OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/North Richland Hills, Texas/City Council & Boards
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

North Richland Hills Charter Review Commission Meeting - June 9, 2025

City Council & Boards — Monday, June 9, 2025
BodyNorth Richland Hills, Texas
SessionCity Council & Boards
DateMonday, June 9, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 28:48

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

Speaker numbers apply only to this recording.

Speaker 1

3:32

Good evening and welcome to Northwestern Hill's Charter Review Commission meeting.

3:36

It is four.

3:37

Oh, two PM, and we'll call the June 9th, 2025 Charter Review Commission meeting to order.

Unassigned speaker

3:43

A

Speaker 1

3:43

quorum of the commission is present, and the meeting has been duly posted in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act of the Texas Government Code.

4:06

Please enter

Unassigned speaker

4:09

just

Speaker 1

4:09

one of those days already.

4:47

Anyone would like to make a motion.

Unassigned speaker

5:00

That was 27th.

Speaker 2

5:02

April.

Unassigned speaker

5:07

Yeah,

Speaker 1

5:07

you said it right.

5:08

May 27th.

5:08

May 27.

5:09

You're right.

5:10

All right.

5:10

I'm not thinking.

5:11

Commissioner Mitchell, main motion.

Speaker 3

5:13

Second.

5:14

Confusing.

Speaker 1

5:14

Second.

5:15

Commissioner Roberts.

5:17

Any discussion?

Unassigned speaker

5:20

I

Speaker 3

5:20

remember.

Speaker 1

5:21

All right, please vote.

5:27

Oh, yeah.

5:34

All right.

5:35

Next section, consider recommendations of ballot provisions to city council for proposed charter amendments.

5:41

I call on uh Bradley Adderlee

Unassigned speaker

5:44

to

Speaker 1

5:44

talk about this topic.

Speaker 4

5:46

Sir Chairman, Commission, if you recall, we the last meeting on May 27th, we talked through and you gave direction on what we believe to be final ballot language.

5:58

Uh here tonight uh you had presented in your packet final ballot proposition language.

6:03

There were two propositions that you wanted some amendments to, and the purpose of this meeting was for you to have a chance to review the language to ensure that it met with your expectations before making a final recommendation of that to council.

6:15

You also saw in your packet a red line of the charter uh revised charter language that's being recommended uh that you send up to council for action as

Unassigned speaker

6:23

well.

Speaker 4

6:24

Uh it's really that simple for the first item before you uh for action tonight is uh if there's no questions, you can take action to recommend it.

6:32

If there are questions, I am prepared to to look at the proposition language with you on the screen if you would like.

6:37

But I'll pause there to see if we need to take it further.

Speaker 1

6:40

Okay, is there a any uh member have any questions?

6:43

Um proposition eight with the

Speaker 2

6:46

um planning zoning.

6:48

Okay,

Unassigned speaker

6:49

are

Speaker 2

6:49

we voting for them to serve the same term, or would that not just be

Unassigned speaker

6:55

a

Speaker 2

6:56

part of what the council's term is since we basically appoint

Unassigned speaker

7:00

them?

Speaker 4

7:01

So the the charter language would simply read that it they would serve a term that is that is consistent with the term for the mayor and and council members uh that that would be represented in the language in the charter, and that would then apply whether council stays at two year terms, or if it if there's an amendment to move it to three-year term, then the PNZ term

Unassigned speaker

7:23

would

Speaker 4

7:24

transition, would either stay the same as councils or it would move with

Unassigned speaker

7:28

it.

Speaker 4

7:28

Um so the ad that the charter would say the term is the same as the term for the council member.

Unassigned speaker

7:35

So we're not saying

Speaker 2

7:44

this.

Speaker 4

7:47

No, um well, help me understand.

Speaker 2

7:51

Okay, they're voting on proposition E, correct?

Speaker 4

7:53

Correct.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Charter Review█████████████████████████████████████████████50%
Procurement Regulations████████████████████████27%
Procedural█████████████████████23%
Summary of Proceedings

North Richland Hills Charter Review Commission Meeting - June 9, 2025

The North Richland Hills Charter Review Commission met Monday, June 9, 2025, in the Council Workroom at City Hall. The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m. and adjourned at 4:27 p.m. with a quorum present. No public comments were offered. The commission approved its prior meeting minutes, unanimously recommended final ballot language for proposed charter amendments, and discussed Senate Bill 1173 and its implications for the City Charter.

