City Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. It is now 3 p.m. on July the 7th. I call the city council meeting to order. All council members are present with the exception of council member Kimball. He will not be attending. And Mayor Pro Tem Jessica Gonzalez. Is she on Zoom? She's on Zoom. She is present on Zoom. Minister Jones will lead us in invocation and Council Member Kendricks will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

As we bring in all wondering minds and thoughts, and look for the healed and remember where our help, our aid, and assistance come from. Most gracious, eternal, and heavenly Father, we pause to say thank you for another day's journey. God, we ask you to walk up and down this council this afternoon. Touch each and every heart that's gathered here. Let them down in your wisdom of wisdom right now. Give them a sound mind. humble heart wisdom love and common action god for everything that's happened within this chamber god bless it god it's only you can bless it no one else can do it like you so god as we pause right now and just thank you that you watched over us last night while we saw him and slept and then you touched these old bodies this morning and allowed us to rise to a brand new day that wasn't promised to us and we thank you for it father Now, God, continue to hold our footsteps and regulate our minds. Bless us, God, as no one else can do. Then, God, we pause for a moment to remember our service men and women, those who stand in harm's way as we stand here enjoying all the fruit and labors of life. Touch them right now. Let them know, God, that you still, God, you still standing by them. Then, God, when we have done all that's signed in our hands to do, When we shall stick our swords in the sand, it's time to study war no more. Give us a home somewhere in your kingdom, where we may praise your name forevermore. These are all blessed and actual and righteous things. Amen, amen, amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Council, with your consent, I would like to move item 19, Mayor's Remarks, to the beginning of the meeting. Do I have your consent?

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Okay, I want to talk about Excuse me. No, I wanted to, uh, to comment on this past Saturday's, um, festival, the red, white and blue festival. What a great festival. And I want to say this on behalf of the entire I'm sorry.

We still need approval of the agenda for the rest of the items before moving forward.

Okay. I was told I did not need to. I need to say this before. Okay. Okay. Need a motion to approve the agenda. Excuse me. Council Member Brown.

I move to approve the agenda with the amendment to take item number 19 and make that the first order of business.

Can I get a second? Aye. All in favor? Signify by saying yes. Yes. May I vote, Tim? motion carries seven to zero thank you council thank you so much so let me um continue with this in terms of this very good festival what a what a wonderful time that we had there uh many of you were out there uh from what i understand that it has been um probably like over unofficially about 19 over 19 000 people um We'll just wait for those numbers to come in, but let me say this on behalf of the council. It was truly a great evening, red, white, and blue festival as we came together to celebrate our nation's 250th birthday with family, friends, and community. The energy, the patriotism, and spirit on display made this event a memorable event We had music, family, fun. We had the fireworks. But let me just say this. I want to get to this point. And the reason why we had such a wonderful time, and I believe council would agree, because of the men and the women who made this happen, our staff, the fire department, I want to thank. the fire department. I want to thank the police department, the public works Anybody that had anything to do with this festival in terms of getting it to make it happen, it did. I'm telling you, it was a wonderful, wonderful event. I stayed there until the end. And I'm so proud of how the sponsors, the vendors, they made it happen as well. Our downtown or Main Street team, what a wonderful job y'all did. I don't know if they're here, but I wanna say Main Street team, thank you. Thank you so much for what you've done. I could only imagine it was a lot of work, a lot of work, a lot of planning, but we did it. And we celebrated as a community. We celebrated as one. It was so good to see such a diversity of people. and how that we just enjoyed not only the festival, but we enjoyed one another. I saw people talking to one another. I saw kids playing the first wheel. I don't think we had that. This is the first time we ever had the first wheel. Is that correct? as um as a city we should be proud of what we what we've accomplished and bringing the city together just to unite one another and that was such a good time to do and so I again thank you Main Street team thank you um City staff and everyone who played a part in that on behalf of the city council thank you Yes, sir.

I propose that we all agree on the City Council to forego the staff presentations for the following seven items on the consent agenda, since I know we have all done our homework. Those would be items RS26101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 010, and 011. This is not a motion. It's just a proposal.

OK, so that calls for a consensus, city attorney?

Yes, it just needs consensus from council. It's not a motion. Correct.

OK. What is the consensus of the council?

Yes.

Okay.

Discussion?

Yes, discussion.

I think it's only fair that we have the presentation this evening since the citizenry didn't have any warning on it to know that they wouldn't be getting the presentation in advance. I know we have a recommendation on the governing standards to go to this process in the future, but that hasn't been approved yet. So I think out of fairness to you, and I see a lot of new faces here, So in fairness to the new people who are here who may or may not know how to access the information on their own in advance, they deserve to at least hear the presentation on what's going on.

Okay. Councilwoman, Councilman Nashke.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council, and the residents. Mr. Bass made a proposal to the Council, and I didn't even get the count of how many agreed to it, and that's all. I was just trying to see, did everybody consent to it? Yes, ma'am. Let me see.

Can I see the hands of those who consent? One, two, three, four. Mayor Pro Tem? GONZALES? SO THE CONSENSUS PASSED.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

OKAY. NOW, SO WE WILL NOT BE HAVING THE PRESENTATIONS. WAS THAT INCLUDING YOU MENTIONED SO WE CAN BE CLEAR?

So the two that we do need the presentations on, Mr. Mayor, is RS26104 and OR2612.

And to be clear with the audience, what number is that Sir? Is that item number two, four and nine? OK. Thank you, Council Member Bass. Alright, we will come. Council Member. Nice King.

McKendrick, Allison, I couldn't hear what you were saying. I apologize, Mr. Mayor. It's okay.

You want him to repeat that?

For the record, because Council Member Williams, she didn't hear it either. Okay.

City Attorney, could you repeat that?

Yes. So the two that we would have presentations on are Item 4, RS-26104, and Item 9, OR26-12. Thank you both.

Okay, so that's item four and item nine. And that is again, RS 26-104 and OR 26-112. Council Member Brown.

How will that work for item number three, RS-2060, or 103, to discuss the fees for the Animal Services Department?

Well, there was a consensus for...

So we're just going to vote on it without discussion?

Well, we'll have a time to discuss it in the regular workshop, but we're not going to do a presentation. Council Member Brown.

Sure, not to be contrary. Okay. Okay. This is the work session that we're in right now. And I can understand if we're not going to have a presentation and we've seen the proposed fees, but it's still a discussion that needs to happen. Normally, if we pull those consent before the workshop even starts, then there's no discussion on them at all. So I just want to make, are we just going to discuss each item without a presentation or are we just keeping everything going to the two? that were not pulled from presentation.

You'll be able to ask questions during the regular, we've already, we've had a chance to, from what I understand, the council would like for us to just have a presentation on these two items, four or nine.

So we're going to discuss the rest, but not have a presentation on them?

No.

Then how am I going to be able to discuss one that we pulled the presentation from?

The city attorney.

From what I understand from what the recommendation was, it would effectively pull this from the discussion. So the work session, that would be the mechanism which starts the discussion on the item. So if we are pulling it, then no, there would not be a time to discuss it. I think the idea was to pull it and consider it without further discussions.

Right, and we could ask questions during the regular session.

Mr. Mayor, if I may? Yes. When we go to the regular session, there will be the consent agenda. If these items that have not been presented, if someone wants to ask questions or pull it, they can make a motion to approve the consent agenda minus a certain item for separate vote or discussion. I think that would be very simple. Thank you, Mr. Cagle.

Yes, sir. Mayor Pro Tem?

Thank you. I did have a recommendation as well. I don't know if I can make that motion to include item number four, RS 26. I'm sorry, RS number five, RS 26-105. No, it's as well.

The consensus has already been. The council has already agreed on which one.

Did we just vote on Council Member Bass's recommendation?

Say that again, ma'am.

Did we just vote on Council Member Bass's recommendation?

Yes, it was consensus, it wasn't a...

I understand we voted on consensus, but not for these items, but okay, thank you.

Yes.

Okay, is everybody clear? Please press your request to speak. Council Member Bass.

Based on what City Manager Cagle said, item five can be pulled before we vote on the consent agenda. So item five could be pulled and the animal services fees could be pulled. That's in the regular work session before we vote on the consent agenda. If I understand right.

Okay, we will continue. Madam Secretary, with these, the other two items. Anyone number four? That is number four.

RS26104, consider a memorandum resolution readopting the governing standards and expectations with amendments.

Good afternoon, sir.

Good afternoon, Mayor. Good afternoon, council members. Okay, so tonight I am bringing forth the governing standards for the readoption. So just a little background. The governing standards and expectations were originally adopted by resolution in June 2018, and they're revised annually. The intent is for them to serve as a single source reference containing the council's rules, protocols, procedures, policies, and expectations for not only itself, but also committees, staff, and the public. Section 7-20 provides that city council shall begin review of the governing standards after the election and work to readopt an updated version by the end of July of each year. So in June 16th, 2026, City Council directed that certain changes be brought back to City Council. There were also a number of additional revisions that were received by staff since then that I have for you tonight. So this is a list of the changes that were brought up at the last council meeting. The change to add a separate section for citizen comments on non-agenda items. Upon review, it looks like that change could be made to section 1-5815. So it's just a simple addition creating an area at the bottom of the agenda allowing for that discussion. And there could be a change to Section 1-80D, which adds provisions to allow public to participate in that citizen comment and public hearing items remotely. There was a recommendation to change the date for which the city facilities may not be used for council sponsored meetings. The change would be from January 1 through election day to July of odd numbered years. That was one that was recommended by staff in connection with the changes to the election dates. The next was the update the date for council appointments to committees and subcommittees to every year in December again to realign with new election dates. Next is the add board of adjustment to the list of boards with appointments subcommittees that resulted from the consolidation of our multiple boards of adjustment to a single board. And then finally there was the update the date for the annual review of the governing standards again moving that to December to January. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A NOTE ON THAT ONE, THAT UNLESS THERE'S A DIRECTION OTHERWISE, JUST SO THE COUNCIL IS AWARE, SO WE ARE DOING THESE REVIEW NOW AND READOPTION NOW, IF THIS IS ADOPTED AS WRITTEN, THIS WOULD REQUIRE IT AGAIN TO COME THIS DECEMBER. SO IF THIS COUNCIL WANTS THAT, THAT'S FINE. WE CAN DO IT AGAIN. IF NOT, IF WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT ONCE AND THEN WAIT UNTIL NEXT DECEMBER, SOMETHING CAN BE WRITTEN IN THE GOVERNING STANDARDS IN WHICH THAT PROVISION WOULD BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL 2027. That goes over the changes that were brought up at the last meeting. This is a slide of the additional requested changes. So before I go over these tonight, kind of what our office is requesting is either a motion to accept those changes as requested, and then go back. either looking for a motion either tonight to adopt these to move forward with these adoptions as they were already presented or postpone these to the next meeting to bring back any additional changes that council brings tonight so we can either do it as one motion or as two is for two resolutions okay so this is what we need to would it be good for us to just go over each one

So we can be clear.

Okay. Each one of the ones that were discussed? Yes. Okay.

So we're clear.

So the first one was an addition to Section 1-50A15. What this did was create a separate addition, or I'm sorry, it created a new subsection under that provision that allows for citizen comments on non-regular agenda items, I mean, I'm sorry, on non-public hearing items for all regular meeting agendas, I'm sorry. So this would create a separate item at the end of the agenda. So it would still allow for citizen comments on agenda items that are non-public items at the beginning, but it would create a separate item at the end that would allow citizens to comment on any city-related business.

And you're saying this would be at the end of the agenda?

Correct, yes, as written, yes. It was added. It's in Section 1-50, which is the order of how the agenda is structured. So this would be put at the end of the agenda.

Okay. So can I get a motion for Section A? 150A, 115, 15?

So are we making motions during the work session?

