:51:12] Okay. Section 12, city clerk.

[2:51:22] Section 13, city treasurer.

[2:51:34] Let's see where are we? Section 14, City

[2:51:37] Assessor.

[2:51:48] Section 15.

[2:51:50] Those are having a hard time keeping up

[2:51:51] on that paper copy. We're on page 14.

[2:51:54] Okay. Section 15, powers and duties of

[2:51:57] the city council,

[2:52:01] followed by all the things we don't get

[2:52:02] to do anymore because we struck them

[2:52:04] all. I was really looking forward to

[2:52:06] monitoring what people wear to the peach

[2:52:11] and

[2:52:12] so I I didn't get to raise this at the

[2:52:19] task force meeting uh but as the

[2:52:22] conversations have gone on I I and then

[2:52:24] I thought about it I thought you know

[2:52:27] maybe as a

[2:52:29] in

[2:52:30] uh to what the city um council should be

[2:52:35] doing is something that would have

[2:52:38] prevented a lot of our problems and

[2:52:41] that's one of the things that we thought

[2:52:43] about being proactive in making this

[2:52:46] charter. One of the things that would

[2:52:48] have helped us is if the council had to

[2:52:53] approve every time monies were removed

[2:52:57] from a restricted fund, an unrestricted

[2:53:01] fund

[2:53:03] or a we don't have any that I now, but

[2:53:06] we might have one eventually, a reserve

[2:53:08] fund.

[2:53:10] So that before monies could be removed

[2:53:12] from any of those funds, you would you

[2:53:15] would the council would have to approve

[2:53:17] it and we would know and and know what

[2:53:20] the new balance is in those funds and

[2:53:22] know why the money had been removed from

[2:53:26] those funds because what happened over

[2:53:28] about a 10-year period as you recall is

[2:53:32] unbeknownsted I think unnowns to the

[2:53:34] public unbeknownst to I think the

[2:53:37] council

[2:53:39] those funds were depleted and then there

[2:53:42] was hardly any money left when you were

[2:53:44] looking around at the last minute and

[2:53:46] there was a deficit. It was hardly any

[2:53:48] monies left in any of those funds to

[2:53:51] take and then Chip came along and

[2:53:53] helpfully move them out and uh that made

[2:53:57] our debt a little bit smaller.

[2:54:00] But I think there needs to be active

[2:54:02] monitoring of any funds. We don't have

[2:54:05] any right now. I mean, I don't think

[2:54:07] there's hardly any funds that we have

[2:54:10] put money into this year. And ship said,

[2:54:12] you're not going to even be able to put

[2:54:13] money in this year. So, I think all

[2:54:17] those funds need to be monitored. And

[2:54:20] having the city council approve every

[2:54:24] withdrawal from any of those funds would

[2:54:27] be a real help in that direction.

[2:54:30] And it would be a simple sentence like

[2:54:33] the city uh council

[2:54:36] um must approve

[2:54:39] any withdrawals from

[2:54:42] restricted funds, unrestricted funds or

[2:54:45] reserve funds.

[2:54:56] Council

[2:55:04] members, you have anything you want to

[2:55:05] say about this? We get the reports now

[2:55:09] that show all of the

[2:55:12] to and from the various funds and

[2:55:21] I don't think we should add that without

[2:55:23] the financial task force really looking

[2:55:25] at it and getting getting some input

[2:55:28] from uh the city auditors andor chip.

[2:55:32] >> Yeah, I was just thinking that we have a

[2:55:34] meeting on Wednesday so we can it with

[2:55:37] does the same timeline that school board

[2:55:41] is.

[2:55:42] >> Yeah. I mean, honestly, at this point,

[2:55:44] that feels like a decision that could

[2:55:46] have pretty significant implications.

[2:55:48] And my answer would be the same one that

[2:55:50] some of us just swallowed hard on in

[2:55:51] section 20, which is if we're unhappy

[2:55:54] with this two, three years down the

[2:55:55] road, we can always come back and take

[2:55:57] another crack at it.

[2:55:59] But it feels like this is not the right

[2:56:02] time to try and put language before us

[2:56:04] that we hadn't considered in any way.

[2:56:07] And I think I just want to correct the

[2:56:09] narrative a smidgen. Um, and although I

[2:56:12] agree with the intent and the what that

[2:56:16] would usher is transparency and public

[2:56:20] eyes on the moving of funds, which I

[2:56:22] have no disagreement, but

[2:56:25] the sinking funds snafu that we got, we

[2:56:29] found ourselves in, it wasn't because

[2:56:30] funds were removed

[2:56:33] illicitly. They were never contributed

[2:56:36] to. We never had the funds that the

[2:56:38] budget said we did.

[2:56:40] So

[2:56:41] >> that's true.

[2:56:41] >> Yeah. So can be both narratives. We had

[2:56:44] this like sinking funds and what I think

[2:56:46] you were striving for which I agree with

[2:56:48] um and I think it's worthy of a more

[2:56:50] in-depth conversation on how do we

[2:56:52] ensure more eyes more accountability for

[2:56:57] the movement of those funds. But what we

[2:57:00] have been dealing with is just the lack

[2:57:02] of the funds. It wasn't that they were

[2:57:04] there at one point. It was just they

[2:57:05] were never contributed into that number

[2:57:07] that was on the budget sheet.

[2:57:10] at all substantiated, but I think they

[2:57:14] >> in any case, unless the council has a

[2:57:15] stomach to take this on tonight, my

[2:57:17] recommendation is that this one is not

[2:57:19] we we don't have time to season it

[2:57:21] appropriately.

[2:57:25] Any other comments on this section?

[2:57:27] Which section are you in here?

[2:57:31] >> 15.

[2:57:33] >> I did.

[2:57:38] Thank you.

[2:57:42] » Okay. Hearing no other comments. Moving

[2:57:45] on to section 16, water and sewer

[2:57:47] systems.

[2:57:54] Section 17, sale, purchase, or lease of

[2:57:56] cityowned property.

[2:58:04] » So that one again. Oh, you want to come

[2:58:06] back?

[2:58:14] » This one again. I don't know if we have

[2:58:17] a problem or not, but we do lease this.

[2:58:23] We did get into a lease agreement with

[2:58:26] the city for the school because of

[2:58:28] insurance reasons, and it is like kind

[2:58:33] of perpetual. I don't know if we put

[2:58:35] years on it. I forget exactly how it was

[2:58:37] worded. Um, but it does exceed that five

[2:58:40] years. So, I don't know if we have a

[2:58:42] conflict there.

[2:58:43] >> That's a good question. So, who wants

[2:58:46] >> to

[2:58:49] have a one-year lease?

[2:58:51] >> Renewable.

[2:58:52] every year. And we have the

[2:58:55] lease. We asked um Carrie to fund it for

[2:58:59] us and and we we read the lease over at

[2:59:03] our task force meeting.

[2:59:05] So for my verification, who's the

[2:59:07] landlord? Who's the tenant? Which way

[2:59:08] does it go?

[2:59:09] >> So the city is the landlord, right?

[2:59:12] >> The school is the tenant.

[2:59:13] >> City own city owns the property. And

[2:59:15] that's why we have to do a lease because

[2:59:17] otherwise the city may have premises

[2:59:21] liability uh absent the the existence of

[2:59:24] the lease. And so

[2:59:26] >> the building is owned by

[2:59:28] >> if I understand it, letter C there says

[2:59:31] the city council may lease city owned

[2:59:33] real estate for a term not exceeding

[2:59:35] five years.

[2:59:37] >> Right? So if these are one-year terms

[2:59:38] and we just keep renewing them, then

[2:59:40] there's no problem here. Okay. But it's

[2:59:42] a good question that I didn't know the

[2:59:44] answer to. So thank you.

[2:59:46] Anything else in section 17?

[2:59:51] Okay. City section 18 on city

[2:59:53] expenditures.

[2:59:58] Okay. City 19, assessment, I'm sorry,

[3:00:01] section 19, assessment of of taxes on

[3:00:03] grand list.

[3:00:08] Section 20, revenues, credit, and

[3:00:11] appropriations.

[3:00:12] >> Yes, sir. Go ahead.

[3:00:14] >> We we lost one thing in our rewrite of

[3:00:17] 20 that I think was actually really

[3:00:19] beneficial for the city. And you said

[3:00:20] want to set you up for success, not

[3:00:22] failure, right?

[3:00:24] uh old section C, new section D in the term when it when it talks about

[3:00:30] the tall hazard event. Let's say a

[3:00:32] tornado completely destroys the

[3:00:34] wastewater treatment facility. That has

[3:00:37] a very long life expectancy and we

[3:00:39] shouldn't be forced to pay for its

[3:00:41] entire reconstruction in 5 years, which

[3:00:43] would really put a strain on the city if

[3:00:46] it was if we could take out a 30, you

[3:00:48] know, year note on it. I really liked

[3:00:50] our old language that not more than five

[3:00:52] years or a term not to exceed the

[3:00:54] reasonably anticipated useful life of

[3:00:57] the emergency infrastructure services.

[3:00:59] Uh if it wipes out something major, we

[3:01:01] want may want to take longer to repay

[3:01:03] that loan than 5 years. I feel like

[3:01:06] that's

[3:01:10] » logic.

[3:01:13] » So do I hear you making a specific

[3:01:16] suggestion, Travis? I I the only thing I

[3:01:20] don't like about the old one is it

[3:01:21] doesn't say what the new one or the the

[3:01:24] B says that it's specifically to fund

[3:01:27] emergency infrastructure or service

[3:01:29] restoration. I'd like it if y'all put

[3:01:30] that in there because it's not just a uh

[3:01:33] you know freeforall. But if it was a big

[3:01:36] expensive piece of infrastructure that

[3:01:38] was destroyed, I think that that having

[3:01:41] the debt service for the the life

[3:01:43] expectancy is not unreasonable and

[3:01:45] wouldn't put us in such financial strain

[3:01:48] following an immediate emergency.

