City Council - Special Meeting

Lee Summit has lots of local destinations, but where do you start? Green Street, a vibrant community space in the heart of downtown, is where Lee Summit comes together. Its three dynamic areas have something for everyone. Green Street Market is a modern event venue and home to the downtown Lee's Summit Farmers Market. Green Street Lawn is a covered performance space hosting live music, family activities, and more. Green Street Grove is a mixture of gathering spaces, an immersive playground, and bold architectural features. And all three areas host community events year round. So the next time you set out to enjoy the city you love, remember, meet at Green Street.

Hello Lee Summit, I'm Jordan. Here's your flash briefing for the week of September 14th. City Council will meet for a special session Wednesday night at 6 in Council Chambers and City Hall to discuss municipal court compensation. Once the meeting materials have been finalized, they will be posted on Legistar. Meetings are open to the public or watched live on the City's YouTube channel. If you can't watch, catch the recorded meeting on demand on the YouTube channel or by subscribing to the Council Debrief newsletter. Subscribe at cityofls.net. Volunteer for Stream Team and help protect our local streamside habitats by removing litter and debris from streams within the city's parks. This event will take place on October 10th from 10 a.m. to noon at Langsford Park. Trash bags and gloves are provided. Student and Scout community service hours are available. Volunteers must register and sign a waiver before the event. Learn more at cityofls.net slash greenls. And this week is jam-packed with activities at Green Street. From a variety of fitness classes to a fashion show from Kansas City Fashion Week, there is something for everyone. See what's coming up on the calendar at greenstreetls.com slash events. Thanks for listening and have a great week.

Want to know what's coming to Lee's Summit? The Development Minute is here to help.

Meadows 3 North is coming to John Knox Village. The five-story apartment building will have 47 units and includes an underbuilding garage. Meadows 3 North is targeted to open in summer 2027. Country Club Estates Villa 2 is permitted for construction in John Knox Village. The four-story building contains 15 dwelling units and an underground parking garage. Villa 2 is scheduled for completion next summer. ProDeo Youth Center is under construction at 9th and Douglas. The 6,000 square foot facility will double the nonprofit's capacity to empower local youth through academic support, mental health resources, and community engagement. ProDeo Youth Center is on track to open in late December. A brand new Bank of America building will replace the old one on Northwest Chipman Road. The new 5,000 square foot facility will feature a contemporary design of brick, stucco, and aluminum composite. The new building is set to open in Spring 2027.

Traditionally, we think as police officers, those responding to law enforcement needs within the community. But honestly, we are there to serve our citizens, and our citizens do go into crisis. They do have mental health crises, and we're being called to those scenes on a regular basis. In order to help serve those citizens better, we did initiate the Crisis Intervention Team Program. These are officers that are specially trained to de-escalate crisis situations. Recently, we've brought co-responders onto the scene, licensed, qualified mental health professionals housed within our police department. and they respond with those officers directly to those scenes where a crisis is occurring so they can interact with that citizen and get them the help they need right there on that scene.

The co-responders are either a bachelor or master level in a behavioral health related field. They wear plain clothes. They don't carry weapons or anything like that.

I have a police radio that I listen to all day. Listen for, you know, those key words. Mental health, behavioral health, crisis.

There's a lot of officers that just call for me. I have my own radio number.

I also have the ability to self-dispatch to them and say, 982 is en route. Officers en route. 914.

So typically I arrive after they've made it safe. I'll make contact and get kind of the rundown. And then I just kind of jump right in.

Like, hey, you know, my name's Allison. I'm a mental health professional. I'm here to help you. I'm not here to take you to jail or arrest you. Sometimes

All a person needs is a voice, someone neutral, someone outside that can listen. I do a lot of safety planning, including family, their support network. Who's close to you? If they're home alone, who can come over and hang out with you today? Can we lock away your sharps? Can we put up your meds? Do you need meds? Can we get you over to the urgent care to get you assessed for your medications? Some of them also were like, oh, I'm so glad you came. This made me feel so much better.

Our main goal as co-responders is to, one, get people connected to the services that they need and also divert from emergency rooms and jails.

And they almost get a different view of the police responding. That lets me know you care and the officers care.

Police, how can we help you?

In 2020, we had 722 mental health related calls for service. 2022, by that time, 1,479. These mental health related calls for service are increasing. How we're responding to that is increasing the number of crisis intervention team officers we have available, as well as the number of co-responders we have available to respond on these calls.

So what I think is important for the community to know about the co-responder program is that we're here, we exist. All you have to do when you call 9-1-1 is ask for us. You know, say, hey, I want a co-responder to respond to this crisis and we'll go. I was really struggling about eight years ago on my personal journey with mental health, and I met some amazing social workers and amazing programs that have helped me get to where I am today. I really couldn't see myself doing anything else. We want to help, and that's what we love to do.

So I had a client, we got a call, she had some suicidal ideations and she really felt that she had nobody. And you know, in getting to know her story and getting to know who comes around and sees you, well then we found a support person and they responded immediately and we made a plan. I called back and checked on her in an hour and then I checked on her in two hours. We were able to get her into the additional services to where she talks to someone every week or more. I just took a person that really just thought they had nobody and nobody would show up for them and show them you do. And you'll be amazed who is in your corner if you just simply say, I need a little help.

Keeping our city beautiful is a collaborative effort for all citizens. The City of Lee Summit supports these efforts with a set of guidelines or ordinances. And the city's Neighborhood Services team helps put those guidelines into practice. These guidelines ensure grass stays trimmed, fences are maintained, home exteriors are kept up, and much more. We can all help out by first making sure our property meets these guidelines. If you notice potential violation on a neighbor's property, first check the guidelines on the city's website. If it is a violation, the next step is to communicate with your neighbor directly. If that is not possible, or if the problem persists, it can be reported through LS Connect. LS Connect is an online platform for submitting issues to the city. You can access it on the city website or by downloading the app through your mobile device's app store. Once you submit an issue, it is reviewed by the neighborhood services team. A neighborhood services officer will then visit the site for any violations found. The neighborhood services officer will leave a notice and speak with the property owner if possible. The officer's goal is to help property owner solve or abate the problem as quickly as possible. After a 10-day period, the officer will inspect the site to see if the issue has been abated. Normally, by this point, the issue has been resolved. If not, depending on the type of issue, an extension could be granted, or the city might fix the problem at the owner's expense. In rare cases, if all other measures have been applied, the issue will be resolved in the municipal court.

neighborhood services officers work hard to resolve problems quickly and positively they are here to support the community as we work together to keep our city beautiful all of the city's storm system end up either in a creek or a lake we have five or six lakes in the city we have numerous creeks in the city all of that is open conveyance, which means there is no treatment. If it goes into the curb inlet, it will end up in a creek or a stream or a lake with zero treatment. Things that people don't know they should not put down the storm sewer system. Grass clippings. We cannot be blowing Grass clippings off of your lawn, into the street, from the street, into the storm inlet. Yard waste, leaves, trash, washing your car. If you have a commercial vehicle, the city, by code, requires that you wash your commercial vehicle at a commercial car wash. If you're washing your car in your driveway, your personal vehicle, you can wash your car in your driveway by code. Keep in mind though that all of the soaps, the detergents, everything you use, the waxes on your car will discharge down into the storm sewer. So we would recommend that you use an actual car wash to just get all of that captured properly and it will then be discharged and managed properly as opposed to potentially impacting the streams that are nearby. Fourth of July comes along, people shoot off their fireworks, they leave them at the edge of their driveway, which is a good place temporarily, let them cool down. But at the end of that, they do not belong in the street to get washed down the street, swept down the street into the storm system. If you don't want to swim in a lake full of trash, we don't recommend you discard your trash that way.