Oh, I'm sorry. My correction. No, we're not.

I will be asking for a motion of directions when it comes to the additional provisions. Really, I'm just looking for now is that these are more for review of the ones that council already discussed at the last meeting here. So just the second and third pages I have are going to be the new ones.

But in a general session, we can go one by one.

You can. It would be easier if we just adopted all of these by one, because this is a resolution that's adopting the new standards and that is going to be re-adopting the governing standards. It would be cleaner and easier if we just adopted a person to one resolution.

Okay. Continue on, sir.

You want me to continue on with these ones that we just got through?

Yeah, explain in each.

Yes, sir. But the problem with that is I agree on the non-agenda items, but I disagree to allow the public to participate remotely. I have very specific reasons for that. So how do we proceed in that case? Because I don't want to vote against non-agenda items because I'm against the remote access.

Right. And so this was all done already by vote by council in order to add this. at the last meeting. So it was put on there by by majority vote of the council to add these on the recommendation. So if there is so this would go as one lump item. So if there is a provision under that you're against, then you can vote against it that keep from that adding that one change. Say again? So if you are against one, these are kind of going forward because it's already been presented to council at the last meeting in order to vote on whether or not each individual council member approved each one of these individual items. And so it was already put on here following a majority vote. So effectively, it is a all or nothing when it comes to that point.

I understand. Thank you. Council Member Brown?

I'll wait until after we finish the entire presentation.

So the next one will be 1-80. This was the addition for the ability for city... THIS WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE IN PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND CITIZEN COMMENTS REMOTELY, SO THAT WOULD JUST BE IN ADDITION, A SMALL ADDITION TO PARAGRAPH 2 UNDER THE CITIZEN'S PARTICIPATIONS IN SECTION 1-80. DO YOU WANT ME TO JUST CONTINUE THROUGH? OKAY.

Council Member Nashke.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Maybe I'm just missing something. If we already, if I wasn't here, I had a family emergency at that meeting. But if the council already approved this, Why are we going one by one? If I understood you correctly, these are items that they already approved prior.

That's correct. So these ones were the ones that were already presented and approved by council at the last meeting.

All right. So there's only what you want for this is consent. Either we do all of them or we don't. Correct. Okay. I just needed clarity because if it's a bundled package, it's a package. And we can't change any, we cannot change an item on here unless we want to pull one specifically and say, I disapprove of that when we do vote on the item. Am I correct?

So at the end of this, I am looking for a motion of direction in order to adopt these or a motion of direction to bring it back next time with additional changes or bring it back next time with some of these changes gone, removed from this.

Correct. So to make it simple. The items that we are discussing for the residents is that even though this is a package, a council member can pull, as Council Member Bass said, I may be for one item and not for the other. They have that option. Am I correct or wrong?

He can make a motion to approve it. It's something to the effect of I move to approve it without that. Correct. Just like we do the agenda.

This is not new to us. So I'm just saying, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to follow your lead on this. Since we got to make the motion anyway, and we have the opportunity to pull out any item we want, going through step by step by step is irrelevant until we get ready to make that motion. And that's just my opinion on it. And I apologize if I offended anyone.

Thank you, Council Member Nash-King. I was understanding that we were, this is a workshop session and you were discussing what are we gonna be voting on by each item? Not so much that we are voting on it again But you're just going over what we asked you to bring back to us. Is that correct?

That is correct. So these are the ones that were voted on last time and the changes we went back and made the changes to the governing standards in order to effectuate those changes. So I'm just bringing them back to illustrate what those changes were. Okay, thank you.

We have one over here, Mr. Mayor. Council Member Williams.

So then why are we wasting the time? And we're talking about our time that we have here now. And I think that this is an absolute waste of time when we don't have to go through all of this, when we have already voted on this. I mean, let's be real. So I understand exactly what Councilwoman Nash-King is saying as well. And we've already voted for it. Now, I understand you said we're going to make a motion later on. Okay, but isn't all already packaged together? Even if we pull one, will we have to go back over all of them again?

No. No, I'm just bringing these back to you. I was just running through them just to show what was discussed last time. I'm just going off Council's direction to go through these in depth. If Council wants me to skip by them and go to the new ones, I'm more than willing to do so.

So we just can't move on then? We just want to...

I still do have a number of changes that were received by staff as far as additional changes in which I do need motions of direction as to whether or not council accepts those different changes as well.

I understand. Okay. So, sir, so for right now, you don't have to go over all of these. Correct.

So these ones here are ones that have already been discussed in depth by counsel. I can move, go ahead and jump forward to the new ones. Thank you, sir. Okay.

Thank you.

As you see, these are the number of the different changes we received. I can just walk through them real fast, just read through them. So the regular meeting start time should be moved from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. That would just require a simple change to Section 1-30. The second is the mayor may set the time for special meetings if there is no council motion specifying the time. And the changes to the time of the regular meetings would require approval by a majority of city council. That would be changes to, again, to 1-30. The next is anything on the agenda that is not discussed by 11 p.m. is automatically moved to a special meeting agenda for the following week. Now, I would like to bring up a note of caution with that. With the current language of the Open Meetings Act with the new posting of the three business days, that would be – HARD FOR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THAT AND IF THERE WAS A HOLIDAY DURING THE WEEK IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO POST BECAUSE IT WOULD JUST BE THE NEXT DAY WE WOULD HAVE TO POST THE AGENDA THE VERY NEXT DAY AND WE'RE ALREADY OUT OF COMPLIANCE SO THERE IS CONCERN WITH THAT BUT IF COUNCIL DID WANT TO MOVE FORWARD THAT WOULD JUST BE AN ADDITION TO OR A CHANGE TO 1-70 The next would be meetings will not be adjourned until prior to 11 p.m. if there is still business to be discussed on the agenda unless there is an emergency. The next is return to four-minute meetings, I'm sorry, four minutes for citizen comments and public hearings and three minutes for the non-agenda item discussions. And then it splits agenda into two separate meetings, whether same day or different days, have a call to order agenda approval and adjournment on the workshop and the meeting. So that would require two sets of citizen comments and effectively would split the workshop and the meeting and the regular meeting into two meetings. Next we have the recommendation to add invocation and pledge to special city council meetings. Right now it's only on regular meetings. This would add it to special meetings. The change to add either define citizen as any member of the public for purposes of citizen comments or rename the section from citizen comment to public comment. Next is remove the requirement to submit participation form prior to meeting start. That would be for the citizen comments. So now citizens or public have to submit a form in order to speak. That change would remove that requirement. The next is the procedure for the council investigation. That's what we've discussed with the charter amendment discussions, actually having something that lists out that procedure. the next is remove the authority of the mayor to remove citizens from the premises so that's a distinction removing them from the meeting as opposed to the premises and then the next is to clarify that staff presentations are not required for consent agenda items unless a council member requests that an item be pulled from the consent agenda for further discussions so none of those are necessarily have any sort of legal concerns and with that I Like like I mentioned this right now the next steps are the City Council may continue discussions for further amendments or readopt the governing standard with those amendments that we've already discussed Thank you, sir councilmember best So For the rather long list of additional council councilmember requested changes I

I suppose during the regular meeting, we could discuss and vote on each one of these one at a time.

Council, you can. I think it would be easier if we just discussed and had a motion that adopted each individual one, but that's going to be council's prerogative. If you want to vote, if you want to discuss each individual one, we can.

Your recommendation is what?

The motion can be to accept A, B, D, and kind of move down the list and move forward with that, or we can go down in the list and have a motion for each individual one. It's just that one's going to be a lot more timely.

Well, my opinion is some of these are quite controversial. I do not anticipate six to zero votes or seven to zero votes on most of these. So I see no other way other than having to discuss each one of these separately and make a motion on each one of these separately. And I think it will be worth the time because these are very important. requested changes that I have heard from citizens. And it's not just council members proposing this. A lot of these came from our citizens. So I think it's worth our time as a council to discuss them one by one. Thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem. Gonzalez.

Thank you. And I actually second that sentiment from Council Member Bass that we either do go down these line by line and discuss them and decide how we want to move on each one of them. Because of the nature of some of these, I have several questions and I'm not okay with just mass approving of these at any point. Either that or a motion that needs to be made to continue our discussions for further amendments moving at a different date. But I am in favor of Council Member Bass's recommendation.

Okay, Council Member Brown. And then Council Member Nash King.

So I'm okay with doing it either way, either going through them one at a time or handling it like we would any consent item where if there's something on the list that specifically a council member wants to pull, then we pull that item. So that way if there's something that we know that it's already going to be in agreement, then we're not going over that one unnecessarily. So... Either way, I was going to start it off by, but I will leave the floor to Ms. King before I go ahead and start talking about each individual one then.

Council Member Neske.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Assistant City Attorney, I would like to add some items to this. Is that appropriate to do it now, sir?

I believe if you want to move to Adam Waits, it would be appropriate, yes.

Okay, so with that being said, I have, from the council, I have some concerns. We received some, Mr. Mayor, this is directed to you because I cannot talk directly to council members, but it's to the council, sir. We received a lot of emails that we were not a part of, but we were added on, Mr. Mayor, to a request for information or different things that council member wanted. I didn't be requested for information, and it was coming from different people of the information that we was receiving. And that's very important that we all know. And one of the things I would like, Mr. Mayor, to be put into our governor's standards and expectation that if a council member, because according to the charter, The charter is clear that the staff works directly for Mr. Cagle or the city manager, him or her, and that the city council only have three people that answer to them, and that would be Mr. Mayor of the city manager, the city judge, and Mr. Mayor of the city auditor. And so I would like to propose to the council that when we are requesting information, Mr. Mayor, from the staff, that we get with city, Mr. Cagle or whoever at that time, if he's not here, Mrs. Wilson, to ensure that we have one person that that the council send that email to if it's Debbie. And I would like to find out about the street light in my neighborhood. It's not working, which I know for a fact that that's not our responsibility once the developer has completed it. But I do want some black and white to share with the constituents. So I should send it, for example, to just you, sir, for an example, to Mr. Wallander. But when he replied, we all get that information. Because I don't like my email to be cluttered. And I already have, with staff, I put them in order where they go. So I'm getting new emails from people I never really probably received it because some other council member may request it. So that is a recommendation that if we are following the charter, council, That going directly sometime to staff or to employees can be a problem because, to me, we will be out of order according to the charter. So what is the purpose of us having Mr. Cagle, Mrs. Wilson, and whoever else may be the assistant city manager? When we just send it to Mr. Cagle, decide Ms. Cece, hypothetically, it'll go to Ms. Cece. Can I have an extra minute, Council? Council? Thank you. That email from a council member will go to one source within the city, and then that person will give it to Mr. Cagle or Mrs. Wilson predicated on who's in charge that week. And they will go directly to... I'm not saying we cannot talk to them, but when it... One council member or two or three cannot direct the staff to do anything as an individual or as three. It has to come before this council, and we vote on a direction for the city. So I just would like, if we could add, simple, that the council would go to a source of the city manager's choosing, to send our emails when requesting for information, and that once that information is gathered, that all council members receive all of the information, and that it is clear that not a council member, I used up my time, can give a direction.

Thank you all. Thank you, Council Member Nash-King. Yes, I really care about what you were saying. I wanted to, because that's kind of the language that I wanted to present with my opinion of adding on to the government standings. This is kind of pretty much what you were saying as well. I recommended that we add language to our governing standards to reinforce our charter provisions reinstating the city manager's authority in managing and directing his or her staff. Per the charter, the council has three direct reports, the judge, the auditor, as you said, and the city manager. If council needs something from city staff, the inquiry should be towards the city manager. As our direct report, WE NEED TO ENSURE THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE OPPORTUNITY AND SUPPORT TO DIRECT AND BALANCE THE WORKLOAD OF THEIR STAFF MEMBERS. MR. WALLENTER, I BELIEVE THAT'S KIND OF THE LANGUAGE, IF I'M CORRECT, COUNCIL MEMBER.

