Loading...
2012 06 07 CC Minutes, SpecialMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN June 07, 2012 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas met in a Special Meeting on Thursday, June 07, 2012, at 5:00 P.M., in the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall, 2401 Market Street, Baytown, Texas with the following in attendance: Brandon Capetillo Council Member Robert Hoskins Council Member David McCartney Council Member Scott Sheley Council Member Terry Sain Council Member Stephen DonCarlos Mayor Robert D. Leiper City Manager Leticia Brysch City Clerk Keith Dougherty Sergeant at Arms Mayor DonCarlos convened the June 07, 2012, City Council Special Meeting with a quorum present at 5:46 P.M., all members were present with the exception of Council Member Mercedes Renteria III who was absent. 1. DISCUSSIONS a. Discuss Possible Charter Amendments — Administration. City Manager Leiper presented the item and stated that this item is a continuation of the discussion that started at last week's Work Session regarding the Charter Review Committee's Final Report. Council agreed to discuss each of the 21 recommendations listed in the Charter Review Final Report in the order listed in the report. 1. Recommendation A — Section 9 — Relates to the type of annexation which is an action by City Council as oppose to a self initiated citizens request - Extending city limits by action of the city council: Mayor DonCarlos stated that he was a little concerned of requiring "good faith efforts" as it relates to annexations notifications to the public and how this would impact citizens, as it could be open to interpretation. As a point of clarification, City Manager Leiper stated that the notification requirements for annexations are listed in state law. Mayor DonCarlos stated that if the notification is stated in state law, then the charter should simply state that the city would follow state law at a minimum. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 2 of 15 Mayor DonCarlos stated that he agrees with limiting the second reading timeline from 30 to 14 days to help with IDA processes, which tend to take place at the end of the calendar years. 2) Recommendation B — Section 12 — Term limits for the mayor and council members: • Two terms of three years each • Effective after the next election • Current members grandfathered • That a Council member and a Mayor could serve again after a term interval Council Member McCartney stated that he was not in support of setting term limits for members of council, particularly since there have not been many instances where a council member has served more than three consecutive years. Council Member Sheley stated that he supported the idea of term limits and believed that it allows new and fresh ideas to come to the table; however, he did not believe that it was necessary to have to wait out two terms before running for office again. City Manager Leiper clarified that the break in term was for one term and not two. Council Member Sain stated that he was not in agreement with term limits and felt that it was instead up to the voters to decide if someone should be re- elected or not. He stated that as far as he knew, neighboring cities do not have term limits and leave it to the people to decide their leadership. Mayor DonCarlos stated that he would support the change to add term limits, but with a limit of three year terms (9 years) and not two (6 years). He further stated that he was not committed either way. Council Member Capetillo stated that he supported doing the 12 years (4 terms) total limit of service and thought it was worth considering further. Council Member Hoskins stated that he firmly believes that term limits are set when voters go to the polls and should remain so. Mayor DonCarlos stated that the Council is split on this item. City Manager Leiper stated that at the June 14t` meeting the Council would take a formal vote on this item. Mayor DonCarlos stated that he did not have any issue in taking all of these items to the public for a formal vote. City Manager Leiper stated that the reason the ballot items were limited at the last election was because the items were very complicated and the decision was made not to overwhelm the voters. The items for this election are not very complicated and are mostly cleanup. City Manager Leiper further stated that the staff is in support of taking all the items to the voters in the upcoming November 2012 election. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 3 of 15 Council Member Capetillo asked whether or not there could be a blanket item to change a lot of the items that require cleanup and make it in line with state law. Mr. Mike Beard stated that the idea of blanket items was thoroughly discussed during the Charter Committee meetings, and that the Committee was informed by the city attorneys that blanket items could not be considered, particularly if they were one subject that went across various sections throughout the Charter. City Manager Leiper stated that the report consolidated as many items as possible into one recommendation and could not consolidate any more. 3) Recommendation C — Section 14 - Compensation for mayor and council members: • Mayor: $1,000 per month • Council: $ 500 per month Mayor DonCarlos stated that none of the members sitting on Council now ran for office to get paid for it. He further stated that he felt that this item could be something to consider for future council members, and it leaves the impression that this is a Council led item. However, this is an item that is mentioned at every Charter review and should be something that the voters should decide for the Council. Council Member Hoskins stated that he agreed that the voters should be allowed to vote on the item and