Oversight Board Committee - Regular Meeting

Okay. This meeting will be recorded. The Zoom application will notify you that this meeting is being recorded. Please press continue on the Zoom application to stay in the meeting. Use the raise your hand feature in Zoom when you would like to speak on an item and also to lower your hand when you're finished speaking. Please unmute when called to speak and mute yourself when you are done speaking. If If you are calling in by phone, identify yourself by name before speaking on an item. Press 9 on your phone to raise and lower your hand. Press 6 if you are participating by phone to unmute. This is the call to order for the March 18 meeting of the Charter Review Committee. Will staff please call roll?

Holly Roberts?

Here. Pat Nikolai?

Here. Bernard Tanzi?

Here.

Mohammed Naveed?

John Brooks?

Here.

Joe Susinski? Here. Eric Crutchlow? Bert Field? Steve Kelly?

Here.

Lauren Diamond? Here. Eric Jensen?

Here.

Mark Beckman?

Here.

Susan Peters? Here.

I believe we have to say something about the person who's on Zoom.

Yeah. This is Mohammad Navid. Yes. Member Naved, I'm just wanting to confirm that you are alone or there is no one 18 present with you in your current location and the location is accessible to the public? Yes. Confirmed. Very good. Thank you.

Excellent. Alright. Good evening. My name is Pat Nikolai, and I'm the chair of the charter review committee. On behalf of the committee, welcome to today's meeting. At this time, please turn off or mute all electronic devices, including cell phones that may interrupt the meeting. And before we get to the general business items, we actually have a member of the public here in the, chambers with us. So we're gonna do a brief public presentation slightly out of order so that he can address the group.

Thank you. My name is Chen. Almost thirty years Santa Clara citizen, mining commissioner. The reason I come here, I have two major concern. The first one is our charter measure are the reason I mentioned that is because we had a AT and T project.

We tried to set up the cell phone base station, but it's very difficult to find location. Our chat city charter measure are prevent us to let the vendor set up their base station in our parks. Actually, many of the cell phone station, they set up in the park in other cities. And because because of that, we have to find a location to set up a cell phone station, and it's close to residential. So we at the planning commission, we had many meetings try to, you know, to get this issue resolved.

So is it possible we can put the amendment to the measure r to let the telecom equipment being set up in our park. So the the cell phone base station, it's it can be just set on the light pool so that it will not occupy extra space. Also, it should be able to generate revenue for the city. I think it's a win win situation. We have some amendment to our measure r instead of just to be refused all the all the equipment, you know, the requirement in our in our park.

That that's one thing. The second thing is I I noticed that our police chief was elected but not appointed by city manager or council. To be honest, as a citizen, I don't think I have the visibility to see how the police chief do his job, and it's a very professional position. I think it probably make more sense just to follow the general law city, you know, let let let the city manager or the council make the decision. I think it's good for our city.

The other one, it's a little bit you know, since in California, we have 480 something cities. Only 120 something have charters like us. So, actually, it's a question. What's the advantage for our city to have our own charter? Is it better? We can follow the majority of the cities in California. We just become general law city, then all of us can go home, enjoy the time. Thank you. Anami? Oh, actually, Central Park.

At that time, that location, just yeah. Central Park, it probably it's the best. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And then you see Central Park, they have the baseball or something. You see the high light pool. Yeah. I mean, also, I noticed they have a basketball. Right? Have a smaller pool. All those locations could be, you know, at a base station. You know, they have power. Right? Like, put out power.

They have everything. But, unfortunately, finally, that cell phone base station I think it's I can't remember. It worked right now at the the design. It's across the Benton. But was high school there. I cannot remember since I'm not that familiar with that area. So finally, the base station right now, it's all there. Yeah. So yeah. Yeah.

For for for for for base station, right, yeah, probably you don't know. A lot of base station, they they build like a tree. Yeah. I mean, it's it's yeah. Yeah. So it it it's well branded with the trees in Central Park. You know? No. No, intrusive, you know, all of the things. Yeah. Thank you.

Perhaps our city attorney could address those three points because those are more like actually I I assume you want answers to the regulations why we're a charter, why we vote for a police chief versus a point, and can we do anything about the position of a tree at Central I mean, cell tower that looks like a tree at Central Park?

