1

Monday, October 8, 2018

Penn Room 5:00 pm Agenda

Although Council committee meetings are open to the public, public comment is not permitted at Council Committee of the Whole meetings. However, citizens are encouraged to attend and observe the meetings. Comment from citizens or professionals during the meeting may be solicited on agenda topics via invitation by the President of Council. All electronic recording devices must be located behind the podium area in Council Chambers and located at the entry door in all other meeting rooms and offices, as per Bill No.27-2012. I. Rec Commission Issues (D. Klahr) 1. Hillside Pool Property 2. 11th & Pike Athletic Fields II. Dam Report (R. Johnson) III. 2019 Budget Review Schedule IV. Rules for Conducting Council Meetings V. Agenda Review VI. Executive Session – Real Estate, Contracts & Personnel VII. Adjourn

CITY COUNCIL

Committee of the Whole

2

SUMMARY September 24, 2018

5:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Slifko, S. Marmarou, B. Twyman, D. Reed, M. Goodman-Hinnershitz, L. Sihelnik OTHERS PRESENT: L. Kelleher, S. Smith, K. Lugo, B. Murray, K. Mazur, A. Dominguez, R. Johnson, O. Deming, D. Cituk, A. Palacios, D. Pottiger, W. Stoudt, W. Scott, C. Castner, L. Olsen, D. Gross, J. Ernesto, M. Kerber The Committee of the Whole meeting was called to order at 5:03 pm by Mr. Slifko. I. Berks Arts Council re Waiver of Amusement Tax for Non-Profits Mr. Gross, of the Reading Symphony Orchestra, stated that the events held at the Performing Arts Center bring downtown jobs and patron spending. He stated that the RSO held two concerts at the Scottish Rite Cathedral and there was a significant economic impact downtown. He stated that the entire RSO series for 2018-2019 will be held at the SPAC due to feedback from those who attended the concerts at the Scottish Rite venue. He requested a waiver of the Amusement Tax. Mr. Waltman arrived at this time. Mr. Gross reviewed the packet distributed to Council. He described the way that some other municipalities waive the amusement tax for non-profits.

COMMITTEE of the WHOLE

CITY COUNCIL

3

Mr. Ernesto stated that Jazz Fest is also committed to Reading’s downtown. He stated that the Berks Arts Council also plans the summer band shell concerts and the Blues Fest. He stated that he supports Reading but explained that it is becoming more expensive to present concerts at the SPAC. He requested that Council waive the amusement tax for non-profits to help them continue their mission. Ms. Kerber noted her hope that Berks Arts Council would grow downtown programming which will also assist the downtown businesses. Mr. Gross stated that his packet includes highlighted language regarding the waiver for non-profits. He stated that generally symphonies and festivals are exempt. He stated that Reading is his fourth location and that the other municipalities he worked in either waive the tax or use the tax receipts to further support the arts. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz thanked those in attendance. She noted her understanding of the difficulties operating the symphony and music festivals. She noted the need for the City to recognize that if these organizations become financially challenged that the SPAC will close. She noted the need to analyze this request. She noted the need for Reading to remain the core of the County. Mr. Gross stated that he is committed to improving downtown and stated that Council’s support to waive the amusement tax would be very helpful. Mr. Olsen stated that the highest ticket sales occurred in 2018. He stated that the Jazz Fest budget is $500,000 to book the artists. He stated that most attendees are from outside Berks County. He stated that Jazz Fest, Blues Fest and RSO concerts are tremendous events and require 365 days of planning. He asked Council to consider waiving the amusement tax for non-profits. Ms. Sihelnik stated that she was glad to see this group. She expressed the belief that these are quality events and that she is very proud of them. She thanked them for their research and stated that she will review it carefully. Ms. Reed noted the need for the City to do what it can to assist cultural institutions. She stated that she will give careful consideration to the request. She stated that without culture there is wasteland.

