WEBVTT 00:00:00.610 --> 00:00:07.333 - All right, I will call this meeting to order as it is 4 o'clock and we have all of our members here. 00:00:07.333 --> 00:00:14.056 - I guess we'll do attendance first. I am Council Member Sydney Zulek, District 6, and I am here. Hope 00:00:14.056 --> 00:00:21.178 - East Osborne, District 3. And you're here? No, I'm not here. I'm like a disembodied presence or something. 00:00:21.178 --> 00:00:27.967 - Thank you for spending your cerebral self with us. It's like a clone of the action. Thank you for not 00:00:27.967 --> 00:00:28.766 - being here. 00:00:30.338 --> 00:00:46.749 - Courtney Daily District 5. And I'm mostly here. Great. I'm Jennifer Crossley, Quirk's office. Isabelle 00:00:46.749 --> 00:00:54.078 - Piefont-Smith, City Council District 1. Here! 00:00:54.530 --> 00:00:59.951 - Okay. And then we have agenda review and approval. So on number two on the agenda after agenda review 00:00:59.951 --> 00:01:05.425 - is updates from the office of the city clerk. Number three is council member sponsorships of all items 00:01:05.425 --> 00:01:10.367 - of legislation. Number four, allowing non-city residents to serve on boards and commissions. 00:01:10.367 --> 00:01:15.682 - Number five, consent agenda, and then all other business. Does anyone have anything that they would 00:01:15.682 --> 00:01:16.798 - like to add to this? 00:01:23.202 --> 00:01:31.786 - And then, I guess, do we need to vote on the agenda approval? Can we just? No. Okay. In that case, agenda 00:01:31.786 --> 00:01:40.045 - approved. Let's go to number two, updates from the office of the city clerk. Take it away. Thank you. 00:01:40.045 --> 00:01:48.224 - So I will give that the code of conduct and training for board and commission. Basically, we have it 00:01:48.224 --> 00:01:52.030 - ready to go for a code of conduct once you all 00:01:52.258 --> 00:01:59.800 - kind of gave it an overview as the full council and gave that overview. And so right now, the only thing 00:01:59.800 --> 00:02:07.127 - that we are needing to do is to simply implement it. And so in order for us to implement that, that's 00:02:07.127 --> 00:02:14.885 - going to be a part of the training for commissioners. And so I am very much pleased to report for training. 00:02:14.885 --> 00:02:18.046 - We want to do staff liaison training first. 00:02:18.242 --> 00:02:24.322 - And so staff liaison training for boards and commissions will happen sometime in May. So we're trying 00:02:24.322 --> 00:02:30.283 - to finalize that and get that together. And then that's going to be a requirement. We'll have a few 00:02:30.283 --> 00:02:36.423 - different dates for everybody to attend. And then the presentations, of course, will be accessible for 00:02:36.423 --> 00:02:42.384 - everybody. Of course, following accessible guidelines would be available for everybody as well. And 00:02:42.384 --> 00:02:45.662 - then once that training is done, then we'll move on to 00:02:48.290 --> 00:02:54.697 - commission training, and then that is when the board of commission training will go. And so to give 00:02:54.697 --> 00:03:01.167 - an overview of what training would look like, basically that would entail, like, what's your role as 00:03:01.167 --> 00:03:07.638 - a liaison? What's the mission of, like, knowing the mission of each board or commission, and how to, 00:03:07.638 --> 00:03:14.108 - you know, go about doing that, and to be able to bridge the gap. Of course, some guidelines as well, 00:03:14.108 --> 00:03:15.774 - but then in terms of what 00:03:16.226 --> 00:03:23.658 - board members and commissioners would go through is basically, you know, again, with the implementation 00:03:23.658 --> 00:03:31.019 - of the code of conduct, basically expressing, you know, here's what you can and cannot do in terms of, 00:03:31.019 --> 00:03:38.380 - you know, speaking without getting approval or speaking, you know, in terms of, you know, Jennifer and 00:03:38.380 --> 00:03:43.454 - I'm speaking on behalf of the commission of McCloskey room when nobody 00:03:43.618 --> 00:03:50.105 - authorized me to do that. And so it's just making sure that people know and understand and also the 00:03:50.105 --> 00:03:56.721 - basic fundamentals of Robert's Rules of Order and what to do in terms of like attendance policies and 00:03:56.721 --> 00:04:03.402 - guidelines and so forth. So that again will be afterwards. We don't really necessarily have a date for 00:04:03.402 --> 00:04:10.018 - that, but that's probably going to be the next phase, which is in June. And so that'll come. But that 00:04:10.018 --> 00:04:12.094 - is what we are doing right now. 00:04:13.282 --> 00:04:20.946 - Would it be helpful for counselors to attend about training, or would it be mostly redundant for us? 00:04:20.946 --> 00:04:28.838 - I think you're welcome to, of course. Yeah. So I think that would be completely fine to attend. We want 00:04:28.838 --> 00:04:36.882 - to notice that if they might attend, just to make sure that we're not bouncing up against any ODL issues. 00:04:36.882 --> 00:04:42.270 - But other than that, that's it. Thank you. That's fabulous. Questions? 00:04:44.130 --> 00:04:50.098 - It's been a long time coming. And so I know that was something that I've been working on for quite a 00:04:50.098 --> 00:04:56.360 - while. And accessibility just kind of slowed things down a little bit. But for the most part, it's coming 00:04:56.360 --> 00:05:02.446 - soon. And I cannot wait to have that checked off my list. Yay. Well, thank you very much for doing all 00:05:02.446 --> 00:05:08.591 - that. You're welcome. I know that was a lot of work and a lot of people that you had to work with. Yes. 00:05:08.591 --> 00:05:11.486 - Fun times. Yes. Well, thank you. You're welcome. 00:05:11.586 --> 00:05:19.470 - And then is there an update on electronic sign up? Yes, although I'm not sure that it's really much 00:05:19.470 --> 00:05:27.433 - more of an update than where we were before, which was we were prepared to move forward and then had 00:05:27.433 --> 00:05:34.686 - a pause in terms of timing and staffing because there was a certain point where we stopped. 00:05:34.882 --> 00:05:40.956 - My personal preference would be to continue to put it on hold until we are actually settled in terms 00:05:40.956 --> 00:05:46.969 - of getting all our accessibility updates in place. Um, and additionally have worked out staff loads 00:05:46.969 --> 00:05:52.983 - for council staff and clerk staff, because right now things are definitely in flux and I don't want 00:05:52.983 --> 00:05:59.177 - to move forward with the new process until we know who's doing what when. So I know that's not a great 00:05:59.177 --> 00:06:03.326 - update, but it is perhaps the most honest and fair update, which is, 00:06:05.762 --> 00:06:11.768 - And I'm the biggest fan of the idea of having electronic sign in for meetings and everything else. But 00:06:11.768 --> 00:06:17.658 - I also do not want to start a process and have it just flail for you all and not work. So if you all 00:06:17.658 --> 00:06:23.548 - are comfortable waiting until this fall or maybe something we implement at the turn of the new year, 00:06:23.548 --> 00:06:29.496 - I would be, I'm OK with that if you guys are OK with that. If not, we can push forward. But I want to 00:06:29.496 --> 00:06:34.686 - tell you that I think it's probably not the best move to move forward right now anymore. 