[00:00:01]
[1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL]
TODAY'S DATE IS AUGUST 24, 2022.I'LL CALL THIS MEETING THE ORDER, THE CITY OF INDIO SPECIAL CITY TOWNS.
MY NAME IS WAYMOND FERMON I'M THE MAYOR OF THE CITY.
I'M CALLING A SPECIAL MEETING.
>> AND FOR THE RECORD COUNCILMEMBER RAMOS AMITH IS ABSENT.
NEXT ITEM ON THE SPECIAL AGENDA IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND IF I COULD ASK OUR NEW CITY ATTORNEY, MR. STEPHEN GRAHAM, TO DO US THE HONOR IN LEADING US IN THE PLEDGE OF THE FLAG.
PLACE YOUR RIGHT HAND OVER YOUR HEART AND REPEAT AFTER ME.
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 FOR THAT HONOR, MAYOR.
>> THANK YOU, SIR, AND WELCOME TO THE CITY OF INDIO.
[3.1 Adopt Resolution No. 10324 , appointing the qualified candidates as el...]
AND OUR NEXT ITEM IS AN ACTION ITEM.IT'S ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 10324, APPOINTING THE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES ELECTED FOR COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICTS 2 AND 4 AS A RESULT OF HAVING ONLY ONE QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR EACH OFFICE DURING THE NOMINATION PERIOD FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OR CONTINUE TO HOLD THE ELECTION FOR COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 2 AND 4 WITH ONE QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR EACH CONTEST FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, AND THIS ITEM WILL BE HANDLED BY OUR CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATOR, MS. SABDI SANCHEZ.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS.
SO WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE AT THE CLOSE OF NOMINATION PERIOD -- LET ME SEE IF MY SPEAKER IS ON DIDN'T.
ONLY ONE PERSON FOR DISTRICT 2 AND ONE PERSON FOR DISTRICT 4 FILED AND WAS NOMINATED FOR THAT SEAT OF COUNCILMEMBER.
THE ELECTIONS CODE THAT IS HAS A PROCESS IF NO ONE ELSE IS RUNNING TO OFFICE OTHER THAN THE INCUMBENT, THAT THE PROCESS -- THE PROCESS IS TO SUBMIT A CERTIFICATE OF FACTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT ONLY ONE CANDIDATE FILED BY THE END OF THE NOMINATION PERIOD, WHICH WAS AUGUST 17TH.
AND PUBLISH THE NOTICE OF FACTS ON A PAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION, AND HOLD THE MEETING.
THE ELECTION CODE ALSO STATES THE FOLLOWING: SO AFTER THE FIFTH DAY FOLLOWING THE DATE OF POSTING, WHICH WAS 8/19, THE GOVERNING BODY, WHICH IS THE COUNCIL, MAY MAKE AN APPOINTMENT OR DIRECT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD.
THE PERSON APPOINTED, IF ANY, SHALL QUALIFY AND TAKE OFFICE AND SERVE EXACTLY AS IF ELECTED AT MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR THAT OFFICE.
THIS IS A COMMON SITUATION, IN FACT, THERE ARE NINE INSTANCES IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE THIS ELECTION CYCLE THAT ARE GOING THROUGH IT.
THE MEETING WAS HELD -- OR THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD ACCORDING TO THE ELECTION TIMELINE.
SO THE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU IS TO MAKE A DIRECT APPOINTMENT GIVEN THAT NO ONE ELSE FILED OR PROCEEDED WITH THE ELECTION.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY COUNCIL?
>> CITY CLERK, JUST FOR THE RECORD, HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE SAVING BY GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS?
>> SO EXACTLY FOR DISTRICT 2 AND DISTRICT 4 COMBINED, A TOTAL SAVING OF $52,000.29350.
>> THAT'S A FEW PENNIES FOR SURE.
I THINK IT'S PERFECT THAT WE JUST DO THAT.
THE 50,000 THAT DOES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS HALF THE MONEY WE'D BE UTILIZING FOR A GRANT PROGRAM, I MEAN, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT.
