All right, that clock says 6 30.

So I will call the meeting to order.

It is Wednesday, June 3rd, 2026, 6 30 p.m.

here in the city hall.

This is a meeting of the Charter Revision Commission, our sixth meeting, believe it or not.

We are moving swimmingly, so we'll start it off.

Everybody can please rise for the pledge of allegiance.

We do.

And if Mayor Alves can listen to pledge, please.

Well done.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God.

Indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you all very much.

Absolutely.

Britain.

So Franick is here.

Almita.

She is out of town.

Thank you.

Armstrong.

Not here.

Hernandez.

Chowdy here.

McCarey.

Here.

But them here for burial.

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Vice Chairman.

As we do at the beginning of every meeting, we will open it up for public speaking.

So if you speak, if you could please just give me your name and address for the moment to pick up.

So if any members of the public would like to address the commission.

Any members of the public?

Mr.

Levy.

Good evening.

My name is Warren Levy.

I live at five Silver Drive in Danbury.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight.

I wanted to address two areas of the charter that would benefit from both modernization and greater accountability and transparency.

The naming of the city legal department and the structure and reporting requirements for the corporation council's office.

First, in section 6-2, I urge the commission to update the name.

Corporation council to city law department.

Every other department in our charter is named for an actual, actually, what it does.

Finance, public works, health, human resources.

Corporation council is an outdated term that does not clearly describe the office or the function to the residents.

City law department is a modern, accurate, and consistent with how municipal legal offices named across Connecticut.

Second, 6-4 needs clarification regarding the employment structure within the office.

The charter does not distinguish between a full-time assistant corporation counselor who is a city employee and an outside council or private attorneys hired for a single issue specializing in individual litigation.

These are fundamental different roles with different responsibility and cost structures.

The charter should clearly define each category, require written engagement terms for outside council, and ensure appropriate oversight of scope and the cost.

Finally, I strongly recommend adding requirements that the city law department provide a monthly report to the city council.

This should include a summary of pending litigations, updates on claims and settlements, list of outside uh consultants' engagements, and associated cost.

Each of the other departments in Danbury report to the council on a regular basis.

The law department is only the only exception.

In the private sector, attorneys report to their clients on billable hours and case status routinely.

The public sector should meet the same standards of accountability.

These changes do not interfere with attorney-client privileges or legal strategies.

They simply bring transparency, physical responsibility, and modern governance to the departments that play a critical role in today's city's operations.

Thank you for your time.

Ms.

Levy.

Any other members of the public wish to speak?

I'm sorry.

Jeff Harold, uh Foster Street and Liverborough.

Um, as I was reviewing uh section four um regarding both the mayor and the the chief of staff to the mayor.

Um it says something about quote of two-thirds of the entire membership of the city council at a meeting held not later than 14 days, which means that when the mayor sends something to the city council, if there's not a meeting scheduled, you have to have a special meeting.

So that's uh that's a pretty significant burden if there is a move or any concern about the chief of staff in this case.

So I'm wondering if that shouldn't be changed to at the next regularly scheduled city council meeting or something to that effect.

Um why would that be?

I'm wondering why it says that they have to have a meeting not later than 14 days following delivery of the notice.

That would be a difficult thing to put together in the event there was any kind of an issue.

Why not have the regularly next regularly scheduled meeting, which is already on the calendar and never more than four weeks away.

I'm just just curious about that.

So that's it.

Thank you.

Any other members of the public wish to address the commission?

Any other members of the public?

Any other members of the public?

Okay, seeing that no more um participation, I will now close public participation, and we'll move on to number five, the minutes from our last meeting.

So it's got sent out with the packet.

Does anybody have any questions on the minutes?

It looked pretty good.

Mr.

Chairman, um, seeing no corrections and that uh copies have been provided to all members.

I'd like to make a motion to accept the minutes from the last meeting.

Motions are made.

Is there a second?

Motion has been made by Mr.

Sfrannick, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez.

Any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, I'll try your minds.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye opposed, any abstentions?

Motion carries.

Okay.

So we will move on to our next item.

We'll go over the red lines from last week.

Um just the roadmap for tonight.

Tonight, we're gonna go over the what we talked about at our last meeting last week.

We'll go through the red lines for chapters five and eight.

Let's just make sure that at least for this point, they mean what we want them to mean from our discussion last week, and then we will go on to chapter four, which is the mayor's office, which is a fairly short section, just two paragraphs, and then we'll go on to finance in chapter seven.

Uh the mayor, chief of staff is here as well as the director of finance.

So, for any questions, um, we do have them in the room when we get there.

So that is the um plan of action for tonight.

So we want to start it off for chapters five and eight.

I hope folks had a chance to look at it.

Um, is anything jumping out?

And anybody in the red lines, the draft red lines, that is.

Just a quick question.

I see that um residency requirement is is being added to it.

Is that something we we all I wouldn't hear?

Is that something we all agree to?

So last week we had a consensus for it to put it on here, but obviously nothing's official until we only because some of these boards may be, you know, not just specifically for Danbury, like a parking authority, may not be just as specific for Danbury in and of itself.

So they may want maybe other precipitation, which are dispensation from other areas and not just from Danbury residents.

I'm not sure it's something to discuss.

Yeah, so I we did get the uh because information was asked uh to get a list of how many members we have that are currently serving on boards and commissions.

Um, and director Santos did send that to the commission.

Well, I saw and I believe it's six folks that are currently serving that do not reside in Danbury, um, and also in his no, um he did add that they are ably serving and they all have a connection to Danbury.

So these are not individuals that how can they serve if they don't live in the city of Danbury?

So we have we have nothing that says we can't, and you're you're on the agenda.

So Mr.

Mayor, if you'd like to.

I can help answer that, it's all but I don't want to I will I will pass through the chair.

Each commission or authority has its own set of set of rules uh that'll tell you who can be on or not.

There are many in the city that have residency requirements, so those requirements are fulfilled, but then there are others like the Danbury Historical Society Museum, for example.

That doesn't, and that's an example of an authority that's two folks, um, Miss Cindy Putnam and Doug Palestena, who and Paul Valeria.

Three folks out of the half who have a tremendous tie to this community um and serve in those positions honorably for the city.

Um that's what you're that's what's happening.

I don't consider that a discrepancy, but like the people on the common council.

That they all have to.

So what you're talking about here is just uh boards and committees that are appointed.

So I don't know whether they came from elected office, you have to live in Danbury.

Uh those are those are authorities, uh, they're folks doing city business, and there's people who have legitimate ties.

We nominated one person for the Richter Park authority recently, who has been a teacher in Danbury for decades.