Mr. Chair, usually, as you know, in public presentations, you know, we don't have a lot of back and forth, you know, with the with the speakers, particularly in items that are on the agenda. But you can answer, you know, questions and make brief statements about that. In your discretion, I'm happy to provide brief, at least, answers to a couple of the questions raised.

Well, I thought a couple of them were very simple in that. First off, the measure are, what subgroup would review that?

Thank you. That's what I was gonna we we already had a preliminary, touch base on that. That would be group two.

Okay. So it's One of our subgroups is working on an issue, so that's, group two.

Mhmm.

The question about the elected chief, we've discussed this already as that would be a level four, I believe, item that we're not gonna tackle at this point. That's too too much for this group to bite off at this point. And why do we have a charter? I if think you go back and review our first meeting, video, you'll see why we have a charter. It's a it's a very good benefit for the city to have be able to run their own city the way they see fit.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

You're welcome. Okay. Now I'll jump back into the general business items. So the first item of business is action to approve the 02/18/2026 charter review committee meeting minutes and excuse absent members.

Yeah. Mister chair, I won't torture you again with these. The the process for this is set up on the slide. We have added this time to this item an opportunity to based on a good comment from folks last time, an opportunity to excuse absent members. Member Crutchlow, I know, had a conflict tonight. We haven't heard from member Field. He might be coming later. So if you were gonna include in your motion to approve the minutes excused absence, you might limit that just to member Crutchlow, and member Field can be taken up at the next meeting.

Motion to, excuse member and approve the minutes.

First, is there any public comment on this issue?

Mister chair, no one in chambers, and no one has their hand raised online.

Perfect. So we have a motion and a second. CAF, can you do a roll call vote?

Holly Roberts?

Yes. Pat Nikolay?

Yes.

Bernard Tanzi?

Yes.

Mohammed Naveed?

Yes, please.

John Brooks?

Yes.

Joe Susinski?

Yes.

Bert Fields? Not here. Steve Kelly? Yes. Lauren Diamond? Yes. Eric Jensen?

Yes.

Mark Beckman?

Yes.

Susan Peters? Yes.

Excellent. Okay. We will move on to the next item on the agenda, which is report outs from ad hoc subcommittees. And it goes from group one, two, three, four, five, and six.

Very good, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I will facilitate us running through the various report outs from subcommittees. In in certain cases, there have been designated members of those subcommittees, secretaries to leave that report out.

And whether I'm leading it or whether the the subcommittee report out person is is leading it, anyone else who is there is certainly welcome to add comments in order to make sure that the full flavor of the meeting is presented. The first group, group one, this slide shows the previous meetings of that group. There has not been a group one meeting since the last report out. However, this group does have a its next meeting on calendar for April 9. Next slide.

Group two is the city council elections powers and conduct of meetings group. As indicated, there's been a number of of of meetings in the past of this group as shown on this slide. There has been a meeting of this group since the last report out, and they already have another meeting on the calendar for March 30, although at 05:30 as opposed to the normal six. And the agenda there is to is going to include proposed final language in a number of different areas that we've talked about as we continue to kind of work our way through the assigned sections for that group. Next slide.

I believe, unless folks can correct me, remember Crutchlow was going to be reporting out on this item, and he is conveniently absent. And so I'm happy to spin through this slide, mister chair, with your indulgence. The March 9 meeting, very well attended by members Kelly, Beckman, Crutchlow, and Roberts. The meeting convened at 06:12 and adjourned at 08:06. There was a staff presentation including a recap of the subcommittee activities, both their February 9 subcommittee meeting and the report out to the February 18 CRC, and there was review of the proposed language in response to the issues that they'd identified at that last subcommittee meeting.

The issues that were presented and discussed generally included the list of occurrences that would constitute a vacancy from from, it should say, for an elected and or appointed position as the group will call. And you may recall, while our charter talks about a vacancy, doesn't actually define it, and that's a significant omission that bore gap filling. And so we talked about that issue previously, and we, at this meeting, presented some pretty detailed language and went over, you know, each proposed term for what constitutes a vacancy, talking about the various issues there might be with that and refining some of the language that will ultimately, of course, come back to this group for your full consideration. We talked about the process for filling vacancies. We talked about with some preliminary language for the addition of city council powers and duties.