[3:01:52] >> Does the state statute on all hazard

[3:01:55] read more along the lines of the

[3:01:57] original one five years or the term not

[3:01:59] to exceed the reasonably?

[3:02:00] >> It probably does, but I assume that

[3:02:02] David put that in. So I assumed he

[3:02:04] researched it before he did. So this

[3:02:06] wasn't language that we created for the

[3:02:08] >> state statute says five years

[3:02:12] ago that some

[3:02:16] >> I Danny had done a lot of research on

[3:02:18] that particular hazard hazardous event

[3:02:22] part.

[3:02:25] » I'm looking it up right now.

[3:02:28] >> Dave Rue, do you have an opinion about

[3:02:30] this?

[3:02:39] I am uh in favor of giving the city more

[3:02:43] flexibility to address

[3:02:46] uh infrastructure projects especially

[3:02:49] after damages in an emergency. So you

[3:02:52] know I would say up to 5 years of debt

[3:02:55] service or for such other term not to

[3:02:58] exceed the reasonably anticipated useful

[3:03:00] life

[3:03:02] uh for such emergency infrastructure or

[3:03:05] services restoration. I'd have to word

[3:03:07] sniff it again because it got a little

[3:03:09] mixed up. But

[3:03:10] >> but isn't that what it already says?

[3:03:13] >> It says five years.

[3:03:15] >> No, they took out the reasonably

[3:03:17] anticipated useful life.

[3:03:19] >> Yeah. The No,

[3:03:21] >> the version did.

[3:03:22] >> No, we didn't.

[3:03:24] >> The version.

[3:03:24] >> No, we did not. It's right there

[3:03:26] >> in the section. In the in the update

[3:03:29] >> in the update, Shar update. In the

[3:03:32] update, we lost that language.

[3:03:33] >> Yeah. And we voted on the update or they

[3:03:36] voted on the

[3:03:39] >> Yeah, the I'm looking at the 9826

[3:03:42] copy of task force updates and it does

[3:03:44] not say anything about emergency. We

[3:03:48] really anticipated you. So like you also

[3:03:49] took out declared state of emergency

[3:03:51] which I don't like but I'm willing to go

[3:03:53] along with it. The small house has drove

[3:03:55] in is essentially the same thing,

[3:03:57] >> right? That's why it came out.

[3:04:00] >> Okay. So what I hear Travis saying and I

[3:04:03] think I finally understand it is that

[3:04:06] when we worked earlier for so long on

[3:04:08] section 20,

[3:04:10] we we adopted section we we allowed

[3:04:12] section B to stand. the recommendation

[3:04:15] that the council that the task force was

[3:04:17] making and what I hear Travis saying is

[3:04:21] that he prefers the language

[3:04:24] from

[3:04:26] >> section C in the order earlier version

[3:04:30] >> and it's also self-limiting because

[3:04:32] something that would cost that much is

[3:04:34] going to last that long.

[3:04:36] >> Understood. I understand the problem

[3:04:38] now. So the fix for it if I'm not

[3:04:40] mistaken Travis would be to simply

[3:04:43] replace

[3:04:45] Section C

[3:04:48] from the charter amendments with

[3:04:51] strithroughs and additions approved on

[3:04:52] September 3rd with

[3:04:56] replace B from the charter

[3:04:58] recommendations from September 8th with

[3:05:00] section C from the September 3rd version

[3:05:05] that simple because you have to change

[3:05:07] the subsection and they took they made

[3:05:09] all hazard events plural

[3:05:12] um and deleted declared a state of

[3:05:14] emergency.

[3:05:15] >> All right. So, let's fix it, Dave.

[3:05:17] >> Well, yeah. So,

[3:05:20] thanks, Mayor.

[3:05:23] You're welcome. Okay. I got it. It's uh

[3:05:26] here we go. It's going to say

[3:05:31] take out service, I think. So,

[3:05:35] um,

[3:05:38] notwithstanding subsection A of this

[3:05:41] section, in the case of all hazard

[3:05:44] events as defined by state statute, the

[3:05:47] city council may borrow up to five years

[3:05:51] or sorry, may borrow not more than five

[3:05:55] years may borrow for a period of not

[3:05:59] more than five years. Sorry,

[3:06:02] let me fix that.

[3:06:05] May borrow for a period of not more than

[3:06:08] five years or a term not to exceed the

[3:06:10] reasonably anticipated useful life of

[3:06:13] emergency infrastructure or services to

[3:06:17] fund Oh, sounds reasonably anticipated

[3:06:20] useful life to fund emergency

[3:06:23] infrastructure services. I'll reread it.

[3:06:26] Hold on.

[3:06:28] for services restoration, I guess.

[3:06:34] » All right, let's try this again. Uh 20B.

[3:06:39] Notwithstanding subsection A of this

[3:06:41] section, in the case of all hazard

[3:06:45] events as defined by state statute, the

[3:06:48] city council may borrow for a period of

[3:06:50] not more than five years or a term not

[3:06:56] to exceed the reasonably anticipated

[3:06:58] useful life to fund

[3:07:02] emergency infrastructure or

[3:07:06] services restoration.

[3:07:09] Yeah, I think you got through that.

[3:07:15] » Council members, anybody want to make

[3:07:16] that motion? I will.

[3:07:18] >> John made a motion.

[3:07:18] >> I will second.

[3:07:19] >> Carter seconded. Any other comments or

[3:07:22] questions about this section?

[3:07:27] » All those in favor say I.

[3:07:29] >> I.

[3:07:30] I.

[3:07:31] >> Oppose. Nay. That motion carries. Thank

[3:07:34] you, Travis. And thank you very much,

[3:07:35] Dave. Anything else in section 20?

[3:07:42] I'm going to sleep tonight thinking

[3:07:44] about section 20.

[3:07:47] Okay. Section 21 was transitional

[3:07:49] provisions. Section 22 regards bonds of

[3:07:52] city officers. We've worked and worked on this one also. Any any

[3:07:57] other comments or improvements?

[3:08:04] Hearing none. Section 23 was

[3:08:06] transitional provisions related to

[3:08:08] financial assets.

[3:08:10] 24 transitional provisions related to

[3:08:12] financial liabilities and assets.

[3:08:14] 25. Transitional provisions related to

[3:08:16] the books and records of the town of

[3:08:17] Newport. 26. Transitional provisions

[3:08:20] related to the books and records of the

[3:08:21] town of Derby.

[3:08:24] 27. Here we go. Kenne, we're back to

[3:08:26] you. Public schools and school property.

[3:08:32] We've struck a considerable amount of

[3:08:34] material and cut it down to A, B, and C.

[3:08:38] And I'm just going to read it.

[3:08:40] Management and control A, the management

[3:08:41] of control of public schools and all

[3:08:43] school property is vested in a board of

[3:08:45] five school trustees. Said trustee shall

[3:08:47] be votified residents of the city and

[3:08:48] registered voters.

[3:08:52] B. In the event of a vacancy on the

[3:08:54] board of school trustees, the remaining

[3:08:55] trustee shall by majority vote of those

[3:08:57] present in voting appoint a qualified

[3:08:59] person to fill a vacancy on the board of

[3:09:01] school trustees. If after 60 days of the

[3:09:04] creation of the vacancy, the board of

[3:09:05] school trustees has uh fails to fill the

[3:09:08] vacancy, the vacancy may be filled

[3:09:09] pursuant to section 6B of this charter

[3:09:12] which we talked about earlier. If there

[3:09:14] are vacancies in a majority of the board

[3:09:16] of school of trustees, the vacancy shall

[3:09:18] be filled by a special city meeting

[3:09:19] called for that purpose. The remaining

[3:09:21] trustees are, or if none in office, the

[3:09:24] city treasurer is authorized to draw

[3:09:26] orders for payment of continuing

[3:09:28] obligations and necessary expenses until

[3:09:30] a majority of the vacancies are filled.

[3:09:33] Section C. The board of school trustees

[3:09:35] shall make an annual report of their

[3:09:37] revenue and expenditures to the city

[3:09:38] council and city clerk no later than the

[3:09:40] beginning of the last week of January in

[3:09:42] each year for the last preceding fiscal

[3:09:44] year. And in this report they shall make

[3:09:46] estimates of the necessary expenditures

[3:09:48] for the support of schools for the

[3:09:49] ensuing fiscal year. The amount of

[3:09:51] school income to be derived from sources

[3:09:53] other than taxation. The amount of money

[3:09:55] to be raised by taxation for the support

[3:09:56] of said schools. Which report shall be

[3:09:58] published with the annual report of the

[3:10:00] city as herein provided? The school

[3:10:02] trustee shall provide proof of bonding

[3:10:04] or comparable insurance coverage to the

[3:10:06] city.

[3:10:08] Are there any concerns or questions

[3:10:10] about this section?

[3:10:12] Charlie,

[3:10:14] >> I don't have a concern or a question,

[3:10:16] but um

[3:10:19] yeah, I'm a little I'm a little taken

[3:10:22] back by saying that we didn't give them

[3:10:24] due diligence because I'm pretty sure we

[3:10:27] did. Um

[3:10:29] so we met over a month ago

[3:10:34] with the school uh principal,

[3:10:38] other people. We invited everyone. and

[3:10:40] they're the ones that showed up. Um,

[3:10:43] they worked with us on this

[3:10:46] so they knew what the wording was before

[3:10:48] they left

[3:10:50] um because that well I mean we may have

[3:10:52] tweaked it a little bit but not much. We

[3:10:55] still give them all the same powers.