And he runs the youth theater program for decades there, and the authority wants him there.

He spends his his professional life and then his free time.

He sleeps in Newtown.

Um, but his life is Danbury.

And if you and if you keep this um in the uh as a change, it really does six people, right?

And uh, if you look at Paul Valeri, Doug Palestina, Cindy Putnam, uh Bobby Brea.

Uh came with the two out of the hundred, and it's only certain committees, and there's ones that touch everything.

Like uh the aviation, I think has a residency requirement.

Um but if it didn't, that's one that would, you know, I would say that's a good thing.

So many other impacts of folks.

So that that's what that is, it does not change elected office once one bit.

Sorry, uh Mr.

Chair, I just thought I could answer that a little bit.

But I appreciate that.

That's kind of what I was looking for.

So I thought I was rather surprised when I saw that request because it's really a minimal impact to the city.

And yeah.

Appreciate that, Mayor.

Um, and that's why this is a live and breathing document until we get to the very end, so that we can have discussions like this after the fact.

So I think the points are well taken.

Um we can go around the room at the table here and see if anybody has any objection to that.

I I think like in an environment as well where volunteerism is also at an all-time low, finding people to fill these boards and commissions.

I think anybody in the mayor's office can attest that it's sometimes extremely hard to find people that want to serve, let alone run for elected office, which is a whole different thing.

So, you know, I was always for just leaving this alone because you know, as the mayor pointed out, the individual boards and commissions and their bylaws may want to do something with residency requirements in their own right, but as far as it being in the charter, I think it was fine as it is.

Uh, if anybody has the objection, we can run a consensus again to leave those residency non-requirements as it was.

Yeah, council.

If I may, so just to help also assuage any concerns in this commission, um, they're also built-in checks and balances into many of these uh commissions.

For example, on the zoning commission um or the zoning board of appeals.

Um if there's a if there's concern about bias from a member of the commission, whatever the reason may be, um including any sort of interest they may have as a non-danbury resident.

Um there are claims you can file uh to pursue a claim of bias or predetermination.

So uh that's a legal mechanism available, um, not necessarily articulated in the charter, but it exists also, so there are other uh avenues to make sure that um if there was a concern that a non-Danbury resident had some sort of uh improper motive or or bias or uh or prejudgment, you can you can control that.

So um just one more point to mention here uh on the residency issue.

So do we have a consensus?

I want to make sure everybody on the commission their voices heard on this.

Do we want to leave it as it was?

Is there any objection to leaving the non-requirements as it's currently written in the article?

I would leave it as it is.

I would too.

Okay, so uh for our next meeting council, if we could just get a look at that.

Sorry, Commissioner Putnam, did you want to?

No, I just think it's good to clarification, mate the points more valuable to leave it alone.

Absolutely, sir.

Okay.

Um, so we'll go on to so there was one section, it's good that Taylor is here because we flagged this at our last meeting because it was part of uh the suggestions from the North Officer 8-2 to strike the present employees to retain positions paragraph.

The commission just got far, sorry.

Eight-two.

Eight-two, yeah.

Yeah, I figured it was cleanup language, but I just wanted to that's where I was going from.

I believe that was put in just um when this I'm assuming the last time this was uh this document was getting worked on that the employees were probably worried that it meant there could be changes to them.

I don't think with the decisions that have been made that there will be.

I don't know that that necessarily needs to stay in there because any employee from today to the time actually get this, like if this were to get passed, I think it just kind of holds a record of like if I work here today but I get fired tomorrow, does this mean I get to stay because the charter says I got to stay when you decided it?

Makes sense.

I figured it was clean up language.

Anybody have any questions for the chief of staff on that commissioner Sopranic?

I I I don't think so.

Okay.

All right, moving on.

Um, they have the language in here um because there was a conversation about the code of ethics and having language in here that refers to the ethics ordinance, so that is in there as a new section in section F for 8-3.

In 8-5, we have the cleanup language that includes the authorities.

And then in 8-10, we cleaned up the language for the periodic charter review.

So we take out the date and we just have the language in there that just says at least once every 10 years the city council has to act on a resolution.

So those are the red lines again.

So we can always come back to something if somebody has any other suggestions on something as we get further on.

We put on the red lines for the time being.

Okay.

Now move on to chapter 4.

So this is a small chapter.

Does anybody want to kick us off?

Any questions on this one?

I can pass it on to the mayor if he wants to speak on this chapter at all.

Yeah, I'd love to always everybody settles in on their pages.

I'd like to opine on section 42 of the chief of staff of the mayor.

I understand there's two thirds vote in the 14 days, but I also um from a practicality perspective, uh, the mayor is elected by the people, um, and the mayor has very few positions that they can hire in the city.

Um, I don't understand why legislative legislative body can then come in and opine uh the mayor's chief of staff pick.

Imagine like a mayor wins an election, and the legislative body is over two-thirds of the other party, they're gonna make that person's life very difficult and maybe not give them your chief of staff.

Um, and then now the mayor is stuck with somebody who maybe they weren't looking for to find somebody else to appease a legislative body when uh there are those separations there.

Uh the legislative body does have the checks and balances on those offices.

Uh obviously it wasn't a problem for us.

I don't think it's going to, it's not a problem for me in the future.

I'm here already.

So I'm looking at the next mayor, because that can be anybody, it could be any political party.

Um, I don't believe that language um not even think about it until it came up, should even really necessarily be there uh for the mayor's office.

That is uh in usually most branches you can bring in.

Um, you know, I don't think the house is asking the governor to permit who their chief of staff is when he makes those changes.

It just doesn't really make sense to me there in that separation.

Um so I'd speak on that.

Um so consider maybe even just striking that, then it doesn't have any problem with the 14 days.

I agree, as written, it makes no sense because I I think that's probably how mayors did it all its 40 days.

I'll name them 15 days before a meeting, they don't have to worry about it.

Just strike it.

It's the mayor's chief of staff.

Um, the mayor's the mayor's employee there.

Um, from the office, I don't know if there's anything major.

Um sorry.

Yeah.

Um we want to the the mayor, it's not uh the bottom part of it uh when it comes to donations, these aren't donations to the mayor, these aren't donations.

Um these are donations to the city uh to the mayor's office, and anytime anybody gives us you know something over a thousand dollars has to be reported.

Um we would still reflect the council.

I just think because of the times and this was done in probably before 2009, we should look at those numbers because of value too.

Uh these aren't again, these aren't personal gifts to anybody.

We don't accept those, those are gifts to the city.

Uh correctly, and then the other one is just on what you just said really quickly.

Sorry, everything gets reported even at a dollar level.

