HomeMy Public PortalAboutCharter Review Committee Minutes 05-09-2012 4
Charter Review Commission Minutes
II/
May 9, 2012
Community Board Room
Members Present:
Chairman Bill Agan
Secretary/Vice Chair Jeff Ritter
Member Loyce Greer
Member Doug Knowlton
Member LaRue Wall
City Attorney Betsy Elam
Audience Present:
Janece Hill
Jeremy Hill
Beverly Williams
Michaela Williams
Chairman Agan called the meeting to order at 7:02PM
1. Read and Approve minutes from last meeting
(April 25,2012)
• Member Wall motioned to approve the minutes from the April 25, 2012 meeting.
Member Knowlton seconded.
The motion was approved by unanimous vote.
2. Review City Charter.
Secretary Ritter asked City Attorney Elam about the time line and calendar regarding the
Charter review process.
Attorney Elam indicated the City Council must call the election at least 72 days before
the proposed November election day. This would mean the Council must call the Charter
Election in August, 2012.
After the Council calls the election,the Justice Department must have time to approve the
proposed Charter and send the City the required"Clearance Letter"to proceed with the
election.
Member Greer asked if there could be a workshop between the City Council and Charter
Review Commission to review the Charter. Attorney Elam replied that a workshop of
that nature would be up to the City Council.
Attorney Elam went on to say that the Charter must be translated into Spanish and that
any substantive changes would have to be published in the Newspaper 30 days before the
election.
Secretary Ritter asked City Attorney Elam to develop a calendar and present it to the 4111
Commission with specific due dates for the required actions so that the Commission and
eventually the Council will know what to do and when to do it.
Member Knowlton asked about the best method to list the 3 year term election cycle.
Attorney Elam indicated that the election cycle must be dictated in the Charter to begin
the 3 year term cycle.
Secretary Ritter stated that it may be best to propose an election schedule for Council
places,but since it is a political question, it may be best to let the Council create its own
schedule to be included into the Charter to begin the 3 year term cycle.
The consensus of the Commission is to present the proposed Charter to the City Council
in June so as to allow the City Council to do their work before August.
Section 6.01 —Initiative, Referendum and Recall
Attorney Elam stated the percentages required seem very low to petition for initiative and
referendum.
Secretary Ritter indicated that the provision that there must be at least 250 signatures was
inadvertently omitted and that he would be sure that provision was included.
Attorney Elam recommended that the current Charter percentages were consistent with
other Cities and should be maintained.
• Attorney Elam stated that provisions for Initiative, Referendum and Recall do not exist in
State Law,but Chapter 277 of the Election Code does address the validity of signatures
and so that provision is not necessary in the Charter.
Attorney Elam reminded the Commission of the definitions of Initiative and Referendum.
Initiative means the residents want to add or accept an ordinance while Referendum
means the residents wish to remove or modify an existing ordinance.
In the paragraph regarding Referendum, Attorney Elam recommended adding the
words,"...any topic courts have removed from the field of referendum and initiative."
Attorney Elam stated that the provisions as stated in the current Charter are more
conducive to State Law and the original Charter language should be maintained.
Section 6.05—Effect of Certification of Referendum Petition
Attorney Elam recommended removing this section as it is unnecessary.
Section 6.07—Submission to Voters
Attorney Elam stated that State Law dictates elections and to therefore use the language,
"...the proposed or referred ordinance shall be submitted to the voters on the next
uniform election day."
•
for Initiated Referred Ordinances
Section 6.08 Form of Ballot and
Attorney Elam stated that this was State Law and was therefore not needed.
Section 6.13—Recall Petitions
Attorney Elam stated that Chapter 277 of the Election Code dictated 180 days, and the
Charter should therefore reflect 180 days rather than 30, or simply state that petition
elections would be held in accordance with State Law.
Section 6.14 -Recall Elections
Attorney Elam stated that Chapter 277 of the Election Code dictated the elections to be
held on a Uniform Election day.
Section 6.15—Ballots in Recall Election
Attorney Elam indicated that State Law dictates the form of the Ballot, so the section
should be simplified and need only state the question,"Shall (name of person) be
removed from the office of(name of office) by recall?"
Secretary Ritter asked if the option questions FOR and AGAINST should remain in the
Charter. Attorney Elam indicated they should remain for the sake of clarity.
ARTICLE VII—FINANCIAL PROCEDURES
Section 7.02—Itemized Budget: Contents, including Preparation, Submission and Budget
110 Message
Attorney Elam cautioned that paragraph(A) is extremely rigid and does not allow for
flexibility and could actually harm the budget process.
Attorney Elam stated that paragraph(C) 13, and 14 could not be included in the proposed
budget as those items could only be created during the approval process and should
therefore be deleted.