It's another thing omitted, not currently in the charter. There's a lot of list of various people's powers and duties, including the mayor, including various appointed officials, but nothing really for the city council. So we talked about what an appropriate set of powers and duties would be for them. And we also talked about the addition of of city council members' powers and duties with some language that we're developing still about, you know, responsibility to be professional, you know, and courteous in in how those council people, you know, conduct themselves in interactions with all people. We also talked about an item that had been considered a possible, modification to the charter, the conversion of city meeting requirements for that's currently presented in the charter from two per month to an aggregate 24 per year.

A number of different jurisdictions are proposing to do that. Sunnyvale analyzed that in great detail, although ultimately decided not to recommend it. With some input and benchmarking we got from the city clerk, It really hasn't been a problem here to have it drafted the way it's drafted. Council meets on average 40 plus times a year. It's not an issue with the number of times that they meet, and the summer recess has not presented an issue in the last many years where they take a month off.

They've always been able to schedule two meetings in July and and two meetings in August in order to make sure that two meeting requirement has met. We did talk about potentially drafting a a provision such that in the event there could be a scheduling problem in and around the summer recess or otherwise for at least one meeting a month. The the two meeting requirement could be one regular meeting and one special meeting in the event that two regular meetings, you know, on the Tuesday couldn't be, you know, accommodated. And there was general support, you know, for that language, and that you can expect that to probably come out of that group when their final recommendation is made. So that's the presentation on on group two.

Does any group two member have anything to add or correct to that presentation?

Yes.

Member Peters was also in attendance.

Oh, boy. That's terrible.

I think you captured the heart of

the meeting. Very good. Thank you. Sorry, member Peters. That was poor oversight on my part. Thank you. And you didn't even have to speak for yourself. One of your co committee members rallied, you know, to your defense. Very good. Member Nikolay, I on group three, I believe you are the reporting out official.

Yes. I am. So group three, we did meet April 8.

And You meant on I'm sorry. March 11.

March 11. Yeah. Sorry.

Yep.

That's right. I'm sorry. Next we do have a meeting scheduled for April 8 as well. And if we go to the next slide, we can talk about what we talked about the member eleventh March 11 meeting. So all of the members were in attendance. The meeting started at six, adjourned at 07:50. Member Naved had to leave at 7PM, so we missed a part of the discussion. Assistant chief city attorney Rooter was actually present because Glenn was at a separate meeting, which he picked it over us. I don't know why. But, we discussed a recap of subcommittee activities and context for discussion of possible revisions to chapters nine zero six regarding the powers of the chief of police.

So that does the majority of our discussions were regarding the role of the chief of police and the language in the charter regarding that. In attendance was the chief of police, Corey Morgan, the city manager, Jovan Grogan, and POA president Jeremy Schmidt also was there for part of the meeting. I believe he arrived right after member Naved left. The majority of the discussion, again, was on the the the language for the chief in the charter. There was a draft charter language that was provided by chief Morgan with the caveat that that had not been reviewed by the city attorney's office, and it had not been reviewed by the city manager as well.

So it did lead to some robust discussions over the language and what they what they agreed to and what they had disagreements over for the roles of the chief versus the city manager. I know that the the two had the city manager and the city and the chief had met earlier to discuss these issues, And it's, it's obvious that they're still working through some of the issues, and there's still some, areas of, disagreement over what the role should be. And so for our next meeting, the discussion was to have the city attorney's office review the draft charter language for the city manager and the police chief to, discuss again to see if they could come to consensus on some of the, the controversial language and then present that to the subcommittee at our April meeting. Anybody else? Is that

Just to add to that, it's not necessarily strictly for group three, but for us as a whole. Having the city manager present when we talked about presenting this to council, the entire review, he did let us know that the chamber was gonna be getting busy in the upcoming months, and he suggested that we present by April, early May.

That is very interesting.

And that is subgroup three. And we

and we will when we will, we will talk about the city manager's gone rogue, you know, on me. We will we will we will talk about some scheduling challenges later, mister chair. Appreciate that report out. I I did wanna just add a little bit more flavor to the the meeting that I arranged kind of as a lead up to that charter committee group. Really, what I'm endeavoring to do, right, is to make sure that the subcommittees and ultimately you, you know, get the input from obvious, you know, stakeholders and people who have an interest in these things.

