Miami City Council
⚠️ DISCREPANCIES
⚠️ Discrepancies & Missing Documents (3)
⚠️ No Official Agenda Document
The city has not published an agenda document for this meeting on AgendaCenter. This is a transparency concern - agendas should be publicly available before meetings.
⚠️ No Official Minutes Published
The city has not published official minutes for this meeting. Under Oklahoma Open Meeting Act (25 O.S. § 308), minutes of all public meetings must be kept and made available.
🟡 City Has Not Published Minutes
Our transcript is complete but the city has not published official minutes on AgendaCenter. This may indicate a delay or failure to comply with open records requirements.
📹 Meeting Video
📝 AI Transcript
[00:02] Is that a head nod? Okay. All right. Okay.
[00:05] A call to one of the Schuriger meeting of the Miami City Council for today's date.
[00:09] Item two is the Commission of Scott Miller for 15 years of service.
[00:13] And Christie, I see your name next to that.
[00:17] That's the way we worked with family work here.
[00:22] Or bizarre.
[00:24] Why don't you work with your team?
[00:26] I'm a big near work and let's go.
[00:28] Yeah.
[00:29] Well, this Scott's anniversary was actually in August.
[00:37] So we're doing a little catch up here, but Scott's been with city since August of 2001.
[00:43] He worked with the Lyme crew at that time.
[00:46] And then after about four and a half years, he moved to the meter department to read meters for a while.
[00:52] And then in 2013 he transferred to engineering and community development.
[00:58] Which is where he's at now.
[01:01] He's actually starting the process of learning the nuisance code side of community development.
[01:08] So he will be out and about taking care of nuisance issues for us,
[01:14] which we need a lot of help with that.
[01:17] Scott has two kids.
[01:18] One is Mila, that's his daughter and she is a freshman at NEO.
[01:24] And a son Ty, who is a junior at commerce.
[01:28] And we're thankful to have Scott.
[01:33] Yeah, he has not attended the training yet.
[01:36] He's going to December.
[01:38] Okay.
[01:39] So we are, he's got his code book and he's doing some job shadowing right now.
[01:46] He's actually working with me directly on the demos.
[01:50] So he does all of our inspections of the properties that are up for demo does all the fancy photography.
[02:00] And then he represents the city in the hearings on the demos.
[02:04] And we'll speak to the condition of the property and what he saw when he went out and inspected it.
[02:10] Okay.
[02:11] Congratulations Scott.
[02:21] Okay. Adam 3 is a public input and unscheduled personal parents.
[02:24] It was just to address the council on any of the agenda items.
[02:28] They're being not out and forest consent agenda staff is recommending item 5-3-12 for the consent agenda.
[02:36] If there are no questions on any of those items to entertain a motion.
[02:41] Motion approved.
[02:48] So I'm going to pull out an item 12.
[02:49] We're going to 5-3-11.
[02:50] You might not pull out your item.
[02:52] 5-3-11.
[02:53] Okay.
[02:54] Okay.
[02:55] And just to ask us, do you second thing?
[02:57] Well, I was looking at one of these songs.
[03:00] I'm going to do it back up a little bit.
[03:03] I'm going to work today, so I'm looking at that.
[03:16] Well, I want to look at Adam 12 for him.
[03:19] If you want to take a moment to look at that, we'll hold off on that motion.
[03:23] We'll talk about Adam.
[03:24] Well, I'm just curious.
[03:25] Adam 12, the names are all listed with what is then chart?
[03:31] Oh, that's because we use delicious topics.
[03:35] Yes, that's for your consent agenda.
[03:37] I don't pay any attention.
[03:38] That's a vote.
[03:39] That's all that is in your vote.
[03:41] I can't hold it.
[03:42] It's not anything to do with Adam 12.
[03:44] No.
[03:45] No, that's your vote.
[03:46] Okay.
[03:47] All right.
[03:48] I don't have any other questions.
[03:51] That's all right.
[03:52] So I know if you have something else.
[03:55] So I can just give my vote.
[03:57] Okay.
[03:59] I look like we're all committing to do something.
[04:01] I know it.
[04:02] I know it.
[04:03] Well, we want to do that.
[04:06] Well, I'm making motion for the items.
[04:08] I'm lost now.
[04:10] I think so.
[04:11] That's a 12.
[04:12] I'll second.
[04:13] Yeah.
[04:14] Okay.
[04:15] I'm good, yeah.
[04:16] Little ball.
[04:17] Johnson.
[04:18] All right.
[04:19] Lewis.
[04:20] I question.
[04:21] I.
[04:22] Okay.
[04:23] I'm so keen.
[04:24] I'm in the middle of memorandum of understanding.
