Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE.
CONSIDERATION
5. Appointment of Council ad hoc subcommittee to evaluate policies for annual selection process for Mayor and Mayor pro Tem; and continuation of discussion from the January 13, 2025, agenda item regarding the Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem selection PROPOSED ACTION: Consider appointing a two-councilmember limited-term ad hoc subcommittee to work with City staff to evaluate potential process changes tor the annual Mayor and Mayor pro Tem selection process; and continue discussion or Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem selection.
Mayor Beckmeyer opened public comments.
Clif Lawrence, Pacifica, thanked Mayor pro Tem Bier for stepping down and asked that a selection of a new Mayor pro Tem be done in the next meeting and shared data on Councilmembers named Mayor pro Tem and then Mayor during their terms.
Jenifer Behling, Pacifica, stated Mayor pro Tem Bier was nominated unanimously during the December 9 meeting and expressed confusion at the process. She stated it was not a public She stated standards needed to be set to prevent
dissension and emphasized nominations be made on merit.
Suzanne Moore, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on Councilmember Bier's leadership qualities and suggestions for the process of an equitable rotation for Mayors and Mayor pro Tems.
Lynn Adams, Pacifica, stated she is representing District 2 and brought signatures regarding objections to there not being a discussion before a nomination and vote and voiced support of Councilmember Boles in the Mayor pro Tem role.
Kimberly Finale, Pacifica, shared her concerns on the precedent-breaking behavior on display since December 9. She emphasized that Pacifica stands united in love and expressed support of Councilmember Boles as Mayor pro Tem.
Mark Hubbell, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on the State's districting mandate and stress the impact the Mayor has in relationships with the State. He spoke in favor of Councilmember Boles for the Mayor pro Tem position.
Sue Digre, Pacifica, shared her concern about a sub-committee of two as opposed to a staff report for an agenda item. She also asked for consideration of a fair and civil process.
Cindy Abbott, Pacifica, shared her thoughts on keeping this simple and following protocol, as well as mentioning Half Moon Bay's process, and approved of the ad hoc subcommittee.
Tygarjas Bigstyck, Pacifica, shared his thoughts on previous public comments and suggestions to look at the processes in Palo Alto and South San Francisco.
Dinah Verby, Pacifica, thanked Mayor pro Tem Bier for her leadership, shared support for district rotation, and hoped to get it done quickly. She also stressed the need for separating City Council Regular Meeting 13 January 27, 2025
public comment periods for incoming and outgoing councilmembers.
Peter Loeb, Pacifica, thanked Mayor pro Tem Bier for her stand and thought an ad hoc committee was not necessary. He suggested adopting South San Francisco's model with a clear-cut rotation system based on district.
Summer Lee, Pacifica, shared her thoughts in support of an easy fix and hoped a redo is done quickly, as well as concerns on how they were put in this position of division and misuse of time.
Irene Lee, Pacifica, thanked Mayor pro Tem Bier for stepping down and referred to her follow- up to the previous meeting with written suggestions for the best process. She also stated the ad hoc committee would not be necessary with a rotational process.
Lyla Reinero, Pacifica, echoed the comments of Cindy Abbott.
JoAnn Arnos, Pacifica, referred to Councilmembers' experience of what happened on December 9 and proposed that Council come up with guidelines for the future to ensure residents feel they are all being represented by Council.
Mayor Beckmeyer closed public comments. She called for a short break and then reconvened the meeting.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if we can have two Mayor pro Tems and two Mayors for this next year. She stated that both of them can work together.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, if she is asking is if we can make the new selection at this meeting, we cannot as it is not on the agenda, but Council can give direction to the City Manager to place it on the next agenda; however, we cannot take action now.
Councilmember Espinosa suggested, for the next term, to have two Mayors.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that is something that Council can decide, and there are some Councils that have split the term, i.e. one councilmember is Mayor for six months and then another councilmember is a Mayor for the final six months. She stated that there are no regulations related to how the Council wants to select their Mayor or Mayor pro Tem, and the Council can decide, and that is what the ad hoc subcommittee is supposed to be considering.
Councilmember Espinosa stated it is a suggestion that may make everyone happy.
