Loading...
2023 03 09 WS Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN March 9, 2023 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in a Regular Work Session on Thursday, March 9, 2023, at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall, 2401 Market Street, Baytown, Texas, with the following in attendance: Laura Alvarado Council Member Sarah Graham Council Member Kenrick Griffith Council Member Heather Betancourth Council Member Jacob Powell Mayor Pro Tern Mike Lester Council Member Brandon Capetillo Mayor Jason Reynolds City Manager Scott Lemond City Attorney Angela Jackson City Clerk Mayor Capetillo convened the March 9, 2023, City Council Regular Work Session with a quorum present at 5:30 P.M., and with all members present. 1. DISCUSSIONS a. Discuss the City of Baytown's Boards and Commissions process improvement plan and clarify the Citizen Communications component under the City Council Rules of Procedure, Section 6.2(e) "Citizen Communications." City Clerk Angela Jackson introduced the item to Council. She relayed Clerk Administrative Specialist Gabriella Cuff and City Attorney Scott Lemond had put together a presentation due to questions they received from both Council and citizens. Staff wished to clarify a few things as well as seek Council's opinion on the Citizen Communication component. In addition, Staff would show how they were going to simplify and streamline the Boards and Commissions process. Ms. Cuff began the presentation by informing Council that the City had about twenty-six (26) Boards and Commissions. She noted that included ad hoc, subcommittees, and advisory boards and seven (7) of those were either inactive or had not been dissolved. While twenty-six (26) did not sound like a big number, that encompassed one hundred and sixteen (116) Committee Members. All those members went through the same process that Staff was trying to streamline. Appointments and Applications For District-Specific as well as District-At Large Appointments, that Council Member would be the only one receiving the applications for their district. For At-Large Appointments, every Council Member would receive those applications. Also, District-Specific Appointments were for people residing within that Council District. District-At Large Appointments were for people City Council Regular Work Session Minutes March 9,2023 Page 2 of 4 within City limits, but not specifically in that District. All Council Members would also not have the applications for the Mayor, City Manager, and Staff specific appointments as they were not Council's specific appointments. However, Council could still see those for approval on the agenda. Notifications It was noted that applications would now be stamped for meeting qualifications. Staff would now also keep applications on file for six (6) months as opposed to a year. Ms. Cuff explained citizens would be informed they could apply every six (6) months so current applications would be kept on file. For nominations, Council could bring those forward during meetings and they did not have to email Staff. However, Ms. Cuff requested that Council inform applicants of what they were interviewing for and the date that would be set. Upon receiving notification of Council's appointments, Staff would call to congratulate the individual and let them know they would be starting the onboarding process and then schedule that. For non-approved applicants, Staff would send a"thank you" and inform them that their application would be on file for six (6)months. Ms. Cuff then expressed that Boards and Commissions were important but, in order to have those meeting, they needed a quorum. For Committee Members missing more than one meeting and if they were unable to have a quorum, the City Clerk's Office would reach out to them. For those that would not respond, Staff would reach out to the Council Member that appointed them to contact that individual. Then, the Council Member could let Staff know what they would want to do. Updates On a separate note, Ms. Cuff discussed the updates to the applications themselves. She relayed there would be qualifying questions tailored to each board. If an application would not meet qualifications, Staff would still receive those applications. It would simply make the selection process easier. Moreover, Ms. Cuff discussed their future digital experience. Staff would try to have videos or flipbooks explaining the boards. She noted there would be an Onboarding Welcome Packet that would have the Board's overview and also address attendance and quorums.The packet would additionally include frequently asked questions and the contact information of their Board's liaisons. Ms. Cuff displayed images of their old and new application and further detailed each aspect. Board Life Cycle Mr. Lemond then presided over the next section of the presentation. The City had various types of bodies that were either statutory, in the Charter, or in the Code of Ordinances. He noted there were also bodies that Council could create on an ad hoc basis, for a discrete period of time, or for an event. For those bodies, Staff recommended Council engage in a more formal process. For example, Council describing those boards at the Council Meeting and then have a follow-up resolution drafted by the Legal Department. In that way, the City would have better records of what they have and how long they intended for them to exist. When creating those bodies, Staff also requested that Council have a specific mission defined for them. Several boards and commissions had also outlived their purpose or had not met in years. So, Staff wished to cleanup and have some sort of formal termination procedure. He mused they could have instructions for City Council Regular Work Session Minutes March 9,2023 Page 3 of 4 either a date or event and Staff could prepare a report to Council by such date. Then, that body could be formally dissolved. Open