Thank you. you you

Let's call this City Council special session of Wednesday, November 16th to order, please. Would you please stand? for the invocation and stay standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Heavenly Father, thank you for bringing us together tonight. Please give us wisdom, patience and understanding as we make decisions before us. Help us to listen to one another, work together and always keep the best interests of our community at heart. Amen.

Okay. Can I have a roll call, please?

Council Member Frazier? Present. Council Member Funk?

Present.

Council Member Pryor? Here. Council Member Cravens? Here. Council Member Arth? Present. Council Member Adkins? Present. Chair Carlisle? Present. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Shields and Mayor Lopez.

Okay, we have a quorum. So first thing on the agenda is approval of the agenda. I have a motion by Councilmember Cravens and a second by Councilmember Pryor. It's coming, it's coming. Everybody okay, please record about I have to verbally do okay councilmember Frazier.

Yes.

Thank you Get everybody in okay Okay next we have council roundtable does anybody have roundtable tonight And some ever prior

Thank you. I just wanted to thank everybody for being here on a Wednesday night. I know it's not our normal night, so thank you for being here.

Anybody else? Okay, next on the agenda is public comments. First public commenter is Judge Altieri. Yep.

Yeah, go. My name is Dana Altieri. My address is 10 Northeast Tudor Road. Naturally, I'm here about the court again. And unfortunately, we're not a part of tonight's agenda, so we don't know if we will have an additional opportunity to speak. We also weren't a part of the agenda when the city manager, Mark Dunning, presented the municipal court operational review. And Mr. Dunning did not talk to us prior to that meeting, and he has not talked to us since. Judge Lopez, sometimes she's emailed him questions that he doesn't answer. We also weren't a part of the agenda when the court audit was presented. We actually weren't asked to be there that night, and we weren't asked to be here tonight. But the only reason that I'm telling you that is just trying to stress the need for communication and you are the City Council and I want to make you aware that behind the scenes there's still a lack of communication and just a lack of engagement. It's not actually non-existent and no one, we don't hear from anyone at the city. I think they talk to some of our staff but no one will talk to us. But to the ordinance in question tonight, we have looked at it and we ask that you vote in favor of it. It notices our additional duties are in correlation to a treatment court. This is good news to us. We've been wanting this for years. The city has no treatment court at all. Neighboring cities have had treatment courts for years. This can be done formally or informally as there's different ways to structure it. And I know this because I spent considerable amount of time doing research in hopes that we would get one quite some time ago. I don't think any of my research has changed, but something that I've been passionate about So we were happy to see that it was in the ordinance. And as far as our neighboring cities, Independence has had a treatment court for over 30 years. Sugar Creek, similarly, over 30 years. Oak Grove, 26 years. The Jackson County Municipal Court has one. Even smaller places like Greenwood have treatment courts. And passing this ordinance is the first step in catching us up. Our police department has been given enough resources whereby they have been initiating programming that addresses the mental health and substance abuse needs of Lee's Summit. For example, they had the resources to begin a program called Safe Passages. It was wildly successful. And although they've been able to advance in programming and explore resources and grants, we cannot participate or work on them. We have nothing to offer across the hall. Two years ago, our police department asked us if we could have a meeting whereby we could try to work on a treatment court slash mental health court and address those needs. We wanted to, but we didn't have the time and we didn't have the additional dockets to do so, so we lacked the resources to work with our other partners. So in turn, we ask that you vote on the ordinance so we can start working together. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Michael Bostwick, I believe is what it will say. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Michael Bostwick. I oftentimes find that people lie and deceive about me in emails and in communications, and it's a struggle because sometimes you hear about it and sometimes you don't. Sometimes you know, oh, that person was referring to that, and then they just spun it in a way that worked well for them. And that's why I appreciate that the city council may have kept separation of powers between the court and the... the judicial section of the city. And I think it's important to recognize what one of the members of the council said, or one of the people who aspire to be councils, which is that the city charter is like the Constitution. And so part of that is that you can't write ordinances that supersede that. Now I'm very careful in that I believe in presenting solutions rather than just complaining about something because if you don't do that, it's difficult for people to act. And so what I would recommend the council do tonight is in their ordinance, cap it until the next election. That would allow the courts to essentially operate and not have people waiting in line forever because anybody who doesn't think that that's bad, is mistaken. That's a real problem for a lot of people, and if the legislator doesn't act on that, then they're negligent in their duties. And I think it's very important to recognize that, but I do want to highlight that they should not grant the salaries unconditionally. Because the council can't guarantee that by giving more salaries, we're going to see the changes in the wait times. And I also think that the treatment element and the mental health stuff needs to stay out of that dramatically. There's a lot I could speak towards on how mental health and the courts and technology are intertwining and doing some really bad things, but I don't have the time for that tonight. And part of the thing that everyone's upset about is our inability to spend the time to really discuss the issue. And I do think, though, that giving full-time positions for a couple of judges to see how it creates is a meaningful decision. That's not what's in the resolution. And I think that you can justify that by the public, most people in agreement, that the wait times are horrible and that that needs to be mitigated and that the judiciary is not going to act without an ordinance. So I do think that the judiciary could do something and I have tried to get that resolution, but there's been some secret emails and communications that I've observed that I know exist that are affecting that outcome. I think there's also some performance. I think like the reason that we had the, police here at the last city council session to demonstrate their programs was meant to set this up. You notice that there's someone not here tonight, and we've done it on a Wednesday. I think some of that appears as theater, even if maybe some of you don't think that's what's taking place. We all have our own perspectives and our own interpretations, but that's important to understand that lots of people have lots of agendas, and just fixing the wait times is the biggest issue.

Thank you. Next up we have Chip Floyd.