00:06:35.234 --> 00:06:43.362 - Thank you. Thoughts? I don't see any reason to rush. We want to get it right. Okay. Councilmember 00:06:43.362 --> 00:06:51.738 - Piedmont-Smith, is that okay with you two? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. And you were nodding? Yeah. So I 00:06:51.738 --> 00:07:00.446 - figured that was... Sure. Okay. Thank you for making that case. You know, I pushed for it, but I also... 00:07:00.930 --> 00:07:07.775 - I want to do it right as opposed to just doing it. I think a lot of circumstances have changed since 00:07:07.775 --> 00:07:14.688 - that happened. Yeah, just saying the least. We were this close to actually doing it, and then I think 00:07:14.688 --> 00:07:21.736 - that meeting, I think I wasn't there. I think that's why we put it up, but we had the testing, but then 00:07:21.736 --> 00:07:28.446 - the first meeting that we were going to do it at, and I was like, I'm not going to be here because 00:07:28.610 --> 00:07:36.441 - Is that what it was? I think so. Like there was absence somewhere. Yeah. And, and, oh, I know I wasn't 00:07:36.441 --> 00:07:44.119 - going to be there. And I think that Isabelle was sponsoring some other piece of legislation. So then 00:07:44.119 --> 00:07:51.721 - you would have had to have the gavel as parliamentarian. And then for the public comment part, like 00:07:51.721 --> 00:07:53.470 - you were also managing 00:07:53.570 --> 00:07:58.477 - Right. Some piece of that. A new piece of tech. Right. So you would have been then doing two things 00:07:58.477 --> 00:08:03.383 - that you don't usually do at the same time. Yeah. Plus a bit of a window second time. And so then I 00:08:03.383 --> 00:08:08.437 - think that we both pwned it for another meeting and I don't know why. I don't know what happened after 00:08:08.437 --> 00:08:13.442 - that. I think then we had a few, I think there was always somebody who was key who was not able to be 00:08:13.442 --> 00:08:18.594 - there. Yeah. And I think it was just a momentum. The nature of a, not the right time to start something. 00:08:18.594 --> 00:08:22.078 - The nature of the beast. Yeah. Okay. So to speak. Thank you very much. 00:08:25.698 --> 00:08:38.621 - also member sponsorships. Isabel, do you, who is on that? Well, I wrote this legislation. I think it's 00:08:38.621 --> 00:08:51.921 - pretty simple. When we brought this idea to the full council, I think it was an 8-1 vote for us to pursue 00:08:51.921 --> 00:08:54.430 - this idea of having 00:08:54.882 --> 00:09:03.447 - uh, a sponsor for all legislation. Um, so I don't know if we want to share a screen or what, um, but 00:09:03.447 --> 00:09:12.182 - you can see in the packet that, uh, there's first, there's, um, actually, I don't know what order it's 00:09:12.182 --> 00:09:20.747 - in the packet, but there's an actual ordinance, 2026-XX to amount title two, et cetera. And then the 00:09:20.747 --> 00:09:22.782 - other document was just 00:09:22.914 --> 00:09:51.038 - Thank you. Does anyone have any questions or comments on this? 00:09:53.122 --> 00:10:05.006 - Should it be co-sponsored? Like, should we co-sponsor it with the department who's bringing it as opposed 00:10:05.006 --> 00:10:16.778 - to just being sponsored by a council member? Yeah, I remember you suggesting that at the council meeting 00:10:16.778 --> 00:10:20.254 - and just looking at, you know, 00:10:21.186 --> 00:10:28.340 - four or five other Indiana Class II cities. They don't talk about co-sponsorship. And also, since we 00:10:28.340 --> 00:10:35.847 - never had, like, it was never part of our conversation that this legislation is sponsored by David Hittle 00:10:35.847 --> 00:10:43.143 - in planning and transportation, or this legislation is sponsored by Adam Wason, the director of public 00:10:43.143 --> 00:10:48.030 - work. That's never been our terminology for legislation, so I don't, 00:10:49.218 --> 00:10:57.861 - see why we would use the term co-sponsor instead of sponsor. It's a new thing. It's understood that 00:10:57.861 --> 00:11:06.590 - most of this is coming from the administration. But the sponsorship is from among the members of the 00:11:06.590 --> 00:11:15.838 - body that are considering this legislation. That's how I think of a sponsor. And then the other thing was, 00:11:16.194 --> 00:11:23.961 - Congressman Burrell is the one who voted against this. Did anybody talk to him about why? I haven't 00:11:23.961 --> 00:11:31.962 - had a chance. No. OK, I guess I'm kind of curious as to his thoughts on that. There's been a lot going 00:11:31.962 --> 00:11:40.273 - on. I haven't talked to him about this thing. Yeah, I'd be happy to reach out to him and try to understand 00:11:40.273 --> 00:11:41.438 - his hesitation 00:11:43.810 --> 00:11:53.961 - I guess I'd love to get some feedback also on the whereas clauses. I think I kind of captured the reasoning 00:11:53.961 --> 00:12:03.924 - for why we're doing this, but I welcome your thoughts. And also the effective date of July 1st, I figured 00:12:03.924 --> 00:12:09.470 - that would be, that would put us after our council recess. 00:12:15.586 --> 00:12:26.788 - meeting before recess? June 10th. Okay. We do have quite a lot of legislation to get through over the 00:12:26.788 --> 00:12:37.989 - next two meetings, but we should be able to get that on the agenda before then. I like the part about 00:12:37.989 --> 00:12:44.798 - communication in the whereas clauses to answer your question. 00:12:49.058 --> 00:12:57.234 - part about the sufficient context and explanation. I think it might be worth adding a whereas clause 00:12:57.234 --> 00:13:05.409 - on, you know, saving time and city resources to not be scrambling to answer certain questions in the 00:13:05.409 --> 00:13:13.827 - middle of a meeting in a more professional way. But that's that's my only feedback. But it looks great. 00:13:13.827 --> 00:13:17.470 - Other than that, thanks for doing that work. 00:13:23.106 --> 00:13:33.203 - Comments? I think that I would just say I'm sorry. No, go ahead. I'm just going to say if we can't fit 00:13:33.203 --> 00:13:43.006 - this in as an item of legislation before our recess, obviously we could postpone the implementation 00:13:43.006 --> 00:13:50.750 - date, right? I think we should be able to. Well. I think we should be able to. 00:13:50.914 --> 00:13:58.193 - Do we want to now move on to the? Oh, I'm so sorry. Courtney, please go ahead. That's fine. It was not 00:13:58.193 --> 00:14:05.825 - important. I was just going to say that I agree. I like the whereas section. I think it gives good context. 