Meetings Act Mr. Lemond then discussed over the Open Meetings Act as it applied to Boards and Commissions. City Council and statutorily created bodies had to follow the Open Meetings Act. Smaller groups, such as committees and subcommittees, were not required to follow the Act under the law. However, a rule in their Rules and Procedures states that their committees and subcommittees would follow the act. Other bodies, because they were advisory to Council, were not required to follow it. Nevertheless, it has been a practice in the City for those bodies to follow the Act as well. The following three(3)options were presented to Council regarding Staffs recommended changes to their Rules and Procedures that would affect all bodies following the Open Meetings Act: • Option 1: Clarifies that citizens may"address"Council on any item on the agenda; • Option 2: Citizens may"address" Council on any item on the agenda, but removes "Citizen Communications" as an official agenda item; and • Option 3: Clarifies that citizens may"address" Council on any item on the agenda as well as any item not on the agenda. As the City Attorney, Mr. Lemond recommended Option Three (3) to Council. He also assured that the current practice of the City Clerk's Office, department heads, and City Administration assisting folks through any administrative process would still be in place for all of the options. Prior to sharing their opinions on the options presented, Council first asked questions to further clarify the process of selecting their District-Specific versus District-At Large Appointments. On the topic of notifying citizens that they had been appointed, Council Member Alvarado wished they would also give those individuals the courtesy to know they would be removed. On to discussing the options, Council Member Powell wished to further expand on Option Three (3). If someone wanted to speak on an agenda item and also had general comments, would they have a combined time? Would they combine all communication in to one spot on the agenda?Mr. Lemond replied they would have their three(3)minutes during that item and would then wait until the non-agenda speakers were called. He shared many government bodies in Texas call non-agenda speakers at the end of their meetings. City Manager Jason Reynolds noted, however, that there was an ability to move all communication in to one spot depending on what Council wanted. Council Member Betancourth liked Option Three (3). On the Open Meetings Act adherence for Boards and Commissions, even though it was not required by law, her opinion was to practice it anyways. On the Board Life Cycle,if Staff would recommend retiring some boards, she requested they have another session or discussion for those boards. She wanted to understand their original intent and history. Why have they not met? Therefore, Council would be given the opportunity to decide whether they would retire a board before it was on the agenda for a vote. With that, Mr. Reynolds questioned if Council was okay with Option Three(3). Council unanimously replied yes. b. Receive a presentation regarding Proposed Future Utility/Solid Waste Rates. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes March 9,2023 Page 4 of 4 Public Works and Engineering Director Frank Simoneaux presented the item concerning the solid waste rates and the Sanitation Fund. Mr. Simoneaux stated he would not give the presentation he had planned for that meeting because he would address the incorrect information presented to Council late last year. Despite the fact there was incorrect information, there were no issues or inconsistencies with the bid and award of the contract. Council awarded that contract with Best Trash for$24.10 per household. Mr. Simoneaux verbalized that had been the right decision. The mistake Mr. Simoneaux addressed was the statement that the new Best Trash rate was lower than the existing Waste Management rate.Waste Management's previous rate was$22.46, and the new rate with Best Trash was $24.10. Nonetheless, Waste Management's new proposals were all over $30. The presentation Mr. Simoneaux planned to give to Council was in regards to utilizing some of the savings within the Sanitation Fund. However, that not an option. Mr. Simoneaux presented the following information to further clarify the previous confusion on the contract and rates. COUSTOMER BILL COMPONENTS COUSTOMER BILL COMPONENTS BEFORE DEC 2022 AFTER DEC 2022 $2.29 n$2.29 $5.250 $3.610 $22.46 $24.10 •Contract •Brush&Green Center 4 Sales Tax •Contract •Brush&Green Center ■Sales Tax Mr. Simoneaux explained the customer's total bill was $30 per month: the contract and the Brush and Green Center values. The quantities listed under the Brush and Green Center went to the Sanitation Fund. The $2.29 was sales tax and that went straight to the State of Texas. The City does get 2%back,but that went to the General Fund.Mr. Simoneaux closed his presentation stating the bottom-line was that the Sanitation Fund would not see the savings he expected to see. After seeking clarification on the information presented,Council Member Graham questioned how the City was offsetting that deficit with less money going towards the Green Center. Mr. Simoneaux replied, at that time,the Fund was stable. Staff viewed it every year during the budget cycle regarding what they expected in revenues and expenses.As they were not discussing FY2024 yet,Mr. Simoneaux assured there was enough money in the Fund to carry them over.City Manager Jason Reynolds added that the Fund was at $380,000 which was enough to purchase two (2) vehicles if needed. With that, Council expressed their appreciation for the clarifications given. 2. ADJOURN With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor Capetillo adjourned the March 9, 2023, City Council Regular Work Session at 6:12 P.M. Ca- A C. Angela Jac on, City Clerk 3 s G City of Baytown „ w- }d� p��e.,L w( 4 v l