Charter Review Committee - Regular Meeting

The following is the Odessa Charter Review Committee, July 7, 2026, at 3.02 p.m. Those present are... Aaron Smith.

Ronnie Bell.

Peggy Ding.

James Parker.

Norma Aguilar.

What I was saying was... maybe after each proposition we put current charter with proposed changes and that way someone who wants to look they can look at this document as a PDF link to a PDF and they can literally see oh that's what charter says now strike through and you know underline is added you know that sort of thing just to just to make it easy and that way we can get by with more simple propositions as opposed to I tried to go with a more of a simple proposition approach that summarized the changes as opposed to any kind of proposition that will require us to put the charter language in there and I mean there's different ways to do it but I think this makes the most sense the best way to avoid confusion would be the best I think so and then part of the thing is that's these are draft propositions or maybe you know that we may find a need to tweak some The only thing, state law gives us a lot of flexibility in crafting our proposition language. The proposition language just needs to most efficiently capture the subject of the amendments, and it can't mislead. So as long as we get to a point and say, yeah, okay, that's pretty good. I mean, even just making it more compact, even removing a word or two, it's almost like the more compact it is, the better it will be.

With 47 draft propositions, we'd probably have the lowest voter turnout ever.

There will be a Senate race that time, right? Yeah. There are going to be voters there. That's right. It'll be a contested.

Yeah, that'll be.

So it'll have, what's his name? Paxton and the other fellow. I can't remember.

Tallarico.

Tallarico. Tallarico. So I think it'll be well- That's not gonna be presidential election by any means, but it'll be pretty well.

Turn out for it.

You'll have a captive audience. You'll have a captive audience for this and then probably for the venue tax also.

So people understand that they're not paying for that venue.

That'll require some FAQs and frequently asked questions and stuff.

James, is this what you want sent in the council packet for Tuesday? Yeah, this is what we should. Could you please email it to me? Of course.

If we have changes, if anybody wants to make any changes. And Tina is going through it. She's still probably going to work through it. Just a few little things. Because there was one section. Remember there was that... She had, we take care of it through our changes, but there was that, one of the O2 amendments that you sent me earlier today, where they got rid of the red out of, I think section 61, the two readings that was struck and Franklin never took it out. This actually fits as that because it strikes all that. The whole section. All that second reading stuff.

We used Franklin publishing at one time, is that right?

Yes, and then they, General Code took over Franklin.

Yeah, they did. He sold out. Mm-hmm.

But they've been real good to us.

Franklin Kirk, was that his name?

Yeah, Kirk Franklin.

He's awesome. He's from Lubbock, I think. I don't know if he's from Lubbock or not. Okay, so Charles, what was that? He was in section 12 where he talked about that. Although I don't know if that hurts us by extending the time. It doesn't mean there's nothing in there that says you can't reduce the time, right?

What are we talking about?

Oh, number 12. Those are claims? Yeah. Charles Hurst said something about what we had said. It went from maybe 60 days to six months.

Isn't that what he said? Yeah, but I don't know what he's... I'm not seeing that. That down in D. Oh yeah, I mean D has six months. Six months immediately.

Yeah.

And that's only coming from... Yeah, in the old C it just says verified within 60 days after sim has been sustained. Um... Duly prefer within six months after the statement's been sustained. I don't know that that makes a difference to you. Okay. All right. All right. And I think that's what he was referencing.

So...

I think it's fine.

Yeah. Okay.

Mm-hmm.

Is eminent domain a hot topic to people? Are people afraid that they'll come in and take their property?

Which, inevitably, when someone sees that eminent domain, that's the first thing that comes into mind. People's mind is property rights. Which proposition or which section are you in?

It's Proposition C-6. You know, we took all of the reasons you could do it and just put in instead any purpose authorized by the state of Texas, which they're probably going to feel gives us a whole lot more.

Yeah, and I think the thing about six was, it really was just streamlining the language, really.

If it failed with all of those things. Yeah.

Thanks. If someone if that failed, we wouldn't be harmed actually, really. I mean, this really is an opportunity to just clean up the Okay. Basically, the green language says everything that the red language does.

Yeah. And see, the thing is, with this annotation, the statute and this annotation, there's on home rule cities, it says, Whatever your charter says. And our charter doesn't say it. So when we have questions on disannotation, if people want to disannot, they go to our charter and there's no procedure. So this gives people, it establishes it. Once you're in, you're in. Yeah, and that was for a process. Usually it's done by petition for disannotation. All the statutes in Chapter 43 say, all aquatic general law cities. And there was one that says they can disannounce when there's no services provided. But there's nothing else in there that gives the council some ability to weigh in. And the statute says the charter can control on when or how you want to disannounce. Our charter just doesn't address it.

Well, this isn't about disannexation, isn't it? Yeah. The eminent domain is?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not actually on the wrong section. I'm on the section three. You're looking after me. Yeah, the eminent domain is just... The thing with the eminent domain is it just had all those uses. And I'll pull up the statute. The statute's actually amazingly simple on eminent domain. And it's like, really that charter goes, it spends like 20 lines detailing all of these things that we can do in uses of independent domain. And the statute is a very short statute.

For 42 of these, what do you think the estimate will be for the election?

It won't matter because we're going to...

They'll have to put that in there?

The cost, it won't matter.

It won't matter the fact of it.

Because we go by the machines, we go by the location.

That's the entire chapter.

That's the entire chapter for each domain in the local government code. Right up in the domain. It's already set forth in the state law. The state law just says when the government body of the municipality considers it necessary. We're going to be there anyway. We're going to be there anyway. So don't hurt us. And for doing all these things. And so the statute covers it. That's our statutory authority. We have to report to the comptroller every year. I don't know who handles that. Do you guys handle that?

No, elections administrator does that.

Okay, because we have to report every year to the state comptroller uses of our M.A. domain. We have to report whether we utilize the M.A. domain this past year or not. I think it's due like every February. I used to have to do it. And so... It's already, it's so controlled by stat sheet, and we've got this really super, we've got like 20 lines there detailing all this stuff with the stat sheet. captures it and we just basically default back to what state laws because all our inter-domain authority comes from state law anyways so yeah I mean that's probably one of the best examples of just getting rid of old unnecessary language we shorted it from like a 25 line section to I'm sorry James I thought you were talking about election stuff I don't know who does the reporting yeah the inter-domain I don't know who just said it Yeah, it should be an email. We should be able to find out on the state control. I don't know if I can search. I may be able to search it. I hope we're doing it. Yeah, y'all are going to be getting emails. I'll go through my portal on the state controller and do the search and tell me who that contact is. Maybe somebody in public works with me. Maybe.

