Yeah.

Um so uh before we get moving, can I get a motion on the minutes, please?

So move.

All right, minutes we'll start out um without objection.

So first thing we are gonna talk about today, council, and welcome back from Asheville.

By the grace, thank you.

When did you go back?

Last night.

You're cute.

I got back last night.

My my daughter finally got power on last evening.

It's it's folks that still don't have power.

We're expecting it to be like another week and a half.

Oh, isn't it?

Just some time.

So it's like it's what they say.

It makes you real appreciative for uh EPB.

Oh jeez.

So um first thing we're gonna talk about today is special exceptions permits.

Um most of this I think will be led by our attorney um about the fact that we were struggling with uh how might we when we say no to a special exceptions permit, do we have the authority to say no?

But we have it set up in our processes that we want to see those.

Okay.

Um and so uh this has come up, council uh most often as it relates to liquor stores.

Um, but we do also have special permit, special exceptions permits for other things and at a uh uh I believe is a council um and we can change our minds, but historically this council has wanted to have um the ability to have special exceptions permits um for certain certain things.

So um Philip, will you uh walk us through some of the ideas that you have for how we might choose to change our um our language for how we assess whether or not we're gonna give a special exceptions permit and your recommendations.

Yeah, as as y'all are uh familiar, we've had a I guess a ruling at least uh that uh said that um it's basically an administrative matter uh whenever y'all are looking at uh a special exception for a liquor store or any entity in that regard, and then as long as something meets the provisions of your code that y'all have adopted, you're basically supposed to take an administrative act and approval.

And uh that that is the issue that comes into being each time exactly how far can you go on a discussion without becoming what is called arbitrary and capricious under the zoning requirements here that we have under under state law.

So y'all have uh a few provisions where there are special exceptions that have to be granted only by the um the city council.

And one of those is the liquor store provision that we have in the code.

And I believe there are other uh provisions.

I I don't have my sections up here right now, I will find those for you here on the the city code here of the authority that you have to look at on there.

But the um the provisions in the code in my mind here is do you want to keep uh having those come before you or do you want those to go just like other special exceptions permits go to the board of zoning appeals and there's a determination by that body that goes forward?

Obviously, y'all can contact us there are nine members on that board just like there are on the city council and give them your concerns that you might have in those matters, but uh whether you want to continue to have those items going forward.

And I was uh may I say something.

I would add that with Bozo, they have very specific rules that they follow.

So even if a council person calls and said I don't feel good about this, that they they have much less latitude because they are created by us for the rules that we create.

Um councilwoman Dotley.

Yes, in in God's favor today, I actually have something on future considerations that I was gonna I said next to you because I was gonna ask you about it.

You sure with the game if I remember.

And so uh I actually and I think they should continue to come to us because we are able to research more information than typically RPA or the board is on the appeal for instance in this case, and I'm gonna make my statement today about it.

But um I was able to because I know because we know the areas, like we know our district, we know what's there, and so for this particular liquor store coming up, uh I knew because it was like two blocks from where I used to live that it was a lot, a lot of activity, a lot of criminal things happening, and so I was able to contact CPD and get the number of calls for service, the criminal incidents and all this information.

Um, and so with that in our as we'll get when we get the RPA report, even though it says you know it's only X amount away from the school, X amount away, you know, because of that they approve it, but that doesn't sometimes align with the actual actions that are happening in the community.

So for instance, but one of the parts of this, which is what I like in our code chapter 5, section 5109 C, because I'm gonna cite that specifically.

Yeah, that's good.

Is that the consistent consistency of the proposal with the intent and purpose of this article to promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare?

And because there was a those four things when we see something coming up in our district that does not promote those things, I think we should have the ability to deny it.

And so that is um what I am like that would I be telling all day, but I'm gonna get y'all all the numbers later on.

But um, so like this one is coming up, you know.

I plan to not support it because it doesn't support that.

So when it comes to us, would it be reasonable, I guess, for us to cite that code as a reason for denial based on the evidence that we have, because then we're able to get with I didn't even get with code enforcement or any, but I could have done code enforcement, public work, you know, got with all our court apartments and said because RPA is just gonna look at what they're supposed to look at, and they do, they do a good job, and that's and thanks to their report though, it gives me the avenue to say I'm not supporting it.

So I think that they should continue to come to us because that gives us more leeway to say this is not fit the character of our community.

Like it's having the big papas have a, and again, I'll discuss it later, having that convenience store have one on Dodes Avenue versus having an inbibe on NBIB or Mbibe on Brow Street, two different neighborhoods and two different things.

So I can support this one because I see the development and see what's happening here versus over here where it's just wow, wow east, I guess.

So that is that you know, so that so I think that we should keep it, but I think whenever we deny it for Phil's sake and for ours that we cite the code, cite the reason.

So that's that's my spiel.

I just so happened, they just so happened to come up today.

Sounds kind of council.

Um the question that that Phil posed, and Councilwoman Dotley has answered for herself.

What is the the general thought around do we want to continue having special exceptions permits come to council?

The show, can we go to FISTA five on five is yes, I want them?

Yes, yes, okay.

So it looks like Councilman Harvey has a question.

It says still come to council.

Yes, so for FISTA five for the notes, we had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, seven folks be like, we are convinced we want us to keep seeing these.

Yes, your name will be on the lawsuits just we're not writing.

So wait, we're not conversation.

What we want to do, and then you're gonna help us do it to avoid it.

Oh, okay.

That's what we're so councilman Harvey.

Why don't you vote yes or no on that?

So is to your point, is that in reference to a rezoning, or is it in reference to a special exceptions permit?

Special exceptions permit.

Okay.

So they want a special exceptions permit to s for a liquor store.

Right.

Because it's already a convenience store.

Okay.

It's convenient for something.

Okay, convenience store.

Now they want to add to that and sell liquor in it.

Okay.

And so that yeah, it's specific.

This is specifically a special exemption.

Okay.

Okay.

Councilman Henderson.

Okay.

I'm trying to understand that I maybe Phil answered this question, but yes.

So when we deny a liquor store that is by rights.

Okay.

Okay.

Yes.

Then I mean we open ourselves up to lawsuit, correct?

Yes, sir.