4

Mr. Twyman thanked the group for bringing this to Council’s attention. He stated that the conversation will continue. Mr. Cituk stated that the 2019 budget process has begun. He explained that the admissions tax is a 5% fee applied to each ticket sold, not to the organization. For example if the amusement tax on a $30 ticket is $1.50 that amount is added to the ticket price and paid to the City. He stated that he will provide the financial information at the next meeting. He expressed the belief that charging the tax to the ticket prices is a fair way for those who do not live in Reading but use municipal services such as streets, police, etc. Mr. Gross stated that the RSO budget projects $17,000 in admissions tax for 2019. Mr. Waltman requested the total revenue from admissions tax and the percentage that would be lost if non-profits are exempted. Mr. Ernesto stated that the Arts Council pays $10,000 - $12,000 annually. Ms. Kerber, Mr. Ernesto, Mr. Gross and Mr. Olsen left the meeting at this time. II. 2019 Budget & CDBG Action Plan Updates Mr. Pottiger stated that the draft budget will be finalized for introduction on October 1. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz questioned if the budget will include the carryover. Mr. Pottiger stated that it will be included. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz questioned if the construction of the fire stations will be included. Mr. Pottiger stated that it will be included. Mr. Slifko questioned when budget review meetings would begin. Ms. Kelleher noted that the 2017 review schedule is in the meeting packet. She noted the need for Council to set the meeting schedule. Mr. Waltman stated that generally the Finance Chair and the Managing Director set the schedule. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz stated that she will work to set the schedule.

5

Ms. Kelleher noted that the Veteran’s Day holiday on Monday, November 12 causes the need to introduce all the budget and related ordinances no later than October 22. Mr. Slifko noted the need to review both revenues and expenses. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz stated that she will work on a proposed schedule and present it on October 1. She requested that if there are specific areas that Council would like to review that she be informed. Mr. Palacios distributed the 2019 Action Plan. He explained that public comment can be made for 30 days. He stated that he will be back during the budget review process with a more in-depth review. Mr. Waltman questioned if the Action Plan includes projects that were denied. Mr. Palacios stated that it does not. Mr. Waltman thanked Mr. Palacios for including the 2017 and 2018 information for projects. He requested that Mr. Palacios also include denied projects. Ms. Kelleher stated that the Action Plan can be adopted on Tuesday, November 13 as it must be submitted to HUD by November 15. Mr. Waltman reminded all that the Action Plan can be amended in the future as unprogramed funds become available. Mr. Palacios distributed the HOME/ESG budgets. He explained that the budget includes $1 million for rental housing assistance. Mr. Slifko questioned the overall funding of HOME/ESG. Mr. Palacios stated that it has increased. Mr. Waltman reminded all that Mr. Palacios will return for a more specific review. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz stated that ESG addresses homelessness in Berks. She questioned how the City’s ESG addresses the issue specifically. Mr. Palacios stated that very detailed reports must be filed. He stated that he will provide them to Council.

6

III. RAWA Route 61 Water Main Mr. Rockford from PennDOT joined the meeting at this time. Mr. Murray passed around a small piece of the broken main pipe to demonstrate its weight. He stated that he is collecting an expert opinion that the Route 61 main breaks were caused by a third party. He stated that there will be resulting litigation and recommended that the update occur in executive session. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz questioned if the executive session is appropriate. Mr. Deming stated that it is. Council entered executive session at 5:37 pm. Council, Ms. Kelleher, Ms. Smith, Mr. Mazur, Mr. Murray, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Deming remained in the room. The executive session ended at 5:50 pm. Mr. Lugo, Mr. Stoudt, Mr. Dominguez, Mr. Rockford, and Mr. Pottiger rejoined the meeting. Mr. Slifko questioned if a temporary main would be installed as a backup. Mr. Mazur explained that both water mains are back in service. He stated that approximately 700 feet would be replaced now under emergency procurement and approximately 1600 feet would be bid out for phase two. Mr. Murray stated that during this process RAWA learned that it can repair this main artery within 12 hours, well within the 48 hour best practice. Mr. Cituk, Mr. Scott and Ms. Castner rejoined the meeting at this time. Mr. Murray explained that RAWA has a stock of pipe for emergencies but that getting additional pipes may cause delays. Mr. Johnson stated that RAWA is now drafting a preparedness plan. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz questioned if the most recent boil water advisory was related to these main breaks. Mr. Murray stated that it is hard to say. He explained that PennDOT has been onsite and has opined that this was a very bad break but that it was