Minutes Approval

  • Commissioner Mitchell moved, and Commissioner Roberts seconded, to approve the minutes of the May 27, 2025 Charter Review Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously.

Charter Amendment Ballot Recommendations

  • Staff member Bradley Adderlee presented the final ballot proposition language and redlined charter revisions prepared after the May 27, 2025 meeting.
  • Discussion focused on Proposition A (moving city council terms to three years) and Proposition E (making planning and zoning (P&Z) commission terms consistent with council member terms). Staff explained that if voters approved Proposition A but rejected Proposition E, the charter would be inconsistent because the P&Z term would remain two years.
  • One commissioner suggested wrapping the P&Z term into Proposition A so the two would be approved together. Commissioner McCarty and Commissioner Blake objected to combining propositions, saying it would make the ballot language longer, more confusing, and harder for voters to understand; Commissioner Blake said the commission's job would be to educate voters.
  • The commission reached consensus to keep the propositions as presented (A, B, C, D, E). Commissioner Blake moved, and Commissioner Dupree seconded, to recommend the presented ballot provisions to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously.
  • The amendments are expected to appear on the November 2025 ballot; commissioners noted that turnout may be low and that they would need to promote and explain the measures.

Senate Bill 1173 Discussion

  • Mr. Adderlee briefed the commission on Senate Bill 1173, which raises the state competitive bidding threshold from $50,000 to $100,000. The City Charter, Article 9, Section 4, currently sets the threshold at $50,000 but includes language stating that the figure changes as state law changes.
  • Staff said a charter amendment may not be required because of that adaptive clause, but the City may choose to remain more stringent than state law. Staff also noted that the City's internal purchasing policy would still require formal procurement, likely through request-for-quotes rather than sealed bids, for purchases between $50,000 and $100,000. In the past year, there were 27 purchases in that range; the process is expected to reduce bidding packet documentation from roughly 30 pages to 10 pages and could increase vendor interest.
  • The City does not have set-asides for HUB (historically underutilized business) or minority-owned businesses, though it has outreach requirements above certain dollar amounts.
  • Commissioners McCarty and Dupree supported amending the charter to remove the specific dollar figure and instead reference state law, noting that a fixed number could create confusion. Staff said no formal action was appropriate because SB 1173 is outside the commission's term-limits scope, but there was consensus to prepare a proposed amendment for the City Council's future consideration.
  • Commissioners also confirmed that council members may promote the ballot measures privately but cannot use city funds or resources; city staff may provide purely educational materials only.

Key Outcomes

  • Unanimously approved the May 27, 2025 meeting minutes.
  • Unanimously recommended the final ballot provisions (Propositions A-E) to the City Council.
  • Directed staff to prepare a future charter amendment removing the $50,000 bidding threshold figure to align with Senate Bill 1173.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening and welcome to Northwestern Hill's Charter Review Commission meeting. It is four. Oh, two PM, and we'll call the June 9th, 2025 Charter Review Commission meeting to order. A quorum of the commission is present, and the meeting has been duly posted in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act of the Texas Government Code. Please enter just one of those days already. Anyone would like to make a motion. That was 27th. April. Yeah, you said it right. May 27th. May 27. You're right. All right. I'm not thinking. Commissioner Mitchell, main motion. Second. Confusing. Second. Commissioner Roberts. Any discussion? I remember. All right, please vote. Oh, yeah. All right. Next section, consider recommendations of ballot provisions to city council for proposed charter amendments. I call on uh Bradley Adderlee to talk about this topic. Sir Chairman, Commission, if you recall, we the last meeting on May 27th, we talked through and you gave direction on what we believe to be final ballot language. Uh here tonight uh you had presented in your packet final ballot proposition language. There were two propositions that you wanted some amendments to, and the purpose of this meeting was for you to have a chance to review the language to ensure that it met with your expectations before making a final recommendation of that to council. You also saw in your packet a red line of the charter uh revised charter language that's being recommended uh that you send up to council for action as well. Uh it's really that simple for the first item before you uh for action tonight is uh if there's no questions, you can take action to recommend it. If there are questions, I am prepared to to look at the proposition language with you on the screen if you would like. But I'll pause there to see if we need to take it further. Okay, is there a any uh member have any questions? Um proposition eight with the um planning zoning. Okay, are we voting for them to serve the same term, or would that not just be a part of what the council's term is since we basically appoint them?

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com