Sep 20, 2021 Special City Council

[00:00:01]

OH, THE MEETING

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

WE DO HAVE A QUORUM OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE, ADAM, NUMBER TWO, OUR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION

[2.(a) Receive information on proposed amendments to the civil service classification ordinance. (Proposed presenter: City Attorney E. Joyce Iyamu)]

WE HAVE A PRESENTATION BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY, EGOS JAMO IN HER STEAD.

UH, I WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTING THIS INFORMATION.

UH, THIS IS COMING FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE AND HAVING WORKED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

AND, UH, AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING THIS AS A RESULT OF A VOTE BY THE PUBLIC WITH AN 81.97% APPROVAL RATING FOR THE ADOPTION OF CHAPTER 1 43, WHICH YOU KNOW, IS CIVIL SERVICE, UH, CHAPTER.

AND, UH, ON SEPTEMBER 7TH, UH, WE MET WITH YOU AND, UH, RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION ORDINANCE OR THE CITY CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED, UH, MR. TODD MCCLELLAN, UH, REPRESENTING THE POLICE ASSOCIATION, INQUIRED ABOUT INCREASING THE MINIMUM AMOUNT, UH, EMPLOYEES WOULD RECEIVE WHEN PROMOTED AND I PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION.

THE 5% OF THE REVISED LANGUAGE COULD PROVIDE, UH, AS FOLLOWED AND, UH, THE CHANGE BEING THAT, UH, IT STRIKES THE STEP ABOVE THE PROMOTIONAL RANGE, WHICH THE EMPLOYEE, UH, UH, CURRENT SALARY IS LOCATED AND IT'S REPLACED WITH THAT.

IT RESULTS IN AT LEAST A 5% INCREASE IN BASE COMPENSATION OF THE EMPLOYEE'S CURRENT SALARY.

AND, UH, WE HAD PROVIDED EXAMPLE WITHIN, UH, THE INFORMATION AS WELL AS THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED SO THAT EVERYONE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANT, UH, FROM A STEP STANDPOINT.

AND THEN, UH, ALSO THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, AND CHANGE FROM THE, UH, BATTALION CHIEF WHEN WE WERE SHOWING THAT AS A STEP FIVE, UH, SHOWING THAT THE STEFAN RATHER, EXCUSE ME, RATHER THAN A STEP THREE, UH, IN THE SUBSEQUENT SALARY CHANGE, AS THERE WAS IN THAT EXAMPLE THAT WE PROVIDED TO YOU.

SO I, UH, THEY HAVE THAT INFORMATION AS WELL AS, UM, I WILL, UH, AT THIS TIME, IF I COULD HAVE MONICA COME AND, UH, SHE'S PUT TOGETHER A TABLE THAT HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT, UH, WHAT IMPACT IT WOULD HAVE ON PEOPLE WITHIN THE FIRE AND THE POLICE RANKS, WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE MINIMUM SALARY GOING FROM WHERE YOU'RE AT TO THE NEXT MINIMUM SALARY.

AND SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HER AT THIS POINT WHERE SHE WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU SOME EXAMPLES, GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL AND MAYOR.

UM, I DID, UH, PUT TOGETHER THE TABLE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU IN THE AGENDA PACKET REGARDING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE, UH, ORDINANCE AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED AND WITH THE 5% SALARY INCREASE, WHICH WOULD USUALLY RESULT IN A SALARY INCREASE THAT'S IN-BETWEEN STEPS.

SO YOU WOULD, THE EMPLOYEE WOULD THEN GO TO THE NEXT HIGHER STEP.

UM, WE DID PROVIDE EXAMPLES, UM, IN THE ORDINANCE.

UH, I'M SORRY.

UH, SO THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE ORDINANCE WAS THAT THE F THREE LIEUTENANT STEP NINE AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED, WOULD IT GO TO THE F FOUR BATTALION CHIEF STEP THREE, OR A SALARY OF $92,723.

NOW, IF THERE WAS A 5% SALARY INCREASE, UM, THAT WOULD RESULT IN $95,583 AND 60 CENTS SALARY, WHICH WOULD THEN GO TO F FOUR, BATTALION CHIEF STEP FIVE FOR A SALARY OF 97,417.

SO THE SALARY INCREASE WOULD BE $6,385 AS OPPOSED TO A $1,691 INCREASE UNDER THE ORDINANCE AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.

SO THE DIFFERENCES UNDER THE SALARY WITH AT LEAST A 5% INCREASE, IT WOULD RESULT IN A PERCENTAGE INCREASE OF 7.01%, AS OPPOSED TO A PER A 1.8, 6% SALARY INCREASE AS THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.

THERE ARE OTHER EXAMPLES.

I TRY TO PROVIDE EXAMPLES FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST STARTING OFF IN THE RANGE TO MID RANGE AND THE RANK, AND THEN AT THE FURTHEST, UM, STEPS IN THE RANK.

UM, DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME REGARDING THE EXAMPLES PROVIDED THANK YOU.

IS THERE A COUNCIL DISCUSSION WHEN WE SAY UP TO WHO MAKES THAT DECISION, OR HOW DOES THAT, HOW DOES THAT WORK? RIGHT.

SO I'M SORRY UP TO, SO WE'RE, WE'RE PROPOSING THE LANGUAGE AT LEAST 5% INCREASED, RIGHT? SO HOW DOES THAT AT LEAST, SO I THINK THE LANGUAGE WOULD PROVIDE FOR, UH, FOR A 5% SALARY INCREASE AND THEN THE PERSON, IF THEY ARE IN BETWEEN STEPS, WHICH THEY'RE LIKELY GOING TO BE, THEN THEY WOULD GO TO THE NEXT

[00:05:01]

SO WHAT HAPPENS IS USUALLY RESULTS IN ABOVE A 5% SALARY INCREASE, BUT ALL YOU'RE REALLY DOING IS TAKING WHERE THAT PERSON IS IN THEIR CURRENT STEP, ADDING 5% GOING TO THE NEXT RANK AND THEN GOING TO THE STEP THAT IS ABOVE THAT 5% OR AT, AND THIS PREVENTS THE LATERAL SORA, RIGHT.

THAT WE HAD LAST TIME.

SO, I MEAN, I THINK IN SOME EXAMPLES, THERE WOULD BE, UH, UNDER THE ORDINANCE AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED, THERE WOULD BE SOME PEOPLE WHO WERE GETTING LESS THAN A HALF PERCENT SALARY INCREASE.

SO THEN THIS WOULD AT LEAST PROVIDE FOR A 5% SALARY INCREASE.

MONICA EXPLAINED TO ME, I REVIEWED THIS TODAY AND I KIND OF HAD SOME CHALLENGES WITH SOME OF THEM BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR IN THE WEEDS, BUT I, SOME OF THEM ARE PRETTY COMPARABLE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT A P TWO OFFICER IN STEP THREE AND THEN A P FOR THE SALARY INCREASE WAS LIKE 30,000.