7

handled smoothly. He commended RAWA and H & K employees for their exemplary work. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz thanked RAWA for its work. She noted the need for the public to understand the issue and to prepare for the potential loss of water. Mr. Murray agreed and stated that RAWA also works closely with local businesses. Mr. Mazur and Mr. Rockford left the meeting at this time. IV. Recycling Bin Pilot Project Mr. Waltman stated that new, larger bins have been distributed in some areas of the City. He stated that they are being stored on porches and in the front of properties. He noted the need to ensure that these larger bins will fit through the baker’s alleys. Mr. Marmarou stated that he toured several neighborhoods including Route 10 and the 100 block of West Windsor St. He stated that elderly residents will be unable to handle these large containers and many homes have steep front steps. He questioned why the bins were changed. Mr. Lugo distributed a packet of information to Council. He stated that the two main goals of this pilot are to increase the recycling volume and to reduce litter. He stated that the old containers do not have attached lids and that they are often overflowing. He explained that the square containers break easily and are too small. Mr. Lugo explained that the current round containers are 32 gallons, the new smaller container is 35 gallons and the larger container is 65 gallons. He stated that a total of 3,700 new containers were purchased – 2,600 large and 1,100 small. He stated that large properties got large containers and smaller properties got small containers so the container would fit through the baker’s alley. Mr. Waltman questioned what happens if the containers do not fit through the baker’s alley. Mr. Lugo stated that the containers will be swapped out. He explained that they cannot be stored out front but that Codes will not issue QoLs for the containers out front in the pilot area during the 60 day trial period. He stated that if neither new container works for the resident they will be given a round container.

8

Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz explained that some homes don’t have baker’s alleys and residents must carry the containers through their homes. She stated that the smaller homes are also narrower and the sidewalks are also narrow. She stated that she did note these concerns when this was previously discussed with Council. Mr. Johnson stated that the pilot area was chosen because the neighborhoods are more suburban. He stated that the program will need to adapt as new areas are included. He explained that Mr. Steckman felt that litter was caused by recycling blowing out of the containers and wanted containers with attached lids. He stated that the pilot program will be assessed before it moves forward. He noted his understanding of the issues. Mr. Slifko questioned if there are small containers with attached lids. Mr. Lugo stated that his research has shown that the smaller containers do not have attached lids. He stated that a smaller container with an attached lid would be a custom order and would increase the cost of the containers. Mr. Johnson stated that Phoenixville allows residents to keep their containers out front. Mr. Waltman stated that this will not be allowed in Reading as it was disastrous in the past. Mr. Twyman questioned the cost of the pilot program. Mr. Lugo stated that approximately $280,000 was spent but that extra round containers were also purchased in case of switch-outs. He stated that the 32 gallon round container costs $20 each, the 35 gallon lidded container costs $35 each and the 65 gallon lidded container costs $41 each. Mr. Twyman questioned the percentage of the City the purchase would cover. Mr. Lugo stated that it would cover the Monday and part of the Friday collection areas. Mr. Twyman stated that the total cost would be approximately $1 million. He questioned who delivers the containers to residents. Mr. Lugo stated that the cost includes $4.50 per container to assemble it and deliver it to residents. He stated that the City has funded the pilot but that grants are being researched. Ms. Reed questioned when a decision would be made to expand the program. She questioned if the containers could be returned if the pilot is not successful. Mr. Johnson