Councilmember Boles stated that there are city samples from the agendas that we might want to review for the future as we are setting a policy to prevent the current confusion and frustration. She stated that she could summarize what she learned from the different cities if helpful but she is happy hearing from all Councilmembers about particular ideas.
Councilmember Wright loved the creative thinking. He preferred the nomination process, but there are some difficulties with a nomination process and he would look at the rotation process and think that through. He thinks the ad hoc committee can take the time to come to what is the best policy. He thinks everybody wants a chance to be heard and have their opportunity, and thinks that is what we want to try to accomplish. He suggested that the ad hoc committee is the way to go and stated focusing their discussion about how to get there as opposed to going through the specifics.
City Council Regular Meeting 14 January 27, 2025
Councilmember Boles thought it is important to have this discussion at this meeting about what is important to put in this. She stated that we have examples, and the more direction we can give, the clearer path that the ad hoc committee knows the direction Council wants to head.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked if there was a value in determining who the ad hoc committee is.
Councilmember Wright asked, since he and Councilmember Boles are paired on this item, if they have an ad hoc committee, are they precluded from being on the ad hoc committee with anybody else.
City Attorney Kenyon stated no, as this agenda item will be done at this meeting. The committee will be a new discussion point and would not be a Brown Act violation.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated, looking through all the policies, she liked South San Francisco and Half Moon Bay's policies.
Councilmember Boles stated that Half Moon Bay's their protocol is based on following Rosenberg's Rules that allows nominations and then discussion of the nominations.
Mayor pro Tem Bier thought that both should be looked at by the ad hoc committee.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that she heard from public comment that there needs to be a clear rotation and she thought the ad hoc would have to look at all those details and figure out what the rotation should be and codify that so it is clear. She also heard a preference or suggestion that, with two years of experience on Council, anyone is eligible. She stated that makes sense to her.
Councilmember Wright asked clarification that it is for Mayor, Mayor pro Tem, or both.
Mayor Beckmeyer thought it was Mayor.
Councilmember Boles stated we could go through the different options in each city.
Councilmember Espinosa liked South San Francisco as well. She wanted to see that, when we get to Council, everyone knows what is going to happen with Mayor pro Tem and Mayor. She does not want to be questioned why she did not vote for a specific person and that is why she would like to take that out of the equation, as after being elected, their job is to work for the City.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed. She thinks the issue is if there is a preference for period of time one has been on Council. It seemed like rotation among the districts was of the highest value.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that, by the time someone is able to be nominated, as now she and Councilmember Wright just came on, two years is going to happen before them for Mayor and Mayor pro Tem.
Councilmember Wright stated that there are a lot of communities that ask for 11 months as a point of reference, and that pertains to the Mayor pro Tem so that by the time they are Mayor they have two years' experience. The reason he brings it up is because he and Councilmember Espinosa have two and the rest of Council has three. If you have a two-year requirement before you can be Mayor pro Tem, you are automatically guaranteeing that there is a potential for an City Council Regular Meeting 15 January 27, 2025
inexperienced person in their turn for Mayor.
Mayor pro Tem Bier asked if most of them said two years.
Councilmember Boles stated, for clarification, that Los Altos requires 11 months for Mayor pro Tem and 23 months for Mayor. South San Francisco has a setup of a strict rotation by district and they have a caveat that says, "In the event of new councilmembers being elected and beginning their term on the district's mayor year, it will be required for any new councilmember to start their first year as Councilmember and subsequent year as Vice Mayor and third year as Mayor." She stated that there is a caveat as you have to have a year of experience to be Mayor pro Tem and two years to be Mayor. She felt that made sense.
Councilmember Wright asked, for clarification, if that automatically resets the order.
Councilmember Boles stated that it says the order will temporarily skip that district's new Councilmember next in line until they are in their third year for Mayor or second year for Mayor pro Tem.
Councilmember Wright thought it was a temporary reset and then you go back to the same order; you could theoretically have somebody be Mayor, sit out a year, and become Mayor pro Tem again in the following year, if you skipped and had to wait two years before you are Mayor because you missed your turn.
Councilmember Espinosa assumed that, if you do not want to be Mayor, then you will be the next on the line waiting in case you wanted to run and, if not, you go to the back of the line.
