Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Meeting Minutes September 15, 2020 <br />including the adoption of specifications, awards, grants, or contracts." She <br />inquired at what point does a concept or idea rise to this? After application is <br />filed, once it's on an agenda? It appears to hold city council members <br />responsible for what may be on non -council agendas. Mr. Cosentino stated <br />there is a pre -development meeting with staff, that would fit under <br />"impending" and anything further could be "pending" and noted that staff <br />may make recommendations as to which zoning might be approved prior to an <br />application. All of these would be covered. <br />Mayor Hughson stated under Action Triggers "(6) Requests for special <br />considerations for city services or a change in the Master Plan, or <br />Comprehensive Plan," to strikethrough the word "the" and add "a". The new <br />section will read as follows: (6) Requests for special considerations for city <br />services or a change in a Master Plan, or Comprehensive Plan, <br />Mayor Hughson mentioned that the following sentence is incomplete under <br />numeral II, Action Triggers and asked staff to correct it. "Instances where the <br />above contracts, applications, and activities are part of a quid pro quo <br />agreement or for benefit (as defined in Section 2.422)." We need this <br />completed. Mayor Hughson noted that she served on the ERC in the past and <br />a year was spent on "gifts" and who could receive what type of gift, be it a <br />bouquet of flowers or other item. She is concerned that there are possible <br />"gotchas" in the ordinance, as well-written as it may be, and that it could be <br />used in a way that was not intended. She thanked the ERC for their time and <br />work on this ordinance. Mayor Hughson inquired when this will come back to <br />Council. Mr. Cosentino asked Council if they want to see this come back and <br />provided a summary of what council would like to see included within the <br />Ordinance. <br />Mayor Hughson asked Council if Greater San Marcos Partnership (GSMP) is <br />to be considered a lobbying effort. Council Member Marquez stated yes to <br />consider GSMP as a lobbyist. <br />Council Member Derrick doesn't feel GSMP should be considered as a <br />lobbyist due to employment with the city to bring in prospect information and <br />they provide recommendations to the city. She is concerned about the <br />Chamber of Commerce, as they are not employed by the city and they do often <br />lobby for or against the efforts of the city. <br />Council Member Baker stated GSMP is shifting their funding is now more <br />private sector than public and he feels that they do count as a lobbying group. <br />City of San Marcos Page 5 <br />