Well, I just was flipping through here. You may want to go back to Proposition 3. I'm sorry. No, it's okay.

I misheard you. It's my mistake. You were in the right section. I was in the wrong section. And really, one of my things is, like, you may want to do a, if you want to, I mean, I think you can do one proposition to, I think propositions 1, 4, 7, 10, and 36 are more minor. We had propositions 8, 9, 43, 44, and 45 were some of the ones we were opposing just to delete. You know, 8 is a deletion of proposition 8. regulation of vehicles yeah regulation vehicles delete the whole section proposition nine railroads we could do one proposition that deletes all five of those sections so that's we with a net reduction of four propositions right there and so just combine all of those in one in the proposition on that first page you know show the city of home will try to be amended by removing section 17 18 91 94 96 from the charter as excess or out of date language and language-contracted state and federal law. We can tweak that proposition to be, it's a draft. We can tweak that to be a little bit, but ultimately what we're saying is none of this stuff is enforceable by us anymore. State law and the railroads, feds do all that. You can't even make railroads cut the grass in there right away.

Well, out here they've owned it for so many years, they control it, they have.

Yeah, I had a police officer one time write a ticket to a, train conductor because he blocked a crossing and the chief watched him block the crossing and he backed up traffic and he got out and went to the convenience store and came out and was carrying like a big cotton drink and the chief was livid because of all the traffic and he wrote him a ticket for blocking the railroad blocking the railroad crossing and BNSF and I got the call like three days later from BNSF goes yeah You guys wrote us a ticket. They said it in a very polite way. You can't do that. They were really nice about it. And I said, yeah, I think you're probably right. But let me tell you what your guy did. And they're like, oh, he didn't tell us that. Never happened again. No, bet not. Never. Because railroads will work with you. But yeah, they'll call you. We wrote a ticket. And I swear, over the three days, I got the phone call. That's funny.

So the Proposition 1, 4, 7, 10, and 36, we're just going to leave those. I notice they're not in here.

Well, they're in there, yeah. I was just saying Proposition 1, Proposition 4. If you look at Proposition 1, it's just removing extra counting. Proposition 4 is just removing that, et cetera. Proposition 7, it's in there. Proposition 7 is... We added one cent.

But those are ones that if we wanted to reduce the number.

There are more of our minor changes. So if we wanted to get to, hey, let's try to get, let's try to, if we want to do a triage, these, there's like nine propositions right there. That's probably the easiest. Proposition 10 is...

Oh yeah, one in four.

Franchise ordinance. You know, right now we say no franchise ordinance until we adopt the same meeting which is passed on first reading. I mean, it's basically getting rid of the two reading requirements for a franchise ordinance. I don't know if we've got a big deal. It doesn't make any difference to me. It's just that's one of our minor changes. And 36 was... 36 was... support yeah I mean that's the one we wanted to change that you know make changes for the court I mean it's it's a good change but the good change but it's just if we're if we're tight on space it's also a change that we can possibly change my ordinance. I'm trying to pull my email up on there. Anyway. We could change the municipal court stuff by ordinance. But it's good to have it in there if we want. It's just ideas for if we're in the mood to

I mean, people are more likely to say yes, I think, than no.

Yeah, I think so.

And a no vote is, I'm sorry, a not a no vote, a not voting, a no vote, was when no one votes for it at all. They skip it, yeah. So if someone skips it, your yeses will probably prevail.

mean really that's that's that's likely to happen so that's what we do that in my opinion 42 these 42 are necessary to clean up this document and bring it into 2026 the people who are not going to vote are probably likely don't understand it they're probably going to default to no so they don't vote they leave it blank yes folks yeah I think that's just I think that's will generally hold out and like I said anybody has you know enormous thing with you anybody has ideas I usually do like a little italicized little section there were like you know where it starts like the very first one that way it's just sort of like you know promises to extension of boundaries colon that way they know we kind of put the title of the section there and then the proposition follows it that way tax, you know, Proposition 38, tax levies. And then we say, shall Section 74 be amended to delete? You know, it's just, the name of the game is to make the proposition as clear and easy to understand, not overly, not misleading, put it that way.

So. The only thing I can see happening is you know, we'll put this online and the Kressels will go through it and probably have a comment about all of the, anything that could be questionable.

I think we'd do some kind of a, I mean, if we do a public meeting, but whatever document we put on there, we open it. Our charter's old. Our charter's got a lot of archaic language, that the constitution's been changed, state law's changed every other year since then and we haven't, our charter hasn't kept up like most cities our city charter has not kept up with the rapid changes of law and so a lot of stuff is just old and outdated but we will probably at least offer one town hall for people to come to so I don't know, there may not be that much interest, I just think that there will be some people that will It's one of those things where it's almost like if you advertise and put it out there at a public meeting, you don't get a lot of people, but everyone recognizes that, oh, they had a public meeting. I didn't go to it, but they had one, so they feel like, well, nobody's trying to hide the ball. Because the ones I've been to were like, you can count on one hand sometimes. It's like not many people show up to them. They don't. I mean, ideally you would think everybody's like so really into it and all our work gets paid off and hundreds of people show up and you get 11 people show up. Yeah. People remember IR. They see in their cognizant, oh yeah, the city was advertising a bunch of stuff about this. I saw something on the city's website. Because what cities, what voters get when you don't do anything, they get suspicious like, ooh, what are y'all trying to pull? That's my experience when they were polling some of the people after they voted on the charter. They're like, I don't know what the city's up to. The city's up to something. So it's just, they don't go to the public meeting, but they at least figure out that we're not trying to pull the wool over their eyes or something. You know, you do the best you can. All you can do is put it out there. And so, I'll send this, but anybody, like I said, composition, draft, the language is just, it's, perhaps there may be a couple little edits here and there. And sometimes I've found a couple of, you know, two of these, and duplicative words a little trouble trying to summarize the referendum initiative and recall provisions in a short proposition five or six sections that we amended. And so that could possibly be revised. I just like the shorter the proposition, the better. People have to read it three times to figure out what you're saying. I mean, I try not to make it look like a constitutional amendment. I mean, my God, the Secretary of State, they just, it's horrible to read those things. That's what I'm trying to avoid here.