00:14:05.825 --> 00:14:13.033 - I think it gives a nice background and explanation of why we're here. So I don't see any problem with 00:14:13.033 --> 00:14:20.382 - it. Great. Since you asked for feedback. Yeah, thank you very much. Well, and I'm wondering whether the 00:14:20.994 --> 00:14:28.614 - Whereas Claus about the sometimes not including sufficient context or explanation and the one that went 00:14:28.614 --> 00:14:36.087 - after that about clarifying language and context, I'm kind of wondering if those could almost be like 00:14:36.087 --> 00:14:43.634 - combined because I feel like they're kind of saying the same thing. But I don't know. I don't know how 00:14:43.634 --> 00:14:48.030 - much wordsmithing we want to try to do. So I think it's OK. 00:14:50.498 --> 00:15:02.112 - Do we want to move on to implementation logistics? Sure. Great. So we talked a little bit about this 00:15:02.112 --> 00:15:13.726 - at our last meeting. We want to make sure that the administration doesn't just always go to the same 00:15:20.770 --> 00:15:29.645 - same council member for each time, and that there's some logic between council members' other roles 00:15:29.645 --> 00:15:38.875 - and what they might, what departments they work with, and their other roles, and which legislation they 00:15:38.875 --> 00:15:48.638 - might bring forward. So I kind of started up doing a list of, you know, given the duties that are assigned to 00:15:48.770 --> 00:15:56.027 - council members this year, which departments, if they might bring legislation forward, what's the legislation 00:15:56.027 --> 00:16:03.086 - from? But it gets kind of hazy. I mean, there are some that are more obvious, like our planning commission 00:16:03.086 --> 00:16:10.013 - representative could bring things from mega transportation. Our utility service board member could bring 00:16:10.013 --> 00:16:16.478 - something from CBU. But not everybody has an assignment like that, and there are some departments 00:16:20.258 --> 00:16:33.800 - I think it might be worth it to send it out to all of council and say like are there three or four or 00:16:33.800 --> 00:16:47.210 - however many like subsections that you might be interested in sponsoring legislation for what do you 00:16:47.210 --> 00:16:48.670 - see as the 00:16:49.218 --> 00:16:57.076 - the primary sectors of the work that you do on council? Is there any work that you'd like to spend more 00:16:57.076 --> 00:17:04.783 - time on? I think those kinds of things. For example, I'm not technically on any boards or commissions 00:17:04.783 --> 00:17:12.414 - that works directly with economic and sustainable development, but I do a lot of work with the small 00:17:12.414 --> 00:17:17.854 - businesses in my district and so I just naturally do a lot of work with 00:17:18.178 --> 00:17:29.745 - that department. And so I'm sure that we all have certain things like that that might fit a little bit 00:17:29.745 --> 00:17:41.424 - better. It just also occurred to me. Do you think it would be? Go ahead as well. I'm just going to say, 00:17:41.424 --> 00:17:46.814 - do you think it should be for a term of office? 00:17:48.002 --> 00:18:14.167 - Well, I think it doesn't necessarily have to be just one council member. I think it can be a more fluid 00:18:14.167 --> 00:18:17.438 - list of like 00:18:17.538 --> 00:18:23.122 - Hey, these three council members indicated that they were interested in working with the planning and 00:18:23.122 --> 00:18:28.652 - transportation department, planning and transportation department. These are your first three calls. 00:18:28.652 --> 00:18:34.126 - If you're looking for a sponsor, I don't, I don't necessarily know if it has to be like as rigid as 00:18:34.126 --> 00:18:39.656 - planning and transportation. You reach out to council members Stasberg because she's on the planning 00:18:39.656 --> 00:18:42.174 - commission. It's planning and transportation. 00:18:42.338 --> 00:18:48.259 - Council member Stossberg has a lot of expertise because she's on the Planning Commission, she might 00:18:48.259 --> 00:18:54.417 - want to be your first call. If she's not willing or doesn't support this initiative, here are the other 00:18:54.417 --> 00:19:00.633 - people that you could call and potentially get something on the docket that way. If you're on item four, 00:19:00.633 --> 00:19:06.613 - did you do public comment on item three? Yes, we will do public comment. We're still on three? We're 00:19:06.613 --> 00:19:10.462 - still on three. Good to talk. Thank you. Yeah, that makes sense. 00:19:11.234 --> 00:19:21.424 - And I think that makes sense to help keep it flowing with getting a variety of council members in the 00:19:21.424 --> 00:19:31.715 - mix. And I think it doesn't even have to be necessarily a one, two, three. It can just be a here, here 00:19:31.715 --> 00:19:36.510 - is the group. Pick your favorite. That's right. 00:19:36.770 --> 00:19:43.586 - If you pick the one that emails you back first, because here's, I mean, they can email like, like all 00:19:43.586 --> 00:19:50.269 - the people and just be like, Hey, I have this thing that I need sponsorship. Will one of you do it? 00:19:50.269 --> 00:19:56.952 - Which one of you wants to do it? Um, and yeah, so that it's whoever emails first, whoever responds. 00:19:56.952 --> 00:20:03.835 - Um, but the thing, the other thing that I wanted to ask that I was thinking about suddenly when Isabel 00:20:03.835 --> 00:20:06.174 - was talking about making the list, 00:20:06.530 --> 00:20:15.881 - was the budget legislation. Do we want to exempt the budget legislation from this? Because I think it's 00:20:15.881 --> 00:20:24.963 - a little weird to have a council member or do we want to exempt? And that would involve changing the 00:20:24.963 --> 00:20:30.718 - ordinance. But I mean, I think that we should think about that. 00:20:32.066 --> 00:20:39.031 - anything that comes out of the controller's office? Yeah. You mean like appropriations? Yeah. I think 00:20:39.031 --> 00:20:46.269 - that might make sense actually. I'm not opposed to that. Okay. I think that that would maybe be something 00:20:46.269 --> 00:20:53.507 - to talk with. I don't know. I feel like that that should be something to talk about with more experienced 00:20:53.507 --> 00:21:01.086 - legislators or the controller himself or I don't know if it makes sense to exempt all of the controller stuff. 00:21:01.730 --> 00:21:17.574 - or just all appropriation ordinances, or I don't know. Isabel, you're kind of frozen and we can't quite 00:21:17.574 --> 00:21:27.934 - get what you're saying. Oh dear, now you're gone. That's a tragedy. 00:21:32.866 --> 00:21:42.756 - Not even being facetious really is distracting. She was kind of deadly. She was the head of this one. 00:21:42.756 --> 00:21:52.549 - I know, right? Well, we need to take a recess. There she is! Yay! Eventually. There'll be video with 00:21:52.549 --> 00:22:01.470 - the... There she is! Yay! Welcome back! What were you saying about the controller's office? 00:22:06.850 --> 00:22:20.332 - She might be frozen again. At least we can see her. It doesn't matter, she's giving us a long hard stare. 