 So after those five propositions on your ballot, Proposition A3 for the Bonds, you will see starting with Proposition F, 13 proposed charter amendments. Charter is not generally a topic that is particularly interesting. I'll do my best to get through it quickly and informatively. So as Roger said, back on February 8th, Council adopted the elections ordinances, both the bond election and the charter election. Charter elections set for May 7th, excuse me, they're 13. Per state law they have to be lettered, so they're F through Q, they pick up right where the bond ones left off. There are total 13, the one you've probably heard about is the Mayor and Council pay, and then there are 12 technical amendments. All 13 are topics that had previously in 2016 been sent to a charter review task force and recommended for inclusion on the election. 12 of those 13 did not make the prior ballot, so they're being picked up now. So as I said, the one you've probably heard about already is the pay for the Mayor and Council. What is proposed is, I'm not going to read the entire ballot language, but I do encourage you to read it closely when you're voting, that what's proposed is for the Mayor's annual pay to be one half of the average for the base rate salary for department heads, so it's across the city, and then for all the other council members to be one half of the base rate salary for all of the assistant department heads. So currently we have fixed numbers in the charter for those salaries for the pay. Mayor is 29,000. The other council members are 25,000. The other large cities in Texas that have a manager council form of government, so Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, their pay rate ranges for their council members from 45,000 up to 83,000, and for their mayors from 61,000 up to 97 and a half thousand. So 29 and 25, obviously a little bit outside that scale. Rather than proposing a fixed number again, the suggestion was made to have an index to say let's make the salary tied to some other pay in the city so that we don't have to, as time goes on and salary rates change, we don't have to go back out to the voters again. When we go out to the voters to hold an election, if the city is the only one on the ballot, it's about $500,000 for the city to hold an election. So this was kind of a way to try to address the issue, keep it in line with city pay, but also not have it fixed in a dollar amount where it requires going out repeatedly as they become stale. So as I said, for the mayor, one half of the department head, for the other council members, one half of the assistant department head. So if this were adopted, then as the council adopts and reviews the budget for each year, they would actually set their salaries. But the actual base rate pay is for all of the department heads and assistant department heads in that coming year, and it would be one half of the average of those. It's an index, so it changes from day to day, because, for example, our Human Resources Department ran numbers on January 18. And based on those numbers, the salaries would have been the pay for the mayor would have been 99,653 and the pay for the city council members. Yes, 99,653 and for the other council members would have been 76,727. They ran those numbers again today, and as of the people who are in those positions today, mayor would be 99,967, so up a little bit, and the council members would be 74,520, so down a little bit. Again, it'll be a point in time calculation each year as the budget is adopted. So the other key point when you're looking at a charter amendment is to identify where there's a fiscal impact. This would obviously have a fiscal impact going from 29 and 25 to one half of the department and assistant director, respectively, for nine council members, assuming those numbers that I gave you originally are first run on the numbers on January 18. The total for the nine members, starting in FY23, all nine together would be $484,469. So that's the difference between the 25 and 29 versus one half of the numbers I quoted earlier. When fiscal year 24 rolls around, we will have 11 council members, so obviously that's two additional council members impacted. So that fiscal impact would be $58,923. And that's again with the illustrative numbers from January 18. So were there actually people in attendance here? I'm sure this is where a lot of questions would be. Hopefully we'll have some before the presentation is done. The remaining 12 amendments are all very technical. Again, these are all items. So it's items G through Q, I'm sorry, G through R. And they're all items again that were proposed by our Charter Election Review Committee back in 2016. So for Proposition G. Essentially what this would say is when we do our 10-year, every 10-year redistricting, we don't have to have a meets and bounds description. Now I will say this was recommended by the Charter Committee. The Charter doesn't explicitly say you have to have meets and bounds, but I guess out of an abundance of caution, the recommendation was we should say that we don't. If you think about it, when you're doing redistricting, saying this side of Riverside or this side of the river or this side of some other identifiable boundary is no more useful than saying meets and bounds, you know, 39 degrees north X minutes and seconds. So this would just say explicitly there's no meets and bounds required when we do redistricting. Proposition H is to address a kind of an odd little thing we have in our Charter. Currently some of the appointed officials, the city secretary, city manager, and city attorney all of the department heads have the right to request a hearing before the city council if they are terminated after their six-year probationary period. Now the reason I say it's a little odd is the department heads don't work for council. The Charter actually says that the council can't direct what happens. Those people work for the city manager and the Charter makes it illegal for council to direct what the people who report to our city manager do. So it's very odd they would hold a hearing but they would be in no position to grant relief. It's also a little odd because it doesn't specify time frame, doesn't say where you file, it doesn't say how soon after you've been terminated you would have to file. So it creates a lot of questions and in the time that I've been with the city almost 16 years now I believe two people have inquired about holding the hearing. I don't know that either one actually ended up with hearing. So this would eliminate that and say just repeal all those references to the hearing. Proposition I is to change the time period when individuals want to get something on the ballot and they file a petition, whether they want to have a referendum to add through adoption ordinance or to change the Charter or if they want to actually try to recall their council persons. The mechanism for doing that is you file a petition, city secretary has to review that petition. Currently they have 10 days to review that petition. When you're talking about potential let's say recall of a city-wide office that's thousands of signatures and 10 days in order to comply with that requirement would probably require hiring temporary staffing. So this would extend that time period for review of those petitions from 10 days to 25 days. This again was a recommendation of that Charter Review Committee. A number of the proposed Charter amendments relate to changing things where the Charter has not kept up with the current city practice. And this is one of those. So Proposition J would take out currently our Charter says that the finance department is to assess and collect our city taxes. Well as anyone who's paid their tax bill knows that you don't write your check to the city at 4th. You write your check to the Tarrant County Tax Assessor Collector. So this amendment would propose taking out that reference so it would not be listed as a duty of the finance department. And it would comply with our current practice which is that the county does it. Similarly keeping up with or updating to catch up with current practice. Proposition K would eliminate the reference that we have currently in