[1. CALL TO ORDER.]
[00:00:07]
>> WE WILL CALL TO ORDER TONIGHT'S MEETING FOR THE
[2. MINUTES.]
AUBURN FOR APRIL 1, 2025. SHOULD HAVE THE MINUTES FOR MARCH 18TH. MOVED TO APPROVE?>> SO MOVE. >> MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN
[3. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.]
FAVOR? OPPOSED? THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. HISTORIC PRESERVATIONCOMMISSION. >> I WILL TAKE IT. WE HAD ONE APPLICANT BOTH INCUMBENTS AND WE REACHED OUT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT REAPPLIED AND INTENDED TO, BUT HAD ISSUES WITH THE PORTAL, SO THEY ARE BOTH ELIGIBLE FOR A SECOND TERM AND GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO REAPPLY, YOU CAN RE-EVALUATE THAT FOR THE APRIL 15TH APPOINTMENT IF YOU ARE WILLING TO DO SO.
>> IS COUNCIL OKAY WITH THAT? WILL MOVE IT TO THE APRIL 15TH
[4. AUBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY.]
MEETING. AUBURN PUBLIC LIBRARY. >> IT BEGINS APRIL 15, 2025 AND ENDS APRIL 14, 2029. ONE INCUMBENT , BONNIE MACEWAN, WHO SERVED ONE PARTIAL TERM AND ONE FULL TERM. I WOULD LIKE TO
INVITE FOR A SECOND FULL TERM. >> SECOND.
>> MOTION AND SECOND FOR BONNIE MACEWAN. ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS? QUESTIONS? APPRECIATE IT. SHE IS CURRENTLY THE CHAIR OF THE LIBRARY BOARD RIGHT NOW. IS DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB. ALL IN FAVOR OF BONNIE MACEWAN FOR SECOND FULL TERM? POLICE SAY
[5. COUNCIL PROCEDURES DISCUSSION.]
AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION CARRIES AND WE WILL CONFIRM THAT LATER ON IN THE AGENDA. COUNCIL PROCEDURES DISCUSSION. I WILLTURN IT OVER TO GRISWOLD. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE MAY HAVE INTERPRETED -- MISINTERPRETED OUR OWN RULES ON CITIZEN INPUT AND PUBLIC HEARINGS. I COULD BE MISTAKEN , BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT OUR INTENT WAS EVER TO PREVENT AN APPLICANT FROM THOROUGHLY PREVENT PRESENTING HIS INPUT ON A PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM OR LIMITED TO ONLY SPEAKING DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT .
I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES TO THAT. AGAIN, MY OBJECTIVE IS TO ENSURE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUFFICIENT TIME TO PRESENT HIS PROPOSAL OR DEVELOPING OR WHATEVER HAPPENS TO BE IN DETAIL PRIOR TO GOING INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT WAS MY OVERALL INTENT. ONE WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO CHANGE OUR RULES AND I PASSED OUT SOME CUT AND PASTES AND THESE ARE DRAFTS . THAT IS AN OPTION TO DO IT THAT WAY. IF SOMEONE HAS ANOTHER APPROACH THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OR DISAGREE WITH THE INTENT ALTOGETHER, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM THEM . I DID HAVE SOME CITIZENS CONTACT ME AFTER AN EARLIER MEETING . WHEN WE LIMITED THE PRESENTER OR APPLICANT FROM SPEAKING , THEY APPROACHED AFTERWARDS AND SAID, WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HEAR WHAT HE HAD TO SAY . BECAUSE OF THE ROLES IN THE WAY THEY ARE INTERPRETED, HE CAN ONLY PRESENT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE MEETING. AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS OUR INTENT. I HAVE 10 MINUTES AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT NUMBER, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ALLOW AN APPLICANT TO SPEAK OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE AGENDA. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY. WHAT DO YOU
THINK OF THAT? >> WHAT APPLICANT DID WE LIMIT AND NOT GIVE PROPER TIME TO? DURING THE FEBRUARY 18TH
MEETING? >> THE ONE FOR FARMVILLE AND
DONAHUE? YES. >> BY ASKING HIM QUESTIONS, WE COULD HAVE CALLED HIM BACK UP . I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT HIM AT THE TIME. THAT'S MY FAULT, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE WE HAD THAT OCCUR . THAT'S WHY I SAID THAT 10 MINUTES MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT TIME. DOING IT OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC HEARING WINDOW IS APPROPRIATE.