SO I DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO RUN AN ELECTION OF TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING UNOPPOSED IF WE DON'T HAVE TO.
SO I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO MAKE THAT MOTION.
I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO LISTEN TO ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY HAS TO SAY BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD WASTE THE MONEY P IF YOU WANT TO SAVE THE MONEY AND DO IT, I'M GOOD ABOUT PUTTING IT IN THE GRANT PROGRAM AND MOVING IT UP TO $150,000 IF YOU WANT TO, BUT I JUST CAN'T SEE HAVING AN ELECTION FOR TWO PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE ANYBODY TO RUN AGAINST THEM.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT? MADE SOME PHONE CALLS, AND FROM WHAT I WAS HEARING PEOPLE REALLY WANT TO SEE THE NAME ON THE BALLOTS.
THEY WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT PROCESS.
THEY THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR VOTER PARTICIPATION, EVEN FOR -- VOTER PARTICIPATION IN THE FUTURE AS WELL, HAVING THOSE NAMES, HAVING PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN
[00:05:01]
THAT, BUT ALSO JUST GETTING PEOPLE INVOLVED.I THINK THAT IT IS GOING TO BE MORE EASIER TO GET MORE VOTERS INVOLVED THROUGHOUT THE CITY IF ME AND WAYMOND ARE ON THAT ELECTION BALLOT.
>> I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK WHENEVER -- WE ARE ALL ABOUT -- WE ARE STEWARDS OF OUR CITY'S FINANCES, AND I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT.
I AGREE WITH YOU IF IT WA $10,000 OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, BUT $50,000 IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT MONEY IN OUR COFFERS.
>> CITY CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY KIND OF HISTORICAL RECORD OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST WITH FOLKS IF THEY RAN UNOPPOSED?
>> MAYOR, I DO NOT HAVE ANY INFORMATION GOING BACK.
I HAVE NOT BEEN IN THIS POSITION.
I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN THE PAST ELECTIONS WHERE I'VE BEEN HERE.
>> IF I MAY, AND BY ALL MEANS OUR COUNCILMEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER.
I'M JUST ASKING IN THE HISTORY HAVE YOU EVER RAN UNOPPOSED AND YOUR NAME BE ON THE BALLOT? SINCE WE HAVE SOME HISTORY OF BEING HERE.
>> WELL, ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES, WE'RE DISTRICTS NOW, AND WE'VE -- SINCE WE HAVE HAD DISTRICTS, NO, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T -- WE'VE ALWAYS HAD SOMEBODY RUN AGAINST EVERYBODY, THAT I'M AWARE OF, SO, YOU KNOW, EATS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
BEFORE IT WAS AT LARGE SO YOU HAD TO HAVE THE ELECTION NO MATTER WHAT BECAUSE YOU HAD TO DO IT.
NOW IT'S THE INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS SO IT'S NOT AN AT-LARGE BID.
BACK THEN WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO REALLY DO THAT BECAUSE YOU HAD TO ELECT PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE, AND THERE WAS ALWAYS MORE THAN IF AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT WERE ON THE BALLOT.
SO IF THERE WAS THREE OPENINGS, THEY USUALLY HAD FOUR OR FIVE.
IF THIS WAS AN AT-LARGE VOTE FORE EVERYBODY VOTED,SIDE, AND IT WAS ONLY THREE, I STILL WOULD SAY SAVE THE MONEY, BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE IT SINCE THE DISTRICT.
EVERYBODY HAS HAD SOMEBODY RUNNING AGAINST THEM.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE NOT.
>> I DON'T MEAN TO -- GLENN, I DON'T MEAN TO COUNTER WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT LAST ELECTION I DID NOT HAVE ANYBODY RUNNING AGAINST ME.
I WAS NOT OFFERED THE OPPORTUNITY.
I WAS NOT AWARE, I DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS PROCESS WAS AVAILABLE, OTHERWISE, I MEAN, IT JUST WENT THROUGH.
I WAS TOLD NO ONE IS OPPOSING ME, AND IT WENT THROUGH WHATEVER PROCESS IT GOES THROUGH.
