you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you All right. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll? Member Wilson. Here. Member Rashidad. Member Palmer. Here. Member Eisen. Here. Member Fulgeleer. I'm so sorry. Fushilei here. Fushilei. And member Mark Billings is here. And so is member Reiker. Oh, I'm so sorry. I have the wrong cheat sheet. I apologize profusely. Member Reiker. All right. We have Quorum and Mark got here just in time. I apologize. No problem. All right. So the first thing on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from May the 6th. Do we have a motion? I make a motion. Second. We have a motion in a second. Yes. Yes. Call for the vote. Member Billings. Yes. Member Fouche-Lier. I'm so sorry. Yes. We'll work on it later. member Isings. Yes. Member Fouche Lear. I'm so sorry. Yes. We'll work on it later. Member Eisen. Yes. Member Palmer. Yes. Member Rashidat. Yes. Member Wilson. Yes. And member Reiker. Yes. Member Reiker. Member Reiker. I'm fixing it right now. I'm so sorry. No worries. No worries. Yeah, I just wanted to jump in before we move further. At the last city commission meeting that was continued to the 15th, the direction was given by the commission to a point, a chair and vice chair to this committee. So they talked about the pros and cons, but they would like to see that in this board. If that's the case, I'd like to make a motion to approve Mark Billings for our chair until we get a vice chair. I'll second it. All right, we'll call for the vote. Member Wilson. Yes. Member Reiker. Yes. Member Rashida. Yes. Member Palmer. Yes. Member Ison. Yes. Member Foolsier. Yes. Member Billings. abstain Actually since since we're low on people you're here your present we need you to vote You have to Okay Mark go ahead. You can say that. You can say that. You can say that. Yes. The other thing I wanted to bring up is there's been some concerns raised to me regarding communications that are occurring during the meeting on the dius. Just remember that any communications, if you're making your recommendation based on information provided, even if you're not doing that, those are public records, and so they need to be sent to the clerk. And if there's any commission discussion further regarding communications during the meeting, I would leave it up to you all if you want to set up policy. If not, we can move on. Do we need to appoint a vice chair for your direction? You're right, I skipped right over that. Vice chair. I'd recommend Mike Eisen. I'll second it. Calling for the vote. Member Billings. Yes. Member Foule's Lear. Yes. Member Eisen. Abstain. I see. I need you to vote. Yes. Member Palmer. Yes. Member Rashidat? Yes. Member Wilson? Yes. And Member Riker, yes. And Member Riker. Member Riker. I'm not sure if you're going to have a chance to do it. I'm not sure if you're going to have a chance to do it. I'm not sure if you're going to have a chance to do it. I'm not sure if you're going chair. If I may make a point of order. Going forward, my ask will be that our facilitator will lead the discussion. We'll call a vote and have a motion. If it's approved and seconded, we'll have discussion. Each member will be heard twice and we'll call the vote and move forward so appreciate if everyone can comply with that and now yield to our facilitator thank you. All right thank you. All right so the first item on the agenda tonight is we're going to start with some of the proposed charter revisions that we have not tackled yet and so so the, I don't know, the first one on here for tonight is proposed charter amendment as it related to section 2.02. I'm trying to, let me look at what that one was. That was the section. this section, I pull it up here so I don't misquote it. Composition in term of office. I don't know why that is on here. We voted on that. You approved a four year memorial term back on 415. Vote was 8 to 1. I don't know how this appeared on the agenda. So I don't know if one of you all asked for it to be brought back. So maybe that was just a repeat. I believe this question has been asked and answered and suggest we move on. Please. Thank you. All right. The next section is discussion of the commission salaries Well actually maybe I should probably ask does anybody want to bring well, I don't know discussion of the commission salaries There was a discussion at the last meeting about the salaries. We had brought some information forward We did not finish that discussion Chairman I I would like to bring that discussion forward. I was one of the votes for the approval of it So I think I'm it's okay if I bring that again And I want to do that because I was just doing some more research on it. It kind of, I think it might tie the commission's hands to put that into the charter so specifically and that they can't make any changes for 10 years. And I know that it's in the charter for the county and the county set their charter at 60% and 50% of what the state allows. They actually tied their hands because the other counties in the state of Florida as I've been told by a prior county council person get 100%. So now the county council's hands are tied and that they can't adjust their salary. And I was concerned that by putting such a specific, such a specific verbiage in our charter that it would tie the commission's hands. So I went a little farther and I said, I did some research with regard to the other cities. I don't know what they pay. I know that we had asked to find out what the other cities pay, but we don't have that information. But I did look for the, like in the other cities, where is that compensation set? Is it set in the ordinance or is it set in the charter? For Daytona Beach, it's set in ordinance and reimbursement for expenses and duties are paid. In D.L.A.N.D. it's set by ordinance with no mention of reimbursement for expenses. In D.V.A.R.E. the compensation was set as of 2021, the mayor is paid 800 a month and the commissioner 650 a month and increases and decreases are set by ordinance. So it did have an amount in the charter but they allowed for movement in with by adopting an ordinance and reimbursement for expenses. Orange city compensation was set by ordinance with reimbursement for expenses, port orange, again set by ordinance, and it sets the salary tied to the CPI. Deltona, the compensation is tied to the average annual salary of mayor and commissioners in the cities within Volusia County and shall not include benefits, except for medical benefits under the city's group house plan, which premium costs shall be fully paid by members of the commission who elect coverage and And in the information we received we have some commissioners that are getting a higher compensation in their health care reimbursement then they're getting in their pay so there's quite a good There's a value for serving on commission in terms of getting your health care and a lot of people work to get their health care. Lake Helen, the compensation was set as of the date of the latest charter but it's adjusted by resolution with reimbursement for expenses. I chose those cities because when, and I don't know who it was, that instructed staff to go find out what the other cities are paying mayor and commission, they said, and don't do edge water or Owater or okay Because they wanted some larger cities. So that's why I focused on this larger cities When you it was said at the last meeting that we needed to pay a reasonable salary that somebody would be able to live on that salary and therefore we could attract talent First of all, I think was kind of a, not a very nice thing to say about the people that serve currently have served because I think we have a lot of talented people and they were willing to serve at $14,000 back when. And I think that if somebody is a very talented person in their business and they're making 50, 60, 70,000, they're not going to come and work for the city on commission to make even 50 if they're making 75. They will just add that to their income and they will be very happy with what they're earning. So that was kind of what I was thinking about to answer some of the things that said last time. Also, if you consider Volusia County, they have 590,357 people. And News Mourna has 30,000. And if you combine O'Kill, News Mourna, and Edgewater, you're maybe around 60, maybe 70, I don't know. So to say that you're going to set it at 75% of what the County Council gets paid I think is It doesn't Make sense in my mind because the population and the the job is so much bigger for County Council Then it is for our city and I just think honestly I think it takes the Commission's going to have to vote on this anyway. So it's going to come up when they discuss whatever we're choosing to do for them in the charter. I just really feel like this is an ordinance issue. I don't want to tie their hands if there's some reason that they feel that they need to increase their salary or decrease their salary, they can't. They're just stuck. And so that's kind of where I am with all of this. I don't know how everyone else feels. Mr. Riker, thank you for that detailed overview. I appreciate it. Would you entertain making a motion of what you do recommend so we can second it and into a period of discussion so everyone has an opportunity to share his or her opinion. If we first vote on the motion for reconsideration and then if that passes then we'll go with your motion. So there's a motion for reconsideration and we would need a second if anyone wants to second to go forward. Do you have a second? Need to be a second. Second. Second. For discussion. and we would need a second if anyone wants to second to go forward. Do you have a second? Need to be a second. Second. Second. For discussion. We have a motion and a second for discussion. Any comments? Yeah, I think we started down this road because we were trying to take the commissioners out of the position of voting for their own ways. What Commissioner Reiko points out is a valid opposition to that because of the time the hands for so many years. So I'm not sure what the resolution is because I'd I like to still try to take it out of their hands. And I'm not sure if the resolution is whether it's 75% or 60% or something. I think it's just a question of process as to which process we want to use. taking it out of their hands or leaving some flexibility and there's arguments for both sides. Further discussion? I really support the putting in in the charter for that same reason. It takes it out of the hands and it will not exceed a certain percentage above the Volusia County Commission in May, which is what that's established from. But Judy, I understand what you're saying, but I still feel strongly that if we don't do it now, it won't happen again for 10 more years. We're going to be in worse position than we are right now. You're setting their salaries. That's what you're doing with it. You're not allowing them to set their salaries. You're not allowing them to set their salaries. Yes, we're setting their salaries. And I just don't know if that's our role as everything else in the charter is very broad, very broad. And when you get specific and set the salary, I just think that's, I don't know about taking it out of their hands. You know, although it's going to be onerous on them to vote on this themselves, I have to agree that it seems to be something