The neglect, the overlooking, the dismissal, the apathy, ignorance, minimization, the snubbing, the rejection and the failure all ended on August 18th with your resolution, counsel Pryor. Thank you. The recognition The support, the service, the appreciation, the acknowledgement, the redemption and the teamwork and the communication, the collaboration and the correction start tonight with the passage of this first reading of the ordinance. It's been researched and testified to multiple times. You have top cover on this to vote. Now, you collectively may have actually found that fifth dentist that does not support Trident gum for their patients who chew gum. However, four out of five dentists do, and six out of seven attorneys support this ordinance. You want more top cover than that? Read paragraphs two and eight of this ordinance, and if you need a top cover, there you go. It's good, it's right, and it's just. Our judges, as we all know, are smothering, trying to adjudicate several hundred cases each weekly that the executive branch enforces based on what you guys codify. We know the majority of the council is willing and ready to vote for this ordinance tonight because we heard each of your exasperations of embarrassment, shame, surprise, astonishment, and urgency. on July 14th. We all heard that from each of you. Work together. This is a chance for all three branches of government and Lee Summit to work together to support each other. Help this judicial branch. The first reading passes tonight. The second reading passes next Tuesday. October 6th, we have final passage of the ordinance. And on October 7th, my judges break ground. There are a lot of steps to come after that. There's a lot of things for the court to address after that point. But this comes first, because without this, none of that other stuff is going to happen. And to the court staff, probation officers, and anybody else who's listening to me, the cavalry is on the way. The cavalry is here. Do you hear it? It's right here. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, we have Daniel Hardin.

Hello, Daniel Harden. I'd like to speak about confirmation bias. Let's talk about what that actually means for anyone unfamiliar. It's the psychological tendency to search for information that validates what you already believe while dismissing any evidence that proves you wrong. What does that matter right now? Because before the night had even wrapped up after the motion by Mia Pryor, Hillary Shields had already lined up another attorney on our dime for just that, hunt for someone willing to rubber stamp the only outcome she was willing to accept. First Rep Tillis delivered an audit that confirmed what our two long-term sitting judges had already told the counsel. But she didn't like the answer she got from that $79,000 taxpayer-funded option. She then burned $10,000 more on an attorney and then sought other legal counsel options. She also heard from our two judges, another sitting judge, and out of those opinions and other legal opinions, just like Chip said, she searched for an opinion that she wanted until she finally found the one that she could get. Did she finally get that scripted answer she was hoping for? No one will know until we see how the outcome comes. It's simple, really. If city council suddenly required to show up three nights a week indefinitely, would you do that for the exact same pay? I doubt that. Worse yet, imagine asking for an adjustment to reflect that massive surge of workload only to be told that city would rather spend that money on even more bring in pro tem replacements to cover the extra nights. Would you like to be replaced by pro tem people instead of getting paid the extra to do the same work? I doubt that, that you'd feel insulted and deflated. I mean, why not offer the pay to the judges instead of bringing in extra work? I mean, Mia has it right and everybody that stood with her that night had it right. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Judge Maxwell Lopez.

Good evening. My name is Vanessa Maxwell Lopez. I'm one of the least summit municipal judges. You all have yet now another opinion to consider in voting for this ordinance to fix the court. While there were already opinions from four sitting judges, a legal opinion from the city that they paid $8,600 for, EMKC law professor who spoke on the news for some reason after losing the 5-2 vote Mrs. Shields hired yet another attorney to write in another legal opinion to weigh on this issue at what I am sure was a significant additional cost to the city. We were not included in the process nor was the attorney willing to speak to Judge Altieri about the matter although she spoke to city staff and council members prior to and after writing opinion and even spoke to the city attorney who was supposed to be recused from weighing in on this matter. You now have a lot of opinions. Whose opinion is more qualified? Whose opinion do you follow? What you should know and remember is that every single opinion states that you can increase compensation midterm for additional duties being imposed. And not one of the opinions state that additional court dates are not additional duties. Why not? Because there is absolutely no case law that says it is not. There has been no case law that is directly on point, meaning there is no case law that contains the same set of facts that we have here. There is no law anywhere in Missouri where the Supreme Court has said that additional court dates are not additional duties. Even the new opinion does not state definitively the new court dates are not additional duties. Rather, she states that the safer approach to this or the safer conclusion is that they would likely not be. She never says they're not. So whose opinion are you going to rely on? Are you going to discount all of the prior opinions and only consider the opinion of Ms. Zacharias who was hired without the council even requesting her opinion? Again, even the newest opinion is that you can increase compensation midterm for additional duties, and the ordinance you're being presented with tonight outlines what those duties are. We have said we're willing to undertake those additional duties. We all know about the $90,000 that was studied that was done last fall that says the court needs to be overhauled. We can't keep operating at 1981 levels. No other city department in Lee's Summit is doing so. We can't keep operating with the same number of staff and court dates. Even the newest legal opinion is that something needs to be done. The study said we need clerks, but we have five that are doing the work of 16. Our probation officers are overworked with 700 cases each, and since we just lost one of our three probation officers, we're now having to farm out a number of probation cases to outside agencies. They simply cannot keep up. None of us can. Please see this for what it is. This is just another expensive opinion and is not an end-all, be-all in your decision-making process. Remember all the studies, opinions, research and the citizens and our staff who have come up here begging you for help. At the end of the day, the decision should be made on what is best for the city of Lee's Summit. Lee's Summit is recognized as a model city. We are one brand. The city administration continues to overlook that our court system is broken. If we are truly one brand, then we are not demonstrating that. You all have a choice to make about what is right for our city and our court. Please do not let personal biases or politics change your vote. Please vote to fix the court.

Next up, we have Katie Robinson.

Good evening. I'm Katie Robinson, the new court supervisor and previously and currently still acting as a probation officer for the court because we haven't replaced one yet. Today I'm here to read a letter from one of our clerks that she asked me to read for her because she was unable to be here tonight. Her name is Selena Hainley. Our office has five employees doing the work that has been determined to require approximately 16 positions. That means we are operating at only about 31% of the staffing level needed for our workload. Roughly $100,000 has been spent to assist in determining whether additional staff is needed. I want to put that $100,000 into perspective. At the estimated wage of $19 per hour, one full-time employee working 40 hours a week costs approximately $39,520 per year in wages before benefits. The $100,000 spent to determine whether we needed additional staff represents more than two and a half years of wages for an additional full-time employee. That's two and a half years the court could have had additional assistance for our 11 position shortage. We have provided numbers showing our staffing gap. We have employees who have been carrying that workload and now have to consider not only the cost of studying the problem, but also the cost of continuing to operate without the staffing necessary to perform the work. At some point, the question becomes not simply whether we need additional staff, but what does it cost to continue operating without it? The judges are being asked to absorb a workload created by a structural staffing shortage. If the city cannot provide the staff needed to handle the workload, the city needs to recognize and compensate the additional judicial workload required to keep that work moving. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay, next up we have Amanda Squire.

