Brainard City Council special joint meeting with the charter commission. It's Thursday, March 26th, 5:30 p.m. in council chambers. >> Tony, call the role. >> Beans here. >> Chazak, >> yes. >> Johnson, >> present. >> Stunn. >> Jagger. Ericson, >> yes. >> OD >> here.
>> Bedau >> here. >> Lambert here. >> Norwood. >> Ship >> here. >> I know it's not listed, but if everybody could just stand for the pledge of 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. >> All right, we just have one discussion item tonight. I'm just going to hand it over to Administrator Broyals. >> Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'm not
going to go into a tremendous amount of detail in history. Um, I think the city council and the charter commission and the public is aware that we've been looking at some potential recommendations for some charter changes. Um, in the history, we talked a little bit about how we got to the point
we're at today. We have had a handful of meetings with the charter commission over the last couple of months and the product that the council will see tonight is the fruits of that labor to the extent that uh we worked on that and it was unanim unanimously came out of
the charter commission meeting at at our last meeting with them. In the packet, pardon me, there's three um attachments in the packet. So the first attachment is essentially our current charter as is with no markups. The last or the third
document in the packet is the proposed charter with no markups. And then the one in the middle is essentially the current charter. You know, we tried to look at this from the perspective of what the council would like to see. And if you have paragraph, you know, on page page such and such, this paragraph in
the current charter, how is that translating into the proposed new charter? So for we took the the current charter and for each section, we pointed to an area in the new charter and rather than have a redline version, we just called it a modified redline version
where we would just identify noteworthy changes if there were some. I do want to mention before we the the opportunity tonight is really this is the first official opportunity that for the council to comment on the draft. Um two members of the charter commission are
here. Several members of the senior staff are here. Uh we are going to be answering questions as much as you'd like us to uh taking notes. And um I think it's important to mention and we've talked about this before. I
think a charter should be very governance focused and not so much it it shouldn't be too intrusive operationally. Now that said, the two documents, excuse me, the charter and how we conduct ourselves operationally, the ORC chart, they certainly can't
contradict each other, but they should be somewhat congruent, but not restrictive enough where we can't make operational decisions kind of on the fly. The most significant changes in the proposed charter that you're going to see is combining all of the
infrastructure under one director. Um, and with that we as a staff and charter commission concurred at least thus far that whoever has operational control over the utilities would be most
appropriate to set the rates for those utilities. So there's an operational chain of command and an administrative chain of command. And I think operationally we are suggesting perhaps combine all the infrastructure underneath a director where they operationally report to the public
utility commission but they administratively report to the city council and obviously city council always has budget authority. So with that Mr. President again you have two members of the charter commission you have staff. We'd just like to hear from the council and get some feedback.
Thank you. Um, so I I do just want to open it up to anyone on the council right away. If if you're of no vote, if if you have looked through this and if we were to vote on it today and you're going to vote no, um, if you just
bring those reasons up and explain it, maybe ask some questions, uh, maybe smooth that out. Obviously, this is going to come to council at some point. We're not voting on it tonight, but uh let's just open it up for discussion. If anybody has that feeling, um
just say so. Johnson. >> Yeah, I'm a null for about 300 different reasons. I like the idea in general of moving all of the utilities under one roof and putting the, you know, if it's the commission, it's the commission, but putting it all there.
That's what the council asked for at first. eliminating the language of the city attorney and the fire department and all that just seems ridiculous to me. You know, the reasoning that they're eliminating the city attorney language is because the contract with the city
the current city attorney covers all of those items, but there's a reason those items, Mr. President, are covered in the current contract and it's because the charter demands that they be covered. If we eliminate that, who knows what happens going forward. So
I in theory I like the idea. The language the changes that are actually made all surrounding outside of the public utility commission are just unacceptable to me. >> Okay. Thank you Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Chzach. Thank you President O. I just have a procedural question. If um if anything is suggested to amend or change anything in playing what Mr. Johnson had just said, it would then go
back to the just so I understand this. It would go back to the charter commission and then have to come out of there with a majority vote to us for us to make any changes as it sits here tonight. Would that be correct as far as
I understand? >> Yes, sir. That would be correct. I imagine the council could you always have the prerogative if you want to have joint meetings in perpetuity with the charter commission and the council. But yes, eventually at some point this would have to come out of the charter
commission with a majority vote and the city council with a unanimous vote. >> Thank you. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Mr. Chzac. Anybody else want to chip in? Mr. Beans, >> I'm I'm not sure this is the appropriate
time because you asked only if we were a no vote, >> right? Yeah, I'm not going to limit discussion for anything like that, but I think we might have started with that. >> Make a comment. >> Yeah, go for it. I don't and I don't know that it would be a no vote on my behalf, but in section two, chapter 2, I
spoke up against the primary for council position just like I voted against it the first time in 2019 or whatever it was. And the simple reasoning is that I like I like the idea of a much shorter
campaign period for city council. I like the idea of five bucks and you're on the ballot. I don't like the idea of a sevenmonth campaign period. You probably get more complaints about campaign signs than anything else up here, which is
sort of ironic, but I I just thought to have that type of lengthy nearly a year-long campaign. I mean, it gets to be it gets to be a long campaign for city council. And so I voted against it.