AND COULDN'T FIGURE OUT THE PERCENTAGE ON HOW YOU GET TO THAT POINT.

SO COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT? SURE.

SO, UM, THIS WAS THE SKEP RAKE EXAMPLE THAT WAS GIVEN BY SERGEANT MCCLELLAN AT THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 7TH.

AND SO THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 1 43 AND UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ROLES, THAT IF THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SERGEANTS TO LET'S SAY, TEST FOR THE, UM, LIEUTENANT POSITION, THEN BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND COMMISSION RULES, YOU CAN OPEN UP TESTING TO THE NEXT LITTLE RANK, WHICH WOULD BE THE P TWO OFFICER.

NOW THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO YEARS TIME AND RANK.

SO THAT IS WHY THEY WERE AT A STEP THREE.

SO THIS WOULD BE A VERY RARE EXAMPLE IF IT WERE TO OCCUR, BUT IT WOULD JUST A SENSE OF THE EXAMPLE WAS GIVEN BY SERGEANT MCCLELLAN.

I DID WANT TO ACCOUNT FOR IT.

SO IF SO, BASICALLY, NO SERGEANTS WOULD BE TESTING.

IT WOULD BE THE TESTING WOULD OPEN UP TO THE, TO OFFICER RANK.

AND SO YOU COULD HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A P TWO OFFICER AT A STEP THREE, GOING TO BEING PROMOTED TO A P FOUR LIEUTENANT STEP ONE, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN THE $30,000 INCREASE.

AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE A VERY RARE OCCURRENCE, EXTREMELY RARE.

I'VE READ IT.

AND I GOT MY CALCULATOR.

I COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT.

AND, UH, I CAN UNDERSTAND IF YOU'RE GOING FROM A P TWO, YOU KNOW, TO A P THREE.

AND I KIND OF FIGURED I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ALL THE ANGLES AND THERE WAS NOTHING SENSIBLE THAT I CAN COME UP WITH TO FIGURE OUT HOW YOU CAN GET TO A 30,000.

UM, BUT HERE, HERE AGAIN, UM, I WAS JUST A LITTLE BIT SLOWER WITH THAT.

I'M NOT SURE IF I HEARD YOU SAY, I THINK I'M, MAY I APPROACH THEM ROSE HAD ASKED, LIKE, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE UP TO WHO MAKES A DETERMINATION? AND I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU SAID.

SO, I MEAN, THE DURBIN, THE DETERMINATION, IF THE 5% LANGUAGE IS ADOPTED AS AMENDED, UM, OR RECOMMENDED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER, IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY AUTOMATIC.

SO YOU WOULD CALCULATE WHAT THE 5%, UM, INCREASE IN THE PERSON'S SALARY IS, AND THEN YOU WOULD, IT WOULD GO TO THE NEXT STEP.

SO YOU WOULDN'T JUMP STEPS.

YOU WOULD JUST GO TO THE STEP.

THAT'S JUST ABOVE THAT 5% SALARY INCREASE.

I MEAN, CITY MANAGER, NOT INTERIM, CAUSE YOU SAID INTERIM, SO HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE A CITY MANAGER.

SO GREAT.

HOW IS PERCENTAGE INCREASE WOULD BE UP TO 5%? IS THAT CORRECT? UP TO 5%? SO IT'S CURRENTLY DRAFTED.

IT WOULD BE A 5% SALARY INCREASE, BUT THAT WOULD RESULT IN EMPLOYEES BEING IN BETWEEN STEPS.

SO RATHER THAN GO TO A LOWER STEP, WHICH MIGHT RESULT IN LESS THAN A 5% SALARY INCREASE, YOU WOULD GO TO THE STEP ABOVE THE 5% SALARY INCREASE.

THAT'S THE OTHER THING, FIGURE OUT THIS 30,000, THE 30,000 WOULD, IT WOULD JUST BE RESULT IN SORT OF A WINDFALL FOR THAT OFFICER BECAUSE INSTEAD OF HAVING TO PROMOTE TO SERGEANT FIRST AND THEN GETTING INCREASED PAY AS A SERGEANT, YOU WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE GOING FROM HE OR SHE WOULD BE GOING FROM AN OFFICER RANK, SKIPPING THE SERGEANT RANK AND THEN GOING TO A LIEUTENANT RANK.

SO NORMALLY IF HE WERE A SERGEANT, HE WOULD BE GETTING, UM, A HIGHER PAY AT THAT POINT.

SO FOR INSTANCE, IF THE, UH, SO WE HAVE THE OFFICER AT THE STEP THREE MAKING 58,394.

WELL, NORMALLY WE WOULD HAVE A SERGEANT AT STEP THREE MAKING 81,147, THEN GOING TO THE, UH, LIEUTENANT RANK AT 88,822.

THIS WOULD JUST BE IN THE EVENT THAT THERE WERE NOT ENOUGH SERGEANTS TO ACTUALLY TEST FOR THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT.

SO THIS MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN THEN IT WOULD PROBABLY NOT, NOT, IT WOULD BE VERY RARE CAUSE I CALCULATE IT FROM A P TWO.

I THINK IT WAS LIKE 64,000.

AND TO GET A 30,000, THEY GO TO 90 SOME THOUSAND DOLLARS AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST HORRENDOUS, BUT ANYWAY, YOU'RE JUST USING IT AS A SAMPLE.

OKAY.

I GUESS, UM, MORE MONICA.

YES, SIR.

OKAY.

SO IF SOMEONE GOES FROM ONE STEP TO THE NEXT, WITHIN THE RANK AND

[00:10:01]

RIGHT.

SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT UNDER THE ORDINANCE AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED OR THE RECOMMENDED CHANGE? SO IT WOULD BE, YOU WOULD INCREASE THE PERSON'S SALARY BY 5%.

YOU WOULD FIGURE OUT THAT NUMBER AS I DID IN THE TABLE.

AND THEN YOU WOULD GO TO THE STEP ABOVE THAT NUMBER, NOT THE STEP BELOW, SO IT COULD BE MORE THAN FIVE.

SO, UM, IF YOU LOOK ON THE TABLE, IT GIVES YOU THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE.

SO FIRST, UH, FOR INSTANCE, SOMETIMES IT'S GOING TO BE 5.5, 6%.

IT COULD BE 9.6, 9%.

IT COULD BE 6.8, 6%.