[3:10:57] We've got rid of Newport

[3:11:01] school or Newport graded school and east

[3:11:04] school and west school and schools that

[3:11:06] don't exist.

[3:11:07] >> That's why that was all

[3:11:10] But if they I mean Kian I if they had a

[3:11:14] problem with it. We had a month we had

[3:11:17] meetings twice a week. Um we told the

[3:11:21] school board

[3:11:23] when we got done that day. We spent

[3:11:26] several hours. Um that if there were any

[3:11:29] other concerns, please bring them back

[3:11:31] to us because we were working on

[3:11:35] and we get them on, you know, two hours

[3:11:38] before the last minute. we have time to

[3:11:40] do it and we don't even know what the

[3:11:43] problem is. So the only difference in

[3:11:46] here they still have the power to do

[3:11:48] everything. We did we did um

[3:11:54] ensure that a vacancy on the school

[3:11:56] board would be filled

[3:11:57] >> will not endure beyond two months

[3:11:59] >> because that has not happened. I think

[3:12:01] we've been without two school board

[3:12:04] members for what two years?

[3:12:08] >> What? one going on two.

[3:12:10] >> No, not going on.

[3:12:12] >> Okay. So,

[3:12:13] >> we're down one at the moment. So, if

[3:12:16] anybody would like to join our

[3:12:17] schoolboard meeting, we would love

[3:12:19] people

[3:12:20] >> to come and not even but if you would to

[3:12:26] >> just come and be an audience of the

[3:12:29] school board, we would love to have you.

[3:12:31] >> That's a great invitation and I hope

[3:12:32] folks will take seriously. Sharon.

[3:12:35] >> Yeah. Um, I think as a council we messed

[3:12:40] up because it was in the current charter

[3:12:44] that we should have appointed somebody

[3:12:46] to that school board a long time ago

[3:12:49] because I believe it's been a year and a

[3:12:50] half that they have been down a member

[3:12:54] and we didn't do it. We messed up.

[3:12:56] There's no other way to put it. We

[3:12:58] screwed up.

[3:13:00] Now that

[3:13:02] now it's in the charter, but that's

[3:13:03] nothing new. It's always been in the

[3:13:05] charter that if the school board doesn't

[3:13:09] find somebody then they have then it's

[3:13:12] an appointed position.

[3:13:14] And I'll also say that I gave the school

[3:13:17] board a couple of names and I don't

[3:13:19] believe the school board acted on either

[3:13:21] one of those names.

[3:13:24] So

[3:13:25] there you have it.

[3:13:28] >> Okay. There's clearly

[3:13:30] room for more conversation here, but not

[3:13:33] tonight. In my judgment, this does not

[3:13:36] propose a significant change from what's

[3:13:38] been in the charter. It simply cleans up

[3:13:40] the language and makes it easier to

[3:13:41] understand.

[3:13:42] >> Yeah. Substantively, it's really saying

[3:13:44] >> the same thing.

[3:13:45] >> That's right.

[3:13:46] >> It's just easier to read.

[3:13:47] >> So, my recommendation is that y'all,

[3:13:50] meaning in the southern sense of the

[3:13:51] word, all of us, we all need to be

[3:13:55] invested in making sure that the school

[3:13:57] board has good members and and people

[3:13:59] who are invested in watching what's

[3:14:00] going on and being a part of the

[3:14:01] conversation. I think we all agree about

[3:14:04] that in this room. Okay, let's move on.

[3:14:07] Section 28, city manager. Anything

[3:14:09] people want to add here.

[3:14:20] Okay. Hearing none. Uh section 29 was

[3:14:23] transitional provisions. Section 30 is

[3:14:26] the section on the harbor commission.

[3:14:30] Any comments about that section?

[3:14:36] by gum. I think that's it.

[3:14:38] >> Right.

[3:14:44] » Oh, there's a 31.

[3:14:45] >> Yes.

[3:14:47] >> Sorry, it's not in mine. What's Oh,

[3:14:49] there it is. Right at the bottom. I'm

[3:14:50] sorry. Yes. Is there anybody who wants

[3:14:52] to comment on the legal language around

[3:14:53] sever severability?

[3:14:57] Okay. Hearing none. Are there any other

[3:15:00] comments, council members, from you

[3:15:02] about any portion of the proposed

[3:15:04] changes that we have considered?

[3:15:09] >> I think a common ground was respectfully

[3:15:11] reached and I'm pretty proud of this

[3:15:13] document and eternally grateful for the

[3:15:16] continuing work. Even in between these

[3:15:18] two dang public hearings, you all still

[3:15:21] met and deliberated and um

[3:15:24] constructively guided this process. So,

[3:15:30] » charter task force members, anything

[3:15:31] else y'all want to say besides please

[3:15:33] God, let me out of this room.

[3:15:38] » Hearing none. Any members of the

[3:15:39] community want to speak to this before

[3:15:40] we move on?

[3:15:43] >> Okay, Dave, anything else from you?

[3:15:47] >> Uh, couple things. one. I will try very

[3:15:52] hard tomorrow to have a red line and

[3:15:56] clean version

[3:15:59] uh comparing what we are agreeing on

[3:16:01] tonight with Jennifer's changes to the

[3:16:04] existing charter in uh

[3:16:09] the existing city charter that will be

[3:16:11] amended. So, uh, hopefully by Wednesday,

[3:16:16] definitely by Thursday, the city

[3:16:19] residents will be able to see what

[3:16:22] they're going to be voting on and

[3:16:24] hopefully the council will approve on

[3:16:26] the 21st.

[3:16:28] And so, David, if I understand it

[3:16:30] correctly, on the 21st, you will be

[3:16:32] bringing the council the actual formal

[3:16:35] language to warn this item on the agenda

[3:16:40] for the November 3rd ballot.

[3:16:43] >> That's correct. We'll have it's looking

[3:16:45] like on the 21st, we're going to have to

[3:16:48] address an open meeting law allegation

[3:16:51] violation, alleged violation. We will

[3:16:54] have uh approval of the charter for the

[3:16:58] council as well as approval of a warning

[3:17:01] for a special city meeting on November

[3:17:03] 3rd.

[3:17:04] >> Great. And just to be clear, if for some

[3:17:06] reason we don't get it across the finish

[3:17:09] line, there is still time for the

[3:17:10] council to meet again in a special

[3:17:12] meeting to take action on those warnings

[3:17:14] before the 30th of September. Correct.

[3:17:16] >> Yeah, that's correct. Yes.

[3:17:18] >> Okay. Council members, any question

[3:17:20] about process?

[3:17:22] Okay. hearing. None, I would accept a

[3:17:24] motion to close the second public

[3:17:26] hearing uh to hear the recommendations

[3:17:28] of the uh charter task force committee

[3:17:31] on proposed searching. Have

[3:17:33] >> a motion and a second. All those in

[3:17:36] favor say I.

[3:17:37] >> I.

[3:17:38] >> Any oppose? Nay.

[3:17:40] >> Motion carries. We are out of the public

[3:17:42] hearing session. Thank you very much

[3:17:44] everyone. And this is your moment. You

[3:17:46] can if if you are here only for this,

[3:17:48] you are welcome to get up and go

[3:17:49] tonight.

[3:17:52] Mayor, are you finished with the city

[3:17:54] attorney for the rest of this meeting?

[3:17:56] >> I think we are finished with you for the

[3:17:57] rest of this meeting. Thank you very

[3:17:58] much for your help tonight.

[3:18:00] >> You're welcome. And I'll get everything

[3:18:03] else.

[3:18:05] >> For the record, I owe you a cup of

[3:18:06] coffee because your estimate of how long

[3:18:08] this would take was way closer than

[3:18:09] mine.

[3:18:15] » Have a good night, everybody.

[3:18:24] Okay, this is a two moment two minute

[3:18:26] body break.

[3:18:32] I'm going

[3:18:50] » Charlie. Thank you so much.

[3:18:57] » How are you?

[3:19:00] >> Good. What's up?

[3:19:26] » We did and they did

[3:19:30] And I don't think that it was fully

[3:19:34] understood what the timing was.

[3:19:37] I happened

[3:19:42] » really

[3:19:56] I just I think that was

[3:20:11] Can I lie to you about how much time I

[3:20:13] thought I could take? Well, I

[3:20:15] misrepresent.

[3:20:19] » I did not I really did think I was

[3:20:42] » I did. Okay. I did. I'm not sure that

[3:20:45] everything was

[3:20:47] >> but

[3:20:50] what was agreed to what was agreed to

[3:20:55] » I feel like they did say

[3:21:12] » but again this is where

[3:21:20] again.

[3:21:30] » But again,

[3:21:34] mostly real estate.

[3:21:39] Are we voting

[3:21:42] on section by section or we're voting?

[3:21:58] » Okay, I think

[3:22:00] I'm going to bring us back to order,

[3:22:01] please.

[3:22:06] I enjoy digging for you.

[3:22:09] >> Okay, Charlie Kian, we're going to come

[3:22:11] back to the order here. We had

[3:22:15] >> so we continue with the regular uh

[3:22:18] council meeting that was scheduled for

[3:22:21] Monday night, September 14th to begin at

[3:22:22] 6:00 and according to the agenda end at

[3:22:25] 8.