that's a little bit too detailed to include in the city charter. I'm going to ask a question, and I'm not sure if it's of Ms. Evans or our attorney, but someone read the motion that we are reconsidering, so we fully understand what it is we're discussing. So it's a motion to reconsider the issue that was voted on regarding salary. And so a second motion hasn't been made yet as to what the proposed alternative might be. So did we second the motion to reconsider? We have a motion as second for reconsideration. We're in discussion. I was unclear as to what we were reconsidering with this discussion. So that's reconsidering. I think you need, I don't know, maybe Mr. Reiker wants to do it, but you need a motion. I think is what the attorney is saying. You need a motion on the floor. We have to vote on the reconsideration and then we can entertain a motion for an alternative. So with that said, we've got a motion in a second. Any further discussion on the reconsideration, if you look at the chart that was provided by the City Clerk's Office under the status, it tells you what the previous motion was. I'm kind of talking about between putting it in the chart and also in the ordinance, given the fact that the commission has to vote for themselves, I think it's difficult for them. I think having it in the charter, I think it gives the people the chance to vote on the issue. And I think that's what we were trying to do. I think the salary for the commission right now, I don't think it justifies of what they are doing today. Maybe this was 20, 30 years ago, but today I don't think it's really valid in terms of the compensation. And I think when the comment was made that I think it attracts qualified candidate. It doesn't mean that candidates we have today are not qualified or the previous ones. I think it just, it gives a chance for somebody who is qualified to give them some incentives because the amount of hours that they're putting into the job, it's really above and beyond of what it used to be. And I think it needs to be in the chart for, to be honest with you. I think it takes it out of the commission hand, gives it to the people of Newsp own the beach to vote on the issue. Any further discussion on the reconsideration motion? Hearing none, I'm sorry. Yeah, because if it's in the ordinance, then the City commission gets to vote and they are the only body that gets to To vote with regard to what they're going to be paid But if you put it in the city charter the citizens can slap it down and then it's not in the ordinance and then how do they get an increase? Well, would if if if we don't change it from what it is now, let's commit let me back up. If we put a change in and it goes to a vote and they vote it down then I would think what's in there now is retained. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. So if it does get voted down then you revert back to the existing language. So it would stay in the charter. I mean, it would stay in the ordinance. Correct. Okay. So, but we still have the motion for reconsideration. We need to vote that. So I'm going to call the vote, and ask that I'm called last please. Okay. Okay. This is a vote on the reconsideration of the discussion. Member Wilson. Yes. Member Washti-Dott. Yes. Member Reiker. Yes. Member Palmer. Yes. Member Eason. Yes. Member Fouzeleer. Yes. Member Billings. Yes. So the motion carries now entertain a motion for an alternative or to include it in the charter with specifics I make the motion to include it in the charter with some specifics I second that we have a motion and a second discussion Are you going back to the same specifics that you had before? Yes. It seems that this situation must have arisen somewhere before. I would love to see how this has been handled in other places because it doesn't seem as if it's a situation that would be that it happened for the first time ever. It has to have happened before somewhere else, because it's a pretty simple thing. I mean, you have this constitution basically that we're looking at here, this charter, and we're talking about someone's salary. That's objectively seems as if certainly shouldn't be in this type of document. But then at the same time, if the commissioners vote for this, a vote for a salary change, which is difficult for them to do, it probably will be voted down. So there has to be some other way for this to be handled. Does anybody else have any other ideas about how we can handle this situation? I'm sorry, I have not done the research myself, but it seems like there must be some other way to handle this. That's exactly the kind of that I was facing when I hear what Mr. Records and I heard the other arguments on that, but I don't know what where the middle is. I don't know what the solution is actually. I don't either and and the 75% That's arbitrary why not 60 Why not 65 why not 50 I mean? Where does that come from and without if we're going to set salary we have no backdrop to set it against except county council. May I add a perspective? We'll decide on this motion to include it or not to include it in the charter. Then we'll entertain a motion as to specifics to be the language in that. Whether it's 60 stays at 50, 75. But the motion as I understand it right now is to yes or no to include this as part of the charter. Well, it was with specifics. Yes. And you said the specifics were the same as last time, which is 75%. So he the motion isn't broken up into two things. As I heard it, I may be heard it wrong. No, you heard the fight, and I think it's the discussions. I mean, if the 75%, I think at the time when this was discussed and the 75% was mentioned, I think it was based on the discussions we had on the dias that we felt the 75% was a reasonable number. But I mean if the committee wants to have 60%, 55%. I mean that would be discussed now and I'll be revising my motion. Could I ask the motionator would you be able to amending the motion to just be yesterday in no in the charter and then we could move to a dollar? How did that? Okay, I'll admit my motion to make a motion to include this in the charter. And do we have a second? I'll second. Second. Okay. When you say to include this, to include this, this. To include this, have any adjustments. The room will be discussion today. So I'm going to provide my understanding of what we are discussing. Right now we're limiting our discussion to if you're in favor or you're not in favor of including this language in the charter. Once we call the vote on this, if it passes, then we'll have a motion for specifics if it fails, we move on. So right now, any discussion? Hearing none, call roll. Member Palmer. No. Member Rashidat. Yes. Member Riker. No. Member Palmer. Do I say that I'm sorry? Member Wilson. Yes. Member Eason. Yes. Member Eason? Yes. Member Fools here. Yes. Motion passes. Member Billings, yes. Member Billings, oh my goodness. So the motion carries. I'll entertain a motion to enter into specific language as to the parameters around the compensation to be added to the charter with the previous agreement. Is the current set of 50% for some reason? I'm thinking that's what it was of the Blue Shikowni. The mayor gets 50% of the pollution county and then the commissioners get 75% of that 50%. How much would that be? Need a calculator. Do you have, did you get the numbers? 37 and a half I think. You're making 37 and a half. I think I didn't. I've got the Late in the day to do math I was going to get the smart phones out half of 37 5 is 18 750 and then 75% of that is 1406250. So that, so it would equal if the, if the 365 is a correct number, the mayor gets $18,750. The remaining commissioners get $14,062.50. That's less than they're earning now. Yeah, that's. Well, the mayor gets $27.189 and the commission gets $23.92, which was a 19% increase over the prior year. So what's the starting number? I think that's what I need. Need to know. We don't have. Okay. It's I'm sorry. You had the number, didn't you, Judy? I don't know that I had the... I've got it. I've got it. The current salary for the mayor is $28,081. The current salary of commission is $21,060. What was the first number? 28,081. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion to make it a function of the County Commission with the specifics I earned out during discussion so we can actually enter in discussion. We don't have a motion in a second. See that again? Yeah, didn't you? I'll entertain a motion that the specifics will be ironed out as a function of the County Commission's salary. Whether it lands at 50, 60, 75, we'll do that in discussion and then vote on it. But we don't have a motion and we're talking out of order. We need to have a motion in a second in order to have this dialogue. You mean the county council? That's when I'm going to be sitting there in the commission. Correct. I think you did have a motion out there. If there's a motion, they calculate a percentage based on the current Felicia County mayor and commissioner that not second that motion. Mr. Reyes, did you enter the motion? I didn't hear a motion. Mr. Ruggier, a shot. Did you enter the motion? To do I didn't hear a motion. No, I did not hear it. We have a second without a motion. We need a motion for that. So Mr. Ice, would you make the motion? Yes, I'd like to make a motion to amend the current mayor and county city commission as a percentage of the Valencia County mayor and commission. Second that. So we have a motion now and in this, my ass would be that we have discussion before we call the vote as to what the percentage would be as a comparative. Currently it's 50%. Prior meetings we were discussing anywhere from 60 to 75. From there, the multiple, as I understand it, would remain the same with the city commissioners getting 75% of what the mayor gets. The variable is what the mayor lands on. So open it for discussion. So the may the county chair if you work the numbers backwards the county chair gets paid 56,162 because currently our mayor is at 50% of that and he's receiving 28.081 so that works out. So if you want to do if it was 75 you would be taking that salary up to 42,000, 121. Someone else can figure the commission salary. 31,500. 31,590. Just for the sake of input, if you were, we've had 60 and 75 both thrown out there 60% takes it to 33,600. The motion on the floor is to'm not sure if the committee has any questions about the committee. I'm not sure if the committee has any questions about the committee. I'm not sure if the committee has any questions about the committee the county chair then I think it should be as high as possible. 