Loading...
2012 05 24 WS MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN May 24, 2012 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas met in a Regular Work Session on Thursday, May 24, 2012, at 4:30 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 Mercedes Renteria Council Member Scott Sheley Council Member Stephen DonCarlos Mayor Robert D. Leiper Ron Bottoms Kevin Troller Ignacio Ramirez Jason Cozza Keith Dougherty City Manager Deputy City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney Deputy City Clerk Sergeant at Arms Mayor DonCarlos convened the May 24, 2012, City Council Regular Work Session with a quorum present at 4:30 P.M., all members were present with the exception of Council Member Sain who was absent. 1. a. Receive Charter Review Committee Final Report - Charter Review Committee. Dr. Don Murray began the oral presentation of the Charter Review Committee final report. He stated that he would go through all the 21 recommendations that the Committee is recommending go on the ballot for the November election. Dr. Murray stated that the committee looked at the Charter in the following manner: • As if it was the Constitution of the City of Baytown, • That it is not to be used for specific legislation, • Gives principles for Council and the City Manager to perform their job in governing the city. City Council Regular Work Session May 24, 2012 Page 2 of 10 He stated that the current charter was established in 1948 with 12 separate articles that are divided up into 141 different sections. The Charter has been modified only three (3) times since its inception, with only nine (9) sections being changed. Dr. Murray introduced the members of the Committee and stated that they met weekly on Tuesdays since early January with him serving as the chair. The Charter Committee was given no specific guidance were given general parameters, but instead received an open ended task of reviewing the current Charter and proposing charter amendments to the City Council for their review and action on what will be placed on the November ballot for the electors. Dr. Murray stated that the Committee reviewed the entire Charter, section by section, as well as, a number of items that were not in the Charter. He stated that the results are before them in the final report, which Council will review and consider for the November election, which must be called no later than August 20t`. Dr. Murray extended his gratitude to the City Manager and the members of the following City departments, including representatives from City Administration, Legal, and City Clerk for their support and attendance at all of the Committee meetings, as well as their research and work throughout. He also stated that the Committee received some input from the public the Committee meetings, two (2) public input meetings, the website and a survey. Dr. Murray described the written report for Council and stated that the written report includes among other things a copy of the current City Charter. Dr. Murray then began to talk of the process that the Committee used for examining the Charter. He stated that the committee reviewed the 141 sections of the Charter and separated them into categories and priorities. He indicated that the committee made recommendations which concluded with a vote from the committee members on each and they were all agreed upon by all with the exception of one item. Dr. Murray stated that the current Charter is archaic and outdated. He stated that there are 53 sections of the Charter that are inconsistent with State law, 24 sections are obsolete, and 45 sections that cause economic inefficiency. He also stated that there were too many issues to fix all at once so some of the other items were left for the next Charter Election. Dr. Murray stated that a key recommendation was to have a Charter stipulation requiring that the Charter be review regularly. Dr. Murray indicated that the committee had twenty -one (21) recommendations to the placed on the ballot for November. He stated that the Committee believes all of the recommendations are important and are classified either as "high" or "critical" but they are not in order of priority. Dr. Murray began to discuss the recommendations in detail and is as follows: City Council Regular Work Session May 24, 2012 Page 3 of 10 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: • Improve efficiency and state law compliance of this type of annexation • Reduce minimum time between publication and the Council final vote — from 30 to 14 days, to help with IDA processes that take place at the end of the calendar years • Reduce detail in publication of annexation by deleting the metes and bounds to significantly reduce the cost of to the city while still providing important information to the public • Annexation in regards to citizen's request should omit the word "city" for clerical cleanup. 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 Dr. Murray stated that this was a topic that came from a public survey and 80% of the respondents from the survey agreed with term limits. 3) Recommendation C — Section 14 - Compensation for mayor and council members: • Mayor: $1,000 per month • Council: $ 500 per month Dr. Murray stated that this would increase the incentive for citizens to run office to compensate for the time and fiscal impact associated with this function. 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 Dr. Murray stated that the committee has no opinion on what the staffing levels on fire trucks should or should not be; however, the committee agrees that this section does not belong in the Charter and recommends that it be deleted from the Charter. Dr. Murray indicated that this was the item that all votes were not in agreement: it was a (6) to (1) vote. City Council Regular Work Session May 24, 2012 Page 4 of 10 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 Dr. Murray stated that the committee recommended that modifications be made to where there is one thorough audit required per year and then let Council decide what level of audit, if any, needs to be done in a six month interval. 