[04:25] The final account of the OSU.
[04:26] Qualcomm extensions include use of expert building at the federal grants on the third Sunday of every month.
[04:31] Alicia.
[04:32] What what has happened is they had such a great enrollment into that program that they need to do another night.
[04:40] And they're going to be starting October.
[04:43] 16th.
[04:44] I'm yeah.
[04:45] It's get ready to start now.
[04:47] So they needed to amend it.
[04:49] That's going to mean that the city's going to contribute like $6,000 worth of rental fees of letting them use the building until June of the 17th for their.
[04:59] It's their sports gun club.
[05:01] So they just asked that we amend that form and and add that extra night there.
[05:06] And so you're just adding one night every third Sunday of every month for now until July of 2017.
[05:19] Okay.
[05:20] So if you'll see it broke it down that the the the work for that would be normally $6,000 to take it all the way to July of 2017.
[05:32] And so that's what the city's contributing to the OSU extension for them to be able to have their their children's program of their gun sports gun club.
[05:43] So we keep saying adding one night but it's not a single night it's Sunday nights.
[05:51] Yeah, every month right now they've got it for the third Tuesday of every month and they're wanting to have it the third Tuesday and the third Sunday.
[06:00] okay. Does that conflict with anything else?
[06:04] No, Jamie, Jamie, Jamie, check that all out. He was in with missing your and everything worked out fine.
[06:13] It's just he's on vacation and can't present it.
[06:15] Okay. Okay.
[06:16] He was good with it. She was good with it. Everything worked out great.
[06:19] Yeah.
[06:20] We already weigh the fee on the first one.
[06:22] Okay. Yes.
[06:23] And actually it's an MOU that we have and if you, the MOU should be on there.
[06:29] Yeah.
[06:30] And what it is is it's the kids, cats and more and then the sports gun club that we did in MOU with them at the beginning of the fiscal year.
[06:40] So that they could use it all of the all fiscal year to be able to have those kids programs.
[06:47] Okay.
[06:48] Any other questions?
[06:50] No.
[06:51] Okay. So do we have a motion to approve the amended MOU?
[06:55] I'll make that motion.
[06:56] And second.
[06:57] Oh, second.
[06:58] Well, call please.
[06:59] Western.
[07:00] All right.
[07:01] Johnson.
[07:02] Lewis.
[07:03] Aye.
[07:04] Aye.
[07:05] Aye. I'm 14.
[07:06] As a man ordinate 1642 requiring a printed resolution approved by the city attorney for decisions made by the Board of Adjustments in favor of an applicant.
[07:13] Ben, it has your name by.
[07:15] Yes.
[07:16] Members, the prison ordinance requires that when the Board of Adjustment does grant a variance to a citizen.
[07:26] But they have to execute a specifically formatted resolution.
[07:35] And the reality is, while some variances have been granted, the resolution has never been done is my understanding has been the practice.
[07:45] But the ordinance provides that the variance is not official until that resolution has been done.
[07:53] So the state statute is not required.
[07:58] The state statute simply allows the Board of Adjustment to grant variances.
[08:04] So we're changing our ordinance to make it a little simpler for the Board of Adjustment.
[08:09] They can grant the variance as they have done in the past.
[08:15] It does require that there be a written document setting out why they're granting the variance.
[08:22] But not to the extent of the formal resolution that we have in place right now.
[08:28] And that's simply because something has to be filed over in the county clerk's office to memorialize what we've done.
[08:37] And so we're just simplifying the ordinance bringing more into compliance with what state law provides.
[08:46] So what it says after the comma requiring a printed resolution, what we're really doing is deleting that requirement.
[08:54] Okay.
[08:55] Yes.
[08:56] We're not adding a requirement or deleting that requirement.
[09:00] And if the citizens adopt a new charter in April,
[09:04] well, this will become a matter of fact to move
[09:06] because we'll be following state, charter state,
[09:10] statuids, it's killing us.
[09:13] We're going to have to have a massive overview
[09:19] of all of our ordinances at that point.
[09:22] Okay.
[09:26] Okay.
[09:27] So we'll probably need to talk about that in a few minutes.
[09:29] That's all we have to talk about.
[09:31] No, we might not do that.
[09:33] Okay.
[09:34] Any concerns?
[09:35] Any other questions for being on item 14?
[09:37] No.
[09:38] If there are none, then make a motion.
[09:40] I'll make the most to amend ordinance number 1642.
[09:45] Make sure we move into the requirement for a printed resolution.
[09:49] Do we have a second?
[09:50] I'll say.
[09:51] Do we have a second?
[09:52] We'll call please.
[09:53] Shulks.
[09:54] Aye.