Councilmember Wright stated that perhaps it is better served being dealt within the ad hoc committee.
Councilmember Boles stated, if you were not the next in line but the second next in line, you would probably be put in first before that Councilmember had their experience and moving up the rotation.
Mayor pro Tem Bier assumed that those were going to be the details that the ad hoc committee was going to look at and bring comparisons so we can talk about it.
Councilmember Wright stated he tried all the different permutations and there is no way to have something perfect.
Mayor Beckmeyer agreed that it is not as we are human and we make mistakes.
City Attorney Kenyon she stated that generally when you have an item for consideration about whether or not you want to form an ad hoc and then provide direction to the ad hoc, you would usually appoint the ad hoc first so you would know who was going to be on the ad hoc so that, for the other three who are not going to be on the ad hoc, it provides them a more robust opportunity to give their input to the ad hoc committee.
Councilmember Wright asked what process is typically used for the appointment of the ad hoc.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that it is a motion generally made by the presiding chair or by a Councilmember who is interested in being on the ad hoc; first, there needs to be an interest by City Council Regular Meeting 16 January 27, 2025
Councilmembers of who wants to be on the ad hoc.
Mayor Beckmeyer asked who wants to be on the ad hoc committee.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated she would like to be on it.
Councilmember Wright thought it would be great if Mayor pro Tem Bier and Councilmember Boles were on the ad hoc as there may be some benefit to Pacifica for the two of them to be on it. He added that, if Councilmember Boles was not willing to serve, then he would step up.
Councilmember Boles stated that she is willing to serve, but she did not necessarily think she needs to and she was okay if anyone else wanted to do it.
Councilmember Espinosa volunteered to be part of the ad hoc committee but asked if Councilmember Boles wanted to do it.
Councilmember Boles stated not necessarily as she would like to review the Housing Element EIR. She thought the sooner we can do it would be better as it is on everyone's mind.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she was not putting her hat in the ring.
Councilmember Wright stated, in the absence of others, he would be willing to serve.
City Attorney Kenyon asked if anyone wants to make a motion, now would be the appropriate time or Council can continue to deliberate.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that Council heard from public comment that it does not need to happen at all and we can make it simple. She does not agree with that point of view, as there were other comments that is within the bounds of this item that does need to be done, including scheduling voting for a new Mayor pro Tem.
Councilmember Wright asked if she thinks we should not follow the new process.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that is not what she heard and she would like to hear from Council.
Councilmember Espinosa suggested we do what we have to do now and then work on the process for the future.
Councilmember Boles asked if she means to decide the Mayor pro Tem now.
Councilmember Espinosa agreed, and then we work on the process thereafter.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated that we cannot do that until next time when it is on the agenda. She stated that they are two separate things, the ad hoc and then putting the vote on the agenda.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that the question that Councilmember Wright was raising was do we need to have the ad hoc make the rules and then follow those rules in selecting the Mayor pro Tem for 2025 or do we use some other process to select the Mayor pro Tem because we have a vacancy and the ad hoc does its work over the time period it needs to take.
Mayor pro Tem Bier assumed we would vote at the next meeting and talk about the process at City Council Regular Meeting 17 January 27, 2025
this meeting as to what it would look like, but she thinks the ad hoc is going to need time.
Councilmember Boles agreed and thought we can do the vote respectfully and say what the rules are and give time for public comment.
Councilmember Wright asked if we can decide on what the process will be for the vote.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated that we can first establish the ad hoc.
City Manager Woodhouse offered one observation about the ad hoc, i.e., this was a real working ad hoc to do the work and research as opposed to staff doing it, and he wants to make sure it is clear that, while staff is there to help however they can, all the research and policies would be an ad hoc committee-led work task.
There was understanding among Council.
Mayor pro Tem Bier moved that she and Councilmember Espinosa be appointed to the ad hoc committee, seconded by Councilmember Boles.
APPOINT MAYOR PRO TEM MARY BIER AND COUNCILMEMBER MAYRA ESPINOSA
TO THE AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE TO EVALUATE POLICIES FOR ANNUAL SELECTION
PROCESS FOR MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mary Bier, Mayor pro Tem
SECONDER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles, Espinosa, Wright
Mayor Beckmeyer then stated, as suggested by Councilmember Wright, we discuss the process by which we will select the Mayor pro Tem at the next meeting.
