Planning & Zoning - Regular Meeting

But they're like, no, we don't care.

I didn't know I wasn't here. Everything, we decided everything. Now we're done.

We left one, right? We have one more. Yes. Yes.

No. Lidiana, yeah, right.

Yes.

You're going to do it. Awesome. Where are you?

She's in there. Are you in the box, Lidiana?

Are you in that little box? Okay. Yes.

This thing's on. Somebody get a point in. I don't remember I got a point.

There we go. There we go. There you go.

And I'm here virtually I just can't hear what people not at the table are saying.

You can check real quick.

Can you hear us now? Yeah. Can you hear us now on earth?

There you go.

I can hear y'all. I can't hear Blanca and Mayra if she's speaking.

Can you hear me?

Yes, now I can. I just can't make out what you're saying. I hear sound.

Echo.

Can you hear? Yes. This one. Yeah. Can I hear the city attorney's office or just Blanca?

So, as a recap, and since we have a presentation from our World War II City Commission, a lot of things to do for that presentation.

So, in the recap, Y'all had recommended to the City Commission for them to have a proposition increasing the vendor's salary to $60,000 and the CD commissioners to $40,000.

So, that actually goes to the red line employee to comply. Now, this is pretty extensive, although it's very simple.

The offline recommended, uh, creating, uh, so the city secretary, even though the Charlie mentioned that office, but didn't actually create it. And so one of the reproductions was that with the city manager . And so A is the appointment, B is what they're doing for people, and then C, a lot of cities have these funds in their cities and managing politics. The removal cap for 90 days after the election. Except for misconduct against promiscuous. And this is language that is common in city charters. So this would be one proposition. So we're already down to one, two. Now I'm going to put the office of the city auditor to streamline the changes so that we can have two propositions out of this. Because the propositions have to be where the subject is you need to each one, you need to have multiple subjects within a proposition. This one would be one proposition would be creating a city monitor. Very similar to the city secretary one, A, creates the office. B is the appointment procedures. One of the requests of a lot of members of the committee would be that the city commission does the appointment, not necessarily them, especially because the city commission has to set a salary currently as it is. C would be removal or disability to state auditor. There is a provision in here that if they are removed after serving six months, they may demand writing charges and the writing can be heard at a public meeting prior to the date, which is the C-1 removal. This is common in the amount of provisions created off the state auditor for the reason that You know, you want your auditor to be very independent. And if there is room, they serve at the will or pleasure of the city commission. But a lot of times, the auditor is on the loss of, you know, their travel and things like that.

And so this gives a little bit more protection to the auditor currently. The other continuation of that,

They can put up, they can't, they can't terminate him. I'm sorry, he has this hearing and he wants one or she wants one, but they can suspend or remove the city auditor and appoint someone in the interim while they have that hearing process. To tie in the Audit and Oversight Committee provision, We list here in GE that they will be the system of the provision that is chartered, the city auditor shall advise the Auditor-Number-Side Committee on one straight of an operational function for the office of the city auditor. This takes out a provision from chapter 28, or article 28A of the city charter, and it changes it to where instead of reporting to the Auditor-Number-Side Committee, that individual reports to the commission. let's check that they will advise on and then duties these are taken pretty much from the current audit and oversight of the university but you'll see shortly as they're struck out and then F is of the ability to appoint assistants currently the auditor has two deputy city governors and some additional personnel this will just be codifying their ability to do that

And this would be an addition to 21.

21A is currently, 21 is the city manager. 21A is the city attorney's office. 21B would be the small fiscal city secretary. This would be 21C. So changes to section 28A on an oversight committee is two minor changes, and that is increasing the number from seven members From five members to seven members of each committee member appointed by a member of the city commission. And in G, we changed the language here to where instead of the committee shall employ a city auditor, we put the committee in consultation with the city auditor to provide advice to the city commission with respect to oversight for financial reporting determined from.

Well, can you back up one little bit on the. Right there where you were before.

The appointment of. The city commission. No, no, no.

I think you're I think on the audit and oversight committee portion.