So then, nuisances. I mean, you think that that's a proposition 12. That doesn't need any explanation of what a nuisance is. We don't say anything else.

Back to what we're saying about it. their duty to know basically, what is in the center charter, right?

They're presumed to have knowledge of what it is.

Where was the Mason's proposition 1227? Health?

She's that she's picking on West Odessa.

It's where was the where was the nuisance? Oh, nuisances, etc, to define and prohibit all nuisances Yeah, that's, and nuisances are defined by.

I mean, that's a very general.

Do you want to strike that language et cetera there? Yeah, I just put a strike there on there. I missed that.

Okay. Yeah.

And there was one more et cetera back there, too. Maybe I'll find it here in a minute.

I mean, is there some state definition or some deposition? definition about what a nuisance is. That's a pretty broad.

No, I mean, I'll check.

They know most things that there's a word and we say, Well, it's different.

Let's look at the way the way that we're all around. Still, it's really kind of the middle of town always has been but it's a nuisance. It's a it's a steel yard. And it's not by college, all that stuff. But you know, they've been there forever. Nobody's ever never seen their trucks coming and going noise. I would call that a nuisance business because it's more industrial. But they've been here forever. And they would be grandfathered even if you change the residential. There was another guy who was Carl's processing for a few years back was trying to move somewhere and I don't know that they slaughter animals in downtown anymore. Like they used to they were on eighth Street. Maybe 10 running there by the Tacoville on 8th Street in that little area. And I think that came up. They wanted to go somewhere else, but they wanted to slaughter animals too, and the city wouldn't allow it under maybe this law. They still distribute meat, but they don't do any processing. That I know of.

Well, I'm really just asking the question.

Yeah, something that people would say, well, well, that's what the old thing says. It says, reservoir, you can't go. I guess back then, if you had a pond, you wanted to dig, and it became stagnant. You know, it would be responsible and be a nuisance would be mosquitoes.

We define nuisance. There's a lot of times that will be defined under ordinance. That is under city ordinance. think what can help us safety code there is a they do addresses under health extension 321 don't know if they ever to find it it's almost like one of those things well it's it's got a moving and living definition because it can you can change just so many different things but ordinance we normally do define it by ordinance

So there is a place that they can go and see what a nuisance is. That was really what my question is.

It is a city ordinance.

Well, another one more recently was one of these crack companies. They dumped acid down the sewer. I don't think y'all were here then either, but it went all the way to the water treatment plant. You know, you messed it up. And I don't know if they ever had to do any of the damages part or anything else, but it caused a lot of problems. I think that the environmental guys decided to sue for damages versus they criminal liability. And that's kind of what the overlay this reading the old language is what it says to this kind of certain things are a nuisance. I guess it'd be like if you dump chemical down by skin again, let it run all the way down through town or something like that. They

or sewage I'm thinking more along people running down 42nd Street at high rates of speed all hours of the day it's crazy chapter 8 of our code defines a lot under offenses and nuisance so there's a lot of different types of activity that's defined as a nuisance

I just wanted to be able to know that it is defined in some of our documents.

The actual dictionary says it's a person, a thing or circumstance causing inconvenience or annoyance. It's pretty broad. Yeah. Person, thing or circumstance.

Well, and I think that's fine here, as long as there is another place if somebody says, well, I don't know what a nuisance is that we can, you know, we're referring them to that. the general laws of the state of Texas or the Constitution so many times.

You could say to define and prohibit by city ordinance all nuisances, and then enforce this ordinance, but we'll be declaring what the nuisance is.

Yeah. I like that. I mean, I just want people to know that if they've got a question, there's a place they can go and see it.

Well, the law dictionary for the for the lawyer in the room. It says actions by someone or something within their control that interferes with the rights of either a public or private citizens. There's definitely some just making sure we got this covered.

James, do we need to put the correct lettering on the side?

Since we're striking out A and B. Yeah, we could, yeah, we can do it just to, yeah, we can do that. We can go back there and make that change and then just call it A and B. Yeah.

So nuisances becomes A. Mm-hmm. In some language.

Is there a B? I don't think there's a B. No, there's not a B. Maybe. Just A. How about I make the city, add it, that first paragraph be a new A. That way there's health A, the city council show the power, and then B. That way there's a B as well. A and B. So 27 would just be A, that little portion up there that survives A, and B would be the nuisance sentence. That way we don't have just a hanging A out there. I always feel like if you've got an A, you've got to have at least an A. It's like if you put one, you have to have at least a two. You can stop after that, but to do just one, I always felt like it looked weird.

That seems, I don't know, it seems odd to me, nuisances under health. But, I mean, that doesn't actually seem to read like they even go together to me. You've got the city council should have the power to provide for a health department. and to establish all necessary rules and regulations, protecting the health of the city, which is not exempt by the Constitution or general laws of the state of Texas, nuisances to define and prohibit all nuisances within the city and outside the city limits.

I mean, the health department be code enforcement instead. But you don't have a health department, right?

No, we call it Director County.

Yeah, that's where it falls under. But this is the city shall provide. Shall have the power to provide. Have the power to provide.

Which means we, you know, for one day down the road, the county may say, you know, we're not going to do this anymore.

Well, they talked about it once already.

I know they don't want to do it. 100% guarantee they don't want to do that.

I mean, I guess if those two are both in here, it looks to me like it would say the city council should have the power to provide for, A, a health department, and B, to define and prohibit nuisances. I mean, something needs to connect nuisances to that.

Or maybe add it on the title, Health and Nuisances? Yes. Or number 27 at the title?

Maybe there's a section, maybe since this could be kind of under the general ordinance section, because it's kind of, where's it at? There's a section where it talks about where we can, where we can, the power to adopt ordinances, include that ordinances, but we've been in, Maybe even it can almost fit under five. Under general powers, because it's a power, really. Limit health to wherever the health department's going to be. suggesting moving 27 health C to which I don't know maybe they can go under general powers but that's kind of what we're talking about we're just sure in that power just move it under general powers as a P or somewhere and somewhere in five and then health will just be

has the ability, the power to set it.