Yes, sir. It is. But if I'm Mr. Mayor, I agree with everything you said. But I just want to add a caveat to the city assistant city attorney. It was my understanding that we was talking about the charter and the governor standards and expectation. There was no time on it because Mrs. Can I have permission, Mr. Mayor? You have permission. Thank you to the Assistant City Attorney. When we were discussing items like this, because this would be different than a regular meeting, but I'm assuming this is not. But this particular item, like you stated when we was doing the charter, And I'll say a point of order. Hey, we're not on that subject, but she stated that in these, the governor's standards and expectation, if I'm wrong, correct me in the charter. When we have these types of discussion that we could just talk as if we were having a conversation to get clarity on what we're trying to say to the council to consider. And I would just like, I don't have a problem with the time, but I just want to see if does that apply to this or not.

Yes, so I believe what the advice was that council typically suspends the governing standards and a lot of the rules when it comes to discussions, when we're discussing the charter amendments, as far as governing standards, I would assume it would fall within the same lines.

Yes, sir. And with that being said, Mr. Mayor, when you finish, I have one more item on my time that I would like them to consider.

You may.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney, for your professional opinion.

Thank you. Council Member Williams.

Yes, thank you there, Mayor Solomon. I appreciate it. I agree with Councilwoman Melissa about we don't need to go over every single... No, I know. This is Melissa right here.

I know.

I agree with her that we don't need to go over every item there. I think some of these things are elementary, that we don't have to spend as much time on them every single time. Some of them could be we don't have to go over every one of them. Some of them that we can just read over and we already had time on. And we already have explained every one of them. So why has it got to be reiterated over and over again? So some of them, no, we don't need to go over every time. Some of them are just elementary. So, no, I don't agree with that.

Okay. Let me say this is so important for us to, uh, when you talk about not going over to make it clear for the residents, the citizens of what we are actually doing in our governing standards. And so, uh, and to make, so we can be clear, you know, understand that we can just vote on the whole cluster of things, but I think that you need to make sure what you're voting on. Uh, and I think some of these items need to be discussed. And and and realize so I think it's good. It's my opinion. Councilmember Brown.

So I don't think that this should be a consensus thing, and historically what we do with these is it's a motion of direction to accept or deny each one of the recommendations. And I would say that based on the conversation on that so far, even though it's not a motion of direction, I still wouldn't support it regardless. We should be able to email any department head and ask them whatever questions it is we have. The charter specifically says that the council has the authority to inquire into the conduct of any office, department, or agency of the city and make investigations as to municipal affairs. So that inquire is asking questions. So we have the authority by charter to ask questions to any department head. I can tell you from experience that the department heads, if it's not a quick question that is pertinent only to that council member, they're going to send it to the city manager's office who's going to determine if it needs to go to the whole council or not anyway. But a lot of times you can get a response quicker if it's something urgent on a constituent need by going to that department head, asking them the question directly rather than sending it to the city manager who could be in meetings, who could be out of the office, who may not be accessing their email at that point in time. Who would then be able and has to forward it on to the department head to get the answer. Then that department head has to send it back to the city manager. And then the city manager has to go ahead and have it dispersed out to everyone. For the sake of just asking questions, I don't see why we would limit ourselves to one office instead of going directly to the source. and then letting our staff decide is it something that needs to go to the whole council or not. If I'm asking something about a pothole on a street in District 2, then I don't know that the whole council needs that information about that, and I don't know that we need to take staff time sending that out to everybody. So I would not support this, even if it did come back as a motion of direction. But what I'm gonna request is that since the city attorney had requested a couple very specific things, which is one, a motion of direction on the items that are here. And at the end of that, we decide if we want to approve these or if we want to bring back additional changes. that we should go through what's already been presented, that we all had two weeks to type up and send in. At the end of that, if anybody has anything additional, then we can add that in and start discussing those. But for the sake of time, I think we should go through what people have already put the work into and done.

Okay. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Council Member Nashking.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with what everyone has said, but this is why we're leaders, and we should be. We're trying to rush time, and we complain about us being here too long. Every council member has the right, because this is the governor's standards and expectation that we're having an effect on every council member here. And I think if a council member would like to bring a new item, to the council because between the time that they voted on these items, a lot could have transpired that say, hey, maybe we do need to add this to it. And that is a concern because we're getting a lot of emails. That's just one of my – and you can vote it down. I'm not going to debate that, but I do have the right to add to it. And one more thing I would like to add, since we're talking about the charter – The charter, I base my question and proposal based on the charter. The charter is the people charter. You can't get around that. So if we, the council, are breaking the charter by not allowing the city manager or the assistant city manager who's in charge at that time, yes, we are the leaders. We are in charge. But the charter, if we're for the people, We would line up with the charter and say, hey, there has to be an order. We act as if we are the only one on the council that's asking questions. Every council member from the emails I'm getting, it's not just from one person. It's like all these emails as if, one, you cannot just go to their office if you really care and talk to them. And personal, two, these are some things basic elementary we should already know. Yes, if it's on the upcoming agenda item, I can see requesting those items. But requesting items that is not even on an upcoming agenda and staff, Because we're all their bosses, Mr. Cagle. He's not going to just send it to one person, or he's probably going to tell his assistant city managers in my absence, do what I would do. I don't leave council members out because they are all my bosses. And that is the proper thing to do in protocol. So I'm going to leave that there, whether you vote it up or down. And another thing, when we come to meetings, the council is only responsible. And I'm just foreseeing this in the future. This is my last thing I want to add to the governor's standards and expectations. The council members, we have our executive meeting, and staff is not allowed unless there is a staff member that can come to that meeting that we need. Therefore, council has no right trying to go to the city staff meetings or when the directors have meetings, they have no right to be in that because that's their meeting. If we send in all these emails requesting information, Mr. Mayor, can I have one more minute?

Council?

Council, one.

Mr. Williams? May I approach him?

Thank you. To add to that, I would like to make a proposal that city council should stay in their lane, not in this sense, and we have no business trying to do the city manager job by going to city staff meetings, and we are not the director of a department, and we should not be in that meeting. If we, the council, is having a meeting every other Tuesday, this is our meeting. And staff just can't come up here and sit on the dais. When we have our executive meeting, staff just can't come back there and just sit down, just an average executive director and be a part of that. And I would just like for us to learn as council members, according to the charter, to stay in our lane. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Nash. Council Member Brown.

I think to say any question asked by the council is unnecessary because we should know is uncalled for. You have several new council members who have not been here for seven or eight years to know the processes. So the only way they find out is to ask questions and having that in writing leaves no room for there to be misunderstandings. So I think the emails are a great way to do that. You don't have to respond. I know that you disagree with me. The charter does not say we can't ask department heads questions. Asking them questions is not giving them a directive. And so, again, the only thing it says is not to interfere with appointments or removals and shall not give orders to subordinates of the city manager. which asking a question is not giving an order. We do have the right to do inquiries, to ask questions. Furthermore, there is a legal reason staff can't go into executive sessions. For the Public Meeting Act, there is a reason staff doesn't come up here and just say whatever they want to. For ADA purposes, staff can't come and sit up on the dais anyway. But to say that council members shouldn't be able to attend meetings with staff or department heads is also ridiculous. That is how we get the information. That is how we represent the citizens. I think it's odd that I've only heard of one case where there's been any controversy over that recently. Because I recently requested to be part of a meeting between a developer and an engineer and an HOA and the staff. Well, I don't care if you care. This is my time. Thank you. So I was told no. I didn't fight it. I didn't argue it. However, it is the right of the council members to attend those meetings. both by charter and by state law. So we can't put into governing standards something that is going to be contrary. Mr. Wallander, we do have the right to inquire, correct?

Correct.

And we have the, for lack of having a procedure, inquiring is simply asking a question, correct?

I would agree with that.

And for lack of a procedure, if it just says we have the right to inquire, then that would give us the right to inquire to any department head?

Yes. Thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna ask you all, the council, when you're directing it to anybody, first address the chair and then we can go from there. Council Member Kendricks.

Okay, I wanna be short with this. Leadership goes a long ways. And when we started talking about leadership and questioning staff on certain things, I spent 20 years in the military. At no time did I just go into a general's meeting because I wanted to be there. There are certain things that we have to do as leaders. And doing things as leaders, meaning giving our staff the room to make those decisions and not be over there lingering over them pretty much like micromanagers. We are not micromanagers. We do set policies for the city. And when you become a micromanager, what happens is that dwindles down to the lowest level. And when it dwindles down to the lowest level, along with your head of staff, people just come to work just to be there. That is not what we want. We want people to come to work and give their best every day. And we have a great staff. We have great department heads, but when you start stepping on them and want to get these I got you moments instead of talking and getting the answers that you need and not being in a meeting with the I got you's, that affects morale. That affects the overall turnover of your employees of your city. And right now, everything that we are going back and forth and doing, we're trying to get a new city manager. I tell you, this isn't helping. I'm speaking. This is not helping us. And we want the best of the best to come to our city. But if we sit here... And we want to stomp on our leaders and our leaders up under us or above us. It does not work. It does not work. We're having problems at the federal level. We're having problems at the state level. It does not work. And we have to find a way. Everybody got what they think is the way, but we have to unite together. to make this thing work. And if you do not unite to make it work, can I get one more minute?

Yes. Council Member?

If we do not unite to... Mayor Pro Tem?

Mayor Pro Tem, are you there?

Yes, sir, I do.

I give him the minute, please. Okay, super. And that is all I'm saying. Leadership. Leadership goes a long ways. And it's hard when you've never been in charge of anything to be a leader, to be around people, to know how your comments and things that you say or may not do affects people. That's all I'm going to say about leadership. Leadership goes a long ways to making a city run smoothly. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Kendricks. Council Member Nash-King?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And Mr. Mayor, this is directed to you. Mr. Mayor, I want to be clear, and also Mr. Assistant City Attorney. My statement was City, Mr. Cagle has a meeting, like it's going to come up after we finish this meeting. He meets with the executive directors, just him and his executive directors. That is the meeting I met yesterday. I want to make clear that we should not be in his, Mr. Cagle, executive meetings. That's only with his executive leaders. That could be mentorship. That could be anything. Now, if a council member wants to talk to an executive director, I don't have a problem with that. But I want to make clear, Mr. Mayor, I meant after we meet every Tuesday, as we all know, because I tried to go to one, and I'm not pointing that out. Anyway, when I first came home and Mr. Kager made it clear to me that, hey, Mayor, this is my time with my executive directors. This is what we talk, we plan here, how we're going to present to the council. And I respected that because you're right. Why am I not? I'm just trying to learn. But it wasn't even about me. It was by him mentoring and getting information and thoughts from his executive directors. The second thing, when I say I don't care about council members going into a meeting if the director is talking to a developer, a builder, or somebody, because it's up to the director and if they want to go. There are some developers and builders have asked council members to attend meetings with Mr. Cagle. That's just normal. That's not what I meant. And the third thing, even executive directors meet with their managers and assistant city managers. Those are the meetings I meant we should be in. Let them have the opportunity to work with their staff one-on-one, mentor them, do whatever. Because we already, as council members, have access to them. If they want to spend quality time with their team, they should be afforded that without us interfering with it. That's what I wanted to clarify. And I don't have a problem. I don't care about council meetings. taking a resident or developer builder or anybody to meet with from the executive directors and that's the motion i want is the motion of direction that we the council do not attend the city manager meeting with this executive directors and the directors when they meet with their staff those are the two meetings that i think we should not be interfering in thank you mr mayor thank you councilman city manager and council

Thank you, Council Member Nash-King, and you were including the Assistant Director as well?