We're just talking about to the council report.

Um so the council has to approve it.

So what happened is somebody wants to make a donation usually quicker than that, and we say, oh, sorry, the council meeting just happened, I can't take this money for another 30 days.

Now the department's risk losing that donation.

Uh so that is why we're asking if it could be changed to potentially be an acceptance of any donation over a certain amount.

If you guys can decide what what is fair there.

The example is somebody can donate something to the health department.

That's the city of Dan Burr, it's not the mayor's office.

Yeah, that's what people are coming with us.

Recreation is what we get a lot.

We get a lot of um philanthropists who want to donate $500, $1,500, $2,000 to our rec department to come through us to do it.

Uh, this is just about expediting that and make it a little bit easier because a thousand dollars in 2009 is certainly not a thousand dollars today, and everybody here knows that everything is reported, every check has to be written to the city of Danbury, so everything goes to our finance department.

There's nothing taken uh by any department, should not be taken any by a department that doesn't go through finance, or everything is reported.

And then if you can opine other one other thing is in four-one.

In four-one, just a request.

Um, we find that the annual reports are being uh much less read and on paper.

Uh, we've still opted to print them, but we find that we are if even if we print only 100, 200, that several are not taken and come back to us.

Now we try to drop them off everywhere.

We go to the senior center.

So just so for the folks we have a lot of folks who are new to the government stopped, we are required by law to print the city's annual report that is posted online uh at a almost no cost.

Um but because we have to print them, they just sit around here for years.

I can give you guys piles of annual reports from 2018 and from 19 that nobody is reading.

They look at that nice beautiful picture on the cover, uh, and they just sit there on coffee tables throughout the building.

Um we still have to do them, we were gonna do them, uh, but we just think that the requirement to print and the expenditures to print that go up every year, it can certainly be looked at.

Sorry.

Yeah, no, I mean uh they should still be made available, but I think I I would like to see like just to say the mayor should make them available per the way that makes sense, like when we have the budget for it or where we're going, we'll do more.

I don't see this administration not printing them, but I think in the future that's probably the direction it would head because it does cost us significant.

I think we spent 8,000 last year or so.

Uh but if we were to able to just do it online, of course, that would cost the taxpayers nearly nothing that much.

Mr.

Chairman, to the mayor, if I could.

Sorry.

So, sir, do you want to remove the printing altogether or do you well just want to move the requirement to print?

We don't see our administration not printing.

I believe we'll move the workshop.

Yeah.

So shall prepare well to be printed and is the we want to remove that printed and so you want to so I so we'll you'll still have to do the annual.

Um we're not asking to not do the annual report.

It's uh actually I think it's state statute.

Um what we're asking for is just not have to spend eight thousand dollars to print it.

Um everybody has access online.

We we as our administration will still print them.

Um but I think we can really just think about the future here.

Who knows if this committee doesn't open again for another 17 years and that the world's gonna look very different in five.

Let's just make it of them.

Hey, is there a value in printing still or not?

Would the language be at the discretion of the mayor's office?

Would that help?

Moving future that gives us future, but it also makes it um pliable.

I don't think that's well.

I don't even know if you got the word print.

Because you could I mean, if say let's assume we take out printed and he or she still could has to still make it available somehow.

Again, if they wanted to spend $8,000 to print it, they could.

And then uh just again, just practically speaking here.

Um any mayor who's here, um, if they're not required to do it, they save the money.

But if the public has put pressure on them, hey, I want a physical copy, physical copy, you're going to have to print them because there's only so much public pressure until you have to make uh however many you need available.

Um just can't rewarding be available online should someone require it printed, yeah.

Which has a chance to that's what we're asking if you make it available.

Then you can get it printed to them and mail it to them.

Yeah, that's what we're saying.

I mean, the only issue I see is elderly people.

A lot of them are not and a lot of them still follow politics and all that and this kind of stuff.

I mean, yeah, agree.

You know, I can that's what we do.

We bring them to the senior center, we try to get them taken, but they only can they don't all get taken.

Uh you know, yeah.

But I would make it you know available on the colour.

We should look for the future to see if there's because everything is electronic.

So and that's the way I was going with the news uh papers too.

Like that's just kind of the overall look I when I read this, like why make it necessary when it's gonna cost so much, especially down in 10 more years, how much more is it gonna cost?

Can we so is is everybody okay with removing the physical print requirement?

Okay, so my question to council is gonna be just for our next meeting or in the future.

Can we just make sure that the statute doesn't say it has to be printed?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Sorry, thank you.

Well, then or at least uh I'm sorry, yeah, whatever the state statute is.

Like if you can and then if maybe if that's the case, um council, can we say that uh whatever state statute requires so that if they change it, yeah, that way the city is clear on on going forward following state statutes.

Yeah, um, you want to increase I'm throwing out a number we can all debate it.

Uh 5,000 for the gift.

I would recommend that too.

It's five for every deal is that makes sense.

I see that was proposed five thousand.

So that's okay.

That's that's a proposed change, yeah.

And then anything over that vote of the count will do but we'll default to the current process, which is to the city council to accept.

So just to put a go back to the point which we just discussed.

There's also the shell language preceding it, we'll adjust the shell to May for perfect printing.

Um assuming there's no statutory requirement.

So we'll make that change.

Oh, shall we keep it?

Okay, okay.

Shall we cost if we can say four-two?

Four-two.

Chief of staff section.

So we heard comments from the mayor.

Does anybody have any questions on that procedure?

I think the um about the appointment may be disapproved, right?

Should be struck.

Any objection to that or any discussion on that?

I think the points were very well taken.

It is an executive function.

So we'll put that in the draft.

And we'll make that change.

Chapter.

So two paragraphs.

Let's say that's easy.

Are we done with that?

We if there's any other discussion, very uneventful.

We can move on to the the big one, money, chapter seven.

Yes, Commissioner Armstrong.

Which, yes, and just I want to just announce for the camera, Commissioner Armstrong has joined us.

Okay.

Um I stated before the another meeting.

I think this should be more reader user-friendly.

It's a chunk of words and a lot, or as we could break it out with bullets and make it easier for people to understand.

And this kind of people to understand.

But I I there's several things here.

Oh, on the mayor.

Um, yeah, four-one the mayor.

Uh so that's why um to make it more reader-friendly, especially this section, uh, so that the we have a clear understanding of what it is.

I'm talking discussing four.

No, I guess I know you've you've you've mentioned this, Commissioner Armstrong.

Like is it are you is your question more so like the actual formatting of the document?