the first time. I'm not sure I would want to hold up the Sorry, could you Oh, >> I'm not sure I would want to hold up the entire process for that this time around, but uh but I wanted to make sure that the council knew my and by the way,
the charter commission outvoted me three to three to nothing. >> Okay. >> So, I'm getting used to that, too. >> Sure. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The other thing of significant uh discussion on the charter
commission was who sets the rates for sanitary sewer, that sort of for electrical, that sort of stuff. And I mean, we don't we don't do anything for PUC but approve the budget. And you you know the thought process was there was an argument that said the elected
officials should set those things. But I I don't know for a long since I've been on the council for 20ome years the commission has set those rates and that I I think that would still I would certainly support that. So
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beavens. There's a couple things I noticed. Um there was a big point of contention last time we went through the charter which was only what four years ago, five years ago. uh the special levies section has
been shortened and combined. So this this is including the the special levies with the uh community action senior center uh 36 section 36 um and the support of an arboritum or
green space organization. It was very specific and important last time that it was listed as organizations within the city limits of Brainer. That would be um that's not on this one. So I' I'd like to see a change there before
this comes back. Um >> what what what section what >> section 36 of the of the new proposed Okay. What chapter? chapter. Well, they're not listed as chapters.
It's >> Yeah, Mr. President, there's not chapters in the proposed. This is the third of the three documents. >> Gotcha. >> So, the one after the one you're in right now. >> Okay. Duties of the city officials is the last section listed. Uh the other
thing that came up there was elimination of I don't know if maybe it was in the old charter or not, but something about public utilities commission has to go through the council to purchase property for real estate. And
we we've done that recently. It worked really well. I think it's a good thing for the public utilities commission and the council to work together on purchasing property. Um I don't want to see that go away and I think I think that was intentionally taken out in this
proposal. Those are the two two things that stood out right away. I haven't been able to go through the thing with a fine tooth comb and compare all three of these documents. So, before this comes to council, I definitely will, but I've read through it enough. Most of this
stuff is no big deal. Um, but those are just two things that stood out. Mr. Broads, Mr. President, just something else for the council to consider if you wish. We did this with the charter commission some time ago. Um, we can sit here tonight and we can
jot down all these comments. Something we did with the charter commission and it seemed to work is we put out, you know, like a suspense. Just say for example, let's go out 10 days or two weeks from now. And if anybody, any council member or for that matter if a charter commission still has another comment, we could collect those comments
over the next period of time, 10 to 14 days, and try to integrate those into a product that we can bring back. So just an option if the council wants to do that, too. Okay. Anybody have an opinion on that? I think 10 to 14 days is maybe
too short for adding meetings if we're going to keep doing this. But I'd be open to having another meeting, you know, a month down the road, something like that. >> I would agree with that. >> Okay.
>> Agreed. >> I'm fine either way. Whatever council desires. You'd meet tomorrow if we wanted to, wouldn't you, John? >> I'd meet later tonight. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Not >> anybody from uh the charter commission
want to chime in with any opinions or replies from any concerns? >> I said one very small thing. I had a similar concern to you about the um the one and a half% levy. Um this name of the city is missing, but it does say
within the city limits. And so I felt like that captured the essence still of hey this needs to be an entity in Brainer. Um but yeah, I'm totally on board with changing that that phrasing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And a similar concern remembering the the drama of a few
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Mr. Bro, >> Mr. President, did you want to I just want to be clear so staff is successful. Did you want to set some type of a a suspense where any comments that the council wants to give to staff if they
could get them to us by a certain date and then give us a little bit of time to integrate those prior to our next meeting? >> Yeah, I think that's >> I think that works. But
again, Mr. Johnson, if I mean, is there a way some some of these changes that are acceptable to you or if you want to be more specific? You don't even have to do it today, but maybe if you could send those concerns to staff in writing
or >> I I I will, Mr. President. Uh, Councilman Beaven just asked me if I'm going to write 305 comments. I am not. I I stand by what I said that I support theoretically the changes with the utilities all being in the same place.