could maybe place an effective date for the compensation to take place well after the current members are off of Council, such as 2018 or farther. Council Member Sheley stated that if a person is active in the role of Council Member the expenses do build up, and feels that certain districts would greatly benefit from this compensation to help lessen the financial burden on people who truly want to run for public office, but cannot afford time away from work. Mr. Mike Beard stated that the Committee worked really hard with the staff and discussed the items at great length in order to reach a consensus. If the data is reviewed from other cities, as well as, the census data from 2010, there are very few cities that do not offer their council members some type of compensation. The Committee felt that there are probably very good candidates that are self employed or have to take vacation time to be able to serve and can not afford to run for office. Further, the Committee felt that the compensation would help offset some of those expenses and serve as an incentive to have people become a part of the process and serve on Council. The Committee did not discuss what the Council would do or approve for placement on the ballot and instead focused on reviewing the Charter to give recommendations based on the best compiled data. He stated that the goal was to give Council the most updated and comprehensive information without the political or voter moods factored in. Council Member Capetillo stated that it was important to consider other people's livelihoods and situations and not just focus on themselves. He further stated that the recommended dollar amounts seem fair and the voters should be allowed to decide on this item. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 4 of 15 City Manager Leiper stated that staff had two points that required the Council's direction: The first being whether Council's compensation should be set up by public vote only or should their raises be allowed at an administrative level depending on the yearly budget. The second item is whether to set up a provision in the Charter that would allow for the possibility for a Council Member not wanting to be compensated if they don't want to. Mayor DonCarlos stated that he was not in favor of allowing Council Members to forgo their compensation because it causes pressure on others to do the same and would be unfair. Mayor DonCarlos stated that Council was either going to be compensated as a whole or not and was not in favor of allowing certain members to forgo compensation. Council Member Sheley stated that Council needs to be in consensus on what is being placed on the ballot and should not lobby in favor of some items and not for others. Council Member Capetillo stated that the voter should and will be allowed to review the ballot and make their own decisions regardless of what Council's opinions are on the subjects up for vote. City Manager Leiper stated as a point of clarification regarding compensation that the November election approving compensation is set to take place in November, and the City's budget is approved in September, and unless Council directs the staff to place the monies for Council compensation in the budget, there will be no monies available for this item in the next budget year. Council directed staff to place the monies for Council compensation as a contingency item in the City's FY 2012 -13 budget. 4) Recommendation D — Section 22.1 - Fire department staffing: • Delete this Charter section • Inconsistent with purpose of a Charter • These types of items should be left to the discretion of Council and the City Manager and not specified in the Charter Council Member McCartney stated that this item should be left alone and not included on the ballot for the November 2012 election. Mayor DonCarlos stated that he understood that a specific item such as staffing should not be in the Charter; however, he felt it should stay in the Charter as it was voted in by the majority of the public. He also stated that he felt it was important not to bring forth an item that would bring a negative response from certain groups that could then spill over to the other items and negatively impact the election as a whole. Lastly, the mayor stated that he felt that this item would ultimately not pass, even if it was brought to a public vote. Council Member Sain agreed that it should stay in place as it was an item that was brought forth in the form of a vote and that should be respected. He did understand that the staffing levels should be left to the City Manager; however, the four man staffing was voted in and should remain in place. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 5 of 15 Council Member Hoskins stated that he felt that this item should not be in the Charter for the following reasons: 1. The information that is currently stated in the Charter is incorrect. Under NFPA Standards their staffing should be five firefighters per truck and not four; this allows for two in the building, two outside of the building as backup and the driver which stays with the truck, and 2. Appropriate staffing should be left to the administrative staff to decide Council Member Sheley stated that even if you took this section out of the Charter the staffing levels would remain the same. Council Member McCartney stated that while the staffing levels would remain the same if this section is removed from the Charter, nothing precludes those levels to change through majority vote from Council and thus the eliminating the four man staffing on a fire truck. City Manager Leiper stated that if you remove it from the charter, the fire staffing would become a yearly budget decision just like it is in every other city. He further stated that he has no intention of changing