[09:55] Lewis.
[09:56] Aye.
[09:58] All right.
[09:59] In resolution opposing the requested great hike by empire electric company,
[10:03] pending before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
[10:06] I know some of you have probably seen some correspondence about this issue.
[10:10] And being that's wearing another hat, different hat, has been leading the effort.
[10:14] I think on behalf of Ottawa County and residents within our county that are in power
[10:19] customers.
[10:20] Being able to just give a quick thumbnail of that.
[10:23] Certainly.
[10:24] Basically what has happened is empire district,
[10:27] electric company, has applied to the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to raise the
[10:33] utility rates for their their customers that are in Oklahoma that will match the rates that
[10:41] have been approved by the equivalent of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission in Missouri.
[10:47] I forget what is technical maintenance.
[10:50] The problem for people in this area is that it would amount to on average a
[10:56] 37% rate hike.
[11:02] And it would remove approximately 4.7 million dollars from our local economy.
[11:08] And that is the main point of this particular resolution.
[11:14] While it does not directly affect the city of Miami, it does indirectly affect all of our
[11:20] businesses because that's 4.7 million dollars that people don't have to spend
[11:25] in and around the businesses of Miami.
[11:30] So for the process under the Corporation Commission rules is that they will require
[11:41] to give out a notice.
[11:44] And if the Corporation Commission did not enter in order to the contrary,
[11:51] that rate hike request automatically went into effect 30 days after the notice went out.
[11:58] Well, there was a lot of money.
[12:00] such a uproar locally that the corporation commission did in fact enter the order that they're
[12:07] not going to allow the automatic rate height to go into effect and rather they're going to require
[12:13] a full-blown rate hike hearing to determine what is an appropriate return for the investment that
[12:20] they have in Oklahoma. So the point of this resolution is not because it is
[12:30] the city of Miami not directly affected by those rates, but certainly significantly indirectly
[12:37] affected. The point of this resolution is to go to the to be sent to the corporation commission
[12:45] and express the concern that the city of Miami has as to the negative effect that would have to
[12:52] our economy. And as soon as lots of other entities are the county, the county has been a similar
[13:02] thing, several of the school districts that are directly affected by it have also done
[13:08] resolutions, several of the cities directly affected and indirectly affected have also
[13:15] done similar resolutions and we're encouraging citizens both within the Empire District
[13:21] Service Area and those outside to let the corporation commission know. In theory, all of the
[13:32] customers of the service are represented in these proceedings by the Attorney General's Office. They have
[13:38] encouraged that we do such things, you know, express the concerns that we have. It does appear that several
[13:50] of the industries that are directly affected, which by the way, the average increase for an
[13:56] industry in their service area would be $25,000 a month to their utility bill. So they are several
[14:05] of them are apparently going together to hire attorneys to represent them in the full-blown rate high
[14:14] hearing. But as far as John Q. Citizen in the area, they will be represented by the Attorney
[14:23] General's Office who wants as many of these to help them to show the the significance of this rate high
[14:32] in our area. Is it fair to say that it's likely that it will be some sort of increase. The
[14:37] our goal is to minimize that as much as possible. More than likely there will be, but there have been
[14:44] instances where a utility has asked for a rate hike and actually the Corporation Commission
[14:50] reduced. But they couldn't get charged because they found that they were already making too much.
[15:00] been on hearing?
[15:02] There was a hearing last week where the court
[15:06] entered, or excuse me, corporation commission,
[15:09] entered that order saying that they're going
[15:11] to make it go through the full loan process.
[15:14] And then there's another hearing scheduled for Thursday
[15:18] of this week, where a scheduling order will
[15:23] be entered telling Empire when they have to file their new request.
[15:29] How long the respondents have to respond to that?
[15:34] That's sort of thing.
[15:35] It's purely a procedural thing, a dust point.
[15:38] So until all that takes place, we won't know the time line.
[15:41] No.
[15:42] OK.
[15:43] Did they give any reason why they have such a steep increase
[15:49] instead of more of a gradual?
[15:51] Well, there have been some gradual increases in Missouri.
[15:56] And those, none of those have ever been applied
[15:59] before in Oklahoma.
[16:02] So actually the last increase in Missouri was
[16:06] three or four or five percent increase.
[16:11] But there have been several incremental increases that have not
[16:15] come down on the Oklahoma side.
[16:18] The problem is that this is Oklahoma not Missouri.
[16:22] And so the costs are somewhat different here than they are there.
[16:28] And actually their current rates are pretty consistent with both what
[16:33] the city of Miami charges.
[16:34] It's customers as well as what REC, who is the other service provider in this area,
[16:40] charges its customers.
