[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:06]
ALL OUR CHARTER REVIEW MEETING TO ORDER THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WILL BE DONE BY.
TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE.
MR. ROSENBERG, YOU'RE MR. DELGADO. MR MYERS HERE, MR MACLEOD, PRESIDENT, MR MOORE HERE, MR JONES. MR CHANDLER, MR WYSOCKI.
MISS MARASH. JEWISH MEMBERS HAVE A MEMBER.
IT WAS A LITTLE ABOUT YOURSELF, SO THE PUBLIC CAN KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOU.
SIR, THANKS, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, MY NAME IS RANDALL OLSZEWSKI, SO YOU LOOK ON THERE, IT LOOKS A LITTLE CRAZY, BUT THAT THAT MIDDLE PART IS CHEF JUST JUST LIKE SOMEONE THAT COOKS SO OLSZEWSKI, PROUD CITIZEN OF PALM BAY, JUST LOOKING TO FURTHER SERVE MY COMMUNITY.
I'M LUCKY ENOUGH TO SERVE ON A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CITIZEN BASED BOARDS, BUT REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SERVICE HERE ON THIS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING IS MOVING IN THE DIRECTION OF A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY AND THAT WE GROW OUT THE RIGHT WAY HERE IN PALM BAY BECAUSE I'M READY TO GROW MY FAMILY HERE AS I GREW HERE.
SO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, FOR THE MOMENT AND LOOKING FORWARD TO PARTICIPATING TONIGHT.
[PRESENTATIONS]
WITH THAT WOULD GO IN THE PRESENTATION, SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO.THANK YOU, MAYOR. OH, BLAST FROM PAST.
THANK YOU, CHAIR. SO THIS EVENING, WE'RE HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR THE COMMISSION AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THE SECTION OF THE CHARTER THAT RELATES TO TAXES.
AND SO WE WANTED TO BRING IN STAND TECH IS A GROUP THAT HAS DONE AN ANALYSIS FOR US PREVIOUSLY OF WHAT WE CALL GENERAL FUND SUSTAINABILITY.
SO WHAT THEY WHAT THEY'VE DONE FOR US BACK IN LIKE TWENTY EIGHTEEN IS KIND OF DID A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF, YOU KNOW, MONEY COMING IN, MONEY GOING OUT, COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS AND HOW THE THE TAX RATE AND THE CHARTER CAP LOOKS IF YOU PROJECT IT OUT INTO THE FUTURE.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AGAIN TONIGHT.
THEY'VE DONE A REFRESHED LOOK AT THAT AND I KNOW OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR EARLIER.
WOODHOUSE IS HERE AS WELL, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, BUT WE REALLY JUST WANTED THEM TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW SO YOU COULD SEE THE EFFECT OF THE THE CAP ON OUR CURRENT GENERAL FUND REVENUES.
AND SEE WE'VE GOT TWO FOLKS FROM STAND TECH WHO JUST WANT TO CONFIRM YOU GUYS CAN HEAR US OK? GETTING HEAD HEADS, NODDING GOOD, THAT'S GREAT.
SO I'LL TURN IT OVER BECAUSE IT SAYS IN OUR AGENDA TO PETER NAPOLI, BUT I DON'T KNOW, JEFF, IF YOU WERE GOING TO KICK IT OFF.
GO AHEAD, PETER, YOU CAN START.
LET ME ASK YOU GUYS. YES, WE CAN SEE IT.
[00:05:05]
SOME BACKGROUND.IN FACT, THAT. SO OUR PROCESS FIRST STARTS.
ESTABLISH THAT. CURIOUS ABOUT.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND. AT THE END OF THE.
SO THIS YEAR WHEN? OF. SO WE BROUGHT IN.
TIME FOR. I THINK THAT THIS IS STARTING TO.
WE HAVE ALL THE OUTSTANDING DEBTS.
SO SOME OF THE. STARTING REVENUES.
THE LOWER PART. THE TAX BILL THAT.
[00:10:05]
AND THEN BLACK OR GRAY? OVERALL TAX.AND WE TYPICALLY SEE A DECLINE.
HOPEFULLY, I IT'S. WHAT WE DO IS WE SCALE IT DOWN.
ALSO, ONE OF THE MAIN ASSUMPTIONS.