Unless you have a basis in your code uh that you were reviewing here that would say that there would be a reason to deny it for a legitimate uh uh reason that is not just arbitrary and capricious.

You don't like this person.

So our next step would be in this conversation to identify what by rights qualifies as and potentially seek out and strengthen our code to give us more enforcement.

Okay.

So I guess I'm going to go back to the code that Rakita just read.

Councilwoman Dotley, I'm sorry.

Um Phil is that I guess sufficient enough reason that court we can say I mean is that is that is that our go-to code right there when we deny one is will y'all y'all recently welfare the welfare of the community general, but but I mean there's got to be some basis to be able to do that other than just stating those words.

There's got to be something that would establish that there are problems in connection with that.

And remember y'all and your um uh code amendments here 5108 is the location and signs for liquor stores, and that's that's in our our ordinances here, and it was last amended.

Let me get my section number here in 2024, and when we amended it in 2024, uh that caused a little more issues insofar as the distance restrictions were reduced from 500 feet down to 200 feet.

They've always been that uh no no real requirement in uh much of Rakita's proper uh property here that was C3 zoned, so just be aware of that.

Those distance restrictions do not apply in a uh areas that were C3 central business district before.

So could we can could we do liquor stores like we did payday lending?

Can we say either uh ratio or like I I think in our payday lending they can't be closer than some amount of footage like from one liquor store to another, right?

And and the councilman Clark's point the other day, he was talking about we got too many liquor stores in that vicinity in that vicinity.

So is that can we treat liquor stores like we did the payday lending and limit the number that could be in a you know some given radius or you know, whatever?

Could we do that?

Yes, sir, or uh an area within uh the districts if you're trying to look at how many do you have in an area?

Right now, I think we've got uh numbers that were increased.

It used to be I think it was 54 liquor stores throughout the entire city, but we increased that the last time around here to be a larger percentage based upon the population.

So y'all can look at those those types of numbers without a problem.

Okay, so okay, well, I mean, I think that would help us.

That would help if we if we did something along the lines like we did the payday linen, and we've already got something on in our code.

I think that was a sort of precedent.

I don't know, Dr.

Councilman Clark.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, wait a second.

Councilman Burst first, thank you.

Um so I want to make sure I understood the question that you asked a few minutes ago.

You asked if the council wants to continue to hear special exceptions.

That was just a broad question.

It's not just liquor stores, it's okay.

Okay, if we like that as a tool and we want it to come down.

We want to continue to hear them.

Okay, so yes, and uh I would support councilman Henderson's suggestion that we uh that we treat this as an opportunity to see if there's ways that we can go and tighten up the the code for how liquor stores are built and where they're built.

Um then my question, my other question is if I go to get a liquor, if I want to add a liquor store to my convenience store, do they have to come here to us first before they get their like their liquor and beer permit?

Yes, okay, because they have to be able to serve first in order to be able to okay, all right.

That's it.

Thank you.

Councilman Clark.

Uh thank you, Chairwoman Hill.

Back to Rakita's point in the code where it talks about the social welfare of our district.

If we cite code that references like a plan, like for instance, when I was talking about this situation, I referenced that this was not in congruence with our plan Chattanooga zoning plan, which has a parcel by parcel, you know, plan on what that parcel should be used for.

And in this case, that liquor store was not a part of that.

So I guess this would be a field question.

Would that not have been sufficient enough in saying that this is not a part of the plan and it goes to the clause that Rakita cited?

If there are provisions that you've got in your code that say that if certain things exist, then we would not permit that, then that would work.

Right now, everything is simply based on the size and location, I believe, here code.

So we would have to specify to uh Councilman Henderson's point that if it was a vicinity issue, we need to specify that.

And then if we have zoning, what would you what where would you a zoning plans, policies that prohibit that we would have to write that language in the and an amendment to this ordinance is what you're saying to strengthen it?

Yes.

And I think also that also brings up the importance of getting Plan Chattanooga back on the agenda.

Um seeing it in our strategic planning and getting it voted on because right now it's words in the air, it's not the area plan.

I'm not sure how old your that area plan is for that highway 58 area.

I know the area plan for my district is more than 20 years old.

So it's I was not aware of it.

I thought it was an adopted to quote Joey from Friends, it's a move point.

Yes, what you just said.

So we haven't voted on plan.

I was not aware of that.

No, and then Chattanooga has stalls for the draft, yeah.

So go through planning.

Right.

Yeah, that's that would be.

Yeah, and I know that Karen Rennick and I talked about this a couple of weeks ago.

She wants to bring it back to us sooner versus later for that reason.

Because I know we're she's using it a lot when she's having meetings with communities because it's it's pretty much I mean, it's well it's a it's a good guide, which is what it would be anyway if it was official.

So there's I don't think there's anything wrong with using it as a guide, but it for that's yeah, okay, I got you.

Um were you were you finished with your okay?

Your code.

Um can we also amend the what are the opportunities to amend the code to include things like um you know, like when somebody goes to request a rezone, RPA may suggest that they call their council person.

If somebody goes to request a rezone for a liquor store, could part of that checklist be uh did you did you do a search with the police department, did you do a search with and add that before it even comes to us to see what the history is for not just that property but a certain mile radius?

So before it even gets to us, put that on them so councilwoman Dotley is not having to go and then do all that research.

It comes to us already with their number of arrests in that area has been this over the last five to ten years, the number of whatever, whatever those criteria are that maybe we can come up with what those criteria would be to add to that checklist, or I don't know if it can be an ordinance or yeah, I love that.

Yeah, and it makes you think about it once we get Plan Chattanooga passed that one of those boxes is does this request align with the Chattanooga Plan Chattanooga parcel plan for the because if you have to check no, you know, that's one of the things you are acknowledged.

Right, yeah, you have room for office, that was pretty good.

I like this.

Okay.

Phil, what other what other types of language would you suggest that we be thinking about to strengthen these and and give us the latitude we need?

Well, well, definitely chapter 38 really doesn't have a whole lot of regulations about uh alcohol or liquor in there.

Everything is under chapter five in your code.

And so if you're wanting to have those types of things considered here, uh we need to at least marry them up to to the sections on here.

