2023 05 25 WS Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
May 25, 2023
The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in a Regular Work Session on Thursday,
May 25, 2023, at 5:06 P.M. in the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall at 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 Tem
Mike Lester Council Member
Brandon Capetillo Mayor
Jason Reynolds City Manager
Angela Jackson City Clerk
Kristin Holmes Assistant City Attorney
John Stringer Sergeant at Arms
Mayor Capetillo convened the May 25, 2023, City Council Regular Work Session with a quorum
present at 5:06 P.M.All members were present with the exception of Council Member Betancourth
who later arrived at 5:10 P.M.
1. DISCUSSIONS
a. Receive apresentation to review and discuss the Boards and Commissions process
improvements plan and clarify the creation and dissolving of a Board or Commission.
Assistant City Attorney Kristin Holmes introduced the item as a follow-up to Council's Work
Session held on March 9,2023,regarding boards and commissions. Staffs intention was to address
some of the concerns that remained after their March 9th Work Session, such as:
• Application of the Open Meetings Act; • The Composition of the Municipal De-
• Appointment Types; velopment District (MDD).
• Creation and Dissolution; and
Application of the Open Meetings Act
Ms. Holmes first explained the Open Meetings Act governed how the City of Baytown conducted
their meetings. In addition, the City had their Rules of Procedure which read as follows:
Section 4.5— "Notice of Meetings: The agenda for all meetings, including Council Committee or Sub-
committee meetings, shall be posted by the City Clerk on the City's official bulletin board and on the
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
May 25,2023
Page 2 of 10
City's website, and notice of all meetings shall be given by the City Clerk pursuant to the requirements
of the Texas Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, as amended. "
Ms. Holmes generally addressed the ordinances that the City adopted regarding boards and com-
missions. She relayed every one of those ordinances required that the Open Meetings Act be ap-
plied to boards and commissions which had generally been the practice in the City of Baytown.
With that said, Ms. Holmes proceeded to discuss the different board classifications.
• Standard Boards/Commissions—A board of appointees authorized by ordinance or stat-
ute to perform a particular function for a period until the purpose is served.
• Advisory Boards—A board of appointees(typically long term)that has no power to make
decisions. The advisory role is generally approached by identifying, investigating, and dis-
cussing certain issues and proposing solutions and/or recommendations.
• Ad Hoc Boards — A board responsible for studying and researching a specific issue and
then reporting its findings and recommendations to Council. Generally understood to be
temporary in nature and once the task is completed, the committee disbands.
A chart was provided to Council that listed the City of Baytown's active boards and commissions
with their classification. Ms. Holmes relayed that there were fines and penalties when the Act was
misapplied. In those situations, for boards that were mainly composed of citizen volunteers, Staff
thought to ease the burden of liability for the misapplication of the Act. Thus, Staff brought the
following recommendations for Council regarding their future board classifications:
• Standard Boards—(Statutory and Discretionary) Will follow Open Meetings Act;
• Advisory Boards—Will not follow Open Meetings Act; and
• Ad Hoc Boards—Will or will not follow Open Meetings Act.
Ms. Holmes elaborated that advisory boards were truly advisory in nature with citizen volunteers.
She assured that they would still allow for a transparent government. For an open meeting, the
public would be able to comment and attend those meetings which would be posted on the City's
website. They would only veer away from the Open Meetings Act's strict application. Ms. Holmes
additionally noted that the City Attorney's Office did not have the manpower to attend every single
meeting held within the City. Therefore, as advisory boards did not make any decisions, Staff
recommended that they move away from the Open Meetings Act for those meetings.
For ad hoc committees, Ms. Holmes informed Council that there was nothing in the State law that
required them to follow the Open Meetings Act. However, as it currently stood, the City's Rules
of Procedure did require all committees to follow the Act. Ms. Holmes relayed the decision would
be left open to Council on whether or not they wanted to continue to apply the Act. Regardless of
the decision, the ad hoc meetings would still be open to the public and open for public comments.