THE OTHER REVENUES THERE ARE IN THE REVENUE.
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY. THERE'S OTHER REVENUE.
TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUE GROWTH FACTOR.
ALL OF THAT. WELL, WE'VE ALSO.
RECENTLY. FINE BALANCE AND PROCREATION.
ONE TIME. ONGOING PERSONNEL AND OPERATING.
APARTMENT. SO WE HAVE THIS BIG.
[00:15:13]
ALSO. THIS NEXT ONE HERE IS THE CHINA MARKET.SO THE TOP TIER RESEARCH SHOWS.
SO CURRENTLY, THIS THE ACTIVE SUBSTANCE OVER PROTECTING.
SO THAT'S ONE YEAR EARLIER THAN PREVIOUSLY.
THE ORANGE LINE REPRESENTS ALL.
INSURERS, OPERATING PERSONNEL.
THOSE LINES. UM, STAY IN THE SAME.
APPLES AND. YOU CAN SEE THAT FIRST YEAR.
AND THAT THAT'S THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.
YOU HAVE. THE QUESTIONS COMMISSION. UM, PETER, THIS IS SUZANNE.
COULD YOU DO US A FAVOR AND GO BACK TO THE MODELING SLIDE REAL QUICK AND JUST SHOW FOR THE COMMISSION, SHOW THE THE CHANGES WITHOUT THE CAP SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THAT COMPARISON? SURE.
[00:20:07]
AND WHAT WE'VE BUILT IN BASICALLY IS.MAINTAIN THE CURRENT PROPERTY TAX.
AT THE CURRENT PROPERTY TAX RATE IS.
NO CAP ON THE TAX RATE CALCULATE.
AND DECLINING. AND THERE ARE SOME ISSUES IN THE OUT YEARS THAT WE TEND TO FOCUS ON FOR.
THANK YOU, PETER, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF DRAW EVERYONE'S ATTENTION TO THAT BRIEFLY, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH I KNOW WE'RE NOT GETTING INTO DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM YET, THAT'S FOR NEW BUSINESS A LITTLE BIT LATER.
THE RESULTS THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK AT PRETTY CLOSELY, AND THE ONLY TWO COMMENTS I WOULD MAKE IS IF YOU NOTICED IN THE PRESENTATION TWO POINTS THAT WERE REALLY VERY CRITICAL FOR ME, ONE OF WHICH IS THE ASSUMPTION WAS SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS GOING INTO OUR ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND ANNUALLY.
TO DO THAT PROPERLY FOR THE FUTURE, TO SUSTAIN WHAT'S BEEN DONE WITH THE ROAD BOND PROGRAM, WE NEED TO GET INTO THE FOR THE EARLY YEARS TO THREE MILLION AND ON AVERAGE GET TO LIKE A $4 MILLION INVESTMENT IN THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND EVERY YEAR, WHICH, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS DIFFICULT TO DO.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL.
SO WE PUT ALMOST FIVE MILLION DOLLARS INTO CAPITAL THIS YEAR AND WE TOOK THAT OUT OF FUND BALANCE. WELL, YOU DON'T SEE ON THOSE SLIDES IS THE PRIOR YEAR'S INVESTMENT IN GENERAL FUND CAPITAL, WHICH WAS MINUSCULE COMPARED TO THAT.
AND OUR GOAL IS TO TRY TO INVEST ANNUALLY.
THEY PUT ONE POINT FIVE MILLION ON THERE.
WE PROBABLY NEED TO BE DOING BETTER THAN THAT.
BUT THOSE ARE THOSE ARE TWO REALLY BIG GOALS THAT WE NEED TO MEET IN THE FUTURE.
AND IT'S IT'S CHALLENGING TO DO IT IN OUR CURRENT ENVIRONMENT.
SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY AND TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU.
YOU CAN HOLD YOUR QUESTIONS TO.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, WAS IT WITH YOUR MODEL THE PROPERTY TAX REMAINS THE SAME THROUGHOUT. IS THAT WHAT HE SAID? THE MILITARY? THE.
THAT THE MILLAGE RATE REMAIN WHEN YOU REMOVE THE CAP, THE RATE REMAINED THE SAME.
AND I'LL JUST I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT REAL QUICKLY.