And I think your latest zoning changes you had to 38 really didn't didn't mention that very much.

I was looking here, uh trying to do a search to find is there a reference to special exception permits by the council anymore, and it's not showing under 38.

It's all going to the board of zoning appeals.

So that that's an issue.

That's it.

That's another question.

And you yeah, I think you have uh requirements at least in a table that RPA has done for you saying what types of uh permits need to be done and whether they need to be done by the city council, but it's pretty hard to locate that.

It's just simply in those those tables.

And the language needs to be specific in 38 that would reference uh what is to be done with any type of special exception you're wanting to deal with, whether it be liquor stores or payday lendings or others.

Well, that group homes fall in a special exception, yes.

Yeah, I believe so, yes, sir.

Um yes, Councilman Harvey.

To tag on to that, um does do like, for example, do vape stores or those kinds of things, because I'm getting a lot of calls on that.

I read the smoke shop, yeah, those kinds of things.

Um, yeah, I wonder if that could be tied into that.

But uh going back to the code that there's a new law that just passed on January 1st we need to look at regarding vape stores because before it prohibited us from doing that.

But there's a brand new uh the statute that was passed by the General Assembly went into effect on January 1st.

So we'll need to look at that.

Okay, um the code that councilwoman uh dotly was reading earlier.

It you mentioned uh I think something about you know, does it uh does the special exceptions uh whatever is it tied into uh the morals or the the character, something like that.

The whatever I can't remember the exact language, but morals I think was in there.

Yeah, public health safety, morals in general will be.

I mean to me that can be very subjective.

Um, my morals could be different from somebody else's morals.

So what you know it did would would that, I guess my question would be would that be enough to protect us in a lawsuit if I said, well, you know, my morals don't don't uh align with that.

Well it's very subjective.

I mean, you know, it it's got right now here under the special exceptions um provision on here that uh certain uses because of their unique characteristics cannot be properly classified in a particular zone without consideration of the impact upon uses of neighboring lands and the public need for a particular use at that location.

So if you can uh qualify it to the uh concern of the neighborhood, if it's involving crime, if it's involving some sort of issues where uh there are specific problems with that location that have been going on for a period of time, just having a change in the owner isn't gonna change that.

That's right.

And then we'll meet the yeah, I was just gonna say to your point, Councilman Hartley.

I think kind of what councilman Dartley has done and getting that research from CPD kind of undercuts that activity, you know, at least in my mind, right?

It's hard to say you're being arbitrary and capricious if you've got numbers to talk about data like that.

Good point.

But any case you have, I would recommend you get something like that forward on here.

Okay, do we have yes?

So I guess the councilwoman burrs's point of when we get the get the RPA report, could we have it where it does have you know act from our core departments, CPD, well public uh section for public safety, you know, uh public safety, code enforcement, um I don't know what else, but you know, to me, general public safety, general welfare of the people, public safety is probably the top of the list.

I mean, and then code enforcement, you know, does this like have issues with trash everywhere?

Does it have this or whatever, you know, because the way I did this one was just for one year.

When y'all hear these numbers, y'all gonna be like, what is going on over here?

But I did it for one year and a half mile radius, and within a half mile radius, though they are not close to a school, I had there there is a school and a community center and all these other things within the half mile radius.

So like if we could have that, I don't know how we'll go about it, but just adding that to the checklist of public safety notes, um code enforcement notes and things like that.

So just adding that to the mix of it.

I think that'd be nice to be good.

And you got two different places you can add it, you can add it under the sections and 38 that we talk about about special exceptions on or under chapter five where we were dealing with the liquor divisions.

So council, do you have any further discussion?

Can you add it under yeah?

Sorry, thank you, Chairwoman.

Can you add it both places?

Yes.

Because I I'm thinking not in terms of I'm not in thinking just in terms of liquor stores, like I have a uh an issue that's coming, they'll be coming up for Bozo immediately uh I can't talk y'all coming up for BOZA pretty soon about a special exception for an event hall.

And I I would want to know the same.

Have they had you know incidents with the police department?

Have they had incidents with code violations?

Have they had I mean it's they're not necessarily gonna be serving liquor, they're gonna be having baby showers, but still they could have an event where they serve liquor.

So it doesn't necessarily have to be just a liquor store.

There could be other things that fall under special exception, huh?

They'd have to have a special permit if they did look.

They did, yeah, they would, but I'm just thinking, I don't think it needs to be limited just to liquor stores.

That's the most prominent thing right now.

Right.

So um, so Phil, what I'm hearing from council is yes, we want to maintain our ability as council to see special exceptions permits.

Yes, we want to strengthen the language and get sections um five and chapter five and chapter 38 in sync.

We would like to have a more uh sounds like the the checklist might be something related to policy and to the ordinance change to say you have to do this homework as part of your application, that being um the items listed CPD code enforcement data, plan Chattanooga, um alignment, obviously the distance we might want to take a look at the distance.

Um would it be possible for your team to put some draft recommendation documents together for us and join us again for strategic planning one uh about five weeks from now on the 17th of March?

Sure.

Okay, so we could look at that again then.

Yes.

Okay, great, thank you.

Okay, council.

Um we will now move on to a conversation about council rules.

Um so when we put this on the strategic planning agenda, it's because we have uh we are up to have a vote because we want to make a change to the way that we allocate funds within the council budget.

Um, and so to do that, one of the things we're gonna do is make an adjustment to our rules, and there uh and then if anyone had any other thoughts about council rules that they would like us to look at, this would be a great time for us to discuss that.

So in your packet, you'll see um I made some markups about things that um I've noticed as chair that I think would be useful to have a little bit more clarity on.

Um, if you wouldn't mind just um going through those with me and then um open up the floor.

Um, the first on page one would be for um our attorney to provide language within the chairperson's ability to appoint a chair pro tem.

We have the ability in our code overall to vote in a chair pro tem, um, which you all did while uh vice chairwoman noel and I were out of town.

Um, but it would be nice if that could just be assigned in advance.

Councilman Elliott.

I have a question, but this is the worst case scenario.

This is not on you, so just bear with me.

In a case where we have a chair, where a vice chair's absent, and a chair is incapacitated for whatever reason.