In the absence of the City Manager, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Council Member Mayor Prochem-Gonzalez.

Thank you. Thank you Council Member Nash-King for clarifying that because that was where I was going with my line of questioning. That I can agree with and I think that we should have no business in that part of the business. But you did clear it up regarding our constituents that do inquire or ask us to go with them to these meetings. Usually those are announced and coordinated. So thank you for clearing that up for me. That answered my question that I did have. I also have a recommendation for the governing standards and I know that we are still going to go line by line for the other ones, but I did want to make sure that I put it out there. I put an agenda request item in for. Adding a quarterly meeting with council. And our planning and zoning, and I believe that this will be an appropriate space for it to be a policy or process to be in our governing standards as well. So, my request is for structure process for regular meetings between council and planning and zoning commission. that would fit within our governing standards to align long-term planning, clarify policy direction without interfering with the commission's independent decision-making. But just to overall emphasize the communication and direction from council to planning and zoning, I think that would be appropriate as well in our governing standards and commissions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Poteau.

Okay, that being all, we'll continue. Mr. Waller, do you want to continue?

The three that was discussed that's new, will that be added or will we make a motion direction to add those with the ones we already have?

Good question.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Good question, Council Member Nesking.

I have added those three to the bottom of the list. You have? Yes. Great. Great.

Okay. Continue, sir.

Okay. So I'm going to go through the line. I propose we just walk through them one by one, get a motion of direction as to whether council accepts each recommendation. Is that what you want me to proceed with?

What is the consensus of the council? Yeah. Do you want to do it one by one or collectively? One by one.

Well, we need to discuss them one by one, in my opinion, Mr. Mayor. Whether we do it in the regular session or the work session, I defer to the attorney.

Attorney, can we get a consensus? It has to be some motion.

It would be more appropriate to do it now to get a motion of direction on which ones we would accept because this is on the consent agenda, so it would be approved with the motion of direction in place.

So we can get a motion of direction?

Yes. Okay. So I can walk through each one of these. What I recommend is I walk through each one of these and get a motion of direction on each one of these proposals.

Okay. Council Member Brown? Okay. Okay.

So the first recommendation is to move regular meeting start times from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. I'm just looking for a motion on a direction as to whether or not council accepts or rejects that.

Okay, so we need a motion. Can I get a motion of direction? Council Member Brown?

I would make a motion of direction to accept the recommendation.

Is there a second?

I second the motion.

It was second by Council Member Williams. Is there any discussion? No discussion. Signify by saying yes. All opposed is no. Do we vote?

I don't believe we used the voting software for the work sessions.

Say again?

Yes, I need a vote on approving the motion.

Okay, but we don't do it in our works.

Just have everybody raise their hands. I think that'd be quickest. So we just have everybody raise their hand?

Yes. Okay. Can you raise your hands again so we can know? All in favor, signify by saying yes by raising your right hand. Council, may I approach him? Okay. Okay, all opposed? Okay, the motion carries. Five to one.

So the second is the mayor may set the time for special meetings if there is no council motion specifying the time and changes to the time of regular meetings would require approval by the majority of city council.

Okay, we need a motion directing Council Member Brown.

So this was a recommendation I made, and it's just to codify the process that we already use. So, for example, the council just voted in the majority to change the regular meeting start time to 5 p.m., And so to prevent that from being where a mayor can overrule on a regular meeting and just change the time, it just kind of puts that into writing. And of course, the mayor's always selected the time of a special meeting if there wasn't already a motion for that. So I would make a motion of direction to accept this proposal.

Is there a second?

Second motion fails So anything on the agenda not discussed by 11 p.m. Is moved to a special meeting agenda for the following week Councilmember Brown So before I make any motion of direction a question for the attorney if I may yeah, I

Yes, thank you. Mr Wallander, you had mentioned during your presentation that this one might be difficult, particularly if we kept it on Tuesday for the special meeting, correct?

That's correct.

So if we were to do this, would you recommend that we have a different day of the week for a special meeting?

Yes, it's because the Tuesday it would be have to be required to be posted by the Wednesday following. So if anything were to be moved from, like, say, tonight to next week, it would that agenda would have to be posted tomorrow. That'd be very difficult, especially any staff outages. And if there are any holidays and it would be impossible. So, yes, a date other than Tuesday later in the week would be recommended.

Okay. And may I ask Mr. Cagle a question?

Yes, you may.

Thank you. Mr. Cagle, if we were to indeed go that route, would there be a day of the week between Wednesday and Friday that would be best for staff?

No. No.

Okay, and so again, this is one that I have requested and I'm just gonna explain why very briefly. So we've had quite a few meetings where we've had to table and postpone things to future meetings, which takes an entire few weeks to get back to it. In the case, if it happens to be something we don't get to something that was a bid, We run the very high probability that we end up extending that time past the deadline of that bid, which is usually only good for 30 days, if I understand correctly in talking to some of our executives. That is a concern they've had if we continue to push things off for two weeks at a time. In lieu of the fact that the council decided last meeting that we don't want to go back to a weekly schedule, this would help us to keep on track and keep everything moving forward without having to have a set meeting every week. So I would make a motion of direction that we accept this proposal but set the day of the special meeting for Thursday of the following week. unless the other council members have a different day that works better for them.

Is there a second motion? No second, the motion fails.

So the next proposal is meetings will not be adjourned prior to 11 p.m. if there is still business to be discussed on the agenda unless there is an emergency.

Council Member Brown.

Move to approve the proposal, or motion of direction to accept the proposal.

Is there a second? Second, motion fails.

Next proposal is returned to four minutes for citizen comments and public hearings and set three minutes for comments on non-agenda items.

Council Member Brown.

motion of direction to accept the recommendation.

Is there a second? Is there a second? There's no second. Motion fails.

Next proposal is split the agenda into separate meetings whether same day or different days have a call to order agenda approval and adjournment on the workshop and the meeting.

Council Member Brown.

This is one of those specific citizen requested items. So with that said, I make a motion of direction to accept the recommendation.

Is there a second motion? Second? There is no second. Motion fails.

Next proposal.

Sorry.

Oh, you second? Mayor Poitier?

Thank you. Yes, I was trying to get some clarity on that last one regarding splitting the agenda into two separate meetings, whether same day or different days. Council has already voted to move past that, so it's okay at this point.

Yeah, the motion failed. The motion failed. We are now at, which one are we at, Mr. Walliner?

This is proposal number seven. It's to add invocation and the pledge to special council meetings as well as regular.

Mayor Pro Tem, that's where we're at now. Mayor Pro Tem.

Are you waiting on the second?

Okay, Council Member Bass.

I requested this. I think it's a good idea. to pray before every council meeting. I appreciate the men and women who lead us in our prayers, and that helps me very much. So I make a motion of direction to add an invocation and pledge to special city council meetings, just like in the regular council meetings. Thank you.

DAVID BURRAGE, Council Member Williams.

Yes, and I concur with Bass on that, I believe.

That's a second.

I don't second. Well, I second it. I second it. Okay.

It was second by Councilmember Williams to add invocation and pledges to special council meetings. All in favor signify by raising of your hand if you're in favor of it. The motion pass five through six to zero.

The next proposal is either define citizen as any member of the public for purposes of city comments and participation or rename the sections regarding citizen comment to public comment.

Council Member Brown.

I would make a motion of direction to accept the recommendation to rename it as public comment so it better aligns with our section of public hearing.

Is there a second? There is no second. The motion fails. Mr. Wallinger?

The next proposal is remove the requirement to submit participation forms prior to meeting start for citizen comments.

Council Member Brown.

I would like to add clarity to this one. This was a request of mine. And so I heard somewhere there was a comment or question about it completely removing the form that people use to sign up. My proposal is not to remove the citizen participation form. We do use that for official record keeping and minutes process. So I don't think it would be a good idea to remove the requirement to fill out the form. The request is actually to remove just simply the requirement that it has to be completed prior to the beginning of the meeting. The building doesn't open until 30 minutes before. The doors don't open until 15 minutes before the meeting starts. And actually elsewhere in our governing standards, it says that you have to complete the form either prior to or after speaking. So having this provision where it says you have to turn it in prior to the meeting start is contradictory to other sections of our governing standards. So I would make a motion of direction to accept the proposal.

Is there a second? I can second that. Who was second? Mayor Pro Tem.

I can second that.

And second by Mayor Pro Tem. All in favor signify by raising up your hand if you're in favor. So that is for the, all opposed? Okay, motion passed from four to two.

Okay, the next proposal is to set procedure for council investigations. Now there was no procedure that was recommended, it was just the recommendation to add the procedures.

Council Member Brown.

During another meeting there was a consensus that this should be something that we add to our governing standards. I just don't think that today is the appropriate time to discuss what those procedures would be. So I would make a motion of direction to accept the recommendation but bring the actual process of setting that procedure back at a later time.

so you made a motion is there a second second council council member nash king did you

I didn't say she spoke out of time. I didn't say anything. I wanted some clarity on that motion of direction, Mr. Mayor. Are we requesting the council to go and come up with something to bring back to us? Or are we, Mr. Mayor, we table in this? And put it on another agenda where we have more time for the council, since it's our governor's standards and expectation that we come up with the procedures or steps on how we would like to conduct this investigation. in the investigation on who is going to be conducted on the investigation on what are the criterias for this investigation. I just need that clarity on this motion of direction, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Brown, could you repeat that motion?

Yes. And so to answer the Councilwoman's question, to re- I just wanted you to repeat that motion. Sure. So the motion of direction was to accept the proposal and to bring it back at a later time for the council to discuss further.

Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Is there a second? May I quote him? Yes, I can second it. You second it. I'm sorry.

Beverly Williams, Council Member Williams, I believe, already seconded.

Yes, she seconded.

Thank you.

Okay, all in favor signify by saying raise your hand. All in favor?

One, two, three, four, five, six.

All opposed? Motion passed 6-0.

Next proposal is remove the authority of the mayor to remove citizens from the premises.

Council Member Brown.

The charter and law do allow the mayor the rights and the responsibility of removing citizens from the council meeting, but not from the premises. Historically, prior to this amendment, citizens can be ejected from the meeting, but are still allowed access to the public area outside of this chamber, whether that's inside where they're protected from the weather or even out in the parking lot, which is still public property belonging to the city. So I would make a motion of direction to accept the recommendation that would still allow the mayor to have a citizen removed from the meeting, but not from the actual premises of City Hall, which is the citizen's property anyway.

Is there a second? Is there a second? No second. Motion fails.

Next proposal. Clarify that staff presentations are not required for consent agenda items unless a council member requests that an item be pulled from the consent agenda for further discussion.

Council member...

Yes, I made this proposal, Mayor. I appreciate City Manager Cagle stating to the council the exact definition of a consent agenda. And I hope we, the council, will begin doing the consent agenda as it's supposed to be done. It still gives council members the power to pull an item off of the consent agenda for presentation and discussion. Thank you.

So you made a motion?

I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. I make a motion of direction to proceed on this proposal.

Second, Council Member Brown. Your second?

I'm next. Council Member Nash-King. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor, I will second that motion of direction, but I would like to say something with it.

Yes, we open discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will second the motion of direction. And, Mr. Mayor, this is directed to Mr. Bass, but I will say it to you. I agree with the council member because as leaders, as a council member, Mr. Mayor stated, Kendrick, it is our responsibility prior to coming to this meeting to study our package that the staff has graciously put in the time and effort to give it to us according to the governor's standards and expectation the council put in place, which really given them a rush, rush job, but they do it with a smile. And so when we come in here, it is our responsibility to answer our constituents by already sending out emails or doing podcasts or having a town hall meeting on certain hot items or all items. and gather that information and bring it back when we get in the discussion phase, when we get on these items, because they have the right, as Councilmember Bass stated, to pull the items. So I second that motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Councilmember Nash-King. Councilmember Brown, we're in discussion.