our city Charter that says the city shall have a department of health. The city does still maintain some health functions. Our Code Compliance Department does restaurant inspections and some health functions for over a decade. Around the 2010 timeframe if I remember correctly the city and the county got together realized wait the county is doing health city is doing health. Maybe we should just have one of us do it not duplicate efforts. So since that time most of the public health duties have been handled by our county health department. So this would eliminate the reference that says the city is to must have a public health department. Not to say that we couldn't at some point in the future decide to have one. It's not a prohibition against having one. It's just saying we're not required to have one. And that again is just to kind of get catch up with our current practice. So Proposition L is relating to when the city sells pieces of public property. Currently the city Charter requires that notice to be published four times once a week every week in the city newspaper. Publish publication costs is not inexpensive and the newspaper doesn't reach in all honesty as many people as it used to. So the proposed Charter change again from the 2016 proposal would be have a single newspaper publication for people to read the paper. And then for those four weeks put that notice on the city's website and keep it up there for the whole period so that if people are interested in buying the property they would be aware that that was going on. And this only applies when you're selling property that's worth 125,000 or more. So another cleanup type change is Proposition M. Currently the city Charter says that the city shall impose an assessment for people for the abutting property owners if they come in and they do sidewalk and curb work in front of a house. Or in front of a building. City hasn't actually imposed those assessments for a number of years so this again would repeal that requirement. It would leave the discretion to have it. It would change it from a shall assess to a may assess. So if a time came when that made sense to do it could still be done. But it would not be a mandatory requirement as that has not actually been taking place. Some of the places where our Charter is proposed for amendment is just simply to try to make sure we're not conflicting with state law. This is one of those. Currently our Charter has a very specific date by which the tax assessor collector has to submit the tax roll to the city. Right now the date specified in our Charter matches state law but every two years the legislature meets in Austin and every two years they could change those things. So the proposed change here would be to simply say under our Charter whenever you have to submit under the state law that's the date by which you submit. So we don't end up in a situation where our state law and our Charter don't match. Public Service Corporation reports. So our Charter says that public service corporations have to file these reports annually with the city. Again this is a process that has not actually been employed for a number of years. To the extent this information you're looking for this information. It's readily available for most of these companies online either from the state utility public utility commission or from the companies themselves. And so rather than have the added requirement of having these folks file with our city secretary's office this would eliminate that entirely. Proposition P the city's official advertising contract currently under our city Charter under state law. We have to go out. We have to put certain notices again in the newspaper under state law. And those notices have to go to our official paper of record. The Charter requires the city to go out for bid and get to have a competition for a paper of record every single year. While the idea of a competition amongst papers is nice. The reality is there aren't a lot of papers to compete. And if you have to keep going out for bid there's a staff time associated with going out for bid having to renegotiate a new contract. So the recommendation here would be to simply say instead of every year contract. It could be a multi-year contract. It just allows at the discretion. So when it seems appropriate in the in the opinion of the city manager's office that we need to go back out. It's been a while we should go back out for bid we would but we would not be required to go every single year. So hopefully this would increase efficiency and save some money. Almost done. Stick with me. Proposition Q is related to annexation elections. Now this this provision it's interesting to read. It's clearly something that probably dates all the way back to the 1920 Charter. Some of the references are very archaic. So this amendment would strip out all of the archaic language. All of the references about the mayor calling an election which the mayor can't call an election directly anymore. And would simply say call an election in accordance with state law. And mark the ballot because right now it says you punch the ballot and we haven't punched ballots in probably a couple of decades. And then our final one are independent auditors. The city every year engages in independent auditor. They review. They do the what's the annual financial comprehensive report. I think I've got those letters out of order. And so they review the city's financials. They review the grant programs. And under our charter it currently has language that says the auditor must review the budget statements. When our former CFO came on board we looked at that and we were trying to figure out what that meant because there aren't this the provision of references doesn't actually include any statements per se. So we've been having the auditor review our budget adoption process rather than have tried to make up work to match something in the charter that we're unsure what it means anymore. And so the commission would revise it and simply say they would perform the normal audit that everyone understands to be part of your comprehensive annual audit and financial report. So it's 1313 amendments and 13 minutes I think. As Roger said we've got key election dates coming up we'll be doing these public meetings I think there's 10 or 11 of them scheduled today's first one they'll be going through at least April 25 possibly later. And so we've got a lot of information about the charter election, including the full text of the ordinance of the ordinance that called the election which has, you know, a lot of strike through version of the charter she can see exactly what would change is online, as is some more information, including the presentations that were made to city council and developing this. The last data register for vote for those who are not registered is April 7, which is a month before the election day. So early voting will be April 25 that will run through May 3 and then of course election itself will be Saturday the 7th. So there's additional information as I said on the website. If you have questions in the interim, you can reach out via the website there I believe going to be dedicated links with an email address you can submit your questions on the bonds or the charter on the city's webpage. So Michelle do we have any questions on the charter election. It's so interesting. All right, well thank you everyone for coming out. In addition to the meetings that are listed on the schedule and as Roger said there's a full list of meetings on the website. There's I believe also be a meeting in the box is that right Michelle are we doing that this year. Yeah, so there's information where if you have a neighborhood association meeting you can find online. Kind of just the basics of what Roger and I presented so y'all can go through it yourselves. And if you have a group that you would like folks to come to speak to probably not on the charter because it's not an interesting but if you have you'd like to have asked folks out to speak. You can also submit that to Michelle Guder communications director to get something set up so with that there are no questions and no one in the room is not city staff y'all have a good evening.