>> All of the other changes I'm in disagreement with. So that's my comment. I can put that in an email to the city administrator. >> Okay, >> fair enough. >> Mr. President, Mr. Chz, >> I I'm I'm I'm going to say this with
caution. I I don't want to create a a big debate, but to Mr. Beaven's uh thoughts on the election cycle that we're currently under based on the voters approving that um however many years ago. Um I think there's a clarification. It
would be filings in May, November, early in November is the election. That's a five-month period as opposed to filing in August, which is about a two and a half max three-month period. So just so I heard seven months and five months or whatever, but um the idea of um I think
Mr. Beans has I think it has merit, but could maybe the council would entertain I think it takes four votes to put it on the ballot and let the people decide it once again instead of us considering a change of when we do this because you
know I've heard I've heard Kelly talk about this as for as long as it's been in effect and uh he he makes valid points. I wouldn't disagree with those. That's that's a matter of opinion. But um I think that might be the best course of action for the council to take instead of changing that that the voters
approved to just put it on the ballot again, see if people want to keep it because it's been I don't know 15 years at least maybe something like that. But um anyway, that was my thought on that. And uh I I guess I'm to to Gab's concerns when he says literally I mean
everything but this or you know one or two things. I I I I would ask Gabe to kind of to maybe when you show us those notes or ideas or thoughts you have to at least provide a little detail as to what if
you just want to bring back the old language or change it to something different than what was being proposed. I that would I think help us all quite a bit. So >> thank you Mr. Chzac. Yeah, it does. It's tough to change anything on the charter
that was brought up as a voting referendum. I see the arguments for and against a primary. Um, but if the main argument is it's it's harder work for somebody trying to get on the council,
I would not support a change to make it easier. I think it should be kind of hard. I think we should all be working hard when we're on the council and I think we should be working hard to get on the council or stay on the council if you wish to. So if a primary makes it a
little harder, I think that's not such a bad thing. But we're not just debating one thing. So, um, I'll open it up to staff, too. If anybody wants to chime in on anything specific, we're all here to discuss. So,
don't all jump up at once. We're 17 and a half minutes in. Are we done? >> Any questions from staff about anything specific that you need informationwise going forward? >> Do you guys have anything? I don't have
anything. Would the council be willing to have another one of these in about a month? >> Um, may I, Mr. President? I know I know a couple people mentioned the uh >> the utilities. Um, there are currently five, if I'm not mistaken, five
utilities that are fees that are assessed would be electric, wastewater treatment, wa uh gravityfed sewer, storm, and uh there was one more I think water. Okay. Yes. Sorry, Charlie. Um
anyway, um and and I I do like the idea of how this looks as far as trying to have everything under one roof. Um and uh it's just to make sure there's no doubt where I'm at with it. Uh because there I think been some questions raised about what I was thinking regarding my
questions and comments and concerns that were raised early on in this process. So I I I want to go on record of saying the way this is set up regarding that particular item. I'm very much in favor of and I think it would serve the city very well to to continue uh moving
forward in that direction. So >> all right. Thank you, Mr. Chzac. One idea that we could have uh going forward, it was it was a question brought up last time we had a a charter change was would the council like to see it the way it is or would the council
like to see it more in sections because it's almost like I think maybe to Gab's point it's it's like how the federal government does these giant omnivous bills and you have to vote for something but you also have to vote for something that you disagree with. So if we if we
want to split it up and do it in multiple meetings or do different sections in one meeting, we can do it that way as well. >> Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah, Mr. President, I I would like to break it down into bite-sized pieces. >> It was four years ago, maybe five years
ago, we paid Joel Angle's law firm $15,000 to go through and modernize and update the charter. Council member Chzach was on the charter commission. you were on the charter commission, Councilman Bevans.