00:22:20.332 --> 00:22:32.542 - All of a sudden I'm like, ooh, yeah. She's serious. It's very serious. Isabel, can you hear us? 00:22:46.466 --> 00:22:55.284 - It would be. Well, I know that she, I mean clearly she's driving, so she's probably in. No man's land. 00:22:55.284 --> 00:23:04.101 - Yeah, call it in a valley in a something. Yeah, can you can you all hear me now? Yes, you can hear me. 00:23:04.101 --> 00:23:12.662 - Yes, OK, I'm going to leave my video. I'm going to leave my video off and hopefully that will help. 00:23:12.662 --> 00:23:15.230 - Sorry about this problem. So. 00:23:22.082 --> 00:23:30.335 - that it would still be appropriate to have sponsors for additional appropriations throughout the year. 00:23:30.335 --> 00:23:39.068 - But I do agree that the budget legislation should be exempt or should have an assumption that it's sponsored 00:23:39.068 --> 00:23:47.080 - by the council president or something like that. I think that's a really good point that we need to 00:23:47.080 --> 00:23:50.846 - think about the budget legislation packet. OK. 00:23:53.474 --> 00:24:03.210 - We go to public comment, and then we can talk about final steps. Sounds good. OK, great. Would anyone 00:24:03.210 --> 00:24:12.945 - from the public like to speak on this? If you would, please come up. We have one hand raised on Zoom. 00:24:12.945 --> 00:24:16.286 - We're going to go in person first. 00:24:16.482 --> 00:24:23.146 - And if you would like to come up here so that you can get on the Zoom microphone. I think we have to. 00:24:23.146 --> 00:24:29.940 - If you could please introduce yourself. You'll have three minutes. And I'm going to put the timer right 00:24:29.940 --> 00:24:36.734 - here. Thank you, Terri Amsler. Very quickly, I think the proposed amendment to Title II is a good idea. 00:24:37.282 --> 00:24:42.832 - I just want to go on record. I think it's a good idea, I think, and timely in different ways. I will 00:24:42.832 --> 00:24:48.326 - say also that I think, and I'm not suggesting language changes, or I'm just commenting on language, 00:24:48.326 --> 00:24:54.151 - all fine. But I'm saying one of the things that's talked about is one of the improvements would be around 00:24:54.151 --> 00:24:59.920 - context, explanations, so on and so forth. I think it also may increase the effectiveness of legislation 00:24:59.920 --> 00:25:02.942 - and the effectiveness of implementation by having this 00:25:03.330 --> 00:25:09.483 - the council member involved directly as opposed to something directly from administration. So I think 00:25:09.483 --> 00:25:15.695 - there's several good reasons. The other thing, and this is a bit more of a preachment, I suppose, than 00:25:15.695 --> 00:25:21.788 - directly to the item exactly, but I think I fear, and I'll say in Bloomington even, the diminishment 00:25:21.788 --> 00:25:27.518 - of the legislative function in governance. I worry about this a little bit even trying to find 00:25:27.618 --> 00:25:33.793 - where the council is and signage and all. I mean, it's just, it's a vibe thing, I know, but it's a little 00:25:33.793 --> 00:25:40.201 - strange. And so I think this is in the right direction a bit. While understanding it could be made ridiculous 00:25:40.201 --> 00:25:46.376 - and done poorly. And I thought maybe whether a proposed ordinance should be considered and less sponsored 00:25:46.376 --> 00:25:52.376 - by, I wondered if co-sponsored, although in some cases, but you know best about where and when and for 00:25:52.376 --> 00:25:54.590 - what this is appropriate and I don't. 00:25:54.946 --> 00:26:02.135 - But I just wondered about what flexibility you want to build in language there that may help you out. 00:26:02.135 --> 00:26:09.325 - And that I don't really know what it would be. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much for your 00:26:09.325 --> 00:26:16.937 - comments. And now to our Zoom commenter. You should be allowed to unmute. You will also have three minutes. 00:26:16.937 --> 00:26:23.774 - And as soon as you are unmuted and ready to go, you may start. OK. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. 00:26:24.802 --> 00:26:33.989 - All right, good afternoon, everyone. My name's Eric Os. And I do have a few questions. I think just 00:26:33.989 --> 00:26:43.820 - to want to make a note, there's actually only two bodies. There's the legislative branch and the executive 00:26:43.820 --> 00:26:51.262 - branch. So I think that's an important observation to make here. With that said, 00:26:52.386 --> 00:27:00.111 - The proposal is for I think a partitioning of council members to be assigned or accept responsibility 00:27:00.111 --> 00:27:07.532 - for interfacing to departments. And of course there's only the executive branch, but departments. 00:27:07.532 --> 00:27:15.181 - Can any, so it's some questions which you may or may not be able to answer or want to answer at this 00:27:15.181 --> 00:27:21.694 - time. Can any council member sponsor any legislation regardless of these assignments? 00:27:23.010 --> 00:27:32.665 - does the sponsor, the sponsoring council member need to be present when the legislation is heard? How 00:27:32.665 --> 00:27:42.982 - is sponsorship ancillary or an enhancement to the fact that procedurally legislation needs to be introduced? 00:27:42.982 --> 00:27:52.542 - And is this actually going to solve the noted lack of context or explanatory information that's been 00:27:52.962 --> 00:28:03.443 - appointed consternation so I mean I understand I think I understand the intent for this but I just really 00:28:03.443 --> 00:28:13.332 - wonder how it's going to actually be helpful as opposed to perhaps just extra extra work but anyway 00:28:13.332 --> 00:28:18.078 - I think those are all my comments thank you yes 00:28:18.210 --> 00:28:24.674 - Thank you very much. I think the intended purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the legislation 00:28:24.674 --> 00:28:31.014 - has some level of council support. It also looks like Isabel's hand is up, so I'm sure that she would 00:28:31.014 --> 00:28:37.291 - like to respond as well. And as for council members being present, I anticipated yes. Council member 00:28:37.291 --> 00:28:44.190 - sponsors should in fact have to be present, and that was why we wanted to make it flexible on who can sponsor. 00:28:44.418 --> 00:28:50.065 - Anyone can sponsor anything. I just want to qualify. So if the council member who is appointed to be 00:28:50.065 --> 00:28:56.104 - liaison, and I'm using that word loosely here, does not want to, but another council member feels strongly, 00:28:56.104 --> 00:29:01.751 - or they've been lobbying to do this, can they do that? There was one opportunity for public comment. 00:29:01.751 --> 00:29:07.454 - Well, you weren't answering my question. It was not well formed. But continue, please. OK. Thank you. 00:29:07.454 --> 00:29:12.766 - Council member Smith, would you like? Council member Piedmont Smith, would you like to answer? 00:29:14.466 --> 00:29:23.444 - Yes, thank you. I think there's a misunderstanding here, and it may be because I phrased things poorly 00:29:23.444 --> 00:29:32.247 - at the outset of this topic, but this is not appointing liaisons to certain departments in the city. 00:29:32.247 --> 00:29:41.051 - This is just helping the administration define sponsors by saying, well, these three council members 00:29:41.051 --> 00:29:43.230 - have expressed interest, 00:29:43.714 --> 00:29:52.098 - in items that are coming from planning and transportation. And these two sponsors, these two council 00:29:52.098 --> 00:30:00.564 - members have shown an interest in items coming from the economic development department, for example. 