Yeah, basically it was the formatting, but I also uh to break it out like what the duties of the mayor is and how that is uh tied to what the what the uh the city needs as far as stuff like uh letting the council know the financial work of uh well being of the city, that kind of thing is is in there and it's all clumped in without and and put together, not the administrative duties, not the legal duties or anything of that nature, it's not real friendly in my opinion.

I think the unfortunate thing about city charters, municipality to municipality is they're for uh for good reason written in legalese like that.

So I think I mean your point is very well taken to the the lay person, you read this, it's sometimes reads like a run-on sentence, but I'm trying to think of a creative solution that would as I stated a couple of times before.

I've looked at a couple of other charters in cities of our size and our depth, and they seem to in the state and out of the state seem to be a little bit more reader-friendly and duty friendly as nobody's trying to pull anything over anybody's eyes, and but we refer often that we are running, we are doing what our charter says that we do, and then don't make it a document that it's user-friendly.

Oh, let me other comments.

Is there a way to put it in paragraphic form?

I'm trying to think of like a way, like maybe we could split up the paragraph or and just all the name for all the merchants.

I also worry like that if we do that in one paragraph, it's gonna not realize it this is one wise.

Uniformity is pretty important for a constitution, so I would like to keep everything the same format, but maybe a paragraph break might be something.

That's why my comment is here as well.

Yeah, because I think it doesn't need to be uniform.

I said that before, and to make it uh and I'll make the comment again uh other parts of the document.

Yeah, it is in my opinion.

Okay, uh it makes it easier for people to read because we refer to it as a working document.

Um maybe when we get to the end when we because we're gonna dedicate a full meeting to actually putting the draft report together before the second public hearing.

So we'll actually look at our work product that we're gonna hand to the city council.

Umce we have all of our red line changes, maybe we that would be a time to address it, uh, Commissioner Armstrong.

Maybe there could be something like subheadings we can put in on paragraphs that maybe just kind of point the reader as to okay.

This section is their executive power, this section is some maybe something innocuous like that that's not substantive, but I think the time to do that would be when we're done with the substantive changes.

That's my my opinion for the group.

Uh and for example, that last part when we talk about accepting gift.

It it goes right into the paragraph if by the state law, and then the mayor shall be authorized to accept uh of donations, and that's kind of not with the other part of the the description of what that section is opposed to are no other, but that's okay.

So quickly for the chair.

Um, I mean, if the commission wants, uh I don't I'm very concerned about making drastic amendments to specific sections of this charter, especially when there's duties that are concerned, but we do have a section seven-four, which we haven't got to yet, but that does specify the duties.

Um I'm sorry, section seven three, which does specify the mayor's duties with respect to the budget, and we have subsections there, um a through F.

I could look at seeing whether it makes sense to do something similar under 4-1, but I I want to be cautious not to not to complicate what we have in 4-1 right now.

Um so we can look at it if you want us to um as a commission, but I don't I mean, I do think that we do articulate fairly, at least in my judgment, fairly clearly what the duties are under 4-1.

But if the commission wants us to look at it, we can do it.

I only thought would be maybe making it look like seven-three, but that's really just sort of reorganizing, not so much making any substantive changes.

Yeah, which to council's point would be what I would be, and this is just me as a single commissioner.

What I would be okay with is organization, not so much substantive changes to the actual formatting of the duties, just because it's a very important paragraph, because mayor is the CEO of the city, so we want to be careful with what we're tweaking with there as well-intentioned as it is, Commissioner Armstrong.

Um I think that is also something we can come back to when we get to the final term.

I understand.

Very well.

Okay.

Um, chapter seven, big one, finance and taxation.

So we have the mayor and the director of finance and our economic director as well here.

We're all work us through this question.

Um, just at the jump, does anybody have any big picture questions on this paragraph for any of our subject matter experts in the room?

Or commissioner Spring?

Um, I was gonna recommend, depending on what the director of finance wants, we have specific dates, February 15th.

I I don't want to box us in that it has to be on the 15th.

Let's say by the end of the month or something like that, because we've all seen guess what there's a blizzard that day.

Now we're in violation of the charter if we can't meet.

Um, I don't know, I like to get everybody's opinion, but I don't like seeing specific dates if we don't need to.

If there's no need for it, why do we have it?

And I don't know if that would help.

Or I would be the there's one in there that's written a little bit backwards on February 15th regarding the capital.

So Dan, if you if you want to maybe give your overview of this chapter from your department's perspective, I think that would be at least good to get the conversation started for the commission.

Uh let me jump between uh Taylor has notes and then I have notes.

Um, but I think she has most of mine in her notes.

Um section A.

Uh no later than April 7th.

Just change that to the mayor shall present to the council at the first meeting of the city council in April.

Never understood why that was April 7th, you know.

Because you're gonna have our first Tuesday unless there's some special thing going on, but it's gonna be that first week in April.

So at the first meeting in April.

Then you would eliminate also or the next business day there at removing the date.

Right, right.

Yep.

Any questions on that suggestion by uh the last sentence in C just uh correcting um proposition there, the mayor shall present uh for his recommendation for their recommendations.

Yeah, preposition there, the mayor shall present uh for his recommendation for their recommendations.

That's just part of we have a standing, we have a standing okay.

I guess it from the commission that when we see that language, it becomes the mutual language.

Um in Egging back to uh Mike's comment.

Um as part of the budget, the mayor shall present a program to the city council for adoption, additions or deletions no later than February 15th, if we uh could delete that no later than February 15th.

It's always been part of the presentation in April.

I'm not sure why that February 15th date ever came about.

Um it may have been to get the February get from the planning commission by February 15th to the mayor, uh similar to what they did with the board of education up in uh I missed that date.

There's another February 15th uh that the board of ed has to present to the to the mayor.

So if anything, that date should be February 15th, the planning commission is presenting capital approving plan to the mayor, not the mayor to the council.

So you could either strike that date no later than February 15th or change the wording around from planning commission to the mayor.

Any tracking so far?

Okay.

Um where the sentence begins.

Uh following the receipt of the estimates of the mayor, it goes on.

Uh this and I won't read the entire sentence, but the council shall um talks about the publication in the newspaper.

So the council shall for Connecticut state statutes instead of uh costs to be published in a newspaper, uh, strike that notice of such public hearing and summary I've said, budget estimates showing anticipated revenues, and it goes on.

And so that's uh in line with the uh recent house bill that was passed, so we don't have to purchase a senator's paper.

So striking to be published in a newspaper, having a circulation in the city red lines, um, and then in seven-nine expenditures and accounting.

Um talks about no voucher claim, charge against the city shall be paid until the same has been modified by the director of finance.

Uh is that red line.

