Loading...
Minutes Charter Review 11/18/2019 TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY,NOVEMBER 18,2019 7:00 P.M. LOCATION: 1 TROPHY WOOD DRIVE,TROPHY CLUB,TEXAS COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Charter Review Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas, met in a Regular Session on Monday, November 18,2019.The meeting was held within the boundaries of the Town and was open to the public. CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dennis Sheridan Chairperson, Place 3 Rhylan Rowe Vice Chairperson, Place 5 Dave Edstrom Commissioner, Place 1 Timothy Patterson Commissioner, Place 2 Bruce Dale Commissioner, Place 4 Kevin Carr Commissioner, Place 6 Louis Opipare Commissioner, Place 7 Danny Mayer Commissioner, Place 8 arrived at 7:05 p.m. CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Jared King Commissioner, Place 9 COUNCIL AND STAFF PRESENT: Philip Shoffner Council Member, Place 6-Council Liaison Wade Carroll Acting Town Manager David Dodd Town Attorney Holly Fimbres Town Secretary/RMO Chairperson Sheridan announced the date of November 18, 2019, called the Charter Review Commission to order and announced a quorum at 7:00 p.m. CITIZEN PRESENTATIONS This is an opportunity for citizens to address the Commission on any matter whether or not it is posted on the agenda. The Commission is not permitted to take action on or discuss any presentations made to the Commission at this time concerning an item not listed on the agenda. The Commission will hear presentations on specific agenda items prior to the Commission addressing those items. There were no citizen presentations. 1. Consider and take appropriate action regarding the November 11, 2019 Charter Review Commission Minutes. Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Edstrom, seconded by Vice Chairperson Rowe,to approve the November 11, 2019 Charter Review Commission minutes. Motion carried unanimously 7-0-0. 2. Discussion of and take appropriate action regarding Article VI,Recall,of the Town of Trophy Club Charter. Acting Town Manager Carroll stated that Staff reviewed Article VI and had no recommended changes. Commissioner Edstrom questioned what would occur in the event of a recall and afterwards there were not enough members of Council to constitute a quorum and he asked why there was not an example of a recall petition in the Charter. Town Attorney Dodd stated that there was an Attorney General Opinion regarding the lack of a quorum that the Council could not meet until they held a special election to fill the vacant seats. The Texas Election Code, within Chapter 277,would address the guidelines for a petition. (Town Secretary Note:Commissioner Mayer arrived at 7:05 p.m.) Commissioner Carr brought up Section 6.06, Official Ballot, and asked if it was required that the candidate who received the majority of all votes cast would be declared elected. Town Attorney Dodd responded that Article XI, Section 11 of the State Constitution addressed that a municipality with terms exceeding two years,were required to elect by majority vote. Commissioner Opipare asked if a recall petition could be done based on someone not liking or were upset with a Council Member. Town Attorney Dodd advised against putting specific reasons due to a person's freedom of speech. Discussion took place that Section 6.02, Petition for Recall, addressed the required amount of signatures needed to file a Petition for Recall and Section 6.04, Procedure After Filing Petition for Recall, identified the guidelines if a petition was sufficient or insufficient. Commissioner Opipare asked if each signer of the petition had to take the oath as outlined in Section 6.03, Form of Recall and Oath. Town Attorney Dodd responded that the person collecting the signatures would be the one signing the oath. Commissioner Mayer commented that most surrounding cities only state that "the qualified voter shall have the power to recall any elected official of the city, such powers shall be exercised by filing with the City Secretary a petition signed by current qualified voters of the city." Then it requires that the requestor list the reason for the recall. He felt it was important not to limit the reasons for a recall and he provided the example of the PD-30 project. The Planning and Zoning(P&Z) Commission voted against the project and suggested that the Council not approve it as it was originally submitted. Roughly 2,000 registered voters signed a petition for the Council to disapprove the project. On the night of the vote, the majority of speakers were against the project, with only three people who spoke in favor, but the Council proceeded ahead and approved the project. Under the Town's current scope of recall, the Council at that time could not be recalled because they did not meet the criteria. He suggested simplifying the verbiage but require that the petition state the reason for recall. Chairperson Sheridan stated that the prior Council had been recalled and they were voted out of office. He did not believe that a recall would be appropriate for that example because the Council had made a decision based on their best judgement at that time. He served on the P&Z Commission during that process and he voted against the project,but he did not feel it was appropriate to recall a Council Member based on their vote within their purview. Commissioner Patterson understood