And this one with the city manager and, you know, and the and the chief of police perspective is a very interesting one. Currently, the the the city manager has, you know, designated authority over kind of appointment and disciplinary actions with respect to all, you know, employees, And the and the chief of police duties and responsibilities, even though they're an elected official, really aren't talked about in any meaningful detail at all. So part of this in of this engagement is having the discussions between, you know, those individuals as what makes sense, you know, from an institutional standpoint for both of them with the hope that if, in fact, some understanding can be reached and and whatever recommendation might come out of that committee and ultimately the CRC and, again, ultimately to the city council, that some of those ambiguities, you know, and overlapping, responsibilities can be resolved so that the next elected chief of police and the next appointed, you know, city manager don't have to renegotiate every, you know, time, you know, they're put, you know, in those positions together. So if some semblance of understanding an agreement can be reached, terrific. Otherwise, know, there there can be a recommendation regardless, you know, of that.

And depending upon that level of agreement, this might be something that's included in the overall, you know, comprehensive amendment, or it might be something that's, you know, one of those issues that 's put to the side, you know, for separate consideration. All of that is a work in progress, but I just wanted to add that, you know, chief, consistent with your description of what happened at that group. Very good. Next group is group four, boards and commissions, composition, powers, duties. I believe Mr. Brooks was going to report out at least. Oh, you want me to do four? Okay. Alright. Are we negotiating on the dais?

I was told not to, you know, indulge those things, but I I will. I'll I'll report out on four. Sure. And you, by all means, and any group four, you know, member, if I can get your attendance accurately, you know, here in the report out, chime in as well. Apparently, even if you weren't there, you could, you know, you could chime in.

So boards and commissions composition powers and duties have has had a number of meetings and has had a meeting since the report out on 03/12/2026. They've also attended to schedule their next meeting, 04/16/2026, with an agenda to include certain things here that maybe I'll talk about after I report out on the meeting itself. Next slide. So members Diamond, Brooks, and Susinski were in attendance. Very good.

The meeting convened at 06:12PM and adjourned at 08:01PM. Staff presentation included, and we're doing this now pretty regularly as you'll see a recap of committee activities, right, just to make sure everyone's reminded of where where we've been. And and then, really, the focus and introduction of the board of library trustees, you know, issues as one of the boards and commissions of particular focus. And there was also a debrief on the 03/11/2026 presentation that I was given that I chose, obviously, over the meeting of group three, the same night of groups three meeting that I gave to the planning commission, another des you know, identified stakeholders so that they understood the project and the context. And that interestingly went longer than the the subcommittee meeting.

I was the only item on the agenda, and they were so interested, engaged. That meeting went for about two and a half hours. So watch out when planning commission comes back, you know, with their input on their planning commission duties. It was very interesting. I appreciated their enthusiasm, and obviously, member Crutchlow, very active participant in this group, is the chair of the planning commission meeting.

So they were all maybe that much more engaged as a result. The stakeholder presentation was given by Jonathan Evans. He is the current president of the board of library trustees, and he presented in in great detail on the board of library trustees' issues and proposed modifications for charter sections one zero one two and one zero one three that apply to them. They've taken this issue up very seriously. I think they've met three separate times, you know, amongst themselves, you know, to talk about what the charter currently says and to talk about what appropriate modifications might be made.

So they are very much leaning into, you know, to this project. The issues that were presented and discussed included the elimination of language putting the board of library trustees in charge administration of the library that might have been something that was happening back in 1951, you know, when the charter was first approved and maybe for many decades thereafter, but it hasn't really been the function role and function of the board of library trustees for some time, and they don't want it to be their role and function. That is much more traditionally truly an administrative function. And so they're comfortable eliminating, you know, that level of power and authority. However, there are certain things they very much wanna preserve, at least in some way, shape, or form.

