Loading...
2020 08 13 WS MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN August 13, 2020 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas met in a Regular Work Session on Thursday, August 13, 2020, at 5:04 P.M., in the Council Chamber, Baytown City Hall, 2401 Market Street, Baytown, Texas with the following in attendance: Laura Alvarado Council Member Robert Hoskins Council Member Charles Johnson Mayor Pro Tem Charles Presley Council Member Heather Betancourth Council Member David Himsel Council Member Brandon Capetillo Mayor Rick Davis City Manager Karen Horner Interim City Attorney Leticia Brysch City Clerk Keith Dougherty Sergeant at Arms Mayor Capetillo convened the August 13, 2020, City Council Regular Work Session with a quorum present at 5:04 P.M., all members were present with the exception of Council Member Himsel that arrived at 5:06 P.M. and Council Member Johnson that arrived at 5:13 P.M. 1. DISCUSSIONS a. Discuss possible options to restrict bars, or location with more than 50% of alcohol sales, in the city limits. Planning and Development Services Director Tiffany Foster presented the item and stated that staff had a project that came before them about two months ago called The Yard on Main located at 501 West Main in which they were looking for a variance to the distance requirements for an alcohol license. She stated that she was not going to actually talk about that one item tonight; however, it is from that particular case, that resulted in lots of questions regarding the reason for this bar being so close to a neighborhood; would the bar be open for late hours; would they have food; etc. Mrs. Foster noted that while there were many questions, there were actually two questions from Council Member Alvarado and Council Member Presley that is the reason for this evening's talk, and they are (1) are these the types of businesses that are wanted in their districts and (2) why are there so many bars in the older part of the city. As a result of these concerns, City Manager Rick Davis asked staff to get together and see what options are out there and what is actually happening with the City's alcohol licenses, its bar scene, and so on and so forth. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 2of11 Mrs. Foster stated that she wanted to begin the conversation by identifying what is a bar. She noted that this was actually one of the questions that came up at that variance hearing, in order to differentiate between a bar and a restaurant that sells alcohol. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission or TABC is the agency that actually regulates any entity that manufactures, distills, brews, sells, transports, warehouse, store, or take orders for liquor within the State of Texas that will be provided to the general public. So, basically, anything happening with alcohol, TABC regulates them. TABC has several different licenses and certificates that described how, when, and where alcohol can be served, and so, as a general rule, a true restaurant will have alcohol sales that are less than 50% of their gross receipts and food sales that exceed 51 % of the gross receipts. So, when establishments have less than 51 % of consumer sales for food and allow on - premise consumption of beer, wine, or mixed beverages, they are not considered a restaurant, but a bar, with a bar including a brewpub, winery, biker bar, your neighborhood watering hole, a sports bar, and even an upscale wine bar. Mrs. Foster further noted that TABC actually provides a food and beverage certificate that says that a business must have 40% of its receipts for non-alcoholic sales, so it's a little bit different, and what people see a lot of times in restaurants or in bars, is a placard that talks about 51 % of sales, is actually associated with gun laws and how much alcohol can be sold in any establishment and not necessarily whether the location is a restaurant or not. Moving on, Mrs. Foster wanted to answer the question of what is considered a bar in Baytown. Mrs. Foster stated that the ULDC defines a bar and lounges as "establishments that are devoted to serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on -premise and serving food is only incidental to the consumption of those beverages." She noted that this definition includes cocktail lounges, nightclubs, regular stand-alone bars, cabarets, that kind of thing. Further, Baytown has approximately a hundred and thirty or so facilities that have some sort of TABC license for the sale of wine, beer, or mixed drinks for on and/or off -premise consumption. This includes convenience stores, package stores, grocery stores, a SPECs, as well as, bars and restaurants. She noted that about nineteen of them, give or take, have less than 51 % of food sales with on - premise consumption of alcohol. So, for the consideration of this discussion and moving forward, we are going to consider only those establishments that are standalone bars in Baytown. Mrs. Foster noted that in the last year, the city clerk had processed twenty-six new requests for an alcohol license, five of those were for standalone bars; however, three of those were bars or new applications in existing buildings that previously had bars; i.e. there were no applications for the new construction of standalone bars. Mrs. Foster showed the Council pictures of different types of bars in the city to include: The Shoe, Cork Grinders, Dirty Bay, and Pitchers Pub, all of which are considered a bar in the ULDC and TABC rules. She noted that The Pitchers Pub has a new pending license with the state because they're going to begin to sell to -go margaritas or to - go daiquiris, so, right now, they have their sign down and are going through some changes. Mrs. Foster noted that as it relates to land use, the ULDC or the City's zoning code allows for bars in the following zoning districts: General Commercial, Mixed -Use, Livable Centers, San Jacinto Overlay District, and the ACE. She further noted that Chapter 6 of the Code of Ordinances, imposes the distance requirements for the sale of alcohol from churches, schools, daycares, and hospitals; however, there is an exception for the distance requirement if a facility City Council Regular Work Session Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 3 of 11 that has an alcohol license also holds a food and beverage certificate that was mentioned earlier and if they are locating in the ACE District; those are two exceptions in the code. Mrs. Foster noted that there are a few other exceptions, but again for the purpose of land use in this conversation, those are the two that are most important. Mrs. Foster showed the Council a zoning map showing the locations of bars within the city limits. She noted that many of them are located in Mix -Use District and GC District many of them are located within blocks of homes. She also noted that when looking at the locations of the existing stand-alone bars, they are clustered in Districts 1, 2, and 6; there are just a couple in District 4, and District 2 has most of the bars. Mrs. Foster that that staff is looking feedback at this point in order to understand: (1) what do they want to see in Baytown are it relates to bars, (2) what type of establishments do they want, (3) what do they want these establishments to look like, and (4) where do they want them located. Mrs. Foster noted that based on their comments, staff will take that information and work on providing them next steps. Council Member Alvarado asked is the staff happened to have a listing of those locations that were close to neighborhoods, and would those locations be grandfathered. Mrs. Foster stated that everything that exists today is grandfathered, so even moving forward anything that exist now will continue to exists; however, there are different ways that they these locations can lose grandfathering, depending on how Council wants to handle these establishments moving forward, whether it's under the zoning code, or Chapter 6, whether they have abandoned their use for some reason or when they go back to TABC and seek another license. Mrs. Foster showed the Council pictures of different types of establishments, what they could look like, the amenities that could be included, and asked the Council for their feedback on what they would like to see moving forward. Council Member Alvarado stated that one of the reasons that she had brought this up is because of the new redevelopment in her area and that's is really where her concern lays. She stated that he had noticed that there weren't very many stand-alone bars in her district, but at the same time, as they continue to work on bringing new development into the area, the new school that's going to be in close proximity to alcohol sales and with the new marina, she wants to make sure that the establishments that do come into the area are going to complement the new Hotel and Conference Center, so if there are any new locations, she wanted them to have more of a lounge - like feel. She noted that she really liked the look and feel that Cork Grinders used to have with live bands and kind of a very relaxed atmosphere, so that is the kind of feel that she is envisioning, but definitely wanted them away from the area that they are trying to revitalize with the school district. Council Member Alvarado noted that the one of her predecessors, a councilwoman, along with the Civic Association president did a lot of work working with the Council to clean up a number of bars that were on Market Street, and they don't want this Council to undo all of their hard work to clean up the area — to not turn backward, but to make sure that they continue to move forward. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 4 of 11 Council Member Presley stated that his concerns mostly pertain to the ACE District. He stated that he felt there is a balancing act and his concerns are not about anything that exists today but in moving forward that the establishments that come into the ACE District remain family friendly, in order to ties into the existing businesses and events in and around Town Square. He noted that he fully supported, seven days a week in the ACE District are bars and grills, neighborhood pubs that serve food, brewpubs, outdoor patios that are pet friendly and kid - friendly. As it relates to standard, he did not want an anything mentality; he wants to refine new businesses, but wanted to snake sure that the existing establishments understand that he is not talking about them. Mayor Capetillo stated that he agreed with the comments and it's not so much just the bar, be it any new bars, it would be more about the type of establishment that would need to be elevated as it relates to the amenities and standards. He noted that this item is not about any existing establishment, it's not about closing any of them down, which none of them are open right now, anyway, per the governor's order, but this would be a discussion that Council can have on what they would like to see for new establishments. Council Member Himsel stated that he thinks the pretty pictures are pretty and they're great; however, Baytown is not getting any of that; that's not happening in 1, 2, or 6 as some of those businesses have a multi -million -dollar price tags, so that's not happening. He further stated that his concern would be is that there are people going in down there and opening up a bar with three or four thousand bucks and they're open. These are mostly located in old dilapidated buildings, they roll the doors open on it and hang a sign and it's a junkie place that does nothing for the community, in fact, it only takes away from it. He noted that he would love to have those upscale establishments, but it wasn't realistic to expect those types of businesses in