00:30:00.564 --> 00:30:08.865 - It's helping the administration find sponsors so that they could have some direction as to where to 00:30:08.865 --> 00:30:12.766 - go rather than just contacting all nine of us. 00:30:13.218 --> 00:30:20.799 - So it's not, the sponsor is not going to become some kind of liaison to that department. The sponsor 00:30:20.799 --> 00:30:28.530 - is the, and there's not gonna be assignments. It's just, let's say CBU has a rate increase and they're 00:30:28.530 --> 00:30:36.111 - saying, we're thinking now, who should, who can we approach to be the sponsor of this rate increase? 00:30:36.111 --> 00:30:40.990 - Well, we've gotten this information from the council saying that 00:30:41.506 --> 00:30:50.035 - Councilmember Flaherty and Councilmember Rallo are both interested in the activities of CBU, so let's 00:30:50.035 --> 00:30:58.398 - go ask them if either of them could sponsor this. So I think that was kind of a misunderstanding on 00:30:58.398 --> 00:31:07.011 - the part of the members of public who spoke. The other thing, oh my gosh, now I've forgotten the other 00:31:07.011 --> 00:31:09.854 - part of his comments, but anyway. 00:31:10.466 --> 00:31:18.072 - I just want to clarify that part of it. Great. Thank you. I'll actually address the how is it going 00:31:18.072 --> 00:31:25.906 - to enhance. Maybe that's what Isabel had forgotten was how it was going to enhance the legislation and 00:31:25.906 --> 00:31:30.622 - the introduction. Like, why does it matter? And I'm going to. 00:31:31.202 --> 00:31:38.473 - remind us of the CBU legislation about the rate increases where we asked all of these questions that 00:31:38.473 --> 00:31:45.960 - kind of made them go like, oh yeah, like we don't quite think about it like that because sometimes when 00:31:45.960 --> 00:31:53.735 - you're so enmeshed in the topic, you don't think about it from the outside. And so forcing that sponsorship 00:31:53.735 --> 00:32:00.574 - will, you know, they'll have that greater communication early on with a single council member. 00:32:00.770 --> 00:32:09.676 - and that person hopefully will ask some of those questions so that then whoever is presenting the legislation 00:32:09.676 --> 00:32:18.097 - can then present it from this viewpoint of here's some common questions that laypeople might have about 00:32:18.097 --> 00:32:26.437 - this and why we're doing it and hopefully that will help reduce some uncertainty at the council level. 00:32:26.437 --> 00:32:28.542 - That was my impression of 00:32:30.338 --> 00:32:38.690 - when we talked about this originally, why we thought it would be helpful. I agree. Thank you. In terms 00:32:38.690 --> 00:32:47.043 - of next steps, Isabel, do you need anything else from us? I know that you wanted to talk to Controller 00:32:47.043 --> 00:32:55.233 - McKim. Other than that, is there anything else that we need to discuss as this body to continue this 00:32:55.233 --> 00:32:58.558 - forward? Well, I would love to hear from 00:32:58.978 --> 00:33:06.995 - I hope you already brought this up as to whether there should be sponsorship appropriation ordinances 00:33:06.995 --> 00:33:15.091 - in general or only the ones that come out of the sequence of the annual budget, whether we should just 00:33:15.091 --> 00:33:22.951 - make an exception for the annual budget legislation. If the other committee members could give some 00:33:22.951 --> 00:33:26.174 - feedback on that, that would be helpful. 00:33:28.354 --> 00:33:38.522 - I mean, my gut reaction is to say I don't think we should have sponsors for appropriations, bills. I 00:33:38.522 --> 00:33:47.985 - think maybe we should have a carve out an exception for all controller issues coming forward. 00:33:47.985 --> 00:33:55.838 - I think I agree. Can you help me better understand the reasoning behind that? 00:34:01.346 --> 00:34:10.341 - of money is a little bit more complicated than policy choices. I don't necessarily know that council 00:34:10.341 --> 00:34:19.603 - wants to, that any individual council member would want to put themselves in a position where they have 00:34:19.603 --> 00:34:28.599 - to defend the administration's request to transfer money. I feel like there's a conflict of interest 00:34:28.599 --> 00:34:30.558 - there that could just 00:34:31.042 --> 00:34:39.445 - feel a little bit messy and awkward. So I just think it would give a better appearance, too, if there's 00:34:39.445 --> 00:34:47.605 - not a council member sponsor for it. OK, because we're the fiduciary body, and we have to be a check 00:34:47.605 --> 00:34:55.765 - and balance on the expenditure of taxpayer funds. Does that capture it? That's a good way to put it. 00:34:55.765 --> 00:34:59.966 - Yeah, I think so. And that's where I like I kind of 00:35:01.250 --> 00:35:08.682 - want to hear more from Controller McKim, maybe even past Controller. Look more carefully, I guess, at 00:35:08.682 --> 00:35:16.552 - what legislation comes from the Controller's office. Last year, we had a lot of really dry account creation 00:35:16.552 --> 00:35:24.203 - stuff coming from the Controller's office. They weren't appropriation ordinances, but it was bookkeeping 00:35:24.203 --> 00:35:31.198 - stuff. And so it's like, do we really need a council member sponsor for that bookkeeping stuff? 00:35:31.490 --> 00:35:39.259 - and I think I mean Cindy may have said it best when it was like it's not really policy stuff and so 00:35:39.259 --> 00:35:47.028 - yeah so I guess I'm not quite fixed about how that carve out should look or what it should like how 00:35:47.028 --> 00:35:55.263 - how specific it should be or whether it should exclude the department or exclude appropriation ordinances 00:35:55.263 --> 00:35:57.438 - or like um but it it should 00:35:58.018 --> 00:36:06.178 - exclude something and I don't feel experienced enough or like I've done enough immediate or recent research 00:36:06.178 --> 00:36:13.885 - about all the different types of things that came out of the controller's office or could potentially 00:36:13.885 --> 00:36:21.441 - come out of the controller's office, because that's the other piece too. It's like, would they ever 00:36:21.441 --> 00:36:26.654 - sponsor anything that wasn't in that kind of category? I don't know. 00:36:27.394 --> 00:36:34.111 - I think Controller McKim will be the most helpful in just offering what are all the options that they 00:36:34.111 --> 00:36:40.829 - have in terms of what they can introduce. Yeah. Okay. All right, I understand it better now, so I can 00:36:40.829 --> 00:36:47.810 - reach out to the Controller and also take a look at, you know, the past couple of years, what has been... 00:36:47.810 --> 00:36:54.593 - Thank you. ...what legislation has come forward from the Controller's office. So I'll do that and I'll 00:36:54.593 --> 00:36:56.766 - also talk to Councilmember Rallo 00:36:57.346 --> 00:37:04.756 - But do you feel like we should bring this back to this committee or one side? I mean, because 00:37:04.756 --> 00:37:12.955 - this legislation to require sponsorship is gonna be sponsored by me and not the committee. So I wonder, 00:37:12.955 --> 00:37:21.232 - do you like your energy provisions or do you think it's okay if I just go ahead, one side, clarify those 00:37:21.232 --> 00:37:23.518 - couple things? I think after 00:37:23.618 --> 00:37:31.293 - you talk with Controller McKim, it might be helpful just to bring it up during committee report to the 00:37:31.293 --> 00:37:39.341 - whole body, just to make sure that we're all on the same page on like, yes, we do want to do appropriations 00:37:39.341 --> 00:37:47.016 - or no, we don't. I think that'll make it a smoother first and second reading if we get that answer out 00:37:47.016 --> 00:37:51.710 - of the way prior to the legislation being, hitting the docket. 