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.