75%. And I think the discussions we had, one of the meetings regarding this item, I think we discussed the 75%. A lot of the questions were, how did the 75% come about? and I think we discussed the 75% while the questions were how did the 75% come about? I think that's when we looked at the salaries from the county chair and the county council. And I think that's how we set that up. I suggest an item to have the 75% including in the motion. Any further discussion? Yeah, I'd like to add to it. Depending what Calla Hasse does with a lot of these home rule issues. Assuming we still retain a lot of the home rule, if you look at the actions of the cities, LDRs, development, all those kinds of things, it's almost more encompassing at the city level than it is at the county level, because the county's only dealing with the non-incorporated areas. So if you take the 16 incorporated areas out of pollution county and look at the responsibility level for making those kinds of decisions, it really falls heavily on the city level commissions and councils. So I would tend to think that the responsibility of the mayor and the commissioners at those levels may even be more of a responsibility in making those kinds of decisions on a continual basis than you might find at the county level. So I kind of support that higher rate for the locals because I think they get caught in the middle on a lot of issues. If you look what happened last Tuesday night here, they got caught in the middle on a lot of issues and they got bombarded and a lot of people don't understand how decisions were made. But the fact remains they had to make those decisions and I think that they need some renemoration for stepping up to the plate to make those kind of decisions whether they're right wrong, accepted, or not accepted. The point is they're having to make them. You know, I'm just coming from my own experience. So, so I apologize for running this over for like 30 minutes. But it's just my own experience that I'm coming from here. So please forgive me for that. But I remember my first commission meeting I sat down and we had the Hatfields and the McCoys. We had, yes, I want to hotel on Flagler Avenue. No, I don't want to hotel on Flagler Avenue. And I thought they were going to do fisty cuffs with each other because it was that contentious. And we didn't, we were a new commission. We had two new people, me and Adam, grass team was already on. And we had to put up with that. And we had to decide and it turned out well. And then we went through the second hotel. And I remember Mayor Hathaway had to stop a citizen who was doing a PowerPoint to disparage me in front of a full, I think it was at the Brennan Center. And he had it up on the screen. He's got all this stuff going on. Jim finally saw what was going on, he made him stop it. I was really surprised my husband didn't go beat him up. But so we had some things that we put up with for 14,000 some. And so it's just my own background and experience that I'm coming from. I don't mean to take anything away from the commission and the mayor. I think that they have a lot on their plate and they work hard. I just don't think it belongs in the charter and that's just my point of view. That's all. So forgive me for that but that's just my experience and that's it. Sorry. There are no apologies necessary. I'll speak on behalf of this committee we're all appreciative of your service to this community for years there are others call it as well our duty is to let everyone share their opinion we'll call the vote and move forward and I'm appreciative that we're we're having civil dialogue about this. So I'll ask if there's further discussion on the motion as far as we've passed moving it on the charter and making it a function of 75% of the mayor based on the chair, the county council or mayor, the county council. I've heard both terms up here tonight. Is there further discussion? Hearing none, call roll. Excuse me. Member Fools, Lear? Yes. Member Eason? Yes. Member Palmer? Yes. Member Reiker no member rush it out yes member Wilson Yes Member Billings. Yes chair Billings. Excuse me So I'm gonna ask our facilitator to keep me honest on this we have passed a motion that this will be included in the charter and we have passed a motion that it will be a function of the pay as it's written today with an escalator to 75% as compared to 50% do I have that accurate? Yes sir. And just just so I'm clear the mayor would get 75% of the the county council chair and then the commission would get 75% of what the mayor gets. You're correct. Along with the ancillary stuff they currently get stipends and insurance, etc. Now that we pass that, I'd just like to say, I'm not going to make any motions, but there has got to be a better way than to make these guys put this in the charter order to make them vote for themselves because you know it's not fair to them to have to do that and I don't think it belongs in the charter although since we passed it I will agree to the maximum amount I just would hope that when we give this stuff to the commission and the mayor and they look at it, we are making only making recommendations. They don't have to do what we're saying. That is correct. And that at that point, maybe some other solution can come up that we can figure out a way to get these guys more money without them having to vote on it themselves. And for me, to be honest with you, there's no other way of doing it besides either the charter or the ordinance. What if there were a separate commission to do this? Is that possible? When you say in a separate commission, separate commission has to be like this one, as approved by the commission, making recommendations. So you're going back to square. And so it still have to be approved by them. I understand that, okay. Yeah, there is a point. I don't have my PC with me. I'm going to be talking later, but on another subject. But I put together a database of the entire 16 Charters in the city. And when doing that, I seem to recall one of them had a compensation commission of some type and I don't remember whether it was compensation for the city employees or whether it was compensation for the mayor but there was some reference to a commission of some type that would do something so you know maybe that is the thing I was for in the middle. But it's still, again, correct me if I'm wrong with city attorney, they still got to come back, even if that commission approved something, it would still have to come back to the commission to approve what they recommended, right? Through the charter review process? No, no, no. If there was a separate compensation commission for sake of argument, either appointed, elected, whatever, but it's a commission. And they're charged with a responsibility for making compensation adjustments for charter officers and council members. Would that recommendation still have to come back to the commission to vote on? So ultimately they're still voting on their own. Correct. Yes. And that compensation, it's going to come through an ordinance as well. I mean, there must be some way of policy. So I mean, it's regardless of how you do it, the commission at the end of the day, it's going to vote on that. You know, I think that's what Commissioner Recker was trying to find. She was trying to find something that takes it out of there, but doesn't stick it in a charter. And I agree with Member Palmer. I think charters are pretty clear as to what should be shouldn't be in them. And their organization, they're organized for a specific purpose, which is process and organization. It's not organized for these kinds of things. So that was my condor before is the word along. So I don't know what the solution is. I'm just talking so much shut up. I would say that thank you all for your comments. I think we have a plausible alternative. Is it an ideal alternative perhaps not, but we have one I think we've all agreed and moved on. You'll back to our facilitator to move us to our next item for discussion. I just wanted to make a comment. Oh yes ma'am. I just wanted to say that if you look at the charters across the state of Florida, you will find most of the time, not always. But there's just a generic reference in the charter that obviously the commission is going to get paid and it will be set by ordinance. You see that is the more common methodology because oftentimes the elected body doesn't like to put it in the hands of the citizens, only because, you know, they're going to see a huge number out there and they're going to say, wow, you wow, those people are double dipping. Whatever the concept is out there. So a lot of people, you see the majority oftentimes go for putting it in an ordinance and keeping it the power of what is going to be paid to the elected body. They're the ones that set that term for themselves. You all were kind of waffling, you know, what's common out there. There is no solution, like what you all are looking for. I don't think if you find it, you'll be the rock stars of the state of Florida. But I mean, I think this is the conundrum, the same discussion that you have happens in all cities. And the City Council has the right to vote yes or no with what we propose. Correct. We've given a reasonable option. Right. Right. I'm just saying that, you know, your conundrum that you've had here is not unusual. It happens everywhere. No, I'm sure. So. All right. Okay. So. All right. Well, we have several items that we need to pick up and clean up from some of our last discussions. If you look at the chart, the updated chart, there were two of them set out. If you look at the updated chart, the one that stated 520 on the first page. So we didn't take a formal vote. We have multiple sections where we have to clean up, removing the clerk from where she sits, to putting her in as an employee underneath the city manager. The first one is there on the first page, page one, down at the bottom, article four, section 4.04, the city clerk. So at our meeting, you asked that we bring back additional information at the last meeting on how the ballot would be structured with the three related ballot questions concerning the city clerk. I'm going to let the city attorney address that because I know that the question was, could all those items related to the city clerk be bundled basically into one set of things to vote on versus three separate things so? Yes, you could group them all the City Clerk items could be grouped and you could say you know shall the Charter provisions 2.03 4.01 4.0 2 4.04 be amended to reflect that the City Clerk is an employee of the City manager or However, that language is tweaked. You can group them together because it's a good idea to reflect that the city clerk is an employee of the city manager or however that language is tweaked you can group them together because it's a single subject. Does that answer everybody's question everybody okay with that? All right, there's this is this item is pending that's a mistake in there. That answers the question, so everybody I think is good with that now. Section 4.04. If we go on over to page two, obviously you all have revoted on that so that we'll get corrected in there. The very first item, Section 2.11 compensation, we'll correct that. The next item is we were looking for clarification and functionality on what to do when we have nominations and elections. When a primary election we have, hey Susan point of order, did you want us to make a motion on these things with the city clerk because we could just make a motion and say make a motion of the new language for section 2.03, 4.04, 3.01 and 4.04 as stated. And then that cleans up all your city clerk language. It doesn't. So that chart's not doesn't have it all. 4.02 was a reference to city clerk. So if you make your motion to revise the related charter provisions to indicate that the the city reports to the City Manager. However, you make that motion. I'll go through and make sure they're all caught. But there's a place in the City Manager section that would also need to be changed. Do you want to make that general motion, Judy? All sections in the charter that relate to the