both sides of the issue and was in favor of considering further review. Vice Chairperson Rowe preferred to leave the recall language as written because he saw an opportunity to address Commissioner Mayer's concern in the next item for discussion. Commissioners Carr and Opipare agreed to review and see options. Charter Review Commission Minutes November 18,2019 Page 2 of 7 Commissioner Mayer stated the reasons for recall should not be limited to three specific items. He reiterated that other surrounding cities just required that the reason for recall be placed on the petition without restricting to specific recallable items. If a petition was filed,an elected official would have time to speak to the people and the voters would decide because some things did not need to wait until the next election. He recommended changing the verbiage that "the qualified voter shall have the power to recall any elected official of the city, such powers shall be exercised by filing with the City Secretary a petition signed by current qualified voters of the city equal in number to 20 percent of those who voted in the last election." The Town currently had approximately 9,500 registered voters and about 1,200 residents voted in the last Town election, so roughly there was a 12.5 percent voter turnout and they would be asking for almost double of that to sign a petition. "The recall petition shall specifically state each ground or grounds upon which such petition for removal was predicated." Chairperson Sheridan asked what the definition of"grounds" would be. Commissioner Mayer remarked it would be up to the petitioners what the grounds would be. Chairperson Sheridan inquired about an indictment being a reason for recall because everyone was innocent until proven guilty. Town Attorney Dodd stated you have to be proven guilty and convicted of a felony but if you have administrative proceedings to remove someone based on a criminal charge, then the recall could be delayed until the criminal charge went to trial. Council Member Shoffner remarked that someone could argue that the previous Council was incompetent during the PD 30 example because they did not listen to the residents or the P&Z Commission. He did not see anything that would prevent such a petition because the voters would be the judge that decided incompetency. He added it would be a large task to obtain 20 percent of registered voters to sign a petition based on a small matter. Commissioner Mayer reiterated that the majority of the neighboring cities, such as Hurst, Euless, Bedford, and Roanoke,did not have restrictions. Chairperson Sheridan recommended a motion be made that subsections (a), (b), and (c) of Section 6.01, Scope of Recall, be replaced with a new paragraph. He asked for the search to be done on the immediate surrounding cities of Roanoke, Grapevine, and Southlake to see their language for recall and for it to be placed in the recap agenda item on the next agenda. Commissioner Edstrom did not see the value of Section 6.07, Recall Petition Prohibited, because it stated "No recall petition shall be filed against any Officer of the Town within six (6) months after his election, nor within six (6) months after an election for such Officer's recall." Several commissioners agreed to remove Section 6.07, Recall Petition Prohibited, unless there was a legal reason to have it. Town Attorney Dodd advised that he would research this matter. Commissioner Patterson pointed out that if the language in Section 6.01, Scope of Recall, was amended then the language in Section 6.03, Form of Recall and Oath, would need to be amended to remove incompetency, misconduct,and malfeasance. Motion: Motion made by Vice Chairperson Rowe, seconded by Commissioner Dale, to close the discussion on Article VI, Recall, with a note to follow up on items to discuss per Section 6.01, Scope of Recall, and Section 6.07, Recall Petition Prohibited. Motion carried unanimously 8-0-0. Charter Review Commission Minutes November 18,2019 Page 3 of 7 3. Discussion of and take appropriate action regarding Article VII, Legislation By The People, Initiative and Referendum,of the Town of Trophy Club Charter. Acting Town Manager Carroll stated that Staff reviewed Article VII, Legislation By The People, Initiative and Referendum,and had no recommended changes. Commissioner Opipare inquired if criteria should be added to Section 7.04,Voluntary Submission of Legislation by the Council,regarding a proposed ordinance. Discussion took place that this section addressed voluntary verses involuntary,such as certificates of obligation. Commissioner Mayer stated that if there was a contentious ordinance and the Council did not want to make a decision on it,then they could put it before the voters. Vice Chairperson Rowe read the first sentence of Section 7.03, Referendum, "Qualified voters of the Town may require that any ordinance or resolution passed by the Council be submitted to the voters of the Town for approval or disapproval by submitting a petition for this purpose within forty-five(45)days after the ordinance or resolution becomes effective." In the context of the previous discussion, part of his hesitancy to make too many changes to recall was due to Section 7.03 since it dealt with actual items and not individual persons. Commissioner Patterson brought up Section 7.08, Inconsistent Ordinances, and asked who would determine inconsistency whether it was in total or in parts. Town Attorney Dodd stated his interpretation was that the ultimate determiner would be the Council and this section would be based on two clearly contradictory items. Chairperson Sheridan provided an example of a bonds being voted for but yet the tax for it was voted down. Vice Chairperson Rowe recommended tweaking the verbiage to make it clearer on what would trigger inconsistency. Town Attorney Dodd suggested adding language that the laws of legal construction will be applied if they do not satisfy the conflict. He added that the legal construction would apply regardless. Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Mayer, seconded by Commissioner Opipare,to close the discussion on Article VII, Legislation By The People, Initiative and Referendum. Motion approved unanimously 8-0-0. 4. Discussion of and take appropriate action regarding Article VIII - Municipal Planning and Zoning, of the Town of Trophy Club Charter. Chairperson Sheridan brought up Section 8.06, Comprehensive Master Plan, where it stated "The Council shall establish and adopt by ordinance a procedure for periodic review and/or revision of the comprehensive master plan." He asked Staff to bring it to the Council's attention if there was not such an ordinance in place. Chairman Sheridan recommended putting deed restrictions within subsection (e) of Section 8.04, Purpose, Objective, Power and Duties. Currently,the last sentence read as follows"As an element of this Charter,the Town has determined that it is a reasonable legislative enactment to require subdivision plats to conform to the Town's comprehensive master plan and failure to achieve conformance shall be a legitimate ground for the denial of a development proposal." His recommendation was for the last sentence to read as follows "As an element of this Charter, the Town has determined that it is a reasonable legislative enactment to require subdivision plats to conform to the Town's comprehensive master plan and conforms to deed restrictions as Texas law allows a Town Charter Review Commission Minutes November 18,2019 Page 4 of 7 to enforce and failure to achieve conformance shall be a legitimate ground for the denial of a development proposal." He stated deed restrictions have many different standards,such as brick color that which would not be enforceable by State law an item that could be enforceable could be that lots could not be subdivided. There was no zoning restrictions before the Town was incorporated; therefore developers utilized deed restrictions and a homeowners association (HOA) was created to enforce such deed restrictions. Since then, the HOA has been dissolved and the Town adopted zoning restrictions. With the HOA being dissolved, there was not an organized method of enforcing those deed restrictions. He wanted the ability where the Town would not allow someone to violate such deed restrictions. There was a recent instance where a resident wanted to subdivide their lot but it was against the deed restrictions. The newer areas of Town were regulated by Planned Development ordinances and the older areas of Town were regulated by deed restrictions. Commissioner Mayer asked if this recommendation could be done through an ordinance and in doing so impose a punitive fine for any violations. Town Attorney Dodd responded that would have to go through the planning and zoning laws to be adopted as zoning and it would still be a zoning regulation. Commissioner Mayer stated he lives in an HOA and inquired if either by the Charter or by ordinance something could be adopted that an HOA could not restrict that which the Town allows. Town Attorney Dodd advised against this due to the new statue passed on September 1, 2019 that governmental entities could no longer enforce material regulations,but an HOA could still enforce those. Acting Town Manager Carroll cautioned that this matter needed to be reviewed from a legal standpoint due to the recent State law changes. The City of Houston dropped their zoning in order to enforce deed restrictions, which may be found illegal as well in time. Town Attorney Dodd stated the City of Houston operated on deed restrictions but does not have zoning. He explained that a town would either have zoning or deed restrictions. Commissioner Opipare remembered previous discussions when the Town was formed regarding deed restrictions and the adoption of ordinances being based on what the deed restrictions were. Commissioner Edstrom commented that during that time, deed restrictions were what the residents wanted because it made the Town unique. He was in favor of enforcing the rules and holding onto the value and uniqueness of the Town. Council Member Shoffner understood their concerns and remarked that prior ordinances since 1985 did not reflect the deed restrictions; therefore the Town could not enforce such deed restrictions specific to the recent request for the lot to be subdivided. Vice Chairperson Rowe stated that the case that was cited by Chairperson Sheridan was worthy for discussion in terms of the Commission finding a remedy. He felt that it would be of value to see if there was a legal way to grant the Town the ability to enforce deed restrictions. It may be more feasible by adopting through a zoning ordinance. Commissioner Edstrom supported that the P&Z Commission being the originator and enforcement unit on this matter. Acting