the fire staffing numbers, but can't say that they wouldn't be changed by another city manager or if there is another severe economic downturn. Council Member Hoskins stated that the municipal budget and staffing levels would ultimately have to be approved by the Council and felt that this item should be taken back to the voters for them to decide on whether it stays in the Charter of not. Council Members Sain, McCartney and Capetillo reiterated that in their opinion this item should not be included on the ballot for the upcoming election. City Manager Leiper stated that he is keeping a list of items that he is intending to vote for as a group and individual ones that will require a separate vote. He further stated that he grouped items A and B as one resolution for a vote and items C and D as a separate item for another vote. Council Member Sain stated that the fire staffing item was the only item that was not unanimously voted on. Mr. Mike Beard stated that that the Committee unanimously felt that this item did not belong in the Charter; however, for many of the reasons stated by the Council, such as possible negative impacts on other amendments, the vote to place this item on the ballot at this time was not unanimous. 5) Recommendation E — Section 31 - Independent audit: • Reduce rigor of mid -year audit • Consistent with outside Auditor's advice and accounting practices and is not required by state law • Make audit process more efficient • Complies with state law City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 6 of 15 City Manager Leiper stated that this change would be more in line with what our current practices are, which consists of one full audit and a six month agreed upon procedures, which is a smaller targeted audit. He further stated that it would be impossible to conduct two full blown audits every year, as we cannot work on preparing a budget and auditing a budget at the same time. After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. 6) Recommendation F — Section 47 - Effective date of budget: certification: copies made available: • Improve efficiency of budget process • Recognize that part of Baytown is in Chambers County • Make other state law compliance changes After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. 7) Recommendation G — 52- Budget, - 53 - Anticipated revenues compared with other years, - 54 - Proposed expenditures: comparison with other years: • Combine into one Section to make it more clean and understandable • Improve the efficiency of budget process • Maintain financial communication to everyone • Comply with state law After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. 8) Recommendation H — Section 55 - Contingent appropriations: • Increase flexibility for expenditures from "contingency funds" • Remove requirement that they be only for "emergencies" • Improve accounting efficiency for such expenditures After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. 9) Recommendation I — Section 57 - Power to incur indebtedness by issuing bonds and notes: Clarify city taking advantage of available and appropriate borrowing instruments — Certificates of Obligations (CO) — Revenue Bonds — Unknown new and legal methods After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 7 of 15 10) Recommendation J — Section 59 — Form and content of bond ordinance, Section 60 — Title of bond ordinance: citation, Section 61 — Form and content when two or more projects are combined, and Section 63 — Public sale: • Out of compliance with state law and should be deleted After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. 11) Recommendation K - Transfer of appropriations: • Clarify transfer of unencumbered balances between departments • Remove the requirement they be made within the last three months of the budget year City Manager Leiper stated that this is another item that is cleaning up the Charter language in order to have it in line with our current practices. He further stated that every year this issue is noted in our financial audits because we transfer monies in the 13 month when we know what line items need the monies and not in the last three months of the year as identified in the Charter. After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. 12) Recommendation L — Section 78 — Borrowing in anticipation of property taxes, Section 79 — Borrowing in anticipation of other revenues, and Section 80 — Sale of notes, report of sale: • These Sections are inconsistent with state law and should be modified accordingly • Follows recommendation of tax advisors After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. 13) Recommendation M — Section 82 - Property subject to tax; method of assessment: • Portions are inconstant with state law • Clarify that maximum tax rate of six - tenths (0.6) of one percent applies to M & O only. • Delete references to the city being responsible for property assessment City Manager Leiper stated that this was an item that he wanted to clarify. This section was also a Charter amendment that was brought forth during the Proposition 13 era that capped the tax rate at .6 %. The intent of the amendment was to cap the M &O (maintenance and operations) rate only. This change would clarify that this cap is for M &O, and leaves the cap put in place by the voters many years ago. After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 8 of 15 14) Recommendation N — Section 67(6) - powers and duties (assessment), Section 83 - Appointment; qualifications, Section 84 - Public hearings; notice to owner, Section 85 - Powers and duties, and Section 86 - Records; approval of rolls: • These stipulate that the City makes property assessments for tax purposes • They need to be modified or deleted • State law sets up HCAD and CCAD to do this After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. 