Districts 1, 2 and 6. Mrs. Foster clarified that any decisions made for these types of establishments would be for the entire city with some things particular to special areas, districts, and that kind of thing, but the requirements would be for the entire city. Council Member Himsel that he understands and that would be great, but he thinks that the city's problem are these little bars that just come up with a few thousand -dollar investments, hangs a sign and have a junkie establishment. Council Member Betancourth stated that she had an opposing opinion, and she was a fan of free- market enterprise and she was in support of entrepreneurship; including people who want to invest their money to start up bars. She stated that she likes bars; they're fun, and while not all bars are created equal, she also felt that if someone produces a bad product, then free-market enterprise takes care of that. She stated that in general, she is very cautious about Council over- regulating businesses, and especially if it's going to stifle economic development, so she thought that this was a dangerous conversation, and she wouldn't be in favor of it. Mayor Capetillo stated that he wanted to see what it would look like for Districts 1, 2, and 6 with the distance requirements, as that's one thing that's already in place by TABC and Chapter 6. Mrs. Foster noted that that regulation is on the books today. Mayor Capetillo stated that he felt City Council Regular Work Session Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 5of11 that there needed to be a continued discussion, but needed more data. He further noted that the idea moving forward with established bars is that there is a sense of elevated expectations; maybe some food offerings, if it's lounge -like, or whatever the case may be, but he first wanted to see at how limited they already were with the current distancing requirement on a map. Mrs. Foster noted that actually, the distance requirements of 300 feet from any church, school, hospital would make mapping that data extremely difficult. Mayor Capetillo asked if with the 300 feet for churches, is it a certain length distance and then schools, daycare is there a difference or are they are all 300 feet. Mrs. Foster responded that they're all 300 feet, the difference is in the way the distances are measured, some are from door to door, and in others it is from the property lot line to property lot line. Ms. Foster stated that the feedback staff would like to get from Council related to what type of things they would consider as elevated characteristics because depending on that feedback, staff will be able to move forward and put something together for their review. Mrs. Foster stated that there have been some discussions about doing something in Chapter 6, doing something in the ULDC, providing conditions, providing a level of approval that comes before the council depending on what they're bringing to the table. So that's why staff wanted to get some ideas from this body, what is the look and feel of a lounging area, live music, minimum square footage, square footage for entertainment things inside, parking, unique interior spaces, etc. Council Member Alvarado stated that she didn't feel that the Council needed to make all of them have live music, so they can differ and personally, she didn't feel that they were trying to stifle entrepreneurship. She stated that she felt that they are trying to set a standard, just like they have been doing with everything else around the city, new businesses, et cetera, but with new businesses, now, new bars, lounges, the Council has to really invite them to come and talk to, Brent in economic development so they can talk about what the city needs and how they can help them before they even drop the first dollar on their investment. Mrs. Foster asked for some clarification and guidance on what was desired in the ACE, or something specific to another council district, as well as, the request to have potential developers speak to Mr. Gardella prior to investment. She stated that in the past, council approved a resolution for potential developers; i.e. multi -family developments, storage facilities, and hotels, and staff was able to give that to whoever walked in the door, before they got into a long development process; staff would like to have something similar for new bar establishments. Council Member Hoskins stated that he wanted to clarify. Does staff want a list from the council for people to come in and open up a bar and say, "here's what council wants." He wanted to know what was the enforcement behind that as there's nothing that says that somebody can take someone to court and say this isn't right, so he felt that this was being done backward. He stated that the next steps he was looking at, is that this is the job for City Administration, to bring to council. He was not understanding what staff is trying to accomplish here, they are throwing something and want to know what does Council want, no it's the other way around. This is not council's job. The job here is for staff to build this and bring it back for approval and get comments that way. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 6of11 Ms. Foster responded by noting that council is responsible for setting the policy. Staff had a request from some of the council members and sit was brought to the entire body to better understand what policy, and decisions council wants staff to snake on this item. She further noted that the staff is absolutely going to write it; staff is not asking the council to write it; however, staff does need input in order to write it, as staff currently has a blank sheet at this point, so input is appreciated in order to write it. b. Discuss the composition and mission of the new Citizen Engagement Advisory Committee, including its composition, member qualifications, duties, terms appointments and possible outreach initiatives. Interim City Attorney Karen Horner presented the item and stated that on June 11 th of this year, the Council passed a resolution to establish the Citizen Engagement Advisory Committee (CEAC), and on that resolution, it was noted that it wasn't going to take effect until August 30`f', which gave Council some time to take a look at the resolution and see if any changes were desired. The Council at its retreat that was held on July 17, gave the staff some comments and direction on tweaks and changes to the resolution. Tonight, the staff wanted to go over some of the things from that retreat; specifically, as they relate to the CEAC; such as (1) its administration, (2) its composition, and (3) its duties. Mrs. Horner noted that she would go through each topic, one at a time in order to show the Council, what staff saw, what was heard, and where the resolution stands now. She noted that after the recap, staff will look the Council for some more input and see how to move forward in order to bring something back to the Council at the next council meeting. Mrs. Horner noted that the first item related to the CEAC composition and it pretty much seemed like everybody was wanting about nine members; those would be appointed by each member of the city council, plus one appointment by the city manager and one by the police chief. She stated that the next thing staff heard related to the appointments, and basically, it was noted that the Council wanted a standard process. She noted that the appointments would be in two- year terms, and when a committee first begins, the council decides who gets the one-year, who gets the two-year, so staff was thinking that maybe five would get the two-year term and four would get the one-year term, and this could be determined by lots. This is how the appointments are currently drafted and currently proposed, but that can be changed at the will of the council. She noted that vacancies; i.e. if someone drops out or moves away from the city, then that would be filled in the same manner as if they were appointed, so if it was a District No. 6 appointment, District No. 6 would have a reappointment. Mrs. Horner stated that these terms would potentially start depending on when the Council passes the next resolution, which is hopefully at the next council meeting. Mrs. Horner noted that the staff is recommending an effective date for this committee on October 1 to allow the Council time to receive, review, consider and appoint members. She also noted that the staff heard that they were not interested in ex officio members, so those have been removed from the resolution. Mrs. Horner stated that as it relates to qualifications, there was some discussion about whether they should be residents, whether they had to be residents, or if there should be some opportunity City Council Regular Work Session Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 7of11 to appoint from the ETJ. She noted that as it stands now, staff has drafted it to where each council member has an appointment that must be a resident of the city, and the mayor can appoint either a resident of the city or a resident in the city's ETJ. She noted that this was something that was still kind of subject to discussion, so staff would request additional guidance on this point. Mrs. Horner also noted that they talked about maybe some qualifications, as far as, whether the members were required to participate in police education programs or activities. She stated that staff has included in the draft to this be completed annually, but the Council could decide to make them do it once a term or however, they felt was appropriate. Mrs. Horner noted that the last item discussed was about the purpose of the CEAC. She noted that the purpose, in the original resolution, sounded like the same purpose that they wanted to continue, which was "to enhance and encourage communication between the residents and the city to provide comments, suggestions, and recommendations to City Council of Police Outreach, Community Policing, Officer Training and policies and procedures to ensure best practices are in place and operational to create a community of trust," so that language was not changed. Mrs. Horner further noted that staff heard that the Council wanted reports back from the committee on a quarterly basis, which can be changed if desired. Mrs. Horner reminded the Council that the current resolution takes effect on August 301h, so staff recommends that the amended resolution be present to the Council at the next council meeting in order to make some changes and approve its effective date as October 1. With that, Mrs. Horner noted that City Manager Davis would go over some other items that the Council might want to talk about, and noted that the staff is here to listen and make whatever revisions are desired. Mr. Davis stated that Mrs. Horner had already addressed the issue of how the tenns ought to be staggered through the use of drawing lots. He noted that the staff could use some clarification on the appointment of ETJ residents, if there were any additional qualifications for staff appointments and how to make this transition from the current less formal committee that the Mayor put together over a year ago and to this new fonnalized committee structure. Mayor Capetillo stated that as far as the terms between one year and two years, those should be determined by lots, which is what is done in most cases for all other city committees. The Council agreed with the Mayor's recommendation on the casting of lots. Mayor Capetillo noted that as it related to the ETJ appointment, he wanted to have the flexibility and option to appoint a person from the ETJ, if he so desired, even if it's maybe just to serve for one term, and after that term, his appointment would revert to a city resident appointment, so this appointment could, based on the casting of lots, get a one-year year term or a two-year term, but the renewal of that term would be a City of Baytown resident. He stated that this would be his compromise on this item, but it is up to the Council. The Council discussed the item and agreed to the Mayor's proposal. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 8 of 11 Ms. Horner asked for clarification, on this item, it the proposal pertained to just the Mayor's appointment or for all members of the council for the first term. Council's consensus was that this proposal was just for the Mayor's appointment. Council Member Johnson he wanted discuss the terms starting on October 1st. He noted that the existing members had their first meeting back around June of 2019 and he would like for the Council to consider allowing them stay until that time next year. Council Member Johnson stated that there will be two new council members in the near future and he thought that it'd be fair for whoever is going to be on the Council to snake their picks since they are in transition, so that it's someone that they can say that they have talked to them and have common goals. He noted that by allowing the current member to stay, it would give them an opportunity to see some of the things through because he believed that all of the members of council had received an email with the action items and the work that they've done and some things that they're waiting to see come forth from the meetings because they've had several meetings, they've had several meetings with citizens and they have basically given them their word that they would see some of these things through. He again noted that he believed that it'd be fair to allow them to see some of those things through that apparently are right on the verge of happening and they would like to see those things come through, so why not let them go ahead and finish out the whole second year? Mayor Capetillo stated that the only comment he will make on that, personally, is that people need to understand, that the discussions that take place, and he knows that they have been in a lot of them, but this committee, for the most part, is not a taxing committee, it is not budgetary, so there's really very few votes that they would be snaking, maybe approval of minutes or something like that, so there could even have some transition where just in the context of what Council Member Johnson is expressing, would be that maybe they serve for a very short period of time in this transition from ad hoc committee to a formalized committee. Mayor Capetillo further noted that he thought that nothing would preclude them from attending the meetings, and if there's a chair, he or she could allow them to come and certainly, they want them to be involved. He noted that there is a lot of it that is a discussion in a sense, and so it's not so much about voting members or non -voting members, there's really not a lot of voting that would actually take place of this committee, so he wouldn't be overly concerned if the current committee members were involved for a transitional period. Council Member Johnson asked if when they say involved in a transitional period, would they still be working committee members until the transition is over? Mayor Capetillo stated that yeah, if he was trying to put the date of June 2021, and at that point, they would no longer serve in that capacity. He noted that the way he saw it would be that on October 1 st, the Council would have the appointments in place and that's the committee, but the current CEAC members could carry over until June 1 st of 2021 in a capacity of transition. Does that make any sense? Council Member Hoskins stated that he somewhat agreed, but he felt that that was too long. They need to hand the committee off to this new committee that is being established by Council. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 9 of 11 Council Member Hoskins stated that right now, that group that's out there is the Mayor's community and the Council's. He noted that this is something that's being established by this government and its representatives are from this government, and that's the ones that need to carry that football and run with it, so while he agreed, the transitional period should be no longer than December 31 of this year, this gives them two months of transitioning and getting things taken care of and they can hand the ball off and that committee takes over from there. The Council agreed to allow for the transition period to end no later than December 31, 2020. Mrs. Horner asked for clarification on the transition phase and asked if the committee was going to have the nine members that are appointed in the new committee, plus everyone that wants to continue to serve on the old committee, resulting in a 20 some -odd people on the committee. The Council discussed the item and agreed to snake the members from the old committee as ad hoc members for a transition period to end on December 31, 2020. The Council discussed the staff appointments and any desires for additional qualifications; i.e. should they be residents of the city, should they be police officers, should it be open to any city employee and should they be full voting members. The Council agreed that the staff appointments should be full voting members. Mrs. Horner noted that the current draft resolution does not have any qualification related to staff appointments, so they can appoint a citizen, non-affiliated with the police department or whoever. Mayor Capetillo stated that he thought that it would be easier just to let them self -regulate what they see is a qualified representative of their roles as police chief and city manager. Assistant City Manager Nick Woolery asked that the Council consider tweaking the name of the CEAC as it seemed very police centric, and it could be confused with the City's Community Engagement and Strategic