>> DID WE LIMIT THAT PERSON FROM SPEAKING OR DO THEY RECEIVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME THAT ANY PERSON WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
RECEIVE? >> WE GAVE THEM THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME AS ANYBODY ELSE. OBVIOUSLY, HE PREPARED A MORE EXTENSIVE PRESENTATION AND EVEN COMMENTED ABOUT POSSIBLY GETTING THROUGH THIS IN THIS AMOUNT OF TIME . HAD HE KNOWN HE WAS GOING TO BE LIMITED, HE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
>> THAT APPLICANT TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH SEVERAL OF US INDIVIDUALLY PRIOR TO THAT MEETING TO GO THROUGH HIS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION EXTENSIVELY.
>> I AGREE. >> WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
[00:05:02]
ASK ANY APPLICANT FURTHER QUESTIONS AT ANY POINT IN TIME?>> I AGREE WITH THAT, TOO. >> IS THIS THE ONLY SITUATION THAT WE HAVE COME ACROSS THAT HAS NOT MET THE EXPECTATIONS OF
NOT HAVING ENOUGH TIME ? >> I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT TIME, BUT WE HAD SOMEONE COME FORWARD ABOUT A LIQUOR LICENSE AND I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT OR
NOT. >> IT'S ABOUT THE CONDITIONAL USE AND THEY MAY HAVE MISSED SPEAKING DURING THAT TIME DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. THEY SPOKE AT THE END OF THE MEETING.
>> THAT WOULD BE AN ITEM WHERE WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ITEMS ON THE AGENDA UP FRONT. I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD MORE TO SAY OR NOT. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT THIS IS NOT A FIX ALL TO EVERYTHING, BUT AN INTRODUCTION TO SOMETHING . IF WE COULD COME TO AN AGREEMENT THAT BASICALLY THE BIGGEST THING FOR ME IS HAVING A PERIOD OF TIME OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC HEARING WINDOW OR THE WINDOW FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON OTHER ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA ITEM. ON THE AGENDA. >> COULD THAT TIME BE QUESTION AND ANSWER TIME WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES UP AND THE COUNCIL IS ABLE -- WE ARE ABLE TO ASK WHATEVER QUESTIONS?
>> I DIDN'T THINK OF IT AT THE TIME. I DIDN'T -- WOULD YOU LIKE A FEW MINUTES TO TALK ABOUT YOUR PROJECT OR SOMETHING, THEN HE WOULD HAVE OPEN-ENDED BASICALLY. THIS WOULD ALLOW A SPECIFIC TIME, SO WE DON'T DRAG IT OUT ALL NIGHT LONG. IF WE SCHEDULE PRIOR TO OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING OR OPENING THE WINDOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT , THEN THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY QUESTION.
>> WE STILL HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO FOLLOW UP WITH QUESTIONS OR EVEN HAVE LONGER THAN 10 MINUTES POSSIBLY.
>> WE ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION . NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. WE AVOID THAT ISSUE IN THE FUTURE . I HAVEN'T HAD ANYBODY CALL ME AFTER THE MEETING AND SAY, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE PROJECT NOT ONLY MY PERSONAL OPINION, BUT I'M TRYING TO
RESPOND TO CONCERNS . >> I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION. WHEN WE -- THE FIRST ITEM WHEN THE CAME UP, THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, WRITE? I NOTICED THAT SOME ITEMS HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED, SO IF YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING TO SPEAK, TO ME, THAT'S AN OPTION. THEY COULD DO BOTH. IS
THAT CORRECT? >> PROCEDURALLY , NO. AGENDA ITEMS OTHER THAN PUBLIC HEARINGS.
