City Council - Regular Meeting

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve consent agenda with the aforementioned removal of J3 and J4.

Councilman Neill. Yeah, I want to thank you, Jay, and your team for all the hard work you do, as well as this council up here. We've had a lot of interaction over some many months now on this whole thing. So just thank you for that. I appreciate all that you do. That's all I have right now, Mayor.

With that, Mr. Mayor, I move to approve Ordinance Number 4014 as presented.

Okay, Mr. Mayor, I move to approve resolution number 2026-122 as presented.

No, I was just going to move to approve item L4. Is that?

Yeah, Jay, I'm just wondering if you have access to the notice of public hearing. Do you have that available to share on the screen that the rest of us here on council have? It's notice of public hearing on tax increase.

That's okay. I know you probably weren't ready for that question.

Okay. I guess we can wait. I just want to call your attention to the third paragraph. that says the proposed tax rate is greater than the no new revenue tax rate. That's the first sentence. The second sentence says this means that the City of Farmers Branch is proposing to increase property taxes for the 2026 tax year, and I just find that confusing.

Thank you for that, Jay. Just the language reads, and I'm sure you understand why many residents look at this, and it clearly says this means farmers' branches proposing increased property taxes, and that causes a lot of discussion among the public. So I just want to point that out. Thank you for your clarification. Absolutely.

That poses another question. Does that mean we're required by the state to show the maximum rate of 0.60, or could it be something less? It could be less. It could be less.

I'm sorry, could you repeat the motion for me? I'm just mishearing what's on the screen versus what I think the motion I heard was.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item what was D2 slash L3 will now be considered in open session in accordance with the vote taken earlier this evening. The city attorney will lead the discussion regarding the charter code provisions being discussed.

Thank you, Mr. Berman. Now the council will discuss the matter. I will We'll go by district, starting to my right, District 2. Being the presiding officer, I will be responding last. The mayor will be responding after District 5, since there's a potential that he will be voting.

My understanding was the issue is concerning a social media post and not any of the events that occurred on June 2nd, if that's what I understood from the city attorney. I'm sorry, read what? I was just handed that literally three minutes ago, so no, I have not.

Based on what the attorney had just said, the statement should be confined to whether Councilwoman Gonzalez was acting in her capacity as a member of the council.

Yes, I have several questions for the city attorney. Is it your opinion or belief that this is a civil matter between Terry Lynn and Ms. Gonzalez?

Okay, so therefore you would consider it generally a private matter between the two?

If the council were to approve such a thing, do you think our insurance carrier would approve or carry any assistance?

Okay. So it's not likely, but it's still vague, right? That's what I heard here. And so, Mr. Berman, do you believe that the actions were part of an official duties with respect to the posting of the social media posting? In your opinion.

And then, do you or anyone here on the dais, can you explain to me what the public benefit would be by paying for the legal fees with public funds? Can somebody help me? What's the benefit to the city, if any? Anyone can answer. I just don't have an answer to that.

Mr. Berman, are you familiar with the Attorney General's opinion, JC-0294, which discusses whether a city council may pay for an attorney if he is incurred and defined certain circumstances?

Okay, and so I wanted to ask a couple questions about that. It's my understanding, and I'm not an attorney, and I'll need your opinion on this, but as I read through that attorney general position, it seems to me that at a minimum, in order for the city to be able to pay the defense costs for a council member, that the payment of the legal fees serve a public interest is number one.

Okay, and so I've not yet heard here yet what is the public interest served by paying the legal fees. That's number two. I'm sorry, number one. Number two, it also indicates that the council person was acting in good faith within the scope of his or her official duties. And from what you described a few minutes ago, you did not believe that she was acting in the scope of her official duties.

Yes, I understand that's just your opinion, but you're the legal attorney. And again, I'm reading a legal opinion by the AG, so I'm just asking you to sort of concur that what I'm thinking is in alignment at least with that attorney general's opinion. ruling. And it's also my understanding that if council were to decide to pay for such legal fees, I think it's also in the same ruling that The payments, if any, would not be made until after the adjudication of the civil case?

Okay, this is civil according to your description.

Okay, I'll come back to a couple things in case council has any more questions. I just need to look at a couple things here in my notes.

No, they don't. What we're deciding upon is whether she was acting in the capacity as a council person.

All right. Yes, she did post it on Facebook. It was on her account. the Her Counsel Facebook page posted on Letterhead that named her as Councilwoman Gonzalez. I feel that part of your capacity as a councilperson is to communicate to your constituents, especially after an issue like that where she's getting questions on what happened, she's explaining in her words what she felt happened as and again, with on her council letterhead. Additionally, all the LEGAL DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT TO COUNCILWOMAN GONZALEZ ARE ADDRESSED TO COUNCILWOMAN GONZALEZ. IT'S NOT AN ACTION OF TERRY VERSUS LUPE.

I'd just like to wrap up my thoughts here. and most of which are based on our attorney's opinion. I think we need to rely on attorneys to interpret a lot of this legal stuff. First of all, it was his opinion, and I would concur that this is a civil matter, number one. Number two, he indicates and has the belief that it is a private matter between the two individuals. And thirdly, it's in his opinion that she was not acting in her official duties from what he was able to discern. And I like to take the advice of our city attorney because we hire him for those specific sorts of clarifications. B

Well, I disagree with that assessment. Titles do matter. If you're going to file something against an individual, you're filing it against the individual. If you're filing it against them as in their position, that matters. In my mind, that matters. Secondly, as far as... public benefit, or at least as the attorney had referenced earlier, it gives confidence to staff that the city will stand behind an individual who if acting in the capacity of their position has to undergo a civil lawsuit. So it's confidence building to the staff, confidence building to council, confidence building to all emp

David, I'm Councilman Reed. I would agree with you generally that the public benefit would be to instill some confidence that employees would be protected. But the caveat to that is that when they're acting in the capacity of official business, and it was the opinion of our attorney just a few minutes ago that is his belief that this was not acting in an official business. So I don't think that you could then follow that there's any public benefit

Okay, then we'll just bring it to a vote. Can I call for a motion regarding L3?

Sure, I move to deny the court request of item L3 26-581.

Okay, a motion has been made and seconded. Let's go for a vote.

Okay, because Councilwoman Gonzalez is recused, we have a tie vote, so that means that the mayor votes to break the tie.

Okay. Can we get the attorney's thoughts on what the next step is?

So if we were to then follow Robert's rules of order, that would indicate that the motion does not carry.

Okay, I'll call for another motion on this topic.

Since there is an impasse and I doubt it's going to be resolved, there will be no action on this item.

At this time, I turn the proceeding back to the mayor.