9

stated that the pilot will run for 60 days and that additional time will be used to closely examine the results. He stated that the containers are not returnable. Ms. Reed stated that she has received many complaints from residents in Riverside. Mr. Marmarou questioned what would happen if a resident cannot use either size of the new containers. Mr. Lugo stated that he is working to speak directly with each person and that will be decided on a case by case basis. Mr. Marmarou questioned what happens if people don’t want the new container. Mr. Lugo stated that he has not heard this response. He stated that once he explains the rationale to people they are willing to try the new container during the trial period. Mr. Waltman noted the need for other options for the urban areas of Reading. He stated that there will also be residents who will be unable to use these large containers. Mr. Slifko noted his hope that there would be an honest review of the pilot. Mr. Twyman noted his concern with the cost of the project. He questioned if the vendor provided the equipment and if there was an effect on cost. Mr. Johnson agreed with these concerns and stated that they will be reassessed after the pilot. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz noted that due to the urban environment, there may be collection issues. She noted the need for urban solutions that work with residents. Mr. Scott stated that he was at the meeting when the pilot was discussed with Council. He stated that four types of containers were displayed. He stated that he did not agree with Mr. Steckman about this project. He stated that he was unsure if an RFP was issued and that the City already has a large supply of recycling containers. Mr. Scott stated that he has a baker’s alley and the container fits through. He stated that people can always find things wrong. He stated that he can’t get any answers and stated that anyone can place blame. He suggested that Council did not voice their objections to the pilot at the beginning and suggested that if they didn’t want the pilot project they should have said so. Mr. Marmarou stated that he voiced his dissatisfaction with the pilot to Mr. Steckman.

10

Mr. Scott questioned if an RFP was issued. Mr. Johnson stated that three companies that participate in Costars were selected and provided quotes. Mr. Scott questioned if the project went through the MERC process. Mr. Johnson stated that it did not because MERC wasn’t active at the time. He stated that he worked directly with Mr. Steckman. Mr. Scott stated that he will provide additional information about Mr. Steckman when he is able to do so legally. He stated that Mr. Steckman was incorrect on many things. He noted his hope to make an announcement on Thursday. He noted how power can affect some people. He stated that he did not know the cost of this project and that he didn’t like the containers. He stated that he is not making excuses and that the truth will come out. Mr. Waltman stated that he is glad that a close look will be given to the pilot results. He noted the need to find the right balance. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz suggested distributing the summary of the COW meeting which contained the presentation on the pilot program as a refresher. Mr. Waltman noted the need for all to keep their comments on the issues. V. Select CJAB Attendee – Thursday, Sept 27 at 8 am Ms. Kelleher stated that Council had previously decided to choose an attendee for each individual meeting. Mr. Twyman stated that he is interested but is unable to attend this month. Mr. Marmarou stated that he is also interested. Mr. Waltman suggested that Mr. Twyman be the liaison with Mr. Marmarou as the alternate. All agreed. Ms. Reed stated that she is unable to attend Human Relations Commission meetings and suggested a new liaison be named. VI. Agenda Review

11

Council reviewed this evening’s agenda including the following:

• Resolution authorizing the execution of the PennDOT Green Light Go Grant Agreement in order to receive the awarded funding for the Front St Traffic Improvement Project

Mr. Johnson stated that this approval is needed to move forward with the grant. He stated that the project is an important one and will provide new traffic signals. Ms. Sihelnik questioned if Public Works would be able to properly process the grant funding. Mr. Johnson stated that there are many projects and it has become a struggle keeping up. He requested two part time employees become full time or to reinstate a former full time employee. He stated that he will also discuss this during the budget review process. He stated that there are also processing issues in purchasing and law. Mr. Slifko noted his hope that all department directors explain how they are short staffed during the budget review process. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz questioned if Mr. Deming was serving as acting managing director this evening. Mr. Deming stated that he is serving as acting solicitor this evening.

• Ordinance amending Code of the City of Reading Chapter 576, Vehicles and Traffic, Part 4, Stopping and Parking, Section 576-815 to decrease the number of unsettled parking tickets exposing a motor vehicle to booting and storage

Ms. Kelleher stated that Mr. MacDougall is not available this evening. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz suggested that the ordinance remain tabled.

• Ordinance authorizing the creation of an OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) Trust Agreement to provide for certain postemployment benefits for employees hired prior to January 1, 2011, as attached in Exhibit A

Ms. Kelleher stated that Mr. Steckman requested this ordinance be withdrawn due to the errors in the legislation. Council noted that Mr. Steckman can no longer make these requests.

