Charter Review Commission Meeting January 30th, 2025
OPENING & PUBLIC HEARING
Eight of the eleven commissioners are present. Commissioner Ziegler, Commissioner Benner, and Commissioner Walker are absent. According to the rules set by this commission, these commissioners can only miss one more meeting before being removed from the commission. A public hearing to get input on this commission’s review of the city charter is scheduled tonight. Before the public hearing begins, City Secretary Aimee Nemer provides an explanation of home rule charters. Unfortunately, I am the only speaker. The city did record this public hearing. That can be viewed here: https://richardsontx.new.swagit.com/videos/327314 .
I asked the commission to consider clarifying when we would need to spend public dollars outside the city limits. I also asked them to not roll back any of the existing protections against personal financial interests. The most important, and perhaps most misunderstood suggestion I gave them, was to require surety bonds for all public officials and department directors to ensure the faithful performance of the duties of an office. This would insert a level of personal liability to ensure the faithful performance of the duties of an office.
The city has decided not to record the remainder of these meetings, so I guess it’s up to me. You can view my recording of the rest of this meeting above. My camera requires cuts every 12 minutes or so to prevent overheating. I also had to change batteries twice. Some of these cuts are noted with transition slides. Some are not. I am trying my best and hope to improve how these transition slides display in future recordings. Tonight’s meeting covers four articles of the charter that can be viewed here: https://www.cor.net/government/charter-code-of-ordinances . 19 sections are covered across tonight’s articles. Here’s what happened.
ARTICLE 1. INCORPORATION AND TERRITORY
After the public hearing, the meeting begins at 6:20 pm. Minutes of the Jan. 16th meeting are approved unanimously. Now, City Attorney Pete Smith begins presenting today’s charter sections starting with Article 1, Incorporations and Territory. Sec. 1.01 is titled Corporate name. Atty Smith states that this is a standard section found in most charters that explains the incorporation of the city. Commissioner Thomason asks how this section addresses any potential border disputes. He doesn’t want the charter to prevent cities from negotiating territory. Atty Smith states that state law allows cities to adjust their boundaries. This charter would not inhibit that ability. Richardson doesn’t have any remaining unincorporated territory at our boundaries. The commission agrees that no changes need to be made to this section.
Sec. 1.02 is titled Boundaries. Commissioner Dunn expresses that she desires any references to state law to be consistent wording. Currently, the charter sometimes reads “state law” and sometimes “laws of the State of Texas”. She doesn’t want this to be inconsistent. This begins a very long discussion simply on wording that does not change the interpretation or effect of the charter in any way whatsoever. (As a resident who will vote on any proposed changes, it’s my opinion that this is completely unnecessary to change. In fact, I agree with Mark Steger’s suggestion to remove any reference to state law since we already have to comply with it: https://www.marksteger.com/2025/02/charter-review-articles-121718.html#more . Stating it in the charter does nothing.) Atty Smith answers that they can note all instances of this inconsistency and decide at the end if the city wants to put these before voters. He confirms that this is not a substantive change. Several commissioners weigh in with suggestions on how to make the language consistent. But I’m of the same opinion as Atty Smith on this. It doesn’t matter. I’ll include a suggestion to remove any unnecessary language at the next meeting on Feb. 6th.
All commissioners express a desire to achieve consistent wording. Commissioner Gaziani suggests the same consistency when referencing the city. Currently, the charter reads “city” and “City of Richardson”. This also wouldn’t be a substantive change. Commissioner Thomason states that any changes that help make the charter easier to read are worthy of consideration. Commissioner Strecker points out that consistent language might make the document more easily searchable for certain terms. Commissioner Dunn takes issue with an earlier comment from Chair Bright about considering whether this is worth putting before voters in an election. She states it is not a problem to put stuff before voters. Chair Bright clarifies that he didn’t intend to discourage them from putting something before voters.
Sec. 1.03 is titled Additional territory. Atty Smith states that this is another standard provision that addresses the annexation of land. Commissioner Strecker asks for a definition of “territory” and expresses concern over the “with or without consent” language. Atty Smith clarifies that “territory” only means unincorporated territory within the extraterritorial jurisdiction (1,000 ft. from boundaries). This section allows the city to incorporate property into the city boundaries with or without the consent of landowners. This section does not address eminent domain. That is a different section. The Town of Buckingham is an example of Richardson annexing territory.