Mayor Capetillo understood that ad hoc committees were usually when Council was assigned a
specific task and were temporary in nature. Thus, he suggested they not be subject to the Open
Meetings Act.As it was defined that ad hoc committees had a temporary purpose,Council Member
Betancourth asked why the Finance and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Committees were under
that because their purpose never ended. Ms. Holmes responded that their task was ongoing and
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
May 25,2023
Page 3 of 10
further clarified, by ad hoc, they were talking about an offset of Council. Council and Staff pro-
ceeded to discuss matters concerning the two (2) committees. City Manager Jason Reynolds ulti-
mately stated that the matter would be brought back so Council could better define how they want
to label those things. If they wished to make those in to sustaining advisory boards, they could.
Council Member Lester shared that he agreed with posting the meetings and with the concept of
relieving advisory boards of the Open Meetings Act requirement because those were volunteering
citizens. If they were to hold those citizens to that standard and they made a mistake, there would
be penalties. Also, Staff would not always be available to keep them on track. He fully agreed,
however,that any statutory or decision-making committee needed to follow and adhere to the Act.
Before moving on to the next topic discussion, Ms. Holmes relayed Staff recommended an ad hoc
committee be created to review board classifications and to make recommendations to Council.
Appointment Types
Open Government Supervisor Gabriella Cuff provided Council with the description of the City's
previous appointment types. The descriptions were presented as follows:
• District Specific—The Council Member for that District will only select a qualifying res-
ident from their District.
• District At-Large—The Council Member for that District can select any qualifying citizen
within the City limits of Baytown.
• At-Large—Any Council Member can nominate a qualifying citizen within the City limits
unless it specifies the resident can reside in an Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction(ETJ).
For the future state of their appointment types, District Specific would be renamed to District
Resident and District At-Large would be renamed to District City Wide. At-Large would remain
the same. Ms. Cuff also shared a segment of the City's Rules of Procedure which read as follows:
Section 8.3(b)— `Appointments: The City Council will make an effort to be inclusive of all segments
of the community in the board and commission appointment process. City Council members will con-
sider ethnicity, gender, socio-economic levels, and other factors to ensure a diverse representation of
Baytown citizens. "
A chart was provided to Council that listed all of the City's active boards and commissions with
the addition of their appointment types. It was noted that only the Community Development Ad-
visory Committee(CDAC)had the appointment type of District Resident, as it was statutory. The
rest had either District City Wide or At-Large appointments. Furthermore, Ms. Cuff exhibited the
following chart noting that there were about thirty-nine (39) active and inactive boards.
Inactive Ad Hoc
25%
Active
52%
Inactive Advisory
23%
•Active •Inactive Advisory Inactive Ad Hoc
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
May 25,2023
Page 4 of 10
Creation and Dissolution
For the future state of the creation and dissolution process,Ms. Cuff provided the current Rules of
Procedure regarding the creation of committees, boards, and commissions:
Section 8.1 - "The Council may, as the need arises, authorize the appointment of the 'ad hoc'Council
committees. Any committee so created shall cease to exist upon the accomplishment of the special pur-
pose for which it was created or when abolished by a majority vote of the Council."
Section 8.2 - "The Council may create other committees, boards and commissions to assist in the
conduct of the operation of the City government with such duties as the Council may specify not incon-
sistent with the City Charter, Code or state law. "
Ms. Cuff noted, however, there was no true mention on how boards were made. Therefore, Staff
requested that there be defined requirements when creating a new board, such as:
• All boards, committees, and ad hocs be • They define the mission; and
created in an open session; • Create Ordinance/Resolution.
With these requirements, Staff would know the intention of the board and if it met its purpose. Ms.
Cuff mentioned that there were boards from the 1950s that had not been dissolved. So, Staff wanted
to make sure they had a clear definition to see if their mission had been met before they dissolved
those. Staff would provide a list to Council and Ms. Cuff estimated there were about twenty(20)
boards that were inactive.Those boards had no resolution nor reference to point out if their mission
was met.Thus, Staff requested Council to create an ad hoc committee on the dissolution of inactive
boards. Ms. Cuff offered it could be the same committee as the one Ms. Holmes recommended.
