[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.