WHY DID YOU SKIP OVER THE 16? JUST MESSING WITH YOU.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

SO I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO THE NEW, UM, THE UPDATES, DID THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SUGGESTIONS, ALL OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT, UH, SERGEANT MCCLELLAN MENTIONED IN OUR LAST MEETING OR, UH, HOW, HOW MANY OF THE SUGGESTED OR, UM, SUGGESTIONS HAVE WE TAKEN TO ACCOUNT WITH THIS? SO WITH THE UPDATE AND ORDINANCE, THE PRIMARY SUGGESTION, AND THAT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, UM, FROM WHAT SERGEANT MCCLELLAN STATED AT THE LAST MEETING, UM, IS THE 5% PROMOTIONAL INCREASE.

I BELIEVE, UH, SERGEANT MCCLELLAN ALSO DISCUSSED MAYBE SOME INCREASES IN SIMON PAY THAT WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE UPDATE.

OKAY.

AND MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE TOOK THAT FROM THE FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM YOU THAT EVENING.

AND IT SEEMED AS THOUGH THIS WAS THE ONE ITEM THAT Y'ALL FELT WE NEEDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR ACTION.

ADDITIONALLY, UM, JUST TO ADDRESS MAYOR PRO TEM QUESTION REGARDING THE UPWARD LIMIT FOR THAT INCREASE, WE COULD ADD LANGUAGE THAT STATES, BUT NOT GREATER THAN THE NEXT HIGHER RANK, THAT WAY THERE'S OF WINDOW 5% TO THE NEXT RANK ABOVE THE 5% RECOMMENDATION UP TO WHAT WE RECOMMENDED.

I GUESS MY, MY CONCERN, UM, OR I GUESS CURIOSITY IS SURROUNDING.

I THOUGHT THE OBJECTIVE WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SALARY INCREASE WAS 5% AS IT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE, NOT AT LEAST 5% OR UP TO 5%, ANY OF THAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE.

I THOUGHT IT WAS A 5% RECOMMENDED SALARY INCREASE.

UH, AND I KNOW WE DISCUSSED 2.5 AND ALL THAT.

NOW WE HAVE THESE NUMBERS.

SO I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT EXAMPLE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT YOU HAVE FOR P THREE SERGEANT RADIO SYSTEMS MANAGER, STEP EIGHT, THEIR CURRENT SALARY IS 90 1008, 11 ONLY 5% INCREASE, UM, OR, UH, THEIR CURRENT SALARY WOULD BE AS YOU HAVE HERE AT $96,401 AND 55 CENTS THE CURRENT P FOUR, I GUESS IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE BEING PROMOTED, PROMOTED TO RIGHT.

WOULD BE IS 90 3003 19.

BUT YOU HAVE THAT AS STEP THREE, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THEY'RE BYPASSING ALREADY STEP ONE AND TWO, YOU HAVE THEM HERE AT THREE.

AND THEN ON THE OTHER EXAMPLE, WITH THE 5% YOU HAVE STEP FIVE AND THEM ACTUALLY COMING IN AT $98,043, WHICH IS A 6.79% INCREASE.

SO IN THE EXAMPLES THAT I'M SEEING ALL OF THESE ARE WELL ABOVE A 5% SALARY INCREASE FROM THE CURRENT SALARY SIGNIFICANTLY.

SO TO ME, I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THESE EXAMPLES ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE DISCUSSED, ACTUALLY HAVING 5% BE THE SALARY INCREASE PROBLEM WITH HAVING AN EXACT 5% SALARY INCREASE IS THAT MOST PERSONNEL WOULD END UP IN BETWEEN STEPS.

AND SO THAT'S NOT TAKEN TO ACCOUNT IN THE STEP PAY MATRIX.

SO WE WOULD EITHER HAVE TO GO A STEP BELOW OR A STEP ABOVE.

AND SO THE THOUGHT WAS TO GO A STEP ABOVE SO THAT IT WOULD BE AT LEAST A 5% INCREASE.

BUT IN THIS EXAMPLE, IT'S NOT A STEP ABOVE IT'S OKAY.

YOU GIVE THE ONE EXAMPLE OF, I GUESS, JUST GETTING PROMOTED TO A P FOR LIEUTENANT STEP THREE.

ANY OTHER ONE IS A STEP FIVE.

I'M JUST NOT, I MEAN, WE'RE MISSING A STEP THERE, STEP FOUR.

SO I JUST, I'M

[00:15:01]

SO IF WE WANTED TO, LET'S SAY PUT THE, UM, PERSON AT STEP FOUR, THE SERGEANT PROMOTE TO LIEUTENANT AT STEP FOUR, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE AROUND A 2.5% INCREASE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY RESULT IN A 4.18% INCREASE.

SO LET'S SAY WE WERE TO, UM, INCREASE THE SERGEANT'S SALARY.

OKAY.

SO HE'S $91,811.

IF YOU INCREASE THAT BY 2.5%, IT'S $94,106, THAT WOULD BE IN BETWEEN STEPS.

SO HE WOULD GO TO STEP FOUR, WHICH IS $95,652, WHICH RESULTS IN A 4.18% INCREASE.

WELL, I KNOW THAT THE NUMBER BEING THROWN OUT IS 5%, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO JUST THINK HERE AS TO, YOU KNOW, UM, IT JUST IS A SIGNIFICANT IS WELL ABOVE 5% AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S NOT 5% IT'S WELL ABOVE 5%.

AND YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WITH ALL OF THESE VARIOUS POSITIONS, POLICE AND FIRE OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS AND DECADES, THAT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 5%.

IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, ONE AND A HALF PERCENT OR TO GO UP SIGNIFICANTLY MORE, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, EACH POSITION.

I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL.

I DO UNDERSTAND, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER BONEY, UH, THE, THAT IT WOULD USUALLY RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF GREATER THAN 5%.

UM, IF WE WERE TO GO TO THE STEP BELOW, THEN IT WOULD USUALLY IT WOULD RESULT AT LEAST IN THIS EXAMPLE OF ONLY INCREASE OF 4%.

I UNDERSTAND, BUT I JUST HEARD YOU SAY THAT WITHIN OR EACH CHOICE, YOU SAID THAT WITHIN FIVE, RIGHT? MY, MY RECOMMENDATION BASED ON WHAT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED WAS A FLOOR OF 5% AND A MAX OF THE NEXT STEP ABOVE THAT THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT MONICA HAS INCLUDED IN THIS COVER MEMO AND THIS TABLE.

BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER BONEY, UM, THINKS THAT MAYBE THE FLOOR SHOULD BE, UH, SOMETHING OTHER THAN 5% OR MAYBE THE MAX SHOULD BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE NEXT STEP ABOVE, BECAUSE WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS, WHEN THEY GET PROMOTED, THEY END UP IN BETWEEN STEPS.

AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR.

I MEAN, I'M VERY CLEAR THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ABOVE 5%.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 5%.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A FIVE.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A 5% INCREASE.

IT'S GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN 5% FOR EACH POSITION, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN BETWEEN STEPS.