Good evening. My name is Amanda Squires and I'm the court administrator for Lee's Summit Municipal Court. A lot has been said about the court in recent weeks, but I wanted to take a few minutes or three to talk to you about the staff of the court because I am here on their behalf. I currently have the pleasure of supervising nine staff, one court supervisor, two probation officers, five court clerks, and one court security officer. My staff are exemplary. They are some of the hardest working people that I know, but they have to be. because I ask them to go above and beyond in their jobs every single day. It's the only way that we are able to keep the court running, and they do it, mostly without complaint. I am incredibly blessed to have each and every one of them, and I would love for you to know a little bit more about them. Katie is full of new ideas and excited to take on her new duties as court supervisor as soon as she is able to pass on the reins of probation officer. Brett and William, whom you've already met, are diligent in their work, but never short on compassion for those on their caseloads. Gail is a firecracker, but she truly cares about the work that she does. Julie is a ray of sunshine who can turn anyone's day around. Selena is always willing to take on any challenge and try to make it better. Molly knows that the devil is in the details and takes great pride in the accuracy of her work. Lynn rises to the occasion every time I ask and often before I ask. And Todd does everything in his power to keep all of us safe. They all care deeply about this community and they understand how the work we do has a ripple effect. The people who pass through our court are members of this community. They're the other parents on the PTA, the cashiers at the grocery store, and the people we sit beside in church. and they deserve the best services that we can offer. They deserve our full attention on their case and going above and beyond to help with whatever they might need. Unfortunately, we can't provide that level of service right now. We're short on staffing and resources and my staff is tired. They work overtime every week. They work through lunches and they stay late. Some of them put in hours on the weekend just to keep the workload manageable. They're giving it all they've got because they understand the impact that they have on our community. Finally, I want you to know that my staff deserve the best because they give us their best every day. And right now, the best we can do for them is to provide them with additional help and resources, extra time from the judges to help restructure the court, additional staff to help spread the workload, and ideally, more opportunities for advancement. With this assistance, I believe we can improve office morale and retention, as well as ensure that the Lee Summit Municipal Court is set up for success for many years to come. Thank you.

Hey, next up we have Teresa Vollenweider.

Teresa Vollenweider, 5201 Northeast Maybrook Road. Illegal lots created informally or meets and bounds divided going through the city's required planning without going through the city's required planning or subdivision review process. This is the ordinance that Mayor Baird signed that for the rezoning of 5261. That is a meets and bounds description. Here is the deed with the legal description for 5261 Northeast Maybrook Road. That is a meets and bounds description. The city had that. This is a lovely plot plan. I've tried to get a better one, but they just don't have it. And I can't believe any decisions would be made based on that plot plan. But up here in the corner, what do we see? A meets and bounds description. That, of course, was the document used to get a building permit. But what did all of you on the Planning Commission and City Council have? You had this survey. And when the city says, we don't know when that property was divided, well, in this corner and in this corner, it tells you. This retracement was based on a 1999 survey done by Harvey Jones, and the date was June 1, 1999. This was put up on the screen by Joe Willis, by Matthew Schlish, by Josh Johnson, by Christina Stanton. There's the building permit that was issued based on that lovely plot plan. And what is this? It's a meets and bounds description. So obviously somebody knows, the person that signed it knows, you didn't have a plat.

Thank you, Mrs. Longliner.

Yet all of these building permits were issued before there was a plat recorded at the county for that property.

Thank you. okay next up we have proposed ordinances first reading councilmember funk would you like to read this to advance it oh

I ADVANCED THE SECOND READING AND ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AND ALLOWANCES FOR THE MUNICIPAL JUDGES WITH THE CITY OF LEE SUMMIT, MISSOURI.

THANK YOU. MS. PRYOR, COUNCILMEMBER PRYOR.

Thank you. I'm nervous and I don't think I've ever been nervous for a council meeting before, but I am nervous for this one. I want to say a few things about this ordinance because I've spent a lot of time on this issue and I've taken both legal opinions very seriously. As I read them, there is agreement that there is a narrow exception to the general prohibition on mid-term compensation increases when additional non-germane duties are imposed. The disagreement really is about whether the responsibilities associated with the treatment court can fall within that exception. Our judges told us that they would like to develop a mental health or treatment court docket and that they have explained that doing that work would require additional judicial involvement, planning, coordination, and ongoing oversight. Those aren't simply additional cases on a docket. I also think it's important that this ordinance doesn't say we're paying the judges more because they have more cases. It specifically identifies the additional responsibilities associated with developing, implementing, administering and overseeing treatment court and ties the compensation to those responsibilities. I believe this ordinance makes a good faith effort to address the concerns raised in the legal opinions while also addressing a very real need for our municipal court. We have spent a tremendous amount of time on this. We have sought multiple legal opinions. We've had an independent court assessment and we've heard directly from our judges. At this point, I feel comfortable supporting this ordinance. I believe it gives us a path to address the needs of our court while respecting the legal concerns that have been raised. I'm hopeful we can move this forward tonight, resolve the issue, and allow everyone to get back to important work ahead of us. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Atkins.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Council Member Pryor, for being willing to be the one to make the motion to put the ordinance out there and for your comments tonight and I do as well take this very seriously. I have been engaged with this since November when I saw the judges present the first time, well it wasn't their first time but it was my first time seeing them in November and they laid out the statistics very clearly about the, well they've covered many things that we talked about tonight. The option of creating a third division That is not something that the regions around us do. Nobody has third divisions. We have two divisions, one judge, one division, two judges, two divisions. There are no other areas around us that move to three and our facility and staff can't really handle three. Kansas City has three, but they are five times the size of us. So the comparable communities have two divisions and that would be great for us for many decades to come if we kept two. In terms of full-time options for our judges, where they're not asking to be full-time. They're asking for what, very similar to what the communications consultant said or the courts consultant, they didn't recommend full-time. They recommended doubling or tripling days in court, and that is what they're trying to achieve. So basically everything that the judges asked for last November from this previous council was confirmed by the Raftelis Company when they came here. They're also asking for additional staff. And you've heard tonight that we have five clerks doing the work of 16 clerks. Raftelis recommended that we hire more staff. And we have the power to do that. It's going to take some time. That is something that we can achieve if we would start to have meetings about it. So another major issue that we have is communications. There is a shocking lack of communication behind the scenes and forward. We have not held work sessions. with the judges, as I would request. I would like us to have a planning session with them. We have not done that. We had counsel last week that was hired to give an opinion on this, but she did not come prepared with other options or feedback on what to do next. It has taken some work to get other options lined up or to even consider what other options would be. So the lack of a conversational, problem-solving, troubleshooting Environment has not been present and that is I share the frustration with the judges and I do I think there is a big lack of communication moving forward in terms of hiring the rest of the staff that we will need to do after tonight's decision is over so since November and I will say that in November when they presented the sitting council could have granted at least one of them a compensation increase at that time and they chose not to. They could have allowed half of the court to move forward and expand, but they didn't. So we've been stuck at this zero level expansion when we could have grown half ways by now. But for me, communication wise, just like Council Member Pryor, I don't see this as a compensation increase. I see this as expanding our courts to the capacity that we deserve. that our citizens deserve. I mean, we are so far behind, which leads me to our former mayors. I've spoken with Mayor Baird. He is very in favor of doing this. He's like, yes, please push this forward. This needs to get done. He feels horrible that they didn't get it done while he was still here because he strongly supports it. And I went out to lunch with Mayor Rhodes, and that was unrelated. We had lunch about a totally different thing, but this topic came up, and he's like, oh my gosh, yes, this is not good. This should be solved. This should be something that we move forward. Why are we stuck here? And he led me to Mr. James Freeman, who was a former, he's a current practicing attorney who was on city council when the charter was drafted. And James Freeman was concerned about why aren't we moving forward? Can we do this? So he also helped to draft. He looked at the ordinance that we had tonight and he helped draft another version that was a little stronger in certain areas. And I didn't even have time to push it forward or the environment to do so. We're not communicating in a way that is We're not having troubleshooting conversations about these things. And so his ordinance looks fantastic, but I can't even present it. I'm very in favor of moving this forward. And I know that this allows the doors to open up for the judges to come in and give the time that they need and spread out the courts and start working on the treatment courts and fulfill the things they've been wanting to do. And I know that that I agree that that could stop in 18 months. I don't mind putting a limit on it at 18 months because I think in the next 18 months before the next term, which is why I say 18 months because that's when the next term begins for Judge Lopez. So that's when the next thing would happen. I think the 18 months is time for all of us to work together to find a long-term solution and start hiring as many people as possible and go to finance and budget committee. There's lots of things to do that might take 18 months and that's fine. But this is a short-term emergency stopgap, like get the doors open to the court so they can start functioning. I also know that the charter has been discussing it. And I don't know what they will pull forward in time for April voting. And whatever they want to do is fantastic. But I just want to pull the trigger now to get the doors open so the judges can start implementing change and start doing what they need to create a healthy environment, which is what we need to have. Those are my thoughts, and thank you all for your feedback and your opinions on these things. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Is Ms. Zacharias present here on Zoom?