[16:42] So all those also will be taken in consideration by the Corporation Commission
[16:48] in making its eventual ruling.
[16:50] And you've got organizations like schools who have already buzzed
[16:53] for the year and just be caught short potential and
[16:58] great.
[16:59] And significantly short.
[17:03] OK.
[17:04] Any questions?
[17:05] If not, I don't think emotional item 15.
[17:07] I make a motion that we send the relation of posing the request
[17:10] of great hype by empire to the Corporation Commission of Oklahoma.
[17:14] Oh, second day motion.
[17:15] Okay.
[17:16] Low call please?
[17:17] Lowest.
[17:18] High.
[17:19] Western.
[17:20] All right.
[17:21] Item 16 proposed charge changes.
[17:24] Can you tell us what?
[17:26] Some part of us here.
[17:27] OK.
[17:28] So you have hopefully in front of you.
[17:31] The latest draft.
[17:32] Kristen, I am going through the charter again.
[17:38] We found a couple of other areas that we could actually consolidate things
[17:43] and make them a little more logical.
[17:45] I don't think that there are any significant substantive changes
[17:50] other than we did add some provisions to deal with
[17:54] emergency contracting situations.
[17:58] Also.
[18:00] to bring the charter into conformity with what is allowed under state law.
[18:06] And so that is the really the essence.
[18:12] There are a few typographical errors that we found in like I said, some reorganization that was done,
[18:21] and I can't.
[18:22] I don't recall that there were any really other substance changes.
[18:27] But you have a red line copy that shows you all the changes from the last version that you saw.
[18:36] That document would be considered amendment number one when it gets in its final form.
[18:44] You also have another sheet that is identified, identifies the amendments as amendments to
[18:56] amendment three.
[18:59] And those are to discuss or present to the voters, the other items that were discussed about the possibility of city council members elected officials to participate in the health program,
[19:21] and then also to receive a stipend.
[19:26] I put the wording in there to show that,
[19:31] how at least in vision this would be presented to the voters.
[19:38] For instance, amendment number two,
[19:42] doesn't even come into play unless the amendment number one, the major redraft is approved by the voters.
[19:51] And then likewise, amendment three,
[19:55] comes into play again only if amendment one is drafted or adopted by the citizens.
[20:03] So two and three are independent of each other, both are independent on one, which is the overall.
[20:13] So the benefit of citizens that are watching tonight and the benefit of the guests who will have asked to help us report on this to the citizens.
[20:25] Can you characterize in general the nature of the changes in the objective of the change,
[20:34] which is that we are at your recommending in the chart and that we're contemplating.
[20:39] Well, the, yes, the,
[20:43] the Choder as it exists right now includes a lot of high-k provisions that were enacted in 19,
[20:54] 19, 19 or something like that.
[21:00] Most, a good money of them, I have really no relevance whatsoever to being a charter provision.
[21:06] I mean, such as provisions to regulate firecrackers, that really does not belong in the charter.
[21:15] So it removes those archaic provisions.
[21:19] It generally brings the charter into conformity with state law.
[21:26] But it does maintain the present structure that the city has, at this point, as a form of government,
[21:37] a form of government, it certainly simplifies everything.
[21:44] Now, with all of those changes in there to leave it as exactly the same format of the charter
[21:54] as it exists right now, it would be pretty incomprehensible, because there would be major gaps throughout
[22:02] the whole documented jumps from one place to another place.
[22:07] Things that have a logical connection are not together.
[22:11] And so to resolve that problem, what this does is basically does away with the current charter.
[22:22] But then, re-adops the charter in a more organized and imaginable format.
[22:33] And then, of course, we have these other two issues that are our changes from our current situation.
[22:45] And I want to go into those in a little more detail in a minute.
[22:50] You mentioned earlier with the firecrackers that being part of the charter.
[22:55] What I heard you saying is really that those are types of issues that really should be ordinance-stripping.
[23:02] Your charter is the constitution, the need to deal with major issues of governance, type of governance format.
[23:09] Things like that, and then issues like firecrackers, etc.
[23:13] It would be dealt with by way of ordinance.
[23:17] The other thing that you had mentioned in me in conversation that didn't necessarily elaborate on a few minutes ago is that one of your goals is that,
[23:25] through the years, past councils have attempted to use the term state current by adopting and referencing specific state statutes.
[23:33] But they were so specific that now those statutes are the law for our community, even though they're not necessarily the law of the state anymore.
[23:43] And so the other goal is to fix those inconsistencies.
[23:48] And a doctor language that, and I think you said, a doctor states that you'd as amended from time to time.
[23:56] Is that a fairer characterization on after-
[24:00] legislation?