So nuisances would be moved over there and would be E. For five or something, yeah, either as an E or... You could almost add it to... You almost could add it to A. You know, it just says additional to define and prohibit nuisances. Power and authority. Because it's all about power and authority in the city. To regulate nuisances, you're just adding another power and authority. Express power and authority to go outside 5,000 feet. Move it under 5 and 12 will just be there. That way we don't have that weird kind of... trying to push those together and then health would just be limited to that one sentence yeah that one sentence at the very top you know charter provides the city the authority to create a health department if it chooses to do so who knows by the way the legislature is blind who knows they may flip back and put stuff all the way back on the city at some point well they very well could

I don't know if you can see it, but that day I've got two rabbits that set off my ring. Two rabbits and two grackles on my front porch that set off the ring.

Let's have a big time. Don't move, we're being watched.

Okay, so we moved the nuisance up to Proposition 3, right? Well, it's Section 5, but it's Proposition 3. I think this one's a dead soldier. There's some more lead in it. Thank you. So I'm on Proposition 15.

I'm sorry?

You're on what? 1530 under contracts. So that's where you are.

There it goes.

There you are.

Put some yellow text in there. Excuse the typo. I know I have two letters that are all caps. Missed that.

But put some... Chris Heine. Highline language at the bottom. 3.4. Give me a piece of paper.

Do you have an extra?

Got a bunch of pieces of paper. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry, guys. We need to be late. That's what happens when you have meetings.

We're on section 30. Proposition 15.

I think the only change was that last sentence. So we don't have to get mayor's signature on deeds and... easements and bonds seems like there's no reason that the city manager can do that or the resolution our resolutions specifically state that the council can offer us what we want to sign those so they can just authorize otherwise you've got to chase the mayor down to sign a deed or dedication or usually if it's a deed or easement it's a conveyance anything that's conveyed that would even mean leases so a lease a deed a conveyance would be a lease of easement or deed that is requiring the mayor to sign those. So right now we have to get those documents all prepped up and have them ready for the mayor to sign before meeting, for example, or before meeting them. But the resolution has language in there that says council is authorizing say manager that should be all documents necessary but on those because the Charter has that requirement we've got a car goes out and set them aside have a mayor come in and sign those I don't know if there's really a point to that we have it for authorized conveyance and bonds that's two categories of documents that he must sign by Charter and contracts for which signing authority has not otherwise been delegated or authorized don't know whether y'all want to keep the contracts for which the authority has not otherwise been delegated authorized in there or not it seems like we take your question yeah yeah that's my yo I mean it's in there we can give me striking the the mayor shall sign off we strip it all and then my question is do we want to keep the language in there And maybe in any document which signing authority has not been otherwise been delegated or authorized, sort of a catch-all safety provision that if something happens and council approves and it doesn't say who signs it, go back to the charter. If it doesn't say, then it defaults to the mayor. But right now we've got the whole thing struck. So that's the only reason I asked the question. We really should never have that problem. I mean, we have resolutions, and the resolution says it. I should be that's like a required part anytime where you're having something to execute. That's why I made certain to have that language and all the resolutions.

Well, let me let me ask this. Because years ago, we ran across this new land stuff. And it might have been one of them. Don't hold me to this. I'm just saying a hypothetical what happened, but I think it was one of the power plants or something and then something with the city. And the city agreed to do something, maybe dispose of the water or something at the time. And so when the landmen went to look at some of the titles and some of the old leases, nobody in the council had signed that document. Nobody was it was there and it was probably there were no signatures on anywhere. Yeah. So this is pretty for thought. That's what I'm saying.

I like it there for safety because you're not going to be here.

Yeah.

And you know, the Yeah, so somebody will change and they might have a different philosophy.

So it'd be good to have somebody to be Harry Truman, the book stops.

I think definitely the marriage will sign all authorized conveyances and bonds. I think there's a good reason to strike that. And then you have a have it just the marriage will sign any documents. which signing authority has not otherwise been delegated or authorized. Resolutions take care of it. Then it says safety. Then it says, hey, the resolution is silent. The ordinance is silent. Maybe they approved it on the diocese. Maybe a future council approved it on the diocese. No resolution, nothing. And it's just totally silent. Oh, charter says the mayor can sign. Good to go. I don't know. It just seems like it's a catch-all.

I like it. So scratch off authorized and convenient.

But at the same time, we don't have to chase the mayor down to sign every easement or deed.

No, no.

Yeah, so mayors shall sign just striking out all authorized conveyances and bonds and contracts and then adding the mayors shall sign.

Documents for which signing.

Keep all. So it should read the mayors shall sign all documents for which signing authority has not otherwise been delegated or authorized. Okay.

Okay. I, um. Okay, so now I'm going to play devil's advocate here. What happens if we lose a mayor? We don't have a mayor. Does the pro tem fill in for this?

Yeah, if it grants the mayor the authority to do it, by charter, the mayor pro tem steps in their shoes and he can do it all.

You know something we need to know? He said he was going to be the devil's advocate. The devil's advocate, because just in case something happens to you.

Yeah, there's going to be another question. There's going to be another what if. If there's what ifs, that's the ones that will happen.

So, yeah, because that could be a question that's going to get shared on the city council. It's an easy answer for any of us that are in here. Yeah.

33 we're getting rid of a good bit of language out of the P&Z stuff, but I think it's good. It's shortening that section a good bit. It's just cutting to the point. A lot of this, when you start looking at it, is I think the changes are going to make the chart a lot more real. I think they're good changes. It literally gets to the point a lot quicker.

On Proposition 17, Section 34, second line. So it says the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be subject to removal from office by the City Council for any reason. Should it be period? Because then it says by the City Council. It's just redundant.

Yeah, it should be. Yeah, and that cause deemed. Yeah, I think you could. That cause deemed and also strike that by the City Council.

Yes.

Yeah, that could go. Anybody can see you?

And we basically took out within 10 days.

Also the public hearing requirement for 10 days because council can appoint whenever they want. They should be able to move it. They shouldn't be in there. Yeah, exactly.

So what did we do about the terms? 18. Oh, the planning and so on.

Where was that one at?

We had a lot of discussion about that.

Yeah, we did.

Was that in 17? I'm sorry. Was that in?

18. 18. either one.

That's why we talked about review to review a comprehensive plan. I mean, I still see where there's any terms on that.

Do you, I mean, terms for the PNZ committee? I mean, does the PNZ committee, no other, nothing else has a term, right?