DID I NOT KNOW THAT WE HAD -- I DID NOT KNOW WE HAD THE OPTION OF NOT PUTTING NAMES ON THE BALLOT TO SAVE MONEY.
I WAS COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF THAT.
SO JUST IN ALL TRUTH AND HONESTY, DIDN'T WANT SOMEBODY TO DIG THAT UP AND FIND THAT UP AFTER THE FACT, SO I'M SORRY.
HAD I KNOWN, I WOULD NOT, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE TAKEN MY NAME OFF THE BALLOT.
>> I JUST WAS ASKING, AND I APPRECIATE BOTH THE COUNCILMEMBERS ASKING.
THIS IS A NEW -- YOU KNOW, SOMETHING NEW FOR US, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT A.
OUR CLERK, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP?
THE REASON WHY AT THE LAST ELECTION, AND I APOLOGIZE, AT THE LAST ELECTION WE DID HAVE AN APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY TREASURER, AND THOSE TWO SEATS WERE CITYWIDE, AND THE REASON WHY WE COULD NOT DO DISTRICT 3 AT THAT TIME FOR ELAINE WAS BECAUSE COUNCILMEMBER HOLMES, WAS BECAUSE WE HAD TWO CITYWIDE CONTESTS.
SO WHEN YOU HAVE A CITYWIDE ITEM ON THE BALLOT, YOU CANNOT DO APPOINTMENTS FOR DISTRICTS.
>> EVEN IF SHE WANTED TO, SHE COULD NOT DO IT BECAUSE OF A CITYWIDE -- >> BUT IT'S FOR DISTRICTING, BUT THIS IS TO GO ON THE BALLOT, CORRECT?
>> RIGHT, BUT THIS YEAR WE DON'T HAVE ANY CITYWIDE BALLOTS OR ANY CITYWIDE CONTESTS.
YOU LEARN SOMETHING NEW EVERY DAY.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE DESERT RECREATION DISTRICT BALLOT MEASURE?
>> I BELIEVE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT RULES.
>> ARE THE BALLOTS STILL GOING OUT?
>> NO, I'M SAYING, BUT ISN'T THAT A CITYWIDE BALLOT?
>> BUT NOT FROM THE CITY OF INDIO.
>> I MEAN, IT'S -- I HAVE AN OPINION ON IT, AND, QUITE FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, I WOULD PREFER TO BE ON THE BALLOT, ESPECIALLY WITH A NEW DISTRICT AS WELL, AND IT GIVES THE FOLKS THE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHO THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS,
[00:10:01]
AND ALTHOUGH -- ALTHOUGH I KNOW WE REPRESENT THE CITY AS A WHOLE, THAT IS OUR GOLDEN DISTRICT, AND THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHO THEY REPORT TO AS WELL.I KNOW THERE'S OTHER MECHANISM.
THE BALLOT IS NOT THE ONLY MECHANISM.
HOWEVER, IT DOES SHOW THAT THEY'RE REPRESENTED.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE COUNCILMEMBERS OF BEING STEWARDS OF THE FINANCES, HOWEVER, WE ARE ALSO OBLIGATED TO SOME OF OUR CONSTITUENTS WHO PREFER THAT WE ARE ON THE BALLOT AND THEY SEE THAT THEY'RE REPRESENTED.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WILL GO, CLERK.
IF WE TAKE A VOTE, I COULD KIND OF SEE WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO, SO WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS?
AND IF WE ONLY HAVE FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT, SO DEPENDING ON THE FIRST VOTE.
SO IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN DO ROLL CALL.
>> WE HAVE TO GET A MOTION, YEAH.
>> COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON IT.
CITY ATTORNEY, IF WE WERE TO HAVE A VOTE AND WE DON'T HAVE A FULL QUORUM, WE HAVE A QUORUM BUT NOT A FULL COUNCIL, 2-2 IS THE SAME AS DENIAL?
SO YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE NO ACTION TAKEN.