Mayor Capetillo advised that Council create a three (3) Council Member ad hoc committee to
review the City's active and inactive boards. The committee would understand the boards' pur-
pose, define the mission of those that they wished to keep active, and present that back to Council.
Mayor Capetillo requested Council to consider the creation of that ad hoc and he would later reach
out to try to appoint those three (3) Council Members.
The Municipal Development District(MDD)
At Council's April meeting, a topic was brought up about revisiting the composition of the MDD
Board. City Clerk Angela Jackson provided Council with the following points for them to consider
before they made their decision on how to move forward with the MDD:
• Purpose-Generating economic development and growth opportunities within the bound-
aries of the district by using tax dollars.
• Requirements by Statue-Texas Local Government Code 377.051. Composition and Ap-
pointment of Board:
- "A district is governed by a board of at least four directors. "
- "To qualify to serve as a director, a person must reside in the municipality that created the
district or in that municipality's extraterritorial jurisdiction.An employee, officer, or mem-
ber of the governing body of the municipality may serve as a director."
• History of Number of Members-Created with 11 and changed to 13 in 2022.
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
May 25,2023
Page 5 of 10
Ms. Jackson questioned Council on the MDD's future number of Council Members and citizens.
It would be a decision they would have to make. Ms. Jackson advised Council to make sure their
choice would have meaningful participation and that the number would be easy to get to a quorum.
On May 31 st, Council would consider the appointments of the following MDD Directors:
• Mr. David P. Jirrels; • Council Member Graham;
• Mr. Gary Englert; • Council Member Griffith; and
• Council Member Alvarado; • A Vacancy(to be considered).
With that said, Ms. Jackson reiterated that the next steps for Council would be as follows:
• Consider creating an ad hoc committee with the purpose of making recommendations on
the board reclassification and on the dissolution of inactive boards;
• Consider a resolution to adopt new boards and commissions policies and procedures; and
• Reach a consensus on the number of board members on the MDD and consider reappoint-
ments and vacancy.
Mayor Capetillo opinion had not changed on his suggestion for a three (3) Council Member ad
hoc committee. With regards to the MDD and its composition,he believed that would be important
for the ad hoc committee to be tasked with. He further reiterated the duties he suggested the ad hoc
would be assigned, such as looking at inactive and active boards and their classifications.
Council Member Betancourth disagreed with the Mayor's suggestion. As it was a Work Session,
she had hoped the goal was to talk out all the mentioned issues. She suggested they could work it
out in the next hour as she would hate to continue to delay the decision on the MDD. Also, she
looked forward to that discussion and not a discussion where the three (3) Council Members al-
ready made the decision for them. Mayor Capetillo did not mind further discussing the MDD and
relayed his suggestion was for the entirety of all boards and commissions.
If they were to appoint others instead of Council Members on the MDD, Council Member Lester
suggested they consider a position for: a banker,a commercial real estate person,a business owner,
and one(1)or two(2)average citizens. In that way,they could get qualified expertise on the Board.
On the composition, he agreed that a thirteen (13) member board was starting to get large and
unmanageable. Mayor Capetillo, while voicing his uncertainty about proceeding to discuss MDD
matters and rushing decisions, supported having an array of business and cultural backgrounds.
However, he requested Council determine the size of the Board before they determine the roles.
Council Member Alvarado responded to Council Member Lester's suggestion cautioning that they
may pigeonhole themselves. How many bankers and realtors did Baytown have that would serve?
In one of their committees, they were looking for an architect and that seat has been vacant for a
long time. Nevertheless, she like the idea as it would fit the purpose and mission of the MDD.
Council Member Betancourth's opinion was that the MDD was too large and that Council did not
need to serve on that Board. She believed that it should be a full citizen committee. All budgetary
decisions that the MDD made went to Council anyways.Thus, Council being on the Board seemed
redundant to her. Council Member Betancourth expressed it would benefit Council to have more
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
May 25,2023
Page 6 of 10
citizen input on the MDD. She supported making that a full-citizen committee and reducing its
size to five (5) or seven (7). In referencing the purpose of the MDD, it specified generating eco-
nomic development. Therefore, she did not mind having some professional requirements and also
that being part of the ad hoc committee's discussion to flush that out.