We do. Yeah. Who has a term? ODC has one. Other than ODC? No.

think of anything i mean i could i almost see odc in that but i don't really see a need for pins again it's just a question of you can't get enough people to participate anyway well somebody made the point that somebody's been on the government yeah i think so

It can be addressed in the ordinances under boards of commission.

That sure could be. Right here it says the city council shall determine the number and term of the members of the commission. I actually think that may have been a little bit of a discussion because we kept that sentence in. And so the city council should determine the number and term so they can continue to make changes. They could change that via, like you said, through. They want to increase or decrease. They can do whatever they want by ordinance.

Where is that?

That's in 33. It's actually in two sections of the second sentence of 33. The city council shall determine the number and term of the members of the commission.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I missed that.

Okay. Liz wanted to know if we needed to put beginning in 2028. I don't think we have to put 2028. I think that if we said within every five years, I think it would be presumed that within five years of this adoption, if it's adopted, then it would need to be done.

We can do the review every five years and get rid of that within and get rid of the beginning of 2028. It's reviewed every five years of comprehensive planning. Okay.

So check out the beginning in 2019. So proposition 25, it's got purple or pink or what's different about it? It's just a different person making the changes?

Yeah, that's my changes. I was going to say, that looks different. We didn't have any changes in the vacancy, and certain questions have rose that I've done some research. I thought maybe we should just make those changes in the vacancy, just to track the language more accurately in the Constitution. A lot of cities have done that. So that's the reason I had that. That's what I was adding. So purple is anything that I added.

And then you struck with the black, but we'll change that to red. Right, right, yeah.

Since getting rid of the... Yeah, so it was like really... If we make it very clear that we can fill a vacancy and get rid of the... Because right here... If we're going to fill a short-term vacancy, it's going to be until their next election. It's automatically. So you're going to fill a vacancy. They've got eight months left. Well, when the eight months comes up, there's the election. So there's no reason to come back and order. This language had the city shall call an election for such as at the time of the next general election as provided by Texas law. for that person to serve until the time of the next election. And then it says that the next general election for the city is the same as the date for the regular election for such position that is vacated, then a special election should not be called. So literally the Senate says call an election, and if that's their normal election, you don't have to call the election. So it was anticipating if you literally called a true special election, it was actually adding an election. It was like an extra election there. So under, let's say, a council member resigns now, and let's say they had two years, it had like a time period. That's the way it was.

So when it was a two-year term, you called for an election. If it was less than two, you appointed.

To fill the term, to fill their uninspired term. They had to stand for an election for the uninspired term, and then they had a right to stand election for the next general. So yeah, it's kind of wonky the way that it's actually adding The Constitution doesn't require that. And especially now, all the Constitution ever required for terms exceeding three years, two years, was just to call a special election at the next, call a special election or if it's less than 12 months, you can appoint. Yes. So that's all the Constitution allowed. So I was like, why even have a procedure in there that would require an election and then at the next midterm election for them, and then have to do it all over again when they ran for office. That's just the next election, the way I look at it.

I mean, because that's going to happen. This issue is now in front of us.

Well, and then that last section in there, that's... section there was the was in was the 02 amendment that kind of comes moot because of the changes and that 02 election because the constitutional amendment came in in 2013 and that kind of a lot of that section became a lot of it became moot so kind of yeah I think this cleans it up a lot. In a lot of cities, not all home rule cities provide, will allow, provide for vacancies to be filled by appointment. They all have to go to an election. Some cities don't have any vacancy, any appointment.

We just need a period after office, after the purple office, for the remainder of the unexpired term of the office period.

Yeah, you're right.

Where is Miss Picky?

I am Picky. Sorry. Yes.

Dot your I's and cross your T's. Yes. Norma's in the house.

And that last sentence was already there, so I guess theoretically, I mean, the person who vacated can run for re-election again. So I guess that could happen. Changed their mind. I don't know. Or they got removed. Okay.

you got a regular concert so on the council members the compensation

then changes to that would take effect in January? No, it would take effect the following January.

If this passed, then it would go into effect in November, basically, right upon a positive or affirmative vote. So then also on that very day, you're going to be electing someone to the council position. So in my mind, in January, they could authorize a pay increase. But I don't think it could go into effect until the next January. I'm sorry, the January after the next election, two years later. Yeah.

That's what I was trying to figure out.

After a regular election. Oh, yeah, because that just stinks.

Well, you're not doing it for you. You're doing it for the next guy or gal.

Actually, I don't know.

What are your thoughts? I mean, it's happening at the same time.

Well, if the amendment passes, the only thing we have to do is get the ordinance to counsel. And they adopt the ordinance. They canvass the election. They adopt the ordinance. Adopting the changes to the Chapter 9 says that amendments are not effective until council adopts the ordinance. It could go in on January. And then so it would be the January. It could go in on January.

January 2022. Yeah. Okay. That's the way it reads.

And that would be okay. I think that's what you want. We could, but we could make it even more clearly by either saying, prefacing January, by either in the first January or the next January following the election or something along there that makes it very clear.

I think that's good enough. But anyway, that's just my opinion. My opinion, the council should have, you know, You know, they should be able to.

Yeah, I think if they basically come in in December and vote an increase, then that ordinance will say for city charter, the increase doesn't affect January. They don't have to do anything.

And by the way, this also allows them to do nothing. Right. Or anything between, honestly, $0 and $1,000 or $0 and $500.

It's $100 now between $100 and $1,000.

The way you sell this to the people, the way you explain it is it's a match. It's a match. And quite frankly, it's still pretty de minimis at $1,500. Yeah.

Considering how big our town is. What they have to do, yeah. And the amount of calls that they field.

Yeah. Yeah. It's a full-time job.

It can be.

Yeah. It's a lot of work.

It can be.

Okay, I just wanted to understand that January after the election.

Do we want to keep it in January or do we want to put the January? Do you want to just leave it as is? I think it reads fine. It reads fine. I think it reads fine.

I just have a quick question on the second sentence. They shall be entitled to reimbursement of necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties when approved by the council. So currently, the travel authorization, and I may be getting too in the weeds. You're right. Our policy states that it can be approved by the mayor or our due mayor.

We could just by the performance of their official duties. Period. Yes, period.

That way I can approve it because, honestly, that would be easier than, again, because it's a financial burden for them to go someplace.