AND YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO GO TO STEP BELOW A STEP ABOVE I GET ALL THAT.

I'M JUST, I JUST WANT EVERYBODY HERE AS WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS TO KEEP IN MIND AND KNOW THAT IT'S NOT A 5% INCREASE IS GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.

I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER EMORY, THAT IS THEIR RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK THE BODY OF THIS COUNCIL COULD CHANGE THAT.

AND IT'S JUST, AGAIN, IT'S TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY CONSISTENT WITH THE STEPS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN ITSELF SO THAT IT DOESN'T FALL IN BETWEEN THEM, UH, BILL, WHEN WE DID THE BUDGET ON THE SPREADSHEET THAT ALAINA PUT TOGETHER, DID WE ACCOUNT FOR THIS? IS IT IN THE TABLE? THE SCENARIOS? YES.

YES.

OKAY.

I MEAN THE COUNCIL MEMBER BONNIE'S POINTS IS SPOT ON.

THERE'S ONLY ONE EXAMPLE ON HERE THAT YOU PROVIDED.

THAT'S 5%, EVERYTHING ELSE IS, YOU KNOW, SEVEN, NINE, YOU KNOW, AND ABOVE 20%.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FISCALLY, I MEAN, WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT FISCALLY ALSO TO ADD TO THAT IS WHEN WE HAD A WORKSHOP OR A SESSION THAT WE HAD, WE DIDN'T SEE THESE SEVEN AND NINE AND, YOU KNOW, SIX, YOU KNOW, ALWAYS THAT WE THOUGHT, WELL, IT WAS FIVE THEORETICALLY.

THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WAS TWO, TWO AND A HALF STEPS AT FIVE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE COMING WITH.

AND THEN AGAIN, IF IT FALLS IN BETWEEN, THAT'S WHERE THIS IDEA CAME AND WHERE TO KEEP IT IN LINE WITH THE STEPS THEMSELVES.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THIS IDEA CAME, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS CONCEPT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING AND JUST TO CLARIFY ONE MATTER, THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.

SO WHEN YOU SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, A 19% INCREASE OR A 20% INCREASE OR 16% INCREASE, THAT IS BECAUSE THAT IS SOMEONE WHO IS AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR RANK OR THE BEGINNING OF THE STEPS.

AND THEN THEY'RE, SO THEY'RE MAKING A LESSER SALARY IN THE RANK.

SO LET'S SAY AN OFFICER, UM, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO SERGEANT.

SO THEY ARE GOING TO START AT STEP ONE OF THE SERGEANT.

SO THAT'S GONNA CREATE A

[00:20:01]

SO IT'S THE SAME REGARDLESS.

UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S UNDER THE ORDINANCE HAS CURLY DRAFTED OR THE 5% SALARY INCREASE.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE P TWO OFFICER AT A STEP SEVEN, GOING TO THE P THREE SERGEANT AT STEP ONE, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME, REGARDLESS IF THERE IS A 5% INCREASE OR NOT.

SO THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THOSE LARGER PERCENTAGES.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE CAME UP WITH THE THRESHOLD OF 5%.

NOW THAT MEANS IT COULD BE HIGHER, BUT IF YOU DO GO LOWER, IT COULD BE AT A 4.1 4.2, 3.9, DEPENDING ON WHERE THAT PERSON AT THAT TIME, LANCE.

RIGHT.

SO THE 5% WAS A KIND OF A COMMON DENOMINATOR OF WHAT THRESHOLD, WHERE THAT IS WHERE IT IS.

AND THEN INSTEAD OF FALLING BELOW THAT FIVE YOU'RE RECOMMENDING IS TO GO UP ONE, WHICH MAY END UP AT 6.1 OR 6.9 OR SEVEN POINT, WHATEVER THAT IS.

RIGHT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND I JUST WANT TO JUST REITERATE THAT I KNOW OUR ORIGINAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS.

WE STARTED OFF WITH A FLOOR OF TWO AND A HALF A PERCENT.

AND SO I KNOW 5% WAS WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED BEFORE.

SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, COMING IN AT THE STEP BELOW, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO AT LEAST BE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN HALFWAY, IF YOU WILL, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 4%, UH, BETWEEN TWO AND A HALF AND FIVE, I JUST, I JUST THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER.

SO WE'RE STILL AT THE TIME AND A HALF PERCENT IN, WITHIN THE RANK.

RIGHT.

BUT WHEN YOU START SKIPPING AROUND, YEP.

WELL, WE START SKIPPING AROUND AND GETS HIGHER.

IT'S JUST NOT CONSISTENT.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW FLUID THE MOVEMENT OF PERSONNEL IS, BUT THAT COULD BE A LOT OF MONEY GOING BACK AND FORTH.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TIGHT ON THE MONEY.

SO BASICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN OR JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

SO LET'S SAY IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE A CAPTAIN WHO RETIRES, WELL, THEN THAT WILL OPEN UP ALL THE LOWER POSITIONS, BECAUSE THAT MEANS THE LIEUTENANT WILL HAVE TO THEN FILL THAT VACANCY AND THE CAPTAIN POSITION, THE SERGEANT WOULD THEN HAVE TO FILL THE LIEUTENANT.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE A CASCADING EFFECT.

OKAY.

SO YOU'LL PROBABLY HAVE LOTS OF MOVEMENT, YOU KNOW, JUST BY ONE PERSON RETIRING.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

YOU, YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT 5%.

WELL, I WASN'T A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

SO THAT 5% WAS A FLOOR, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALL ARE ALSO CONSIDERING MAYBE MAKING THAT 5% THE CEILING.

SO PERHAPS INSTEAD OF GOING UP, UH, CREATING THE FEELING OF FEELING STEP ABOVE, PERHAPS THE STEP BELOW THAT 5%, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU MIGHT CLARIFY THAT AGAIN.

I GUESS TO ME, IT SOUNDS AS IF THERE'S A DESIRE TO, UM, PROVIDE A PR A PROMOTIONAL INCREASE THAT IS UP TO 5%.

SO THE 5% WOULD SERVE AS THE CEILING.

AND IF AN EMPLOYEE'S PROMOTION, UH, SALARY TAKES THEM ABOVE THAT 5% AND THEY WOULD GO DOWN TO THE NEXT LOWER RANK BELOW THE 5% OF STEP.

I APOLOGIZE.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF SOMEONE IS, IF THEY GO BELOW, IT WOULD BE AT A 4.1% IN THAT ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE, BUT IF YOU GO HIGHER TO THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE SIX, NINE, WHATEVER.

SO WITH THIS CEILING, INSTEAD OF YOU BEING AT 4.1 OR AT 6.1, YOU'RE GOING TO BE AT FIVE, RIGHT? THEY WOULD BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO FALL SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE STEP PLAN.