THE MODEL COUNCIL, AS ALWAYS, WOULD HAVE THE FULL FLEXIBILITY TO DECIDE WHAT THE MILITARY WOULD BE EVERY YEAR. THE DIFFERENCE IS UNDER THE CHARTER CAP MODEL, IT FORCES A CERTAIN REDUCTION IN CALCULATION OF THE MILITARY.
SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SHOW THERE.
AND I'LL DIRECT THIS TO THE CITY MANAGER TO UNDERSTAND, AND MAYBE OUR PRESENTER CAN CAN FILL IN IN THE IN THE INTRODUCTION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS ANALYSIS WAS DONE AHEAD OF FISCAL YEAR 18, SO THAT'S IN OUR REAR.
WE'VE TAKEN THE SAME COMPANY, THE SAME MODEL, SAME IDEAS, AND WE'VE RUN TODAY'S NUMBERS.
THAT WAS THE KEY INPUTS THAT HE PRESENTED.
AND THROUGH TODAY'S NUMBERS, HE RAN IT THROUGH A SIMILAR MODEL.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THAT THAT KIND OF RESTATEMENT OF FRAMING THE SITUATION, CORRECT? YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THAT, UNLESS PETER WANTS TO ADD.
[00:25:04]
DID YOU HEAR THAT, PETER? YES, SORRY.I HEARD YOU SAY THAT RIGHT INTO THE.
I HONESTLY DETERMINED CONCURRENCE IS ENOUGH TO TO FRAME MY QUESTION, MY ACTUAL QUESTION IS WHEN THE STUDY WAS DONE AND THE MODEL THAT YOU'RE USING TODAY WITH TODAY'S NUMBERS WAS DEVELOPED IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN.
IT SAID THAT WE WERE, YOU KNOW, PROJECTED TO RUN DOWN OUR FUND BALANCE COMPLETELY BY FISCAL YEAR TWENTY TWENTY FIVE.
SO THAT BEING SAID, THAT MODEL THAT YOU GUYS PUBLISHED AND LOOKED AT IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN, WHAT DID IT SAY? WHERE DID IT SAY WE WOULD BE AT IN FISCAL YEAR TWENTY TWENTY TWO RELATIVE TO WHERE WE ACTUALLY ARE? SO THAT MODEL WAS ABLE TO TO WORK AND TO SHOW ACTUALS, AS OPPOSED TO FORECASTS FOR FOUR OF ITS FIRST FIVE YEARS OF OF LIFE THERE.
SO WHERE DID IT PROJECT THAT WE WOULD BE AT IN FISCAL YEAR? TWENTY TWENTY TWO AND WHERE ARE WE AT ACTUALLY IS MY OVERALL QUESTION.
WE HAVE PROJECTED. THAT IS THE CASE.
A DIFFERENCE IN THE ACTUAL UNBALANCE.
THE ONE. ONE OF THE MAIN DIFFERENCES.
THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN DIFFERENCES, BUT ONE THING I DID WANT TO POINT.
RIGHT, AND, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU'LL ENTERTAIN ME, CAN YOU JUST GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE I GUESS IT WAS LIKE YOUR FIRST SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE PROJECTION FOR TWENTY TWO? I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE THE PROJECTION WAS GOING TO BE ABOUT 10 MILLION ON ON 22 FOR CONVERSATION SAKE, 10 10 MILLION.
SO YOUR FOLLOW UP POINT THERE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.
YOU'RE SAYING THE SHAPE OF THE CURVE IS THE SAME.
WHAT I WANT TO SAY OUT LOUD IS WE WERE PROJECTED ON THIS STUDY THAT WAS DONE FOR FISCAL YEAR 18 TO IN 20 TO BE AT ABOUT 10 MILLION.
GIVEN THE RESTRAINT, AS IT'S REFERRED TO IN THE STUDY AND BEEN REFERRED TO BY OTHERS OF THE CAP, AND WE ACTUALLY CAME INTO THIS FISCAL YEAR AT ROUGHLY 13 OR SO BEFORE THE ALLOCATION OF ROUGHLY FIVE MILLION THAT WE DID.
THAT'S DRAWN US TWO. AGAIN, I'M USING ROUGH NUMBERS HERE, ABOUT EIGHT.