Council Member Powell agreed that the MDD needed more citizen participation; however, not
every decision the MDD made went back to Council. Recently, the MDD approved the increase
on the Hotel and Convention Center which had not come back to Council. With a decision of that
magnitude,Council Member Powell questioned if that was something to put on appointed individ-
uals that had limited accountability to citizens. All of the Council Members were accountable to
the citizens that elected them, and he did not think that appointed individuals had that same level
of accountability. Council Member Betancourth acknowledged his point and questioned if they
could change their policy to where MDD decisions had to go to Council.
City Manager Jason Reynolds explained that the MDD was its own governing body. As such,they
made decisions that they want to make with their own money. The decisions would not have to
come back to Council even though some decisions currently did. Council Member Lester noted it
came to Council when they were doing joint projects. If the MDD did not want to do a funding
mechanism with the City, Council would have no control. Council Member Powell noted that the
MDD was its own governing body as their other special districts. However, they mainly bought
equipment that, for the most part, Council would be in agreement on. With the MDD, Council
Member Powell noted that was a different level of projects and decisions. Mayor Capetillo agreed.
Returning to the composition of the MDD, Council Member Graham questioned Council why
thirteen(13)was unmanageable. She was not on board with changing that as she had been on large
committees before. She shared that she was on a committee that had fifty(50)members which she
considered to be unmanageable. Also, thirteen (13) members meant more input and points of
views. Council Member Betancourth stated she was comfortable with that number because she
had wanted an equal number of citizens to elected body. If Council were to not serve on the Board,
then she did not think it was necessary to have that many people. She did not think it added value
to their decision-making process to have more people as she believed in quality over quantity.
Furthermore, Council Member Betancourth stated that if Council Member Powell's point ended
up being accurate on not being able to make a policy decision where all MDD decisions went
before Council, then she would reverse her opinion. Mayor Capetillo concurred with everything
Council Member Betancourth said other than on the size of the MDD. Instead,he suggested having
four(4) Council Members: the Mayor and three (3) Council Members. He offered that they could
rotate every two (2) or three (3) years and then have five (5) citizens serve. Thus, the citizens
would actually have a majority. Council Member Graham was uncomfortable with the suggestion
as it would give too much power to certain elected officials unless the policy changed.
The Council Members proceeded to deliberate if they wished to have all, a selected amount, or no
Council Members on the MDD. Council Member Betancourth reiterated that if Council Member
Powell's point was correct, then Council needed to be on that board. If they could make a policy
decision where the MDD did not make any decision without Council's oversight, then she would
be okay with them not being on it. On that note, Mr. Reynolds affirmed it was statutory that the
MDD was its own governing body and had the full power to do whatever they want as a board.
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
May 25,2023
Page 7 of 10
Mayor Capetillo summarized that Council ultimately wanted citizen input and some of that input
to be credentialed by profession or experience. Council also wanted general citizen input as well.
With seven (7) Council Members and six (6) citizens, if all the citizens were dissenting, Council
would still control the MDD. For that reason, Council wanted more of a citizen majority represen-
tation but not to where that was the only thing. Mayor Capetillo relayed there must be checks and
balances between the MDD and Council. He reiterated his recommendation of four (4) Council
Members and five(5) citizens. He offered that they could do more, but that there be a balance.
Council Member Alvarado wished to entertain the discussion of whether the MDD Members
should have term limits. With that, there would be more input from citizens. If they decided to
have term limits, she did not want to go lower than four(4)years. Mayor Capetillo supported term
limits if Council so wished. Council Member Griffith liked the Mayor's suggestion of the four(4)
Council Members and five(5)citizens. However,he recommended that if Council were to step off
the Board, Council should appoint their person instead of it being At-Large. Council Member
Graham hoped that Council would not step off the Board. She reiterated her concerns about power
imbalances on the MDD as they handled so much money. As the Board was very important, she
stressed that there needed to be equal representation from elected officials and their districts.