00:37:54.786 --> 00:38:04.234 - Whether we do that at the 22nd meeting or the sixth, I'm agnostic, but I think that would be helpful 00:38:04.234 --> 00:38:14.151 - as well. And I also, the controller's office would also bring forth bonds related legislation too, right? 00:38:14.151 --> 00:38:24.254 - No, not necessarily. It depends on who's bonding. I mean, if it's for utilities, it would come through CBU. 00:38:25.026 --> 00:38:40.437 - I'm also wondering I guess I'm wondering whether bond stuff would also be strange to have a council 00:38:40.437 --> 00:38:52.766 - member sponsor yeah yeah perhaps anyway I I trust you to move forward with this 00:38:55.394 --> 00:39:06.509 - I can also check with some of the other cities and see how they handle fiduciary or fiscal type ordinances. 00:39:06.509 --> 00:39:16.596 - Thank you. And of course, we do have a fiscal committee now. I mean, it's temporary, technically, 00:39:16.596 --> 00:39:22.462 - for ad hoc. But that might be able to play into it, too. 00:39:24.290 --> 00:39:32.734 - Maybe not necessarily for the budget legislation, but for bonds, certainly. Yeah, absolutely. OK, so 00:39:32.734 --> 00:39:41.262 - do we want, Isabel, is there any specific meeting you would like to introduce this at? I just want to 00:39:41.262 --> 00:39:49.873 - make sure that we fully round out this conversation before we move on. No, I haven't thought about it. 00:39:49.873 --> 00:39:53.886 - OK, no problem. Let us know when you are ready. 00:39:56.450 --> 00:40:03.536 - It's not urgent, so. Great. Thank you. In that case, let's move on to number four, allowing non-city 00:40:03.536 --> 00:40:11.184 - residents to serve on boards and commissions. A, does any committee member want to make a specific proposal? 00:40:11.184 --> 00:40:18.551 - I have a specific proposal that I want to make. Great. So one of the committees that are the commissions 00:40:18.551 --> 00:40:25.918 - that we talked about was Transportation Commission. And I've mentioned this to a couple of people, and I 00:40:26.114 --> 00:40:32.508 - I think I meant to talk to Matt about it and forgot, but one of the things about that commission when 00:40:32.508 --> 00:40:38.777 - we first created it was we wanted there to be an MCCSE person on there. And so within, I don't have 00:40:38.777 --> 00:40:45.171 - it brought up right now because I wasn't totally prepared for this, but we kind of have it written in 00:40:45.171 --> 00:40:52.318 - as a preference for one of our seats should, you know, preferential treatment be given to an MCCSE person and the 00:40:52.450 --> 00:40:59.711 - that my understanding from the MCCSE angle was they wanted somebody from their Department of Transportation 00:40:59.711 --> 00:41:06.433 - to be in that seat, but they were a county resident. And so they couldn't be in that seat. And that 00:41:06.433 --> 00:41:13.291 - that was part of what started this particular conversation about Transportation Commission and county 00:41:13.291 --> 00:41:20.014 - residents. And I would still say to not allow non-city residents to be on that board, but right now 00:41:20.014 --> 00:41:21.022 - there are four 00:41:21.250 --> 00:41:28.067 - appointed seats to council and to mayor and to take one of those seats and have it an MCCSE person and 00:41:28.067 --> 00:41:34.686 - we'd have to talk to MCCSE and see if they're down for that but there because there are other seats 00:41:34.686 --> 00:41:41.569 - that like for example somebody from the CCA needs to be on one of those seats somebody from BT you know 00:41:41.569 --> 00:41:48.519 - some a plan commission appointed person and none of those like appointees are specific they specifically 00:41:48.519 --> 00:41:51.166 - say that they need to be city residents 00:41:51.394 --> 00:41:59.046 - So any of those appointees could already be county residents because they just have to be part of the 00:41:59.046 --> 00:42:06.549 - specific group or appointed by that group is that responsibility. So my proposal would be to change 00:42:06.549 --> 00:42:14.126 - that. So instead of having four city residents appointed, we have three city residents appointed and 00:42:14.126 --> 00:42:19.678 - one person, I'm not quite sure how it would be phrased, but we'd have to, 00:42:20.002 --> 00:42:27.867 - get the superintendent to agree, essentially talk to Dr. Winston and be like, essentially allowing her 00:42:27.867 --> 00:42:35.580 - to identify somebody from her team, preferably in the transportation department that could serve. So 00:42:35.580 --> 00:42:43.293 - that's like my idea. Yeah, I support that. That was part of our, I'm on the interview committee that 00:42:43.293 --> 00:42:48.638 - covered transportation. Wonderful. And we, when we were interviewing, 00:42:49.058 --> 00:42:55.487 - had to turn some people down for the MCCSE role. I remember specifically one person because they were 00:42:55.487 --> 00:43:02.167 - county. And so when we were doing all the other interviews, we had nobody who was specifically associated 00:43:02.167 --> 00:43:08.911 - with MCCSE. And so we got to the point where we were like, well, this person has kids in MCCSE, so they're 00:43:08.911 --> 00:43:15.529 - a connection. That's the closest we can get. I mean, we liked them anyway. We didn't choose them. Right. 00:43:15.529 --> 00:43:16.222 - It wasn't. 00:43:16.450 --> 00:43:26.163 - Didn't sound as pitiful as that, but that was the closest we could get to a tie. Thank you. Isabel? 00:43:26.163 --> 00:43:36.460 - Yeah, I like this idea as well to allow just the MCCFCC or the seat where we prefer an MCCFC staff member 00:43:36.460 --> 00:43:46.270 - to be somebody who is outside city limits. I was a little confused by something else that Hopi said. 00:43:47.490 --> 00:43:57.626 - where you said, apparently, the other commission members have to be city residents, but isn't there 00:43:57.626 --> 00:44:07.863 - the overarching requirement of city residencies that would pertain to the Transportation Commission? 00:44:07.863 --> 00:44:17.086 - And maybe Deputy Clerk Crossley knows. So I'm looking at it now. And the appointments say, 00:44:17.314 --> 00:44:26.526 - The commission shall consist of the following nine members, none of whom may hold any employment, elected 00:44:26.526 --> 00:44:35.825 - or appointed position within the city unless specified specifically permitted as outlined in this section. 00:44:35.825 --> 00:44:42.430 - And then it goes on from the appointments from the CCA preferred for MCCSE. 