ARTICLE 2. POWERS OF THE CITY
The commission now considers Article 2, which is titled Powers of the City. Sec. 2.01 is titled Specific powers. Atty Smith describes this as another standard section. The commission has no input on this section. Sec. 2.02 is titled General powers adopted. Commissioner Dunn states that the first sentence of this section is difficult to read. Atty Smith states that this makes sure that the city has all expressed powers in the charter as well as all powers the state provides the city. Atty Smith will bring back language that includes shorter, more intelligible sentences.
Sec. 2.03 is titled Eminent Domain. Atty Smith states that this section emphasizes the state laws that allow cities to exercise eminent domain. Commissioner Dunn expresses concern about allowing the city to exercise eminent domain “when necessary or desirable”. She is concerned about enabling the city to exercise this whenever they want to just because they desire it. Atty Smith answers that “necessary” means it has to be for a public purpose. “Desirable” means that the city desires a new facility in a certain, more desirable location. Chair Bright states that state law provides these powers and provides guardrails so the city won’t just condemn property because they want to. Requirements must still be met. Commissioner Pratt suggests changing the language to “necessary and desirable”, requiring both rather than “necessary or desirable”. Atty Smith says he will look at the state law and see what language is used. Commissioner Dunn likes Commissioner Pratt’s suggestion. Commissioner Thomason agrees with considering a word to replace “desirable”.
Sec. 2.04 is titled Streets and public improvements. Atty Smith describes this as another standard section. He acknowledges my comment asking for clarification on why we would spend public dollars outside the city limits. Atty Smith states that sometimes cities will partner to own facilities such as landfills outside the city limits. Easements are also sometimes needed outside of city limits. City Manager Don Magner uses the Plano and Richardson Police Training Center as an example. This is located in Plano but is something that both cities have partnered to own and operate. Commissioner Dunn suggests describing facilities differently in this section. Commissioner Pratt suggests removing specific types of public improvements or facilities and just generically stating any public improvements. Commissioner Dunn agrees.
Commissioner Thomason agrees with clarifying language in this section to improve citizens’ understanding of what types of facilities we have outside the city limits. Commissioner Baker agrees with clarifying to avoid any interpretation that we would pay for another city’s public improvements. Atty Smith will bring back suggested language that provides examples of existing facilities and simplifies the language in this section.
ARTICLE 17. PROHIBITIONS
Article 17 is titled Prohibitions. Sec. 17.01 is titled Church and school property assessments. Atty Smith explains that this section prevents churches, schools, or any other properties from being exempt from special taxes and assessments except as required by state law. Commissioner Gaziani suggests changing “church” to a more inclusive term such as “religious organization”. The commission generally agrees with this suggestion.
Sec. 17.02 is titled Notice of damage or injury. Atty Smith explains that this provides a mandatory procedure for anyone who files a claim for loss against the city. The commission doesn’t suggest any changes for this section.
Sec. 17.03 is titled Execution, garnishment and assignment. Atty Smith explains that this section establishes that the city is not subject to garnishment by the state or federal government. Some time is spent on clarifying the commission’s understanding of this section. Commissioner Gaziani suggests adding “when operating in an official capacity”. Atty Smith will bring back language that attempts to clarify the understanding of the section.
Sec. 17.04 is titled Liens on public property. Atty Smith explains that this section prevents any lien from being held against public property of the city. Commissioner Dunn asks if state law prevents liens against public property already. Atty Smith confirms that the state constitution provides this protection.
ARTICLE 18. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Now the commission considers their final article of the evening. Article 18 is titled General Provisions. Sec. 18.01 is titled Personal financial interest. Atty Smith reminds the commission of my comments on this section. He states that this section covers similar areas as the Code of Ethics in preventing public officers and employees from having any contract with the city. He states that this section is more strict than state law. Atty Smith also states that public officers cannot take part in the city’s Home Improvement Incentive Program (HIIP). This program refunds a portion of the increase in taxes collected by the city as a result of property improvements. City Manager Don Magner expressed at the Jan. 16th meeting that this is something “Council” wants them to consider. (“Council” is in quotes in this context because it isn’t clear which councilmembers requested this consideration.)