I REVIEWED THE CITY OF INDIO'S MUNICIPAL CODE JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY EXTRA SPECIAL RULES THAT AREN'T GENERALLY APPLICABLE.
UNDER SECTION 30.64 OF THE INDIO MUNICIPAL CODE, IF YOU HAVE NOT ENOUGH AFFIRMATIVE VOTES IT'S NO ACTION, AND THE CITY CLERK IS REQUIRED TO BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
HOWEVER, THE TIMELINE REQUIRED BY ELECTIONS CODE 10229 REQUIRED THAT ACTION ON THIS BE DONE BY THE 75TH DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION, SO IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN TODAY, IT LOB WOULD BE A MOOT POINT.
WE CAN'T BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT ELECTION.
SO I GUESS MAYBE WE COULD HAVE A COUPLE MORE MINUTES OF DISCUSSION AND LET'S SEE IF WE CAN COME TO SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT OF WHICH DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO.
THIS IS A TIMELINE THAT WE HAVE TO MEET, AND EVEN IF WE DID HAVE AN OPTION TO BE AT OUR NEXT CROWNS MEETING, I'M GOING TO BE IDENTITY TOWN SO I WON'T BE AVAILABLE ANYWAY, SO THIS WOULDN'T WORK, SO I'D LIKE TO JUST KEEP THE DISCUSSION OPEN FOR A FEW MORE MINUTES TO SEE WHAT DIRECTION WE COULD GO.
LET ME POSE A QUESTION TO MR. ROCKWELL.
OUT OF THESE FUNDS, WHERE ARE THESE FUNDS COMING FROM, BEING THAT THIS IS FOR AN ELECTION? WHERE DO THESE FUNDS COME FROM?
>> SO THERE ARE APPROPRIATIONS THAT ARE ADOPTED IN THE CITY CLERK'S BUDGET THAT COVER ELECTION COSTS, SO IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE COST, IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE SAVINGS THAT WOULD BE RECOGNIZED WITHIN CITY CLERK'S BUDGET, AND, OF COURSE, THOSE APPROPRIATIONS COULD BE MOVED TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAT THE COUNCIL CHOSE.
>> SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE TAKE THIS FUNDING, IF IT'S NOT UTILIZED HERE, IT COULD BE APPROPRIATED FOR ANOTHER BUDGET.
COUNCILMEMBER ORTIZ, I THINK WE LOST YOU, BUT I SEE THE CITY MANAGER -- >> I THOUGHT I WAS JUST ECHO WHAT MR. ROCKWELL INDICATED.
THESE FUNDS WOULD BE SENT TO THE COUNTY RATHER THAN BEING USED HERE LOCALLY, AND JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IN CASE SOMEONE ONLINE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT.
THOSE LIVING IN THESE TWO DISTRICTS, IF THERE WERE NOT A CITY ITEM ON THE BALLOT, THEY STILL WOULD RECEIVE BALLOTS AND THEY WOULD STILL VOTE.
THERE WILL BE A NUMBER OF ITEMS YOU MIGHT EXPECT ON THE BALLOT COMING UP, INCLUDING THE DESERT RECREATION DISTRICT MATTER.
THEY JUST WOULD NOT FIND WITHIN THEIR 20 CHOICES OF 20 MATTERS TO VOTE ON, THEY JUST WOULD NOT FIND THE CITY COUNCIL SEAT.
IT COULD THEN BE ON THE SUBSEQUENT ELECTION, OBVIOUSLY.
BUT BACK TO WHAT MR. -- HAD INDICATED SINCE OUR DECEMBER 21ST MEETING IS OUTSIDE THE DEADLINE, I REALLY HAS TO BE DECIDED TODAY.
WE MAY ACTUALLY HAVE TOMORROW.
SO THE ELECTIONS CODE STATES THAT IT'S -- IF BY THE 75TH DAY BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL
[00:15:02]
ELECTION, WHICH IS TOMORROW, NO PERSON HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO OFFICE PURSUANT -- NO OFFICE, THEN THE ELECTION SHALL BE HELD, SO WE DON'T HAVE -- WE ONLY HAVE UNTIL TOMORROW.>> AND SO LET ME MAKE A SUGGESTION TO OSCAR AND WAYMOND.