Would we still have the ability to or would the rules still be there to also in that case to vote somebody in?

You see what I'm saying?

Let's say for whatever reason, vice chair woman all's not here, and you're sick of the dog and you can't be there, you're not even able to appoint somebody.

Is it an option to do both?

You say, hey, sure.

I'm gonna go ahead and be there.

Councilman O's not gonna be there as well.

Going ahead and point, but worst case scenario, if you're not able to appoint prior to the meeting, we still have the ability to vote.

I think that makes sense.

I think so.

I thought there was a problem, at least saying that that would occur before the meeting happened on here.

I know that uh section 8.3 of the charter says the council may when necessary elect from their members a chair pro tem to preside at a meeting in the absence of the chairperson and vice chair, but normally it's supposed to be the chairperson and then the vice chair would go on, and then if some reason there's not there, then you would have a vote.

And that that's what it said in the front end of it.

It doesn't allow you to be able to uh select a chair just for the hot topic that may be coming up while you're gone.

So that's I think the rationale that it's so but so we could add to our rules language that would allow the chairperson to have that if they needed it, but also not preempt the other option that currently exists within our charter.

Yeah, I think you gotta comply with your charter on here.

Uh so we can't do it then.

That's that's what it's saying.

The child council may when necessary elect a chair pro tem to preside at a particular meeting in the absence of the chair.

It doesn't say when.

But it also says doesn't say the chair cannot.

No, no, so it's uh it's open.

That that was what we were using last time to give you the authority to be able to have an election to be able to elect your chair.

So we could still do this rule because it doesn't say we can't, correct?

It does not say you can't.

It just says may when necessary.

I think it could make it easier for chairs in the future.

Yes, yes, Chairman Dodge.

Well, I just think that the the membership elected a chair, and in the absence of a chair and a vice chair, the membership should still have the same right to elect their chair.

Is is is you know, that to me negates the democratic process of and it it dilutes the voices of the rest of the council.

So I don't I don't support that, but in and that's why because I don't ever want if I'm not like it was a couple means I wasn't, I mean I'm not sure of, but it's a couple means I wasn't here, I just wasn't here.

So if you're not, but it didn't stop the meetings from going on people from voting and continue to do what what needed to be done.

So if like in the case where you two uh weren't a were unable to be here, the the meeting continued, and they the who who's ever there, whatever membership is there has the right to vote on who they want to lead them in the absence of you know the leadership.

So that is this my thought.

I don't I believe this dilutes the democratic process and dilutes the voices of count of the council members that are present when a chair decides I'm not gonna be here.

I don't I believe this dilutes the democratic process and dilutes the voices of count of the council members that are present when a chair decides I'm not gonna be here, take it over.

You know, that's not where it's code and may say, I'm gonna do that, you know, and then you know it just kind of puts everybody in a kind of awkward position when we all just vote on it, it just is a vote, we're moving on and going on as opposed to kind of pushing that position.

So that's my those are my councilman Davis.

Yeah, and I was just gonna say that was a simple thing we did.

It only took a few minutes last month when we had to do that, so it's not like it's a burdensome, you know, ordeal.

Okay.

Um so if we can keep it simple, that might be the thing to do.

Okay, councilman Harvey.

The only other concern I have with that is let's say, all right, you know, you designate Ron as the the pro Tim, and he's stuck in Nashville, and then you two can't be here.

Right.

Then we're we're in the same predicament, you know, if if all three people, and so then we would have to vote amongst ourselves uh to to do it anyway.

So no offense.

Well, then for clarity's sake, might the council um be open to um language within our council rules that clarifies the fact that this is our process because right now we don't have anything in our process that says if I recommend at least adding the language you got in 8.3 in there uh councilman Henderson.

Well, and I don't know if we can figure out a compromise between both, but I guess and I certainly see the point that that you're making as far as um it being a democratic process and deciding who we want to chair that meeting.

My other thought was if both the chair and the vice chair for some reason we're gonna be completely out of pocket, and I'm talking about uh you know unreachable, and I'm not I don't even know when that would ever happen, but like for that interim, we're sort of stuck without a chair.

It it it becomes more than just a meeting that they're presiding over.

You see what I'm saying?

And I wonder if we shouldn't at least give ourselves the leeway of being able to say, okay, you're gonna serve as the role of chair until one or both can come back, and you you know, to take care of something that that could come up during that week of you know that we could possibly be without both.

So it might be, I guess what I'm saying, it might be more than just a meeting that we could possibly need somebody appointed to that and it could happen prior to us coming to that meeting point, is all I'm saying.

If if if somehow we could you know what I'm saying, I think that can be designated in the vote.

So for instance, if they're not whoever's not gonna be here, I hope nothing ever happens and we never run into this problem.

But in October, you know, in here till April in the moment that you know you will serve as chair for the next two weeks or until the chair and vice chair were surface.

So I don't know how the words are the only thing I was saying is if hap if some for some reason it happened prior to that Tuesday to the vote, you know what I'm saying?

So like that if for some reason they were Thursday, something if if something happened on a Thursday that neither the chair or the vice chair was available, what happens from what happens then from Thursday to Tuesday when we can vote?

Is there an emergency?

Yeah, call or call the emergency meeting and we can do it at that point.

I think it's yeah, I was just gonna kind of do it with chair I think that's I think our attorney, yeah, an attorney would or two members.

Well, let me uh let me ask this.

I mean wait, wait, wait, we had council members.

That's okay.

Um I'll yield to what if we elect, I mean, what if we throw in here if we elect a pro tem like when we're elected chair or vice chair?

I mean, what's the chances of three people?

What if our previous chair, what if the chair meritus steps in in the emergency?

I think you still were that's good.

Okay, well, all I'm saying, I'm going back to if we elected, I'm sorry, but if we go back to elected, then if you elect a pro tem, right, then it's still the body is elected a third person to fill in.

Okay, that's true.

Council members.

Yeah, I I can totally see that, and you could also run into the situation of you get stuck in this in the in the ice storm.

So then we're back to that.

I mean, we're all we're talking about these things that are probably never gonna happen.

Well, then they're not gonna do all at one time, all at one time.

That would be rare, but and then we go back to the voting on Tuesday or whatever.