Yeah.

First page where we're each commissioning it right there.

There you go.

I was just seeing the appointment of each number shall be approved by the vote of the list and five of the seven. Okay. So it's just a non appointment or nomination. I remember the city commission, right?

Right. We use the word appointment in one of our more of the condition language, but then necessarily it is to be precise to the nomination and appointment by the city commission. I mean, we can add that. You can modify that to say the nomination by the appointment.

Yeah, just no, as long as you're consistent, because you have other boards that you use the same language. I imagine.

Yeah, this could be. So, this would be. 1, they're changing the 5 and 7. G, creating this office. Any questions from the Office of the City Auditor, the Audit and Reset Committee?

I think, not a question, but since that's mostly presented by the Audit Committee, I think it should be presented that way to the Commission. Right? I mean, we didn't come up with all that. It's just like, we looked at it and we're okay with presenting it, but.

We didn't draft it every week and we can put that.

Does normally an audit committee and any government is in charge of picking the external auditors. Do you have that language anywhere? The selection of the external office. Yeah, and that that would be a function of the. Audited oversight committee, which is the internal audit committee as opposed to. The other office, right?

So we can add it to section. As a separate sentence and saying that they have to precise.

Seeing the next turn on it. We don't want to use Spokane and Maine finance.

It was tabled, and the recommendation is that they continue to provide such regulations to the ordinance rather than .

So that could be part of the report . I apologize. coming on the screen.

But last time we met, last Monday, a lot of discussion went from disciplinary provisions to qualifications and what's for the hospital to forfeit in the office. And some of the examples that we had shown were from Corpus Christi, Ron Stanton, Moreno, and a few other cities. And it seemed from the discussion that a lot of committee members here really didn't like the provision that- Laredo. Laredo had, correct. And so what we did here is we split it into two different sections, section four of qualifications, which is, if you want to recall in the discussion where we could put, one of the requests was to make sure that they would not be in default of under one of the tax bills for running debt to the city. And so the red underlined plan would be to address the act should not be revered as being taxable for the lab. We did add in by mission B, or just by reason of any provision of any other section of this charter, because in the following section that would have some immediate orfeiture provisions within it.

We also, or any other section of this charter, were convicted of a felony So that adds to the complications.

Now for the provision, which incorporate a lot of what the rate of...

Sorry, on that previous one, one of the concerns I had whenever you're talking about payment of taxes or any sort of arrears when it comes to taxes is if you have some sort of business interest with other partners, I think they should apply to individual individual arrears as opposed to maybe any sort of partnership or company arrears because sometimes there's things you can't control if you have to say you have another partner or somebody else is in charge of doing that you may not be aware but I think individually There's really no excuse, but I think once you get into the corporate aspect of it, it's possible. I'm sure Ben sees this and Will probably sees this too, but I see it sometimes where maybe a corporation or a company's taxes aren't up to date without knowledge or fault of an individual. So that would be a concern that I would have just on this. I think it should apply to individuals for sure, but I think you need to keep in mind that there may be arrearages that a member may not know about.

Okay. What we can do is we can definitely add language in there that specifies . Thanks. Any other questions, comments? In discussing the potential disciplinary provisions, the CMA really cued in on a couple of provisions from Brodstown and Laredo. And we do have a section right now currently on vacancies. But pretty much this is from Laredo, we added to that provision section three vacancies, or literature of office, filing a vacancy So the first A covers vacancy with a mayor, city commission office, and becomes vacant while that presentation will move from office in any manner of order to involve our Procurator of Office. So Procurator of Office, the mandatory branch, this is just something that we'll talk about in a little bit. A, last three times, the Procurator of Office, following a couple of numbers described by the charter,

any modification following on from the charter.

So essentially, if they have individual tax liability that they haven't covered, or if they receive a felony, or they no longer live in the city or the district, they would be offending your office. Under A. Under B, I also need to visit two apartment production school offices. So you have a little bit of Our federal six, 10, three consecutive regular commission meetings without being specified. Continue with E, divide the personal financial financial provision support in honorable by section four, which is moving up a little bit to where we were before. If you look towards the middle, it says, to not hold office of a monument, and should not be interested in the profits or monuments of any contract, job, or service to the municipality. Interested in being settled home to the city when supplies and programs occur.