15) Recommendation O — Section 97 - Power of initiative: • Clarify the definition of an initiative • Authorize Council to determine if a public overture is an initiative or a referendum • Disallow initiatives on some additional types of ordinances, such as granting franchises, fixing of utility rates and zoning • Increase the required number of signatures to 51% of voters at the previous contested mayoral election or minimum of 700 Council Member McCartney stated that he felt that increasing the total amount of signatures required to be 51% of the voters in the last previously contested mayoral election or minimum of 700 signatures was too high. He also stated that this seems excessive since we are moving the elections to November; the voter turnout is typically higher, which would increase the number of signatures tremendously. He further stated that the number should be a more reasonable amount and not make it so cumbersome that the public cannot bring items forward. City Manager Leiper stated in response to a question from Mayor DonCarlos regarding the current signature requirement in the Charter that the required signatures for an initiative and referendum petition should remain 25% of the last votes casted in a contested mayoral election. Mayor DonCarlos stated what if Council simply picked a number of minimum signatures and cut the percentages, such as 750 or 1,000. Council Member McCartney also stated that by adding the requirement in the Charter that the signatures be personally witnessed by the person circulating the petitions is going to make it even more difficult to get signatures because people can't just leave them on bars or in businesses like it was before. City Clerk Leticia Brysch clarified this statement by stating that the requirement to have the petition circulator witness the signature has always been in place in the Charter; however, it is not very clear, hence the propose change would ensure that anyone reading the Charter can fully understand what their responsibilities are as it relates to the circulation of a petition and its related affidavit. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 9 of 15 Council Member Capetillo stated that 1,000 seemed attainable for initiative and referendum petitions. He also asked whether the petition signature could be done by a video or camera system; staff responded that the affidavit language will state that the "personall' witnesses" the signatures to ensure that the circulators understand that they must witness the signature in person. Council Member McCartney asked what was the time frame for submitting a petition. City Clerk Brysch stated that the timelines for submitting a petition was dictated by stated law and while they law does not state the exact time frames for the entire petition, it does state that a signature becomes invalid after so many days prior to the date the petition is filed. City Manager Leiper stated that those timelines had nothing to do with the submission deadlines to the city. Council agreed that the petition signatures required for an initiative and referendum petition will not be tied to any percentages of prior elections, but instead will be a blanket 1,000 signatures. 16) Recommendation P — Section 98 - Power of referendum and Section 62 - Referendum on bond ordinances (Delete): • Clarify the definition of a referendum, • Authorize Council to determine if a public overture is an initiative or a referendum • Increase the referendum time limit from 20 to 365 days after the target ordinance was passed • Disallow bond sale and certain other ordinances from a referendum and deleting section 62 • Increase required number signatures to 51 % of voters at previous contested mayoral election or minimum of 700 Council agreed that the petition signatures required for an initiative and referendum petition will not be tied to any percentages of prior elections, but instead will be a blanket 1,000 signatures. City Manager Leiper stated that another key change to this item is the time limit to file a referendum would change from 20 days to 365 days to allow for the public to review the impact of an ordinance. Council Member McCartney felt that 365 was appropriate. Council Member Hoskins felt that one year was doable; however, he felt 45 to 90 days was more appropriate. Mr. Mike Beard stated that there was a lot of discussion about not having time limits on referendums at all; however, there are financial implications to having an open ended time frame and after a lot of discussion the committee agreed with one year. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 10 of 15 City Manager Leiper stated that the issue with having an open ended date when there are contracts involved. Many contracts have funding clauses, which could results in issues further down the road. He also stated that this section was clarified to ensure that certain items could not be subject to a referendum, such as bonds, that are not subject now, but was not clearly identified in the Charter. City Manager Leiper also stated that it is important to realize that if there is an item or ordinance that the public really does not agree on and it is passed that year, the public can go through the Council to make those changes. City Manager Leiper stated that referendums should not be the only way to bring about change, but instead should be done through the Council. If there is an issue with an item, citizens can make that change through the ballot, through the election of their elected officials. City Manager Leiper stated that another key change in this section is that under State Law, elections are held at the next uniform election date; however, under the recommended changes, the Charter would state that the election