Well, um, let's let's pause that because I thought that was the easy one.

Because I've got a there's one thing that stood out to me as a question based on um actually ice storm 2020 something.

Um okay on page five.

Um so um brief change about our seating because our chair and our vice chair have a signed seating.

Um but in this next in section three, it shall take five yes or five no votes to adopt or defeat any action.

But a quorum is five votes or five people, and so in the rare situation where we have only five people, are we actually able to conduct business?

Do do we want to change or we just have to bring those items back that are not bring them back to first read?

Uh the concern about that is is that the body itself that by majority is voting for an issue or not.

And I think there are certain things that uh at least require uh you know at least uh a number of the body or the majority of the body to be able to do it.

So your body is nine members that you have in here, and that's the reason the the five yes or five no votes is involved.

And if you didn't have that, that would be a reason to defer the meeting here until you had enough votes that might be able to do it.

So, as an example, um when we were given a um a requirement by the state of Tennessee to change our community, um our community engage I can't remember the exact name, our CPIC, um which was police advisory.

Thank you, our community police advisory committee.

Um first vote, I believe we had nine people, and on the second vote we did not, and so it it got five votes to pass, I think.

I can't remember exactly, maybe six votes to pass, but then the second time around, not all those people were there, and it just it just kind of didn't get decided.

There is no police advisory review committee.

Yeah, but we did not bring it, we did not bring it back with the thought, so it just croaked.

Died on the vine.

Um which I was against it, so I'm I didn't like that new plan.

But um, so that's that's kind of where my head's at on this.

Just think we should discuss it.

Councilman Elliott.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is it worth following Robert's rules?

In the sense that, you know, based on the quorum, if it's a majority vote to prevail the issue, so we is that legally allowed.

Because we follow Roberts for everything else.

Yeah, I I think you could argue that that requirement could be there.

I think the concern was that somebody just not come to a meeting so that you wouldn't have a note.

Oh that's interesting.

Might be another issue on a really hot topic.

Would that be an issue that people might not show up and then uh it took way to kill it?

A really good way to kill a vote.

Which is their prerogative.

Welcome to America.

I think we do have to.

But it does apply to show up in vote, not just your district on there.

So that's that's they may have to take that over there because the whole state of Texas left all the time.

Or a certain five.

Councilman, you had a chair.

So I I think I'm leaving me with Councilman Clark is is there for like I wasn't here for two meetings in January.

See, you want I mean, I think that means I think at least three of us were not here.

Voted on, the vote went on.

So I think that you know, it at the end of the day, and I agree with Councilman Illy as well, you know, Robert rules of order is what it is.

The body is not if it's five people, because if it's not, I mean, of those five people could have been a three-two vote on something.

You know, then you know, if it was something I was passionate about, I would ask could we bring it back up, you know, once I got back or something like that.

So it a lot of that responsibility falls on us as council people to say if something was voted no, but I knew there were only five people here, then I could ask when I come back, request that hey, could we I talk to Phil first to make sure I get the right language?

Um, but ask could we bring this back up since you know I saw that it was only five people that came to the meeting.

So I think that responsibility really falls back on us to be an attendant, and then it's also you know, if it's something that we're passionate about, or you know, whatever to bring it back to bring it back if we can, if it's I mean, the the reconsider motion would be at the next meeting under Robert's rules if something happened.

The the problem comes uh on uh what what actions you take.

Some actions take two readings, some take one reading, so resolutions on there if they could uh get it by with three votes and uh no one uh questioned it at all, it'd be done.

Okay.

Thank you, madam chair.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Davis and then councilman Clark.

Yeah, I would think if we just change the language to say it shall take a majority um to adopt or defeat, then that way, provided that we have a quorum, the majority of whatever that quorum is would yeah.

So Phil, do you do you see anything that we need to be cautioned on with that?

Well, I guess uh it's all a living document.

And as you go forward, if you see more problems associated with that, see that.

But um, I do see an opportunity, you know, potentially if if it's really a hot topic to maybe not come to the meeting and let the majority pass.

All right.

Well, that was the one I thought was gonna be tricky.

So we can't okay, so we still have the uh my question and who knows what other questions y'all have.

Um let's see, and then the final um oh yes before we move on from this what about um I know if we ever need to overturn something, like we pass something, the mayor vetoes it and it becomes uh uh overturn vote.

Is that in this or is that in the charter?

It's in the church.

And that's a two-thirds of two thirds majority.

Whole body or just present right.

Whole body.

Oh, cobart, okay.

Right, and then I um I feel like some of our specific votes related to the budget require the whole body.

Yes, cold by yeah, we couldn't pass a budget with five.

That makes perfect sense.

But we have nine total.

Yes, council.

Going back to his point of what Robert's rules of order, how we defined whole body.

Some people may describe the the definition of whole body is according to quorum.

So whole body doesn't mean all if we're only required to operate our business through a quorum, then in that case, a whole body could be five.

And so I think the the specificity of that is up for interpretation of what whole body is.

Depending on what the language actually is in the chart.

To his point, right?

Right.

Okay.

Okay, so that's five of mine.

So that's got something happening.

So I just had a question when he when uh councilman Clark mentioned the body.

So in section eight point seen, because I did do my research on that.

Yes, but the body constitute a majority of the entire membership of the council shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

So five.

Is this uh so this is this in there already?

Is this in our uh what is it?

What are we looking at?

Council rules.

It says it shall take five yes or five no votes to adopt or defeat any action.

So maybe we should I think one bit to your point of like defining like what is this, maybe take it straight out of the charter and just run it.

I mean if that's what the charter says, then it doesn't feel like we have a lot of leeway.

No, it's it says a majority of the membership shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, so you gotta have that each time.

It does not say anything about the number that votes on that.

Somehow I'm I missed the I mean why I don't understand why we're debating this.

Well, um the reason that I asked the question was because we have recently had a five-member quorum.

Okay.

Um what that made me think when I studied these rules again, is that if we had had any votes that were split, none of the votes would have counted.

That's right.

That would have failed.

And so and so they failed, but that means so that means that means they failed.

That just doesn't feel like a great way to do the people's business.

I agree.

Um if it you know, if it fails on I mean, my opinion, I mean this is my opinion.