I will tell you that I actually walked into this meeting supporting this proposal. And then we started the work session, and I don't know that I support this proposal anymore, because two separate council members requested to discuss during this work session two different items from consent agenda. And we were denied based on a consensus of the individuals on the rest of the council, which does not make it a consent agenda. If you have a council member opposed to it, that is no longer consent agenda. So I would only support it with the caveat that there is an amendment, which I will make an amendment to the motion of direction that it only takes a single council member to pull an item off of consent.

City Attorney, we've already motioned it was second. She can make that amendment?

Yes, she can make a motion to amend. It hasn't been voted on. The motion of direction has not been voted on yet.

Okay, there is a motion to amend. Is there a second for that? Second. Mayor Pro Tem, second. All in favor? Yes, sir. Signify by saying yes on the amendment. All opposed? It's a tie. Oh, I'll raise my hand for the oppose. Let the record show I oppose.

So that was just the amendment fail, the original motion of direction still stands?

Yes. Okay. So we were still in that discussion. So now we can go back to that? Correct. Okay. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Council Member Bass.

I want to clarify that from the point of view of the citizens, these presentations are posted publicly. Am I correct, Assistant City Manager? So these presentations are posted publicly along with the agenda before our meetings. So every citizen can go and look at the presentations. They don't have to wait to hear them in public. They can read them before the meeting. Thank you, Mayor.

Okay. Any more discussion? If there's no discussion, all in favor, signify by raising your hand if you're in favor. Okay, all opposed? Is the tie again? Okay, I'm raising, I'm in favor.

So the next proposal, and I believe I got this, this is one that was just brought up, would be to designate one or more executive staff members that city council shall direct all communications towards?

No, sir.

I'm sorry.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. Can I clarify, Mr. Mayor? Council Member Nash-King. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My motion of direction was that council send their email requests, I'm talking about things that requesting items, not stuff about a pothole or things of that nature. Staff is educated and smart enough to know the difference. That would information that the whole council should have when requesting to one person in the city that Mr. Cagle It could be the city secretary, it could be the assistant, whichever way the city managers see fit for us to send our emails to that staff member. And the reply will come back if it's for information he feels deems necessary that the whole council should know. And if not, if it's just for that individual, it just goes back to that individual and not the whole staff. Instead, the reason I said that, because council receive emails that I really don't even think why we add it onto it. But some of the emails that... individuals, more than one council member, including myself, has requested information that I think may be valid for everyone. But in this case, let Mr. Cagle, his office, one person there receive it, He sends it to the department here since the charters say they answer to him, and the answer comes back. He sent it either directly to the council member if it's not information the whole council should know, or if it is, he feel, we all receive the same information. Because if not, what ends up happening, each one of us will send staff an email, staff an email, but they have a responsibility and job to do other than to answer our questions. So we get one location and that goes through Mr. Cagle's office and he will send it back out.

Okay. Council, Mayor Pro Tem Gonzalez.

Mr. Mayor, to Madam Nash-King's point, I just have a couple of questions, and I understand what you're saying now. Thank you again for that clarity about moving.

Mr. Mayor, there's a motion of direction on the floor without a second, and we cannot go into discussion until we have a second.

That was a motion of direction.

Yes, sir.

May I approach him? I second.

I second.

It was second by Council Member Bass. May I?

Okay, thank you. Thank you for that, Ms. Councilmember Nash-King. Mr. Mayor, I just had a question for clarity on that statement that was made. And so I do understand the importance, because sometimes there is information definitely that should go out to the entire council that we, because some of us tend to ask some of the same questions. My only question is to this process, when we are in communication with a specific staff member, who determines whether or not that email goes to that centralized source. Because I always copy the city manager, assistant city manager on everything that I send to their directors so that they're in the loop. So my question is, I understand the first part of that and how the city manager can determine what messages go out to council. But on the flip side of that, if someone is messaging that starts off one way with a director, who then determines when that email should go back to the city manager's POINT OF CONTACT TO MAKE SURE ALL COUNCIL IS NOTIFIED.

OKAY. MR. CAGLE? YES, SIR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MY DIRECTION TO ALL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS HAS BEEN WHEN YOU GET A COUNCILMEMBER INQUIRY, GET THE ANSWER, SEND IT TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, AND WE'LL DISBURSE IT TO EVERYBODY. SO IF SOMEONE HAS BEEN ANSWERING DIRECTLY TO COUNCILMEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT IT.

I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY.

Okay. Council Member Brown.

I'm going to go out on a couple things here. One, the charter specifically says except for the purpose of inquiry. the council and its members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the city manager. So the charter says, unless it's an inquiry, which would mean that if it's an inquiry, we do not necessarily go directly through the city manager. That's number one, first and foremost. Second of all, I don't think that we should be dictating workload to staff members and saying that we're going to dictate a staff member have to be a central point of contact for all emails from the council to Councilwoman Nash's points. There are a lot of emails that come through to a lot of different individuals. And so to make one person responsible for that, I think that would have to be almost a full-time position if they're gonna have to be one central point for every email from the entire council. And further, I don't know that every little email or question has to be directed to the city manager. If it's an inquiry, I'm asking, when are you available? I don't know that that has to be sent back to the city manager's office. I think that would become micromanaging when we say every little thing has to go back to the city manager or every little thing has to go back to the council. I think that that is, we hire executives for these departments because we trust them to know their job and to do their job and to be able to disperse the information to whom it needs to be dispersed to. Just like the council doesn't want to be micromanagers, our city manager, our assistant city manager shouldn't be micromanaging. And I think there are some situations where there's communication that happens between a council member and an executive that is between that council member and that executive. So I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Brown. Council Member Nashkeem.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. I want to clarify once again. It's requested information that Mr. Cagle, since he's going to receive them anyway, deemed necessary that the whole council should receive. It's just that simple. It goes to Mr. Cagle because he's going to receive it anyway. He just stated from his department head. So it's just keep everything in one place. It's just hypothetically a director is on a project for Mr. Cagle or the assistant city manager acting in the place of Mr. Cagle. And that person is so tied up, they missed that email. So just send it to one central location, and you don't have to worry about they miss an email. They don't have to answer to anyone because, hey, Mr. Cagle is going to take care of it or the active city manager, which they do follow if we're going by charter. Executive director, staff, all of them belong to Mr. Cagle anyway. Council only have three people follow up on them. the city manager, the judge, and the auditor. And it goes back to the beginning. We need to get in our lane and let them executive directors do their job and hear one voice, and that's coming from Mr. Cagle. And that's all I said. I want to make clear the little bitty things that amounts to, I don't care about that. It's the things that the city manager, the overseer of the city, And we oversee him, deem necessary, that this whole entire council should know. And we won't have to keep wearing executive and getting he say, she say. And we can just get it all at one time. That's all I want to clarify. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council.

Thank you, Council Member Nash-King. Mayor Pro Tem Gonzalez. Mayor Pro Tem. Council.

Well, I have nothing further, sir, at this time. Thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem. Okay. Council Member Brown.

Question for clarity. so is the intent of this addition to being that the city manager if copied to an email would make the determination of the city manager feels like it is something that the entire council should know and then be responsible for dispersing it Because if that is the intention, I think we need to reword how it's phrased before putting it in there. Otherwise, it sounds like the intention is to put extra work on one person. And honestly, that is more than likely going to boil down to either Ms. Dunbar or the city secretary once they come on board. Would that not probably be who it would be, Mr. Cagle?

Mr. Cagle. Yes, ma'am. As I said, we're already doing this. We're following section 1110 of your document. As a general courtesy and to maintain equality in the disbursement of information, documentation, or data requested by a council member from staff shall be provided to all members of the city council. I'm doing that now.

And I understand. And I have already stated that, Mr. Cagle. I started out supporting the fact that the city manager's office already is on top of doing that and very consistently, especially when it is something of interest to the entire council. And I do appreciate that y'all are doing that. But with that already being in the governing standards, I don't know why we have just spent 25 minutes talking about this since it's already there.

Council Member Kendricks.

Um, um, assistant, um, city attorney. Is it too late for me to make, um, I, I, I want to make a motion to the, um, to the, you would like to make an amendment, not, not to nothing that you're talking about. I want to make my own motion because we're in the discussion. Okay. Well, I'll wait. And that's what I was asking. Yes, sir. I'll wait.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Council member Kendricks. Okay. Council member Nesky. Okay, if there's no discussion, all in favor of the motion, and council, city attorney, if you would please repeat that motion again for clarity since we had such a long discussion.

The motion of direction was that, again, I'm Trying to write this down best I can. That council shall send requests, all requests for information to a single email, a single person, and that any responses that are deemed to be sent to all of council shall be sent to all of council in a respond email.

Thank you. Council Member Nashking.

Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry for just dragging this on, but I don't like when my words are twisted. What I said clearly three times, I do understand the governor's standards and expectations. Basically what I'm saying, quit sending emails, if I can be direct, Mr. Mayor, to the executive directors and send it straight to the city manager. This is what I'm saying, Mr. Mayor. Who the council is responsible for. And Mr. Cagle will send it to the directors. That is what I stated. So let's just cut another employee having to work and all that. Mr. Cagle doing it anyway. That's one thing in the charter. But I'm saying council, for our governor's standards and expectations, totally different. That we send our email, if we want anything from executive directors to who we're responsible for, is Mr. Cagle. And Mr. Cagle, he can send it to them, get the answer, send it back. It's just that simple. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member.

Whenever we're ready to vote, I'm ready. Thank you, Council Member Nash-King. All in favor of the motion, signify by raising your hand. May I approach him? Is that a yes or no? I think you are in favor. Can I see your hands again, please? Okay, all opposed? So the motion passes 42.

So the next proposal, and there was some discussion after this, I wrote it down, but what I've got written down is that city council shall not attend any staff meetings or if that was directed especially at executive staff.

Yes, sir. I said the council members should not be attending staff meetings that is conducted by Mr. Cagle or executive director meetings when the executive director is talking to his or her staff only. Not that a council member cannot talk to an executive director for a citizen or developer or builder. They can do it on their own. I don't care. But when it comes to Mr. Cagle holding his meeting with his executive directors that he's responsible for, we shouldn't be in it. And the executive directors getting their managers or their team together just to do mentorship or just talk about what we're going to do this week, council should not be included in it.

Council Member Nash-King, would you put that into motion?

Oh, yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd like a motion of direction for our governor's standards and expectations that council shall not attend any meetings that is conducted by the city manager or assistant city manager in the absence of the city manager, executive director, meetings, or... Council shall not attend executive directors' meetings with their managers, assistant managers, or staff.

Is there a second? I second, Mr. Mayor.

Second by Council Member Bass. Is there any discussion? No discussion. All in favor signify by raising up your hand. All opposed? The motion passes 5-1.

Then the final proposal I have is that there should be a structured process for quarterly meetings between the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission.

Council Member Brown.

I make a motion of direction to approve the proposal.

Is there a second?

Second. I clicked on there, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Nash-King. It was second by Council Member Nash-King. Is there any discussion? There's no discussion. All in favor signify by raising your hand. In favor? All opposed? Motion passed 6-0.

And that's all I have. I bring it back at the next one for a resolution to adopt these.

Thank you so much, sir. Council Member Kendricks.

This is what I was trying to do before. I wanted to make dealing with what we was just talking about, governance standards. I want to make this motion so that we keep these meetings going and the meetings are effective. My motion of direction would be that each council member be limited to two opportunities to speak on each agenda item. with each opportunity limited to two minutes. No additional opportunities shall be permitted once a member has used both opportunities.

That is a motion of direction. Can I get a second? Councilmember Naske.

I second the motion on direction.

It was second by Council Member Nash-King. Is there any discussion? Council Member Brown?