would take place at the next Baytown regular municipal election. By making this change, we insure that (1) the elections are cost effective and (2) that the city can procure the necessary election equipment to handle the elections. Mr. Mike Beard also stated that the amendments to this section also clarified and allowed the Council to decide what is an initiative and/or referendum, which was an item of contention in the Red Light Camera lawsuit. Council Member Capetillo asked what was the shelf life of one signature and whatever that number is should be the starting point for a referendum petition timeline? City Manager Leiper stated that state law dictates the shelf life of a signature on a petition, and is somewhere between 140 to 180 days, but further stated that once a petition is certified by the city clerk's office, there were no timelines that would invalidate it. Council Member Capetillo asked whether a cancelled general election would invalidate the opportunity for an initiative or referendum petition election. City Manager Leiper clarified that even if the general election were to be cancelled, a special election could take place, as long as it was on the regular municipal election date. After further discussion, the Council agreed that 365 days seemed an appropriate number for a referendum. 17) Recommendation Q — Section 99 - Form of petitions; committee of petitioners • Strengthen the witnessing requirements on petition signatures for initiatives, referendums and recalls to lower the potential of fraudulent signatures • Make other changes to comply with law After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 1 l of 15 18) Recommendation R — Section 104 - Submission of electors and Section 111 - Recall election Require elections for initiative, referendum or recall be held on the next regularly scheduled municipal election date after the Council calls the election. Allowing the required time for DOJ preclearance. City Manager Leiper stated that this recommendation eliminated the special elections outside of the Baytown regular municipal election date; however, he did note that in cases of vacancies on Council, we would follow state law and call a special election to fill a vacancy. After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. 19) Recommendation S — Section 110 - Recall petition • Require each individual circulated petition for recall have attached a list of the reason(s) why the recall is being requested City Manager Leiper stated that the main change for this item was to include the reason(s) for the recall on the petition. This is currently not a requirement. City Clerk Brysch clarified that this was an issue with the last recall where the reasons noted on the affidavit for the recall did not match what the citizens were being told, so this would help eliminate some of those issues. Also, it would make the petition in line with those in an initiative and referendum where the ordinance related to the petition is attached to each form that is being circulated. City Manager Leiper stated that in the last charter election, the signatures for a recall were changed to make the signature requirements 100% of the votes cast in the last election, so this item was not changed. Mr. Mike Beard, in response to a question from Council Member Capetillo, stated that, the Committee did not consider limiting the reasons for a recall due to the question of who would determine if the reasons were valid or not, and could lead to arbitrary decisions and could be seen as unfair and capricious. Council Member Sheley stated that he felt it was very important that this item be strengthened and clarified to ensure accuracy and accountability. The Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot 20) Recommendation T — Section 127 - Personal interest • Clarify that city employees' purchases of water, garbage and sewer services are not prohibited contracts between an employee and the city City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 12 of 15 • Also modifications are made to comply with state law After a brief discussion, the Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. 21) Recommendation U — Section 138 - Amending the Charter • Require regular review of the Charter to respond to changes in state law, technology, culture, etc. • Require Council to appoint a Charter Review Committee at least 18 months prior to each city wide election for mayor • Make administrative efficiency changes to the amendment process • Public Survey gave this a 63% favorable vote Mayor DonCarlos stated that he liked the idea of having fresh group of people to work on the Charter Committee every time the Charter has to be reviewed, but wanted to take a look at it so that the Charter stays fresh. City Manager Leiper stated that the proposed amendment does not require that the Council call a Charter election. The Council can call an election within the designated timelines given to us by state law, which is every two years, but it is required that the Council appoint a Charter Review Committee 18 months prior to the mayoral election for them to see if anything needs to be changed or updated. City Manager Leiper also noted that it was staffs recommendation that the charter amendment review and election be on a three year schedule, in order to be in line with the mayor's election, even though per state law the charter can be amended every two years; this is done in order to reduce election cost and not be pressed for time between reviewing the charter and calling the election. Mr. Mike Beard stated that reviewing the Charter continuously will help clean up the Charter, as well as, respond to any legislative changes. Mr. Mike Beard stated in response to a question from Council Member Capetillo regarding how many items needed