Section 7.05 -Notice Of and Public Hearings on Budget
Attorney Elam indicated that there are some serious problems with the budget procedures
as stated in this Section as related to the order of events and required information.
Member Greer stated that the purpose for the January meeting was to allow the public to
speak early in the year about anything they wanted to see added or removed from the
budget.
Secretary Ritter indicated that the primary reason for the budget hearing timings was to
allow the public to see a proposed budget and be able to speak intelligently about the
proposed budget before final Council approval.
Attorney Elam replied that was a good idea,but the language in the Charter should be
more clear yet flexible to allow for modifications as the process progressed.
77-T
Section 7.06—Budget Proceedings after Public Hearing
Attorney Elam stated this section is part of the process and is not needed.
Section 7.07—Required Vote and Date of Final Adoption of Budget
Attorney Elam congratulated the Commission on the second sentence outlining the
month-to-month basis if no Council Action. She also stated that the first sentence was
not needed and should be removed.
Section 7.09—Appropriations and Amount of Property Tax To Be Established In Budget
Attorney Elam indicated that this section is self-evident during the budget process and is
therefore not needed.
Section 7.10—Annual Appropriation Ordinance
Attorney Elam stated that this section was in conflict with several things in the Charter
and State Law and should be reworded. Attorney Elam asked what the purpose of this
Section was intending to convey.
Secretary Ritter indicated that the purpose was to establish that the City Manager's
estimate of revenue and expenditures is to be used as the sole basis for the budget rather
than any other proposed estimate by any other source.
Member Greer stated that is was important that the Council depend upon the City
Manager's estimate and that the City Manager must be responsible for the accuracy and
• credibility of that estimate.
Attorney Elam stated the second paragraph was entirely in State Law and should be
removed.
Section 7.11 — Transfer and/or Lapse of Appropriations
Attorney Elam asked about the origin and purpose of this Section.
Secretary Ritter indicated that the origin is the City of Frisco City Charter.
Members Knowlton and Greer stated that the purpose of the Section is to ensure that
unencumbered monies could only be transferred to certain departments and in certain
amounts.
Section 7.14—Administration of Budget—Execution and Monitoring
Attorney Elam strongly cautioned against paragraph 2 being a"gotcha clause"as many
questions and scenarios could arise,thereby creating perceived violations and forced
removal.
Section 7.15—Assessment, Collection and Due Date of Taxes
Attorney Elam stated that this was unusual in City Charters as this is usually covered by
the Tax Assessor/Collector.
•
Members Greer and Wall stated that at one time,the City maintained its own"in house"•
assessor and collector and that this section was a remnant of that system.
Attorney Elam indicated that only the first paragraph was needed now that the Tarrant
Appraisal District was responsible for the assessment of Taxes.
Section 7.16—Power To Tax
Attorney Elam stated that this section could be quite complex in a Charter due to the
nature of taxation, assessment and collection.
Secretary Ritter asked Attorney Elam if she could provide language for this section.
Attorney Elam indicated she would provide adequate language for this complex section.
Section 7.16—Limitation of Tax Rate
Attorney Elam questioned the State Law mandates on tax rates and cautioned that the
City should not be in conflict with State Law.
Secretary Ritter stated that the current rate is approximately.55cents and that the
maximum of 1.50 was an incredible amount, far in excess of reasonable.
Member Knowlton indicated that a tax rate anywhere near 1.50 would be devastating and
probably impossible to achieve or collect.
The Commission will research the maximum tax rate allowed by the State of Texas.
• Section 7.19—Property Subject to Tax:Method of Assessment and Alternative Methods
of Equalizing or Adjusting Taxes
Attorney Elam indicated this section was superfluous and is in State Law and was
therefore unnecessary.
Section 7.20—Tax Liens
Attorney Elam indicated that this section was in Tax Law and was unnecessary in the
Charter.
Section 7.21 —Incurring Indebtedness: Borrowing, Interest and Sinking Funds, Revenue
Bonds, Execution/Registration, and Bond Register
Attorney Elam indicated that this section should be reviewed by the City's Bond Agent
instead of the City Attorney as it deals with financial strategies,not legal matters.
3. Assignment for Next Meeting
Member Wall stated that she strongly believed that the Charter should maintain language
regarding the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment so
as to clearly state the formation,maintenance of, and operations of those two bodies.
Member Greer stated that her intention is not to tie the hands of the Council, but rather to
• allow the City Council to govern appropriately.
The next meeting is scheduled for WEDNESDAY May 16,2012 with the City Attorney
to continue receiving legal advice from City Attorney Betsy Elam.
4.Public Comments
None
5. Adjournment
Member Knowlton motioned to adjourn.
Member Wall seconded.
Chairman Agan adjourned the meeting at 9:01 PM.
Jeff Ritter-Secre . I ,„ a Bill Agan-Chairmant��%�
•