[3:22:26] >> Um,

[3:22:28] our next item on the agenda is the

[3:22:31] uh city manager report. So, just very

[3:22:35] briefly, this is the first this I think

[3:22:36] this is my first report and this is just

[3:22:38] an intent to keep the public and the

[3:22:40] board up to date on the things that the

[3:22:41] city manager's office is up to. Um, so

[3:22:44] just to be very brief, I did meet with

[3:22:46] the school superintendent last week. We

[3:22:48] talked a little bit about the ongoing

[3:22:49] struggle she's having with her with her

[3:22:51] building, her high school building, and

[3:22:53] we talked a little bit about starting an

[3:22:55] internship program. I had a lot of

[3:22:56] success with that, developing um um kids

[3:22:59] into professional uh lines of work. So,

[3:23:02] I'm hoping we can do something like that

[3:23:04] here. Uh, the budget program is out. So,

[3:23:07] staff is currently working on their

[3:23:08] budget for the coming fiscal year. Um,

[3:23:11] and I'm working on the schedule for

[3:23:12] that. So, the council will see that

[3:23:14] schedule, the draft schedule for that

[3:23:15] coming up.

[3:23:18] Um, and to wrap it up, staff and I met

[3:23:20] with the folks that are developing a

[3:23:22] sacred heart housing project last week.

[3:23:25] Uh Andrew and the fire department came

[3:23:27] up and they brought the fire truck up to see how how access was on that road,

[3:23:32] how easily the truck could access that

[3:23:34] road. And we're working through we're

[3:23:37] working through that new permit.

[3:23:39] >> That's what I have.

[3:23:43] It's

[3:23:43] >> going to make me look bad here, Joe. You

[3:23:45] keep reports short like that every time.

[3:23:47] >> I don't talk.

[3:23:51] » Council members, any questions for our

[3:23:52] city manager?

[3:23:54] Can I just say, Joe, I very much

[3:23:56] appreciate your weekly updates that we

[3:23:59] get every Monday morning. I kind of look

[3:24:00] forward to them now.

[3:24:02] >> Good. I'm glad you're not too boring.

[3:24:04] >> Yeah. And just so folks in the community

[3:24:06] know, this summary is basically just a

[3:24:08] compilation of what Joe puts out to us

[3:24:10] week by week to keep the council up to

[3:24:12] date with anything that's going on. So,

[3:24:14] you're actually seeing what he's telling

[3:24:15] us to.

[3:24:16] >> Yeah,

[3:24:18] >> I agree. And we're a month in, right? Or

[3:24:22] a little more. A month and a week. a

[3:24:23] little more than the month.

[3:24:24] >> Five weeks. I I couldn't be happier with

[3:24:27] how it's going. So, thank you very much,

[3:24:29] Joe, for all he's doing.

[3:24:30] >> Thank you.

[3:24:32] >> Okay. Progress to date. This one's you

[3:24:34] too, Joe, on the audit for fiscal year

[3:24:36] 26. And just catch us up.

[3:24:38] >> Yep. We'll catch up. So, uh Carrie and

[3:24:42] um Frank have been working diligently to

[3:24:45] get the auditor, Miss Batchel, all the

[3:24:47] things she needs, which we have provided

[3:24:49] to the batchel and associates. Um,

[3:24:51] currently batch elder's asking for a

[3:24:54] little bit more. She's testing uh she's

[3:24:56] testing our procedures. So, she's asking

[3:24:58] for checks and invoices and all of that

[3:25:00] things, make sure they match up with uh

[3:25:03] our ledgers. We did meet with Bonnie a

[3:25:06] couple weeks ago. Uh I and and Carrie

[3:25:08] met with Bonnie just to see how it was

[3:25:09] going and if she needed anything else.

[3:25:11] Um she said we're on track and we have

[3:25:13] an October delivery date still. Um we we

[3:25:17] will require a single audit because of

[3:25:19] the the amount of federal cash that we

[3:25:22] have that we've taken in and that's

[3:25:23] going to cost us an extra $5,000. So um

[3:25:26] it's a little higher than I anticipated

[3:25:28] but not not too bad.

[3:25:32] Questions for Joe regarding the audit

[3:25:34] for this year?

[3:25:37] single audited view. But

[3:25:41] >> yeah, and it feels

[3:25:43] >> really good, Joe, to from my perspective

[3:25:45] to be where we are on this with a new

[3:25:48] auditor in place and on track to get it

[3:25:51] done in a timely fashion. Again, do you

[3:25:53] have a sense of I can't remember. I

[3:25:54] think we were talking mid-occtober that

[3:25:56] we were hoping for mid to late October

[3:25:58] for the final report from them.

[3:26:00] >> Um I she she told me October. I don't

[3:26:02] remember the exact date, but it was

[3:26:04] scheduled with council. Okay, great.

[3:26:07] Anything else, council members?

[3:26:10] Okay, Joe, I'm going to depend on you

[3:26:11] for this revolving loan application.

[3:26:12] Wastewater treatment facility.

[3:26:14] >> Yep. So, here um the wastewater

[3:26:17] treatment facility is up for it 20-year

[3:26:19] um rehab and evaluation. This is the

[3:26:22] preliminary engineering. We're asking

[3:26:25] the state to uh loan us $52,100

[3:26:28] for this project. Um Tom put out an RFP

[3:26:32] to for engineering and Aldridge and

[3:26:36] Elliot were the chosen engineer

[3:26:40] for tonight. We have one copy that needs

[3:26:42] to be signed. One copy of the loan needs

[3:26:44] to be signed by the by the council to

[3:26:47] approve well to approve the request of

[3:26:49] the loan.

[3:26:52] And

[3:26:54] some of these loans and I thought I

[3:26:55] thought it was this one are

[3:26:59] uh forgivable. Do you know is that

[3:27:01] right? Some of them are. I don't know if

[3:27:04] this particular one is. I know as they

[3:27:06] move my experience is that as we move

[3:27:08] forward through the through the

[3:27:09] engineering into construction phase they

[3:27:11] get rolled in and some some amount gets

[3:27:14] does get forgiven. I don't know if it's

[3:27:16] 100% or not.

[3:27:18] >> Sorry if I can jump jump in here. I'm

[3:27:20] from Aldrich. My name is Yeah, my name

[3:27:22] is Mike Mayer and um Joe actually wanted

[3:27:25] me to come just to help answer some

[3:27:27] great questions. So this um this at this

[3:27:30] stage the state's actually offering 50%

[3:27:33] subsidies. That's 50% subsidy on the

[3:27:36] sort of planning engineering work. Uh

[3:27:38] there's a whole another set of subsidy

[3:27:40] that's available for stuff that goes to

[3:27:42] construction. Um so so this one was for

[3:27:45] 52,000. So there's about 26,000 in

[3:27:47] subsidy baked in here. um the remainder

[3:27:51] does get rolled over into construction

[3:27:54] loan. If if you do go go to construction

[3:27:56] with a project, which you you probably

[3:27:58] will need to um and like I said, once

[3:28:01] you get into construction, then there's

[3:28:02] this whole other kind of subsidy

[3:28:04] discussion. So,

[3:28:07] >> everything else could it's Mike, right?

[3:28:10] >> Just just to help us make sure that

[3:28:12] we're all on the same page, Mike, could

[3:28:13] you just describe exactly in layman's

[3:28:15] terms what this loan is being used for?

[3:28:17] So, it's it's being used for what's

[3:28:19] called a 20-year evaluation.

[3:28:20] >> This is this is what we've been talking

[3:28:22] about.

[3:28:22] >> Yep. Every wastewater treatment facility

[3:28:24] in the state, every 20 years, you have

[3:28:25] to do this evaluation where you

[3:28:27] basically start out in the collection

[3:28:28] system where the waste water starts. You

[3:28:30] go down to the plant, you look at all

[3:28:31] the solids handling stuff. This year,

[3:28:34] this time around, it's a little more of

[3:28:35] a big deal because you're also getting a

[3:28:37] new discharge permit. Um, so that that's

[3:28:41] also going to play in year. Um, and then once that's done, that's where

[3:28:47] we've identified what what needs to

[3:28:49] happen over the next 10 years.

[3:28:52] Um, and then then you might go into like

[3:28:54] a final design stage.

[3:28:57] >> Council members, do you have any

[3:28:58] questions about that?

[3:29:00] >> How long does this process take?

[3:29:02] >> So, for this, I believe we had we're

[3:29:06] looking out probably till next spring.

[3:29:08] And and there's, you know, there's

[3:29:09] review meetings. Uh, the folks from the

[3:29:11] state are involved. You have to give

[3:29:12] them time to,

[3:29:15] you know, review things as well.

[3:29:19] >> Okay. Any other questions, council

[3:29:20] members?

[3:29:22] I hope you get lots of comp time for

[3:29:25] tomorrow.

[3:29:25] >> Oh, yeah.

[3:29:28] Note that everyone on the council has to

[3:29:30] sign this. That's

[3:29:31] >> Yes. I'm about to pass it down the road

[3:29:32] here. I signed. We'll just get everybody

[3:29:34] else to sign it.

[3:29:35] >> Um, so I do we need a We probably need a

[3:29:37] formal action, Joe. Right. On this one

[3:29:38] to say we approve.

[3:29:41] >> Yeah. Uh yeah, a motion and the approval

[3:29:43] and to make also on the bottom of this

[3:29:46] there's a authorized representative. Um

[3:29:48] to make it legal, I would need to be

[3:29:50] well somebody would need to I'll be the

[3:29:51] authorized rep. Um I'm hoping.

[3:29:54] >> So may I have a motion to approve the

[3:29:58] application for the revolving loan uh

[3:30:01] for the wastewater treatment facility

[3:30:04] uh and to make Joe Gunter, our city

[3:30:06] manager, the authorized representative.

[3:30:09] So,

[3:30:10] >> I've got a move two moves and a second.

[3:30:12] Any take your pick there, Jim.

[3:30:15] Any other comments or conversation about

[3:30:17] this? And

[3:30:18] >> just how long is it for?