00:44:42.530 --> 00:44:50.069 - But if it doesn't have it outlined in here, your code actually states that the overall mean is that 00:44:50.069 --> 00:44:57.684 - if it's not outlined specifically in a particular board of commission code, then that means that the 00:44:57.684 --> 00:45:05.450 - default is the person has to be a city resident. I think before this might have been mentioned before, 00:45:05.450 --> 00:45:10.878 - one way to kind of maybe get around this, and pulling up the code here, 00:45:10.978 --> 00:45:17.577 - There's something that says, like, residential requirement, all appointments to city boards, commissions, 00:45:17.577 --> 00:45:24.051 - and councils can be made from residents of the city except those positions that are direct to otherwise 00:45:24.051 --> 00:45:30.650 - or state law. If a city employee is appointed by virtue to a city board, commission, or council by virtue 00:45:30.650 --> 00:45:37.312 - of employment position, that the residency requirement may be waived. So one thing that you could possibly 00:45:37.312 --> 00:45:40.798 - do if you are wanting to still have somebody from MCCSE 00:45:41.026 --> 00:45:48.319 - by virtue of them working in MCCSC is to maybe have that particular disclaimer in where that allows 00:45:48.319 --> 00:45:55.831 - that person, because yes, you are correct. We had actually a couple of people that applied from MCCSC, 00:45:55.831 --> 00:46:03.125 - and we had to tell them that they didn't qualify because they were a county resident, but they were 00:46:03.125 --> 00:46:09.470 - hoping to do that because by virtue of them being employed by MCCSC. Great. Thank you. 00:46:09.794 --> 00:46:17.914 - Isabel, does that clear up any question that you had? Yeah, so they're covered by the kind of default 00:46:17.914 --> 00:46:25.954 - section in DMC that says you have to be a city resident. Correct. Yeah, well, and I mean, I was just 00:46:25.954 --> 00:46:33.118 - basing it on the Transportation Commission, like what we passed in code saying one member 00:46:33.314 --> 00:46:39.875 - Appointed by the mayor shall be a member from the CCA or a designated representative one member appointed 00:46:39.875 --> 00:46:46.373 - by Public Transportation Corporation Board of Directors shall be a member or a designated representative 00:46:46.373 --> 00:46:52.562 - so like It's like there's or the designated representative, but it doesn't say on any of those they 00:46:52.562 --> 00:46:58.257 - need to be city residents But when we get down to the council appointments and them and the 00:46:58.257 --> 00:46:59.742 - mayor appointments it's 00:47:00.546 --> 00:47:09.459 - Two members shall be appointed by the council and shall be residents living within the city limits. 00:47:09.459 --> 00:47:18.550 - And the other ones aren't necessarily. Well, isn't this in the section of code where we added all the 00:47:18.550 --> 00:47:27.909 - qualifications for all commissions? Yeah. So is what you read above that for all of them? Yeah. I didn't 00:47:27.909 --> 00:47:30.494 - see that one. Code is dense. 00:47:30.754 --> 00:47:44.591 - Oh, it is dance. Must be a man. Okay. What? Do we? So do you want me, so I, I mean, I feel like it's 00:47:44.591 --> 00:47:59.934 - a little bit weird to have it in there, like, as the MCCSE superintendent can select somebody for that. I mean, 00:48:00.162 --> 00:48:05.853 - but I would be happy to reach out to her and just be like we're trying to figure out a way to get great 00:48:05.853 --> 00:48:11.380 - you know somebody from your transportation staff on because I mean it's it's one of those things for 00:48:11.380 --> 00:48:14.718 - me it's like yeah I do want to prioritize city residents but 00:48:14.818 --> 00:48:21.145 - I also want to prioritize people that are going to care a whole lot about safety of our transportation 00:48:21.145 --> 00:48:27.596 - systems. And if anybody's going to care about safety of transportation systems, it's somebody in MCCSE's 00:48:27.596 --> 00:48:33.862 - transportation department in charge of transporting 12,000 students every day to our schools, most of 00:48:33.862 --> 00:48:40.189 - which are within city limits. So I can reach out to her and ask her what her thoughts are on that. But 00:48:40.189 --> 00:48:42.462 - what are, because the other, I mean, 00:48:42.562 --> 00:48:48.959 - a member appointed by public transportation commission, a member appointed by plan commission, appointed 00:48:48.959 --> 00:48:55.357 - by public works, appointed by the mayor. I mean, I suppose we could put it like, so one member appointed 00:48:55.357 --> 00:49:01.571 - by the mayor shall be a member from the council for community accessibility. Um, and they will submit 00:49:01.571 --> 00:49:07.786 - a list of at least three names to the mayor for consideration. So we want to do it kind of like that, 00:49:07.786 --> 00:49:09.918 - like mirror that language and then 00:49:10.018 --> 00:49:19.625 - The other thing is if we're taking one of the four, so of those four, three are appointed by council 00:49:19.625 --> 00:49:29.328 - and one is appointed by the mayor. And so I would then, would it be better if we mirror that language 00:49:29.328 --> 00:49:34.750 - to say that that person's gonna be appointed by council? 00:49:35.458 --> 00:49:41.886 - or appointed by the mayor. And of course, the mayor would have to agree to give up her other appointment, 00:49:41.886 --> 00:49:48.072 - or council would have to agree to give up one of our three appointments. So I'm happy to reach out to 00:49:48.072 --> 00:49:54.440 - whoever about that. But the other option is restructured similar to the Historic Preservation Commission 00:49:54.440 --> 00:50:00.990 - appointments, where it's a mayoral appointment subject to council approval. I know that's more complicated. 00:50:01.186 --> 00:50:09.577 - I'm not suggesting that's what we do. I just wanted to put it on the table. I don't want to do that. 00:50:09.577 --> 00:50:18.383 - OK? I just wanted to put it on the table as something we could do. Yes, you're right. OK. It is something 00:50:18.383 --> 00:50:26.858 - we could do. Yes. Yes. If you're on that committee, would you guys, as the committee, want to be able 00:50:26.858 --> 00:50:30.430 - to have that appointment? I don't mind it. 00:50:30.818 --> 00:50:38.946 - I mean I'm speaking for myself not on behalf of the committee or council, but I don't mind it coming 00:50:38.946 --> 00:50:47.235 - out of one of the council seats because it was meant to be originally. So I think I like that language 00:50:47.235 --> 00:50:55.282 - of you know we can have to mirror that language. Okay to basically receive the recommendations from 00:50:55.282 --> 00:51:00.030 - the superintendent and then not put any language in around 00:51:00.162 --> 00:51:09.795 - residency related to those three people, because then Clark Crosley will default to being okay for them 00:51:09.795 --> 00:51:19.243 - to not be, because by merit of employment, then they qualify, and then y'all can interview the three. 00:51:19.243 --> 00:51:29.246 - What we deemed we're interested in, the normal process, just these were in a different bucket, so to speak. 00:51:29.602 --> 00:51:40.955 - so that the mayor's appointment can be left alone. Isabel? Yeah, I think we would have to specify that 00:51:40.955 --> 00:51:52.528 - a person to fill that MCP, SEC is allowed to be a resident of the county outside of city limits. I think 00:51:52.528 --> 00:51:55.614 - we do need to specify that. 00:51:55.778 --> 00:52:02.938 - I think what Deputy Clerk Crossley had cited a few minutes ago was pertaining to city employees. Correct. 