>> OTHER THAN PUBLIC HEARINGS. >> THESE ARE YOUR PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THIS COUNCIL THE FIRST MONTH THAT THE COUNCIL IS
SITTING. >> IF WE CHANGE THAT PROCEDURE.
I'M JUST ASKING , BUT IF WE CHANGE THE PROCEDURE OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARING COME UP, CAN THEY SPEAK THEN OR DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT AT THE TIME THEY FIRST TO DO IT QUICK SEE HOW WOULD THAT WORK? THAT WOULD GIVE MORE TIME TO ME , BECAUSE THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS FIVE MINUTES.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I WILL COMPLETELY ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING, BUT I WILL TRY. THE PURPOSE IS TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION BASED AROUND THE DECISION, THE AGENDA ITEM. AS OPPOSED TO SOMEONE SPEAKING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING AND THAT AGENDA ITEM MIGHT HAPPEN -- IT MIGHT BE ITEM 10 AS OPPOSED TO AFTER. THESE ITEMS ARE HAVING PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED AND PRACTICAL AS CONVERSATION AND DISCUSSION THAT HAPPENS WHEN THE ITEM IS INTRODUCED AND WE ARE DISCUSSING AND DECIDING. THAT IS WHY I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO WAIT EVEN THOUGH IT'S PART OF OUR
ROLES. >> I WAS JUST WONDERING , BECAUSE IF THEY HAD OPPORTUNITY TO TALK THE FIRST MINUTE, BUT THAT'S NOT -- WE CAN WAIT UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BOW ON WHATEVER IT IS WHEN WE TALK AGAIN AT THE PUBLIC HEARING?
[00:10:03]
I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION AND YOU KNOW THAT'S NOT THE WAY ITGOES. >> I BELIEVE THAT WHAT KELLY IS ADVOCATING FOR , DISCUSSING AND BRINGING UP AS A POTENTIAL IDEA FOR US TO POTENTIALLY CHANGE RULES AS TO HOW WE GO ABOUT MANAGING PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON PUBLIC HEARINGS. I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT YOU AND I HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS. HE'S JUST TRYING TO OFFER WHAT HE THINKS IS A MORE PRODUCTIVE WAY FOR US TO HAVE THESE CONVERSATIONS ,
CORRECT? >> YES, IT MAY NOT WORK DOING BOTH SESSIONS . IT MAY WORK FOR ONE OF THE OTHER, BUT CERTAINLY PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD HAVE MORE TIME IN A SPECIFIC TIME FOR SOMEONE TO PRESENT THEIR PROPOSAL , PROJECT OR WHATEVER. MAY NOT WANT TO DO IT DURING THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT HAVING PUBLIC HEARING. WHAT I'M GIVING YOU ALL AT THE START POINT IS OUR COUNCIL RULES AS CURRENTLY STATED. THE CHANGES ON HERE THAT MEGAN WAS KIND ENOUGH TO DO FOR ME IS AN APPROACH AND NOT NECESSARILY THE APPROACH. WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR TONIGHT IS -- DO WE WANT STAFF TO SPEND SOME TIME AND MASSAGED A DRAFT OR CHANGED PROCEDURES THAT WE COULD AGAIN MODIFY AT A LATER DATE AND PRESENT IT TO THE UPCOMING
COUNCIL MEETING? >> I THINK YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT AND I AGREE WITH YOU. I DIG IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ANY PERSON AND WE WILL VOTE ON IT. NOT ONLY FOR TO DEVELOP, BUT IT'S FAIR TO THE CITIZENS OUT HERE LISTENING TO US AND THEY COULD POSSIBLY CHANGE THEIR MIND ABOUT HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT SOMETHING.
>> WHAT CONSTITUTES AN APPLICANT?
>> AND APPLICANT WITH AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND FOR ANY REASON IF IT'S AN APPLICANT.