You'd have to put it on there. doesn't consider approval of one council members travel and it's very clear from the face of the documents and you go to a TML yes in Austin for a week and it could be include lunch with yeah I mean it's not either just it just seems like it's common sense that why do you have to take that it's just a fine I mean it's clearly within their official duties and then you and city management you have a question about

Yeah, I mean, at which point you bring it up to your mayor, or if not the mayor, and then they can go down that path with the ethics ordinance. Yeah, I think so.

I'm struck through that. I think that makes better sense.

So let me ask one more thing about C. Any increase in salaries shall take effect in January after a regular election. An irregular election is going to be A November election, typically?

For us, it would be November. Yeah.

So if they didn't do anything now... I mean, before, after this has passed. And so next year, in 2027, they decided to increase it. And there's not an election. There isn't a January after a regular election.

That's right. They would have to wait one more year. Yeah.

That's what you're talking about. You skip a year. So that's why you, in between this, you have your election. This gets passed. Now you can bring it before council. And it takes two readings and... It's passed before.

Yeah, no, I know that that's what's intended. I'm just saying if that didn't happen this time.

If it's an off-election, if it's an off-year election.

If somebody said, no, I don't think we ought to do it because we're giving ourselves a raise, let's just say. And then next February or March, somebody says, you know, this is ridiculous. We spend so much time. We will have lost that January window is what I'm saying. And so it would have to wait until another regular election before it can happen.

But that regular election could be in May because you do have elections in May. But you do have some general elections in May, so that's a regular election.

So do you want to say just municipal election instead of regular election? That way it's very clear that it's a municipal election.

Or you could say something like, no salary increase shall take effect in the current. Well, I don't know. Sometimes you have to wait until after you return before it doesn't affect you, but it affects the next person. In my mind, that's fine. Any increase shall take effect.

I think the only thing is that regular election opens it up, but now you've put municipal in there. The only thing that's going to get you is if the council decides to go back to May elections and then it's like, all right, you're going to have to wait until January. January has another reason. The better reason for January may be because it's just the start of the new year. It's just nothing more than that.

I think maybe you ought to just take it. not take effect after the election. I think it should be should take effect in 90 days. Can you consider any increases are shall take effect 90 days because that way you can hear from your constituents that say hey, we don't want this.

How did you say that again? Any increase in salary shall take effect 90 days after 90 days after approval of an ordinance.

Okay. authorizing a salary increase. And that's just going to be one in the ordinance. Yeah. It'll just... All right.

Actually, I thought... You did remove the performance of their official duties when approved by council. You removed that. What did you say?

Just the period of their official duties. I thought there was something in there where it required a salary increase to be done by ordinance.

It is on D, it says.

Oh, remember?

Kind of. Oh. Members of the council should serve with compensation provided by ordinance.

Maybe as provided by ordinance.

As provided. Okay.

And that way, any ordinance on a salary increase would just basically have an effective day clause. It doesn't affect the 90 days. That way, we have a time period. So that way, no matter what, if the election gets moved to May, you don't have to move to the point of January. Thanks. Thanks. Or any time, really.

If we could treat this like Social Security, can we go back over those 90 days and get that salary? Can we put that in there somewhere?

Just put it in there. I can do what I want.

Shall be...

retroactive back to the to the vote day could you make it retroactive to 2018 she's in there checking the mailbox every week okay I did that I contributed something

Somebody now.

On Proposition 33, we have duplication of Section 65. It says publication of ordinance is publication of. So we just need to delete publication of at the end.

Where are you at?

Proposition 33, the title of 65th.

publication of ordinances and that's one I added so what was it again?

Remove publication of in the title because we have it duplicated.

Yeah and I guess I should have struck one of those. Do we want publication of following or do you just want to say publication of ordinances? Because it's got ordinances semicolon publication of. It just seems really weird. Publications of ordinances.

Publications of ordinances. Just make it simple.

Yeah. That's what I think I was trying to that's where I was going with that. I just didn't strike that.

I've got a question on 66 when you'll get there. Everybody good with the duties of the mayor also? That's pretty substantial change. I would say it's a substantial change. It's actually just clarifying. Simplifying. It's already what the mayor does.

Mm-hmm.

It is. What I will say is interesting is the way it's proposed only have the emergency powers expressly required by the Constitution. And that is because right now the laws of the state of Texas Constitution does give certain express emergency powers to the mayor. However, that could change in the future, at which point that would also change.

I think that only have is good in there because if you just say the mayor shall have emergency powers. Then you start wondering, what are the emergency powers? That's right. You can just go haywire with that. But all we can do is if it comes up, we can just go to the Constitution of State Law. The biggest one is Declaration of Emergency. He's got that. That's by statute. The mayor still does that.

And you still need that because once that happens, then the mayor needs to be able to write that letter. And get out there.

And get it out so that we can start receiving money. Yeah. So that way, I think that only, because I was thinking that should be there. Yeah.

and you're looking at yeah I'm city manager I wonder I don't know that it benefits to strike that language to the council for the administration of I don't want people to think that I don't work for the city council yeah if that makes sense shall be responsible to the to the council for the administration.

Keep that struck language and just strike that for right after.

I just don't want the world to think well, wait a minute.

Who is he responsible for? Who am I responsible for?

Nobody. Just walk into council wearing a logo and a crown.

I don't have to respond to you.

I'll tell you what. In White House, Texas, there is some very funky charter language that a supermajority had to be present in order to vote on terminating the city manager there. So what happens is they would just be absent. They would work among each other of who would be absent at that meeting. And then that city manager, a couple before me, like, was bulletproof. Because no one would show up. There would be a super majority.

I had some cities pull that with a tax rate adoption where they knew one person was going to be out. Yep. And then another council member would not show up at a council meeting. That's so true. I'll be able to get you back on those leads. out there at the beginning of the meeting don't say a word and just everybody wondering what it is put it on and then just go over and sit in your spot I definitely want the world to know that my wife says I don't I have the odd sense of humor I guess that's the stuff I see that I find is funny I guess it's just funny to me

Is there, is there, how, what does the council, can the council, I guess they can, they have, but does the council have the ability to just fire the city manager at will anytime? Like they have?

In 72 hours.

Three business days? Okay.

That goes for anybody. The city attorney, city secretary, municipal court, judge. Although there's some funky state laws about judges that you need to be careful about. But yeah, that's right.