We spent thousands and thousands of dollars to modernize and update the charter and and we did it in I think it was three or four different votes. I think if we need to now modernize this four-year-old document, I think it should also be done in bite-sized pieces where we're taking one
section at a time as opposed to voting on an omnibus charter. >> Mhm. >> I like the idea. >> Okay. I agree. I'll say this this one isn't as fun either. We were talking about horse racing in town and we were talking about the mayor's night watchman and the
mayor's posi last time. >> You'd be better off if you brought that stuff back. >> Mr. Broyals, >> Mr. President, just a couple questions for So again, so I want to make sure staff has got good direction. Um, if we in fact break it up as Councilman
Johnson has suggested, might I suggest that we have a significant vacancy with our senior staff that we're kind of holding off on until we get a couple of these things buttoned up. So, I think if it's left up to staff, we'd like to focus on those first so we could get
hopefully somebody in place in that senior leadership position sooner if we do break it up in chunks. And then my second comment or question would be um when we when we meet again, do you want to do a joint meeting with the charter commission, the city council, or do you want us to go back to the charter
commission by themselves um before we come back to council and have them a chance to chime in on it as an independent body or do you want to have a joint meeting next time as well? >> I would I would leave that up to the charter commission to decide if they want to have a meeting. Um I don't want
to force a meeting, but um totally up to charter commission as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if anybody feels differently about that, but if we're going to meet again, they can either have a meeting some somewhere in between or just wait until we all meet again. Totally up to you guys. Mr. Chzac.
>> Yeah. You know, if we really get down to what I think is most important, this whole infrastructure, where who who's going to kind of be in charge of it? Public Utility Commission. I I I would
I haven't heard anybody said say here tonight that they are absolutely no to that idea. I think our best move would be it's actually in front of us right now that we could vote on at our next meeting as a council and get it wrapped
up. There's Gab's one piece at a time idea right there. And I think that goes right to what Nick was suggesting. I I don't I I mean, we could just take that one out as far as I understand how this works, put it on our next agenda,
and see if we want to vote it up or down. And there you have that part of it all taken care of. The rest of it can sit there and go with the charter language that hasn't changed other than that. If I'm wrong, let me know. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chz. I know that
there are different sections of these that have sort of combined. Sure. Sections from from the previous or or current charter, I guess. So, I guess we would just have to make sure if we're just going to do one piece at a time that it doesn't it's not affected by the
rest of it not being changed as suggested. That would be the only concern. But I do like I I do like having um I guess that section first. >> Does that make sense?
Yes, sir. That makes sense. And it, you know, it doesn't escape our thought or doesn't escape my thought that, you know, if we go to the the absolute minimalist approach that Councilman Johnson uh respectfully is suggesting, I
mean, we could keep the charter exactly how it is right now and change a couple sentences probably if if if so that's if we really wanted to do it this very very quickly, that could happen. So that doesn't escape. I
don't think anybody up here >> and and Mr. President, yeah, to that point, that is what we unanimously voted on. That's what I thought we were getting is is one sentence in the charter that just added gravity wastewater collection to the
public utility commission. That's kind of where I thought we were going and it turned into something a lot different than that. >> Gross. And and I I agree that's the the the council did ask for a couple things. When I brought it before the charter
commission and I will own this, I said, "While we have this open, can do you guys care if we take a look at this from cover to cover and offer some some suggestions?" So, they did give staff that opportunity. So, um but no, absolutely. The council just said integrate
uh you know, we've talked about it since I've been here. I got here and I saw that our lift stations and force mains are over in this department and our gravity's over here which makes no sense >> and council said we'll combine them. So, Roger, we can do that. I just thought while we have while we're to use a surgeon's term, while we got the body
open, is there anything else we want to take a look at? But I understand your point. >> Yeah, I think it's always good to take a a magnifying glass to what we currently have and and if we're going to change one thing, see if there's anything else that we want to change. But if there's not an appetite for much more change
than that, we don't have to. So if um that might be a a question for the charter commission to figure that out, whether it's just bringing up that section as as it's
written in this document or just changing those few sentences, we can have that discussion right now with the charter commission or they can have their own separate meeting u and discuss that with staff. Mr. Sandy, I
>> just want to maybe clarify a little bit. So, it sounds like, you know, if this does move forward with the charter commission taking the public utilities section first. Um, in the current proposed charter that's in front of you tonight, it combines all infrastructure.
And so I think that clarification needs to be made is if the council would just like sanitary sewer and storm um to move over to the public utilities or if you would want all infrastructure which means streets that aren't pursuant to
special assessments. Any specially assessed street project would still come in front of the council. The public utilities commission would be a recommending body. That's how this is the current proposed charter is written. or if the council would just like the
utility portion of um that proposed charter uh uh accounted for in these changes. I guess that would be the one clarification I would have. >> Okay. >> Or asked for. >> Yeah. And thank you for bringing that
up, Paul. That is quite a big difference. It's essentially combining all of public works uh with public utilities or just just moving over the gravity fed. >> Anybody have thoughts on that, Mr. Johnson?