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 Dr. Murray stated that the committee proposes to have copies of the budget available at the library and making the budget available through the public information request process. 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 Dr. Murray stated that the committee recommends combining all three sections into one. 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 Dr. Murray stated that the current Charter only allows expenditures under emergency situations and in reality there are many situations other than emergency where contingent appropriations would be needed. The proposed recommendations would allow Council decides how and when the contingency funds should be used and spent, such as economic development incentives. City Council Regular Work Session May 24, 2012 Page 5 of 10 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 Dr. Murray stated that the Charter, right now, does not reflect the ability to issue certificates of obligation (CO's) or revenue bonds although the city is complying with the state law. He stated that the recommendation to modify the change would make the Charter consistent with current practice. 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 Dr. Murray stated that the recommendation was to delete this from the Charter as it is inconsistent with the state law. 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 Dr. Murray stated that this is another item that we do differently than what is stated in the Charter; however, we do follow state law. He stated that at the end of the year there arc monies left over in departments, which are considered unencumbered and can be moved around to offset overages in other budget and balance out the accounts. The problem with this section is that the City is not allow to move monies between the departments until the last three months of the budget year, which is an inefficient requirement that should be removed from the Charter. 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 He stated that this recommendation is related to taxes and assessments, which are inconsistent with state law and very confusing to the public. City Council Regular Work Session May 24, 2012 Page 6 of 10 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 Dr. Murray stated that at this time the Charter states that there be a maximum tax rate of six - tenths (0.6) of one percent and is not clear that this limit only relates to the M &O or maintenance and operations. He stated that the committee is recommending this be clarified to be related to M & O only. Additionally, this section alludes to it being the way that property assessments are to take place in the city; however, these assessments are handled through the Harris /Chamber County Appraisal District and should reflect that current practice. 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 Dr. Murray said that these sections all relate to assessment. He stated that these functions are now performed by HCAD and CCAD making these sections moot and confusing if it remains in the Charter. Thus, these sections, as well as, Section 67 which also alludes to these assessments should be removed from the Charter. 15) Recommendation O — Section 97 - Power of initiative: • Clarify the definition of an initiative • Authorize Council to determine if a public referendum • Disallow initiatives on some additional types franchises, fixing of utility rates and zoning • Increase the required number of signatures to contested mayoral election or minimum of 700 overture is an initiative or a of ordinances, such as granting 51 % of voters at the previous Dr. Murray stated that the Committee recommends clarifying what an initiative is as well as granting Council the power of determination, as far as if a petition is either an initiative or referendum. Dr. Murray stated that the committee is recommending increasing the required number of signatures necessary for an initiative. He stated that the total amount of signatures required would be 51% of the voters in the last previously contested mayoral election or minimum of 700. City Council Regular Work Session May 24, 2012 Page 7 of 10 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 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 Dr. Murray stated that the Committee is proposing that the petitions be strengthened such that the signatures are all required to be witnessed by one of the petition circulators. He stated that if a citizen is proposing an initiative, referendum, or recall, they should have to witness the signatures. 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. Dr. Murray stated that the Committee recommends calls for holding an election for a petition on a regularly scheduled municipal election, specifically to help reduce cost and ensure that election equipment be available to actually hold the election. 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 Dr. Murray stated that this recommendation would require a list of reasons attached to a petition to recall a member of Council. He stated that if the reasons for the recall are not attached to the petition the signatures would not be valid. This change does not limit the reasons for the recall, but instead is only there to allow the citizens to know why the recall is taking place. City Council Regular Work Session May 24, 2012 Page 8 of 10 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 • Also modifications are made to comply with state law Dr. Murray stated that the literal interpretation of this section would make all City employees in violation of the Charter due to the fact that they purchase water or any other service from the City are in violation of the Charter. The modifications recommended would clean up this section and clarify the intent of the section by making it in line with state law. 