The state law and the judges, once we have a court of record, and we may, I think they have it addressed in here, for a court of record, it says drunkenness and competence, all those statutory grounds that are very hard to get. But then, or as providing the city charter. So there is an angle for a home rule city to provide for specific grounds in our city charter. I've had the cities where we had the horrible judges and they were stuck with them because they were like a general lawsuit. They didn't have a charter. So I was like, unless he gets arrested or you can claim that he's corrupt or... incompetent, you're stuck with them. You're stuck with them. Just don't renew his term. That's right. That's what they had to do. And so, right here, I think we have it in there. Yeah, right here under B, shall hold his office at the pleasure of the city council. So, yeah, I mean, that's very clear. He can... our charter provides it's at the pleasure of city council but if we want to say city council if we want to add language that's the time to do it i don't know that that's an issue some cities i've had cities where we had horrible judges and they were very interested in making certain they can get rid of the judge otherwise we got stuck with them for two years I may on that Proposition 39, I may shorten that language in the proposition language. I think I did it for the others. I don't know if I, let's see. I think I meant to do it just to shorten the proposition language. I did it for the other ones, but get rid of that 50% to 30% just be amended to reduce the minimum amount of signatures. Just a little, make the proposition language a little easier to read. I made that change in the other ones. I missed that and forgot to go back. Because I had the, in the proposition language, reducing from 50 to 30, and I started thinking, maybe just say a minute to reduce the minimum amount of signatures. I just feel like that reads better, because you start putting percentages in there, about 50%, 30% of what? But I think that change makes more sense. Those kind of things usually pass with fine color. People think that's always good. Reduce the minimum amount of signatures They're usually happy with that.

On 71, what is a continuous audit? I've been in accounting all my life. I mean, that sounds like we've got auditors in here. I mean, we need an annual audit, timely.

I don't know. And again, that's original language, so that's probably coming from the 20s right there. So the city council shall cause an annual audit? An annual audit.

Maybe it shall cause at least an annual audit or something that makes at least it's an annual audit. I think when we covered that, we were all so fixated that the state law and the Chapter 103 and all the stuff that we were dealing with the AG already makes us do that.

The city council shall cause an audit. I think you could say an audit because, you know, the back end of the Senate says, as required by general laws of the state of Texas.

Yeah, she requires an annual, which requires a manual.

Yeah, that's literally chapter 103. Does it have dates listed in there? So when it needs to start when it needs to finish?

No, it's not.

It didn't have any original in a physical audit. Maybe it may have given them the ability just to continue to look at the books. Anytime they want to do a continuous audit. Come on.

Which that would be their right to do, just under their general laws of the state of Texas. This sets a minimum that they must...

the state of Texas is setting up a boundary for us to have this done so do we need to note something in there on that we do we actually has as required by the general office of state of Texas but couldn't you put in that requirement annually yeah so couldn't we just to avoid any questions say the city council should call shall cause an annual audit to be made as required by the general laws of the state of Texas. And especially because that's a hot topic here. You know, that we didn't have one.

The state of Texas starts fining you after March, so.

Yeah, the audit's due no later than six months after the close of the fiscal year.

So if we don't put that in there, I don't know.

If you didn't even have that in here, we'd still have to do it. Yeah. Because state law always trumps us. Yeah.

I think it's good for it to be in there that it's required because we've seen the consequences of not having one.

I think the real issue is if you strike it, then all the voters are like, why are you striking that? They don't realize that we got it. They won't resonate with it. We already have to do it, so why is it being in the charter? They don't think that way. They'll think, oh, you're trying to get over it. So voters will get suspicious of everything.

We got rid of the indelible pencil. Anything.

I was just going to say that.

I was going to look online and see if that existed and bring everybody one.

I found one on Amazon. An indelible pencil. They sell them on Amazon. They're basically non-erasable pencils. That's all they are. They use them for plants. They mark up plants. That's what they use them for. Engineering plants. Huh.

Nobody can say, you didn't change that.

Yeah, I guess because those plans, the ink won't, it doesn't bleed through to the back. So it's just like a pencil and you just can't erase it. It's like a white ink. But that's what it's in. I pulled it up on Amazon. It's in like engineering and drafting plan section.

But what's interesting is that most everybody must have had one in their house at the time. Yeah.

Go grab one. They thought, no, they don't think that they're lucky. Of course. Just an animal. Oh, you've got that right here. Right there in his pocket protector. That's right. I've got all of them. Used to be a bunch of those old guys I used to work with. I used to work with them when I was in college. I worked with them. We had guys that were like in their 60s working at the hardware store where I worked my way through college. And I was 30 plus years ago. They're all deceased now. But they all had pocket detectors with various pens in them. I guarantee you they had indelible pencils in them. They carried a pack of pens in their pocket always. Their shirts always had a pocket and always had pens in them.

On 43 jurors, we're saying should it be amended to lead any requirements for jurors, so requirements for jurors shall be as required by state law. We're striking jurors, but we're not putting in that piece like we have on the others that said it should be consistent with state law.

Yeah. The proposition language can probably be clarified a little bit better.

Are we just deleting that section? Yeah.

Okay, so we're really not saying should it be amended.

No, it should be just deleted. Am I right? 43 should just be deleted?

It should be deleted, yeah. And really, it's kind of the same thing on 44, isn't it? Because we're not offering up anything. We're just striking on 44 and 45.

Yeah, and that one is just because it's purely out-of-date. It's just excessive out-of-date language related to the original adoption. So this is...

I guess if it's amended, is it amended to delete?

Yeah, so what will happen in that chart, it'll say section 44, and it'll have a little phrase deleted, and it'll have references to this election and the ordinance when the ordinance comes back to adopt all these changes, and it'll just be an empty 44, and it'll show deleted, and it'll have a little phrase.

Well, let's be...

We're always at the end.

That'd be funny if it were before the Senate. Yeah, we're at the end. At the very last. Why did nobody vote for Senate?

We got 75 votes in Nicaragua County for Senate.

They said we give up. That's how we got there. We're done.

i have felt that way what was it a couple of elections ago when they had all those constitutional amendments it was just one after another yeah it was so many and they were so so they were like this long and oh no you got you're going is this ever going to end i kept having to read i had to read about three times to understand them i was like this is just it was like oh my god this is hard to understand every time you hit that little green arrow oh there's another page that's not right that doesn't make sense

So really and truly, 43, 44, and 45 will all be deleted.

