Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCharter Review Committee Minutes 10-24-1994 Charter Review Committee Meeting Date: October 24, 1994 Present were: Chairman Michael Logan, Lester Strother, Vice-Chairman Don Acker Jean Spieker, David Ragan (arrive 8:03) , City Secretary Terri Willis, staff representative, City Attorney Paul Wieneskie. Councilmember Nelda Stroder and Mayor C.F. Kelley were present as members of the audience. 1. Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. 2. Jean Spieker noted an error on page two of the October 13, 1994 minutes. After correction the second paragraph on Section 5.03 should read: "After further discussion the following points of term limits were established: a person may serve three terms as Councilmember and or Mayor then a break is mandatory (total consecutive service is three terms in the two positions), a partial term would not count toward the term total, the effective date would be May 1996, any member serving at that time would not have his previous terms counted toward the total. Chairman Logan stated the vote was 4-1 with David Ragan expressing the dissenting opinion." All agreed we would correct our copy of the minutes and the Committee Secretary would forward a corrected copy to City Secretary Terri Willis for filing. Don Acker made the motion to accept the October 13, 1994 minutes as corrected. Lester Strother seconded the motion. Carried unanimously. 3. Chairman Logan called for the continued review of our Charter . He noted we still are not in agreement as to the best way to revise Section 6.08 Sub-section 3 item h. Our objective tonight should be to clarify our intent. D. Acker pointed out we had finished our last review with completion of Section 6.08 1 and 2. Chairman Logan agreed this should again be so noted. Chairman Logan stated this ( item h) could be put into a City Civil Service section and the ordinance drafted by the Council, with our intent for the ordinance to contain certain items. D. Acker questioned if we should state " a committee of five members", breaking the grievance committee out or should we just establish a City Civil Service Section, with everything established by ordinance. City Attorney Wieneskie cautioned if the Council and voters approve what we have written, then our intent in writing the provision doesn't count. This amendment will be passed as written. We either need to be broad, or write it all in. D. Acker questioned if we could split this into two separate, but dependent, amendments, only if#1 passes , then#2 can be enacted. P. Wieneskie advised the law does not allow for contingency amendments, each must stand alone. He again counseled we must prepare for the most bizarre set of circumstances to arise. (This pertained to a discussion if the citizens pass a Civil Service amendment and not a grievance one , then there is no way of appeal for the employee) Chairman Logan asked Councilmember Stroder and Mayor Kelley if they wished to say something on this issue. page 2 Councilmember Stroder's concern is to the channel the grievance will take after the grievance committee. Currently, according to the Charter it goes back to the City Manager. Further discussion ensued, covering the points of"at will status" of employees, who is covered by the grievance provision, and the new rules of procedure ordinance for the grievance committee set up by the Council . L. Strother suggested we look at the procedure ordinance. City Secretary Willis made copies of the ordinance for our use. Discussion continued with the concern of D. Acker if we need to change anything at all. Chairman Logan expressed his continued favor of the City Civil Service recommendation first drafted. City Attorney Wieneskie and City Secretary Willis mentioned the ordinance of procedure had recently been used in a grievance case. Chairman Logan felt "item h" is still not right, L. Strother was in agreement with that thought. City Attorney again suggested an alternate route would be to fix "item h" instead writing a new section. Chairman Logan ascertained the consensus of the Committee is to review the new information, and each member put on paper their ideas for this section. Chairman Logan declared Section 6.04, sub-section 3, item h still open. Section 9.04 Competitive Bidding. Chairman Logan reviewed the State change in money( allowed $15,000) and covered our reasons for change to $10,000 from the Charter allowed $5000. This change only allows for a little more latitude in what does not have to go out for bid, and does not alter the checks and balances in the system. r►s, Chairman Logan confirmed we are all still in agreement on the change. Section12.01 Finance and Budget. Chairman Logan covered our concerns and reasons for the recommended change. This is to start the Budget process a little earlier in the year. L. Strother pointed out this was to remove some of the tension and panic the current system seems to arouse. Councilmember Stroder asked if she might speak on this issue. Her suggestion concerned the fact the City Council is responsible to the Citizens, and the City Manager is responsible to the Council. Therefore, she feels, the Council should hold the meeting in January with the Citizens. All agreed. D. Ragan arrived , and was briefed on the meeting up to this point. City Attorney Wieneskie had two points to address, first, we should also change the third item to reflect the Council will hold a Town Hall Meeting, and second, he believes we should give a more definite date for the meeting. D. Acker stated we were attempting to give a sequence for events to take place. P.Wieneskie stated the date of submission for the budget is a moving target and as far as to the practical application of this section a more specific time would be helpful. D.Acker suggested tying it to so many days after a specific event. As we paused to consider this time sequence, D. Ragan inserted his belief we still needed to consider separating the enterprise and general fund as a Charter amendment in the Budget section. Chairman Logan suggested we first cover the item under discussion and then D.Ragan will have the opportunity to cover the ideas he presented on his memo to the Committee. J. Spieker suggested 15 days prior to the Public Hearing as the date for the Town Hall Meeting. Councilmember Stroder agreed this was a workable date. Chairman Logan recapped the three changes so far on this section. 1." In January the City Council will hold a Public Forum for the express purpose of obtaining citizen input on items they page 3 would like to see included or considered in the budget for the upcoming year". 