>> WE COULD HAVE 20 INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED 10 MINUTES OF A MEETING
TO SPEAK ABOUT --. >> IF THEY HAVE AN APPLICATION, TAKE ALCOHOL LICENSE . IT RUNS THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING, BUT ALSO RUNS THROUGH THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SO IT'S NOT A FULL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION, BUT OCCUPYING A COMMERCIAL SPACE.
THEY ARE AN APPLICATION APPLICANT TO YOU AND THE ABC BOARD. YOU CAN DEFINE THAT OR WE CAN DEFINE THAT FOR YOU AT WHATEVER MATURITY MAJORITY OF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER.
>> WITH A TOTAL OF 10 MINUTES TO PRESENT --.
>> YOU COULD LIMIT TO PUBLIC HEARINGS . THAT WOULD REDUCE THAT NUMBER QUITE A BIT, BECAUSE THE CITIZEN INPUT FOR PROCEDURES FOR AGENDA ITEMS OTHER THAN PUBLIC HEARINGS COVERS THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHAT WE DO AND THOSE APPLICANTS STILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO STEP UP AND TALK FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> THAT'S TRUE. >> MAYBE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS THE ONLY ONES THAT WE NEED THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT . A LOT OF TIMES, THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE GOING ON AND ON. THEY COME UP AND PRESENT THE BARE BONES OF THEIR PROPOSAL AND WE CONSIDER IT AND ASK QUESTIONS
AS NEEDED. >> I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR THE AGENDA ITEMS OTHER THAN PUBLIC HEARINGS.
>> I'M JUST THROWING SOME STUFF OUT HERE TO SEE WHAT -- THIS IS IN SIMPLY A START POINT. SCRATCH IT UP OR TURN IT UP OR WHATEVER, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MECHANISM WHERE THE APPLICANT CAN COMMENT OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WINDOW.
>> WE DO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY NOW FOR COUNCILMEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS, UNLIMITED NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND UNLIMITED TIME TO AN APPLICANT SHOULD ANY COUNCIL MEMBER WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT
THOSE QUESTIONS. >> IF WE KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS TO
ASK. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M COMING FROM. I'M STILL ASKING QUESTIONS TO LEAD THE DEVELOPER THROUGH IT AND 10 MINUTES IS NOT THAT --.
>> IT'S UP TO 10 MINUTES. DON'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO GO 10
[00:15:03]
MINUTES. >> LEAD THEM THROUGH IT. WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS AND WHEN THE PUBLIC GETS THERE , ASK QUESTIONS AND GO FROM THERE. THF THE APPLICANT PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING AND A HOST OF CITIZENS, AND ONLY HAVE FIVE MINUTES EACH, THEN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN, DO WE LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THE APPLICANT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
>> ALSO, THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE AS DEFINED, YOU ARE NOT DIVIDING THAT DIFFERENTLY. I DO THINK THAT YOU NEED TO REMEMBER THAT SIX YEARS AGO PRIOR TO THAT, THERE WAS NO TIME LIMIT ON PUBLIC HEARING . THERE IS CONFUSION AMONG PEOPLE WHO HAVE LONG BEEN COMING TO COUNCIL MEETINGS THAT THE PROCEDURE CHANGED, BUT IT HAS BEEN SIX YEARS CHANGE AND NOT A RECENT CHANGE IN THE FIVE MINUTES IN MY TENURE AS FAR AS WE CAN FIND THAT HAS BEEN ADHERED TO BY APPLICANTS AND OTHERS, THIS IS THE FIRST INSTANCE THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT ANY OF YOU HAVE MADE AWARE OF AND SEVERAL PEOPLE DID THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THIS, SO I DO WANT TO REITERATE THAT THESE ARE YOUR RULES AS COUNCIL AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO CHANGE THEM IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. IT WILL CHANGE UNLESS YOU WANT TO FIND IT DIFFERENTLY FOR APPLICANT TO SPEAK ALSO DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FURTHER REPRESENTATIVES TO SPEAK, BECAUSE IT'S NOT DEFINED
OTHERWISE. >> THIS THOUGHT OF HAVING THIS CONVERSATION AND PRESENTATION BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. IS THAT OKAY? IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT AS PART OF OUR RULES,
WE CAN? >> APPLICANTS LIKE TO ALSO RESPOND AND BE ABLE TO WEAVE INTO THEIR PRESENTATION, WHICH IS UP TO THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE. YOU HAVE SEEN IT AND THEY STAND UP AND SAY, I'M HERE AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. IT IS WHATEVER THEIR NUANCE IS AND HOWEVER THE COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE IT PROCEDURALLY. IF YOU WANT THAT INFORMATION, SO IT'S OUT THERE BEFORE THE PUBLIC STARTS , THE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THEY THEN HAD THEIR PIECE IS UP TO YOU ALL PROCEDURALLY.