Town Manager Carroll remarked that the best remedy may be through Town ordinances and matching zoning and deed restrictions for each area,as opposed to changing the Charter. Town Attorney Dodd explained that the cleanest method would be through zoning regulations as opposed to deed restrictions. Deed restrictions were typically between two private parties and if the Town was not part of that then the Town did not have a legal standing to enforce them. Charter Review Commission Minutes November 18,2019 Page 5 of 7 Commissioner Opipare asked if it would be possible to have in the Charter that the Council shall have the power to override this matter through a super majority vote. Town Attorney Dodd remarked there could be objections from the residents within the notified area that would require a super majority vote. If the P&Z Commission denied a zoning change, then it would require a super majority vote by Council. Vice Chairperson Rowe asked Town Attorney Dodd to research under what conditions a super majority was triggered by a unanimous P&Z Commission denial. There may be instances where a super majority vote would be appropriate. Town Attorney Dodd stated that typically a denial would trigger a super majority vote. Commissioner Opipare asked if specific guidelines being added to Section 8.05, Board of Adjustment, such as their objectives,powers, and duties. Town Attorney Dodd stated that those responsibilities were outlined within the Town's Code of Ordinances. Motion Motion made by Commissioner Opipare, seconded by Commissioner Carr, to close the discussion on Article VIII and include with future business a way to add deed restrictions to P&Z. Motion carried unanimously 8-0-0. 5. Discussion of and take appropriate action regarding previous business: • Article I-Form of Government&Boundaries • Article II-Powers of the Town • Article Ill-The Council • Article IV-Administrative Services • Article V-Nominations and Elections Chairperson Sheridan stated that he received an email from somebody regarding Section 3.02, Qualifications, number(7), If any sitting Council member files to become a candidate for another public office, he shall resign his current seat upon filing for the new office. Vice Chairperson Rowe commented that the Commission did flag a follow-up specific to that topic. Chairperson Sheridan remarked that they also spoke on continuing discussion on Section 3.12, Quorum, and the Commission discussed but did not take action on Section 3.08 (k), Regulate, license and fix the charges or fares made by any person,firm or corporation owning,operating or controlling any vehicle of any character used for the carrying of passengers for hire or the transportation of freight for hire on the public streets and alleys of the Town. They also talked about the official newspaper and meetings of the Town to change to the new Town Hall address. Additionally, they spoke on 3.20, Abstention, that should a person choose to abstain from voting how that vote was recorded. Commissioner Mayer felt that if a subject was brought up regarding an email received,then the details should be identified, and if you choose not to disclose the entire information,then it should not be brought up. He asked if he could request the email through an Open Records Request. Town Attorney Dodd confirmed that any emails received regarding Charter Review issues, regardless where the email was received,it becomes public record because it was based on the content. Charter Review Commission Minutes November 18,2019 Page 6 of 7 Town Secretary Fimbres provided a brief update regarding filling Council vacancies to the next uniform election as opposed to holding a special election within 120 days. The Secretary of State's Office confirmed that per Article 11,Section 11,of the Texas Constitution it was required that the Town hold a special election within 120 days since the Council had three year terms. Motion: Motion made by Vice Chairperson Rowe, seconded by Commissioner Patterson,to close the discussion on Agenda Item No.5. Motion carried unanimously 8-0-0. 6. Discussion of and take appropriate action regarding future agendas: • Article IX-Budget,Finance and Taxation • Article X-Franchise and Public Utilities • Article XI-General Provisions • Article XII-Transitional Provisions Town Secretary Fimbres asked if the Commission would like all four Articles on the next agenda. Chairperson Sheridan confirmed that would be appropriate. Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Opipare, seconded by Vice Chairperson Rowe,to close discussion on Agenda Item No.6. Motion approved unanimously 8-0-0. 7. Recap of motions passed in prior meetings. There was no discussion on this item. Town Attorney Dodd reiterated that any emails received by the Commission were based on the content to determine if it becomes a public record, including text messages,and advised of the importance for Commission to utilize their Town email addresses. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Motion made by Commissioner Patterson, seconded by Commissioner Edstrom, to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Motion carried unanimously 8-0-0. F 1 ROp �► 1I ' O Y �� ('�jei� enc16r) s Holly Fimbre own Secretary 111' �G Denniseridan,Chairperson Town of Trophy Club,Texas 0 .` GJ own of Trophy Club,Texas v1 , -74,11 Ncb Charter Review Commission Minutes November 18,2019 Page 7 of 7