These include approval rights of the library director with the city manager still being active, you know, and with HR department, you know, developing the specifications and soliciting and interviewing and all of that. But ultimately, they they think it's important for them to have approval rights over who the library director is. That is in fact a right they exercised for the appointment of our current, you know, library director back when she was appointed in 2020. They also think it's important to preserve approval rights on certain administrative library system policies. They understand how they're the recommending authority on things, rules, and regulations that have to go to the city council, but certain policies like how the collection is developed and how books if they're if someone's proposing the the removal of a book from the library, that is something that they feel they should not only have input on, but approval rights, you know, over.

And so they presented that as well. They also want something that isn't currently listed there because it currently says they're administering the library, but as a preserved right, they want an ability to review and make recommendations on any library facilities or strategic master plan and any library budget. This occurs currently because they have a good relationship, you know, with the library director, and she interacts with them as you might think, you know, using a, you know, a thoughtful engaged body like that to provide input on these things. But the charter doesn't say that has to happen, and they think, as the library board of keys or library board of keys, that is a power and authority they absolutely should have. It's not to approve these things, but at least to be asked about them and to be able to have their recommendation, you know, included in whatever version of a master plan or a budget ultimately is presented to the city council.

This is analogous to a current power and authority that the parks and recreation department has over the parks and recreation budget. So this isn't a far flung unusual thing. It really does align, you know, with the kinds of authority that that that these types of groups have within their subject matter area. And we did some benchmarking on that, and there are multiple other charters that have similar types of, you know, reserved powers for those types of groups. They also wanted the responsibility responsibility, in this case, to present an annual state of the library report to the city council at a convened, you know, city council meeting.

Those were thing a number of of things they were interested in making sure were captured were included in the Anaheim city charter, which they thought was kind of reflective of their view of what best practices are in the role and function of the board of library trust trustees. So that was really the the that was a detailed presentation, and it took up a lot of the of the conversation. Really appreciate the Jonathan Evans being making himself available and how much effort they put into this. Mr. Chair, I'll be quiet now and ask if any of the other committee members in attendance want to add anything.

Yeah. I'd just like to chime in. We do

we sorry.

Do we not discuss a donation issue too during that meeting? That's a

great yeah. I less I did leave that out. The there is a current provision in the charter that has the library board approving any form of donation that's made to the library. They recognize that they don't get to approve, you know, those things, and they haven't been approving those things. But we talked about including language, you know, in there that for substantial donations to be defined by ordinance be something that they at least provide a recommendation on.

And so thank you, member Brooks. That's a good reminder. That's another element of of the language that is pretty close to final at this point, and we'll probably be coming back to this larger group, you know, soon, either as part of the overall recommendation of that group or or piecemeal, depending upon how we decide to proceed on that. Appreciate that comment.

Joe, are you good?

Okay. Very good. Next item, group five. As you know, group five hasn't been meeting because they got out front and kind of did their work in advance. So there's not a current meeting scheduled for them.

The meet and confer process has taken much more time than we thought to initiate based on some communication kind of breakdowns, but the HR department has now, you know, initiated the communications to the various labor groups on the on the proposed, you know, language, and we'll be awaiting feedback for them. They've been asked to provide their feedback in April. And so if anything comes out of that or any other issue arises relevant to the group five, that group will be asked to, you know, reassemble and take those issues up as they present themselves. Group six now, I will defer to member Brooks.

If wanna you take group six, I'll take group four.

Our agenda is I should turn the heat up, I think. It's getting it's getting a little chilly

in here. A proposed final public works language information regarding number of times council has asked to approve minor projects, benchmarking from other city stakeholders' input from director, which we're trying to get, I think, in the next meeting. Right? Glenn? Ken. Ken Lee and draft modifications to all budget and finance sections.

Yeah. Very good. And so this provides a little bit more appreciate that. This provides a little bit more detail with who was attending, right, how long the meeting happened. And as usual, the recap and the discussion of the existing, you know, procurement language, it really did focus on the procurement issue.

We were very fortunate again to have a very willing and interested stakeholder, Craig Moback, who is the current public works director. And he gave a presentation. There he is, noting for the record, member Fields is is arriving. He gave we talked in some detail about the existing procurement language, which really only talks about the a process for awarding all public works projects to the low the low bidder without any real nuance, you know, to anything other than price and just a traditional kind of design bid, you know, build, you know, mechanism. And we also talked about how the threshold for the ad for public works projects is is very, very low by almost any standard.