[24:02] That is absolutely correct.
[24:03] In fact, we had a perfect example of that happening today in regards to a demolition
[24:08] project that we're working on in our current ordinance.
[24:14] Now this is more in its situation, but our current ordinance does appear to pretty much match
[24:22] up with the law state law as it was written a decade or so ago, but the state law has now
[24:29] been changed and our ordinance is somewhat out of whack with what the state law allows.
[24:41] Which can create problems for citizens, I would think.
[24:45] In this case, it creates a problem for the city.
[24:48] I'll put it in the state.
[24:49] Okay.
[24:50] Yes.
[24:51] Okay.
[24:52] And just as a point of clarification, I guess these really should be named propositions rather than
[25:01] amendments.
[25:02] Okay.
[25:03] So, I think Ben did a good job of explaining in general what we're trying to accomplish, which
[25:11] is to clean up the chart or reformat it, to bring it into the 21st century and to correct
[25:19] a lot of inconsistencies and in communities that exist now because of good faith efforts in
[25:26] the past, but just by not just, you know, always staying up with whatever was happening, but
[25:31] with the state laws.
[25:34] The other two things, what we'll call proposition two and three, are really driven by, I don't
[25:44] say by me exclusively, but certainly I have lobbied for these things to be considered, and
[25:50] then my 10th year now on the Council, and really got it started getting involved in the city
[25:56] government when they had the election in 2000 to change a form of government.
[26:01] And myself and lots of other people over the years have been involved in trying to encourage
[26:07] people to serve on the city council.
[26:09] And sometimes it's kind of tough to find people that are willing to give up the time and the effort
[26:15] and the energy that it takes.
[26:17] And so one of the ideas was let's provide some sort of incentive to individuals to consider
[26:27] serving.
[26:28] And we, a couple of things that have been discussed, one was the city has a good health insurance
[26:34] plan, health insurance is certainly a hot topic right now.
[26:38] And so one of the ideas was to make council members eligible to participate in the city's health
[26:43] insurance plan.
[26:44] Originally we talked about allowing them to do that on the same terms of the regular city
[26:50] employees.
[26:51] So whatever each year the amount that's allocated for the city employee would be then
[26:56] the council members would also.
[27:00] enjoy that same benefit. But as we thought about it, we wanted, we want to be sure to
[27:07] provide incentives that are attractive to a wide range of people. And so, while for
[27:11] some people, access to health insurance is important. Having it paid for may not be as important
[27:17] as the access to it. For others, just having a stop in to help offset the costs involved
[27:24] with dealing with problems in the community, be it yourself on, you're part of the vehicle,
[27:31] whatever. So, we really push those two things out separately into what we're proposing
[27:37] is amendment 2 and amendment 3. I'll just read amendment 2. The proposed language amendment 2 says,
[27:46] all elective city officers may be enrolled in the city's health care plan at their own
[27:51] expense on the same terms and conditions as other municipal employees. So, if I'm going to
[27:55] give you, I've determined that the employees share of the health insurance is, and I'm
[28:03] making a number of $300. And the council members would be able to participate at that same
[28:11] rate. Well, excuse me, we're good. Actually, no. The city council member under this wording
[28:20] would pay the full cost of it. But they would be entitled to participate in the plan as any
[28:27] other city employee. So, Kim, can you understand how, well, I'm going to ask Kim to give an example
[28:36] if you would, just use yourself or just another employee. What is the current for a rate
[28:42] for an employee? And then what does the city pay on their behalf? And employee pays no premium. But on
[28:50] average, because we're self funded. What goes in per month, and this is employees not dependents,
[28:57] some are between $6.50 to $700 a month. So, that's a good average. I would say, if you take that
[29:06] times 12 months, we're talking about $8,000 a year, is what the city covers for an employee. And that
[29:13] then, based on your understanding of it is the number that a council member would be obligated for. Right.
[29:19] The way that it would be set up is it would be no different than access to an employee had a council member
[29:25] would have the same. Now, obviously, our dependent coverage and our council coverage and employee
[29:30] pays for. So, a council member would have access to those also, but they would pay those
[29:35] premiums. So, the distinction, in my example, I mistakenly was assuming that the employee paid
[29:42] some portion and that whatever that different was would be. But since really the city pays on
[29:47] their behalf, whatever that total number is, then the council member, if they opted to participate,
[29:55] would pay that amount. And each year that number is just...
[30:00] terming based on calculations working with our insure and projections of our costs are.
[30:07] Exactly.
[30:08] Lots of input into that.
[30:10] But it changes.
[30:12] Okay.
[30:14] And there are any questions on any of that?
[30:18] Okay.