I'm not sure if that's accurate.

Um agent of the director and approved by the director.

Um so no voucher, claim or charge against the city shall be paid until the same has been audited by the director, uh finance or agent of the director and approved by the director, and then they need to add in again or agent of the director.

And then the very last of that section says uh director of finance, treasurer, the mayor may be authorized to substitute temporarily for either or both of them, strike or both of them segregation of duties issue there.

So it can do one or the other, but not both seven-nine again in section E.

Transfers.

Um this is kind of a strange language.

Uh the mayor at any time may transfer any unencumbered appropriation among programs within a department, office, board, commission, or agency upon the request of the mayor, but only within the last four months of the fiscal year.

If we strike, but only within the last four months of the fiscal year, the city council may by resolution transfer any uncovered appropriation.

So what that does now is if a department uh say one of the smaller departments, especially airport.

Can't buy a headlight because he's short $50 in his entire department.

The council can't even transfer money into the airport until the last four months of the year.

It just doesn't operationally make any sense.

We've never never had an issue with it, but um we could have an issue.

I think the unit had a $20,000 expense we had to find money for a few years ago, uh cleaning up a property, and they're so small they they just couldn't do it.

So uh we worked around it, but it's just it's still going through the mayor, it's still going through the council.

I'm not sure why we would shackle the hands of the council and transfer money to the last four months of the year.

Um and I guess in F it's more of a legal question.

Uh talks about additional appropriations.

Uh there's language in section five that is a little more clear about additional appropriations.

So increasing the budget.

Uh it's very clear in section seven five the uh the procedure for that.

Uh in section F.

It seems to conflict with that, and section F is um not as clear right now.

Um section section seven-five is for emergency appropriations where app ice doesn't have to be emergency, and it's um seems to be you want to much easier.

So you're looking just to reconcile seven five from seven nine F basically.

First, I thought, well, remove section remove uh seven nine F.

But then that doesn't possibly have to have additional appropriation, not necessarily for emergencies.

But it should have the same requirements that are in uh seven-five.

Right.

It just seems strange for an emergency, you would have to go above and beyond what you have to do for just any additional appropriation.

Well, we can look at that.

I mean, I think the idea was obviously if it's a emergency basis, then you want you know a higher threshold for that purpose.

But we can look at that.

I have no problem.

I have no problem revising the issue about notification.

Yeah.

Yeah.

A lot of these sections were drafted when newspaper notice was required statutorily.

Um, but obviously we can remove that uh expenditure invert, and then we can certainly do that.

Does anybody have an objection for whenever there's references to the newspaper circulation to have that language read just in line with state statute?

So that way we're covered.

I think we've been we've caught most, if not all of them up until this point, but just in case one gets by us, we'll we'll just it's good to know we all are on the same page with that one.

Sorry, and go ahead.

Okay, I just want to make sure I'm not going between the two.

I want to make sure I'm not missing either one of ours.

Uh in um in G uh in G of I think I flipped pages and lost far was 79G.

Um it talks about um abandoning project after three years, which we've we've never done here.

Uh we have gone to the council to basically abandon a project, but we've never made it mandatory after three years.

So uh it talks about uh appropriations for construction or other permanent province for whatever source derived shall not lapse until the purpose for which the appropriation was made shall have been accomplished or abandoned.

Currently, it includes provided any such project shall be deemed to have been abandoned if three years of fiscal uh shall elapse without any expenditure from or encumbrance of appropriation, therefore.

So if we eliminate from provided any such project uh to the end of the sentence.

And then that would force us to go back to the council to truly abandon a project.

It just, you know, if we automatically just cut something off after three years, I could see like a public works project that um has been stalled for one reason or another, waiting for approvals on something.

And now your money has disappeared.

Just operationally really caused some headaches.

Section eight.

Um across this quite a bit with this part of the butt um the very last sentence talks.

So this is talking about expenditures that do not follow the uh same same uh seven- uh nine uh section H.

So it's payment in violation of provisions of the charter, so you have to go through purchasing um like I said, we've talked about this uh quite a bit in department head meetings.

Um the language there says um if you do that, such action shall be caused for the that person's removal.

Well we try to you know keep it.

We actually have an uh purchase order exception report.

If you didn't do a purchase order, uh invoice comes in, we have to pay the invoice, you fill out the exception form.

This is why I did it.

If you read this language, it says the person shall be uh removed.

Um so if we add a recommending addict language for progressive discipline instead of you're being removed.

Things happen, you know, there's always an exception to the rule.

Um, but it we don't want to remove say no, you know, you're free to purchase whatever you want.

Are they under union contract?

That's gonna be my question.

Uh not necessarily they could be, they might not be.

It all depends on on who ordered it.

Sometimes we have like the fire department, it could be somebody in the union that is ordering uh goods or services.

Sometimes you wind up in emergencies, and there's exceptions in here for emergencies.

Could be a theory of part two.

Well, I was gonna say sometimes we could put a rec in, thinking we think we're all said something installed a PO, and theoretically we're operating on a rec, not a PO, and we say go ahead, buy it.

Well, all of a sudden the PL gets declined for whatever reason.

Now I've just obligated myself to buying something that I needed, but the PO has to be cleared up.

So technically the PO is not in place, I can be fired for that, even though I'm acting in goodwill.

I might have actually seen that form a few times.

Go figure.

Um so that wasn't on my list, also.

Yeah.

It's you know, you don't mean to do it, you know, in an emergency, sometimes you have to you know move forward with a wreck or something along those lines or something that's full of.

Um I think you know, possible progressive discipline.

I mean, if somebody does it over and over and over again, yes, we would you know, follow progressive discipline.

Um and again, to your point, if if they're in the union, um you'd have some sort of grievance that you just went in and fired the person for first time they ordered a five dollar part, you know, forgot to put a PO in or something like along those lines.

So if we add a language like uh uh sex action shall be caused for progressive discipline actions as determined by the department head and or the mayor and human resources.

So my only comment for this one, because I do agree that I think it needs to be changed.

I sometimes worry we over-engineer sentences.

So would it would just saying something simple like shall be cause for discipline also get the job done for the case?

I'd like could be called for discipline.

So if you say shall be automatically you're being disciplined, or it could be cause.

I mean, all it means is it well, it's cause means you could discipline is subject to the person disciplining it.

So I mean it could be is something, it could be any number of disciplinary actions.

I think if we also if we also say progressive discipline, I'm just a little concerned with using the term progressive because if it's particularly egregious incident, now you're locking the city into progressive steps, meaning that they can't take more serious action initially, right?