Currently, under the draft language, if a public work is expected to cost more than a thousand dollars or if the the the city wants to use its own forces, its own employees to do a project that's considered to be a public work, and that's would otherwise cost a thousand dollars. That item needs to be agendized and formally approved by the city council. And so the thought is that that number either needs to be, you know, to be addressed in one way, you know, shape, or form, and we need to include, ideally, in order to be consistent with best practices, alternative procurement mechanisms. And here, it's listed on this long list of the of the of the items discussed, the concept of best value or design build type procurement for larger and complex projects in order to, as member Mobach described, obtain better design, contractor coordination, value engineering, and guaranteed maximum price price contracts with either few or no change orders and and potentially accelerated performance. And so there is really pretty robust discussions around how things work already, right, how that's good, bad, or otherwise, and the pros and cons of identifying at least as another tool, a possible range of alternative procurement mechanisms.

There is two general approaches outlined for how to update and make consistent with best practices what the procurement language current set currently says. One is a wholesale replacement of that language without setting forth specific dollar amounts instead saying the mechanisms for public risk procurement is gonna be developed by a city council approved ordinance, but it will have to, know, include certain key elements, you know, in that ordinance with, in effect, the city council defining by ordinance what a major contract is and what a minor contract is for purposes of deciding whether it's a city council approved contract or a city manager approved contract and for purposes of deciding the level of formal bid process that that's required. So the larger the contract above a defined threshold would require city council approval in a more formal process where contracts below that defined threshold would would be allowed to be approved by the city manager. And, again, with no in the in this approach, no dollar amount, you know, included in the charter. The other approach identified as option b was to actually increase the dollar amount.

Right? It says a thousand dollars now, proposed a a different number, you know, for that. Maybe it should go to $250,000. That's currently the threshold for the city manager to approve other types of contracts that the charter doesn't speak to but is addressed in the city code. Maybe that's the right benchmark, right, in order to obtain approval.

And then in separate language, also in that case, make sure there's opportunities for alternative, you know, procurement mechanisms. So we have pretty good detailed, you know, language drafted already for this. The next time we come back and meet with that group, we're gonna go over that once more and probably get a formal, you know, recommendation, or at least I'll propose that from that group to get a formal recommendation that can be reported out to the larger group. John, did I get capture those details correctly? One more thing.

And that's

one of the things we discussed is a percentage of projects that are over or under a certain dollar amount as a threshold.

Thank you. That's gonna come back too. That that was there was a request from this group really by each of you in different forms for some additional benchmarking to understand, you know, what's the flow of projects at what values currently in order to understand, you know, what kind of staff savings there might be, right, to to increase the thousand dollar amount. And if in fact this group decides to go with an option b, what would the right benchmark, you know, be? And so we're doing we presented some benchmarking, but we're gonna do some additional benchmarking.

So when this comes back, you know, to the group, you know, ideally for their final action, you'll have even more information, you know, to look at and present. So appreciate Craig being there. The next focus, if we can finalize that, will be on the on the finance and fiscal aspects where the director of finance, Ken Lee, will be corralled and and presented for for question and answers on that point. So, mister chair, that that gets us through group six, unless there's anybody else in group six that wants to add to that.

Anal and Goussip, does any other committee member have any other questions for Glenn or staff? Okay. Is there any member of the public that would like to comment on this topic?

None.

Excellent. Okay. That means we can move on to our last agendized item, which is staff presentation and solicitation of committee input or direction regarding, one, pending report to city council on reorganization plan two, legal notice requirements and three, project work plan and scheduling update.

Very good. Thanks, mister chair. We're we're actually pretty light on presentations tonight. The as you as was intended, the real work of this group, a lot of it for now is still being done in the ad hoc subcommittee groups. But did wanna update you a little bit on on some items.

The first one is the pending report to city council on the reorganization plan. As you'll recall, the reorganization plan was presented to you at your February 18 meeting following an initial presentation of that plan at your January 21 meeting. Arguments were presented in favor and against a dramatic comprehensive reorganization with the desire, because it could be perceived as dramatic, to get city council endorsement before too much effort was expended on that reorganization effort. And CRC took action to support the comprehensive charter reorganization and direct staff to proceed to solicit city council endorsement with members, I think I'm getting this right, Tanzi Roberts and the chair agreeing to provide support to that as as needed. We were we've not been able the city council agendas have been just wicked, you know, with a lot, you know, of of agenda items.