City Clerk. All sections of the charter that relate to the city clerk need the language change. Correct. So that the city clerk is reporting to the city manager. Two. The city clerk is reporting to the city manager. We have a motion and a second discussion. One way might be that all language will align with the previous decision to have the City Clerk report to the City Manager. Further discussion? I just like to reinforce some of the comments that Commissioner Reikler made the last time. I think it gives better supervision. I don't see the need for the same position of management or recommendation such as the city manager or the city attorney does. It's more of a record keeping function. It's more of taking care of public records inquiries and keeping track of our meetings and keeping them recorded minutes. So to me, it doesn't really fit the rationale for a charter officer position. Further discussion? Hearing none, roll call. Member Wilson? Yes. Member Rashidat. Yes. Member Reiker. Yes. Member Palmer. Yes. Member Eason. Yes. Member Fools' Year. Yes. Member Chair Billings. Yes. Okay. Um. Um. is we're going to come back down to this is an item that we have discussed previously. That was that, you know, we were talking about the clarification and functionality of is it going to be so that you don't have to have that extra primary election? Is it going to be 50% plus one or is the correct percentage should it be something higher? So we need to go back and revisit that discussion as it relates to when a primary or general election is unnecessary in a tie vote. I'll entertain a motion for discussion of modifying or keeping it to the point where we can open the floor. I'll second. I need to take, I need a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. I forget to use you. I'll make a motion that we open for discussion whether or not to use the 50 plus one at the primary level to decide the the winner of the election second. Okay. We have a motion and a second discussion. I'll lead like Commissioner Riker and I ran for election. She won. I didn't. and I lost in that 50 plus one And that was 2009 as I recall or eight I recall exactly what it was And and it made absolute sense to me at that time because of the way the vote was held now There was arguments of the last commission meeting Some citizen citizen comments and discussion up here on the dios where arguments about, well, what if this happens at the primary, not as many people come out to vote as they do at a general election? That may be true, but I think it still shows the direction of what was going to go. If you look at the last primary election at the mayor's race, and you look at the one before that at the mayor's race, you could see clearly what was happening there, whereas if you looked at the other races, which were much closer, you could see they didn't meet the 50 plus one. So they appropriately went, or there was only two running, they appropriately went to the general. I think it's always to everybody's time when you have such a demonstration of a high percentage and it was in the 60 and 70 percent at the primary level to run that race again or to continue that election to the general for everybody. The candidates, the public, the record keepers, the supervisor of election every money, when in fact, in my view, the decision of the electorate had already been demonstrated. So I support that message, even though I lost the election because of that, I support it because I think it made sense. I support it as well. Chairman and Susan has sent us some memorandum and she did some research on all the other cities and Daytona Beach Shores says plurality of the votes cast Daytona Beach is majority of all votes cast for particular office city of Delan says majority of the votes cast city of Deltona says 50% plus one orman says majority majority of the vote cast port orange says majority of the votes cast orange city says majority of the votes cast. Debarri says majority of the votes cast. Edgewater says majority of the votes cast. Holly Hill, majority of the votes cast. Lake Helen, majority of the votes cast. Oak Hill, majority of the votes cast. South Daytona, majority of the votes cast. Ponds inlet, 50% plus one and even Pearson majority of the votes cast. So every other city in Valusia County works it this way. We used to work it this way. I agree with Palmer. You know, it's expensive. It's time consuming. If you're running for office, here we are trying to give the commissioner and the mayor more money for the work that they do to honor them for all the time that they put in. And if you're going to make them run through a second election for the same result as the first election, to me, that doesn't honor them. That's not right. So that's my story. Thank you. I agree with Palmer and Judy. I couldn't say it better. Absolutely. I'd rather see these guys working for us and I haven't even spent the time and money to run another election that really has already been won. I agree as well. Any other discussion? I agree. So Mr. Wilson, would you consider modifying your motion to, we opened it for discussion to the 50 plus one or however you would phrase it and we'll call a vote if we get a second. Yes, I'll modify my motion to set the election at 50 plus one to determine the winner of a primary vote. Do we have a second? Second. Now do we have any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call please. Member Rushadat. Yes. Member Reiker. Yes. Member Palmer. Yes. Member Wilson. Yes. Member I'm sorry. Member Fools here. Yes. Chair Billings. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All righty. buildings. Yes. Okay, thank you. Alrighty. So let's see. The next item is section 4.01, appointment and removal. This, oh wait, we already took care of that because this has to do with the cityed in it. Yep, so never mind. That one is technically taken care of. The next one is also taken care of. So I think that takes care of items that have been sitting out there so we can move forward. We should be able to move into our discussion as it relates to section 6.01 which is article 6 Sustainability Environmental Stewardship So I don't know how you would like to handle this Mr. Chair So I'll open the floor for discussion absent emotion Can I hear correctly for that you move to sustainability or we still without one to do you. 6.01 sustainability. Sustainability 6.01. Correct. Okay. All right. I'll open the discussion. You need a motion first. We have a discussion. No, he said he would receive it. We're going to have some open discussion because we haven't framed anything for this topic as of yet. So, okay, let me lead off because this is one that I had some interest in. As I mentioned earlier, I went through all the 16 charters in Beluia County and I put them into it. It's going to be put them into a database so that they could be manipulated to find out answers to questions. In doing that, I organized it so that you could see how each one was organized and then and how each one of them compared to the organization of the other ones. I also took the model city charter, the pamphlet that we got handed out. And I took out all the verbiage and just put the outline of what they call a model city charter. So you could see the chapters and the subsections and so forth which is the thing. But all the commentary I took all that out and did that. Then when I ran this, the problem is that the charters have different terms for their chapters. So you don't find exact matches as you look through it. And then it was further complicated by their organizational structure because some use a Roman numeral to a decimal and some just used numbers and some just used alphabet. So trying to organize this in a way. So what I did was I went back and I created what I called categories. So a category might be personnel administration. And I grouped or assigned to these charters and these chapters and these subsections exactly did that when talk about personal administration even though they might have called it something else? So I ended up with a printout and I'm going to have the clerk distribute those to you that come from that database. And then I have a copy of the, of the, of the, of these Mernibi section six, which is right out of their, their chart. so you can see how that combines. And the premise that I would like is to look at, and we can have a discussion tonight, but I really think you need to kind of look at these documentation and take some your own research and take a look at it, and then you can come back and have a more intelligent conversation about it. But my premise is, I don't think this belongs in the charter. And the reason I say that is because a lot of the items that are in that section are really LDR sections. They belong in LDRs. Some of those, because you put them in the charter and we've talked about it a little while ago about how you tie somebody's hands by putting something in a charter. An example of that is in one of the subsections and sustainability he talks about historic preservation and he talks about the city continuing to try to encourage people to form local historic districts. while the current revision to chapter 50 that's been talked talked about for a couple of years, and which is going to end up being voted on at some point later on, actually counter-dicks that in terms of it, and it counter-dicks it because the state's guidelines for certified local governments has changed. So we have a section that's worded in the charter that's really conflicting with both the antenna and the wording of the other documents, which is the current thought process. And without getting into a whole bunch of chapter 50 here, and essence what's happened is before people were thinking you took one of our historic districts and you had a vote of the people who were in it and you created a local district from that historic district and that's the thing you had to manipulate, the historic district, whereas the current guidelines and the current CLG stuff that comes from the state would allow an individual home to become a local historic district. So the whole vote process and the encouragement by the charter of the city is really not working appropriately against it. And it kind of conflicts. Whereas we have an ordinance that covers that, you don't need it in the charter. The same thing applies to some of the wording that talks about the sustainability. And it's worded more like a goal and maybe something you'd find in a preamble as opposed to a process or an organizational structure that you find in chapters of the chart. So I would ask that you take with my hand out. I didn't try to influence in any way. I did my best to keep, I've cleaned it several times to come back and adjust those categories to try to give the best view. And I think it would help you if you looked at that and then looked at the model charter and then looked at that section and then come back. We have a much more intelligent, unemotional kind of conversation about it. Other open comments? Absolutely. Back in 2000, this group got together, this charter group got together. 2020. 