Councilmember Wright stated that a process he would like to see would be a process allowing people interested in the position to either express that or be nominated and then having a discussion prior to calling for seconds.
Mayor Beckmeyer concluded that people can express if they have an interest, all of those people discuss why prior to being a nomination or self-nomination. She stated that someone makes a motion and there is a second to that motion.
Councilmember Wright wants to make sure we have time for a discussion.
Mayor Beckmeyer questions if we want the question before the motion or after.
Councilmember Wright stated before asking for a second so we are not locked into a vote before there is a second and we have to figure when public comment comes in.
Mayor pro Tem Bier suggested we take a look at what is usually done and then we clarity so everyone understands how things are usually done and we can go from there.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that, with the type of protocols we have, we do not follow a formal nomination process. Our protocols allow currently is that, if there is a motion on the floor, that City Council Regular Meeting 18 January 27, 2025
motion must be seconded in order to move forward for a vote. Prior to the motion being made, that is up to Council to determine how they want to conduct that discussion. She suggests, when this item is on the next agenda, the process would be what we normally do when a motion and second is made, and there could be deliberation. She thinks she is hearing from Council is pro Frant 1r here re any inople mierested, there would be that discussion. She stated that the discussion and deliberation would go wherever Council wants it to go. Following that, we could get a motion. She stated that generally, on these items, public comment is before Council deliberation. Before there is any discussion on who is interested, they would have public comment as soon as they have the staff report on the item and the report can talk about the process. Her recommendation would be the first point after the staff report and before questions of Council or before deliberations, we would want to have public comment so, before the discussion on who is interested in being Mayor pro Tem, you would have the public comment. She recommended that process, but if we want to create a more detailed process, that will make it more complicated. She reiterated a way to provide a more robust opportunity for public comment on the item of selection of Mayor pro Tem than was allowed at the December 9 meeting.
Councilmember Espinosa thought even if she and Councilmember Wright want to be appointed, they cannot.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that they can, as there are no rules.
Councilmember Espinosa stated that it is a problem no matter how they put it.
Mayor pro Tem Bier stated we are going to have to nominate and vote again.
Councilmember Wright stated that either we have an ad hoc committee to make a process and follow the process and do it or we go through the nomination process. He stated that is why he was in favor of the ad hoc committee coming to a process first.
Mayor pro Tem Bier questioned how long that will take.
Councilmember Boles thinks we have learned to do this better and listen to each other and understand who is interested and be able to talk about it respectfully which we can do at the next meeting as it will take too long to have it all worked out. She stated, if Mayor pro Tem Bier is resigning, she could change her mind as she has not written her letter yet. She stated that it is okay if she changes her mind, but added we could consider Councilmember Espinosa's idea.
Councilmember Espinosa thinks her idea works as that way both of them could be the Mayor pro Tem and she thinks that idea will reunite Council.
City Attorney Kenyon added that that idea can be discussed at the time when the Mayor pro Tem selection will be on the agenda. Whether or not Council chooses to discuss that option at this meeting, that option will be available at the point where Council chooses a Mayor pro Tem.
Councilmember Wright stated that the only thing he does not like about that suggestion is that District 4 has been represented when Tygarjas Bigstyck was mayor, District 1 when Sue ив was mayo. там 5 по то Vaterlaus was mayor, District 5 is now represented, and that leaves two who will share one term; the whole idea is to have it be fair and equal and it is not fair and equal. He stated that it City Council Regular Meeting 19 January 27, 2025
may solve their immediate problem but does not address the equity issue. He stated that we would still have to figure out for the next rotation.
Councilmember Espinosa added that the only district that has not had a mayor is District 2. She stated that all the other districts had a mayor before.
Councilmember Wright stated that District 3 has also not had a mayor.
Councilmember Boles stated Mayor pro Tem Bier was mayor before but when it was at-large.
Councilmember Espinosa requested to figure it out.