So that reference, that particular section there, that's already in the charter.

So before they need that additional language.

I think the,

The missing 3 consecutive meetings may be a little harsh. I think that. Because, for example, there's sometimes, as, you know, where there's several meetings in a month, like, budget time, or there's some other things that may come up 3 in a row. I think. Obviously it's up to the rest of the members up to the commission, but I think it can be easy to miss three in a row. It's hard. I'm not sure anybody ever did during the four years I serve, but still, it's just something to think about.

We had talked about that it'd be regular meetings, right?

Okay. And that makes sense.

Regular and they are unexcused. Right. You could have potentially three consecutive missing, but if you have excused from the commission, due to an illness, being in the hospital, whatever, you'd be okay.

And the other thing that I liked was that when y'all were explaining it to us last time, Will, it was that there was another city that their practices, like, at that meeting that they're going to miss, it gets approved. Like, if it's excused, like, it gets voted on so that it's on the record that it's excused.

Okay.

What are your thoughts on that? What are your thoughts on that?

Makes sense.

Well, yes, we'll add that in the repeat.

It's actually there already. I just missed that on me. Yeah, thanks.

Well, on this, is there any language? What is it?

The sitting commissioner warm mayor is suing the city. Would that be a conflict of interest?

Right, so.

What we can do, because that is information I've heard. Interested in that we can add that to section more qualifications. So, not going to readers individually. And then we can put in there after charter, something probably. You know, not have the city exactly similar to that. Yeah, I would like to see something like that.

Well, does state law allow you that right? Because he is an elected official. So.

Right. So there's times where, especially in this fairgrounds, where the elected official has sued for various reasons in the past. We haven't had that in the last six, seven years. But it has happened in the past. Usually it's more in line with, we saw one with a particular commissioner that had a property issue with the city.

I think the department wasn't given And another is to involve forcing the body, different body to do something.

And so what we can do is we look for those instances where it's a magnetic dissection. That has actually been tested in some cities. The lawsuits, I'm going to do a little bit more research on that, but I think we can have something in there where it's an exception. So we can't have advertising just in the city, except for if you're leaving them in Vegas or, you know, it has to do with the history.

Yeah, I was going to take that. You're going to make this a good case law that supports an argument for it as opposed to against it, right?

I know 65 and over are allowed to defer the payment of taxes legally. I'm not sure how that would apply, if that would even apply ever. But that's something to consider.

Right. I think if they're able to defer, then technically they wouldn't be in a weird spot off. And then maybe in some of the readers, as you said last time, you had talked about the delinquency.

And so we might change the language to some of our readers be saying delinquency for that particular section of the month.

And then it's actually going to be different.

Delinquency default. Delinquency default.

Right.

Yeah, because our readers are not like,

I have a comment. I'm not being able to sue the city. What's an example? Because if the city actually owes you money, you shouldn't have to forfeit your position if it's a breach of contract. I understand not filing a lawsuit over a personal injury that you blow up into something. It's not. That's bad. You know, I just, you do have rights, right?

Right. Yes.

Yeah. You shouldn't have to give up your position.

I don't see it in sense of a ratio contract. Because under qualification, they shouldn't have a contract with the city.

Right.

Right. But I couldn't see it as a sense of. The city not doing their, their duties. So.

city secretary not putting someone on the ballot, that's in Attenborough's interest.

And I think if you don't, I don't believe that a board, if it was challenged, but a local does, they didn't need to say, hey, you can't run now because they're trying to skip your rights. That's all I know. That's having that CO issue or having that building official do XYZ. So I think that's the difference, right? What we can do, I know we've had two public hearings that sitting on public hearings here at the event center. So technically after this meeting, that's when we'll have more meetings, but we can come up with some language or do the research on that.