2020, sorry. And they saw a gaping wound basically in the Constitution for the city of Miss Bernabége, which was a discussion of the one big thing that everybody that lives here talks about and cares about. Our natural environment, our lifestyle, development issues, these are the things that everyone in the city, all the people that live here care about the most. It was clearly something that should have been added to this charter, clearly. And I'm the huge champion of the concept of everyone looking at this as the Constitution of the City of New Smirnabeech, we live in an amazing place and it should be something toed. And it should certainly be something that should be included in the city charter. Any other discussion? Well, I sent back some language. And mine was, I just wanted more trees. And I was talking earlier about a tree mitigation fund and you know not coming in on stay root 44 and seeing cars and fast food places but seeing trees and then you'd know that there was a sign and you could go and find that whatever you were looking for like Hilton head. And just to have more that, so mine was kind of rudimentary, really, my comments. And then as it regarded the historic preservation, I just made the language softer so that it didn't like say you have to do this or we will do this, but more like it's possible or you should encourage or where the owners are are in favor that kind of a thing. So mine was just a few language tweaks with regard to it but I'd be interested in seeing what you've done Palmer because I've seen your databases and how you do those things is amazing so I'd be interested in seeing what you have prepared. Any other discussion? Okay so my request is we're ill prepared to make any decision on this tonight. So I would ask each committee member to submit to staff his or her recommendations for language in this. Anywhere from delete to anything you'd like to see changed or added. And then I would ask that that put be put on the grid for our next meeting. We'll walk through that like we have prior discussion items and make an informed decision once everyone has a chance. If you don't submit your input, then you're willing to live with what others submit and we'll go with that. As of now, we've got a blank sheet. And I think we need time to read and understand what others feel about it and then have an informed vote at our next meeting. Let me make sure I understand so we are going to either make deletions or additions. Is that correct? Each person should feel liberated to make his or her suggestion however you feel best from delete the whole section to edit anything in the section to add anything new that you'd like to see included in the section. So it's all inclusive. And I will add I do have comments from several of the members that aren't here that they asked if this discussion happened be read out for them tonight. So some of them those that aren't here have already submitted some of those kind of comments. Well, you know, I just like to reiterate, and obviously, I care about this particular part of it a lot, so I'm going to talk a lot about it. And this particular section of the city charter for this area, for this city especially, and also considering what happened since 2020 when this was written, considering the increased level of storms. And what's happening with sea level rise over time, climate change, et cetera, whether it's a natural occurrence or whether we've caused it as humans, whatever, it doesn't matter, it's happening. These things must be addressed, and not necessarily just as ordinances, they need to be considered and included as part of, as part of the Constitution of our city. We are a coastal city that is in direct bulls-eye for future giant storms. So you're gonna happen here. This has to be addressed directly addressed. So at this time, I'll enter except a motion to table this until our next meeting with the task of every committee member that's interested in submitting their input for this section. I'll make that motion and I would add to that that the court has the material and she's going to hand it out for we leave so everybody get a comment. I'll second that. Any further discussion. Hearing none roll call. Member Wilson. Yes. Member Rashida. Yes. Member Reiker. Yes. Member Palmer. Yes. Member Eason. Eason yes. Eason I'm so sorry. Member Fulzier. Fusulae. Fusulae. Chair Billings. Yes. Back to you. Yes. May I ask one thing for those of you that want to submit comments if you could have those turned earned in by close of business Friday, Friday of this week, that will give us time to pull them together. And if there's any questions that we need to look up answers for, we'll have time before the packet has to go out next week for your next meeting. So close of Business Friday into the city clerk, please. Any committee member have a barrier to submitting it by Friday? No. I would ask that whatever your comments from the people who weren't here tonight, do we want to wait to get them from there or should we have them now? Wait for the next item. Well, I'll just include them in the grid that we've discussed putting together. I think we'll include everything in the packet and everyone can distill it at the same time and we'll discuss it at our next meeting. Hand it back to you for our next Okay, so the next item is the next section. The historic preservation. Yeah, historic preservation. We have some other ancillary items that will come back as those two have been circling for quite some time. That's still part of Article 6 sustainability. So I think the whole article you guys have continued to the next meeting. If the committee is okay with that, we'll take both the environmental stewardship and historic preservation, submit input, same rules apply, edit, add, or delete by Friday and we'll have an informed discussion at our next meeting If I could ask I think correct me Farley if I'm wrong here, but I think there's three sections in that Sustainability there's actually four four. Okay. Yeah, okay, so I would the sustainability sections are environmental stewardship Land development and zoning historic zoning historic preservation and sale of these sub-public lands. Yeah, so I would suggest for comprehensiveness that my concerns were not with all four, but at least we take a look at all four and see if there's anything that somebody wants to change it. I would accept for our next meeting, any input on this entire section from any committee member will be fair game for discussion. So all of section six. Yes sir. Okay. We have a few other cleanup items. Yes. Start sweeping. All right. So I have a few questions here from some of the members that are not present that if we got to this point, they would like to have seen brought up. So some of them should go quickly. Some of them you may want some additional discussion on. So hold on. Let me see which ones we've got here. That one, y'all, if addressed. I'm sorry, what? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, that one's... Okay, those have been handled. So this one, Section 1.05 annexation. The question is, this is in A4. One statement in this clause states that petitions are submitted to the supervisor of elections who will certify that the petitioners are qualified in all respects under this act. The question on this topic may be able to be answered by Sharon without the need for adding it to the agenda. I would like verification that the SOE not only verifies that the petitioners are qualified electors but they are also free holders as required based on my knowledge of the SOE data that is not readily available to them and not something that would be ordinarily checked by them. Believe this state, this data resides with the property appraisers office, where the owner of property is available. I would like to get clarification on what the SOE actually does and add it as an item to our agenda if appropriate because of the verbiage needs tweaking. I'm going to defer to you, Madam. Right, so the annexation, the people who vote on that or actual the owners of the property in the proposed area, which is a freeholder. So they have to check that in order to determine who actually gets a ballot. When you annex a piece of land and you're looking for the percentage who approve, it's the homeowners. They petition for it, correct? There's a petition process. Correct. So the solution might be that in addition to the supervisor's election, the property appraisers are afraid that they're landowner. You want to add that requirement. And I mean, it's, it has to be like the property a praise or has to because that's who the ballots go to So first you check are they a homeowner that list check first the second list are they qualified electors So it sounds like wording to me if it's already going to the property praise is he's just not mentioned in this section That's my interpretation, I, and I'll call it, I don't know if you can speak to this historically, but since I've been here, nobody has availed themselves of this. There are provisions in state law regarding annexation, but I don't know if call it has experience going back. No, nobody has. Did I recall? So the specific ask from the committee member was what again? They just wanted more clarification to see if the verbiage I think was clear enough to everybody. I think based on what the city attorney has said, it is clear enough. It does stay what it needs to say in that section. I think they're questioning the process of assuming. The process is the way I read it. They wanted to be sure that somebody was checking to make sure that they're actual freeholders, which means homeowners. So I think the question is answered. I think it is as it needs to be it does reflect that they are. So for open discussion is everyone clear that it's got sufficient language? I think we've answered that yes. Yes. Okay. All right. The next section is Section 3.08, pernicious political activities. Again, I believe this statement to be about city employees using their city title to openly support one candidate over another. The thing that concerns this person is that it does not seem to apply to the mayor or commissioners. I believe it should apply to them as well and would like to discuss with the other committee members. If it covers, if it is covered somewhere else in the document, please let me know. So that is the question. Section 3.08, pernicious political activities item E. Item E. Item E. Item E. So this is about city employees using their city title to openly support one candidate over another. The concern is that it does apply to city employees. can't do that, but it doesn't seem to apply to the mayor or the commissioners. Does is the mayor in the commission or considered an employee to say or they are the not charter of thing because the city managers employee at the city and he's a charter officer so I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. of that section there's a piece you could just delete to make it clear that it applies to the sitting commissioners. At the very end of that section, there's a piece you could just delete to make it clear that it applies to everybody. But I'm looking now to verify, but I have a feeling that language may have come from the model city charter. So I'm pulling that now, but you all could discuss that. So you're talking about that. I believe the question was they wanted to make it clear that it applies to sitting commissioners as well. And that would be a discussion for you all. So a question I would have and Ms. Raikar, I'll ask you you it's not uncommon during election time to hear of other elected