Councilmember Boles stated that it will be on the agenda and we can talk about it at the next meeting and we do not need to decide it now.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she is hearing is staff report, public comment, is there any interest in anyone being Mayor pro Tem, discussion, then a motion and a second.
Councilmember Wright stated all nominations or interests first, and then call for a second. He stated that it could be that we only have one person interested.
City Attorney Kenyon stated a nomination is a different process. A nomination is someone nominating somebody else, and the process presently being discussed is staff report, public comment, and deliberations by Council where the presiding officer is going to ask if there is any interest by anyone who wants to be the Mayor pro Tem. Then, if multiple people respond, there will be discussion on who should be selected, but if only one person raises their hand, then there is not much of a discussion.
Councilmember Wright asked how, in that process, we address Councilmember Espinosa's idea of a split.
City Attorney Kenyon stated it would be brought up during deliberations because, if the majority of Council decided that they wanted to split the term, that would be the motion: to move to appoint Councilmember A as Mayor pro Tem for a term of six months and move that Councilmember B the Mayor pro Tem the following six months.
Councilmember Wright concluded that they could not be concurrent.
City Attorney Kenyon stated she has never seen concurrent.
Councilmember Espinosa asked if the two Mayor pro Tems perform at the same time.
City Attorney Kenyon stated that would require changing their protocols as the protocols anticipate the Mayor as being the presiding chair and run the meeting and Mayor pro Tem would be the presiding chair in the absence of the Mayor and, if we are changing to have two mayors, that would be a different approach. She stated that is something for the ad hoc to consider.
Councilmember Espinosa stated it is an exception for one year, not the whole time.
City Attorney Kenyon thought there is an issue with having two mayors and the way to make City Council Regular Meeting 20 January 27, 2025
that happen that she has seen that occur is when you have two people interested and Council cannot pick, they usually split the terms, half for one and half for the other.
Councilmember Espinosa asked what would happen if two of them who wanted to be appointed.
Councilmember Boles stated that we cannot decide that today.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that we know the process at the next Council meeting on February 10.
Mayor pro Tem Bier thought the City Clerk would explain the process beforehand.
Councilmember Boles thought the point Councilmember Wright raised is that, if there are two people, are there two motions and which motion gets voted on first. She stated, with Rosenberg's Rules, the last motion gets voted on first.
City Attorney Kenyon stated, because of our protocol, there can only be one motion on the floor.
You can amend the motion if it is on the same subject or you can substitute a motion but you cannot have multiple motions on the floor.
Councilmember Wright asked if we can substitute as it would be a completely new motion.
City Attorney Kenyon stated substitute is a new motion, amend is not a new motion but to amend the current motion on the table. A substitute would be that you do not want Councilmember A and would like to have Councilmember B and then make a substitute motion.
Councilmember Wright stated he would like to get the process clear first and then do the vote but he will yield to the will of the majority.
Councilmember Boles moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 pm; seconded by Mayor Beckmeyer.
EXTEND MEETING TO 11:30 PM
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christine Boles, Councilmember
SECONDER: Sue Beckmeyer, Mayor
AYES: Beckmeyer, Bier, Boles, Espinosa, Wright
Councilmember Boles asked about giving more directions or raising questions for the ad hoc committee.
Councilmember Wright stated that was his understanding for the reason for selecting the ad hoc committee also. He mentioned that one public comment referenced four councilmembers to vote against someone who they thought was inappropriate.
Councilmember Boles stated that, if we have a set rotation and wanted to break the rotation, it would take four.
Councilmember Wright would appreciate it if the ad hoc committee would consider it, something more than a simple majority if there was someone they thought was inappropriate.
City Council Regular Meeting 21 January 27, 2025
Mayor Beckmeyer stated there was public comment that suggested, once the rotation is determined and set, if Council wishes to break that rotation for whatever reason, it needs to be a super majority of Council that votes to do so, which would be 4.
Councilmember Boles stated she saw a couple of things in other cities. If we are doing a set rotation by district, it may not apply. In Burlingame, if there are two new councilmembers that equal, the way those are prioritized is by drawing straws, and it is completely equal and not controversial. From discussions with Councilmember James Coleman of South San Francisco, she stated that, even if there is someone who is not appropriate and not following Council rules, it still takes three councilmembers to vote for that person. Even though they have the strict rotation policy, there is a way out, which she liked.