[3:30:21] How long is the loan for?

[3:30:23] >> Mike, can you say a word about that?

[3:30:24] >> Um, so I if if the result was this, you

[3:30:28] don't have to do anything at your

[3:30:29] wastewater treatment facility. We're all

[3:30:30] done. Um, it's 5 years. Um, typically

[3:30:34] it'll get rolled over into your

[3:30:35] construction loan, which for the city of

[3:30:38] Newport could be 30 or 40 years.

[3:30:41] >> Okay. Something to look forward to,

[3:30:43] council members.

[3:30:44] >> Okay. I have a motion and a second. Oh,

[3:30:46] go ahead, Sharon. Something you want to

[3:30:48] add?

[3:30:48] >> No, no, no, no.

[3:30:49] >> All those in favor say I.

[3:30:51] >> I. Oppose. Nay.

[3:30:53] >> Motion carries. So, please I'll sign it

[3:30:55] and give it down to Jim to sign at the

[3:30:57] end. Okay. Moving along.

[3:31:00] uh use of Oh, no. This is the number 10

[3:31:04] preliminary wastewater allocation

[3:31:06] application for and application for

[3:31:08] water allocation turn on for Gary and

[3:31:10] Lauren Gillespie and anticipated vote.

[3:31:12] Joe, you want to say anything about

[3:31:13] this? I would I'm hoping the board can

[3:31:16] table this until next week. Um I think I

[3:31:19] found a allocation calculation error um

[3:31:23] when I when I reviewed the permit today.

[3:31:26] So, is it okay if we kick the can down

[3:31:28] the road?

[3:31:28] >> It's certainly okay with me. board me uh

[3:31:30] council members. Is that okay?

[3:31:32] >> Okay.

[3:31:33] >> This is the application for water

[3:31:34] allocation from Gary and Lori Gillespie.

[3:31:36] >> Yes.

[3:31:37] >> Okay. So, our action is to take no

[3:31:39] action tonight with the assumption that

[3:31:41] it will be on the on the agenda again

[3:31:44] Monday night the 21st.

[3:31:47] >> Thank you, Joe.

[3:31:51] Okay, next one. Use of reappraisal

[3:31:53] reserve funds. I think Joe, you're on to

[3:31:55] this one, too.

[3:31:56] >> Yeah. Um, so, so and this is for you

[3:31:58] with that. Uh, so tonight we do have a

[3:32:02] uh uh a reserve fund for the reappraisal

[3:32:06] of the of the properties here in

[3:32:08] Newport. Uh there's currently 142,000

[3:32:13] $689

[3:32:15] $142,68946

[3:32:18] in there. Um I'm asking the board to

[3:32:21] approve the use of $50,000 to start the

[3:32:24] reappraising process. Uh, we do have a

[3:32:27] contract with a total of $243,000

[3:32:31] to finish this process.

[3:32:35] We've seen this one coming for a while,

[3:32:36] too. Council members, uh, any questions

[3:32:38] before we make that motion.

[3:32:41] Okay, we have a motion to allocate uh

[3:32:44] $50,000 out of that reappraisal fund.

[3:32:46] >> So, move a motion. Do I have a second?

[3:32:48] >> I'll second.

[3:32:49] >> Any further conversation, Pam?

[3:33:01] I thought we couldn't find one.

[3:33:02] >> We do.

[3:33:04] >> Uh, I don't know off the top of my head.

[3:33:05] Do you, Joe?

[3:33:06] >> I do. I have the contract right here. We

[3:33:08] had two bids. NER was one of the biders.

[3:33:12] Um, and this is the New England

[3:33:13] Municipal Consultants. They were the

[3:33:16] chosen contract which was signed back in

[3:33:18] 25 2025.

[3:33:20] >> Yeah, we've we've known this one. We've

[3:33:21] known for a while. Frank's been working

[3:33:23] with them for over a year to prep for

[3:33:25] this.

[3:33:26] >> So, but you're right. There are other

[3:33:29] ones that I know we've been up and down

[3:33:30] on a variety of these, but this isn't

[3:33:32] it.

[3:33:33] >> Okay, we've got a motion and a second on

[3:33:36] the floor. All those in favor say I.

[3:33:38] >> I.

[3:33:38] >> Oppos? Nay.

[3:33:40] >> That motion carries.

[3:33:42] >> Okay. The next next item is number 12,

[3:33:44] consideration of a contract with BLCT.

[3:33:47] That's Vermont League of Cities and

[3:33:48] Towns for consulting services regarding

[3:33:50] economic development. I'll speak to

[3:33:52] this. Um

[3:33:54] it's the judgment of the team that has

[3:33:57] been working on the economic development

[3:34:00] long-range planning which includes Dave

[3:34:02] Leforce from Newport Downtown

[3:34:03] Development now Joe Gunter and myself

[3:34:07] uh and assisted often in those meetings

[3:34:10] by Stephanie Clark from Whiteenberg that

[3:34:13] it would be extremely useful to have

[3:34:16] Dominic Cloud on speed dial um to offer

[3:34:20] advice and counsel when when we bump

[3:34:22] into challenges which are coming

[3:34:24] regularly as you might imagine and we

[3:34:27] couldn't think of anybody better to ask

[3:34:29] for help. Basically the way this would

[3:34:31] work is we could call on him as

[3:34:34] necessary for $140 an hour. I think we

[3:34:38] would expect that we would be using that

[3:34:40] you know every couple or three months

[3:34:42] for a like a three-hour sitdown with him

[3:34:46] um or you know a conference call once a

[3:34:49] month maybe. But the idea is basically

[3:34:51] to be able to call in somebody who has

[3:34:52] been living these questions for for now

[3:34:55] almost 15 years and just have him

[3:34:58] available to us. The funds would be

[3:35:00] drawn from the Walmart economic

[3:35:02] development fund. It would not impact

[3:35:03] the operating budget. Joe, you want to

[3:35:05] add anything to that?

[3:35:08] >> Uh just that Dominic, he's what he's

[3:35:10] done for his city is pretty remarkable.

[3:35:12] It seemed like St. Alvin was in a

[3:35:14] similar situation in Newport and they've

[3:35:16] really turned their downtown around.

[3:35:18] I think you'd be a val valuable asset.

[3:35:23] >> Council member, any questions?

[3:35:25] >> One of my questions was was this going

[3:35:27] to be Walmart?

[3:35:30] >> And just to be clear, we would as as

[3:35:33] always council members are invited into

[3:35:35] those conversations. So, if you if you'd

[3:35:37] like to be a part of them, you're

[3:35:38] welcome.

[3:35:40] My only questions is these the services

[3:35:45] listed in B are like there's no

[3:35:48] description really. Um and I it leaves

[3:35:52] me wanting more context

[3:35:55] like supporting existing small

[3:35:56] businesses how because I I feel that

[3:35:59] Newport downtown Development does that.

[3:36:00] I feel that

[3:36:04] I thought Steph and me or Whitenberg

[3:36:07] were addressing some of these other

[3:36:08] things and I'm just kind of wanting to

[3:36:10] know more.

[3:36:12] Um,

[3:36:13] >> yeah, it's about having another smart

[3:36:15] head at the table really. That's really

[3:36:17] what it comes down to. It does not

[3:36:18] replace

[3:36:20] Stephanie remains by far and away the

[3:36:22] kind of key person that we're working

[3:36:24] with. Um it it's a place for us to go to

[3:36:28] say we're bumping into this problem and

[3:36:31] what recommendations do you have? I'll

[3:36:33] just give you an example. Um city of St.

[3:36:35] Albins's uh has gone out of its way to

[3:36:38] extend support to new small businesses

[3:36:42] and entrepreneurs that they really want

[3:36:44] to see on their main street. And

[3:36:46] Dominic's had a lot of experience with

[3:36:47] trying to create those support systems.

[3:36:49] City of Newport doesn't have anything

[3:36:51] like that at this point. ND doesn't

[3:36:53] offer anything like that at this point.

[3:36:55] It's really just a a possibility of

[3:36:58] sitting down with somebody who's been

[3:36:59] through it to say, "How does this work?

[3:37:01] What would it take?" And to try and help

[3:37:02] us ask the right questions,

[3:37:10] » more you want to ask about that?

[3:37:15] I guess I'm understanding that this I'm

[3:37:17] hearing what you're saying, which is

[3:37:18] this will enable you to have

[3:37:20] conversations with a sister city who you

[3:37:24] strive and look up to and would like

[3:37:27] basically soundboard. And so there that

[3:37:29] these

[3:37:30] >> these are rather topics. They're not

[3:37:32] necessarily they're not at all

[3:37:33] deliverables. And I wasn't thinking that

[3:37:35] they were there was going to be a

[3:37:36] necessarily

[3:37:38] explicit deliverable from them. I just I

[3:37:41] think that's why I was like had

[3:37:42] questions is because it's

[3:37:46] >> right it's different than a consulting

[3:37:48] contract where we would be asking for

[3:37:51] honestly you know in the world I come

[3:37:53] from it's more like coaching than it is

[3:37:56] like consulting right it's the ability

[3:37:58] to call and just be able to bounce ideas

[3:38:00] around with someone we we approached

[3:38:02] Dominic with this idea and said this is

[3:38:06] you know we don't know if this is

[3:38:07] something you typically do but we think

[3:38:09] it would be really helpful to us.

[3:38:16] » So, so I I was I'm um was having the

[3:38:20] same kind of questions as Carter. So,

[3:38:22] basically, you're saying that this is an

[3:38:24] opportunity or um hey, help us out or

[3:38:29] what do you think of or can you give us

[3:38:31] some advice? It's not a particular topic

[3:38:35] or content area. Is that what you're

[3:38:37] saying when you say for the client for

[3:38:40] consulting services.