If you give some latitude in the language, then maybe there's it, maybe progressive is appropriate in nine times out of ten, but maybe in that one instance where it's not, you want to be able to take more decisive action.

And the and the word progressive discipline is actually a legal term of art in the labor law arena.

So charters sometimes less is more.

Yeah, is what the suggestion was.

Was anybody object to that?

Uh 7-10 borrowing.

Uh right now it's limited to uh three million.

Uh recommendation is uh five million.

Or some sort of some something, you know, three million was from 2009.

It was increased at that time.

I forget what it was previously before I want to say.

I think it was 500,000.

So uh yeah.

So again, some some sort of adjustment there.

I think for that one at least, you know, we've heard public comment on it both ways.

We've heard the rationale from the department on that one.

I think if you just do the math for inflation from then it would have today's dollars would be around five million anyway.

So I think it's just good government to keep an eye on that number and to be increasing it as the economy goes the way it goes.

So I mean, Mr.

Mayor, if I'll give you an opportunity for that one, because I know you did talk about it.

This is um open and charter revision isn't without controversy or forced foreign politics, right?

So something that was a good idea 10 years ago, it's now a bad idea this time.

And I wanted to move away from that.

What I what I asked this body was to at least look at that, um, because in 2009 it went up from 500,000 to 3 million for a very real reason.

Um so when we brought up from our office's perspective, is at the very least, I hope that you look at it based on what the value of 3 million dollars is today.

Um I do think that this table should at least have a discussion on value versus uh some costs of things, right?

The cost of goods have gone up, not just the value of the dollar.

Um we've formed a room here that has a lot of unique perspectives.

Some of you work in development and building and and contracting and certainly government contracting and see how much our costs have gone up.

Um this is something that is nice for the city to have in case of emergencies.

A culvert during a storm, a roof that gets um damaged and needs to be done right away.

Um, and sometimes you don't have the ability to go and bond this money and open up a referendum, or maybe right now we have a healthy fund reserve.

Our administration's done a phenomenal job at doing that.

But I'm looking at the future too.

If those funds ever go down, um what are we doing for them and the ability uh to borrow?

So again, my ask was that at least you look at it and at the very least go up to what three million dollars is worth today, which is just under five million dollars.

Um, but a conversation is certainly merited on not just five million dollars, but what the cost of um that five million can actually buy you too.

Thank you, sir.

I'll make a comment.

Yeah, please.

Speaking from my perspective, the costs have gone up astronomical, and especially in my industry.

So I look at that three million.

That's like taking health care and saying that health care of today is the cost of what it was in 2009.

It's not.

So you have to make adjustments for that.

When we when we do a bid, we sign a contract and it gets delayed in the state, and all of a sudden the steel market goes through the roof, those numbers become obsolete, and a contractor can't do that for that.

So you go back into renegotiation or it goes back out to bid.

So I I agree that three million in 2009 is not what it is today.

So that is something that does ha have to be changed to, you know, to make it that you can make decisions in the city of Danbury to equivalent to what the dollar is worth today.

Commissioner go around the table, Commissioner's Fanny.

Um I'd like to through the mayor.

Um, would it make more sense to tie it to the budget?

Or is the budget increases your bonding increase?

Because what I worry about is let's say we don't do this commission another 12, 14 years.

We can never increase.

This way we know that as it increases, we're set at a certain percentage.

And maybe you know, Danny as the treasurer.

Uh just a thought on one of the things.

I think you can look to see if anybody does that.

Uh my hesitancy is um, as much as I want to make things uh run smoother for other administrations when I'm not here, I also want to make sure we protect the city with other administrations that I'm not here.

Um, and I think right, so imagine you have an administration that comes in and increases the budget by the reticulous amount.

Now they have the ability to borrow more money than they should as well.

And I think we need some kind of protection on that.

I think the responsible thing is to have the conversation for at least what it's worth.

But the responsible thing is also to determine is is five million enough based on the cost of doing business today, not just the value of the dollar.

But I don't think you uh I I wouldn't be for tying it to a percentage of budget because I think it can get dangerous in the future.

No, I just thought I prefer actually, I think more than five is is what we should be doing, in my opinion.

Um, based upon what you said.

I'll give you an extra quick example.

We're doing a runway project at the airport.

It's 4.3 million.

You know, 10 years ago it was about 1.5 million.

You know, so I'd like to have flexibility.

And you know, fiscal responsibility is every mayor's goal.

I don't think any mayor any mayor is going to come in and just start bonding like crazy, because then it won't get re-elected.

And it's it's okay it's in indicative to keep the financial responsibility in place.

You know, I mean that's just my opinion.

Because what happens in five years from now?

You know, suppose there's another COVID and all of a sudden costs double.

Eight million is is a roof.

Yeah, Mr.

Chairman, if I may through you.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um, no, just to stick on the continuation of that.

Um, we're we're talking, I'm talking about 2009 to today.

We saw the astronomical jump in costs over the last four years after COVID.

Um, so again, that's the value of a dollar, but just the supply chain, the cost of goods and material, uh, that can happen again in two years.

And right, I'm not for the percentage, but I just think we also we're not thinking about just today.

This charter is also thinking about the next 10 years.

Um, so that's why you know, five million is what what it's today versus 2009.

But what is it next year?

What is it eight years from now, two years before this charter is possibly reviewed and maybe open, maybe not, and we have to take those things into account.

And if an administration is um irresponsible, but with some kind of cap, then the voters would be like, no, we don't like that, like you just said, Commissioner Sefranik.

And they can then go and uh they can make their voices heard on what's being had in the council can come in um uh at some point too.

But I just think we we certainly have to look at it.

One other quick question.

Um, I see it written over and over again.

Uh I see 20-year bond, 20-year bond.

Would there ever be a need for a 30-year bond in the future as as you know, markets change?

I don't want to be limited, you know, mortgages are 30 years now, where that's changed over the last few years.

If we're saying we can only get a 20-year bond, let's stupidly say interest goes on to 1% for whatever reason.

Yeah, I'd take a 40-year bond at 1%.

Is it does it make sense maybe to the director of finance?

I'm not sure.

I'll say this fair.

We've had two very successful bond sales since I've been here where we've gotten one of the lowest, not the lowest rate of any municipality in a rolling 12-month calendar.

Um, and when I look at to see what our rates are, the the few times the rates have ever been better have been on 30 years.

Um, yes, there, you know, the the lender is gonna make a little bit more money, but then that gives you a little bit less pain up front.

Um if I had the option to do 30 years now, I'd probably still would have done 20 years.

Um, but uh it is nice to have that option if it makes more sense.

Uh Dan has been in this, and before Dan was the director of finance, he was the city's risk manager, still is the city's risk manager.