Yes, we do have Catherine Zacharias with the Lauber Municipal Law Firm that's available virtually.

Is she is it is it possible to get her on our screens or oh? Maybe that's happening.

Yeah, the AV folks will assist with that.

Thank you Good evening miss Zacharias. I have some questions I'm very new to the council and we have a lot of residents here and I just I really want to ask some basic things about the about how we how we are going through this process and You probably don't have a copy of the charter with you, or do you?

I've got it in my binder.

I just wondered, I would just like you to read the section, the compensation section. I think that's 7.2i.

Let me find it real quick.

She's kind of hard to hear. Can we get her volume adjusted? I don't know if they can hear me say that.

Okay.

I apologize. I'm trying to find where the charter is that I have.

That volume sounds very much better.

Much better. We can hear you now. Okay.

Yes, I've got the charter in front of me now.

Okay, so can you read section I underneath? It's in 7.2 for the judges.

Yes, section I begins with compensation. Compensation of municipal judges shall be determined by ordinance and shall not be dependent in any way upon the number of cases tried, the number of guilty verdicts reached, or the amount of fines imposed or collected. No change in compensation of an incumbent municipal judge shall become effective during that judge's term of office.

Okay, so with that question, We've heard people talk about the plain language of the charter. And I want to understand better if we're not relying on the plain language, we go next to the case law. Is that correct? That's what we do to see if there's precedence for exceptions?

Yes. The Lee's Summit charter pretty much mirrors the Missouri Constitution with that language. And so then to... help define what that means, particularly since your charter mirrors that language, you would look to see how either the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court has addressed the issue.

Okay. So then the point that I've read constantly and that we've talked about already tonight are that the law, the case law, and correct me if I'm wrong, please, the case law allows for change in midterm compensation for change in duties.

That's, that's been changed at extrinsic non-germane duties.

Okay. So with that said, what, um, how are those extrinsic non-germane duties determined as they relate to a judge? Where is that? Where's the guidance for that, that, that the court used in decisions, I guess is what I'm asking.

Um, In the review of the case law, there was only one case that was specifically about judges, but there are other cases that are similar that you can look at. What they've looked at is not necessarily whether it's a judge or a mayor, but what duties do they have? And is the work that's being done, is that different than the work they're already doing?

Okay. So... In your opinion, does the language of this ordinance support the requirement that those duties be non-germane with the addition of the treatment court?

With, I believe, with the limited exception as laid out in the whereas clauses, that the traditional municipal docket has not had treatment courts within it. So the looking at a basis for the reported increase in compensation, it had to look to see were there any activities that would be different than would be traditionally be done by municipal court.

So is a treatment court what is traditionally done?

Treatment courts traditionally, treatment courts started in circuit court. Some municipal divisions over the years have adopted treatment courts to help address issues. You know, they might have a DWI court. They might have a mental health court. They may have a veterans court. those specialized dockets are set up to address some unique issues to help reduce recidivism amongst defendants. Typically, because municipal courts, municipal dockets are a lot of speeding, kind of traffic type of violations, there's not necessarily, you don't see them in a lot of municipal divisions. Lee's Summit has a broader number of types of ordinances that are heard within the municipal court.

Okay. I guess I'm asking because in the opinion we received last week the treatment court has mentioned and it doesn't seem to be in your opinion it's not one of those it doesn't I got the impression that it doesn't seem like you believe that it would be considered, if this were challenged, a new non-germane duty. And that's, I guess, that's really my question.

And unfortunately, only the court can really determine whether or not, if this were challenged, it would go to a court to decide whether or not the duties were non-germane to the current existing duties. So I can't predict necessarily what the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court might say if the ordinance was challenged. As part of my engagement with the city, I was asked to craft an ordinance establishing this compensation increase that could be supported by um additional work and so what you have before you is looking at the treatment courts which and particularly in lee summit you have not had treatment courts established within the municipal division so using that as a basis and outlining what those distinctions are is making a case that those duties are extrinsic to their current duties.

Okay. So if this was ruled unconstitutional, what would be the consequences of that?