to be changed in the charter that, the Committee started with 121 items that needed to be changed and after a lot of deliberation decided on bringing forth the 21 items before them; however, there is still a lot of work to be done on the Charter City Manager Leiper stated that there are a number of items that there are a lot of sections in the Charter that are outdated and need to be removed, such as any reference to the City of Pelly, two year terms, etc. He further stated that charter amendment elections are restricted by state law to every two years, so it will take many years to completely clean up the Charter. The Mayor and Council agreed with this item being on the ballot. City Manager Leiper stated that he had 4 items that needed to come before the Council individually, each for a separate vote, and the remaining items will be grouped for the Council to vote on as one item. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 13 of 15 The individual items are the following: • Item B — Term Limits • Item D — Fire Department Staffing • Item O — Initiatives • Item P — Referendums Council Member McCartney asked why citizens wouldn't be allowed to change the zoning through an initiative /referendum petition. City Manager Leiper stated that staff believed that it would not be appropriate for zoning to be included in the Charter. Council Member McCartney stated that he wanted to know if there was a legal requirement which precluded zoning from being the subject of a referendum or initiative. Council Member Capetillo stated that there is a process in place through the majority vote in Council of six or more in favor to zone an area, and that system seemed to be working well. Mayor DonCarlos stated that he was not in favor of zoning referendums and stated that you could not maintain a zoning system that way. Council Member Capetillo stated that allowing zoning to be subject to a referendum would impact the start dates of contracts, projects and development because there will be no security on the developers side that the zoning is not going to change until after the referendum deadline changes. City Manager Leiper stated that he would check on the state law requirements as it relates to zoning and referendums and what other cities allow zoning to be the subject of a referendum. Council Member Hoskins listed a number of questions from the staff recommendation document listed in Appendix 4 and they are: Q: Page Three, Item Six: should the information include squares? A: We could one day have squares, so we might want to keep it in the language Q: Page 5, Section 8 and 9: states that those annexed to the city must follow all rules, regulations and ordinances? How does this impact a situation such as the one we just had with the last unilateral annexation where we allowed people to not connect to city water and sewer when it was required by the charter? A: It doesn't impact them because Council can pass an ordinance to allow for certain exceptions. Q: Page 5, Section 9: finally acted upon for an annexation to be 14 days from the time of the first publication, is this enough? A: Fourteen is enough because state law limits us to a total number of days that we can work on an annexation, so by limiting the number it allows us to meet that more easily. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 14 of 15 Q: Item E, Section 12: Should we remove the information regarding the staggered three year term? A: Yes, it does need to be changed, but for this round of amendments it did not rise up to the level of criticality, but could be fixed in future charter amendment elections. Q: Item 15: Regarding the election of a Mayor Pro Tem, this is not how we are doing it now? A: We have a rotation every six months, but it is done through an election that is done at Council. The next mayor or pro tem election will be at your June 14`h meeting. Q: Item on Page 8: There is language for "he" shall, when the position is currently being held by a female, can we not fix the gender? A: This item was corrected through a Charter amendment to the last section of the Charter, which is a catch all for the gender issue. To change the gender issue throughout the Charter, we would have to vote on each one individually to fix them and that would be a lot. Q: Page 9, Section 25: Stated that he did not believe that the City Manager should be able to call a special meeting of the Council. A: Council has the right to make that change; however, the City Manager does call special meetings for emergency situations and it can sometimes be difficult and time critical to be able to call special meetings that take place within the span of a few hours. Q: Page 11, Section 39: Related to the powers of the City Attorney, should it include information related to his overseeing the personnel in the legal department. A: This is included in the City Attorney's job description and doesn't necessarily need to be in the Charter. Q: Page 17, Section 74: Regarding the sending out for bid, by eliminating this section would this allow for favoritism. A: This section will not be changed at this time, but if this item was to be taken to the ballot, staff does recommend that the red lined sections be removed, as we now follow the state purchasing guidelines. Q: Page 30, Section 138: Relating to notifications on the city's website, should we clarify that we have a website? A: We left it open ended like that in case technology changes and the website is replace with another technology, we don't want to stay beholden to it because it is in the Charter. City Council Special Meeting June 07, 2012 Page 15 of 15 2. ADJOURN With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor DonCarlos adjourned the June 07, 2017A, City Council Regular Work Session at 7:14 P.M. City of Bt'D"�f o d� 1.