12

Mr. Pottiger requested that it remain tabled.

• Ordinance establishing reasonable costs of collection for delinquent Act 511 taxes and imposing the cost of such collection upon the delinquent taxpayer

Mr. Deming stated that this ordinance can proceed. He stated that wages can be garnished.

• Ordinance amending the 2018 budget by creating the City Facilities Construction Fund as Fund 37, to capture allocated funds from the City’s General Fund surpluses and provide designated funding for city facility construction projects

Ms. Kelleher stated that this ordinance should be removed as it was added in error. Mr. Pottiger stated that it should remain to create this fund. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz suggested that it be tabled for additional information and discussion.

• Ordinance amending the 2018 Capital Projects Fund to provide the funds needed for the purchase of a new stake body truck, 2 pickup trucks, a turn mower, and a mower with a plow and broom, of which $186,736.35 (previously approved by Bill 51-2018) had been previously budgeted in the 2017 Capital Projects Fund budget. As a result of the 2017 external audit, these purchases were reclassified into 2018 due to the timing of the receiving of these assets. Since the transactions were not completed before year end, the budgeted funds for these purchases needs to be re-budgeted

Mr. Pottiger explained that this is a housekeeping issue that was discovered during the 2017 external audit.

• Ordinance amending the 2018 Position Ordinance by creating the position of Community Response Coordinator in the Police Department Special Services Division

13

Chief Dominguez stated that this does not create a need for additional manpower. He stated that this position will be responsible for recruiting and attending special events.

• Ordinance amending the 2018 Position Ordinance by changing the part time Administrative Assistant to the Police Chief to a full time position

Chief Dominguez stated that generally this position will be held by a member of the police force. He stated that very sensitive information is handled. He stated that this was a part time position in the past and that a sergeant will be reassigned to this position. He stated that it will result in a $6,550 budget increase and that Mr. Mann has approved the change. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz questioned if the position is currently filled. Chief Dominquez stated that it is not. Mr. Slifko noted the need to add three additional ordinances to this evening’s agenda. He stated that in light of the recent personnel changes a vacuum has been created. He stated that the first two ordinances provide a process to be used in the future to fill the acting managing director position or an acting department director. He expressed the belief that the City Solicitor has a great overview of operations and has the professional qualifications.

• Ordinance amending Chapter 5 of the City Code, Part 301 Powers and Duties of the Mayor regarding the appointment of a temporary or interim managing director

• Ordinance amending Chapter 5 of the City Code, Part 803 Department Directors regarding the appointment of acting department directors and temporary managers

Mr. Manon arrived at this time. Mr. Slifko expressed the belief that there are also constitutional issues. Mr. Deming stated that he has not yet reviewed these ordinances. He requested time to perform a thorough analysis and to issue an opinion memo. He stated that he understands that the Charter is silent on some matters. He suggested that moving

14

forward all legislation should be reviewed by the Law office before being placed on the agenda. Mr. Slifko stated that the ordinances can be introduced to be placed on the table. He stated that the Charter is silent on the first 90 days of a managing director vacancy and these ordinances would provide guidance. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz suggested that they be introduced this evening, be thoroughly reviewed by Law, and discussed at the next committee meeting. Mr. Deming stated that Mr. Lachat will perform the review and provide a memo. Mr. Slifko stated that there is one additional ordinance that he would like introduced.

• Ordinance authorizing an investigation as per Charter Section 210 Mr. Slifko stated that this would be relative to the personnel decisions recently made. Mr. Deming stated that he cannot provide legal advice on this matter as it sets up a conflict between Council and the Administration. He suggested an independent legal opinion before this is introduced. Mr. Twyman questioned if this is the opinion of the solicitor. Mr. Deming stated that it is. He stated that he is acting managing director beginning on October 5. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz questioned if an RFP would be needed to obtain the legal counsel. Mr. Deming stated that he can provide that information. Mr. Waltman noted the need to discuss this issue as a body and to follow the Solicitor’s opinion. Mr. Slifko stated that this power is granted to Council in the Charter. He suggested that the ordinance be introduced and that it may or may not be acted upon. Mr. Waltman stated that Mr. Slifko is not the City Solicitor. He recommended that the ordinance not be introduced until a legal opinion from the Solicitor is received.