I will just say that our governing standards already have limitations on discussion on items that are not broken down like this. Again, the only reason why we're having a discussion this way on governing standards is because traditionally we suspend those rules. But there are already limitations for both the workshop and the meeting on the number of times you can discuss an item, the amount of time you have to discuss it. And just even tonight, the number of times that the monitor has beeped because council members have gone over three minutes and gotten the extra minute tells me, especially when it's something important, we shouldn't be cutting that time essentially in half.

Council Member Kendricks?

My whole purpose of this motion of direction was to reduce repetitive debates while still allowing members to present their viewpoints and respond. It also helps the council to complete its agenda in a timely manner while maintaining transparency and fairness to all members of the council.

Council Member Nashkeen.

Yes, sir. I'd just like some clarity. Also, Mr. Mayor, I second that motion. From my understanding, Mr. Mayor, and please allow Mr. Kendrick to intervene, sir, on this, if it's your choice. Yes, you may. When we're having our regular meetings, that is what I got from what he meant. That instead of us doing three times and having three minutes, he's saying, no, we're talking too much. We should know our package. That's what I got from it, and I'm guilty of going over that time, too. And I agree that it should be two minutes. It should be twice. And I think Mr. Best said it best. If you didn't study the package and you're not prepared or you haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with people, I mean, then that's on a council member. So that's why I second that motion. And also it was stated by our assistant city manager that these discussions that we're having now, it is known just like any other thing that charter or governor standards and expectations that we will have an open, free conversation about just these two items. And if I need to put that in a motion of direction to make sure that that's in black and white, that when we're discussing the governor's standards and expectations or the charter amendments, the council should speak freely. There would not be a time limit, but we have always done it this way. When we don't have time limits, on the charter or the governor's standards and expectations when we're having detailed conversations like that. That is why I second that motion. And it will free up time for us to really pay attention and also study our package prior to getting here instead of asking questions to staff trying to figure out what the package was. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Nash-King. Council Member Pro Tem Gonzalez. May I approach him?

No, sir. I removed my hand. I'm okay. Thank you.

Okay. Council Member Kendricks.

Last on this. Basically, like I said, the purpose is to give each council member equal opportunity to speak on things. Some council members don't want to speak on certain items, and that is cool, but sometimes I will say for myself that you get overwhelmed. And when you want to speak, other council members are chiming in back to back, and you don't get recognized to speak when you want to speak. So it will give us all equal opportunity. And on that, it promotes efficient and focused meetings. Because when these meetings go so long, I've already heard the citizens say, I'm disconnected. I don't want to be there anymore. And so for citizens to say that when we have meetings going so long, we have to find a way within ourselves to limit what we're saying. And the basic concept of what we're saying, just like Council Member Bass said, we need to study the packet. So it's basic what I say. Don't drop your books and lose your lesson. So we just need to understand that this is what we have to do for the citizens instead of being repetitive, going round and round on these items. That's all I have, Mayor.

Thank you. City Attorney?

I WANTED TO SEE CLARITY ON THAT MOTION OF DIRECTION. CURRENTLY THE GOVERNING STANDARDS PROVIDE THAT DURING WORK SESSIONS EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER MAY HAVE TWO OPPORTUNITIES OF FIVE MINUTES EACH FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ONE OPPORTUNITY FOR THREE MINUTES FOR CONSENT ITEMS AND THEN THREE OPPORTUNITIES OF THREE MINUTES EACH DURING THE REGULAR MEETING. clear about what your direction was as far as that two times at two minutes each? Was that just applying to one of those, or is that going to be a blanket for all three of those instances?

Well, I would say the work session along with the regular meeting.

OK, so two times at two minutes apiece across the board on every item? Yes. OK, thank you.

Okay. If there's no more discussion, then all in favor signify by raising up your hand. You in favor of the motion? Mayor Pro Tem?

Okay. Three.

All opposed? It's three to three. Let the record show the mayor is in favor.

If there are no other motions, that is all I have.

That's it? Yes, sir. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you. Yes. We're going to take a break, 10-minute break.

Thank you. Are we ready? Council, we are ready. Yes.

I'm asking all council take the seats, please. All council members.

I'm here. We got four, Mr. Mayor.

Callers meeting back to order. Madam Secretary, item number nine.

HOR 26012, consider an ordinance submitted by Vincent Gerard and Associates on behalf of First Assembly of God, Inc., case number Z26-10 for conditional use permit, CUP, to allow for the installation of a wireless telecommunication tower on property zone B3, local business district, being approximately 2.0 acres, being lot 1, block 1, McClurkin addition, The subject property is locally addressed as 7432 East Tremere Road, Killeen, Texas. It requires three quarters majority vote for approval.

Good afternoon, Ms. Mesha.

Good afternoon. This presentation is the same presentation that was given to you at your last meeting. I apologize. Looks like this isn't working. There we go. I apologize. The applicant's request is to rezone the property locally addressed as 7432 East Tremere Road from B3 to B3 with a conditional use permit to allow a communications tower. a monopole, an 85-foot monopole wireless telecommunications tower. The proposed facility is intended to improve wireless service coverage in the southeastern portion of Killeen. It is designed to accommodate multiple carriers and will include associated ground equipment. Red star indicates the location of that property. This is an aerial of the site. This is a view of the subject property from East Tremere. View looking south toward Chaparral Road. View looking north toward Stagecoach. This is an aerial showing the subject property in the surrounding area. And this is the conditional use permit site plan that was submitted by the applicant showing the location of the tower on the site. You can see the property is currently zoned B3. It's located within the control growth sector on the growth sector map and designated campus on the future land use map. We notified the owners of 44 surrounding properties regarding this request. We've received 12 responses in opposition, including five from property owners within the 200 foot buffer, six from property owners within the 400 foot buffer, and one from a property owner outside the 400 foot buffer. The red stars on this map indicate those property owners in objection. Clean Code of Ordinances Section 31603 states that approval of a conditional use permit for a wireless telecommunications tower requires a three-fourths majority vote. Accordingly, approval of this request will require a minimum of six affirmative votes. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for the conditional use permit to allow the installation of a wireless telecommunications tower on property zone B3 with a number of conditions. The first, that the project will substantially comply with the site plan. Second, that the project will comply with the requirements for co-location, screening, lighting, and site development per Section 31604, 606, and 609 prior to issuance of a CFO. Parking areas and drive aisles will be constructed with an all-weather surface in accordance with Section 31487. That the site design will maximize use of the existing trees and vegetation. and landscape screening will be installed and maintained per Section 31609, that the applicant will construct a public sidewalk along the street frontage to connect the existing sidewalks, that permits will expire if not constructed within six months, not put into the permitted use within 120 days, after construction are discontinued for more than six consecutive months unless extended, and that the permittee will notify the director of changes in ownership or operation of the tower within 30 days. Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of five to two on May 11th with an additional condition requiring the tower to be camouflaged as a tree. Commissioners Sabree and Moss voted in opposition to the motion and stated that they concurred with the residents that there is no need for a tower in this location. So these are some examples of what a camouflaged cell phone tower could look like. if the council did wish to include that condition in your motion. This is an example of a similarly camouflaged tree in downtown and other examples as well. So at the last meeting, this item was postponed because There was one council member absent. There's a council member absent tonight, so the applicant has actually requested that this item be postponed, not to the next meeting, but the meeting after that, August 4th, I think. Okay. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Bass.

Yes. As I spoke when this first came up, I am in favor of approving this request. I drove out there, looked at it through the eyes of a signal officer. That is hilly terrain. I have no doubt there are dead spots out there. There is development happening out there. The residents need cell phone coverage, and this tower will remedy those dead spot issues. The church owns the land. Planning and zoning, recommended approval. I talked to the pastor. The pastor told me the church will be paid $700 a month to have this tower on their property. That's a good thing for the church. I also drove around the neighborhood, looked at it from the perspective of the residents who opposed it, and I understand why they oppose it. They don't want to sit on their patio at night where now they look at stars, and now when this tower is built, if it's built, They'll see a tower with, I assume, red lights on it. And in the daytime, they can see blue sky and trees, and now they'll see blue sky, trees, and a cell tower. So I understand why they're opposed, but I'm in favor of development. I'm in favor of property rights, and I'm in favor of allowing the church to build this cell tower. However, we're back in the same situation, which is we need a six to zero vote. We have six council members present. And so if even one council member opposes, then it will fail. So that's my thoughts on the subject. Thank you.

Council Member Nashke.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. Mr. Mayor, I don't have any comments because I guess we're at the point. The applicant won the table, and it's up to him or her to do that. So if they don't want to discuss it tonight, what's the procedure so we can move forward? Because it's coming back to us to get into a lengthy discussion.

Yes, ma'am, we want to get there, but y'all had signal.

I was just trying to ask Ms. Mesher. Yes.

Yes, ma'am, Ms. Mesher.

I believe the appropriate thing to do would be during your regular meeting to make a motion to postpone to August 4th.

Thank you. I didn't know what date or month, but I know we needed that to make the motion. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, Ms. Mesher. Yes, ma'am.

Council Member Williams.

I'm in agreement with it as well. I remember when they brought it to the council the last time and I was in total agreement with it then. I'm aware of the pastor in the area they're talking about. I also went out to look at it. And, yes, I'm in favor of them putting it up. It's all right.

Okay. So I'm here. He's requesting for August schedule.

Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, he's made it known to me that he's unavailable at the July 21st meeting, so his request is for the August 4th meeting.

Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir. Any other questions for you? Council Member Nesking.

Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, since we did do that, just for clarity for our new residents and people looking, that when we get to that item to vote on, whoever make the motion will pull that item because it will be tabled for August the 4th meeting. Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Council Member Nesking. Thank you for that.

All right.

Okay, Mayor Pro Tem, making sure I don't wanna miss you. Mayor Pro Tem, are you on? Okay, thank you. Okay, we will move forward.

Now is the time for citizen comments.

That's in the, I'm sorry, yeah, number 10. Madam Secretary, next item.

For citizens' comments?

Number 10. PH 26. 20.

Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance amending the corporate city limits of the city of Killeen, Bell County, Texas, DA 26-01, by disannexing approximately 25.60 acres out of GW Allison survey, abstract number 52, and RA McGee survey. Abstract number 651, the subject properties are generally located along Fort Hood Street, Killeen, Texas.

Thank you, Ms. Mish.

Mayor and Council, this item is a petition for disannexation for approximately 25.6 acres. On May 8th, staff received a petition for disannexation. Submitted by Tim Pearson of Cobb and Johns on behalf of Stanley Seacrest for the disannexation of four tracks totaling approximately 25.6 acres generally located on the west side of South Fort Hood Street. The red star on your screen indicates the location of that property. This is an exhibit showing the boundary of the property for which disannexation is requested. This is an aerial of the property. These subject properties were annexed into the city of Killeen through involuntary annexation on January 28, 2008 via ordinance number 07-111. As required by chapter 43 of the local government code, the annexation ordinance included a service plan detailing the provision of municipal services. In his petition for disannexation, Mr. Seacrest asserts that The city failed to complete the service plan improvements to provide services to the property. Sorry. Section 43.056G of the local government code states that if the annexed area has a lower level of service, infrastructure and maintenance than that within the corporate boundaries of the municipality before annexation, a service plan must provide the annexed area with a level of service, infrastructure and maintenance that is comparable to other parts of the municipality with similar topography, land use and population density. The property is located within the West Bell County Water Supply Corporation, CCN, and currently has water service via 6-inch water distribution main belonging to West Bell. To provide wastewater service to the property, a sewer main would need to be extended down South Fort Hood Street. The 2007 annexation service plan permits the use of an on-site sewage system or septic system. Subject properties, again, consist of approximately 25.6 acres. of developed and undeveloped land. The character of the surrounding area is a mix of commercial, rural, and low residential density. Significant undeveloped acreage remains within the vicinity indicating development potential, which do not have access to all city utilities and are served by well and or septic systems. Therefore, the subject property currently has access to a level of service infrastructure and maintenance that is comparable to other parts of the municipality with similar topographic land use and population density in accordance with state law. The 2007 annexation service plan outlined several water, and wastewater capital projects that were planned for the area. However, the plan also provided that the City of Killeen finds and determines it to be unnecessary to immediately acquire or construct any currently scheduled capital improvements. The 2007 Annexation Service Plan states the following. As property in the annexation area is developed, property owners will be required to extend necessary utilities to support their development in accordance with the Code of Ordinances and Public Works Department practices as may be amended. Nothing in the plan shall require the City to provide a uniform level of municipal services to annexed areas if population density is sufficiently distinct to justify a different level of service. So with that, staff finds that the City of Kalina has met all legal obligations to provide service to the property in accordance with the annexation service plan and chapter 43 of the local government code. We are therefore recommending disapproval of the applicant's petition for disannexation. Happy to answer any questions you have.