Should we open public hearing right now?

Sure. Yes.

If you want to know, we have a presentation.

Okay, well, then I guess on lawsuits, I mean, I'm thinking you're right about like, it's a conflict of interest, right? To have a contract. But what if the city of Brownsville runs into your wall and knocks it down?

Right.

I mean, I'm just saying it would hopefully that would get resolved, but if it didn't. Yes, it's awkward, but I don't know that that should be disqualifying, but. I guess. Okay, either way, I'm just trying to point that out, but I don't think we should have another hearing after this. So we probably need to decide today.

Well, I can be both of us, but. I would say that from what I see so far, it would be difficult to bar someone from having a lawsuit.

I guess the city, because there are many instances where it would be necessary, right? like the Board of Adjustment, they're not happy with the Board of Adjustment.

The decision that they made, it would be the city commissioner that would vote to sue the Board of Adjustment, which is the city, right? And so the city's doing itself.

And some of those sentences seem more than they need. It's contrary to public policy. That kind of actions.

And how, like if, let's say, They did sue, like, what is it that they need to be locked out of to not have, like, unfair advantage, right, over people that are deciding these things?

Right.

It's kind of too hard to.

Well, there's a rate of provision by the state law that allows cities to hide themselves or individuals that have lost a city. For example, a commissioner wouldn't be allowed into executive session to have a discussion. Since that case, they don't have to be excluded. Right? So you already have some protections. They want that individual, but it's an individual, not a single city. And you don't want to kill them, right? To know what the city strategy is. So state law allows us to exclude them. And so there's different provisions like that, state law that will inoculate us. So, but as we go through, before we get into the research right now, so we'll,

We do a little AI in the master.

While typing it in, I did want to go over the remainder of the mandatory grants. So you have ADCB. I can go backwards.

These would be additional mandatory grants and potential grants.

So later on this one F it's six consecutive or non consecutive with or without excuse.

That's fair.

Well, where's the portion that usually when you invoke these, the mandatory grounds, is it a vote of the commission or how does that work?

It would be, it would be automatic. There's a separate section in the charter. Qualifications. And so a. An acknowledgement of the.

of the charter and that's it. It would just be an acknowledgement of the charter and that's it. I mean, it's automatic, right? There's nothing to vote.

And the number of votes, hey, that's essentially not the City of New Jersey Mayor did it. And then Mayor Kortan.

There's only . The Mayor was able to be seen from the speaker's podium in his arguments for my initiative.

and the majority vote of the commission happened and that individual was considered. But in this case, there's no vote. I mean, it's automatic, right?

Yeah, it would be automatic. It would be just acknowledging the forfeiture. And the next section here would be building the vacancy, which is already brought over in short order. So it could be an action where they acknowledge the forfeiture and appoint someone to be at the seat.

Can you go back to the previous page, please?

So, potential grounds to the very end that paragraph. If you say if they're convicted of a criminal offense, other than a felony or classy misdemeanor, so felony and classy misdemeanor or automatic. Are they mentioned earlier somewhere?

Yes.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah. And that's what I was asking because I don't remember seeing the Class C misdemeanor there. So there's some conflicting language there. But I think the purpose of that, the way I'm reading it, is to determine if it's something other than a felony, then you can determine whether or not it's a crime of moral turpitude. Is that it? Is that what you're trying to do there?

Okay.

Okay.

Or that's the lower one classy.

Right. Yeah, just look at that language. If you may be able to clean it up a little bit, because it's kind of confusing that last that last paragraph.

So in reference to having a qualification for, for example, say, for AI, it says that, you know, when you have a trauma provision, it has to still comply with the Texas And one of the things that you can face, the challenge of your due process, is you're supposed to be, there is no property interest in an open office, but you do still have to process the corrections. And so that's an issue where in having a lawsuit against the city, like we discussed earlier, so the city runs into a ballpark more than likely, but city vehicle .

For instance, if someone trying to get in front of me, we could face the challenge for due process and .