SO THEY WOULD BE AT THE FOUR POINT, WHATEVER THAT PERCENTAGE WAS, SO THAT THEY FALL WITHIN THAT STEP BELOW THE 5%, IF COUNCIL WERE LIKE, I CAN ACTUALLY PROVIDE YOU EXAMPLES.

I ALREADY CALCULATED WITH GOING TO STEP BELOW.

UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, A P TWO OFFICER AT STEP 15, SO WE HAD THAT HE WOULD GO TO STEP FOUR, UM, UNDER THE 5%, WHICH WOULD BE A 5.9, 1% INCREASE.

IF WE GO TO THOSE LOWER STEP, IT WOULD BE AT 3.3, 3% INCREASE IN STEAD.

AND SO FOR THE P THREE SERGEANT, UH, RADIO SYSTEMS MANAGER WITH THE, UH, AT STAT EIGHT, WITH THE 5.5% INCREASE, IT WOULD ACTUALLY RESULT IN A 6.7, 9% INCREASE.

IF YOU GO THE STEP BELOW IT'S 4.18%, WHICH IS, WHICH IS I THINK TO COUNCIL MEMBER BONUS POINT, WHICH IS, WE ORIGINALLY HAD IT AT 2.5, RIGHT? SO ORIGINALLY AS

[00:25:01]

IT IS JUST DRAFTED AS THE OFFICER OR FIREFIGHTER WOULD GO TO THE NEXT RANK.

AND THEN THEY WOULD GO TO THE STEP JUST ABOVE THEIR SALARY.

SO IT DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN THEIR SALARY.

THEY WOULD JUST GO TO THE STEP RIGHT ABOVE, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE SOME VERY LOW PERCENTAGES.

UM, SUCH AS THAT, THE EXAMPLE I JUST GAVE WITH THE SERGEANT RADIO SYSTEMS MANAGER AT STEP EIGHT, THE STEP, SO THE RANK, UM, THEY WOULD PROMOTE TO THE RANK OF LIEUTENANT, WHICH WOULD GO TO STEP THREE W 93,319, WHICH IS THE STEP ABOVE JUST THEIR CURRENT SALARY OF 91,811.

AND WHICH RESULTS IN A 1.6, 4% INCREASE.

BUT THAT'S HOW THE ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.

IF YOU WERE TO GO TO THE 5%, THEN IT WOULD RAISE, UH, AT LEAST A 5% INCREASE.

UH, IT WOULD RESULT IN A 6.7, 9% SALARY INCREASE.

IF YOU GO THE STEP BELOW THAT, THEN IT'S A 4.18% INCREASE MAYOR TO YOUR POINT OR QUESTION.

THAT WAS A DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD THAT 2.5% WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDED SALARY INCREASE.

SO WE DID HAVE THAT AS A DISCUSSION POINT, AND THEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO US THAT THE REQUEST WAS 5%.

AND SO WE WERE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH HOW WE CAN COME IN, BUT AGAIN, BASED OFF OF WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A 5% INCREASE.

IT'S GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE FOR EACH POSITION, BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE.

YEAH.

A MINIMUM, AT LEAST 5%.

RIGHT.

AND SO, UH, HAVING 5% AS THE CEILING, I THINK IS I THINK THAT IT PUTS US, IT WILL PUT THE POSITIONS MORE THAN LIKELY WELL ABOVE TWO, TWO AND A HALF PERCENT, BUT DEFINITELY NOT OVER 5%.

RIGHT.

OKAY.

BUT WHAT GOT US HERE WAS THAT WE FOUND OUT AND I FORGET WHAT STEP IT WAS.

IT WAS LIKE P THREE STEP FIVE GOT PROMOTED TO P FOUR AND THERE REALLY WASN'T ANY, THERE WAS NO INCENTIVE TO GO THERE.

SO, SO WE HAVE TO, AND THAT STARTED THE CONVERSATION ABOUT AT LEAST FIVE THAT EVENING, UH, WHEN WE DID THE BUDGET, DID WE DO IT ON THE BASIS OF THE NEXT STEP UP? OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU.

NEXT ITEM IS TO BE, WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA AT THE REQUEST OF MAYOR PRO TEM OR RULES,

[2.(c) Discuss a proposed ordinance establishing a process for the placement of items on the agenda for city council consideration and requiring an agenda item for the use of city resources for council events. (Proposed presenter: Interim City Manager Bill Atkinson)]

NO.

SO MAYOR MEMBERS, COUNCIL, UM, AS YOU MAY KNOW, UH, FROM TIME TO TIME, WE DO GET REQUESTS FOR A USE OF, OR WELL PLACEMENT OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

AND, UH, THOSE COME ALONG WITH REQUEST FOR A USE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF EITHER PERSONNEL RE OTHER DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESOURCES.

AND, UM, IN A CONVERSATION WITH THE HIGH PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE, WE WERE TALKING, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS AND WHAT POSSIBILITIES THERE MIGHT BE, UH, SO THAT WE COULD HAVE A, UH, PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHAT IMPACT THIS MAY HAVE, OR YOU MIGHT KNOW AS COUNCIL, WHAT IMPACT IT MIGHT HAVE.

AND FOR US TO ALSO, UH, I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT WHEN WE HAD THE ISSUE OR THE QUESTION ABOUT, UH, ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT WOULD ALSO HELP IN THAT RESPECT THAT WE GET TO THESE ITEMS THAT WILL SPEAK TO THAT, UH, AHEAD OF IT A WEEK AHEAD OF TIME, SO THAT WE HAVE TIME TO PREPARE THOSE, PUT THEM ON THE AGENDA AND, UH, BE ABLE TO GET THEM PREPARED.

AND SO, UH, THE HIGH FOREIGNS COMMITTEE MET AND DISCUSSED THE CREATION OF THE ORDINANCE, UH, FOR AN ORDERLY PROCESS, REPLACING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND HOW IT MIGHT BE, UH, HELD OR MAYBE HOW EVENT MAY BE HELD BY A COUNCIL MEMBER.

AND WHAT WAS, WHAT CAME FROM THAT AND WORKING WITH LEGAL AND WORKING WITH THE COMMITTEE WAS THAT THE MAYOR OR A COUNCIL MEMBER BY MOTION AND AUTHORIZATION, AND MAJORITY OF COUNCIL, UH, WOULD BE ABLE TO PLACE ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA.

SO, UH, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, AND STILL NEED TO WORK THROUGH THIS.

AND THAT'S WHY IT'S ON THIS, THE WORKSHOP TONIGHT, HE, JOYCE AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT THE, UM, AT THE END OF THE AGENDA OR THE AGENDA, YOUR CURRENT AGENDA, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU'D LIKE PLACED ON AN ITEM, I DON'T HAVE TO BE PLACED ON THE FUTURE AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION.

IT CAN BE MENTIONED AT THAT TIME.

AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST TIME OR SENDING AS IT TALKS ABOUT IN HERE IN WRITING, UH, AT LEAST, UH, EXCEPT AS IT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE BY FIVE ON THE SEVENTH DAY PROCEEDING.

THE MEAN, THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST MENTIONING THAT YOU

[00:30:01]

AND THEN, UH, THE ORDINANCE WOULD ALSO PROVIDE FOR, UH, THE UTILIZATION AND OUTLINE THE FUNDS, AGAIN, PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, CONTRACTORS, AND SIMILAR RESOURCES.

AND WITH THAT AT, UM, AN EVENT OR CITY EXPENDITURE THAT IS REQUESTED BY A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT IS NOT PROGRAMMED OR, UH, YOUR TOWN HALL MEANS, UH, SUCH AS YOU'VE HAD IN THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.

AND IT'S NOT BEEN SCHEDULED BY THE CITY EVENT CALENDAR ADOPTED BY, WITHIN THE BUDGET OR SPECIFICALLY BUDGETED FOR, UH, BY COUNCIL, UH, FOR SUCH FUNDS PERSONNEL EQUIPMENT CONTRACTORS, SIMILAR RESOURCES SHALL BE PLACED ON AN AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION AT LEAST 45 DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF THE PROPOSED EVENT OR EXPENDITURE.

THIS IS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR.

AND WE WERE TAKING THIS FROM THE, UH, ORDINANCE WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW WITH THE EVENT PARTICIPATION WHILE WE HAVE OUTSIDE PEOPLE WHO MAY WANT RESOURCES DONATED OR USE OF A CITY FACILITY.

AND WE PROVIDE IN THERE THAT THEY MUST DO THAT 60 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EVENT.

AND SO WE HAD 60 DAYS PREVIOUSLY, BUT, UH, THE HPO TEAM, UH, MENTIONED THAT 45 WOULD BE, UH, SUFFICIENT.

WE BELIEVE THAT'S THAT TO BE THE CASE AS WELL.

SECONDLY, A COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTING THE VENDOR EXPENDITURE DESCRIBED BY THE SUBSECTION SHALL SUBMIT SUCH REQUEST TO THE CITY MANAGER AND WRITING IN IDENTIFY RESOURCES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE PERSONNEL BEING REQUESTED AGAIN, THAT WAY WE CAN LET YOU KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE, AND WE CAN PROVIDE A BACKUP ON IT.

AND THE CITY MANAGER SHALL REVIEW THE REQUEST AND SUBMIT TO THIS BEFORE SUBMISSION TO COUNCIL PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION.

THAT INCLUDES THE INFORMATION AGAIN ON THE UNPACK THAT WOULD HAVE WITH REGARDS TO THE DIFFERENT RESOURCES BEING UTILIZED.

SO AGAIN, JUST AS A LITTLE BIT MORE ORDERLY PROCESS AND DOING THIS, AND IT ALSO GIVES US TIME SO THAT WE CAN FLESH OUT A, A YOU AND US CAN FLESH OUT A REQUEST AND, UH, PROVIDE GOOD INFORMATION FOR WHEN BEING CONSIDERED.

THANK YOU.

UM, I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK THING FOR THE HBO COMMITTEE, UH, AND THE CHAIR, UM, FOR US AS A COUNCIL TO LOOK AT THIS WORKSHOP AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THIS ITEM.

THERE'S A LOT OF ITEMS IN HERE THAT THIS IS AN ORDINANCE.

ONCE IT GETS MOTION AND APPROVED AND PASSED, IT IS SET IN, IN THAT WAY.

SO I LIKE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO RE, TO HAVE A WORKSHOP, TO LOOK AT THIS.

AND THAT IS MY COMMENT FOR THE HBO COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS THE COMMITTEE CHAIR.

UM, I'M NOT PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THIS, BUT MAYBE WHO IS THE CHAIR.

AND CAN YOU GUYS PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION REGARDING THIS ORDINANCE OTHER THAN WHAT BUILDS THE CHAIR? OKAY.

CAN YOU PROVIDE US MORE INFORMATION? I JUST WANT TO HAVE MAYBE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS ACTUALLY WAS PROPOSED.

I KNOW MOST OF THE TIME WE HAVE ORDINANCE IS FROM A MAJOR EVENT OR SOME TYPE OF PROBLEMATIC EVENT THAT OCCURRED SO WELL, I CAN'T PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OTHER THAN WHAT BILL HAS ALREADY MENTIONED.

SO WE DISCUSSED THIS IN OUR, IN THE MEETING AND COLLABORATIVELY, WE DECIDED ON THE ORDINANCE, HOWEVER, THIS IS WHAT WOULD BRING ME BEFORE COUNCIL FOR YOUR APPROVAL.

UM, I CAN'T ADD ANY ADDITIONAL WHAT HE'S ALREADY SAID BECAUSE HIS CURRENT AUDIT ARTICLE ALL COORDINATES AND IT WAS PLACED IN ON THE AGENDA.

AND SO WE WANTED TO GO BACK AND JUST LOOK AT HOW WE CAN REQUEST THE AGENDAS.

IS EVERYBODY CLEAR.

EXAMPLE OF JUST WHAT HAPPENED TODAY AND ITEMS COMING IN AT FOUR 30 IN THE EVENING, AND WE DON'T HAVE IT, YOU KNOW, FROM MY OPINION, THAT WAS A STAFF ISSUE, BUT THIS SEEMS TO GOVERN MORE OF COUNCIL, CORRECT.

UM, COUNCILWOMAN STERLING HAS STATED THAT SHE WANTED TO PREVENT ISSUES THAT HAPPENED TODAY.

AND FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT WAS THE STAFF ISSUE.

THIS ORDINANCE WILL GOVERN MORE OF COUNCIL PROHIBITING US FROM PUTTING ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, CORRECT.

OR HAVING, HAVING THEM PRESENTED TO AND PUT ON THE AGENDA SEVEN DAYS IN ADVANCE SO THAT INFORMATION CAN BE BROUGHT FORWARD.

AND THEN THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE CAN DETERMINE TO PUT IT ON.

AND OKAY.

SO CAN YOU, I DO AGREE WITH YOU MAYOR ABOUT HAVING A WORKSHOP.

I JUST WANT A LITTLE MORE CLARITY ABOUT THE VOTE.

THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE.

I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO HAVE, UH, BE ABLE TO HAVE A WORKSHOP SO THAT WE CAN BETTER INFORM THE SUBMISSION OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

SO ARE YOU LOOKING FOR THAT? I DO BELIEVE IN ORDERLY FASHION FOR THINGS TO BE DONE ORDERLY.