Councilmember Wright liked that idea also, as long as there is an out clause.
Councilmember Boles agreed that either of those could work. She included the agenda for Palo Alto; in Palo Alto, the outgoing councilmembers step off the dais, receive the new councilmembers, decide on the rotation, and then they bring the old councilmembers back and do that at the end.
Councilmember Espinosa stated it is very stressful to vote for city councilmembers.
Councilmember Boles agreed and stated we they are going to change the policy and that might be different, but she is saying that, whatever policy it is, we go through that and then we bring the old councilmembers back to say their thank yous.
Councilmember Wright concurred with that.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated it was fine to her.
Councilmember Boles likes the idea of requiring one year for a Mayor pro Tem and two years for Mayor.
Councilmember Wright clarified 11 months and 23 months, respectively.
Councilmember Boles stated different cities have slightly different ways that they do the rotation.
Mayor pro Tem Bier asked if she would forward her notes to the City Manager.
Councilmember Boles agreed.
Councilmember Wright stated he has full faith and confidence in Councilmember Boles.
Councilmember Espinosa stated we will see how to make this process easy.
Councilmember Boles thinks one of the main differences is that some cities weigh experience and others make sure new councilmembers have an opportunity to serve during their terms.
Councilmember Wright stated that district elections are new to everybody and we are all struggling with this transition and this policy is not set in stone. If it does not work in a year or two, some future Council may decide to change it.
City Council Regular Meeting 22 January 27, 2025
Mayor pro Tem Bier asked Mayor Beckmeyer if she had some suggestions.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated she has said what she thought was the will of the community that they were most concerned about, such as rotation and district representation.
Councilmember Wright would go further to say that it seems like we have a set pattern which he would consider continuing.
Mayor Beckmeyer stated that there are features like, if you served before, you go to the back of the line, etc., and she was not sure what he was saying about set patterns.
Councilmember Wright stated that we have a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, order and whatever that order is.
Mayor Beckmeyer believes the suggestion was that the first district in that rotation is based on how long ago that district ever had mayor representation. She stated that starting with districts that have not had mayor representation, perhaps the ad hoc committee can think it through and determine the rotation, similar to how districting first came about.
6. Receive Update on City Council Workplan Item for Review of City Committee / Commission Charters and Provide Direction to Staff to Confirm this Workplan Item and Provide Updated Timeline; Establish Ad-Hoc City Council Subcommittee to Provide Input for Charter Reviews; Adopt Resolution to Amend the Charter for the Library Advisory Committee to Designated Two Positions for Youth Members PROPOSED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
Provide Direction to Staff to Confirm the City Council Workplan Item to Complete the Review and Update to Council Advisory Committee / Commission Charters and Updated Timeline; and
2. Establish Ad-Hoc City Council Subcommittee Consisting of Two Councilmembers to Provide Input to Staff for Questions to Pose to the Members of Specific Committees / Commissions to Facilitate Review and Staff Recommendations Regarding Charter Reviews for the Remaining Bodies: Beautification Advisory Committee; Emergency Preparedness & Safety Commission; and Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission; and
3. Move to adopt the attached resolution titled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Pacifica Rescinding Resolution No. 67-2023 and Amending the Charter of the Library Advisory Committee"
City Clerk Coffey presented the staff report.
Councilmember Wright asked, in terms of the timing, would spreading out the decision process on the committees and commissions better for staff for the workflow or is there a particular time of the year that it would be better for staff to address that issue.
City Clerk Coffey stated that the timeline for achieving by June 2025 for the Beautification Advisory Committee and Emergency Preparedness Safety Commission falls within staffs availability. She stated that it is an aspirational goal and may take longer depending on scheduling. for bringing to Council. if we choose to have a joint study session; if Council chooses to do an ad hoc subcommittee to pose questions, there would need to be some work to meet with that ad hoc subcommittee to develop the questions, pose the questions either in survey format to the committee members, and/or to bring those questions to the committee for discussion and that may take 1-2 committee meetings to do that before developing City Council Regular Meeting 23 January 27, 2025