So just based on this, I don't see any, I don't see any court that has required it unconstitutional, but I haven't seen where city has actually had this

So my recommendation would be to include that provision in the first test case. That's not something we want to do.

That's like double harm to somebody if they are aggrieved by the city and then they also have to remove themselves or be removed.

Right.

And it's fair, but I don't think that's fair.

I think, too, with challenges like this, because it takes so long, quite a lot of time, it's a challenge that it turns terrible for years, but it takes at least a year or two. So you will have someone that might get in the office. And so they're having a lot of advantages, right?

Being responsible for anybody's peace, anybody's peace.

What if you, what if you limited it to something like that is later found to be brought in bad faith? I don't know how you make that determination, but if a judge dismisses it, like this is a frivolous lawsuit, which is rare, but.

Right. I think it would still be difficult.

I mean, presumably during events time, they could probably be part of that motion. I can never have any other thoughts. I think that just has to get resolved by like the

conflicts of interest, or?

It would have to go to.

Or just the way you were saying that those people are left out of the decision-making process. I guess that's the best way to go.

Yeah, if someone is against, let's say, I don't believe that there's any, there's no reason for us to exclude them, right?

But once they get elected, We would basically evacuate them.

Discussions.

So it'll get taken care of by the line item. It'll get taken care of by the line item recusal of whatever item you're talking about.

Right.

Unfortunately, we're not pleased with the .

That's on my page.

Is that the last item?

That is, essentially.

Of course, we have the mandatory protection grounds. We can tie down the language there.

So this is something that the body had also, I believe, like, if you remove the wrong office, it leaves you with a wrong conviction in the company or portal, irrespective of the building. So you need to know what's going on with the office.

And that's the reason that I believe that you bought your life from class 10.

OK. On the S2, that's a recall.

The gel go through the elements of the boil. It would take to recall, honestly. We did. Okay, cool.

Right. So we would, um, at the last meeting, we found out what we didn't have. And as far as what he's calling, you could have to have a petition with a certain number.

Okay. Register. Okay. Can you go back to the proposed? Uh, yeah. Okay. The slide right before this. Okay, involving moral turpitude, then the City Commission shall automatically order a recall election. Is that what you want? A recall election? Or is that an election?

That's under potential grounds.

Right. So if it is determined by the District Court or Judge of the Mayor, then the Commission shall automatically report a recall election.

And then this is a bad dispense with the certified competition. So this is putting them back in the voters' hands. So if they're having a problem with number two, the commission has been in his office, you need to give it to the district court, and the district court says, yes, I have a problem with number two. And the commission is sort of saying that they automatically force for their own, because here we need to call an action on number four.

Yes, it wouldn't be automatic at that point. It would just be like on potential grounds. Obviously, there's mandatory, but then on potential. If they're convicted of a felony, then that's when you go to the recall to determine whether or not it's a crime of moral turpitude, and then the remedy would be recall. Okay, got it. Thanks.

And for the recall, is it done?

No.

Right.

So if we put them around, we have a common goal to determine this problem. But that state commission then would recall an election without the necessity of having a petition for it.

And a recall election means people are going to come on or not. And it's just 51% in your office.

Well, what is a recall election held in case, in this case, when the commission votes to issue a recall election, is that immediately 30 days after or the next election?

It would be the election. The next one up. Right.

Unless when we have an informal report to the judge in the district court, the district court judge will assess the amount to election.

the exception to the election. So I can see the interpretation that we ask the district court judge. Not only do we ask the district court judge, we also ask that you allow us to add more or less to that election.

One other thing, if you go back one, the part about One E there, the prohibited personal financial interest provisions. So this is where we were just talking about like violations of the ethics code.

So the ethics code essentially is just the codification or local codification of state concept of interest goals.

Okay.

But our section four, which is the qualifications,

but in that middle part where it says, just before the red, the first red line, it says, I shall not be interested in the profits or remunerates of any contracts, job, work, or service for the city, or interested in the sale to the city of any supplies to put into purchase. That's what we're referencing as far as they're having any confidence

So that whole part results like the only way for that, that is the mandatory. It's all mandatory. The qualifications part, like how is it determined?