HOPEFULLY IT DOESN'T FALL FLAT.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE HAD A REORGANIZATION OF THE DISTRICTS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY, HEY, I REPRESENT YOU, AND SO A SUGGESTION -- BECAUSE I'M SORRY, $50,000, FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT PLACES AND DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS WE CAN PUT THAT MONEY, WHY DON'T YOU SEND OUT, YES, THERE'S A COST TO IT, BUT I'M SURE THERE ARE PEOPLE AND SUPPORTERS AND YOU CAN RAISE MONEY AND WHATNOT TO SEND OUT, YOU KNOW, A HALF PAGE OF I'M GOING TO CALL AT A POSTCARD.
PUT EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE COMPLETED, WHAT HAVE YOU ACCOMPLISHED IN YOUR FOUR YEARS AND WHAT YOU PLAN ON DOING, SEND IT OUT.
COUNCILMEMBER WAYMOND, THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN REACH ME.
WE HAVE DONE THESE THINGS IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.
THAT WILL COST A LOT LESS THAN $50,000.
>> YEAH, I'VE GOT A QUESTION BECAUSE -- AND I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I'VE GOT A QUESTION OF THE CITY MANAGER AND ROB BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED NOW.
IF WE DON'T USE THIS, CITY MANAGER CORRECT ME, THE FUNDS GO TO THE COUNTY?
>> WELL, WE HIRE -- WE PAY THE COUNTY TO HANDLE THESE ELECTIONS, SO SABDI'S RECEIVED AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT IT WOULD COST, WHAT WE WOULD PAY THE COUNTY TO CONDUCT THE ELECTIONS IN THESE TWO DISTRICTS, AND IT'S ROUGHLY $26,000 FOR EACH DISTRICT, SO IF THE ELECTIONS WERE NOT HELD, THE FUNDS THAT MR. ROCKWELL INDICATED ARE BUDGETED COULD THEN BE REALLOCATED TO OTHER -- OTHER PROJECTS.
COUNCILMEMBER MILLER INDICATED THE GRANT FUNDS.
IT COULD GO TOWARDS SOME OTHER SPECIAL PROJECTS, MAYBE TO AN IDEA COUNCILMEMBER HOLMES HAS INDICATED, IT COULD BE PERHAPS A CITY EXPENSE.
IT COULDN'T HAVE YOUR PHOTO AND A BUNCH INFORMATION, BUT WE COULD AT MUCH LESS COST SEND A NOTICE TO EVERY REGISTERED VOTER IN EACH DISTRICT TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT OCCURRED AND WHO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE IS AND WHAT YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION IS, PERHAPS, IN ORDER TO AVOID THE MAILING CONCERN THAT THE CITY TERN ATTORNEY BE GUIDE US ON.
THAT'S JUST AN ALTERNATIVE SELECTION WHERE FOR PROBABLY $5,000 RATHER THAN $50,000 WE COULD NEVER VOTER IN YOUR DISTRICTS IF THE ELECTION WEREN'T HELD.
CITY ATTORNEY, WE HAVE COUNCILMEMBER AMITH THAT'S ONLINE FOR THE RECORD.
CITY ATTORNEY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU KNOW, I HEAR THE CITY MANAGER'S IDEA, AND I KNOW IN THIS MEETING WE'RE NOT -- IF WE WERE TO GO THAT DIRECTION, WE'RE NOT EARMARKING FUNDS, BUT IS THAT FAIR FOR US TO DO THAT AS WELL IF WE DON'T USE THESE BATTS FOR THAT? POSSIBLY INDIO LIVE MAILER DURING THE ELECTION SEASON, SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
>> I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK WITHIN THE CONFINES OF REGULATION 18091.
THAT'S THE MASS MAILING PROHIBITION THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS REFERENCING.