So Dan, you can give your opinion on there.

I think that uh our administration would prefer the 20 year.

Oh but uh I think we it's having that flexibility to look at a 30-year is probably important as well.

Yeah, I as a taxpayer, I would prefer 20 years.

Yeah, uh, just that much more interest you're paying.

Just to spread it out.

If you look at uh the life, the the payoff schedule of our bonds, we're always within 10 years, we're retiring about 75 to 80 percent of our bonds.

Um, and that's that's where we try to stay at, even when we're taking on new bonds.

Okay, so we schedule it all out.

So there's really not a need for 30 years.

Um, and it's again, it's just gonna just like your home mortgage.

You know, if you take a 30-year or 50 15 year, I would always go with the 15 year, so I'm not paying twice as much interest.

Me personally, if I'm getting it at 1%, I'll mortgage that forever, which is free money.

If if inflation is four, right, but you're having money you're investing at that point, right?

Right?

The city shouldn't have you stay sitting on stockpiles of money.

We should uh we shouldn't be operating that.

If we're if we have that much extra money, that means we're we are charging the taxpayer too much.

Um so I I agree uh that's why you just want to give the fine if if that was something you'd be.

That means your money is growing.

You as a private investor, if you're only gonna charge one percent, your but the money you're saving is growing at you know, six to eight percent, possibly more, a little bit less.

Uh the city shouldn't, you know, so yes, we have some and we do have some money, we do make good investments on some of the cash that's sitting in there, but that shouldn't be our driving principle.

Thank thank you for the clarification.

Yeah.

Any other discussion points on that?

I think I mean I'm curious, I'm curious.

Um, you know, just hearing the discussion, because we have subject matter experts at the table for a reason in our private lives um to look at that dollar amount for the five million.

You know, mayor gave a good point as to you know, we shouldn't just look at how much the actual dollar is worth, but we should look at actually what that money is going towards, and that is the cost of the projects that are associated with going out to the bond.

So I'm curious the thoughts of the folks here of the suggestion to the five and how we feel about that, or if it might even be too low.

I'd like to go to eight to give us some wiggle room in the future, based on just what you were saying about how this could be another COVID, and then we're not wearing handcuffed.

I agree.

I would agree with the eight thousand as well.

Eight billion.

Okay, sorry.

Sorry, you're right.

Especially if we may not be re revising this again for a while.

Sorry, sure.

No, that's correct.

No reason.

Yeah, it will increase.

Is there uh sorry, Mr.

Chair?

Sir, yeah, can I please is there a mechanism for an I don't I think eight million is a lot at once.

I just want to be honest, right?

Um personally, uh just palatable as a taxpayer given somebody the ability to do that.

Um but I also think we really should be looking at this, not just this year, but the possibility of what what's going to happen inflation?

But what are we gonna estimate inflation?

Is it three percent a year, six percent a year?

I think anywhere between three to five um or two and a half to four and a half is a good number.

Is there a mechanism in a charter where can you uh where you can allow for that kind of uh four forecasting?

I I don't know the answer to that.

Um, but I I think eight million is a big number.

It is why one of the way to like a the budget itself.

I think that's too dangerous because then I think that's a percentage that's just four.

Uh but is there a mechanism for this body to discuss that five million with some kind of steps that go into the future?

Um that I mean I'm thinking not to cut you off maybe, but I'm thinking creatively here.

I mean, you you see them in labor contracts with wage increases, right?

Like in year one uh amount will be X, year two, it's Your three at Z.

Maybe there's a state inflation there.

There's a state inflation number that the city uses for our budgeting purposes that gets released.

Um, I think that's fairer.

Can we tie it so like we we could go to eight with a vote of the council?

Like the council can increase it with the mayor suggests and the council increases.

Well, why why eight first off?

What why eight million?

Not ten, not five.

I would why not the five with the state's inflation, and that's what the state determines inflation is for Connecticut.

Isn't that a pain in the neck to fill figure out sometimes which I think you the number right before the budget is is uh done.

Yeah, as long as you're specific about which what you're tying it to.

Sometimes you see you see CPI, and it's like, well, which CPI?

That's the one who that's the one that's the number the state gives us to determine.

Um you get every year as we're going through our budget.

We get something from the from the state saying that OPM, you know, the state has determined the rate of inflation for Connecticut is X is it county or is it full state states?

The state okay.

Yeah, because well you're when you're going out to bid, you're not bidding in the county county, you're building.

I think that's a I think that's a again, I don't even know if I'm allowed to do this for chair.

But I think and that that's where I was leaning with this.

I just hesitate on that large number right away.

But with a responsible increase that's tied to some kind of benchmark or metric.

What are other cities our size or bigger charge?

What is their I I think they they're bonded?

Their bonding ability is uh usually a lot higher than ours.

Yeah.

Without going to a without going to a referendum.

Yeah.

I don't know off the top of my head.

Maybe we can we can get that information for next week if you have a couple more meetings left.

Yeah.

Yeah, three million exists today.

What was it prior to this?

500.

So it went up six times.

Right?

So what mechanism was used at that point in time?

Say six was the right number.

That's a good question.

Right.

This is my thought.

Oh my goodness.

We're here.

Trying to remember.

I think it was based on, and I I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was based upon like a project, like a roof or something.

Um that said we need this one to do a roof.

We have to, you know, what happens if it doesn't pass?

That we can't do a roof on, you know, school or something like that.

And I think that's where it was crafted.

Does that make sense, Dan?

Oh, 15 million.

I don't know how to do that.

I think it was something I remember something along those lines where it was tied to something like that.

You know, God forbid we need to do a new roof.

We 500,000 won't get us there.

Are there documents from the 2009 meeting that change that?

Sure.

I mean, why don't we reference it?

Phone call to pre-muse aid will yeah, because that would be a huge number if it was six.

Because he was involved with that.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah.

What did they use to base that?

Because it should it should be increased at some level.

Agreed.

From three million.

I think the the the index is a creative solution.

It is high, but I want to be able to give it some wiggle room to grow into it kind of thing.

In 10 years or 15 if we could if it goes that long.

No, and also even do a cost out a forward 10 year forward at the index at uh the projected average inflation rate C.

Something like that.

Well, I'm just thinking like just for our own knowledge of the data.

Would we write something like that in?

We could.

I was thinking, I was thinking something, so like the index is a good idea, or I was thinking of sort of like a step step language in here.

It would be like it'd be five million in count in fiscal year, whatever.

Every five years.

And then every two years it goes up, however amount, and then but you have to you have to know your numbers at that point to be sure of the math, which is why the index might be a better solution.