What has happened in the cases over the years have been challenged. The pay has been determined to be unauthorized and the recipients of the increased compensation have had to pay it back.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Council member prior Thank You chair. I actually have a question for the judges If that's okay Are you guys currently coordinating a Mental health docket

We have done all of the research we can up until this date. We don't have time to do any additional, but we can do a docket.

But you're not actively coordinating it right now? Oh, no. Okay. Have you guys... Are you currently... Is there currently ongoing oversight of a mental health docket? No. Are you guys currently... planning mental health dockets weekly? No. So in your opinion, would you consider those new duties?

Yes.

Okay. So therefore, I think it's pretty simple. They're considered new duties by her definition, by Ms. Zacharias' definition.

Okay. We would agree.

Okay.

Thank you. Actually, one other question. Sorry. Okay, so if this passes tonight, then I guess it would have to pass the second reading. And then how quickly would you guys be able to get to work on this?

The second reading would be next Tuesday. I'd say Wednesday. Like we're ready. Okay. We're just waiting.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member Pryor. Council Member Cravens.

Thanks, Chair. So, as mentioned before, we spent an extensive amount of time last week in a closed session discussing all of the ramifications around this topic. And I think that, you know, for the most part, we are all in agreeance that our courts are strained and our courts need help right away. I don't think that that is even the topic that this council in particular is going back and forth on. I think what the main issue that kind of been kind of getting in the way is ensuring that we are doing the right things by the courts as well as protecting our city via our charter in the Missouri Constitution. I, for one, was appreciative of Ms. Zachariah's input in her time with us last week because she was able to answer a lot of questions that I know I was not privy to as well as some other new council members were privy to asking prior attorneys. So with that being said, one of the things that I do want to mention before I kind of go somewhere else with this conversation I think we still have to address the fundamental issue with our courts in our city. And we have to, one, tackle the capacity of the judges and do what's right there. But we have to make sure that as we're doing that, that communication with the city is key. Because we have heard that the staff that's working in our courts they're just as strained. And it's just, it's as big of an issue with staff as it is with the judges. And I don't think you can fix one thing without fixing the other, because a strain will still strain our citizens and being as effective as we can in our courts. So with that being said, I think there's a huge responsibility with not just the city but with the judges as well. We've heard your argument time after time that give us more days so that we can get through these dockets, which makes perfect sense to me. But little talk about how you're going to work together with the city to stay on top of the responsibilities of letting the city know what is needed and city understanding what's needed in our courts because the women who came up today, you know, I feel your pain and I think everyone who, you know, Has a job understand how hard it is to get through your day when you are so strained at work and the stress that comes with that and I don't think it's fair to to you to the courts to the citizens and to the city for us to be in those types of conditions, so I would really appreciate if the effort of you know, is put forth with our judges to try and fix and streamline that relationship so that we can know what is needed and provide those resources because that is the one thing that we can control is the assistance with staff, us as a city, control the resources that's needed for our courts. We as a city decided to have a municipal court And when you decide to have that municipal court in your city, you have a responsibility to sustain it. So I would love to see some work around that so that we're not back in the same place when we do allow additional days, but the system is still broken. So that's that. The other part I do want to acknowledge is We were really putting forth a lot of effort to figure out how can we make this work. Additional duties was the big thing that kept coming up is how do we make this legally acceptable and the additional duties and what came up not only with this attorney but the one before was the treatment court. And so it sounds like we do have agreement that that is something that our courts can currently, well, I shouldn't say currently, but once we kind of decide on something, can get that up and going right away. Hopefully, because we do have a... capacity issue. And I know that there are some things that still have to, that we're behind on. So hopefully the plan is in place or, you know, I know you guys said you've done research already on how to make this work. But in our ordinance it does say we have to have this particular one anyway. You know, that is one of the conditions in order for us to legally get the compensation to where it needs to be. So Dana, thanks for asking those additional questions because I think that is some of the things that our residents probably wasn't privy to, kind of how that relates to what the charter says versus the Constitution and being able to read that out loud so that people can hear that as well as we make this critical decision protecting our courts and our city. So my comments.

Thank you. Council Member Funk.

Thank you chair, I just want to say I support and recognize the additional responsibilities that are outlined in this ordinance I have faith and trust not only in our judges but our court staff and thank you for being here and sharing your stories. I will be supporting this ordinance, I believe you know the constant the compensation is is do where we're asking for these duties were asking us for our citizens. You know, as much as it pains me to say it's not all about the judges, it's about the people in this community that we serve, that you serve. And I think allowing you to provide these types of courts, the treatment courts, the DWI courts and those type of thing, they benefit our city. And I believe we're being transparent about this process. And I'm going to be in full support of this. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Councilmember Frazier.

For the record, we've had a number of comments and I will say that I have received many emails, phone calls for or against this. As you all know, I did spend some time at the court So I saw the backlog and the challenge that I think the courts had in terms of the number of folks that were waiting, the time, and also the time that the judges put in not being able to honestly take lunch, eating lunch at their desk, eating lunch at the dais there. and definitely appreciate that. I will also say this for the record, there's been a lot of mudslinging that's been going back and forth and I can assure you that everyone on this council has the same, we want to do what's right for the citizens of Lee's Summit. I will also tell you that I also, Mayor Pro Tem Shields has gotten a brunt of it. I asked her to bring in additional counsel so that we could get an additional opinion. So for the folks that think that it was just Hillary pushing forth her agenda, that is not the case at all, for the record. And I'm glad that Ms. Zacharias provided some additional insight as to how we can go about making our decision. While I, and I will say this, We completely sympathize. And for the record, I will also say this. We, two weeks ago, I don't remember when it was, we're trying to do our best. I keep saying that. One of the options that has come up multiple times is, you know, if we can add another, you know, this is within our jurisdiction, our purview to do. We can add another division. We can add a mayor pro tem. And we were constantly met with not being able to do that, not wanting to do that. And also, you know, the court and the administrative staff said, no, that's going to be too much for us. Well, it's going to be too much for you whether you do it now or or whether you do it two years from now if you have another judge that comes through. So we are trying, and I say that all the time, we are really trying to meet you halfway. I can say that again because I've been there. I agree with Councilmember Atkins and the rest of the Councilmembers here. We do need to increase our communication. And communication is a two-way street. We need to listen and we need to make it work. Where I struggle is the requirement to do this today. And I do understand that this has been ongoing since two years ago, and I too sat in the audience two years ago, I think it was two years ago, and heard everything that was going on. And someone mentioned here, yeah, they had an opportunity to vote it then, and they didn't. Where I am challenged is, I don't want to go outside of the charter. If the charter reads, we can, more than happy, I think you do deserve additional compensation. But I also think it should be done as the charter lays out, which I believe is during the next cycle. What that will do is set yourself up so that, I believe it's one judge will have compensation differently than the other, but that's what the charter says. We don't have the option to go around that. So that's where I am. The fact that we do need and can benefit, our citizens can benefit from additional court or additional docket, absolutely, absolutely. But my purpose, my practice has always been let's hit the low hanging fruit. And in my opinion, initially that low hanging fruit was to bring in an additional judge. And and we were met again constant. No, we can't there's probably no one I think someone said there's probably no one out there that will do that You don't know that So until we try that And that will address some of the issues immediately I'm on the fence, to be honest, because if it were entirely up to me, I'd say yes, absolutely. Add the other docket, and the docket will justify without question the need for additional days, as everyone said, additional days. But to implement these additional days next month, I'm challenged with that, really I am. Because you do more, I agree, you do more. We all do more. And I'm going to stand on, we knew that when we were elected. We knew that when we decided to run for election. And I say we, because it's not just the judges in this particular situation, it's everyone up on the dais as well. So that's my challenge, is going outside of the charter and going outside of our state constitution. But do I agree? We do need to fix this for the residents of Lee Summit. Absolutely. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Council Member Atkins.