IT'S REALLY YOUR CHOICE. >> I THINK I RECALL THIS HAPPENING PRETTY HAVE AN APPLICANT AND DEVELOPER THAT WOULD SPEAK, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE AN ENGINEER OR ANOTHER REPRESENTATIVE COME UP AND SPEAK, THEN THEY COULD HAVE A PARTNER COME UP. THEY MORE OR LESS TAKES 15 MINUTES WITH THREE DIFFERENT SPEAKERS ON THE SAME PROJECT. WOULD YOUR INTENT BE THAT 10 MINUTES IS FOR THAT PROJECT AND FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THEIR TEAM TO SPEAK TO THE PROJECT?
>> YES. >> COUNCIL, I WILL TRY TO KEEP US MOVING ALONG. THIS IS CERTAINLY A NEW IDEA AND I THINK WE ALL KNEW THIS WAS COMING AND I KNOW THAT EVERYBODY IS READY TO MAKE A MOVE TOWARDS EITHER MOVING FORWARD WITH ASKING STAFF TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER FOR US TO CONSIDER OR IF WE NEED MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT THIS OR WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS AND WOULD LIKE OUR RULES AS WE ARE AND NOT CONSIDER ANYMORE, SO IF I COULD GET SOME GUIDANCE. MORE QUESTIONS THEY WOULD ASK AND
MORE THOUGHTS, TOO. >> THIS MAY BE SOMETHING SUITABLE FOR AN OFF-LINE MEETING FOR US TO DISCUSS WITH PROCEDURES. WE COULD DO THAT. IT'S HARD TO GET US ALL TOGETHER AGAIN OUTSIDE OF COUNCIL.
>> LIKE A WORK SESSION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
>> THAT'S PROBABLY HOW IT IS GOOD I JUST KNOW I'M NOT.
>> WELL, I SPEND A LOT OF TIMES LOOKING AT YOU ALL. I DON'T SEE A FIRM DIRECTION THAT I BELIEVE IS UNANIMOUS AND I WONDER IF WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE AND MAYBE CONSIDER HAVING A WORK SESSION SOMETIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE AND GIVE TIME TO CONSIDER AND MAYBE ASK QUESTIONS AND ASKED THE CITY MANAGER SOME QUESTIONS AND IF THE IDEA IS WORTH PURSUING, HAVE A WORK SESSION AND SEE WHERE WE GO IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH EVERYBODY. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR EVERYONE.
>> I PREFER WORK SESSIONS, BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING. I PREFER A WORK
SESSION IS MY PREFERENCE. >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT REQUIRES A WORK SESSION. I THINK STAFF COULD PUT TOGETHER SOME OPTIONS AND WE COULD LOOK AT THEM AND ALL AGREE WHAT WE LIKE OR MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. NOT MUCH YOU CAN SAY ABOUT IT. I THINK WE COULD POSSIBLY CHANGE POLICY, TOO. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. IF
[00:20:05]
NOT, WE LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS. >> I'M A LITTLE PERPLEXED BY ASKING THE CITY MANAGER AND HER STAFF TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE EXPECTING WITH THE IDEA AND MADE FOR THE REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION CAME FROM A COUNCILMEMBER WHO TOOK THE TIME TO ASK MEGAN TO PUT THIS INTO A DRAFT FORM FOR US TO CONSIDER. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS WHAT WE CAN CONSIDER.