I'M JUST CONCERNED THE FACT THAT WE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ITEMS, UM, OR ISSUES IN THE, IN THE COMMUNITY, YOUR PHONE DOESN'T RING ON THE WEEKEND BILL, UNLESS WE'RE GIVING YOU, YOU KNOW, I, I AGENDA ITEMS, NOT AGENDA ITEMS, I'M SORRY, DIRECTORS, OR THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT WE ARE THE FACE OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO IF AN ISSUE COMES TO US AND WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR APPROVAL, UM, HYPOTHETICALLY MY COLLEAGUES MIGHT NOT THINK THAT ISSUE IS IMPORTANT

[00:35:01]

SO IS THAT THE WAY THAT WE WANT TO PULL BACK THINGS I'M LEAVING TO YOU? THE COUNCIL? I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS POINTING TO A CONSUMER EDWARDS IS THE SAME THING.

I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND, YOU KNOW, CLARIFICATION'S, I SHOULD SAY ON SOME OF THIS, AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES, ESPECIALLY ON HBO COMMITTEE AND THE CHAIR TWO AND THE REST OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

UM, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN THIS ON KNOW FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND LOOKING AT IT AND, UH, OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT.

SO THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS AROUND IT.

SO I LIKE TO HAVE THIS ITEM BE MOVED AND GO BACK TO A WORKSHOP.

SO THIS WAY WE CAN DISCUSS THIS AND COME BACK TO IT WHERE EVERYONE IS CLEAR ON EXACTLY WHAT ALL THE, ALL THESE ITEMS ARE.

AND I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, JUST SEEING THIS AND LOOKING AT IT AND MOVED TO, TO ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE AS IT'S WRITTEN, UM, AS I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AROUND IT.

AND THAT'S, AND IF I COULD, THIS WAS NOT FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.

THIS IS ON A SPECIAL AGENDA FOR YOUR CON FOR YOUR DISCUSSION.

LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR A WORKSHOP THAT WAS THE INTENT TONIGHT.

SO, SO SINCE WE'RE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION TO COUNCIL MEMBER, EDWARD'S POINT, SHE GETS A CALL, YOU KNOW, TUESDAY, RIGHT.

SHE WANTS TO PUT IT ON THE NEXT WEEK'S COUNCIL MEETING, BUT SHE NOW HAS TO WAIT 45 DAYS AND THEN WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.

SO WALK ME THROUGH AN EXAMPLE.

SO THAT'D BE SEVEN DAYS NET SOMETHING, THE REQUEST, AND THEN IT COULD BE APPLIED, UH, FOR THE NEXT AGENDA.

OR IF, UH, AS AN EXAMPLE, UH, AT THE END OF ANOTHER MEETING, UH, IT CAN BE BROUGHT FORWARD AS A CONSIDERATION FOR MOTION BY, UH, AN AUTHORIZATION BY MAJORITY OF COUNCIL.

LIKE ANY OTHER ITEM WOULD TYPICALLY BE, UH, BROUGHT FORWARD FOR A FUTURE AGENDA, UH, TWO OR MORE SOMETIMES WE'LL GET, UH, TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT MAY HAVE SIMILAR ITEMS, UH, THEN WE CAN PUT THEM TOGETHER, IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO PUT THEM TOGETHER RATHER THAN HAVING TWO SEPARATE IS SPEAKS TO.

AND THEN, UH, IF THERE'S AN EXPENDITURE AND IT'S NOT BEEN SCHEDULED OR IT'S AN EVENT NOT HAVING BEEN SCHEDULED, THEN THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED PUT ON AN AGENDA.

AND AGAIN, UH, SEVEN DAYS NOTICE, AND THEN WE CAN GET IT ONTO THE AGENDA, BUT THE, UH, 45 DAYS, WOULD THAT BE FOR CONSIDERATION BY YOU GUYS, FOR YOU, THE COUNCIL, UH, WITH REGARD TO BEING ABLE TO GET THAT ALL THE INFORMATION NECESSARY AND ALL THE RESOURCES IN PLACE, IN A TIMELY FASHION WITH, UH, UNDERSTANDING HOW IT'D BE UTILIZED.

OKAY.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION TO ME THAT'S JUST NOT REALISTIC.

UM, JUST TO EXPAND ON MAYOR PRO SEMEN'S POINT, WE GET CALLS ALL THE TIME AND TO WAIT SEVEN DAYS WHEN WE'RE HAVING PRESSING ISSUES AND RESIDENTS WANT RESULTS OR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

UM, I JUST THINK THAT THAT MAKES OUR JOB HARDER AND IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR YOU GUYS.

AND WE'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE CITY.

NO, AND THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT, THIS IS FOR US COLLECTIVELY TO BE ABLE TO WORK MORE UNIFORMLY WITH THE INTENT.

I THINK SO ALSO THAT MAYBE WE DON'T NEED EVERYTHING ON THE AGENDA.

MAYBE THAT CALL THAT DOES COME IN, GETS DIRECTED AND HANDLED RIGHT AWAY AND WE'RE UPDATED IN A TIMELY FASHION.

SO SOME OF THOSE EXAMPLES MAY NOT HAVE TO COME WELL.

THAT'S GOOD.

I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THEN WHAT IF THAT'S WHEN THE, HEY, WE HAVE THIS ORDINANCE IN PLACE AND THEN YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING US TO GO AROUND THOSE LOOPHOLES, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, OUR ORDINANCE IS IN PLACE, SO WE CAN HAVE A CONCRETE IDEA OF HOW THINGS AND PROCESSES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE EMPLOYED.

UH, MIRA, WE, UH, HAVING THAT WORKSHOP FOR THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

YES.

OKAY.

AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, ON THE SCRIPTS THAT I HAVE, IT IS EMOTION SECOND AND ABOUT, YOU SAID THIS WAS JUST A COUNCIL DISCUSSION, NOT WHAT I HAVE, IF I MAY GENERALLY, FOR ANY DISCUSSION, YOU NEED A MOTION.

AND WHAT WAS THAT? SO FOR ANY GENERALLY, FOR ANY JUST DISCUSSION OF AN ITEM UNDER ROBERT'S RULES, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MENTION OF A SECOND, UH, MAYOR, IF WE CHOSE, IF SOMEONE CHOSE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, I TAKE A LITTLE ORDINANCE PROPOSED AS IT IS.

IT CAN BE DONE THEN NOW TO GET VOTED ON, OR I GET A SECOND, BUT IT COULD BE VOTED DOWN OR VOTED UP, YOU KNOW, SO UNDERSTOOD.

BUT I HAVE ITEM NUMBER TWO, IT'S THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION DOESN'T REQUIRE A MOTION WE DISCUSSED.

YOU SAID, ITEM TWO C THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW THAT THE REASON I ASKED BILL THAT

[00:40:01]

AND YOU SAID THAT ON THIS ITEM IS JUST REALLY TO DISCUSS, BUT I HAVE AN ITEM RIGHT ON THE PAPER BEFORE ITEM NUMBER TWO WOULD SAY, CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION, THERE'S NO MOTION OR SECOND OR ANY OF THAT IT'S NEEDED.