But is everybody okay at least as a floor to go with five and then look at the inbox might come out as as that sort of a forward outlook.

Here's what I'll say, right?

I mean, five million and you get a three percent increase.

You're not really doing much to I just now thinking about those numbers, but um I appreciate you guys even having the conversation on this and and realizing that three million isn't the same.

Yeah today that it's in 2009.

I mean, we can I mean a proposal from commissioner was five.

I mean, we could or was eight.

Yeah, we could meet somewhere in the middle and go with six.

Three percent is 150,000.

50,000.

I like the meth.

It would which is why I think almost the step might be a better idea to actually lock in numbers after so many years.

I mean, we could we could do a couple options maybe with an index and then year step increase, so to speak.

I don't know how to use a better analogy, but like every so often it goes up, a million for until we get to eight at some point, assuming the charter revision doesn't meet for another 10 years or something like that.

Are we okay?

At least with that roadmap going into next few meetings?

Yes.

Um I did have one suggestion for I don't know if it should fit in here, and I sent it to council to just look at it.

Um, because it does involve the board of ed, and the board of ed is very highly governed by state statute.

But I had mentioned this at our very first meeting, substantive meeting, I believe, where you know, just everybody knows what was going on in the news with the finances with the board of ed and how it's done in some other municipalities where the board of ed is obviously in control of their money by state statute, but some municipalities have some form of fiscal controls or checks in their charters for the city side over the board of ed.

And I think it would be good to at least look at language in the charter to set up mechanisms for the city to at least have that check on the board of ed.

Um I just want to make sure that it's legal before I present it because the board of ed is very highly governed by state statute.

Um, and it may fit in this chapter, it might fit in next week in the department head chapter because believe it or not, we don't even have a board of ed section in the charter, which I thought was interesting.

Didn't they mention though at one of the meetings earlier that we couldn't put that in the charter about the board of ed?

You have to I think what was said was like you have to be careful with what you put in the charter about the board of ed because it's very very highly regulated by state statute.

But my interpretation and I this is my opinion is um nothing says that a municipal municipality can't put a check on how that money is spent.

We can't tell them how they spend the money, but we can't put a check on how they spend it.

So that would be my suggestion.

I so I just want to make sure council is okay to take and some case law is developed here.

So yeah, we can might fit better in chapter six anyway, but I just wanted to just at least bring it to the attention as we get to that next week.

Two quick questions.

Um section seven-nine a what happens if we don't have a purchasing agent?

Nothing can be purchased based upon the charter.

But okay.

It just says nothing shall be purchased without a purchasing agent.

I think there might be a state statute attached to that.

Okay, because I mean yeah, I forbid chick it's sick.

Okay.

Um the other one I had was uh seven subsection D.

I have no clue what that means.

Several departments.

It's arbitrary and capricious.

I think that just I think that's just a like a le legal ease for all of the departments.

It says several, not all.

It's it's clearly says several departments does this.

A lawyer wrote this.

I mean, I'm not concerned about that one.

No, okay.

It's I just know I didn't know what it meant or what it what is their own.

I mean it's I mean it could be fine-tuned, um, but it's not it's not restricting office.

It's just saying, you know, it could just say the department's means several is just you know additional length.

So do they change from week to week, year to year?

Several.

Keep going.

Okay.

That's all I got.

Nope, there's one thing I just caught um for the borrowing section.

So I'm just thinking ahead here because we did have a consensus to move forward, at least send that recommendation for a four-year term of office.

Um the language as it's written right now.

Ordinance authorizing such issues shall be submitted for approval or disapproval of the electors at the next municipal election or at a special city meeting special referendum.

We're up back at section seven-10.

10.

Okay.

So I wonder if we should just have it the electors at the next general election, or a special election called for said purpose, just because I don't think we should.

Because, like, say the mayor at the time wants to go out to bond for 20 million dollars the year that they got elected.

They either have to wait for the next if they want it to fall on a general, they'd have to wait till the next municipal to do it or all a special, which costs more money.

I just think that might be an efficiency that's in here.

Might be worth looking at flag it, but that would just be my suggestion to just make it the next general election or at a special referendum.

Okay, so what's that?

Sorry, Joe, did you vote?

No, yeah, I got it.

All right, so we went through a lot.

Um circle back to the beginning.

Does anybody want to speak on anything?

Anything come into their mind as we started talking while we have the SMEs in the room.

So we will uh continue our usual course of action.

We will get red lines from our council who's doing an unbelievable job in getting us uh one-week turnarounds on work product, which is been extremely impressive and very much appreciated.

Um I don't have anything of substance on the chairman's report except that we are believe it or not, nearing the tail end of our substantive meetings.

Um next week will be chapter six, which is all of the departments.

So we'll bring in HR and we'll revisit the discussions that we had flagged earlier.

Um just to name uh a few legislative assistant and other the departments um that were brought up in previous discussions.

So we will do that next week, and then the plan is for the following week after that.

We will have our meeting spent on actually putting together the draft report, which has been pretty much put together as we went week to week by our council.

So we'll spend that last meeting going over the draft report, and then the week after that.

Um we have to have one more public hearing before we actually transmit that draft to the city council for them to take a look at.

So there's a couple more steps that we have to do, but we're nearing the tail end of our redlining um sessions.

So I just want to flag that for everybody because you know we're getting into vacation season two, so just keep over-communicating with me on when you think you're gonna be late or if you're not gonna be here.

Everybody's gonna think great about that so far.

So um that's all I have, but asserting.

Quick comment.

Um, I I heard a lot of talk about before we created this commission about how it was impossible for us to get this done so quickly, how we would never get it done.

And I want to thank the chairman and all of you.

We've moved through this very well, and I think the naysayers are being, you know, shown that it can be done, and it didn't have to take 16 months, 18 months, or whatever some of the naysayers were saying.

I think we've done a great job and moved forward and accomplished a lot.

I think it's because we're working very well together.

And I just want to say thank you to the chairman and each of you.

Um that was a big thing.

I don't know if you you were aware of it, but a lot of people can say I can't do it, it's gonna take too long.

We're almost there.

And I want to say thank you, all of you.

I think the month of July is gonna be a difficult month with the holiday factor.

It is, which is why I want us to finish everything in June.

Put that out.

But uh I want to do a lot of.

I think City Hall is very quiet.

We're gonna do it well, always well.

Not my office, come on over.

Oh, I'm gonna go busy.

Or the airport, we're always here.

Um, that being said, anybody else have anything for the good of the order?

Okay, uh, do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second slide from Chairrow.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Abscensions.

We are adjourned at seven forty five.

Go next.