[3:38:42] >> No, what I'm saying is it may be

[3:38:44] specific. We may go to him. I I expect

[3:38:46] we will go to him with specific

[3:38:48] questions and say, "Can you give us

[3:38:51] advice about how you would handle this

[3:38:52] in or do you have thoughts about where

[3:38:54] we should go next with this question?"

[3:38:56] Or, "How would you approach a developer

[3:38:58] in this in this situation?"

[3:39:00] >> It's just,

[3:39:01] >> how would we get charged for that?

[3:39:03] >> $140 an hour.

[3:39:09] Does he do this for any other city or

[3:39:12] town or does VLCT offer this service?

[3:39:18] >> I I I don't know. I mean, the way the

[3:39:20] closest thing that I know about is what

[3:39:22] he does through VLCT to help with city

[3:39:24] manager searches,

[3:39:26] >> right? But I don't know if if um this is

[3:39:29] a common occurrence for him

[3:39:33] >> in this you would only use him

[3:39:35] periodically. It wouldn't be a every

[3:39:38] meeting.

[3:39:39] >> Oh no, not at all. Just a consulting

[3:39:41] consultant to ask questions to um

[3:39:45] quarterly or once a month or something.

[3:39:48] >> Yeah. Is that okay?

[3:39:50] >> And if the council wanted to put some

[3:39:51] kind of a limit on it, you're welcome

[3:39:52] to. I mean, I really do think we're only

[3:39:54] talking about, you know, an hour a month

[3:39:57] and maybe every 3 months a three-hour

[3:39:58] meeting or something like that. We're

[3:39:59] not talking about a lot here.

[3:40:04] » Ultimately, it's coming from the Walmart

[3:40:05] funds. And so, therefore, I say go forth

[3:40:09] and conquer and do what you need to do

[3:40:10] to make

[3:40:12] downtown

[3:40:14] like all of the missions are associated.

[3:40:16] I I'm I'm supportive in it if we have

[3:40:18] the funds for it. I'm I'm not

[3:40:20] undermining that. I'm just again wanting

[3:40:22] to make sure that when we enter in an

[3:40:24] obligation as I sign I know it.

[3:40:27] >> What's your site?

[3:40:27] >> Yeah,

[3:40:29] >> I I have to agree on that and and though

[3:40:32] I have not taken the time personally to

[3:40:34] examine at great length what um the VCT

[3:40:38] website has. I know they have lots of

[3:40:40] wonderful services and I was just

[3:40:42] wondering if that is a service or a if

[3:40:46] there's anything that they can add

[3:40:49] um to help us as because we are members,

[3:40:52] right?

[3:40:53] >> Oh, yes. And we use them on a regular

[3:40:55] basis for all kinds of things. I mean,

[3:40:57] as recently as a week ago, Carter and

[3:40:59] Joe and I met with Kathleen Ramsay to

[3:41:01] talk about uh priority priority based

[3:41:04] budgeting,

[3:41:05] >> right? So, do they have anything for for

[3:41:08] economic development or do they have any

[3:41:10] strategies or any resources for us to

[3:41:13] tap into?

[3:41:15] >> I guess my answer to that would be there

[3:41:18] may be tools that we can use there. It's

[3:41:20] not what we're looking for here. What

[3:41:22] we're talking about here is coaching.

[3:41:24] We're talking about we've just hit a

[3:41:26] block. We can't figure out a way around

[3:41:28] it. What creative thinking can we bring

[3:41:30] to the table to help us try and think

[3:41:32] about this in a different way? And

[3:41:33] honestly, I think I can safely say that

[3:41:36] Dominic Cloud is the most respected

[3:41:39] person in the state when it comes to

[3:41:41] kind of the economic development

[3:41:43] questions before a city like ours.

[3:41:46] >> Okay.

[3:41:49] Ann, you want to speak?

[3:41:52] >> Yeah.

[3:41:54] >> Just sorry. real quickly and there's a

[3:41:56] caller and um there's some background

[3:41:58] noise so I I'm going to mute you just so

[3:42:01] I can hear the room better. Um but I

[3:42:03] believe you can unmute

[3:42:06] just just letting you know.

[3:42:08] >> Okay.

[3:42:10] one is I'm a a little um appalled at the

[3:42:15] number of agencies that are now helping

[3:42:19] us out with it seems like the same kind

[3:42:23] of economic development. We have NBD, we

[3:42:27] had NVDA,

[3:42:29] we have Whiten Burke and some of the

[3:42:33] same um things that you suggest uh that

[3:42:37] this gentleman would be doing are being

[3:42:39] done or under the opaces. We're paying

[3:42:42] bucks out of of the Walmart fund or some

[3:42:45] other place uh to have them do the

[3:42:49] specific things that are in this

[3:42:52] contract. Uh, and there were only four

[3:42:54] things, uh, as I recall. I don't have

[3:42:57] the contract before me, but there were

[3:42:59] only four things that he's supposed to

[3:43:01] be doing, which I'm sure is in the same

[3:43:04] contracts that we have with NBDA, with

[3:43:08] Whitenberg. Um, and so we've got what I

[3:43:11] would call people get fired for

[3:43:13] redundancy

[3:43:14] um, in big corporations, you know, and

[3:43:17] that means they don't want doing the

[3:43:19] same tasks, you know, we got somebody

[3:43:21] else doing that task. we don't need this

[3:43:23] person doing this task. So, um, one

[3:43:28] thing that can certainly happen is since

[3:43:31] they're all going for economic

[3:43:32] development, they can all be doing the

[3:43:35] same three things and we can be paying

[3:43:38] the same well

[3:43:40] 140 an hour to him. I think Whitenberg

[3:43:44] is far more than that and you know I

[3:43:46] don't know what we're paying uh some of

[3:43:48] the other organizations but redundancy

[3:43:52] it seems to me is one problem that I see

[3:43:55] unless you define the contract and make

[3:43:57] it specific and even if they were to

[3:44:00] call each other and say um hey are you

[3:44:03] did you call so and so and find out

[3:44:06] about such and such that's time that's

[3:44:09] billable hours that conversation will

[3:44:11] pay will pay them both, one and the

[3:44:14] other for the same conversation. Uh, so

[3:44:18] I'm I'm concerned about that. I'm

[3:44:20] concerned about um the fact that this

[3:44:24] contract says that they are to be paid

[3:44:29] and and be this is this is VLCT is to be

[3:44:34] paid on our receipt of the bill. Mariah,

[3:44:38] the lawyer for the city, has just

[3:44:40] recommended that we negotiate these

[3:44:43] contracts so that we don't have to pay

[3:44:46] on receipt. We we negotiate, he said,

[3:44:49] for 60 days, you know, maybe just so

[3:44:51] that we don't avoid problems like this.

[3:44:54] And this contract is to be paid

[3:44:56] immediately on receipt as I recall. And

[3:44:59] then there are two other parts of it of

[3:45:02] it that VLCT is our insurance company

[3:45:06] and they are saying in this contract

[3:45:08] that for the things that this man I

[3:45:11] didn't know it was just this one person

[3:45:13] is going to do um they don't he doesn't

[3:45:16] accept any liability for any mistakes or

[3:45:19] any errors that he makes. It's on us the

[3:45:23] city. And then he says, which I I don't

[3:45:26] think is even possible, that no matter

[3:45:28] what the liability is, it can't be more

[3:45:31] than how much he gets paid. He could do

[3:45:33] a million dollars worth of damage to us

[3:45:36] with some advice that he gives.

[3:45:40] And because he only gets paid 10,000,

[3:45:43] you know, he says the liability is only

[3:45:45] 10,000.

[3:45:47] But then what's the city's liability? Is

[3:45:50] it the 10 thou? because he's not paying

[3:45:52] any liability on this contract or we're

[3:45:56] paying the liability. And is it 10,000

[3:45:59] what he paid him or is it the million

[3:46:03] damage that he did? Now, I'm not saying

[3:46:05] that that's going to happen, but I I I

[3:46:07] think it's pretty atrocious that VLCT

[3:46:10] has these contracts where they don't ex

[3:46:12] they don't um assume responsibility for

[3:46:16] the errors that they make. And I think

[3:46:19] that uh that contract should be looked

[3:46:21] at before it gets signed. And and I

[3:46:24] agree with his order. We should limit if he's going to do a certain task, then

[3:46:31] we should tell Weidenberg they're not

[3:46:34] going to be needed to do that task so

[3:46:36] that we don't have duplication with

[3:46:38] respect to this.

[3:46:40] >> This this is also brought up though with

[3:46:43] the uh

[3:46:46] downtown development. They said they

[3:46:47] were going to have to bring in several

[3:46:49] different people for different

[3:46:51] perspectives. Um,

[3:46:54] just to put that out there. I know

[3:46:55] there's several companies that they're

[3:46:57] working with now, but this is just

[3:46:58] another tool in the toolbox essentially

[3:47:00] that we could have. And I'm not saying

[3:47:02] one way or the other. I'm just saying

[3:47:04] that originally it was stated that they

[3:47:07] would have to hire several different

[3:47:10] contractors or so on to to do certain

[3:47:12] pieces and this could be just another

[3:47:16] adjoining piece to that. Um, knowing Dominic and knowing what he's

[3:47:20] done, I think he would serve us very

[3:47:24] well. But that's just my personal

[3:47:25] opinion. Thank you.

[3:47:29] I'll just say and

[3:47:32] we would be foolish to have an

[3:47:35] opportunity to to engage with somebody

[3:47:39] of this level of expertise and not try

[3:47:42] and take advantage of that.