Council Member Lester shared that he originally wanted to see the MDD reduced. After their
discussions, he liked the idea of keeping it at thirteen (13). However, of the six (6) citizens, he
wished to see a requirement for a banker, a real estate person, a business owner, and three (3)
citizens At-Large. He explained that would balance the citizen group, Council, and the Mayor
would act as a tiebreaker. As it was a statutorily independent committee, he made the point that
Council was aware of more information than any other member of the board. With a board of
strictly citizens, they would not have that information. Therefore, Council Member Lester recom-
mended they kept the MDD's size and try to ensure that there was expertise on the Board.
Mayor Capetillo relayed the consensus was that the MDD remain at thirteen(13). The only differ-
ence would be that Council wanted to look at the six (6) citizens to have some role requirements,
such as profession or experience. Council Member Graham supported that. As that currently did
not exist,Mayor Capetillo relayed they must define those roles,how they should handle the current
members, and also consider term limits. Council Member Betancourth supported term limits for
all committees. Ms. Jackson noted their Rules of Procedure did indicate that Council should take
a look at a member after three(3)consecutive terms. Council Member Betancourth wished to have
an agenda item in the future to vote on whether they should enact term limits for committees.
For the MDD, Mayor Capetillo stated their term limits will be subject to the ad hoc committee. It
could continue in its capacity until Council took action on the MDD and whatever else the ad hoc
would recommend. Prior to moving forward to the next item, Council Member Betancourth noted
that committee members served at the pleasure of Council. Council did not have to wait on their
term to expire to replace them. Mayor Capetillo added that,on District Resident appointment,they
could individually make that recommendation. But, it would still go to Council for confirmation.
Council further discussed matters concerning the ad hoc committee. Ms. Jackson requested the
discussion be brought back on the June 8th Council Meeting to appoint the ad hoc. Mayor Capetillo
agreed and requested the matter be done in ninety (90) days or less. He requested that Council
provide input on the June 8`h meeting on the roles they want to see for the six(6) citizen members.
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
May 25,2023
Page 8 of 10
b. Receive and discuss a presentation regarding the Request for Proposals for Tow
Truck Services to clarify context purpose and scope.
Police Chief John Stringer provided a presentation regarding the Request for Proposals (RFP) for
Tow Truck Services. The purpose of the RFP was to ensure the City of Baytown had clear road-
ways and protection for citizens. Chief Stringer proceeded to present the following topic points:
Intention and Goal
• Establish a Request for Proposals for Contracted Tow Services
• Consensus on Key Elements of an RFP
Safe and Clear Roadways—Current State
• Tow Truck Must Arrive Within 30 Minutes of Dispatch
• Response Time Average to Date (2023): 21 minutes
• Tows for Calendar Year 2022: 3,321
• Tows to Date(2023): 1,275
Safe and Clear Roadways—Future State
• Response Time Requirement (unchanged)
- 30 Minutes from Time of Dispatch
- 24/7 Service
- 365 Days
• Debris Removal
- State Law Directs Tow Service Provider to Remove Debris from Roadways at Col-
lision Scenes
- Removal of Junk/Abandoned Vehicles from Right of Way
- Verified by Police Officer Prior to Leaving Scenes
• Trucks Available
- 4 Trucks Minimum
- Potential to Impact Response Times
Council Member Alvarado questioned if a police officer would always be there as long as the tow
truck was there. Chief Stringer answered there may be circumstances of collisions where police
officers would not be called. Citizens might only call their tow truck service. Typically, officers
remained on scene until the tow truck moved the vehicle off the road for safety and traffic control.
Council Member Lester wondered,on the four(4)trucks minimum,if that had been an issue. Chief
Stringer replied no, but there had been a couple of delayed response times. In anticipating the
growth of the general area,Chief Stinger acknowledged that could be a problem so they addressed
that before it became a problem. Council Member Griffith questioned how many times a truck
could be late before their contract became null and void. Chief Stinger responded that the term of
the contract stated they were supposed to arrive within thirty(30) minutes. Any disputes or com-
plaints were determined by the Chief of Police. However, they could null and void a contract for
late tow trucks if the terms of the contract allowed so. Mayor Capetillo concurred with what was
presented. However, he shared that he held reservations on having one (1) sole provider. He sug-
gested that they at least have two (2)providers: a primary and a reserve.