00:52:02.938 --> 00:52:10.098 - If it's part of their city employment and that's why they're serving. Gotcha. Okay. This is not by virtue 00:52:10.098 --> 00:52:17.055 - of their city employment. It's MCCSE employment. Right. So I think we would have to put that in there. 00:52:17.055 --> 00:52:23.742 - Okay. And we have to then also put in that they would qualify by virtue of their MCCSE employment. 00:52:24.226 --> 00:52:34.595 - So I'm kind of mirroring the language from the CCA appointment and mirroring the language from, can 00:52:34.595 --> 00:52:45.068 - you send me that code reference just so that then I can? Okay, great, thank you. And so I will reach 00:52:45.068 --> 00:52:52.638 - out to Dr. Winston and yeah, once I get, once she's good with that plan, 00:52:52.770 --> 00:53:00.577 - Then I'll try to reach out to other council members to or depending on the timeline of that that can 00:53:00.577 --> 00:53:08.692 - maybe be part of the same Committee report that Mentioned about the controllers. Yeah, definitely. Thank 00:53:08.692 --> 00:53:16.654 - you Okay Let's go to public comment. Is there anybody? Looks like there's nobody in the room. So would 00:53:16.654 --> 00:53:21.214 - anyone on zoom like to speak? Please raise your hand if so 00:53:22.178 --> 00:53:31.083 - Going once. Oh, look, we have a person. You'll be asked to unmute, and then you'll have three minutes. 00:53:31.083 --> 00:53:39.728 - Please go ahead when you're ready. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name's Eric Post, and I think this 00:53:39.728 --> 00:53:47.941 - is an interesting conversation. I'm wondering if there are any opportunities to interface with 00:53:47.941 --> 00:53:51.486 - the commissions that exist in the county 00:53:52.066 --> 00:54:01.138 - that are similarly focused, like the Transportation Commission planning, et cetera. I think that might 00:54:01.138 --> 00:54:10.299 - become increasingly important as we move forward, given fiscal constraints. The other thing I just want 00:54:10.299 --> 00:54:19.548 - to note is I thought I remembered and I looked up and confirmed is that the appointments to the Historic 00:54:19.548 --> 00:54:22.014 - Preservation Commission are 00:54:23.170 --> 00:54:30.775 - designated by the mayor and then approved by the council because that's specified in Indiana code. So 00:54:30.775 --> 00:54:38.379 - there's a constraint upstream in regards to that particular process. But otherwise, thank you for all 00:54:38.379 --> 00:54:45.909 - your work. Great. Thank you very much. Would anyone like to respond to anything that was said during 00:54:45.909 --> 00:54:47.102 - public comment? 00:54:53.282 --> 00:55:01.757 - In that case, next steps. Are there any other specific proposals related to this? No. Okay. 00:55:01.757 --> 00:55:11.521 - So next steps, I'll reach out to Dr. Winston. If she's interested in that, then I'll proceed with writing 00:55:11.521 --> 00:55:21.470 - something up for a report. Great. Thank you very much. Consent agendas, need for a review by legal counsel. 00:55:22.914 --> 00:55:30.687 - I dropped my pen. Does anyone have an update on that? Or was that our legal counsel? Was that the update? 00:55:30.687 --> 00:55:38.093 - Okay, well... That is the update. Our update is that we don't have... Fantastic. Okay. Great. I just 00:55:38.093 --> 00:55:45.499 - put it on the agenda just so that we wouldn't lose track of it. Great. Thank you very much. Now that 00:55:45.499 --> 00:55:52.318 - we have at least a temporary attorney, I can hopefully get an hour of his time or something. 00:55:53.346 --> 00:56:01.674 - Great, thank you so much. Okay, that concludes section five. Is there any other business that committee 00:56:01.674 --> 00:56:09.682 - members would like to raise? Speaking of our temporary attorney, are we as council members going to 00:56:09.682 --> 00:56:17.929 - get any kind of notification or when are we going to get notification about procedure related to that? 00:56:17.929 --> 00:56:22.654 - I will get back with you about that. Clerk Bolden, please. 00:56:23.042 --> 00:56:30.405 - Just a quick update, because we've been working pretty closely with leadership. Mr. Allen started officially 00:56:30.405 --> 00:56:37.161 - yesterday for you all. He still needs to get his city email set up. And he just got his key. And so 00:56:37.161 --> 00:56:43.916 - we went through and actually asked for them to set up his email with ITS and did all the onboarding 00:56:43.916 --> 00:56:50.942 - things that need to be done for new staff members this morning. He has a key to the council office now. 00:56:51.234 --> 00:56:57.613 - and access to the computers. And his plan is that as soon as he gets access to the emails that he needs, 00:56:57.613 --> 00:57:03.748 - he will be reaching out to council members and letting you know kind of when he'll be in the office, 00:57:03.748 --> 00:57:10.248 - when you can contact him, and what his basic kind of plan for work will be. The framework of his? Exactly. 00:57:10.248 --> 00:57:16.627 - Exactly. And that was really where I was right before I came in here. Great. Awesome. Thank you so much. 00:57:16.627 --> 00:57:18.206 - Yeah. Any other business? 00:57:19.202 --> 00:57:26.668 - In that case, we are adjourned. Thank you so much. It was. Please go ahead. I can't do it. I can. 00:57:26.668 --> 00:57:34.285 - Go ahead. I'm sorry. I just, I did want to ask you all to think of what other items we might put on 00:57:34.285 --> 00:57:42.056 - the agenda going forward since we've been checking things off and getting things done. So if you have 00:57:42.056 --> 00:57:46.398 - other things maybe that were left over from last year or 00:57:47.202 --> 00:57:55.211 - that we kind of would pick it in previously. Please just let me know and we can put those on the agenda. 00:57:55.211 --> 00:58:02.915 - Excellent. Great. Thank you. And now. Wait, I have something. Go ahead. Weren't there supposed to be 00:58:02.915 --> 00:58:10.848 - other Title II revisions? Isn't there some like grand big Title II revision thing going? Where did that 00:58:10.848 --> 00:58:16.798 - end with? Because I know that Lisa was working on that. And is that? It's on. 00:58:17.026 --> 00:58:26.170 - the schedule, but we've been pushing it back just because we've had so much urgent legislation. Yeah. 00:58:26.170 --> 00:58:35.135 - So it's actually written somewhere already? Well, it's no. Christine Chang was working on that when 00:58:35.135 --> 00:58:44.638 - she left. And so once we get some staff or other hired, potentially hers, then we can pick that up again. 00:58:44.930 --> 00:58:52.508 - I was going to also try to just access her files and see where she is with it. But yeah, that was a 00:58:52.508 --> 00:59:00.389 - big project, and I would estimate we were maybe a third of the way done with it. So it was just on hold 00:59:00.389 --> 00:59:08.118 - because of staffing. Okay. Great. Thank you. In that case, we are adjourned. Still before five? Nope, 00:59:08.118 --> 00:59:09.406 - we're adjourned.