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{/