[30:19] So that proposition would in effect provide access to any council member that chose to participate
[30:27] in the city's health insurance program at their own cost and that cost would be determined by
[30:33] the city working with their Indian insure to project those costs.
[30:39] Proposition three reads and find words.
[30:46] Starers.
[30:47] And it's kind of long.
[30:49] But basically all of that in city officers should be entitled to receive a monthly stipend of blank.
[30:54] There's not been an amount filled in as of yet.
[30:57] Governor Ordinary Data Expensive holding office, including not limited to use of their product all
[31:02] to build and around the city, product cell phone for city business.
[31:06] And then there's a mechanism for adjusting that stipend every five years based on the CPI.
[31:14] And then there's some exclusions.
[31:16] If, for example, I were to go through some training in Oklahoma City,
[31:22] then I could receive knowledge for that, for that trip, housing, et cetera, for overnight stays.
[31:33] Is that being a fair summarization you think without reading all of them?
[31:37] That is a fair summarization.
[31:40] I'll tell you I arbitrarily picked that five year figure for recalculating because I don't think you can
[31:51] get too confusing to recalculate the amount every year.
[31:55] But then after our arbitrarily did that, I found out that in other instances, the city uses that same figure.
[32:04] So it fits here every five years.
[32:08] Every five years.
[32:09] And likewise, the round trip, mileage of 100 miles, being the criteria of whether or not that particular
[32:23] trip is within that, this particular stipend or whether you can claim an additional travel claim that again,
[32:35] ends up being matching up with how the agreement with the city manager in any way is drawn up.
[32:43] So there are examples that already use those same numbers, yes.
[32:54] So those are, I think that's a pretty good summary.
[32:58] And the primary...
[33:00] objective is to just bring our charter into the 21st century, eliminate some
[33:07] possibilities for confusion, eliminate potential legal issues, clarify a lot of
[33:15] things. It would be proposition one and then proposition two and three, or
[33:20] primarily designed to incent members of the public to be interested, more
[33:27] interested in serving as council members. So, and our proposition two and three, are they
[33:34] pretty common in other cities, our size, our area? I don't know because I'm not,
[33:44] you know, check to see, I can tell you that proposition three is quite similar to what
[33:51] the county has for the county commissioners. I think proposition two is a little
[34:01] bit unique because, for instance, county commissioners do participate in the county
[34:09] health program. Is there actually an employee? They are employees. So, I think the city
[34:17] is a little bit unique. From my experience now, whether or other cities do similar things
[34:22] or not, I don't know, have not checked with it. I have a NHR stream of directors all over
[34:28] the state and so I reached out and asked, and there was about a third that I got a response from
[34:35] this, said they do something like this, so I don't think it's totally, is that something no
[34:40] amelka pill was what? No pill. And I guess, you know, the right now on item two, the monthly stipend,
[34:58] is blank there and I think, you know, to the extent that we could get an idea, a kind of
[35:03] communities, our size, that do something like that. What is, is they provide? I know there's another part of
[35:11] this chart that speaks specifically to this salary issue, which right now there is no salary and we're
[35:16] not, there's no proposal for a salary, although there is a mechanism there for one to be implemented.
[35:23] If there is one implement, there's a mechanism for how that would work, as it is in the current chart,
[35:30] that is not a new provision that we have. The drawback to that is opposed to the stipend from my perspective is
[35:40] simply that when, if in fact, an ordinance were passed and I'm going to make up a number and say $200
[35:49] worth worth. You're not, I always go forward until you go through the election cycle. Since we have
[35:54] staggered terms, you would have some people being eligible for it before others, being eligible.
[36:00] before. That's one reason we felt like the stipend approach was a little bit cleaner
[36:05] way to go with that.
[36:10] I'll do some checking.
[36:13] We have another meeting next week, schedule right now, and the goal is to talk about this again.
[36:20] So if you could have some information by then, it would be helpful.
[36:25] Mayor, I'd like to, if you all liked to, or next week, that's fine, but I would kind
[36:30] of like to, basically, talk about the bank, so you're on the city council.
[36:33] I know many of you have talked about that, and I think that's something we definitely need
[36:38] to talk about.
[36:39] Well, let's talk to you on it for just a little bit, at least so that other members can be thinking
[36:44] about it, because you're right, you and I have talked about that a little bit, which, which
[36:50] I know.
[36:51] So I would go three such in three.
[36:53] And here we go, both of them.
[36:56] Okay.
[37:00] The members live a bit, but we're saying probably the idea, but I think this is all we've got 20 minutes
[37:04] still.
[37:05] I'm fine.
[37:07] Well, the first pitch, the Alice is one and two.
[37:15] That's something to be happy about.