Right. So the city secretary, what they'll do is the city secretary, whenever we disclose the same reporting conditions, whenever there's a boarding commission, We do look to see in, of course, attributes. You look at the boardrooms, the documents. Do you live in the district? Yes. How long? You look at what they, what the direct is, what they signed to. You look at, do you live in the district?

Do you live in the district? Yes. You look at what they, what the direct is, what they signed to.

If by situation there's concerns or anything, I write the facts. That's when we do the other investigations.

But if you do your investigation and they've already been elected and you find that they have, are interested in the sale of equipment to the city, then that's automatic. But who makes that determination?

If they, if they come into the electronics,

then it would be by the city commission, which is the last time in the publication section. But Marcelo, when we look at the contract, we can run a person's name in the buyout. And we'll see also the personal financial statements. But so all these would be required

So these would all be like a required vote to avoid it, right?

Right.

Or no, that's just for contracts. I guess I'm confused as to how this is going to get decided. Like they cease to possess the qualifications. What if they say like, no, I don't have that contract that the city secretary thinks they do. How is it mandatory? If you get it decided, no.

Right, so if we determine you're not knowledgeable because you have a contract, let's say they own a general travel company, just put that.

We would bring that to their attention in the disqualification letter and say you're disqualified for on this, and for that, the reason why.

They might come back and say, well, I'm gonna terminate my contract, but I don't have that interest, and run that in instead of having that they don't want or have an interest, then they would run them off.

So it happens when they're already in office.

If they already are in office, we would let the individual know that they're a violation attorney and we'll bring up that particular file and put the substance of the violation in. They would have to decline the service or the contract. I think we've had once where an individual had asked if they could do a service for the city, and we had told them, well, they can't make any money on it, but if you donate, then you pay. It's having that interest in the financial matter. And so it was a time where it was going to be a conflict, but they were able to get out of it by instead of making money out of it.

And so that, can you turn, what's the next page from there, section four? This is in a different section completely.

Yes, this would be under vacancies. So section three is vacancies, which is interesting enough, but a section written for qualifications. And it's just the way that it charters Dunford. I can say that one of the qualifications, a good example of this came about on the qualifications with residency. If you move from your particular district, then you would not qualify. And so we did have a question recently about the individual that had moved temporarily from the district. A question came up from another colleague of theirs, and we did the research applying under state law, state law, where it provides a definition of what residency is and intent. And there's a ton of case law that says that if you move from your district, if you have the intent to internment, that doesn't mean you can lose residency. I mean, there's case law going all the way down to . And so that would have been in the situation where if commission had decided to bring it had an open session under the charter where they needed to determine the qualifications of their federal colleagues, they could have questioned that and decided, based on what they had before them, the individual did vacate their office or did not vacate their office. And that particular instance, they didn't vacate. And so that would be an instance of where, between when someone's in office, and then the provisions of the charter kind of lay out

what the steps would be.

Having section three, adding the forfeiture of office for the auto dynamics, the management and ground lines, I do think it makes it a little bit easier for commission to where it won't entirely leave on them to decide. The site one is a pagan under office. It's more just an acknowledgement, right? So you take, almost you take out the politics from that.

Yep.

To an extent. And that's a good thing. Right. And so 1A through F does provide a commission that covers the value front a little bit. You're either absent or you're not. I don't think that's, you're either giving your filming or not. And so that goes down to 20 grams, because it will be two.

But what about E? If you go to the next page? Who's going to decide that, that it's mandatory? I'm just concerned that people are going to come back and say, no, that's not true. I have not, because if it's up to interpretation, like clear, felony conviction is clear, but like me.

The prohibitive by personal financial interest, that would be through the

So like essentially your office would make that determination. You'd say we've determined that you have a conflict. Somebody asked to decide, because if the commission's not voting, how does it happen?

Right. I think that's fair. I think in the sense of someone calling back from office, through the secretary's office, make that determination. If someone's already in office, it would be, I think the city commission make their own determination, but at the advice of the city.