officials endorsing candidates so why would we limit a mayor or a city council member from endorsing a candidate? Are you saying you should let them do it? According to the languages it's written they're excluded so they can endorse someone which when I think of it elected officials often endorse other candidates so why would we not afford that same opportunity to our mayor and council members? I would tend to agree. I've seen that done. You're correct. Section E is kind of confusing because it says it shall be unlawful for any person employed in the executive branch of the city government. Wouldn't that be the commission on the executive branch? There's also if you keep reading it says it excludes the mayor in the commission. Right and the last sentence says for the purpose of the section term officer employee should not be in strut so that's what I was saying. Right so I think the question it was asked is should the mayor and other elected members be included? And I think that that would be not in keeping with what we see in other arms and areas of government. If I may jump in here, I think at a courtesy, I don't think a commissioner or a mayor should support running or running candidate against a current commissioner. I'll occur to see I think because that's part of the team. Now if there is an open seat that two new people coming in and then they want to support One of them I think it's fine but if one of the running is a Is a current commissioner or a mayor? I think I'd occur to see that they shouldn't do that That's just my opinion But when you when you say when you say courtesy Do you mean just their personal courtesy or that we should put it in here that they can't do that? I think it should be it should be in the in here if it's if need to to make any changes it should be in here. I mean they shouldn't to me they shouldn't be as a commissioner or mayor they shouldn't be out there and and promoting any any candidate because at the end of the day they're gonna be working with one of them. So that's just... Well, here's... Let me jump in here. Both... I know it's nonpartisan elections, okay? But the reality is you have two political parties out there that have committees. And those political parties will endorse people in their party for candidates. So the Republican Executive Committee is not going to endorse a nonpartisan person that they know to be a Democrat. It's just not going to happen. That's a reality. So I think when you're putting this in here and these folks are running for election as opposed to being appointed like Caled was a city manager that we're getting into politics as a first to management of the city. And I think that's the difference. And the same argument would be if you look at the federal level, it's against federal law for federal employee to go out and campaign and actively do that in a political election. But it's not against the law for Congress or with the president or vice president, people who run for election at the national level. So I think we're digging a hole that maybe we don't need to get involved in. It just seems to me that sticking to the issues, the inference would be, okay, well obviously, if this person believes in the same issue, I do then, then I buy inference on, I'm going to support them, but not by naming them personally, stick to the issues and it's obvious, right? Well, yeah, and I think people would, I think that happens all the time that, you know, two candidates might be three candidates might be running and two of them have the same viewpoint and the third one doesn't. So you're gonna find that the other two saying complementary things that have to do with the two that are running. So I don't know that, I don't know it's necessary. I don't know what we're accomplishing by it. I guess that's my question. It's currently excludes them and I'll share some context for my thinking. My thinking is is that regardless if someone is in a seat or or running for a vacant seat that our elected officials have chosen to lead our community so so they should not have their rights removed to endorse anyone that they would want to. It's up to the voters to decide whether or not to listen to a mayor or a city council member. And it's not uncommon in other, you know, to see a governor or someone endorse someone for a seat that's currently occupied by someone else. So I think our elected officials should be afforded those same rights. We can discuss it further or we can take a motion to leave it as it is where they're excluded or to include them. But I think I needed to share my point of view that they should enjoy the same rights as other elected officials. I'll make a motion to leave it as currently written with no changes. We have a motion. We have a second. Second. Now any other further discussion? Did you mean to just leave it alone as it is? Don't change it. Right. Did they're excluded from it? Don't exclude them. So take that last little sentence out. No, we leave it in. They will be excluded. Yeah. Oh, OK. Yeah. We're leaving. We're making no changes in that the mayor and the city council are excluded from the language as written for city employees. And to Colleuds point, it just wasn't done when we were in office. I mean, we, especially like you said, Colleuds, when you have a team that you're working with and some new person is trying to come in, we would never speak against somebody that was currently seated in favor of someone else. And if there were two people running for a seat that was open, we might say to someone, you know, farly I think maybe you should think about this guy. He's a really good guy. Why don't you have an appointment with him? But certainly not to go out and campaign or, maybe they do that now, I don't know, but we didn't do it at that time. I think it describes civility and honor. Right. And people who run for office should have those, but I think we should not exclude them because we don't see other elected officials excluded in their right to do that. Correct. I was just giving my opinion in my background. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Rokal. Member Rashidat. Yes. Member Reiker. Yes. Member Eisen. Yes. Member Wilson. Yes. Member Fosier. Fosier. Fosier. Yes. Member Eisen. Yes. Member Wilson. Yes. Member Fosier. Fosier. Yes. Oh my God. I'm so sorry. Member Palmer. Yes. Chair Billings. Yes. the other questions from those. Let's take about one more question in the interest of time. I see we have a number of folks here tonight for public comments. I want to be mindful of everyone's time up here. So let's take one more question and table the rest into our next meeting. All right Section 03 in the charter So if you look at 7.03 is the charter review it says there shall be a periodic review of this charter by a charter review advisory committee appointed by the City Commission in 2026 and every 10 years thereafter each zone in the city shall have represented. by a charter review advisory committee appointed by the City Commission in 2026 and every 10 years thereafter each zone in the City Shell have representation on the committee. What the person is recommending here is I believe we should consider restating it to call out the fact that the commission has the right to call for a charter review when they like consider adding encodes or as requested by the commission to the end of the first sentence. So right now the charter specifically says every 10 years they're asking it to give you basically more leeway to call it whenever you would want one. Okay so or as Or as requested, you know, 10 years or as requested. So it's going to happen every 10 years or it could happen sooner if it's requested sooner. I would like to open the Florida discussion to say to simply edit that to say at least every 10 years. So then they have the discretion as to have it as often as they like. Just open discussion discussion, I'm not making that motion. Yeah, I tend to agree with you. You know, the previous comments from some of these system committee, city attorneys that were here pointed out the fact that the city commission could call for a charter review at any time they wanted. I think the intent was that the 2020 thing made some significant changes and they wanted to do a little quicker review than the 10 year period. And I think that the 10 year period puts a stop gap and says you must do it every 10 years or at their will. So I tend to agree with that position. Are there discussion before I'll ask for a motion on? I've thought about this a lot actually. I think it should be every five years. Anybody else agree with me on that? There should be more frequent charter reviews than 10 years. What do you think, Palmer? I don't object to that. I think that makes sense. And I think that would also bring to point the issue that I'm making that sometimes we put things in charters, that shouldn't be in charters, and we're able to get it out faster. I like the idea, the concept that we're thinking about these broad issues. And we're bringing them to the public that people can see and listen to and talk about and discuss that are things that are that are discussing the framework that the way people feel and think and work within within the city and also expressing the way that the citizens feel. So the more we do that rather than you know, while I'm in the minutia of little tiny ordinances here and there and not look at the big picture. I like looking at the big picture and I think that's an important thing. So I would make I would move to I'm wearing the middle of a discussion motion to understand, but I think that it would be worthwhile talking more about this and making the charter review occur every five years instead of ten. I'll accept a motion if you want to word it as every five years or at least every five years because then he can they have the discretion call it when they like it. Why would the commission call for a charter review? Well what if something you enact out of this group and the elected body approves it and then you figure out it doesn't work. You're going to have to wait five years to fix it or you're going to have to wait 10 depending on which way you look at it right now. So it gives them discretion. I make a motion that the charter review should, the charter review board should review the city charter at least every five years. We have a motion that changes the language from every 10 years to at least every five years which gives, do we have a second? I'm going to second for discussion and mark the only problem with that five-year thing is you have your elections every four years. So you're always going to be in the middle of a special election if it's every five years. Whereas if we choose the language that you said at least every 10 years, that leaves it wide open for them to do it one year or three years or whatever they want. So we have a motion on the floor for at least every five years. We have a second for discussion. I'll open it up for further discussion. Yeah, I understand Commissioner Palmer's view point on it and it makes some sense. But I think we're again restricting and we may not need you to read five years. I kind of like the idea that you say every 10 years or at the commission's discretion so that if something shows up and it doesn't work and it's three years down the pike, you don't have to wait for two. And I think if you make it every five years or after discussion, then we're gonna get in that wind up with, well, it's three years, let's have one, but now it's five years, let's do another one. And I think that may be too soon. I liked it earlier 10 years or as needed. That way, if we need to do it in year three or year six, then we can accomplish that goal. Well, I like his at least. Yeah. Morning. Just the reality of the situation is as needed as the commission can always take it up. Okay. So would you consider amending your, consider amending your, oh, that one. Well, we either have to vote on five years or you have to amend your motion same. I'll amend my motion too. At least every ten years. At least every ten years. That's fine. And who second in? I'll second that. Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call. Member Wilson. Yes. Member Rashidat. Member Raiker. Member Palmer. Member Eisen. Member Fulger. Member Chair discussion points for this evening. And I think we need to move in at this point in time to public comments. Each member of the community is invited up to have three minutes to share his or her point of view. Please state your name and your address. Thank you. Cindy, says, sorry. Cindy, say Zach, I've tripped you far. Thank you for some of your remarks this evening, Ms. Reiker. You discuss the salaries, but it's very difficult to follow along with you when there are not details such as when the commission has a meeting. None of the information that you get is apparently included in a packet. So for example, there seem to be some calculations correct me if I'm wrong. About what a 60% look like, what a 75% look like. But that wasn't in your packet. So because you're not using a white word process and you're not displaying the things that you're talking about, it becomes confusing to follow you. So the only question I have on salaries is when did we start paying salaries and in what year did we start giving a 7,000 plus stipend for people to opt out of the insurance. That would have been important to know because whatever you've put down as a salary amount, it gets sweetened by the stipend and that is at least $7,000. And what other was the dollar value of anything else that is offered to the commission? That didn't come up in this conversation. There are some topics so that did come up that I have a point of view on. And they're based in things that have actually happened. So the pernicious activity, which is a horrible sounding phrase, but I urge you to reconsider striking that last sentence. And here's why. There has been election hearing by a former mayor from this bias endorsing someone running in the campaign. That should never happen. So it's fine and well to think that people will use their discretion and be polite and not do things that are really kind of stupid, but the former mayor did that. So striking that sentence, you know, all politics are local. This board is local politics. This is small town politics. So it's more likely that there should be more controls around the process. And frankly, our commission and mayor are the people we can get to. We can't touch a congressman. We can't touch the president. So just something to keep in mind, that bothered me a little bit. Also, the last topic that you had 10 years, but you need to add the language in my opinion to coincide with years divisible by four. And I'll tell you why I think that I spoke to someone on the former charter commission in 2020, and I will get the document from them, but there was a reason they suggested 2026. So not that, that's not what I meant to say. You will talk about turnout at elections, that was it. And there was some good numbers thrown around. But at a presidential election, so a year, year divisible by four, you are guaranteed to get the best participation from the citizenry. So, we should be doing that. So, I'm not sure that you really want to push this thing to 2026 because even if they do it earlier, it should always coincide, taking the fact always coincide with a year divisible by four. Otherwise you're not ever going to get maximum participation. And that runs counter, I think, to the intent of the charter. There's two other topics that I think require more voting power than they get. There's selling and leasing of the city land, adjoining a named body of water. I suggest that that should be a unanimous vote. Then you don't end up with things like the Anglers Club, which has a lifetime lease on that building for what, a dollar a year or $100 a year. That's prime city waterfront property. And the other is the sale and lease of all other city land should require a super majority. Quickly now, because I'm running out of time, I'm interested in what your provision will be for a minority report when you put your all your recommendations together. I think you need a repository of materials if you're not gonna catch, put everything on the agenda packet. Because we have no way of looking up people reference minutes from the last charter review. Where would we find that unless you have a repository like the parking board? Thank you, Madam. Thank you. Good evening. My name's Leslie Sachs. I live at 816C State Avenue. Thank you for volunteering to, by the way. I would just, a few things and I was trying to get here earlier about a broken foot so I couldn't make it. But the 50 plus one, I have no problem with that because it saves money. It's unnecessary, ballot language, et cetera. So why are we having a special election for this? It should be 2026, which was the spirit of the previous Charter Review Board. It's just my feeling on that. And I have old ballots with me, which I copied from the County of Alusha Supervisor of Elections website, shows every other city that did a Charter Review broke down every single question. So everyone knew, the voter knew what they were voting for. New Smirna Beach, we just say yes or no. No one knows who they're voting for. We had over 1,500 under votes. 13,000 voted for it, and I'm just rounding it. And 5,500 voted against. You know, that's pretty bad. So we really need to spell out the language on the ballot like the landed, like the berry did, edge water did. A lot of the cities did. Should there be term limits? I think so. So does DeBerry. So that's another thing that if this goes to the ballot, no more, yes, no, don't disenfranchise the voter. And the mayor's term shouldn't be lengthened because the resident needs the power to change the majority or potentially change it every two years. Plus, you could get a majority of new people that have never been in politics. And that's not fair on the two experienced people in the staggered terms. Also, this way you can make sure the citizen gets the representation they want. Without a mayor running every two years, every other election will be severely under voted because voters won't show up because they still don't know that they can vote for all the other zones. And lastly, raises should be by referendum, or just give everyone five percent, they get a pension, they get the insurance, they get that special stipend check, which was a third of the salary. They get a three percent cola. It's just too big of a jump. I, well, you were discussing it. I looked at the call at the page 56,000. It would make Fred Salary go up to 42 and change. That's a big jump. Thank you. Thank you. I wrote down mine so I don't just ramble on and I'm old and I'm sitting in these hard chairs. My name is Deborah Dugas, 200 North Pine Street Newsman of each. I would like to thank each member of this committee for volunteering to work on the charter review. I have been where you are, serving on a board whose mission was for the betterment of our city. I served on the beach side tests for several years back. I've actively followed city government here for about the last 15 15 years, attending many meetings, forcing my concerns and most importantly, keeping up with what is happening in the city. I find that most residents only jump on the bandwagon when it's generally too late to make a difference by becoming educated or involved. Again, I thank you all. I came to speak tonight because I watched the meetings from home unbearable for me to sit here and I felt public participation was at the beginning, but anyway. I've watched all the meetings thus far. The May 6 meeting I watched twice. I was losing faith in this committee until that last meeting because it appeared to me to be tasked with a hurry up and make changes. We don't need a process nor questions to understand the charter changes. This is the impression I got from watching. At the last meeting, finally discussion among the committee members was flowing. Questions were asked and clarifications were given. It didn't feel rushed. I learned a lot and felt that this is the process needed. I think the public needs to know, as I believe Leslie said, we got to know what we're voting for. Most people don't understand. They don't even know what a charter is. They don't know what this review is about. So I thought that was super. But then at the end of the meeting, when the issue of extending the link for the meeting, so the committee's job would be finished sooner than scheduled in time to get a special election in November, I felt that Mr. Hathaway verbally attacked Mr. Roker, accusing him of saying the committee was corrupt and asking why did he agree to serve on the committee if he wasn't agreeable of what was being done. I thought it was agreeable to meet through the month of August for this committee. In watching the meetings, I feel that Mr. Roker is basically asked for clarification of and transparency on all items so that the public gets the true picture of what is happening here. Not a one-sided presentation, not an already done thing. Let people know what's going on. He never stated that he did not agree with the task. His votes will show how he feels about the individual issues. I think many citizens will appreciate the clarifications that are being made so that they have a better understanding of what the changes are and what they mean so that they can vote on them knowledgeably. Again I thank you and I appreciate the time and effort put into this charter review and I will continue to watch from home. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Randy Herman. Few things. I would sort of build on what Miss Dugist just said. I think I'm sorry little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit process, and I would agree that the last meeting there was much more active discussion and getting into the issues better. And I think today was another example of that. What is lacking, and it was promised last time by the consultant was an actual pros and cons listing, which I think would be very important for the commissioners to see. And I thought you were gonna have that for this meeting. I do think recording what the valuable pros and cons that you listed today on the items is important for the commission to be able to see. And also for citizens who haven't been part of this process. So I hope you will do that as you promised. And I think it's great to have that grid on the screen by the way. This is being televised and it does help make you understand what you all are grappling with, which again I compliment you. This is not an easy task. Under the discussion of the four year term, in 306 line 123 to 124, I think it still says expires in two years. So if you're changing it to four years, that needs to be changed. Maybe you got that, I don't know, I just haven't to read that. The 10-year review, I'm glad you discussed that. I think one of the things that coming into the process that threw me was that the fact that the commission could call it earlier. Having been in the 2020 discussion, I thought it was clear that it was going to be in 2026. I think clarifying that is important, because that did lead to some problems. I agree with the primary election change, and I do believe it should be in the presidential election cycle. I also would like you to consider putting in the charter a five-year comp plan review. I do believe the comp plan is almost as important as the charter and there are a lot of selective changes during the years and I think of comp plan review would be very important because we rely on that for the day-to-day business. And last I would just the sustainability and I'm glad you're coming back to it. If you were in the City Commission meeting last week about the Deering Park thing, one of the things that struck me is the age divide that's currently in our community. A lot of young people came and they weren't part of the process which I think it was a problem. But really we're saying they were concerns about the environment and I really hope we continue to hear what they were saying. Thank you, sir. Hello, Crystal Sailor, 645 Ball Street. I'd also like to look at the mayor term. I really don't like it being extended to four years. I think it should be every two years. I think there's more accountability that way. In fact, even though I know there is a cost associated with an election, I'd even like to see it every two years for members of the City Commission. The person I recently voted for who ran on a platform of over development or being against over development, flipped nine months later and voted in favor of over development. And so, you know, he's still got all the rest of his term. As far as the raises go, I know that I just looked this up. share of Broward makes $65, a year, and so 75% of that would be $48,750. That's plus the benefits package that is given to our commission and mayor. And so I think that raise or salary issue needs to include benefits and salary, and looking at the data that's available. I know it was not super hard to find, but I would maybe recommend going back and gathering as much data as you can about all these salaries and their packages. What do they get besides just the salary so that it is equitable? My other thought on that was finding a comparable community in budget, cost of living and things like that. New Smurro Beach isn't 75% of the county or the county population or the budget, although a good point was made that cities sometimes have different end or more responsibilities. The other thing that I really wanted to bring up and it was interesting because some other people mentioned that Communication is everything. I mean I've learned to look for stuff. There was many things I didn't know existed I had no idea the start of the DPI C development was started through the economic development task force. So by the time I figured it out on a city commission, mean. IC development was started through the economic development task force. So by the time I figured it out on a city commission meeting, it was sort of too late. And so I would love to see, you know, some method, I don't know if it's a charter potential, some very clear and thorough documentation style, or maybe an index, a database kind of thing, some way where you can say, okay, this commission or committee has these documents, that kind of thing. I mean, it's been great. I was able to go in this afternoon, find the city charter and look at that, and I've been able to go in now and find the documents on Deering Park. But, you know, the more, you have to get the information out there. And I think if the information had been out there sooner and advertised better, you would have had the turnout earlier that was at last week, City Commission meeting. Many people were not aware of that development until it was basically all the way set. So thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it. Good evening. Just from the other south group of street. I want to echo some of the comments that were made by Miss Dougus, Miss Medebi, Randy, um, Sparrow's communication. The first meeting I came to, as you all know, I've been telling you so far, so far. And it was kind of way strange in a way it happened. I urge you to go back and review it in a video. So a lot of times when you're on a task force on a committee, you don't see what's happening around you. So I urge you to go back and see what happened at first meeting, it's second meeting too. The second meeting goes a lot better, but I'm still a little bit confused because the first meeting we had to ask to speak publicly and we did. And then the second meeting, it happened at the beginning. And then last time you had a discussion with the government at the beginning of the end and you had it at the end. So I'd like to know which way it's going to be because a lot of folks thought they were coming in to talk first and it would help out a lot that if you speak first and you hear from us you get an idea of what we think it not just me but everybody else. two points. You reading vote on the mayor four years, that's fine. I recommend that you put in a charter, a provision that will be a term limits for everybody, commissioners and mayor, a maximum of 12 years, three terms a long time. That way you could really cycle people, bring them in here, it could be 12 years, cumulative or consecutively either way. Number two, right now we have, I spoke to the meeting so it's not new to anybody here. The city charter officers, the city commission, the city manager, the city attorney, and the city clerk have contracts that are open-ended. Which means if we dismiss them, if the commission is high-sized dismiss them, they get hefty package. They get me here for life. Is that what we want? So I recommend that in the charter since you already put the pay in the charter for the mayor, it's a do a three-year contract initially, followed by another three years, and a third three years for a total of nine years, which it provisioned one time, one year at the end, so you have 10 years. that way you don't have a city manager for life, or it's the 24-life, it goes on and I'm like, cause he's trying to build in the distance. Once here. one time, one year at the end, so you have 10 years. That way you don't have a city manager for life, or it's the 24-year-old life, and it goes on, and that goes, you start building fee systems. Once you have a person in here for life for 20, 30 years, they get a lot of power, and it starts to build fee system, and you have an issue. And it's gonna cost us a tax, but you're still getting rid of them. So as a charter, I would recommend to do that. And if you are going to do this, as you start at the four year cycle for the mayor, you start in 2028, not in 2026. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other public comments? Good evening. I'd like to remain anonymous. Regarding Article 2 Section 202 with the two and four. I'm sorry. State your name and address. I prefer to remain anonymous. Thank you. So I understand the both pros and cons for item for the two and four year terms. If you are going to change this to a four year term, I would really like to understand how you are going to ensure the accountability and responsiveness of the mayor. I think something of ensuring that they are being responsive and are not being, you know, inflexible with some of their activities is going to be very important. In item article four, section four, point four regarding the changing the rules for the primary election. Just because primaries are in favor of a candidate, it does not necessarily mean that that can't turn around in the general election. Primary elections are not necessarily correlated with general elections, and there is evidence to support that. In 2024, and then it's only about 4700 votes were cast in the primaries, but over 19,000 votes were cast in the general election. So that could sway a decision drastically from primaries to general election. In relation to that, Article 3, Section 3.08, item E, relating to the mayor and commission being allowed to openly support candidates, if primary elections could result in candidates to be chosen based on the majority vote, then the mayor and commissions support could actually sway those votes. So I see there being a huge conflict of interest there that has to be really considered. In regards to removing the city clerk, there's is an item here in section 3.05 that states when it comes to elections for mayors or commissions that if there's less than three qualified nominees for office, then the city clerk shall declare the person so qualified as nominees of the general election. But now if the city clerk is under the city manager and there will be a conflict of interest there as well The city clerk as stated in article 4 section 4.02, D item 3 has this power over the city clerk and I can see that being an issue with conflicts of interest so I think you should really consider that decision as well. Beyond that I think that's all I have to say but thank you for your time. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening Joe Dillobak 3-3-2-1, E East LaConda Circle, Venetian Bay. It seems like the commission, you guys, are avoiding the elephant in the room. The issue there is the city government, as it now stands, is ill prepared by their own admission to support developments, viewed by these failed experiments with Venetian Bay. It now has three developments on its plate. Deering Park, South Village, and what used to be called Shell Point, in unless there are major changes in the way government operates or it's construct, we're gonna continue to have issues for all of those three. Regarding the mayor's term, currently at two with proposal to four, judging from what's happened in this room, the last two with the city commission any change is going to be a deal breaker for any of the voters in this city we talked about compensation you guys did extensively just an observation having someone decide their own salaries is seen like a little fishy. If the city clerk is not but charter member like she was or he was before, why are they even mentioned in the charter? And that's all I have, thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Okay, public comments is closed. I want to thank everyone for coming out and sharing your comments, listening to us. I also will apologize on behalf of the committee. Moving forward, I'm going to ask that we call the order, review the minutes, and then open public comments. So we can hear some of these comments as we weigh in on our discussion I want to thank each and every member of the committee tonight. I felt we had Healthy dialogue. I think we had constructive dialogue There were things we agreed on and things we didn't agree on But we also respected each other's points of view. I want to thank the staff and everyone that's involved, our facilitator consultant for keeping us straight. Again, for those watching at home, thank you for tuning in. I want to be mindful of everyone's time. We stand adjourned. Good job.