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
May 25,2023
Page 9 of 10
Citizen Protection—Current State
• Current Tow Fee Schedule
- Standard Tow: $150.00
- Maximum Tow (Plus One Transfer): $215.00
• Storage Fee Schedule
- $25.00 Daily for Vehicle Under 25 Feet
- $35.00 Daily for Vehicle Over 25 Feet
• Complaint Process
- Regarding Billing Only
- Forward to Chief of Police
- Chief of Police has Final Authority
Citizen Protection—Future State
• Eliminate City fee
- Current Monthly Referral/Commission to the City: $4.50/Tow
- Eliminating Fee Does Not Adversely Impact the Baytown Police Department
- Ensures Objectivity
• New Complaint Process
- Tow Service Provides Complaint Process at Time of Tow in Writing
- All Billing Complaints Provided Within 24 Hours (even if resolved)
- Complaints of Any Nature Reported by Provider Within 24 Hours (even if re-
solved)
• Customer Convenience
- Storage Facility: City Limits
- Office: Proposed to be located within City Limits
- Time to Release Vehicle: Within 45 Minutes of Request
- Must Accept Cash, Credit/Debit, or Money Order
Council Member Graham asked if the Chief of Police's Office had always been where all com-
plaints went. Chief Stringer replied only billing complaints. Council Member Graham expressed
that she liked the Chief's idea of having all complaints and that it would be the City's standard.
On a separate note, Council Member Lester inquired over the time to release a vehicle. Chief
Stringer relayed that time could be based on Council's input which could be added to the RFP.
Administration—Current State
• One Tow Service
• Initial Contract 2 Years
• Renewal Option of 2 Years
• Complaints Only Regarding Billing
• City Collects Referrals/Commission Fees
Administration—Future State
• Benefits with one provider
- Creates Agreed Upon Criteria and Standards
- Protects Citizens' Rights
- Manageable Oversight
City Council Regular Work Session Minutes
May 25,2023
Page 10 of 10
• Concerns with more than one provider
- Negates Impact of Having Contract
- Safety Impact from Delay in Clearing Roads
- Impact on 911 Center Making Multiple Calls for Service
- Creates Administrative Inefficiencies
- Time Delays
• Terms
- Two Year Initial Contract
- One Year Renewal Option (Subject to Council Approval)
Next Steps
• Mid June-Release RFP for towing services
Council Member Alvarado understood the concerns of having more than one (1) provider. How-
ever,she questioned if having two(2)providers would create the same issues that were mentioned.
Chief Stringer predicted they may be able to manage two (2) providers and relayed that he was
open to that, especially if Council wanted to revisit how many tow trucks they would require.
Council Member Betancourth wondered what it would mean to be a "backup" provider because
she did not support a rotating schedule. In what situation would they need a backup? Mayor Ca-
petillo replied there could be multiple accidents and, if they only had a primary, their response
time would be the only response time. The backup would be called upon as needed and it would
not be a rotation. Council Member Betancourth requested that to be put in writing if that was
something they ended up doing. Chief Stringer assured they would have very clear standards set
for the secondary provider. Council Member Griffith gave additional suggestions, such as having
the employees submit to a drug test, to oversee the quality of the tow truck providers' services.
Chief Stringer did note that all tow truck drivers needed to be properly licensed.
In consideration of the time, Mayor Capetillo advised the Council Members to forward any addi-
tional input they may have to the City Manager and the Police Chief.
2. ADJOURN
With there being no further business to discuss,Mayor Capetillo adjourned the May 25,2023, City
Council Regular Work Session at 6:28 P.M.
.1� 0.& �M= - .�� a
Angela Ja't son •T QIe I ' 'i
City of Baytown M ; A. '.
0,3
,•;),
OF