The commission considers whether to allow board and commission members to participate in the HIIP. Commissioner Baker asks if any other programs besides the HIIP would fall under this consideration. Staff cannot think of another example besides the HIIP. The HIIP has clear criteria and doesn’t allow for any subjectivity for awardees. If you qualify, you receive the stated amount. Commissioner Pratt suggests allowing certain employees to participate in the HIIP. Commissioner Gaziani suggests establishing a Conflict Review Board to address any of these considerations. The commission achieves consensus on allowing an exception for board and commission members to participate in the HIIP. For employees to participate in HIIP, a consensus is not reached. Commissioner Gaziani asks for a comparison with other cities on this item. Atty Smith will come back with examples for both cases and the commission will vote on what to recommend at a future meeting. A comparison with other cities will also be provided at a future meeting.
Sec. 18.02 is titled City contracts – Appropriations and Execution. Atty Smith explains that this is a state requirement that cities appropriate funds for something before entering a contract. No changes are suggested for this section.
Sec. 18.03 is titled Bid opening. Atty Smith explains that this section applies state law requirements for opening bids on contracts. The commission doesn’t have any suggested changes to this section either.
Sec. 18.04 is titled Acquisition of land for parks. This section establishes the city’s right to acquire and appropriate land for parks and open space. Commissioner Strecker states that he wants “outside” to be more specific. Atty Smith reminds the commissioner that this has the same meaning as in Sec. 2.04.
Sec. 18.05 is titled Public library. Atty Smith explains that this requires the city to establish and maintain at least one public library. Commissioner Gaziani suggests making the language consistent throughout the section. Specifically, amending the end of the section to include “or libraries” as it says in the beginning. This allows the city to establish more than one library and appropriate funds for more than one library if desired. Atty Gorfida now arrives. Commissioner Dunn moves to strike “to” and add “or libraries” to this section. The commission unanimously approves this motion.
Sec. 18.06 is titled Building permits. Atty Smith says this is a pretty straightforward section. Commissioner Dunn asks for clarification on how this is enforced but no changes to this section are desired. City Manager Don Magner explains the enforcement process.
Sec. 18.07 is titled Condemnation of dangerous structures. Atty Smith explains that the commission should consider an amendment to this section to allow the appropriate official to condemn a structure. The commission unanimously approves this amendment.
The final section is Sec. 18.08. This section is titled Bonds of city official, employee or department director. Atty Smith reminds the commission of my suggestion to require surety bonds for any public officer or department director while leaving it at Council’s discretion to require a bond for any other city employees. Atty Smith states that a commercial product might not be available in every instance for this. He also states that existing liability insurance, specifically the errors and omissions insurance, covers these issues. Commissioner Pratt asks if other cities require surety bonds. Atty Gorfida answers that sometimes finance directors are required to have this surety bond. He claims that other employees are typically not required to have surety bonds. Atty Gorfida asks what this would even accomplish. City Manager (CM) Don Magner claims that he is the only employee required to have a surety bond. The city pays for this bond.
Commissioner Strecker asks how much premiums for these bonds would be. CM Magner answers that his premium is roughly $400 annually. Commissioner Pratt asks if it makes sense to require a CFO to have a surety bond. CM Magner states that this would be double insurance. He claims that the existing liability insurance provides the same coverage as a surety bond. Keeping the language as is gives Council discretion on how they apply any surety bond requirements. The commission decides to keep this section the way it is.
(I sincerely believe that much of the discussion on this item was misinformed. A quick Google search indicates that Errors & Omissions Liability insurance provides protection to an individual so that the insurance policy pays out damages instead of the individual. A surety bond requires a level of personal liability to ensure the faithful execution of the duties of an office. If an official is found guilty of unfaithful performance, the bond would pay the public (city) and the individual would have to pay the bond company that amount personally. I want this. I think this provides an extra layer of assurance that will cause a public official or department director to be extra careful in the performance of their duties. If I’m personally liable, I’m going to be much more careful in performing official duties than if some insurance policy will cover the bill instead.)
The meeting adjourns at 9:11 pm. The next meeting will be Feb. 6th at 6 pm. It will cover Articles 9 and 10. These sections cover Boards & Commissions and Civil Service. I hope to see you there. Public comments will once again be allowed. You’ll be limited to three minutes.