Council Member Nash-King.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, thank you. So I guess my question is, The council, Mrs. Messier, the city disapproved this because based on providing him the services that we meet that requirement.

We are required to bring the petition for disannexation forward to the council for council action.

Right. And you disagree with him on it because.

We're recommending disapproval. Right, right.

Yes, ma'am. And it's based on services from his perspective. Did I understand that correctly? Yes, ma'am. Did I read that correctly? Yes, ma'am. Okay.

His petition alleges that we failed to provide services in accordance with the annexation service plan.

Okay, good, good. We're both on the same sheet of music. And Mr. Cagle, feel free, legal, feel free. If that's okay with you, Mr. Mayor, because I'm going deep in.

Is that okay? Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. So I guess my question is this, and this is only for the city. I'm not an expert in this, and this is in your field. Say he didn't ask for services. Say he just say, I just wanted the annex. Would you approve that?

Likely staff would not recommend approval of that disannexation from the standpoint that having this property inside the city limits does give the city additional control in terms of land use and code enforcement and those types of reasons.

So that's good for us to know that, right? I know that, but I think it's good that everybody should know that because we do meet that need. And the petition is that he's limited to what he can do, and correct me if I'm wrong, County cannot de-annex him, can they? Can they do any zoning whatsoever?

There is no zoning or land use regulation in the county. So the only mechanism by which we can control the land use is if it stays inside the city limits. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. All right. So that's what I wanted you to say. If you don't mind, could you say it one more time? Why the city is really against this? Because control, code enforcement. Could you say that just one more time for staff? Yes, ma'am.

So the city's position is that if the property remains inside the city limits, that we have additional control over land use and development regulations. as well as have the ability to exercise code enforcement action on the property should we need to. Again, all of that is contingent on it remaining within the city limits.

Okay, thank you. But I've got to have public hearing, so I just want some clarity on that. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Council Member Bass.

I'm opposed to disannexing this property. It's right here in the footprint of the city within city limits. This is my question. If we disannexed this property, the owner could sell it to someone. That person could do anything they wanted to with that property, is that correct?

Essentially, yes. Essentially.

They could build a data center on that property, correct?

Yes, subject to availability of infrastructure, yes.

Because counties right now, my understanding, cannot disapprove data centers on county land from what I'm reading and what I'm talking to people about. So if we as the city disannexed that land, and this property owner sold that land, we'd have no control who bought it, we'd have no control of what was built on that land, and no control of how that land was used, is that correct? Yes, sir. Thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem Gonzalez.

again sir i'm okay this time thank you okay council member bro this measure this is currently 195 salvage correct yes ma'am and it's not in the university district it's not in the cemetery district no it's currently zoned a combination of b3 and a agricultural and that's based on what it was annexed in us

I don't know the answer to that question off the top of my head. It's been zoned that way as long as I was able to find.

Right. And I looked through. I was unable to find any ordinances other than the initial annexation ordinance that zoned it any differently. There's never been another request on that property as far as zoning is concerned that I can find.

I hesitate only because typically when property is annexed, it comes in as ag. And the fact that it's B3, it may have at some point been rezoned from ag to B3.

So I can tell you that looking back at historical documents, the 08 annexation was a forcible annexation. We annexed so much essentially at the same time that property owners have told me, even in the Donut Hole, that they were given the option when they came in to be zoned commercial, residential, or ag. And so at that time, anything zoned residential just came in as R1. Anything commercial just came in as B3. And then, of course, anything ag would have come in as ag. And I ask all that to say, so currently the owner of this property is legal non-conforming, correct? Yes, ma'am. All right. And I want to be fully transparent with everybody and disclose the fact that I have spoken with the owner prior to this to get some information from them about why they wanted to disannex from the city. And essentially that's coming because at this point, like any other legal non-conforming property, should something happen to their property, they would be unable to sell it, they would be unable to build on it, they would be unable to rebuild. Getting permits to build any other structures on the property that go along with that business are not approvable right now, correct?

Currently, the legal non-conforming land use can't be expanded. That's right.

Okay. And I say all that because in my discussion with the property owner, well, ultimately, yes, their request is to disannex, and I think that would be their preferable method of going about this. They would also be, and I'm sure they'll confirm it when we get into a public hearing, but they would be, also amenable to the option of staying within the city limits and then just doing a zoning to make them compliant, which I know that Monday at Planning and Zoning, there are two city-initiated requests for that same reason, to bring legal non-conforming into compliance with land use, correct?

We have, over the last two or three years, had an initiative whereby we are proactively rezoning properties that are residential and commercial and in conformance with the future land use map to make them conforming. This particular location, if we were to rezone it, would not be in keeping with the future land use map.

We've changed the flim before. Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

So I do remember when we did the comp plan, initially it was requested that that 195 corridor be for industrial manufacturing anyway. So to zone it in M2 for me, especially because it's already legal non-conforming. wouldn't be a big stretch across the street from it, essentially across the street. We have our transfer station anyhow. And I don't think we had intended on filling the 195 corridor with just residential housing on the front edge. I don't think that's the best option for that route. So... I am hesitant to say that I support this annexation in this instance, but I would support a city-initiated zoning request, a FLUME request if we have to, in order to bring it into legal compliance so that they can continue to operate their family business that they've ran for decades now. May I have one more moment from the council?

Awesome.

Thank you. So with that regard, the city would still have that control and still be able to make sure that it meets all of the conditions of an M2 zoning, that the screening is there, that all of the utility usage is there, that they're keeping up with all the stuff that we need them to do to stay within the city. But if we're not going to support allowing them to operate, I don't see how we can say in one motion that we're supporting property owner rights by approving them to have a cell phone tower, but in the next conversation saying that we disapprove of the property owner rights to continue to run a family business that they have ran for decades prior to. So if we are not able to do the zoning, then I would have to support their disannexation. Thank you.

Council Member Nashke.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. Ms. Mesher, is the client grandfather the dean?

I think what you're asking is is the current use considered legal nonconforming? And the answer to that is yes.

Right, because if he's not in accordance, he has?

So his existing land use is grandfathered, but he cannot expand or enlarge. the current footprint, which is to say that the footprint of the existing salvage yard is, quote, grandfathered, but it cannot be expanded or enlarged or added on to.

Okay. And the reason I said that, I asked that question, which I knew the answer because if he's not in accordance, and I'm not being funny in any kind of way, that means he has to be grandfathered in. And I said it incorrectly. Maybe, but, right, it's the gist. That is my concern right there. I agree. I don't want a data center. I agree with Mr. Bass. I don't know how we can fix this in a way where he can sell it and not be penalized with that. I don't want a data center. I don't know how do we meet common grounds, because it is his property. And for me, my daughter, my only child, and her kids, and her kids, and a guy going to be in there. I'm going to have a grandson. I'm giving an example. I can understand protecting the rights that the citizens, but I also can understand that the residents have spoken about data centers and things of that nature. And if we lose control, we were not listening to what they were saying. Control. That's all they want us to do, control. What is put within our city limits? But on the flip side, how do we meet halfway where... He can do the upkeep, so what? And we may not be. I'm not even sure. But I think this deserves more discussion when I'm just locked in and I cannot do anything. There's no compromise in any kind of way. But also, as Mr. Bass stated, and the residents have spoken loudly, we do not want a data center. But at the same time, I understand. So... I don't do got you. I know you want to prepare for that, but it's a lot of information on fold, so I'm not asking for an answer right now because that would be unfair of me. But if there's not a way to meet halfway or if there is a way, do we need more time or no, we just cannot do it.

So to Councilwoman Brown's point, the property could theoretically be rezoned to a zoning district that would allow him to be conforming with the zoning and which would also allow him to expand his business and would still give the city some land use control, though M2 is the least restrictive zoning district that we have, so it essentially allows most every use.

This is Michael Starr. The data center, that right there.

M2 would certainly allow data center.

When you do that rezoning, and I know I'm going the long way around, and I'm not for a data center, and that's why I can understand why the city made that decision to not to de-annex because we do not ever want to lose control.

Are you going to request one?

No, so I'm trying to practice what we just put in place two times two minutes.

All right.

Time is up.

Council Member Bass?

The owner called me, and we had a great conversation. The owner told me his concern is he appreciates being grandfathered in, being approved for legal non-conforming, but he's uncomfortable with that in the long term because it is a family business. And so I told him, and what he told me is his business is a vehicle recycling business. And then I believe I heard somebody say it's a salvage business. The name of it is 195 Salvage. When I was a little kid, we called them junkyards. That's not a kind word to use for this gentleman's business, so let's stick with vehicle recycling. And my understanding is he performs a service to the city. Is it correct that he provides towing services for our city?

I believe that's correct, but I'm not positive.

Yes, I believe that this business person provides very good services to the city. I've driven out there. He makes a great effort to make his property look really nice, have a nice fence around it. It's always in order out there. And so the bottom line is I'm in favor of rezoning that area, even though I know it does not... fit our long-range plan to have salvage operations within the city limits but for for the sake of this businessman and his many years of having this business and his services to the city i would like to rezone it because we don't lose control just because we rezone it uh pnz uh still has control about what happens over there and uh and uh we we have control as a city council am i correct

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Mesher, when we're talking about potentially rezoning, first of all, I concur with all of my colleagues at this point. But when we're talking about rezoning versus, I believe there was a mention of a conditional use permit for him to be able to expand his business, which seems to be ultimately what that challenge was for him. What does that look like? I mean, is it conditional use an option versus rezoning, or does one require the other?

Certainly a conditional use permit is an option. So if we were to look for the zoning district that would allow the existing business by right, it would probably be M2. But of course, the zoning runs with the land, so if this business were at some point to go away, A new property owner could come in and they would have the ability to develop by right essentially anything that's allowed in M2, including a data center. If we did a conditional use permit, it would allow for the salvage business and would not open it up to other uses that are otherwise permitted in M2. So conceivably, we could do a rezoning to, say, B5 with a conditional use permit and or B4 with a conditional use permit to allow the salvage business. And that would not open it up to the myriad of other uses that we might not want in that location.

So to the concerns of Ms. Nash King and then also Council Member Brown and Bass, that seems like she asked where the happy medium was. To me, that seems like that would be it. That still gives the constituent the opportunity to expand his business, but it provides us the protection that you just laid out before us. So I would be in favor of that if that's going to help our constituents still be able to expand and grow his family business and not limit him in that respect. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Council Member Brown.

So I want to apologize to the owner because I misidentified the name of the business, which I believe is 195 Used Auto Parts and not salvage. So I apologize for renaming his business from the dais. Two questions on that, though. One, if the city were to bring forward and the council were to approve a conditional use permit, does that follow the owner or the business?

Depends on how the conditional use permit is written. Typically it runs with the property.