>> Yeah, thanks for bringing that up, Paul. Mr. President, I think the uh wastewater collection should be under the public utility. I think street projects should still all be under the purview of the council. I I don't know about the rest of the
council, but that's probably one of the number one phone calls I get from constituents is when there's a street project in the ward and they're wondering what's going on. Why did you do this? What's happening? I don't think elected officials should say, "Oh, I have nothing to do with that. That's
an appointed body over here that made that decision." I I I think the elected should still be responsible for the streets. Yep. >> I agree with that. Anybody else have thoughts on that? Mr. >> Sandy, >> would the public utilities commission
still potentially be a sounding board for those projects and vet the projects before they come to council? I guess would be my other question. >> Yeah, Mr. President, I would see I think we would continue to improve the communications and the working together
that we've done over the last number of years and you know and especially since we've had you here Paul you know regularly attending council meetings having a voice for the commission here I think we have a still a lot of room to grow and improve our communications but absolutely I think the public utility
commission should be in have an active role in our 10ear CIP and all of that but I don't think they should be respon the decision decision maker. I think the electives should be the decision maker. >> That answer your question? >> Yeah, I think it does. You know, I think
we could make, you know, the proposed language references projects that are subject to special assessments still all go before the council, but that doesn't address some of our standard maintenance projects like crack sealing, seal coating. I mean, we could just simply put, you know, that the public utilities
commission is still um active an active participate in participant in development of the 10-year capital plan because all the utilities, if if this were the proposal to bring everything over to the utility commission, the public utilities is going to have a big say in which streets get done. It's not
just dependent on the surface condition. It's dependent on the pipes under the ground, right? So, I think there's some tweaks you can make here and just say that, you know, while the utilities commission will be an active participant in the development of the capital improvement plan, all street project
work is the final authority of the city council. And maybe that's a a recommendation. Maybe the public utilities commission takes it under um advisement from staff both um the city engineer and myself um at the time of
development or updates to the CIP and that becomes a recommendation from the public utilities commission that says we've looked at this, we feel like it's a solid plan. Council, please review and approve or disprove of the update to the 10-year capital plan.
>> Mr. Mayor, >> yeah, I like the sound of that. I I actually think that we operate best when things come through the steps. Park board, same thing. Send it through the park board, get their opinion, send it to the council. Council doesn't have to ask those questions then. We don't have to take the roads and go, what did the,
you know, BPU think about the project once it's already been to us. We already know that. So, I I just appreciate when we operate that way to begin with. So, putting that into the structure is probably a smart idea. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Bro, just want to make a comment. Pardon
me. Just want to make a comment and then I'd be happy to hear any feedback. Um, I'm going to I'm going to say something and I think if attorney Langel were here, hopefully he would say the same thing, but I don't want to speak for him. The thought process behind taking out the police and the fire uh was we
wanted things in here and Joe um suggested that as well that to remove those and the reason being just so you got some insight into our thought process is you know we are a charter city vice a statutory city. So we wanted to identify things in the charter that
are uniquely make us a charter. if we are calling out specific boards or bodies where the city council is granting authority, um that's what makes a charter city a charter city. So, if we're just strictly following statutory guidelines, then we decided to take that out of this
charter because we'll just follow statutory guidelines for police and fire. So, that was kind of the thought process, but I'd be happy to hear any feedback if you had any. I guess I would I would ask you what what the difference is right now in our charter compared to what statutory guidelines would be for
our police or for our fire department. >> You know, and if and if Joe were here, I think he would say this, but we'll have more time we'll have more opportunities to discuss this. He would suggest I think that the language in the current charter with the fire department and the police department is nothing that is unique to a charter city. It's the same
thing that would every statutory city would have as well. So it wasn't any value added to a charter. It was just strictly you follow statute. >> Okay, Mr. Johnson. >> Yeah, I think he would agree to that, too. But a lot of the changes we made a few years ago were just to remove our
charter language and add statutory language to the charter. So he he created his own cycle of obsolescence >> and made 15 grand >> and made 15 grand out of it. >> Oh, don't pick on Joe when he's not >> No, Joe's a good man. He's a good man.