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 Dr. Murray stated that this recommendation would require that Council to appoint a Charter review committee at least 18 months before the next mayoral election. He further stated that the Committee chose a mayoral election because it is citywide to help reduce the cost of the charter election which is also citywide. The also stated that they chose 18 months to allow the committee sufficient time to review the Charter and make their recommendations without the extreme time constraints that they faced. Lastly, he stated that the committee would not work continuously but at least 18 months prior to the next mayoral election. Dr. Murray then began to discuss additional considerations for the Council to be aware of. He stated that the committee discussed the possibility of have Council "members at- large", however came to the conclusion that there would not be enough lead time for this to become a possible ballot item. The Committee unanimously agreed that this is an item that needs to be considered by the Council and recommends that this be reviewed for a future election where there is sufficient time to receive public input and the Department of Justice (DOJ) approval. He concluded his oral report and restated that the committee believes the current Charter is archaic. He stated that the Charter should be more frequently modified in order to ensure that the Charter is current, up to date and functional. Dr. Murray asked that the Council seriously consider all of the 21 recommendations presented before them this evening. City Council Regular Work Session May 24, 2012 Page 9 of 10 He stated that each committee member is open to discuss the items in greater detail with members of Council as Council deliberates over the summer, as well as, to help educate the public as it relates to these items. Mayor Pro Tern Capetillo opened the item up for discussion. City Manager Leiper stated that Council could do the process the same way as the committee did such that Council could make an initial decision on all the items. Council Member Sheley stated that he preferred to have a work session to discuss the items at length. Council Member McCartney stated that the majority of these items will have an easy consensus with only a few of the recommendations having extensive discussion and/or debate. Council Member Hoskins stated that he would prefer that the items be sectioned together and decided on in parts at a separate work session that is not too early. Council Member Capetillo suggested that a work session be established after an upcoming Municipal Development District meeting. City Manager Leiper stated that the staff would post a meeting to discuss possible Charter amendments immediately following the MDD meeting on Thursday, June 7, 2012, as well as, a standing item on each of the future city council agendas until such time as the special election is called. Committee Member McCartney stated that he is against the recommendation to increase the required signatures for an initiative and referendum petition, particularly since the election date has been moved from May to November where there is traditionally higher voter turnout. Dr. Murray stated that the intent of the recommendation was to have a more representative number of the citizenry to support an initiative /referendum petition and not a very small minority, which has been the case in the past. Mr. Mike Beard stated that the initiative and referendum initiatives are city wide elections and felt it was appropriate to make their signature requirements in line with those of a mayoral recall petition, which is also city wide. Council Member McCartney asked the committee why they recommended term limits when only three individuals on council have served over 9 consecutive years. Dr. Murray commented on the committee's reasoning for term limits stating that the term limits could help reduce politics on council, bring fresh ideas to the council and bring more candidates with experience to the mayor position, and on the negative side this could reduce the level of experience on council. Mr. Chris Presley stated that after an in depth discussion the Committee favored the item, but there were some differences in opinion on what those term limits should be. Council Member Capetillo stated that he somewhat agreed with the idea of term limits but favored nine or maybe twelve year term limits. Mayor DonCarlos stated he had no concern with term limits and favored three consecutive terms and not two. Committee Member Renteria stated that he didn't agree with the compensation recommendation. He stated that this was position of service and not for compensation and should not be paid. Mayor DonCarlos stated that he did not have an opinion either way on whether or not to have compensation for council. Mr. Ryan Hightower stated that initially he was not in favor of compensation, but after further discussion amongst City Council Regular Work Session May 24, 2012 Page 10 of 10 the committee members, he felt that compensation will allow some people more opportunities to serve without it having a negative financial impact on them. Council Member Capetillo stated that he felt it would be more helpful to have a standing charter review committee in order to maintain some continuity in the process. City Manager Leiper stated that the charter provision as recommended allows for the standing committee if the Council so chooses. The Council extended their gratitude to the members of the Charter Review Committee for their extensive work regarding this item and appreciated the time and commitment it took for them to accomplish this task in such a short period of time. 2. ADJOURN With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor DonCarlos adjourned the May 24, 2012, City Council Regular Work Session at 5:58 P.M.