Thank you, Chair. I feel like we are talking in circles, which is where the challenge comes. Because the idea of Adding a new judge is so vast and so complicated and so it is more extreme than just expanding what we have. The concept of adding a new judge immediately is not something that happens in this city. We can't even hire a clerk immediately. We can't even hire a bailiff immediately. There is no such thing as immediate right here. Every little staff person takes months and months and months. There is no immediate. We've got a declared situation that we're already nine months past solving, two years past solving. They brought it up. They did some whistleblowing two years ago in July with meetings with Mr. Dunning and Mr. Head and spent six months trying to make their way to the Finance and Budget Committee and spent a couple Sessions there without quorum and then kicked it back to the council and then nothing happened and no staff were hired. It's a two year process of nothing happening. They presented in November and asked for things and nothing happened. There were no solutions brought forward or no decisions made. They kicked the can down. Then we finally heard a presentation from the consultation company in July and they said, Oh yes, this is an emergency. We need immediate action. That's what the, that's what the group said. We require immediate action to increase from five clerks to 16 clerks and to expand court days to 5.4 days a week. They didn't say add a third division. They didn't say add full time judges. They said expand court days immediately is what they said. And here we are three months later and it still hasn't gotten added to the finance and budget committee. agenda, which is where, you know, theoretically that's where we would solve things, but it hasn't been added to that agenda in three months, and we are here. So there is no, I have no faith that adding a third imaginary judge would happen in the next 18 months. The topic has come up of pro tem judges, which they can speak on elaborately because there are such things as pro tem judges, but they just plug in for one or two cases at a time, not three days a week for the next 18 months, which is astronomically more expensive and more complicated than what we're proposing. And the concept of understanding the plain language of the charter is what we are circling around because as Ms. Zacharias said a minute ago, she was explaining what she thought her opinion was about this thing. And she said, I'm not sure it's something that a court would decide. which brings us back to the fact that we've had eight judges in front of us telling us that if this was in front of their court, this is how they would decide it. The, the opinion of the attorney is that the court would have to decide it. And the judges are all saying, yes, we are the court. And this is how we would decide it because it is such an exceptional sample outside of, it's not just compensation. We're not saying, Oh, I feel like you've done a really good job. You deserve a raise. That's not what's happening. It is a, crisis level limitation on all the staff and all the courts to even handle 700 people a day coming through. And it is ridiculous. And it is something that we could solve easily. And now we have an ordinance to do so by letting them expand the treatment courts like they've asked before, letting them expand what they're doing, letting them get to work, letting them get in there. because they will have to give up their other part-time jobs in order to do so. It is not, they're already working around the clock in ridiculous hours and 24 seven on call for warrants and people's lives are at hand. If you cannot get, I mean they're, they're on call all the time anyway. And so getting them in there to expand the rest of the courts is what we have to do in a short term method and we can spend the next 18 months figuring out what we want to do in the longterm. But all the other options, like adding extra judges and extra people, is not the path of what our courts would be. I would like to, Chair, if I could invite them to the podium, if you can speak to the concept of what it would do to your court to add a third judge, or what it would do to add pro tem judges. What impact would that have on the court?

If we know I'm going to, I'm going to say no, we we've already had that discussion and we've heard from the court and the judges what that would do. So I really just want, this is a legislative duty and let's just have this conversation and then make our decision.

Well, it came up from the dais and so that's why I wanted to verify because it may be that wasn't clear or it wouldn't keep coming up from the dais. Well, that's my decision. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. We have to work on communication. Thank you, chair. Okay.

Council member arts.

Thank you. I would say this is a very difficult meeting to tackle for my first meeting. But it's difficult regardless. There have been some great ideas and solutions presented here. And I know that our judges need help with clearing the docket. And it's not just our judges, it's our residents. At the end of the day, the judiciary, the legislative, the city manager, the staff, all of us, our number one responsibility is to all of you who are here tonight and the ones that aren't. Council Member Funk did say this. He said we're all one brand. And it's our responsibility to provide exceptional resources as best as we can to our taxpaying residents who we are one of you as well. I will say that given that this is my struggle, I'm not really sure about the definition of the non-germane duties. I will just put it out there. I'm not sure of it. I am, and I'm more concerned about anything is violating the charter and the state constitution because this kind of decision is, if it's done incorrectly, we do something to our city charter, which is our city constitution. That violation could, I know there have been other opinions, but I also know there's probably constitutional law attorneys keeping an eye on this. And so we may be rolling the dice. And I'm not sure what the expense of that would be, but I do know it would be a rollback of the compensation for the judges. It would be attorney fees for our defense and then attorney fees possibly for a plaintiff. So that is a lot of money to the taxpayers. And so that's where I'm struggling because I think we can come up with things that may not involve us rolling the dice on this charter. I think we've had very good ideas. And I do feel bad that the courts have been as tied up as they have been. I think that's a horrible position to be in. And I just wanted to say that is definitely where I'm struggling. Thank you.

Thank you. Council Member Pryor.

Thank you. I don't know if this is the appropriate place. I don't think it probably is. Probably at the end of the meeting, but to... And I know that Mayor Pro Tem's not here, but to request that discussion or action be forwarded on to Finance and Budget Committee for the rest of court staff so we can start that ball rolling too. Is this the appropriate spot since it does have to do with that or is it not?

That would be a direction to staff, I would say separate from considering the ordinance, a different action that could be taken.

Then at the end of the meeting.

Council comments would be perfect appropriate for that.

Okay.