[3:47:43] >> Why are you hold You just spoke for

[3:47:46] almost 10 minutes and I did not

[3:47:47] interrupt you.

[3:47:48] >> I thought you finished. I'm sorry.

[3:47:49] >> Thank you.

[3:47:51] We have in this in this moment a lot of

[3:47:54] challenges before us. All of us agree

[3:47:57] that the question of how economic

[3:47:59] development in this community is going

[3:48:00] to happen is significant. There are a

[3:48:02] lot of hurdles and I I have no

[3:48:05] compunction whatsoever about asking

[3:48:07] whoever I think I can to give us the

[3:48:09] best possible advice we can get. Just to

[3:48:12] be clear, NVDA is not under contract

[3:48:15] with the city. They're not paying. They

[3:48:17] are doing us a massive favor by

[3:48:20] receiving this property across the

[3:48:22] street and doing mitigation and

[3:48:24] remediation for brownfields at no cost

[3:48:26] to the city. There is no cost there.

[3:48:29] Just to be clear, Newport Downtown

[3:48:30] Development is not receiving any payment

[3:48:33] beyond the $30,000 a year that we've

[3:48:35] been getting for over a decade now. We

[3:48:38] have not asked for a single dime at

[3:48:40] Newport Downtown Development from the

[3:48:42] city council or the city of Newport to

[3:48:44] pay for the services which have been

[3:48:45] given almost entirely as volunteer. So

[3:48:49] there's no cost as far as I'm concerned

[3:48:51] to the city of Newport from Newport

[3:48:53] Downtown Development. The the contract

[3:48:56] with Whitenberg

[3:48:57] honestly has I mean we are getting a lot

[3:49:01] of a lot of bang for our buck with that

[3:49:03] contract with Whitenberg. The expertise

[3:49:05] that they bring to the table is

[3:49:07] primarily around how we can work out the

[3:49:09] specifics of development agreements and

[3:49:12] whether or not we can develop proformas

[3:49:14] that that is to say the financial

[3:49:16] spreadsheets that will make a project

[3:49:19] pencil so that we do not come to you or

[3:49:21] go to the state until we know for sure

[3:49:24] that we can make this work. And believe

[3:49:26] me when I tell you that if we could have

[3:49:27] done that a year ago, we would have done

[3:49:29] it. In fact, the accusations that we

[3:49:31] were getting a year ago was that we were

[3:49:34] rushing the process and we were going to

[3:49:35] make full hearty and un and unthoughtout

[3:49:38] decisions. And to the contrary, what

[3:49:40] we've gotten from Whitenberg is

[3:49:42] thoughtful counsel every step of the way

[3:49:44] about just what the challenges are. All

[3:49:46] we're asking for here is somebody who is

[3:49:48] an expert in his field to give us advice

[3:49:51] in response to specific questions when

[3:49:53] we have them at 140 bucks an hour. Maybe

[3:49:57] we're talking about spending a,000 or

[3:49:59] 1,200 or 1,500 bucks every couple of

[3:50:01] months, every 3 months. We're not

[3:50:04] talking about a lot of money here. It's

[3:50:06] money well spent. If you want to do, if

[3:50:08] we all want to do, and the council has

[3:50:10] made it clear that they do want to

[3:50:12] engage in a long-term strategy for

[3:50:14] economic development in the city, this

[3:50:16] is what it's going to take to do it. And

[3:50:18] this ask in particular strikes me as

[3:50:20] being incredibly cost-effective.

[3:50:24] And when you say we, do you mean ND?

[3:50:27] We ND

[3:50:30] the organization. It is not a secret.

[3:50:31] And I don't know why you insist on

[3:50:33] making you repeat it time after time.

[3:50:35] Everyone in this room knows that I'm the

[3:50:37] director of Newport Downtown

[3:50:38] Development. Everyone in this room knows

[3:50:40] that I'm the mayor. Everyone in this

[3:50:42] room knows that we have a memorandum of

[3:50:44] understanding between the city council

[3:50:46] and Newport Downtown Development that I

[3:50:48] did not participate in any way in

[3:50:50] creating. I stayed out of all of the

[3:50:52] negotiation. I stayed out of the room

[3:50:54] for all of the conversation.

[3:50:56] So when I say we, in this instance, what

[3:50:59] I'm saying is the organization Newport

[3:51:01] Downtown Development is doing a

[3:51:03] phenomenal service for this city. If we

[3:51:05] had to pay for this service, we would be

[3:51:08] paying more money than you can really

[3:51:10] imagine in order to hire the kind of

[3:51:12] development staff that we've gotten and

[3:51:13] the kind of assistance that we've gotten

[3:51:15] from Newport Downtown Development. I

[3:51:17] grow weary of the constant accusation

[3:51:20] that happens at a low level almost all

[3:51:22] the time. And when I tell you that we

[3:51:24] are doing our level best to treat this

[3:51:26] seriously and to be as careful as we

[3:51:28] possibly can with the city's resources,

[3:51:31] please believe me when I tell you we're

[3:51:33] doing everything we can to try and

[3:51:34] protect the city. And this, in fact,

[3:51:37] this contract is about that. It's about

[3:51:39] saying if there are areas where Newport

[3:51:41] downtown development does not have

[3:51:43] experience and we can get experience

[3:51:45] from somebody who's clearly been through

[3:51:47] this over and over and over again, we

[3:51:49] would be foolish not to do so. And I

[3:51:50] suspect you'd be the first one in the

[3:51:52] microphone to call us foolish for doing

[3:51:54] it.

[3:51:55] So all I'm asking is that once in a

[3:51:58] while there's there be some recognition

[3:52:01] of all of the incredible thought that's

[3:52:02] going into this because I don't think

[3:52:04] one time not one time have I ever heard

[3:52:06] you say I appreciate all that's going

[3:52:09] into this that has been phenomenal

[3:52:11] volunteer hours and it's it's a it wears

[3:52:15] on me.

[3:52:16] All I ever get on a personal level is

[3:52:19] negativity from you.

[3:52:22] And I'm just telling you, a lot of

[3:52:23] people have worked really hard at at at

[3:52:27] no no remuneration, not unlike the

[3:52:29] charter process we've just been through.

[3:52:30] There are a lot of people in this city

[3:52:32] stepping up right now.

[3:52:34] So, I'm asking the council to do

[3:52:37] something that I think is incredibly

[3:52:39] cost-effective and that could help us to

[3:52:41] avoid some real pitfalls in this

[3:52:43] community and we'd be foolish not to

[3:52:45] take advantage of. What about the

[3:52:47] liability issue?

[3:52:48] >> There is no liability issue. There's no

[3:52:50] liability issue. No, Listen to me. No

[3:52:52] decisions are being made without coming

[3:52:55] to the council and having a full

[3:52:56] consideration. Every decision we make

[3:52:59] about what to do next is being discussed

[3:53:01] with the council fully. The council is fully a breast of all of what we're

[3:53:05] doing.

[3:53:05] >> So why do they have a waiver of

[3:53:07] liability in there?

[3:53:08] >> All contracts.

[3:53:09] do. Yeah.

[3:53:11] >> Yeah. Joe,

[3:53:13] >> not to cut the the conversation short,

[3:53:15] but I think it was a there was a

[3:53:17] conversation about signing a contract,

[3:53:19] not necessarily arguing the um what was

[3:53:22] necessarily waiver or the liability

[3:53:26] issue.

[3:53:29] I'll make a motion that the city council

[3:53:32] approve of the signing of the contract

[3:53:36] uh between the city as service agreement

[3:53:38] with Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

[3:53:41] >> I have a motion.

[3:53:42] >> I'll second

[3:53:43] >> and a second. Any further discussion?

[3:53:46] >> All those in favor, please say I.

[3:53:49] >> Oppose. Nay.

[3:53:51] >> Motion carries. Thank you.

[3:54:00] Okay, we are on to the task force

[3:54:03] reports.

[3:54:05] Uh, anything from water and sewer, John?

[3:54:07] >> No. Um, I'm waiting until we get the end

[3:54:11] of year financials from Chip before we

[3:54:13] schedule a meeting.

[3:54:15] >> Okay.

[3:54:17] >> Financial task force.

[3:54:18] >> We're meeting on Wednesday. One of my

[3:54:21] agenda items was to go over the end of

[3:54:23] year budget, but I definitely was like,

[3:54:25] I better spend enough time. So,

[3:54:29] see if that item comes to fruition, but

[3:54:31] beyond that, meet with us. We're

[3:54:33] discussing right now mainly policies to

[3:54:37] guide the city best practices. Um, and

[3:54:40] then one minor announcement is a task

[3:54:42] force member had to step back. So now we

[3:54:45] I mean it's always been a rolling basis,

[3:54:47] but if you know of anybody that has

[3:54:49] interest in joining the financial task

[3:54:51] force, let me know.

[3:54:56] » And the next meeting card

[3:54:58] >> Oh, Wednesday 8 a.m.

[3:55:00] >> the 16th.

[3:55:02] injure. Uh as far as the first two um we

[3:55:07] are they're working with the software

[3:55:10] team

[3:55:12] on some development stuff. Um being all

[3:55:15] the apparatus everything is being put in

[3:55:18] now still entered in the system. There's

[3:55:20] it's amazing how much stuff gets entered

[3:55:22] into

[3:55:24] uh this program but they are working on

[3:55:26] that. They're working digent digitally

[3:55:29] on that and uh we're not going to have

[3:55:32] another meeting until after that is

[3:55:33] operational and it's used for

[3:55:35] approximately 30 days so we can have

[3:55:37] some try to work the bugs out with it.

[3:55:40] Um and hopefully that will be

[3:55:43] I'm hopeful that that will be

[3:55:46] potentially in November time.