MAYBE WE JUST NEED ANOTHER MEETING OR SO TO DIGEST A LITTLE FURTHER AND UNDERSTAND IF THERE IS ANY CONSEQUENCES ABOUT THE REQUEST OR IF THERE IS A POSITIVE SHIFT IN OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES OR NOT CHANGE. FROM MY LENS, I DON'T WANT TO BE SIX DISRESPECTFUL . I WOULD LIKE TO DIVE IN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER SAYING AS THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE SEEN THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT MEGAN CAN GET INTO PEOPLE'S HEADS AS TO WHAT WE EXPECT OUR RULES AND PROCEDURES TO BE UNLESS WE DICTATE OUT OF OUR OWN LENS WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, SO I WOULD THINK THAT IT'S FAIR IF WE DIGEST ANOTHER MEETING OR SO, THEN REVIEW IT
AGAIN. >> I DIDN'T SUGGEST GETTING INSIDE OF ANYBODY'S HEAD. I SUGGEST THAT WE GIVE OPTIONS TO GO BY LIKE HOW OTHER CITIES DO IT OR WHATEVER ELSE. HOW THE CITIES ARE SIZE -- HOW THEY HANDLE IT AND THAT TYPE THING.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING TO ANALYZE SOMEBODY'S HEAD ON IT.
>> MAYOR, IF I MAY, YOUR INTENTION WITH THE COUNCIL SELLER DISCUSSION TO HAVE ANOTHER WORK SESSION ABOUT THAT PRIOR TO THIS BEING ON THE AGENDA?
>> WE COULD. ABSOLUTELY. >> MEANING THAT --.
>> COMING TO A CONCLUSION TO VOTE ON THAT.
>> I AM ASKING -- WE COULD PUT SOME INFORMATION TOGETHER FOR COUNCILMAN DAWSON AND SOME THINGS WE HEARD TONIGHT AS A STARTING POINT, BUT YOU COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. I'LL REMIND YOU THAT PROCEDURALLY, YOU HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA IN THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE. WE DO NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU WANT ON THE AGENDA TO CONSIDER. AT SOME POINT, YOU HAVE TO COME BACK AND ASSEMBLE HERE BEFORE A COUNCIL MEETING TO ASK FOR WHATEVER IT IS AND THE MAJORITY YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON THE AGENDA. WE ARE HAPPY TO PUT THINGS TOGETHER AND IF YOU WANT TO COME BY AND THAT TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION AND A COUPLE
OF WEEKS, WE COULD DO THAT. >> I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THAT OFFER AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT AND WE COULD PUT SOME IDEAS AND THOUGHTS TOGETHER TO GET THAT OUT TO US AND WE NEED TO GET BACK TOGETHER AND CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THE COUNCIL COMPENSATION AND WE CAN DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME . IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH YOU ALL, WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION AND WE OPENED THE IDEA OF AND WE HAVE ENOUGH WE CAN THINK ABOUT AND CONSIDER. CERTAINLY, WE ARE FREE TO ASK ONE ANOTHER THOUGHTS AND WE CAN SEND EMAILS TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT QUESTIONS WE MIGHT HAVE AND WE WILL TAKE THIS UP LATER TO WORK SESSION. IS THAT OKAY WITH EVERYBODY? OKAY. ANYTHING
[6. QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA.]
FOR THE CITY MANAGER RELATED TO THE AGENDA TONIGHT? CROUCH?>> SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION FOR TENNESSEE . WE JUST NEEDED TO MODIFY THAT FOR THE ALABAMA INDUSTRIAL ACCESS ROAD GRANT AND WE NEED TO SWITCH THE APPLICANT JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE CITY WILL BE THE APPLICANT AND NOT THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD. IT IS SITTING ON YOUR JUST SHOWING WHAT THE CHANGE IS.
SOMETHING WE CAN'T TODAY IN CITY ATTORNEYS AND TO BE CLEAR, SIGN A DOCUMENT BEYOND RESOLUTION, SO WE NEED THAT CHANGE. THAT IS ALL
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.