15

Ms. Kelleher left the meeting at this time. Mr. Twyman noted his admiration for Mr. Slifko’s work. He stated that there has not been full disclosure to date about the personnel changes. He suggested it be discussed during executive session. Mr. Waltman stated that he has spoken with the Mayor. He stated that the Mayor has been given legal advice not to discuss the matter. He stated that the City is not in crisis and noted the need to work together to get things done. He stated that Council has legitimate concerns but this is not the best path. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz noted the need for the consensus of Council to move forward. She noted her agreement with the concept of the ordinance and also noted her concern with the Solicitor’s opinion. Ms. Sihelnik thanked Mr. Slifko for his work. She expressed the belief that Council needs legal representation. Mr. Slifko questioned if a resolution was needed to procure legal counsel for Council. Mr. Waltman suggested that Mr. Deming make this determination and that the matter then be discussed by the body of Council. Ms. Goodman-Hinnershitz suggested adding a resolution to the agenda requesting independent legal counsel. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:03 pm.

Respectfully Submitted by Linda A. Kelleher, CMC, City Clerk

16

17

§ 5-207. Conduct of business.

[Amended 4-9-2001 by Ord. No. 7-2001; 12-18-2017 by Ord. No. 109-2017]

A. At the time appointed for any meeting of the Council, the President shall take the Chair and call the meeting to order. If a quorum is present, as provided in the Charter, § 214, the President shall proceed with the order of business prescribed for the meeting. If, upon the call of the roll, a quorum is not present, the President shall order a recess for a reasonable period of time and if a quorum has not developed by that time, the President shall declare the meeting adjourned.

Editor's Note: Section 214 of the Charter provides:

§ 214. Quorum.

A quorum of Council shall consist of four Council members.

B. The President shall deal firmly with enforcing these rules and the rules guiding participation including, but not limited to, commotion, frivolous behavior or delaying debate and motions. The President shall see that Council debate is confined to the merits of the question and those personal comments and/or statements are avoided.

C. In the absence of the President, the Vice President shall serve as the presiding officer. If both the President and Vice President are absent, the meeting shall not be called to order unless the President has designated a member of Council, in writing, to serve as the pro tem and presiding officer of that session.

D. No legislative or special legislative session in the Reading City Council shall be called to order in the absence of the City Solicitor or a staff attorney from the Legal Department to provide proper legal advice and avoid possible serious or potentially devastating consequences.

§ 5-208. Rules of procedure.

[Amended 4-9-2001 by Ord. No. 7-2001; 3-8-2010 by Ord. No. 7-2010]

A. The standard reference of Council shall be Robert's Rules unless not specifically provided for by the Rules of Procedure herein.

B. Business is conducted by acting on motions. Once a matter has been moved and seconded, no other matter shall be taken up until the main issue is disposed of.

(1) Rule No. 1. Disclosure of interest. A member who has personal or private interest in any question, measure, bill proposed or pending before the Council shall disclose that fact to Council and shall not vote thereon. If such interested person shall vote without disclosing his interest in such question, measure or bill, Council may avoid the enactment or transaction or not, as it deems best.

(2) Rule No. 2. Proposed amendments to these rules. Amendments to these rules must be presented in writing at a nonlegislative meeting of the Council held at least one week prior to the date when the same are to be finally considered. Amendments shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of the majority of all members of Council.

18

(3) Rule No. 3. Suspension of rules. These rules may be suspended by the affirmative vote of the majority of all members of Council present, but the suspension shall not extend beyond the adjournment. No rule of Council, which is also subject of legislative enactment, shall be suspended.

(4) Rule No. 4. Legislation.