THERE ARE CERTAINLY PROHIBITIONS ON THE TYPE OF INFORMATION WE CAN PUT ON THE MAILER SO IT'S NOT ESSENTIALLY A CAMPAIGN AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE, BUT SEEING AS HOW THE ELECTION IS CANCELED, IT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE CAMPAIGNING, IS IT? I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GIVE THAT PUBLIC NOTICE AS WELL, SO I THINK WE COULD WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO PUT TOGETHER A PROGRAM AND BRING IT BACK FORWARD FOR THAT PURPOSE.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, BEFORE I EVEN ASK FOR ANOTHER MOTION, AND I'LL GIVE COUNCILMEMBER AMITH AN OPPORTUNITY IF SHE'D LIKE TO WEIGH ON THIS, SO THIS ELECTION CYCLE WE HAVE TWO CANDIDATES, DISTRICT 2 AND -- CORRECT ME -- 3?
>> OH, DISTRICT 4 WHO ARE RUNNING UNOPPOSED, AND IF THEY CHOOSE TO BE ON THE BALLOT, IT'S GOING TO RUN US ABOUT $50,000 TO HAVE THESE TWO COUNCILMEMBERS ON THE BALLOT P, MAYOR PRO-TEM AND THE MAYOR, OR WE COULD CHOOSE TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION AND UTILIZE THE FUNDS IN A DIFFERENT MANNER IF WE CHOOSE SO.
SO I WOULD ASK COUNCILMEMBER AMITH IF SHE'D LIKE TO WEIGH IN AND THEN I'LL ASK FOR ANOTHER VOTE.
YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY WOULD PREFER TO BE ON THE BALLOT, BUT I KNOW WE CAN'T EARMARK ANY FUNDS FOR ANY KIND OF CANDIDATE BECAUSE IT'S NOT POLITICAL.
[00:20:04]
IF WE WERE TO GO A DIFFERENT ROUTE, I'M SURE MAYBE WE COULD COME TO SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS AFTER THAT.SO I'LL LET COUNCILMEMBER ORTIZ WEIGH IN AS WELL IF YOU'D LIKE TO WEIGH IN, AND WE COULD GO THAT ROUTE BEFORE WE ASK FOR ANOTHER MOTION.
>> JUST REAL QUICK, HAS THERE BEEN A VOTE YET?
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH IN, MS. AMITH?
>> NO, I'M STILL, I THINK I STILL THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE NAMES ON THE BALLOT FOR VOTER PARTICIPATION, FOR EDUCATION THE COMMUNITY, SEEING THAT WE'RE ON THERE.
I THINK PEOPLE ARE WAITING TO MARK THAT BALLOT.
PEOPLE ARE PROUD WHEN THEY MARK THEIR BALLOT.
I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROCESS, SO I'M NOT OKAY WITH REMOVING THE NAMES FROM THE BALLOT.
>> WELL, IN MY EXPERIENCE WHEN THERE'S ON ONLY ONE NAME ON THE BALLOT, PEOPLE DON'T VOTE FOR THAT SEAT.
JUST STATISTICALLY, THEY DON'T -- THEY FEEL THEY'RE NOT GIVEN A CHOICE.
WHAT I DON'T KNOW, THOUGH, BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THE STAFF REPORT IS, IS THE WRITE-IN CANDIDACY TIME PERIOD ALSO RELINQUISHED IF WE TAKE THIS RESOLUTION ON?
SO IF THE CROWNS DECIDES TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, THEN THERE IS NO TIME FOR CANDIDATE WRITE-IN.
>> AND WHAT IS THE DEADLINE FOR WRITE INS? WE WOULD BE TAKING AWAY SOMEONE'S POTENTIAL.
I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO RUN, BUT WHAT IS THE TIMELINE?
>> THE DEADLINE FOR THE WRITE-IN IS OCTOBER 25TH, HOWEVER, SO FOR WRITE-INS, THEY WILL GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS, COLLECT 20 TO 30 NOMINATION SIGNATURES, HOWEVER, THEIR NAME DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE BALLOT, AND THERE IS NO OPTION TO SUBMIT A BALLOT DESIGNATION OR A CANDIDATE STATEMENT.