UH, TECHNICALLY FOR ANY DISCUSSION, YOU NEED EMOTION.

THAT'S, THAT'S MY ERA, BUT TECHNICALLY YOU NEED EMOTIONAL.

I'M NOT DISAGREEING, BUT I'M JUST SAYING, LET'S GET CONSISTENCY ON THIS.

SO WE'LL HAVE THE WORKSHOP AT THE NEXT MEETING, SPECIAL MEETING.

YES.

[2.(d) Receive information on the redistricting process and authorize staff to proceed with a request for qualifications for redistricting legal services. (Proposed presenter: City Attorney E. Joyce Iyamu)]

THIS ITEM IS REALLY JUST AN UPDATE TO LET YOU ALL KNOW WHERE WE ARE ON THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS.

AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S CHARTER REQUIRES THAT THE CITY, UH, REDISTRICT EVERY 10 YEARS, YOU KNOW, YOUR FIRST QUESTION, AND THE FIRST QUESTION OF THE PUBLIC THOUGH MIGHT BE WHAT IS REDISTRICTING? REDISTRICTING IS SIMPLY PROCESS OF DRAWING THE LINES OF THE DISTRICTS FROM WHICH THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE ELECTED.

SO FOR OUR DISTRICT MEMBERS, THIS PROCESS PROVIDES YOUR AREAS ESSENTIALLY OF COVERAGE FOR THE PUBLIC.

AGAIN, THE CITY'S CHARTER REQUIRES THIS PROCESS.

ONCE EVERY 10 YEARS, THE LAST PROCESS TOOK PLACE IN 2012.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELEASED THE MOST RECENT CENSUS DATA ON AUGUST 12TH OF THIS YEAR.

UM, AT THIS POINT, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS REQUESTED, UM, A SOLICITATION FOR A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, FOR SPECIALIZED LEGAL SERVICES.

THIS IS THE SAME PROCESS THAT WAS FOLLOWED IN 2011 AND 2012.

UM, WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING, AND YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE PROPOSED TIMELINE IS THAT THE SPECIALIZED, UH, LEGAL SERVICES FOLKS COME IN, THEY PROVIDE AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE CITY'S CENSUS DATA.

THEY WORK WITH OUR GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INDIVIDUALS AS WELL, AS WELL AS THEIR GIS PEOPLE TO PREPARE PROPOSED PLANS OR REDISTRICTING.

ADDITIONALLY, YOU ALL ARE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO IDENTIFY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO MIGHT PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON ANY PROPOSED PLANS THAT COME BEFORE YOU, ADDITIONALLY, YOU ALL, UM, AT THE BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR IN THIS PROCESS WOULD ALSO SET THE PARAMETERS OF COURSE, WITHIN A LEGAL, UH, ILLEGAL BASIS AND WITHIN LEGAL PARAMETERS FOR DETERMINING HOW YOU WILL DRAW THE LINES.

SO IN THE PAST GUIDELINES INCLUDED ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY COURTS, SUCH AS GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES, AS WELL AS EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES, AS YOU DETERMINE WHAT AREAS ARE CONTAINED WITHIN EACH DISTRICT.

SO THE PROPOSED TIMELINE PROVIDES THAT YOU ALL WILL HOPEFULLY ADOPT ANY PLAN BY APRIL, 2022.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? NOTICE IT, THE COST FOR THIS AS $6,000.

UM, CAN YOU GIVE A BREAKDOWN AS TO WHAT THAT GOES TO? SURE.

AND THAT'S JUST AN INITIAL PROPOSAL.

I LOOKED AROUND TO SEE WHAT OTHER CITIES HAVE ALREADY AUTHORIZED FOR THEIR SPECIALIZED SERVICES FOR REDISTRICTING.

AND SO I SAW THE COST IS ACTUALLY ABOUT 5,000 OR 5,200, BUT I JUST PUT IT UP TO 6,000, BUT THAT INCLUDES THAT INITIAL ASSESSMENT.

SO THAT INCLUDES THE REVIEW OF THE CURRENT DEMOGRAPHICS, THE CURRENT POPULATION IN EACH DISTRICT, AND A PROPOSAL MOVING FORWARD FOR REDISTRICTING THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THEIR ACT, THE DRAWING OF THE PLAN.

UM, LOOKING BACK AT 20 12, 20 11, I BELIEVE THE CITY PAID ABOUT $12,000 OR THE ACTUAL DRAWING OF THE PLAN THAT YOU, THAT THE THEN COUNCIL ENDED UP ADOPTING IN 2012.

AND THAT'S DONE BY A THIRD PARTY OUTSIDE COMPANY, CORRECT PARTY, BUT IN A COLLABORATION WITH CITY STAFF AS WELL, THIS GROUP WOULD WORK WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

THEY WOULD WORK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THEY WOULD CERTAINLY WORK WITH THE GIS INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE THEY

[00:45:01]

UP TO A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, WHICH IS ABOUT 10%.

SO THAT IS CORRECT.

THAT'S ONE OF THE PARAMETERS THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU WILL ADOPT WHEN YOU'RE READY FOR, UH, ADOPTING GUIDELINES.

AND I'VE INCLUDED THE 20 11, 20 12 INFORMATION IN YOUR PACKETS, JUST SO YOU CAN SEE KIND OF WHAT THE PREVIOUS GUIDELINES LOOK LIKE AND WHAT YOU ALL MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS AS YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AS I RECALL ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AND SEE IF SOME OF THOSE BOUNDARIES CUT ACROSS A PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE HALF OF THE, UH, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT IS IN ONE DISTRICT AND THE OTHER, UH, IS IN ANOTHER DISTRICT.

SO WE HAVE SOME LATITUDE TO MOVE SOME OF THOSE, THOSE BOUNDARIES SO THAT WE CAN TRY TO KEEP, UH, A DEVELOPMENT, UH, YOU KNOW, IN ONE PARTICULAR, UH, DISTRICT, AS OPPOSED TO SPLITTING THEM UP, YOU WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS THE OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC HEARING TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL, SO THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE THEIR INPUT IN THE PROCESS AND ON THE PROPOSALS AS WELL.

SO I WANTED TO KNOW, IS IT TRADITIONAL OR IS IT COMMON TO JUST HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING OR IS IT TILL WE JUST ADD AN ADDITIONAL ONE AT THE BEGINNING AND HAVE ONE AT THE END, IT'S UP TO, IT'S UP TO YOU ALL IN 2012, I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE, BUT THEY ALSO HAD THE KIND OF THE CITIZENS GROUP THAT KIND OF CAME IN AND PROVIDED FEEDBACK.