[3:55:50] >> Excellent. Thank you.

[3:55:51] >> Any questions for Andrew?

[3:55:55] Okay. hearing none.

[3:55:57] I'm gonna uh just say a word about this

[3:56:00] next session because I'm going to recuse

[3:56:01] myself. I want to be clear, but we've

[3:56:04] had somebody raise a question about

[3:56:05] whether or not it was appropriate for uh

[3:56:08] myself and for Carter to be involved in

[3:56:10] the executive session regarding Newport

[3:56:12] Downtown Developments uh report on

[3:56:14] sensitive real estate matters. Normally,

[3:56:16] I would say that there's not a conflict

[3:56:19] nor an appearance of conflict. Um and I

[3:56:21] reserve that right to continue to make

[3:56:23] that statement. tonight, given the

[3:56:25] sensitive nature of the conversation and

[3:56:27] the reality that we're talking about the

[3:56:29] potential uh for uh an offer to be made

[3:56:33] to the city of property and what that

[3:56:36] what might happen with that property.

[3:56:38] I'm going to recuse myself from that

[3:56:39] conversation tonight.

[3:56:41] >> And um I'm not going to recuse myself

[3:56:44] because this matter has nothing to do

[3:56:46] with my employer, Northeastern Vermont

[3:56:47] Development Association. Um, and similar

[3:56:51] to statements

[3:56:53] said earlier, um,

[3:56:56] it is tiresome to have the blunt

[3:56:58] instrument of my employer beating down

[3:57:01] on me constantly and it's actually risen

[3:57:03] to the level of folks have made

[3:57:05] complaints on the federal government and

[3:57:07] gone after my um, career. So, it's I'm

[3:57:11] going to keep it vague, but it has

[3:57:14] really truly um, crossed a line. So, but

[3:57:20] I nonetheless it's appropriate to ask

[3:57:22] and inquire and say, "Hey, is there a

[3:57:24] conflict?" Um, but the property that is

[3:57:26] being discussed uh has nothing to do

[3:57:29] with NBDA. So, just want to make that

[3:57:31] clear.

[3:57:32] >> Okay. So, I'll excuse myself and you'll

[3:57:34] call that motion to bring it into order.

[3:57:35] Remember, you got it changed.

[3:57:37] >> Yes.

[3:57:40] Um, I make a motion to move us into the

[3:57:43] executive section as per 1BSA subsection

[3:57:47] 313 A2 for the purpose of receiving an

[3:57:51] update from Newport downtown development

[3:57:53] regarding the sensitive real estate

[3:57:55] matters related to development plans for

[3:57:57] downtown Newport. I would assume we

[3:57:59] would invite Dave Leforce of Newport

[3:58:01] Downtown Development into that

[3:58:02] conversation and Joe Gunter, our city

[3:58:06] manager. Um,

[3:58:11] Oh, okay. All right. All those in favor,

[3:58:15] please say I.

[3:58:16] >> I.

[3:58:18] >> I'll practice the flow for next week,

[3:58:19] y'all. All right. We're going to

[3:58:21] executive session.

[3:58:37] When I first got into the airports,

[3:58:41] >> I hope

[3:58:43] I didn't close the

[3:58:48] end and the whole meeting

[3:59:03] » Okay. So I make a motion to come out of

[3:59:06] the executive session with the whole

[3:59:09] >> No, during which the election was

[3:59:11] >> during which no action was

[3:59:12] >> assuming you took no action.

[3:59:13] >> You didn't

[3:59:15] move.

[3:59:16] >> Great. I'll second.

[3:59:18] >> All those in favor please say I

[3:59:21] >> I

[3:59:24] >> thank you.

[3:59:25] >> Okay. So item number 15. This is an

[3:59:29] executive session as per one VSA for uh

[3:59:31] 31382

[3:59:33] for the purpose of receiving an update

[3:59:35] from Newport Downtown Development

[3:59:36] regarding sensitive real estate matters

[3:59:38] related to cell phone tower leases. I

[3:59:40] have a motion to go into executive

[3:59:42] session.

[3:59:42] >> I'll make that motion.

[3:59:44] >> Second.

[3:59:46] >> All those in favor say I.

[3:59:48] >> And should we that to invite

[3:59:50] >> Yes. Thank you. We need to invite David

[3:59:52] and Joe Gunter to remain.

[3:59:55] >> Thank you.

[4:00:00] All in favor say I.

[4:00:12] » The cameras back on too.

[4:00:14] >> All right. May I have a motion to come

[4:00:15] out of executive session during which no

[4:00:18] motion?

[4:00:18] >> Second. I have a motion in a second. All

[4:00:20] in favor say I.

[4:00:22] >> Oppose. Nay.

[4:00:23] >> Motion carries. So item 16,

[4:00:28] uh, basically we just want to say out

[4:00:30] loud to everybody that, um, council is

[4:00:33] considering an offer, uh, to sell the

[4:00:38] for someone else to purchase the

[4:00:41] long-term rights of the cell tower site

[4:00:44] up at the reservoir. Mhm.

[4:00:46] >> Um we are in pursuing that option as a

[4:00:49] way to come up with some uh cash for the

[4:00:53] match that we're looking for for the

[4:00:54] NBRC grant to do development work. And

[4:00:58] we expect to have some kind of an offer.

[4:01:01] We hope to have some kind of an offer to

[4:01:03] put in the packet for the next meeting.

[4:01:06] And assuming everything goes well, we'll

[4:01:08] have an action for the council to take

[4:01:10] at the next meeting because we're aware

[4:01:12] that we need to warn it if we're going

[4:01:14] to take this action for the November 3rd

[4:01:16] meeting. Um, I'll just say our current

[4:01:19] lease runs out in November. So, there's

[4:01:22] some time sensitivity to this. Anybody

[4:01:25] want to add anything to that, council

[4:01:27] members? Joe, anything you want to add?

[4:01:30] No, sir.

[4:01:31] >> Okay.

[4:01:33] All right. Um,

[4:01:36] new business. Council members. Anything

[4:01:37] you want to put on for new business

[4:01:38] tonight? Carter?

[4:01:40] >> I just wanted to say thank you to the

[4:01:42] drivers and ATVers. I was out on the

[4:01:45] main street for Newport Recreation

[4:01:48] Committees like coin drop and it's

[4:01:50] always just a fun buzz where you check

[4:01:53] in with folks and you know it's just a

[4:01:55] really positive day. So, don't know what

[4:01:57] the numbers are.

[4:01:58] >> I was going to ask do you know what you

[4:01:59] made? No, but it's always it's very

[4:02:02] silly and very high like for the effort.

[4:02:06] Um, but it's just, you know, just a fun

[4:02:08] blast.

[4:02:10] So,

[4:02:10] >> thanks.

[4:02:12] >> Injured?

[4:02:12] >> No. Thank you.

[4:02:13] >> John,

[4:02:13] >> no.

[4:02:14] >> Sharon, anything?

[4:02:17] >> Joe?

[4:02:18] >> No, sir.

[4:02:18] >> And Jim,

[4:02:19] >> no.

[4:02:20] >> All right.

[4:02:20] >> Wait, I do have something.

[4:02:22] >> Go ahead, Sharon. I just want to thank I

[4:02:24] just want to thank the council for um

[4:02:27] the support with the charter task force

[4:02:29] and all the work that we were we did and

[4:02:32] cross our fingers and now we got to

[4:02:34] build it up really well.

[4:02:37] >> But thank you. Thank you. It was a lot

[4:02:39] of work as John and all of you know.

[4:02:43] >> It was a huge amount of work. So thank

[4:02:45] you Sharon for all you did to hold that

[4:02:48] together even in the midst of your

[4:02:49] family stuff. So, anybody have an old

[4:02:52] business item you want to put on the

[4:02:54] table tonight?

[4:02:56] >> I No, it's fine.

[4:02:59] >> Okay. I'm just going to remind folks

[4:03:01] that I will be gone next week for the

[4:03:03] meeting and I'm leaving on the 19th,

[4:03:05] Saturday night, back on October 3rd. So,

[4:03:09] >> lovely trip.

[4:03:10] >> Thank you. Have a great

[4:03:12] >> enjoy yourself.

[4:03:13] >> Yeah. Have a great meeting without me.

[4:03:15] I'm not going to try and zoom in from

[4:03:17] France. So I might if it were 5 hours

[4:03:20] behind. I'm definitely not going to do

[4:03:21] it. It's 5 hours ahead.

[4:03:24] >> 7 hours ahead of you.

[4:03:26] >> What's that?

[4:03:26] >> Isn't seven hours?

[4:03:30] >> I don't know. It's a lot. It's too much

[4:03:31] to start a meeting at 11 o'clock or

[4:03:33] 12:00 at night.

[4:03:34] >> Especially if somebody runs a meeting

[4:03:35] the way I do it, it goes until 4 in the

[4:03:38] morning.

[4:03:39] Um, so we have a motion to set the next

[4:03:42] meeting of the council. Call a regular

[4:03:43] meeting scheduled for September 21st,

[4:03:45] 2026 at 6 p.m. So second.

[4:03:50] >> All in favor say I.

[4:03:51] >> I.

[4:03:52] >> Opposed? Nay.

[4:03:53] >> Motion carries. Motion to adjurnn.

[4:03:55] >> Make a motion.

[4:03:56] >> Second.

[4:03:58] >> Great. Got a second from Sharon. All in

[4:03:59] favor say I.

[4:04:00] >> I.

[4:04:01] >> Thanks very much. Good evening everyone.

[4:04:02] Want to see all your work.

Newport City Council Regular Meeting 14 Sept 2026

Transcript