AND BY US MOVING THIS RESOLUTION FORWARD, WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO THINK ABOUT IT UNTIL OCTOBER, WHATEVER.
THAT'S ONE POINT THAT WAS NOT BROUGHT OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT.
SO I'M NOT AFFECTED BY THIS VOTE.
I CAN SEE CITY MANAGER'S POSITION, WANTING TO SAVE $50,000, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO VOTE, AND THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO MAKE A DECISION TO RUN, AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE EITHER ONE OF THOSE AWAY.
SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PERSPECTIVE ON IT.
IT'S CERTAINLY IMPORTANT TO GIVE CONSTITUENTS IF OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE, HOWEVER, TWO OF THEM ARE RUNNING UNOPPOSED.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, WITHOUT FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS.
>> THE MOTION WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS NOT ALLOWING, RIGHT? IS THAT HOW I TAKE THIS?
THE MOTION IS FOR US TO BE APPOINTED.
>> AND NOT ALLOW -- YOU KNOW, CITY CLERK, I KNOW IT DOESN'T -- IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING BECAUSE IF WE ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION, COUNCILMEMBER AMITH BROUGHT UP A GREAT POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT ABOUT THE WRITE-IN SITUATION.
>> IF WE DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION TONIGHT, MAYOR, THEN WE JUST HAVE TO TAKE THE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY TO HOLD THE ELECTIONS FOR ALL THE DISTRICTS, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS RESOLUTION IF WE DON'T AGREE WITH IT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW EVERYBODY FEELS.
I JUST AM GIVING YOU THAT INFORMATION.
>> IN MY OPINION THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE WRITE-INS.
THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY CANDIDACY.
$50,000 IS HALF OF THE GRANT MONEY WE TALKED ABOUT, AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT NOT BEING ENOUGH.
WE THOUGHT $100,000 WEAN ENOUGH.
WE CAN TAKE THAT $50,000 AND PUT IT ON THE GRANT.
I JUST SEE PUTTING PEOPLE'S NAME ON THE BALLOT WHEN THEY HAVE NO WAY TO WIN WHEN WE CAN SAFE HAVE A IS THE CITY $50,000.
IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A SOLUTION LATER, MAYBE MAIL EVERYBODY ON IT, SAY THESE ARE YOUR I NEW DISTRICTS AND THESE ARE YOURRES FOR THIS AREA, THEN SO BE IT.
I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO CHECK SOMEBODY'S NAME ON A BOX WHEN THERE'S NO WAY TO
[00:25:04]
WIN.I HATE PUTTING IN IT POCKET OF THE COUNTY AS WELL.
>> AND LIKE I SAID, I RESPECT ALL OF OUR COUNCILMEMBERS AND MAYOR PRO-TEM'S POSITION ON THIS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S STILL EVERYONE'S RIGHT UNTIL THAT DAY TO VOTE.
SO CITY CLERK, I DON'T KNOW IF WE TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE OR IF WE JUST DON'T TAKE ANY ACTION.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE -- RECOMMEND A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION 10324 APPOINTING THE QUALIFIED CANDIDATES AS ELECT FOR COUNCILMEMBERS 2 AND 4 AS A RESULT OF HAVING ONLY ONE QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR EACH OFFICE DURING THE NOMINATION PERIOD FOR THE NOVEMBER 8, 2022, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OR CONTINUE TO HOLD THE ELECTION FOR COUNCILMEMBERS 2 AND 4 AND ONE QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR EACH CONTEST FOR NUMBER 8.
AND I AM RECOMMENDING WE APPOINT THE TWO QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HOLMES.
CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.
THE MOTION PASSES, AND SO WE CAN TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM, AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE INSIGHT AND THE INPUT.
WE DID GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS AND THE MOTION PASSES.
WE'LL GO TO ON ITEM NUMBER 4 WHICH IS PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS?
WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM, SO THE NEXT ITEM IS NUMBER 5, THAT'S ADJOURNMENT UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
THAT WOULD BE SEPTEMBER 21, 2022.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.