[37:18] Okay.
[37:19] I don't know what.
[37:20] What do you mean?
[37:21] What do you mean by these pages in the next one?
[37:24] Okay.
[37:25] Okay.
[37:26] Thank you.
[37:27] We have a really challenging.
[37:28] But someone's about to, you know, the pages at the bottom.
[37:32] Yeah, it's the second eight for you to write a letter.
[37:35] It's crystals.
[37:36] There are things they're about.
[37:39] Article three section, three reads of all you can see on the council.
[37:41] Should a vacancy occur on the city council accepting the mayor, the mayor shall
[37:45] appoint another person to feel such vacancy and so she'll submit his or her name to
[37:49] the council.
[37:50] If a nomination shall have the approval, the majority of the remaining council, said the
[37:53] appointment shall take effect from and after confirmation of such appointee.
[37:57] In the event said city council shall fall or refuse to confirm such nominations, the mayor shall
[38:02] make another and continue to do so until someone is confirmed.
[38:09] And such appointee shall serve as a member of the city council until the next general city
[38:14] election or until his or her successor is elected and qualified and less than the
[38:19] removed and shall be entitled to the salary and other benefits have set off as for the
[38:23] council.
[38:24] And he, she shall perform the duty zero.
[38:27] So the issue that's come up and it's come up a couple of times since I've been mayor and certainly
[38:32] several times since I've been on the council is vicking agrees to serve and fill out the
[38:41] un-throw portion of Joe's term.
[38:45] But it just so happens and this may not be the exact example.
[38:48] But she may serve six months and there's another election right away where she has to turn around
[38:53] and run for office.
[38:54] And what Neil has suggested is that whenever whoever the mayor is making
[39:00] in appointment and they're approved by the Council that that approval would be good for the
[39:05] full amount of that unfilled term so that if that seat is not in the normal rotation, it's
[39:13] up for election in the next cycle, they would not have to run, they would, if there's two and
[39:17] half years left, they serve two and a half years, if there's one and a half, then they serve
[39:22] one and a half.
[39:24] We had had a couple of situations and where someone filled an empty seat and then had to turn
[39:30] around and run for election shortly thereafter and you know I guess it cuts both ways if
[39:37] you're turn to convince someone to fall on to a seat and you tell them you're only really
[39:43] committing for six months, sometimes it's easier to persuade them but then you know running
[39:49] fall doesn't fun and it's kind of daunting and really really good qualified people sometimes
[39:58] will shy away from it because of the you know the specter of having to do that and so I feel
[40:04] like in the Illinois discussed else think we're a we are we're in agreement if whoever the
[40:11] mayor is a point someone and that person is appointed by the remaining elected representatives or
[40:17] nominates and is appointed by that that person will fill out the full term and I think that's
[40:25] in effect the language change your suggestion and he's there was an example I think when Joe
[40:32] Lick was kind of in between uh it's almost like a 30 or four month time frame I mean it was kind of
[40:38] the ass somebody you know we've got a point someone and they were the basically a month or two
[40:45] later had to start campaigning yeah and in in this particular case we for for other reasons too we
[40:53] ended up appointing someone after that time frame but but nonetheless I guess if you still have an election
[41:01] ahead of you so any other thoughts or comments on that mr. Mayor if I could first of all let me check
[41:11] the state constitution because you cannot deviate from what it says and and knowing our state
[41:16] constitution it's very likely that it could address that specific issue if it doesn't the state statutes
[41:24] might well the whole one of the major points of this revision is to try to bring our charter into conformity
[41:34] with state law through our charter we can deviate from state law and there are specific instances where
[41:40] in fact we do with our city organization but at least if it does deviate from state law I would want
[41:51] you to be aware of that in regards to that specific matter and so men's point is yeah
[42:00] The charter form of government in that form of government is the ability to deviate in certain situations in tailor if you will.
[42:10] Your ordinances or your form of government specifically to your needs.
[42:15] Not in not in court branch, but in certain areas you can do that.
[42:20] So you'll follow up on that and hopefully next week let us know.
[42:24] Yes.
[42:25] Any other thoughts or comments on the three propositions as they are currently written?
[42:36] I do have to say proposition one is so much easier to read and understand in this format than was trying to figure out all of those numbers and what they were related to in the state law and this is much easier to comprehend.
[42:55] Before we get off of this item, Ben, you may reference a few minutes ago to ordinance in consistency and the fact that we may need to take a look at those as part of this process or as a second step to this process.
[43:11] That would be a second step to this basis.
[43:13] So just give me a general idea of what you see happening or meeting the happen.
[43:19] Well, the example I can use is what came up today.