2. At least 60, but not more than 90 days prior to the beginning of the budget year, October 1, the City Manager etc...." 3. "The City Council will hold a Town Hall Meeting on the Budget 15 days prior to the Public Hearing on the Budget" D. Ragan reviewed his memo to the committee concerning the separation of the General and Enterprise Funds. His points against the mingling of funds were as follows: 1. The current custom to marry the two funds in order to realign the budget, (transferring funds from the Enterprise Fund to support the General Fund) not only gives the citizens a false idea of the financial picture of the City(the taxes we pay are not supporting our City) but actually masks the amount the Citizens pay for the City services by elevated water bill rates. Out of every dollar paid on the water bill 10cents goes to support the General Fund. 2. If there were separation of Funds, each citizen now paying $600 would only pay $510 for water with a 15% charge to the Enterprise Fund for administrative fees, instead of the exorbitant exchange now taking place. There is also the factor of charging items previously the responsibility of the General Fund to the Enterprise Fund. 3. City taxes are deductible on Federal taxes, but not water bill charges. Ragan stressed tax deduction is not the primary issue, for in reality taxes will have to be raised to keep the current level of City function. It is a matter of truth and honesty. There recently was a "Truth in Taxation" bill, and he believes we should take a stand out of all the cities in this area to uphold this issue. The only way to ensure the citizens will be charged taxes to pay for City services and water charges to pay for water services is by Charter amendment. L. Strother reminded us all how difficult it was to get a bond election passed for items such as water lines repair and flood control, and we can see work accomplished now that has not been done before because of lack of funds. D. Ragan felt this( fund support)was a bond election on which only five people, the Council, voted. Further discussion continued covering such items as the recent trend in our budget is towards separating the funds, the effect on citizens if the taxes were suddenly to jump, the necessity of defining everything under Enterprise and General , provision for emergency expenditures during the transition stage, the allocation of percentage for an employee's work under the two funds. The general sense of the Committee is the mandatory aspect of an amendment on immediate separation of Funds could potentially cause serious problems. A suggestion was made earlier in this discussion by Chairman Logan for a non-binding referendum on this issue. Several Committee members felt this could be accomplished by the Public Forum, or Town Hall Meeting. D. Ragan feels the citizens need to vote on this issue. Chairman Logan took a vote on including this as a Charter amendment. The vote was 4-1 against inclusion, with D. Ragan casting the dissenting vote. He will submit a minority page 4 opinion. Chairman Logan suggested to D. Ragan, if he so chooses there would still time at our next meeting for him to present a more detailed suggestion for this amendment. Section 13.02 Power to Tax. We agreed to delete "and may", P. Wieneskie stated his inclination is to leave it in. L. Strother stated the intent here is to clear up any ambiguity, they are going to make the rules, so why have the "may". All agreed to keep the change. Section 15.02 Recall Petition. Change for typos as suggested in P. Wieneskie's letter. All agreed to keep change. Section 15.04 Various Papers Constituting Petition. Change per P. Wieneskie's recommendation, deleting "or subscription lists" from the first sentence, and the last clause in that sentence "or upon other papers attached thereto" All agreed to keep change. Section 15.05 Presentation of Petition to City Council. Change per P. Wieneskie's recommendation. Verification period changed to 15 days, and the presentation will be changed to "Shall present such petition to the City Council of the City of Richland Hills at the first regular Council meeting held within the next 15 days after the verification period. If no Council meeting is scheduled, there shall be a Special meeting called to receive said petition." Section 15.06 Public Hearing to be Held. Change per P. Wieneskie's recommendation. Fifteen days to request a public hearing (from five). All agreed to change. Section 15.07 Election to be Called. Change per P. Wieneskie's recommendation. Days changed to 45 and 60. All agreed to change. r("N, Section 15.08 Ballots in Recall Election Item(2). Change per P. Wieneskie's recommendation. "For the removal of(name of person)from office by recall" and "Against the removal etc." All agreed to change. Section 17.13 Ethics Addition and change to provide some means for hearing on the charges. P. Wieneskie suggested two changes to our recommendation. the changes shall now read " shall immediately be suspended with pay, pending an outcome of an investigation of the charges. Within five (5) days of said suspension the officer or employee shall receive written notice detailing the specific charges brought against him. A Public Hearing will be held within fifteen(15) days after the written notice to determine whether the charges are well founded and whether the officer or employee shall be reinstated or he shall be terminated and his position declared vacant." All agreed to changes. This concluded our review of our amendment suggestions. Chairman Logan stated we will now work on putting it all together, including our intent to be presented to the Council. On November 3, we will begin our final revision. and also begin to consider other pertinent topics, such as format and printing. City Attorney had one item he wished to add under Section 5.12. It will read " for purposes of this limitation, only terms of office beginning in or after May, 1996 will be counted." J. Spieker questioned our Court provision, did we determine to amend the Charter to reflect the current Court of Record? P. Wieneskie requested we consider leaving it as is. This gives the maximum flexibility to the Council. The consensus of the Committee is to page 5 clear up any confusion between our actual court system and the one described in the Charter. We discussed the merits of both systems, to understand why there might be a benefit to the City in reverting to the old system. All the information we received from P. Wieneskie emphasized the benefits of the Court of Record. Also pointed out was the fact the revenue received from the Court of Record more than paid for the cost. Chairman Logan verified the consensus of the Committee is to have the Court of Record reflected in our Charter. Earlier in our meeting it was stated the Committee was in agreement for P. Wieneskie to change the wording in any way he deemed advisable to reflect our intent. Chairman Logan expressed the Committee's appreciation for City Attorney Wieneskie's attendance and help with our review. 4. No members of the Public were present. Our next meeting was set for November 3, 1994, 7:30P.M. 5. Meeting adjourned at 9:16 P.M. Respectfully submitted, -yr g>14,A.4 , secretary. /�' hairman