Thank you Okay, do we have anybody else that wants to speak to this item? Good Okay, so then I will just address some of the things I've heard up here and So I also agree we do need additional days by the judges to increase the capacity of the courts, but I You've all heard everybody say this. We do not have control over how the judges schedule their courts. Capacity is a huge issue. Yes, we need to have additional court days. Can we, the council, tell them, judge, you need to be in court more days a week? No, we cannot tell the judiciary what to do. As far as having a new docket goes for a treatment court or what have you, The capacity is already an issue. Starting a new docket with new cases is just going to make that a bigger issue. The court's staff has been up here and told us that they need more staff to handle what's there. So if we're just adding new cases and new dockets, that's going to give additional capacity issues. Uhm, as far as as the new duties and how the ordinance is written, I believe that our discussion the other night said, you know. We we could justify new duties if the court was doing those duties. The court is not doing those duties at this time. So that if is the problem, if the court had already started doing these, then it would be easier for us to say that they need money for the new duties that they're doing, but they're not. So that makes this ordinance even harder. Um, as far as adding a new docket, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. As far as adding, um, new judge with his own dockets our charter does describe that we can do that and and that is what is within our charter right now for us to do so that's that's why that issue is coming up because i asked if the language in the charter would allow for us to do that without violating the charter And that answer was yes. So the reason that this has not gone to finance and budget yet is because this topic is still at the council level. And until the council collectively sends it to finance and budget, finance and budget cannot take it up. So I believe that is everything. that I wanted to respond to here. As far as this ordinance and how everything goes on here, to be clear, what we are being asked to do tonight is to give a midterm increase in pay to the judges in which our charter specifically says we cannot do. Our charter mirrors the Constitution of Missouri which also states that no judge shall have a pay increase within their term. So, doing this, approving this ordinance tonight would be in violation of that. You know, we just all received pay increases in May, including the judges. That was a 33% pay increase. If just simply getting a pay increase to properly run the courts would fix the courts, then we have a bigger issue here. Because we should not have judges telling us we can make the court run right if you give me 107% increase in pay. That's an issue. I don't think that demanding an increase in pay to properly run the courts would is ethical. I don't think the bullying that's been going on from this dais or to this dais is well taken. I also believe that it's improper. It is It's just not the way it's supposed to be done. We are not supposed to put undue pressure on the judicial branch. The judicial branch should not be putting undue pressure on the legislative branch. That's how I feel about the whole situation. The judges rallying the troops, I guess if you would want to say that, and getting political pressure from our constituents, I don't think that's proper either. So I will stand firm in my refusal to violate my oath to this office, and I will not be supporting this ordinance. Thank you. No Sir, it's not. One day a week. Thank you. OK, let's vote. Do you have a new opinion? I mean, we have heard you normal numerous times on this issue, so if you have something new to add, that's one thing, but.

No.

Okay, everybody, please place your votes.

So we're not, we can't, we're not allowed to speak?

No.

This is a tragedy. It's a closed forum.

Could we start a GoFundMe? We could. Honest, to God.

We could.

Or quit writing tickets.

Now that would make sense.

They were gonna hit me one after another with trespassing.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Okay, all votes are in. Please record the vote. Okay, we move on to the next item. Next on the agenda is committee reports. Do we have any committee reports tonight? Council Member Funk.

We will have a legislative governmental affairs meeting on Monday at 1130 a.m.

Thank you. Anyone else? Committee, well, anybody for committee reports?

Mayor Tim Carlisle? Yes. Can I correct? Yeah. Can I correct? I'll correct this. So it showed on the screen the vote was 4-3. It showed motion failed. That's incorrect. For first reading, a motion can pass on a 4-3 vote.

Only because there are seven here and that is a majority.

That's correct, but can I clarify a few things since we've got folks leaving. In order for an ordinance to be adopted, the charter requires five votes. So it moves to second reading in consideration for adoption, but just know that at that level, it requires five for an ordinance to pass. The other thing I'd like to clarify too is mentioned that the ordinance would come forward next Tuesday. Within the charter, there's a seven-day period that the ordinance must wait between first reading and second consideration. So it would not meet next Tuesday's meeting. So it would either need to follow to the October meeting or have another special session. So I just wanted to make those clarifications since... I caught that on the screen. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Council Member Funk, is that you again or did I not clear you?

You didn't clear me.

Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. So for committee, okay, there we go. For committee reports, we will also have a rules committee meeting tomorrow at 1130 via Zoom. Okay. Next, council comments. Councilmember Pryor.

Thank you. A couple of things. One, Councilmember Frazier neglected to mention Hardee's is open. And so I drove by and I saw a big sign that said, now open.

And now hiring.

There you go. And also, I would like to... forward to finance and budget. I would like to have, what do I request staff to put on the finance and budget agenda discussion of, um, court staff.

So if I could just clarify, we just had finance and budget yesterday. Um, and we did discuss the budget, um, calendar and, and when all of those things are going to start. So that is getting ready to start very quickly with, um, staff talking with all of the departments about what their needs are for budget and so forth. So is that good or do you want it to come separate?

I would like it to be more specific and separate.

Okay. Okay. So we would need to ask Mayor Pro Tem to put that, but we can all direct from here if they would like. And let's just, you want a heads up, you want a thumbs up, you want to vote? How do you want this?

As long as we can see there's consensus of the council to direct something to a committee, I think that is sufficient.

Okay, so you want to give a thumbs up if you would like to direct Mayor Pro Tem to assign this to committee. Everybody get them up high so we can see them all. got a record all right thank you um are you is that it yes thank you all right um council member atkins there's a lot to unpack and when it goes to finance i i hope that it's not i hope that the chair is not implying that we would wait until next july to make changes on

Addressing these issues. So I hope it goes to committee with the intent to make changes sooner than another Six months which has been the trend in the last two years is to keep punting it down and down and down further I think there were a lot of Things that said tonight that didn't get to be responded to and I I think we've got a big problem with our communications Thank you all for visiting and saying your your thoughts on things. I

Anybody else Council comments. Okay.

Yes, okay. Councilmember fraser Councilmember prior to me that I to Joe by hardy's and It's open. They also have a now hiring sign for those impacted by the most recent layoffs. But I have not had the opportunity to go, but I will, I promise you, the biscuits and gravy are really great. So they are, I think it is reopening. I believe they have a new franchise owner and so They've done you've seen a lot of painting and that sort of thing.

So I'm pretty excited and it seems very very busy now because before you know, it wasn't as busy so Stop by more to come Thank you Thank You chair, so mr. Dunning the second reading and adoption of this wouldn't be until October 6th Based on our current City Council schedules scheduled meetings, that's correct.

Okay, so

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Any other council comment? Nope. Do we have staff roundtable?

Just a couple items. Thank you. So I would respectfully respond to some public comments tonight about communications. While I have not personally spoke with judges recently, I think a different question is have I communicated or has staff communicated? That's a different question and that's a different response. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others? Okay. I will adjourn this meeting at 7.22 p.m. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you. Thank you.