(a) No rule, matter, bill or resolution shall be considered by Council unless a written memorandum, brief, resolution or bill is delivered to the City Clerk by 12:00 noon on the Wednesday preceding the meeting where the matter or legislation is to be considered, introduced or enacted/adopted by Council. The City Clerk shall furnish to the Mayor and all members of Council copies of all proposed resolutions and ordinances by posting the agendas on the website. [Amended 10-28-2013 by Ord. No. 51-2013]

(b) Legislation referred to or being considered by a Council Committee must be returned to the full body of Council for consideration with either a positive or negative recommendation. If the legislation is not returned in this manner, any three Council members may request that the full body, at a regular business meeting, consider the legislation.

(5) Rule No. 5. Voting.

(a) The vote upon any motion, resolution or ordinance will be taken by roll call. The City Clerk will clarify by reading aloud the content of the parliamentary motion, amendment, of the award of contract, ordinance or resolution before the roll call is taken.

(b) The yeas and nays of each Councilperson will be entered into the minutes. On the call of yeas and nays, no member shall be excused from voting as such, unless by the consent of the Council and the Solicitor, or if a bona fide conflict of interest exists as defined in Part 10, Code of Ethics, or other provisions of general law. Unless a member of Council is so excused or prevented from voting, the failure to vote shall be recorded as an affirmative vote.

(c) The City Clerk will rotate the order in which the roll is called after every vote with the exception of amendments to the main question.

(6) Rule No. 6. Duties of the presiding officer. The President of Council shall decide all questions subject to appeal by any two members of Council and have general supervision of the meeting. He shall determine the appropriate committee to which legislation and other matters shall be referred. The President of Council shall be the designated representative of the body and shall communicate the intentions of Council, with respect to professional service, contracts, legislative action and other matters, as needed.

(7) Rule No. 7. Reconsideration. A motion to reconsider a question shall be entertained only at the next legislative meeting following the one at which vote was taken. No second motion to reconsider the same motion shall be entertained.

(8) Rule No. 8. Motions to be entertained.

19

(a) All motions must be moved and seconded. When a question (or main motion) is under consideration, no motion shall be entertained except for:

[1] Adjournment.

[2] Previous question (2/3 vote).

[3] Lay on the table.

[4] To postpone.

[5] To commit.

[6] To amend.

[7] End debate.

[8] Call for the question.

(b) These questions have preference in the order given. The first three must be decided without debate. A motion to adjourn is always in order when the main question has been ordered put, when a member has the floor, or during a call of the yeas and nays.

(c) Motions for the previous questions to postpone or commit shall preclude amendment or debate upon the original subject. Motion to postpone shall preclude commitment.

(9) Rule No. 9. Rules of debate.

(a) Prior to debate, a bill or resolution must be placed on the table by a first and second motion of the body. The sponsor of the bill or the referring committee will have the first opportunity to make a statement. After which, each member of Council shall be entitled to make one statement on the proposed legislation. President of Council may also invite the Mayor and Managing Director to comment. All first statements shall be no longer than three minutes in length.

(b) Second statements or comments shall be entertained after each member present has been given the opportunity to speak one time and shall be no longer than two minutes in length. In the event no other Council member wishes to address the issue and no one moves to end debate or call for the question, debate will be allowed to continue. In general, it is expected that the body will make their remarks concise and focused on matter or issue proposed. Amendments or statements not relating to the question shall not be made. All such matters not relating to agenda items will be entertained after the Council business portion of the agenda.

(c) President of Council or presiding officer may, at his discretion, choose to limit debate time on each agenda item to 10 minutes, as stated in Roberts' Rules of Order.

(d) Members wishing to speak shall request recognition from the presiding officer, at which time other Council members shall not engage in dialogue or interrupt except for the following:

20

[1] Call for the orders of the day (when they are not being conformed to).

[2] Raising a question of privilege.

[3] Point of order (calling the member who has the floor to order or calling his attention to the fact that he is not observing the rules).

[4] Call for a separate vote on one or more subjects that are included in a single motion.

[5] Request or inquiry that requires an immediate response.

C. The body may override the presiding officer's decision on any procedural rule through the passage of a motion.

21