It takes five yeses or five notes in whole or in part.

Councilman.

I I I see your logic, Councilman, but you know, there's circumstances that pop up.

I think we do need to provide some flexibility in case people are absent and we find ourselves in a position.

Let's say Lord forbids we get three of us get hit by a bus and we only have five council members and today we recover.

I'm serious.

Maybe I said bus earlier.

I've been dealing with Nashville ice all week.

I don't want to see ice now we're talking about.

But for being it with somebody stuck in ice, or three of us are stuck in ice somewhere, and we have items that may be controversial, and you know, it takes one vote to kill everything, right?

This gives us a little bit more flexibility, but also still following the rules, which are Robert Rules of Order, so we've adopted, right?

And so this it kind of loosens up a little bit.

It's not stringent.

Councilman Davis.

I support this.

And I think also if we find ourselves in a situation with a controversial vote and people are tempted not to show up so that they don't have to vote to try to sway things one way or the other, knowing that this is in place, tells them, okay, I might not show up, but whoever's in the room is going to make the decision regardless, as long as there's a quorum.

So it could if that makes sense, you know, to kind of undercut that sort of tactic.

I think it might be useful.

Councilman Clark, did you have something to add?

Yeah, I was gonna say, you know, the the beauty about this is the legislative process.

You come to work, and if you don't come to work, you're not a part of the work.

And um I a quorum is a quorum.

The majority still rules in this country, and if you show up to work, you'll be a part of that conversation.

If you don't, then that's on you.

Um I believe I actually had not read that, even though you told me so many times to read the rules.

I was like, God, I didn't realize that that was I didn't realize that was in there.

Um I actually think it's a bit undemocratic uh to have that clause in there that it takes five yeses or five no's, and I think it might be contradictory to our charter and our rules saying that a quorum is necessary for so I I don't even know if that's even legal to even have five to require unanimous vote on anything because we don't have that's like almost coercing me to vote saying yes, like if I was at work that day, there's only five of us, then to pass to get it a yes approved, and if it's something controversial, all five of us have to agree versus three.

I'm not sure if that's very democratic, and I think it goes against our rules.

So, Phil, it sounds like we do need to before we you know work any kind of change into this, and um I just thought it was a question we needed to discuss.

How about if we if if you do some research on this and bring us back the pros and cons at that 317?

Okay, uh, because it is a living document, and we you know we've led the city this long with this rule, and it's it's gone well.

Um so let's look at that again on the 17th of March, please.

Yes, Councilman Henderson.

I think the other thing that we would need to research too, then is does this roll downhill to BOSA?

Does it roll down here to IDB?

Great point is it roll downhill to HEB, any of our other boards.

All of them have adopted Roberts rules for the most part.

So that's well, we've adopted Robert rules, we've got to maintain this.

Yeah, contrary rules.

Which speaks to why we want to make a well-informed decision.

We have a good conversation, let's make a well-informed decision.

And that's section 810 in the charter was adopted by the people uh in 2002 because that's a charter referendum provision that occurred, and it does uh authorize um any ordinance that you pass that occurs to be signed by the chair, a vice chair, or a pro tem person.

So that language is already in that section of the charter.

But uh the aspect of five versus uh not five votes is the question we've got to look at.

Just a simple majority.

Um the final thing I wanted to bring uh before council um for consideration.

Um we are made on page seven, we are making a change um to from six thousand dollars per council member per year to ten thousand dollars, and what I have found since the time that I have served on council is that um this is a confusing part of our rules because it's always been unclear what expense reimbursement is for.

Um, I remember you know, uh Councilman Henderson said hot dogs and fireworks.

We had a constituent uh pre before Melissa, we had a wonderful constituent um or uh uh council council person um assistant, and she was like, Yeah, you can you can't, it all got real muddy.

Um, and so first I I would like to assert that this is not really about um travel, um, but it's really about um because it said the way it reads, we can request reimbursement for advanced payment of travel room and board expenses for travel up to ten thousand dollars.

But what I know is that as a as a council, we have many expenses that relate to our service, not just specific to travel.

A few that came up for me were supporting community events, um, office supply expenses beyond basic supplies, technology expenses beyond basic technology.

travel um but it's really about um because it said the way it reads we can request reimbursement for advanced payment of travel room and board expenses for travel up to ten thousand dollars but what I know is that as a as a council we have many expenses that relate to our service not just specific to travel a few that came up for me were supporting community events um office supply expenses beyond basic supplies technology expenses beyond basic technology um and so I would like to ask our attorney if you all are in agreement to rephrase this to be more clear about the actual modern interpretation of of what this is um and the other question that I have and this was something I never had to um look at until I was chair but I do know that other chairs have had the same question come to their desk and we do not have clarity on it is within the allocated budget um per member per year um how or if we will allow surplus council member funds to be reallocated from one council person to another um so I think it's a sort of a yes no of do we want to do that um so in the instance that um somebody's expenses went over but somebody else's expenses went under do we allow for a transfer of funds and if so what is the process for that request and that agreement versus it happening without those council people being aware of it so I I'm in favor of transfer okay um I think you had your uh Elliot and then Dotley um I have two questions madam chair the first is about reimbursement and advanced payment what if we got a P card as a council person hypothetically all hypotheticals is that not considered advanced payment and is that an o well it is an option but for kind of like loosening up funds say hey if I for whatever reason have my own P card and I need to go get something for a neighborhood meeting or event could I not do that than follow our procurement process that's an idea it seems like it would put a lot more responsibility on the council person for bookkeeping she's like I don't want to be called so that's just not everybody needs one but that's a that's a question.

Let's see councilman Dotley and then councilman clerk.

Yeah co-final uh vice chair with no P core for me on the record.

But I too am in favor of the reallocation of funds I think we just establishing that process of what that looks like with maybe you know how we do the approvals um for an amount like approval of for reimbursement maybe there's something like you know if uh I had some money left and I wanted to donate to councilman Henderson and so I will put the request in and say I want to transfer it is to councilman Henderson and then he would approve it because I don't want to you know just do it and not you know he just but then that councilperson also approves it and then it comes through that you know you approve it and maybe madam vice chair or however we do it within our internal systems and then make sure it aligns that way.