[43:27] It would appear that the city ordinance when it was enacted, which I believe was in 2006, matched the state law at that time.
[43:41] Since then the state law has been changed and it gives the city power and authority in the specific instances that we're talking about.
[43:53] But that, but the city is still restricted even though we could do it under state law we can't do it under our ordinance.
[44:01] So it actually ties the hands of the city in this particular instance to do what we could do under the state law.
[44:11] We have generally adopted the state laws as as they exist or as they may be amended.
[44:18] Certainly there will be instances where you want to deviate from what the state law provides.
[44:24] And you're free to do that within parameters.
[44:29] But I think it needs to be a knowing and intelligent decision to do that when it's done.
[44:38] So why don't we have lots of ordinances.
[44:41] I guess what I foresee is maybe you and Chris are doing a review which may take several months.
[44:49] We'll probably will take several months.
[44:53] 20 hours a week.
[44:55] Bringing them forward those names are obvious.
[45:00] Yes, issues and proposing remedies for them.
[45:08] I think the logical thing to do is, if we come up with assuming the charter is a print.
[45:17] And that would open the door for doing this.
[45:21] Well, even if it's not a print, even if it's not a print, I think it needs to be done.
[45:26] I think it would be logical to do it one chapter at a time.
[45:31] But there will be instances when a particular situation comes up that it needs immediate attention,
[45:37] even though you haven't gotten to the chapter that it's in yet.
[45:40] Such as, I think, next council meeting, you'll probably have an ordinance revision in regards to the specification that we came up with today.
[45:53] Okay.
[45:58] And then codifying those ordinances, do we still use the firm out for the decision?
[46:05] Yes, we do.
[46:06] And are we happy with them?
[46:08] There are a lot of issues.
[46:12] Okay.
[46:13] And I don't know what it costs, but I understand it's fairly expensive.
[46:16] I don't know.
[46:17] How much?
[46:18] How much?
[46:19] I don't think it's fairly expensive.
[46:20] The last two supplements that we got, it codified like five or six ordinances each time.
[46:26] And it was $1,700 each time to do it.
[46:33] Wow.
[46:35] And the thing is, as they charge us for one supplement, it is $20 per side per page.
[46:45] That's where our cost comes in.
[46:48] I mean, so if, I mean, each, this, if it's printed, it's $40 is what they charge us.
[46:58] And so if you've got a $139 pages, you're out quite a bit.
[47:02] And each section that it amends are pages that have to be printed, like I said, our last one was $139 pages.
[47:11] So it was $1,700 to get it to get it taken care of.
[47:17] So we might want to start exploring alternatives.
[47:21] There are other companies that do that.
[47:24] Same sort of thing.
[47:25] I don't, you know, I don't pretend, I'm not going to pretend to remember any specifics.
[47:30] I just do remember times when staff has made comments that they were not happy with that service.
[47:35] Or that we would things would be codified and they weren't codified correctly in a couple of cases.
[47:40] And so I think it bears reviewing that service and what others might be out there,
[47:48] especially if we're considering a pretty wholesale revision, I'll say, into the ordinances.
[47:58] Okay?
[47:59] Anything.
[48:00] else on the ordinances or the charter discussion. We'd want to have a workshop next
[48:08] week. I'd like to leave it on the schedule because I'd like for Kim and Ben to be able
[48:15] to report back to us on what they found. And I know Ben and Dean have both said that
[48:23] they would make themselves available to the newspaper to answer questions, to flesh out
[48:30] and in the details that. And I would also, but really, they're back sports.
[48:41] Okay.
[48:48] In the ring, mine or our workshop starts at 4 o'clock.
[48:51] Oh yeah.
[48:52] We're just trying to get you home and talk to some of you.
[48:59] Okay.
[49:01] That's I'm 16, I'm 17 as new business.
[49:04] I'm 18 as a mayor and council committee in L.C.
[49:11] I believe is it's more of a dedicated in the front home.
[49:18] It's been about 30 to 11.
[49:20] 11, 31, 30. There's going to be a ceremony and I think former mayor
[49:24] Brassfield is going to representing the city being part of that dedication, I believe.
[49:29] So, that's exciting to know.
[49:33] I think that's all I've got anything else.
[49:35] Who's playing baseball tonight?
[49:37] The cops are playing at 7 o'clock.
[49:40] So, I guess we will, do we have a month to adjourn, Vicky?
[49:43] I do.
[49:44] Okay.
[49:45] Okay.
[49:46] Second.
[49:47] Go, call please.
[49:48] Louis, I'm Johnson.
[49:49] Questions?
[49:50] All right.
[49:51] Johnson.
[49:52] All right.
[49:53] Short.
[49:54] All right.