Yeah, I could put that in one proposition that these sections are deleted as excess or out of date or, you know, some kind of similar language that makes it very clear that this is out of date old stuff. And then we just have the two additions, 46 and 47. I think those are pretty self-explanatory.

So are we going to vote today to push this to the council or not?

I think we can do that. We can say, yeah, let's... With the changes that we've made here, if we all are in agreement that we, hey, I'll make the changes and send them to Norma. And Norma, you can go through and check, I mean, double check whatever changes I'm making. You'll have that in 30 minutes. Once this can go out in packets, once we're happy with it, and then whenever we're ready, I'll put this on the website somewhere. Because I think this document will work really good for the website because it will have the charter language. This is what it is now. This is the changes. When will it go to the council for their approval to order the election?

28th and August 11th, whatever that first meeting in August is.

See how...

We're just workshopping this one. Yes. The only question is do we try to get through the whole thing in workshop or just get through half of it and continue it to the next workshop on July 28th?

And then have action at the regular meeting after that. On the 28th.

It just depends on what council wants to do. They may not want to sit there and go through all this. If we have to break it up, this is why we worked to get this on the 14th.

yes so we can get that before council and then if we have to we can bring the rest of it on the workshop in 28th and first reading in 28th so one thing i think you can do this is you can present this to the council and then let the mayor bring up if anybody has any questions on this from the council or are we just going to go ahead and proceed with what we've discussed here? I think that would be the best.

Yeah.

That way you're not spending any more time on it. And if somebody on council's got a question about one section, we pull it up, we discuss it, then we go back to the same deal. We'll go back to the both. Either we're going to take it just the way it is because this is why we appointed this.

Yeah. our job was to digest this into something council can sit here and look at in an hour or so time without having to we took us what four or five meetings to get through it i mean it would be so we we did we you know it accomplished its purpose we ended up with a document and so they we bowled it all down from what four or five meetings to literally a work session so that depending on how council feel they can we can run through it real quick and say you have it here's a here's a thumbnail sketch and it comes back on the 28th last time to say what you want to do because we're going out there on the regular meeting to put it in their packet so they can read it before they'll get it tomorrow and the whole world will get it also because we'll put it on the website and so

And that way we can hear from everybody.

That will basically be the equivalent of four opportunities.

There's one section that will be the number one deal is why are you giving a reason?

That will be the thing. Actually, I didn't say you're not. It just gives you the ability to do it.

He also says we're also controlling future councils from going, hey, that way nobody can just do whatever they want. There's a cap. There's a way to look at it. Ultimately, I think we can't We can't be a proponent or anything, but we're like, the charter's old. It's got a lot of old, archaic stuff in there that just needs to be gotten rid of. That's what we're doing. That's why there's so many changes. We're updating.

Well, and if somebody looked back at what $10 a meeting was back when this was first set up.

$10 for inflation. Yeah. 1927.

Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Then the number's going to be a lot bigger.

$10 was a lot of money back then. I'm just wondering if any of these people that signed this are actually still alive. Could be. I recognize one name, the last one, and he died about a year or two ago.

That would be, he'd be in his hundreds.

He was 97th at Lowell Road. That would be cool, though, if we brought somebody in right there and said, let me tell you.

I think I met him one time, but I met him at Snyder. I didn't meet him out here.

That's his brother.

Was that his brother?

He met him at Snyder. Yeah, he had a brother.

Yeah, I'll work on this. About $200. $200 today.

And so that was per meeting, though, too, right? So that would be $400. And so, I mean, I don't know. Like I said, there's a lot more today. You didn't have social media and email like you did now. And so council members today get inundated with... social media requests or phone calls or whatever that they didn't back then. So there's a lot more time commitment, I think.

Well, I think you can just do your council meeting. I was talking to a guy in Haskell, Texas. I asked him, when is your city council meeting? They said 7 a.m. I said, nobody shows up. I go, nope. Same thing, twice a month, Tuesday morning at 7 AM.

I said, for real? The people that complain about council meetings and I'm saying this on the record I hear that but that's fine people that complain about that typically are those who are recording the meetings anyway and then going on to their respective websites or social media sites to report through AI create AI articles on that and there is a benefit to having meetings during the day that is all staff is here Right? Oh, yeah. So if something is needed, if there's a piece of information needed, you just pick up the phone and say, hey, Mayor, could you recess for five minutes? Or just skip this item, table it for now, pick it up here in a minute, and we'll get this individual in here so we can answer questions. So there is a benefit to having that. Oh, yeah. I agree with you.

I got to check the statute. It used to be, it's been so long since I had to look at it, but I believe there is something hidden in the tax code. We know what you're doing, having those early morning meetings, and that can be a problem if you're trying to dock a taxi.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say like 10 o'clock, though. 10 o'clock in the morning and things like that. And then the other thing is it's good for staff. Because remember, staff have family, too. So on a Tuesday night... they gotta stay i got i'm missing my kids play or i'm missing my kids this i mean they're human beings too so that's something that's important and ultimately they are recorded and it is and and the meeting is made available before And so if you wanted to email your council member, you could do that before the meeting. You know, you could email a statement, say, this is what I want to say. I mean, so there is participation still. I don't think it goes away from it. In other cities I see that do daytime meetings, there's a lot of participation still. Like if you were in Tyler, Texas.

You could do an every other meeting. You can have one meeting in the evening and one in the morning.

That would be nice. we did our workshop meetings every other week remember and it was during the day he was like rather than she says nice yeah yeah she's smiling isn't that always catching on On the 28th, is that to the workshop?

You can come in your PJs. I don't know that. See, I presume y'all would probably. You can come in your PJs. Oh, no, that's regular meeting. Morning. Right? Yeah. Because it's a budget meeting, so just do it during the budget meeting. Isn't that right?

Okay, come on.

I don't know.

I just took too much.

I think it's a budget meeting, so I asked him about that.

It sounds like a budget meeting. When we go in these executive sessions, we're not here until 9, 10 o'clock every night. Right.

You all want to vote on this then?

I move that we accept this with changes that we've discussed and ask Mr. Parker to make those changes on our behalf.

I second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

So now you know how to start a city and what to write up now.

Well, the thing is, the system works. Start your new town in Penwell, Texas. Hey, you can go start your new town in Penwell, Texas.