So we were not able to find a slot on the most recent agenda items. We're gonna continue to work on that, and we're looking to seek, you know, an opening on the on the the next upcoming agenda. April 7 is now targeted for that. So if the folks that had agreed to provide support are still available for April 7, That's what we're working on now in order to get this item in front of counsel. It may even go as a consent item with their ability to pull it and ask questions, but we would want members of the of the group, you know, there to answer those questions and present as needed. So that's where we're at with that, mister chair.

That would be near the front of the agenda. Correct?

Yes. We would. Would that Based on my yeah. Not the 02:30. Based on my very special relationship with the mayor, I think I can engineer that, you know, for for this group because she does value this process very much.

So the next item is scheduling requirements. So this was going to be kind of a different presentation than than it is going to be tonight because one of the things we needed to look at was the extent to which pretty elaborate requirements that are applicable, we believe, only to adoption of charters. In other words, a conversion of a general law city to a charter city. There's a c unless there is a elected charter review commission proposing that, and it's just the city council proposing, you know, that, there are multiple public hearings that need to occur. There's extended notices that need to happen, and there was some question initially as to whether or not those very challenging timing rules would apply to us.

We believe with some confidence they do not, and we've not applied those standards in the past to amendments to the charter. And we don't think just because the charter is this particular project is a comprehensive charter amendment that it's the equivalent to an adoption of a charter. Right? We already are a charter city. It's not converting from a general to a charter city.

So even though this amendment is substantial, we believe the only re requirement and obligation is, although, of course, we want public meetings and public input and all of it's happening in public, that the council take action and the the matter be submitted to the registrar by no later than August 7. And so I am delighted to report to you that a dastardly slide that could be here talking about all these various requirements and accelerated time frames is no longer here. That being said, this still is a massive project. Right? And we're coming to a point even with all the work that's being done and very good work and progress being made at the subcommittee level.

We we may need more meetings for you. And so I think this is similar to what we've been talking about in the past. We're targeting an initial presentation to the city council of your recommendation on 06/09/2026. I mean and then a further council direction is needed. In other words, they give this group homework, you know, and and and a request to make some changes and come back with analysis and reports on something they might not like about that presentation.

That would be scheduled for June 23 with a final action occurring at their meeting on July 14. So we're currently set up for potentially three meetings, you know, with the council ideally, right, to make sure they're comfortable, and we're doing whatever work additional work they might direct us to do. In order to meet this, we are likely, and I and I will say more than likely, probably almost certainly, need one or more additional CRC meetings in May and or June. Currently, our CRC meetings are scheduled for May 20. You If recall, that one's gonna be at Central Library and June 17 back here in City Council Chambers.

And we're looking at possible additional meeting dates, at least if we're gonna stick with Wednesdays, you know, as the as the meeting date. May 6, although that might be too soon after the April meeting. May 13, May 27, all those would be in Council Chambers. And possibly, not and, you know, these could be ors, June 10 in Central Library. I'm not I'm not proposing meetings on all of these dates, but, you know, potentially on, you know, one or maybe two of these additional dates just to get all the work we need to get done done.

Right? We're still working through the ad hoc subcommittee process, but at some point, it needs to report out, you know, to the larger group and, you know, and and full actions and recommendations, you know, on the segments of the charter need to take place. So staff is looking, mister chair, to identify any additional dates that might be available and then polling CRC members for availability. Not necessarily scheduling these meetings yet, but just, you know, recognizing that additional meetings might be necessary, engaging when, you know, the largest number of you might be available, you know, to attend these meetings. So I wanted to put that out there, and then, of course, get any feedback, from, any of you that you might have now about, this concept of adding meetings generally and then maybe, you know, the kinds of days or dates that might work better than others.

So back to you, mister chair, to make that inquiry.

Excellent. Anybody have any questions and or comments? Everybody's checking their calendars furiously right now. Maybe a, like, a survey email.