That way there's a level of accountability and approved you know in approved approved spaces along the way so that there's there's a system there so it's not uh it's councilman say it's uh follow the process and I think if it's a process there makes it easier accountable everybody can see where these wins it at yeah good look just the email like hey I want to and then email back and say yeah I agree and then yeah it feels like there needs to be a record of it yeah I agree with that count uh councilman clerk and then councilman Hardy uh yes quick question um specific to this clause I'm so sorry are we I hate to even have this to admit to this but I did not read the language in that it was our current rate or six thousand dollars was only set for travel room and board is that correct well it has been vague language and I I wonder if it has been intentionally vague for many years because there's a yeah Phil nods like I think travel is kind of was kind of a catch-all for however many years but what it is done I think in for council on a daily basis especially for new council people finding their feet as to what what does and doesn't count as a reimbursable expense we would be well served and serve future councils to have some clarity because here it's a it it it specifies travel right and so and and this is just a proposal because I believe that you know members of the legislative branch do a considerable amount of travel representing the city other than just the executive and right now there is a $10,000 for how I read it for travel should we be a little bit more innovative and say you know what there's our travel budget and then there's also our what would you call it reimbursed what do we call in this account rein council expenses.

Is it possible that we could reallocate another cost center in our council budget that's for our com district outside of travel?

Because we consumed so much of our community dollars and travel, rightfully so, but this would also mean that we would have to allot ourselves more funding to do more council business out of this fund.

So budget chairwoman Dotley um educated uh me on the different items in an education conversation about you know what are what different cost centers were there.

And so in bringing this rule change, the intent is that we are in fact reallocating a cost center to take it from six thousand to ten thousand dollars.

Um it was very important to she and and to me that to her and to me that we um that we work within the budget as as allocated for this fiscal year, um, and uh not try to increase the council budget.

It was not the intent, but to look at modernizing our cost usage, yeah.

Right, exactly.

But if because also we are moving with this change, we're it's not related to council rules, but we're not going to charge council people for their cell phone costs out of their reimbursement anymore because we believe that that's just a modern expense that you know 20 years ago wasn't right, it was a cool thing to have, but we all are on the go all the time.

So I think that's something in terms of adding additional funds um uh beyond this.

I think we're at the max of our capacity to to elbow room right now.

Um, but we can certainly look at that in the budget process.

This will go into immediate effect once we adopt this, say uh is this on the agenda for today for adoption.

Uh two seconds, next two yes, it's thought it'll be just what is fiscal for the remainder of the stage, correct?

Okay, councilman Harvey.

Um, two things I want to clarify to anyone watching that we are in fact not increasing the budget.

Right, we are not using more taxpayer dollars if we are reallocating our city council budget.

So anyone watching please please know that.

Please know that.

Um to go off with uh councilman Clark was saying, can we develop some sort of list of can and cannot purchases it's still very confusing to me because my understanding is we can't purchase like banned uniforms uh if a school needs banned uniforms there?

I'm sorry, or your band uniform, or my band correct, exactly.

Yeah, yeah, to be very clear.

I'm not buying my band new uniform.

Okay, uh I I think that's that's a very worthy question, and it's one that in my initial training as a new council person, they said, you know, you can't this money is not to buy votes, it is not to sponsor all the people and make sure that they you know build build the project so that that they will come for you to to vote for you, which I think is why councilman Henderson advised me hot dogs and fireworks, um, you know, not to put your name on a ball field.

Um I think probably when we look at um following the um finance rules, I think we could work with um we could work with Weston CFO to come up with a better list.

Um do you do we agree that changing the words from expenses for travel to some type of council expenses would be a step in the right direction for greater clarity?

Okay, councilman Elliott.

This may be requested for Western.

Is there already like an outline of acceptable expenses that falls on purchasing yeah?

So we have procurement rules, it's a kind of the do's and don'ts, right?

Yeah, and we can send those to you guys.

Please, yeah.

Try to do it in a highlighted kind of version of it.

Uh that way we may not need to reinvent the will.

Right, probably we don't.

Right, and you say maybe last year this year, what has been spent?

We kind of put it in the travel and the different pieces, so we can kind of show you guys what the money has historically gone through.

Okay, provide that and that may be great.

We can just probably tweak our language right here and the rules maybe.

And we, you know, when uh we did the training for this new council, there are quite a lot of documents were created, and I think we could work with our clerk to put all of those documents in a single repository that our clerk always has access to, regardless of who is chair, because you know, councilman Henderson was still chair at the beginning of that process, and um and I was vice chair and helped him with that, so that could be one of those items that goes in that book.

However, councilman Clark, if you don't read it, for me with that.

We got all these hands up, okay.

Let's let our attorney man real quick.

Yeah, but the only thing I want heard that gave me a little bit of pause is the reallocation to the general fund after a year, because we have specific requirements for appropriations, and those are supposed to be based upon the budget for a year, and then it all rolls into I thought just the general fund and then it goes on.

Now you could appropriate it each year.

Well, we do, we follow all those rules.

But I don't know there's a way of saying I only spent 5,000 this year, I'm gonna have 15,000 next year to be able to do that.

No, we're not rolling into the next fishery year.

This is within this year.

Within one year, I think you're fine.

But yeah, that's that's the problem, and I've been looking at the charter too much.

6.91 of the charter talks about how appropriations are done and they're supposed to be done on an annual basis.

Yeah, so we can clarify that that's within the fiscal year.

That's what all of us meant.

Nobody's banking anything.

Okay.

Um yes.

I'm sorry.

I can't remember.

I was oh, have you concluded your list of uh yes, and I was about well, I was about to um do a quick um hand show of hands.

Um if you are comfortable with Phil going ahead and adding appropriate language um related to allowing for the transfer between council people as as necessary with some type of process, just please raise your hand so I gotta within the fiscal right within the fiscal year.

Okay, so we're we're good to go on that one.

We are going to um take a look at the five votes, yes no, again on the 17th of March.

Right.

Um, and then we still have the pro tem question.

That was the end of the the three items that I wanted to discuss.

Uh okay, Clark and then Dodge.

This this is a quick cleanup understanding committees, and maybe remember we voted to change the name of community development.