So maybe you should probably put that in E. I would think like, so there's a mechanism for it. Cause if not, it's just there, but it's. Who decides that it's happened or not. But if they're like, that's not my company. But you guys think it is, I don't know.

I think it should be the city attorney because it's. It's long. I mean, it's, it's, it's a charter, right? It's code. Right. And so. The referrals made by the city, which is very similar to ethics.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Further and say, either for maybe the advisory commission.

And they might determine whether or not there is a personal financial interest.

We will.

And they've come out from the ethics advisory hearing that a person did have a financial interest. They came with the findings. One of their findings to commission could be that they determined that the person did have a personal financial interest by watching the charter of the campaign.

So that would be commissioned. I don't suppose we would move on that.

And if there's none, you have to have a complaint that is, for instance, usually you don't have that, and that's when the city attorney calling in might say, hey, I saw that they have a contract with the city. The city attorney goes into it, finds out, yeah, this is not a buyer's license contract. We also notice that, but that individual does have an interest and we can make that recommendation.

Shall I open the public hearing?

Any other questions regarding the recommendation?

This is a public hearing. Does anybody have any comment?

I have to say it again?

Oh, I'm opening the public hearing. Are there any comments? Seems there's no comments.

Madam Chair, there'll be no comments. I motion to close the public hearing portion of this bidding. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The public hearing is closed.

If you want to proceed with language like this, we'll have enough time to discuss.

It would be important for you to understand the condition of the items that are in this amendment.

Were there any other comments? I believe, Trey, did you have something you wanted to look at? No?

No, I think we've discussed it already, so that would be part of any amendments that were discussed. I'm okay.

I'll entertain a motion on this, Mr. Madam Chairman, I recommend we accept staff's recommended wording in red subject to any other changes that were proposed here tonight. And we accept for recommendation to the City Commission. Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Well, do we need to go back?

You said that one showed table, but I thought we had decided on it. That one.

Yeah. Well, I think as far as I just put table there to show like my ambition, but the recommendation, I can't take off table. Yeah. The recommendation is for the three reporting cuts.

Okay. We voted on that one.

And I appreciate it. It would be very difficult. I mean, I'm ready to be kind of touching on this.

Yes.

Imagine we're going to have to do that.

So that's the challenge. Okay. So we were charged with having four water carriers.

I know that we had to be discussed in June 29, but essentially tomorrow we do have on the agenda to make a presentation on these recommendations. We're in the same thing. I'm doing that. That can be, I believe, Commissioner Galanski had a volunteer last Monday. So it could be her, it could be one of you all, it could be staff, either for you all.

I think Commissioner Galanski wanted to do it. I'm okay with that.

Yeah, I can do it. I plan on being there anyway.

Okay. Okay, it'll be similar. One of the recommendations I believe was to have proposed to have immediate or chartered election. I believe that is still one of our recommendations, correct? So we want to include a timeline such as this for the city commissioner. This will basically cover tomorrow's, tomorrow's meeting, basically November 7th. So we're kind of behind schedule.

Depending on the direction of the city, you might have the first meeting on July 7th, or just be returning first on the 4th, because we don't want to.

So after tomorrow's meeting, we may have the commission come back and say, don't revisit this, right?

Right, right. So the final, this is just a presentation, right? They still have to have the hearing. In the normal process, although it's not required, somebody don't need to do it, but they got for it, but then they appeal it. But my preference is that they do, you have to approve each one to be on the ballot. So that's how we would deal with socializing diversity.

It could, if you're in a relationship, it might change the landscape. Go through each individual item and have them vote so that we know what they actually thought about. So then they might even come back. I think the information that might come back is .

So at this point, I guess we can hold off on future meetings because we may not need one at all.

Correct.

Anything else?

No.

I think we will pause having tomorrow's presentation. We'll see you all from right after the presentation occurs. So next thing, we'll get you in a minute. If we don't see you all, thanks for your service. meeting is adjourned thank you