We will definitely poll, you know, for that dates. Like I said, we don't expect everyone to go, you know, look at their calendars and magically be available now. We'd wanna do it in a more comprehensive way anyway, but please be thinking about that. And maybe I might ask, you know, when we settled on Wednesday, right, of the day of the week that would work, there was some hard, you know, limitations on folks for other days. Maybe people who have those hard limitations can remind me, us, when we look to identify additional dates, what those hard limitations might be.

I remember a member Crutchlow had a hard limitation on Thursdays, you know, and that date wouldn't and you did too. Remember Roberts? Yeah. So I remember there was a few of you even that Thursdays don't work for us, so I'm remembering that one. Fridays, I'll have to buy more drinks than I can afford if I start scheduling you on Fridays. But, you know, potentially, off Tuesdays, right, when the council's not meeting or Mondays, are are those theoretically possible dates, or do we have a lot of hard nos on, you know, Mondays and off Tuesdays?

I don't think so. And I know speaking from our subcommittee, when we kind of thought about the whole breadth of what we were doing Yeah. We realized there's going to have to be more meetings.

Very good. So appreciate at least not an open rebellion about that at this meeting, and we will Courtney, I say we, but it's Courtney, who will organize this and solicit your guys' availability for those additional meetings. So next slide is a preview of your next meeting, April 15 at 6PM in City Council Chambers. Have your taxes done before you come for peace of mind. We're, of course, gonna approve minutes.

We're gonna get report outs, probably pretty substantial report outs at this meeting, right, with a lot of the groups being far along in their processes with potentially even, depending upon the report out, a request for action, you know, by the CRC so we can start piecing together, right, the parts where we've gotten to a point, you know, where where full public, you know, vetting of what the proposal is and CRC direction to, yes, include, you know, this a version of this, you know, in our ultimate recommendation. That you know, some elements of that might occur at the April meeting depending upon the progress that's made on in the ad hoc subcommittee between now and then. And, of course, staff reports and updates and solicitation for committee input on. By that point, we'll probably have some meetings, you know, scheduled, you know, and other substantive issues that have arisen or other things that I've told you we're working on with benchmarking and overall charter conventions. I bet we'll have report outs on that as well.

So that's the preview of our our next meeting. And then finally, in our in staff's last presentation tonight, ad hoc subcommittee calendaring. Again, my love of the color coding here. We've got currently scheduled very good to all these subcommittees. Really,

every

one of you other than group five, which is in a little bit of of state of suspense now, has another, which will be a very substantive, you know, committee meeting on your near horizon. If in fact additional, you know, meetings need to happen before or after these ones that are scheduled, we do have available dates either in Sparacino or the City Council Executive Conference Room of March 26, April 2, or April 13. So if any of you realize you're gonna need to squeeze in, you know, some still more meetings to keep working through things, don't be bashful. Consider those dates, and you can meet afterwards to talk about whether or you need to do that now or you wanna meet next, right, in order to determine where you're at, you know, and when that next meeting might occur. So, mister chair, appreciate everyone's participation in these ad hoc subcommittee meetings, And they've been and I appreciate the the stakeholder involvement.

It really does add a lot of value, you know, when we get the either boards and commission members or, you know, department heads that deal with these things operationally, you know, coming in and and presenting to you. It also breaks up the monotony of me being the liaison for everybody and presenting what I understand to be the positions in case for various staff members. So with that, mister chair, I am done with our, you know, presentation and potentially with the agenda unless there's also the second half of public presentations for anybody who didn't step up and present, you know, earlier on.

Excellent. And, also, was there any public comment on this issue?

No. There's not.

Okay. Finally, this is public presentations. This item is reserved for persons who wish to address the committee on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the committee that is not on this agenda. The law does not permit committee action or extended discussion on any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. The governing body or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed, and appropriate body may request staff to report back at a subsequent meeting. Members of the public who wish to address the committee on a nonagenda item should request to speak at this time, by, using the raise hand icon if attending virtually. Are there any speakers online?

No hands raised. Excellent.

And we've already finished the staff report. Any other committee members with a report? Hearing none, I think this meeting is adjourned.

Very good. And if anyone's a glutton for punishment and wanna talk about setting up another subcommittee afterwards, yeah, this is a good time to do it with virtually all of us, you know, in the same room together. Thank you. Apologies again for

the

technical difficulties

in