Maybe that could just be a cleanup item so it can just reflect community development committee, not equity community development.

This is kind of a cleanup item.

And then secondly, just on oh, I'm sorry, this is on page two.

Okay.

Understanding committee persons.

I'm just saying as we're updating this, we just should clean that language.

And then my last question is, and um as it relates to human resources, um, there's not a standing committee that gives us the will-go room to hear matters that may come before council dealing with human resources.

Did we once upon a time have a committee of that nature?

And it was not there or um for a very short time.

Um, I'm not sure how many chairs back there was that.

It was always a very questionable um practice, correct.

Um, because uh employees are uh those decisions are guided by the egg.

Um so I think that's a longer conversation for another time.

I like for us to have that conversation as it relates to our role in the EIG when it comes to human resources as an kind of what is our practices as an appeal process.

I I don't know as a new council person, maybe it's written somewhere, I'm not sure.

But I just noticed that human resources is not a standing committee.

Uh and perhaps we should re-entertain that notion in how we get involved in that process.

Okay, yeah, we can we can talk about that in future strategic planning for sure.

Anyone else have anything?

Yes, oh yeah, councilwoman Dotley.

That's okay.

So as we kind of as we've kind of uh figured out what we're doing with this current budget, I know departmental budgets are due when are they do with and like end of them all?

February to 17th.

So with that amount of Nicole typically submits it for us, if there's a desire, because I was listening to councilman elliott to separate to take a look at our budget and say how do we uh separate you know if we want to have a trip of separate line for council travel versus council community events.

Is that something you uh would like me to do as your budget chair?

Would you like me to look at that and can I send it out to them or no?

To review you you can send it out to them, they'll have to uh report to you at one of these meetings.

Okay, so is that something you all yes?

I'm sorry, yes, Councilman Henderson.

If if it's the same amount of money, I would just rather it be all in one pot because I may then district expense.

I may use more district expense than travel, right?

And I don't want to be limited to you know either one, either one.

So just if it's just one pot.

Just one pot for each council person.

If it's not changing the numbers, and I might I mean, besides I agree with councilman Henderson.

I like that one pie.

Okay, okay.

See it.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Council Councilman Harvey, then councilman.

That's easy.

Well, let Councilman Clark, I've got a separate question on something else.

About the separate pie.

You can keep it in one pie, but I think the amount of us being the amount that we use for community should still be 10,000, but we should have a different allocated amount up to I don't know what we travel with three or four thousand.

Essentially, if we're going to keep it in a pot, then we should increase the amount because there's travel and then there's our community expenses related to supplies, technology.

And I think that I really do believe they're separate when we travel versus what we reallocate back into the community.

So if we're going to keep it in a separate pot, then I recommend that for in this upcoming budget cycle to your question that there is an increase.

So that we can still travel and not interfere with our community district business with my recommendation.

Okay.

I know that's cringe, but you know.

Okay.

I hear you.

Is this related to that is real quick?

Real quick.

I mean, I'd be interested in seeing of our budget of $90,000 or whatever it is.

Do we spend it every year?

So is there money that's going unused?

So is there, you know, it that might be a way to look at it if we go back historically for five years or however many years, then you know where we end up with 45,000 left every year anyway.

After everybody spells their then there's money, there's room in a budget to add that or not.

Right.

And there was that was uh it may not be every year.

That's why historically we had $100,000 left over.

And how much travel and compared to how much travel on an average have folks done over the last five years.

Not that it can't change because you've got people with different interests that want to bring in new information, but I think it would be helpful to see that first.

Okay, so the five-year uh kind of outlook of you know our council budget will last five years and what was left each other.

How much was used for travel, how much was used for other expenses, and what was that amount, and then how much was left over to see what we're talking about because if it's there's only five thousand dollars left in the budget, then there isn't more money in travel for travel, but I don't think that's the case.

Yeah, I think I think being able to transfer will help and you got that as well as a backup because I know all everybody doesn't spend all their money like Chip Henderson anyway.

I just don't have I'm sorry, say that out loud.

Can we go by some research and chip Henderson has never spent all of it?

Okay, Councilman Harvey.

I want to go back to Councilman Elliott's uh P card question.

Yes.

Um one uh if we did want to explore that.

Um I know my business has used a card that is preloaded, so you can't spend X amount of you know, um, however, I do understand it would create a the bookkeeping uh you'd have to stay on top of your your bookkeeping.

And an open records issue.

Okay.

Well that that was my second question was I'd like to hear councilwoman Dotley and uh Noelle Vice Chairman, Vice Chair Noel, sorry, uh y'all's thoughts on that because I know you're opposed to that, and I'm interested.

Oh no, I I just P Card is just um added responsibility to be able to keep up with.

I mean, you know, when I use my funds and mine's issues for my district, so I you know I always write on my ticket who and what it goes for, and um, and I use that's the way I use it, just to have another colour.

I'll probably lose it anyway.

So whatever possibility up the creek without a paddle, but no, it's just uh this right here works perfect for me.

Okay, you know, PCAR might be what you want, but not for me.

Yeah, and I'm counting the same wheelhouse one.

It's just another layer of something I got to do, yeah, uh, as opposed to just get my receipt and get it to the call and give it back and do that.

Yeah, now I know for others it's is it's a convenience piece, you know.

Everybody can't give $500 to something right up front.

Um, but some advice that was given to me from a previous council member was when you get in here, set aside five hundred dollars, and then you can just dig from that account and then get reimbursed, you know, as you kind of go along so that you're not in a in a rut if something comes up.

So that's just kind of me, but I it's just to me it's just another thing to do.

And but that's just my personal prep.

You know, all the technologists have a young people, you know, they like a beeping box, you know, with all the things.

We're getting all under like young people.

Yeah, the young people and all that exactly.

I'm not just okay.

So we have one change for sure.

We want to see Phil Make.

Where do we land on Pro Tim?

And do we have any other changes anybody wants to make?

Not a fan.

Okay, all right.

So you give us some information on Pro Tim, and um, we'll get to everybody'll see that fresh document next week on the agenda.

Um it'll be showing up.

Okay, thank you all for such great conversation and ideas.

See you at three thirty.