Planning committee, so just something to think about, maybe there's a different name for this particular board, in order to limit confusion. Mayor Capetillo recommended to let the committee members come up with their own name. Mrs. Horner clarified that because Council will have a resolution that names the committee, it would need to be included. She noted that it could be called the Police Community Engagement Advisory Committee. The Council requested that the name include something with police or law enforcement, but preferably law enforcement. Mayor Capetillo asked if they Council is going to receive at a very minimum an annual report from this committee Mrs. Horner noted that at this item, the resolution calls for quarterly reports. The Council discussed the schedule for received reports and agreed that for the first year, they should receive quarterly reports. Mayor Capetillo asked about the qualifications of requiring members to be part of FAMS training or a ride along with an officer. Mrs. Horner noted that the current draft requires each member after appointment shall annually participate in one police education program or activity, City Council Regular Work Session Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 10 of 11 which could be a ride along or any host of things. The Council discussed the frequency of said training and agreed to have it once a year. The Council briefly discussed if the members should have background checks, and after comments from the Police Chief and staff, decided background checks were not a requirement. City Clerk Leticia Brysch stated that once the resolution is passed that detennines the qualifications for the members, staff will work to conduct outreach for potential applicants. Those applicants will be placed before the Council for their appointments in order to have all of the appointments in place by October 1" Council Member Himsel and Hoskins felt it was important to require that the members to complete a ride -along, and the field arms test scenarios in order to actually see what the police officer goes. Mayor Capetillo stated that he felt that as long as the members participate at whatever level they felt comfortable with; whether it be a ride -along, firearms training, or scaling a building, long as it related to the PD. The Council agreed to leave the training requirement with the generic language. Council Member Himsel requested that a time frame be added to the training. Mrs. Brysch stated that the new members will have different types of orientations and training as is with any new committee; i.e., there will be some training that will take place at the front end as it relates to the police department, the city and other processes and procedures, so just because it's mandated as a qualification, does not mean that it will be the only experience that they're going to have for their entire term. Police Chief Keith Dougherty stated that they have many opportunities for people to experience more about the police department all the time, and if they have a question or want to find out more about a particular area they will make that happen. The Police Department has training going on all the time, and they will involve the members; whatever question they have, they are going to cooperate. He stated that he believed that training is important for other to see things from their side of the house, but it's not an end-all thing. He noted that they will help them make informed decisions, but they're going to have opinions either way and they're going to have questions a little different than it is on TV, and they'll give them whatever answers that they can and whatever experiences they would like to participate in, but they'll have some good things that they can participate and they will help make them happen. C. Discuss the City of Baytown Fiscal Year 2020-21 Proposed Budget. Council Member Presley asked what was the latest date that the budget had to be approved. City Manager Rick Davis responded with the date of September 27`h d. Discuss any or all of the agenda items on the City Council Regular Meeting Agenda for August 13, 2020, which is attached below. City Council Regular Work Session Minutes August 13, 2020 Page 11 of 11 Council Member Alvarado asked a question regarding item 6.a. and 8.a. on the regular council meeting agenda regarding the proposed resolution limiting the number of boards that any one person can serve on at the same item and how it impacted their ability to appoint a member that is already serving on two other city boards to the Charter Review Committee and was this committee consider a regular committee of the city as it was not a standing board. Interim City Attorney Karen Homer stated that as the policy is written, the Charter Review Committee is included in the list of applicable boards and the committee member would be limited to only two council boards; however, the Council can override this policy by a vote by the majority of its members. Mayor Capetillo stated that the intent of the discussion during the retreat was to spread the wealth on representation on city boards and agreed that one person could not serve on no more than two boards at any given time. Mr. Davis clarified for the records that for the purposes of this policy, the PFC and the MDD are considered one; same with the TIRZ and the BRA, but they are not actuality not being combined. Council Member Alvarado asked when did the policy take effect after approval. Mrs., Homer stated that the resolution takes effect immediately; however, it does not require anybody that's currently appointed to give up their position, but will come off of boards through attrition. 2. ADJOURN With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor Capetillo adjourned the August 13, 2020, City 4ncil RegulaAWork Session at 6:12 P.M. Letitia Brysch, City City of Baytown 7co a"�o •� f .tltP N , \n{/