Okay, and the reason for that concern, so again, this is a family run business. The concern would be that if it was something just temporary that stays with the property owner, then God forbid something happens to the owner, the patriarch of the family. the ability to transfer that property to his children would be important. And that's why I'm not comfortable keeping it as legal non-conforming because that legally prevents them from being able to transfer that business as a business or to sell that business as a business.

No, legal non-conforming uses run with the property regardless of changes in ownership.

Okay, I believe then that the property owner might have been misunderstanding that because they were under the understanding that they couldn't sell 195 used auto parts as a salvage yard and used auto parts sales if- The existing legal non-conforming land use can continue if the property is sold.

The only thing that can't happen is that it can't expand.

So he still can't expand. He still can't rebuild there if something were to happen to the property. So again, I'm still not comfortable leaving it legal nonconforming. That's why we've changed so many of them within the city limits already. And then I may be mistaken then because I believed when the data center came up in the past, we were told that we don't have any zoning that would allow a data center by rights, which is why we were proposing a CUP for that.

The use category of a data center is not explicitly listed in the code, but M2 is the least restrictive zoning district and essentially allows all heavy manufacturing types of uses, so would logically include data centers as a permitted use.

So under that regard, under the- The conditional use permit, though, we've talked about the reason for using that is even though it may be appropriate within a zoning district, but due to location function or operation could have a harmful impact on adjacent properties or the surrounding area. So in that regard, even if it was M2, the city could still require a CUP for it.

If it was M2, are you asking could it be M2 with a conditional use permit?

If someone wanted to put a data center in M2, could the city not say you would have to have a conditional use permit since it's not allowable by rights?

M2 is the least restrictive zoning district that we have so the way that and I don't have that section in front of me But the way it's written is essentially that it allows all heavy industrial uses of which a data center would In my opinion be one I Actually do not see that in the ordinance

And I'm looking at.

Well, it's 31431. Yeah. It does provide that. It's any use that's not essentially any legal use.

So is the any use permitted in M1 grain elevator, flour mill, yeast plant, petroleum or chemical products, planting mill, clay products, galvanizing.

Yes, that number nine pretty much allows it for any use that is not an illegal use.

that is not prohibited by any provision of law provided. No building shall be constructed, okay. So then I think long-term planning, the way we deal with that is for the city to actually pass an ordinance later on that changed to chapter 31 requiring a conditional use permit for data centers, but I think that's a, Completely different discussion for a completely different day. I'm going to get ahead of the attorney on that one. I don't know where data centers came into this conversation to begin with. The owner has never indicated any interest in building a data center and even selling their property at this point. It is to be able to expand the business and provide for the future of the owner's children. So whether it's M2 or whether we can do something that brings it into conformance with the CUP, I would rather support that than a complete disannexation at this time. Thank you.

Council Member Nash-King.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I did speak to the owner in reference to this. And it's not a conversation one way or the other to me. Mr. Mayor, this is my recommendation to propose to the council, just a recommendation. A lot of information has been thrown out, Mr. Mayor. I've seen people sway from one way to the other. It's just predicated on who's talking at the time. And this is something that we're throwing at staff, Mr. Mayor, that I think that this item should be tabled. and that if that's even possible, I'm only looking to the staff professional and city attorney for not CAA only, and let them propose something if we can get a consent that it works for the city as well as the owner of the property, because my conversation is a little different from what I'm hearing from other council members, because I'm detailed. And data center was brought up in my conversation more than once. So what would be best for the city applicant and the protection of the council and also his kids. Because one person can say today what I'm not going to do. And from history, from council votes, and no pun intended toward the client, once we have passed some zones, they change their mind. and we had no control. So me personally, as a council member that have heard from staff and also the applicant, I think a motion of direction from the council to table this and I'm receiving the consent from what I'm hearing from council, even some that changed their mind, that we want to be 50-50. You can't be 50-50 on anything, but we want to protect the city but also respect the right of the client and ask Mrs. Messier to come back with a proposal instead of, because this is really an important item, instead of just voting on something and we don't because I need to get more information Even though what she gave us, that's where we were at on that particular statement from staff. But if we're going to add on and take away, if we are sincerely looking up our new council members and our residents and giving our applicant that put this in a fair deal, While protecting the city, we need to put on the brakes and let her bring us back something and let us see it from all perspectives. We have Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes, I understand. Before that, I see you. Okay. I see you, thank you. Let me ask you, city attorney, if we could table this.

That was a motion of direction. Yes, sir. I made a motion of direction to table it.

So can we get a second? Mr. Mayor?

Yes, Mayor. If Madam has made that, sorry, Council Member Nash-King has made that motion, I do second that.

Point of order.

Mr. Mayor, since I still have the floor, Mr. Mayor, Ms. Messier was trying to speak to you.

A point of order interrupts. So, Mayor, point of order.

Ms. Messier?

Mayor, point of order.

Okay, what is your point of order?

That we can't make a motion of direction during the workshop because we have to have a legally required public hearing as posted, as mailed out, and as per our agenda. And that we should be made during the regular meeting.

So that's what I was asking.

He did ask you that, Mr. Attorney.

Well, no, I was waiting for the question, but no, yes, that is correct. So we've got this advertised as a public hearing. It should go ahead and move forward as a public hearing. Following the public hearing, if council wants a table, then that motion would be appropriate at that time. Correct.

Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. And, Mr. Mayor, thank you for asking the city attorney. And, Ms. Mesher, thank you. Councilwoman Brown, thank you and everybody. So we can just wait until we get there, and that's the direction I will be going. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you.

Oh, Mr. Mayor, we're seeing that motion of direction. Thank you, Council Member Nash. Council Member Pro Tem. Okay. We rescinded it.

Thank you. Council Member Kendricks.

Excuse me. Council Member. I'm good.

Mayor Pro Tem. Yes.

Okay, I just wanted to, I really just wanted to say that I completely support what Council Member Nash-King has stated, and I do think it's important, this is a very important conversation to have regarding this issue. One thing that I don't want to do is just leave the constituent without any sort of resolution. So I do appreciate what the staff has brought forward, but I also thank the Council for considering Options as it relates to our constituent.

That's all right. Thank you and council. Let me say If you want to be recognized, please request to speak. I'm watching who's Trying to not see your name, then I can't call you so please do not We have to follow the governing standards just like we ask our citizens and So I'm asking council to please abide by that. Thank you. Council member Kendricks.

All of my council members, they've made valid points, but I also have research just into what Council Member Bass related to, and I'll probably talk a little bit more with Mayor Pro Temp Gonzalez on data centers. And I do, I understand how did we get here, but it is part of the conversation that we have to prepare for. Because let me tell you this, people can say, and I'm not saying the constituent will change his mind, but dollar signs do change a person's mind. And if we are not prepared and we do something that may hurt us in the long run, And so we have to be very, very careful because there's a thing going on in the Dallas area, Fort Worth area, where they magnified the price of the land. And I just looked up what the market value of that land is. It's $282,000. We know data centers have no problem with spending money and giving somebody $10 million. So we have to prepare and we have to make sure we are crossing our T's and dotting our I's before we make those decisions. Because I've seen a lot of decisions going on across our country. And as we know, Texas is about to overtake Virginia as a data center. guru so I just say to everybody everybody has concerns and we all have to just make sure we are doing the proper things and like I want to say again I'm not saying that property owner will do that but I'll tell you it was me you know you get offered a certain amount of money your mind frame changes and what you was thinking about it turns to a different I mean, $10 million would change anybody's life. So we just got to think about it. That's all I say. Just think about what we want to do and what we intend on doing because, like she said, at M2, we can't restrict the data center. We lose all control. And as a council, then we will be looked back upon as the ones that made that decision. So we just got to make sure we're doing the right thing. That's all I have.

Council Member Bass. Thank you, Mayor.

I want to clarify I am not opposed to data centers because I really enjoy using my cell phone. But I am in favor of strictly regulating data centers. And I don't want to lose control of any property in our city limits. for that reason and other reasons. Secondly, I am opposed to this annexation, but I favor rezoning based on the staff's recommendation. Thank you.

Council Member Williams.

Yes, I favor rezoning as well. And as Councilwoman Nash-King has stated, to have it tapered. Yeah, tabled, to have it tabled to what or regulate to what they're going to do with this. Although they talk about the data system and it is a family project or land or business, I would rather for them to continue on with their business as a family. So I would vote to get it rezoned.

Council Member Brown.

I'm going to bring us back a little bit away from data centers and back to the actual request. So right now, if we leave it, if we disapprove the disannexation request, a big part of the concern from staff is that the future land use map would not allow for M2, correct? It doesn't currently allow for M2. Yes, ma'am. So if I'm looking at the correct map, currently the future land use proposed or authorized for it without changing the flume would be M4 because it's regional commercial?

I'd have to look at it.

And I can show you during, if we have our recess before the public hearing, I'll show it to you. You can tell me if I'm correct or not on it. But based on what I'm seeing on our future land use map, it would be... a beef regional commercial usage and then there is a future land use category that allows for industrial so that would be my suggestion would be that okay the gray on the future land use map which is industrial yeah so I was going to ask because we've got the the two options that you have proposed which if the concern is making it an m2 which would allow data center essentially by right at this time, but it qualifies as a B4 with a conditional use permit that would allow it to continue as is. That way, if they were to sell the business or the land, it restricts it from becoming by right a data center. I think that would be kind of a fair compromise for everybody. They get to continue using their business as intended. They can grow the business as long as we do this for the entire 26-acre lot. and it prevents that unintended, undesired use, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Then I will reserve anything else until after the public hearing. Thank you.

Council Member Nash-King. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. I'm still for tabling that because we are continuing to say a lot of information, and I can ask a question about a zoning, and if I'm correct, she's going to say yes. Somebody else can ask a question about another zoning. If they're correct, it's going to be yes, but it does not mean it applies to this particular area. item that's on the agenda. So I am still for tabling the item, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council.

Thank you, Council Member Nash-King. Thank you, Ms. Mission.

Yes, sir.

There's no other questions, discussion? Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. Now we go to citizens' comments. It's a time for citizen comments. Citizens will have three minutes to speak with one minute allotted for council members to respond with a statement or explanation without engaging in dialogue. Mr. City Attorney?

Could you call the first name? The first name is Donald F. Smith.

Thank you, sir.

Are you making that?

Yeah. Moving a little slow.

Take your time, sir. Good afternoon, sir.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, city council, staff. city staff. I'm Don Smith. I stand before you to recommend approval of putting in the tower on the church property at East Premier. One of government's jobs is to take care of what? Take care of the citizens. A good staff procedure is to develop courses of action that solve the problem before the problem arrives. That's what you all have done. that can do today. We have two new housing areas going in, one on Stagecoach and Chaparral and East Premier and one on Chaparral. This means what? It means hundreds of new cell phone customers. If they can't get good cell phone service, what are they gonna do? We're gonna see them in here complaining. Now is the time to do the smart thing and approve this tower that can be put in. And so when these new people arrive, they won't have cell phone or other digital problems. Now is the time to fix that. We don't want to be standing here six months from now trying to explain to new residents in Killeen why this problem wasn't fixed. Thank you very much, and I hope you all have a nice evening.

Thank you, sir. Mr. City Attorney. Cecil Adams. Good afternoon, sir.

40 years ago, when we built our first new church, took two permits, fire and city. We built five years ago, took nine permits. Fed, Texas, city, fire. And Corsos permits is written by your staff and voted in by you. Notice on here one of the things that y'all permitted. Conditional use permit. So we're asking for another permit that we have fulfilled all the others to put this tower up. So I think, as most of you think, you should trust your own staff. They have approved it. Federal government has approved it. State of Texas has approved it. And, of course, the next speaker. Brother Vince, he knows all the things about towers. Thank y'all for considering this use, conditional use permit. It's permission.

Thank you, sir. City Attorney.