He's not here to defend himself. >> Um, he's probably watching. >> Yeah, I would like to know um, you know, maybe if there are any minor details that would we would benefit from from keeping it in, though. Maybe there's something that we might miss. We
definitely miss the the mayor's night watchman that could be part of the police department. At least one section of the police. No. >> Okay. >> I used to be at the top of the police department. I hope you know that. That's why at the tippy tippy top. >> That's why we changed it.
>> Yeah. >> All right. More questions. >> Mr. Bro, >> Mr. President, again, I I don't want to pin you guys down if you don't want to be pinned down, but can can we get a date where if you guys had comments, you could send us by a certain date because then we know that, hey, we've got all
the council members comments by this date, whether it's a week, 10 days, whatever you guys think is necessary. Then we can take it and start working it from a staff level. And then we'll work with Andrew Ship. Do we want to have a charter commission meeting before we meet with you guys again? We can coordinate that. Um, but do we want to set a date or do would you rather
>> I think we could say 14th >> before our next council meeting. We still have a week and a half before our next council meeting. So that gives everybody should give everybody plenty of time to come up with some complaints. >> Packets will be going out a week from today. >> Week from today. We could we could say a
week from today. That way everybody's focusing more on the the packet that's out instead of still focusing on this. Does that work for everybody? >> Stunick, did you have comments? >> Can I talk now? >> Yeah. You were too slow before.
>> He's got Yeah. >> Keep in mind, we spent $15,000 to have Joel go through this and and help us go through this. I'm all for taking a sentence here and a sentence there or maybe a predicate, but for us to start going through the whole document again, then I go back to what was the purpose
of spending $15,000. So, I just I would challenge the council and all these people to think about that. >> And we, you know, we're trying to save money for the taxpayers and everything else, but Joe spent whatever the time frame was, but the dollar amount was 15 grand. >> Mhm.
>> And I can't see us going through the whole thing and tweaking it than that. What was the purpose? >> Right. So changing a sentence here, sentence here, and working with staff, I think to me is the way to go. >> Agreed. >> Okay, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah. So, I'm just going to echo those statements as well. I There are things
that need to get done. I want to see those things done. There are things that are in front of us that we need to make the decisions on. I'm I just said this kind of quietly up here. It's been two years. It's time. I I could not be less done with this process. It's time to get
those things done. And the rest of this stuff to me, I I I'll I'll join Gab's comments. I couldn't care less. Honestly, every single time we talk about the charter, we argue about individual words. Every word we change is going to be another word we argue about. I want to get the things done
with BPU. I want to make that decision. I don't care which direction you guys go in, but I want to make that decision and I want to move forward. It's time to get it done and let's just get it done. The rest of the stuff, it could go on for the rest of eternity for all I care, but I want to get the BPU stuff done. I want to make that decision and I want to see
us move forward and get our lives on track with at least that part of it and then the rest of it can shake out as far as I'm concerned. It could take an eternity but whatever either way. >> Thank you that earlier. So, one one
thought that comes up as as the mayor is making these comments and and with Stunnix's comments as well, the the charter commission is supposed to meet at least is it once a year >> and it it should and it doesn't mean that we are meeting just because we have
to change something or we we know that we need to change something. But these things can be revisited every year and we can get a recommendation from the charter commission on just one section. We can we can try to continue to do this throughout the rest of the year and go
one section at a time or we can see how it goes with one change and we can wait a while and our staff can bring concerns to the charter commission and the charter commission can make that recommendation as we go. We don't have to be, you know, overly fast on changing
everything. So, Mr. Broyals, >> Mr. President, I'll be quick. I I know uh I don't want to extend this meeting any further than it needs to go. Um it is not atypical when you see a city's charter if you look at the title page you'll see you know city branch of charter and then you'll see right below
it amended January 2025 amended January 2026 amended January 2027 so it is it's my expectation that whatever the council decides to whether it's the current charter we have now with no changes where we make a few changes it gets approved it's on the street you know
every year I think we come back to the charter commission and eventually the council and said hey we just didn't like the way this said right here. We want to change this to this, this to this. You know, here's a half a dozen changes to the charter for this year. So, it would be my expectation that we would continually massage this. It would be a
living document. I mean, it shouldn't be that living. It's a governance document, but uh it needs to it would not surprise me if there's little happy to glad changes every year, a couple things here and there. That wouldn't be atypical.
>> That totally makes sense. 100%. Right. Okay, >> I make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> We have a motion to adjurnn, second by Johnson. Any discussion on that motion or closing comments? Seeing none, let's go to a vote. All
those in favor say I. >> I. Same sign. We are adjourned. Mix