SO WE WERE ACTUALLY AT ABOUT 13 OR SO MILLION AS OPPOSED TO THE MODEL THAT CALLED FOR US TO BE AT 10. SO OUR RATE OF DECELERATION THIS MANY FISCAL YEARS IN IS ACTUALLY SLOWER THAN THE TWENTY EIGHTEEN MODEL CALLED FOR.
I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT RESULT OUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE COMMISSION AND OF COURSE, TO TAKE ANY OF THE PUBLIC.
THAT'S THAT'S YOU'RE WATCHING TONIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
I DID NOT HEAR A RESPONSE FROM THE PRESENTER AS TO WHETHER HIS FACTS WERE CORRECT.
SO I'D LIKE FOR HIM TO RESPOND.
REGARDING THE DEFICIT AND WHAT 2022 PROJECTED.
YOU HEARD THAT, PETER. OH, YES.
TYPEKIT. RIGHT, AND I HAVE TO CHECK.
[00:30:27]
YOU CAN SEE THAT TARGET.UM, AND I'LL SPEAK TO THAT JUST TO CLARIFY, YES, THAT'S CORRECT, WE'VE CHANGED OUR OUR POLICY ON RESERVES.
IT USED TO BE 60 DAYS OPERATING AND WE CHANGED IT TO A TWO MONTH.
WE CHANGED THE WAY WE CALCULATE ESSENTIALLY.
SO IT ACTUALLY INCREASES EVERY YEAR WHEN OUR BUDGET INCREASES.
SO IT'S CALCULATED TO TO SHIFT UPWARD AS THE OVERALL CITY BUDGET GOES UP.
THAT'S PROBABLY THE SIMPLEST WAY TO EXPLAIN IT.
THIS FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR TWO MONTH MINIMUM IS TWELVE POINT FIVE MILLION. THAT'S THE MINIMUM WE NEED TO HAVE IN OUR FUND BALANCE TO MEET OUR POLICY.
THE YEAR BEFORE THAT, IT WAS SIX POINT SEVEN MILLION.
AND THE YEAR BEFORE, THAT WAS AROUND SIX POINT FOUR, SO IT'S THAT THAT IS THAT IS INDEED A POLICY CHANGE WE'VE MADE TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE WITH OUR OUR FUND BALANCE TO HOLD MORE MONEY IN THERE AS A AS A BASE MINIMUM.
SO WE'VE ESSENTIALLY ALMOST DOUBLED IT.
WE'VE ALSO ADDED SOMETHING WE CALL THE STABILIZATION POLICY.
SO EVERY YEAR WE DO, WE DO A CALCULATION.
THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR, BUT THE POLICY SAYS WE TAKE BETWEEN TWO AND FOUR PERCENT OF OUR ANNUAL APPROVED BUDGET, AND WE SET THAT ASIDE IN ADDITION.
SO THIS YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR WE DID A FOUR PERCENT CALCULATION AND SET THAT MONEY ASIDE AS WELL. THAT WAS ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS ON TOP OF THE TWELVE POINT FIVE MILLION THAT WE'RE ALSO HOLDING.
WELL, WE LIVE IN FLORIDA AND THERE'S HURRICANES AND OTHER THINGS, SO THAT THAT'S LIKE THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE CORE REASONS WE WE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BUILD UP OUR FUN BALANCE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE GO.
IF THERE'S AN EMERGENCY, A DISASTER, A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO RESPOND.
AND YOU KNOW, IN THIS DAY AND AGE, WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN. SO THAT'S REALLY THE MAIN REASON.
IT'S ALSO JUST GOOD, YOU KNOW, FISCAL POLICY TO TO BUILD UP YOUR RESERVES JUST LIKE YOU WOULD WITH, YOU KNOW, A PERSONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO. AND I'M SORRY THAT SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT, TOO.
YES, SO WE WE WHENEVER WERE GOING OUT TO DO BONDS LIKE WE DID WITH THE ROAD BOND, YOU GET BETTER INTEREST RATE IF YOU HAVE A BETTER RATING AND THE MORE MONEY WE HAVE IN OUR RESERVES, THE MORE FAVORABLY THE BOND AGENCIES LOOK AT US.
AND THAT WAS THE CASE WHEN WE WENT OUT TO DO OUR ROAD BOND MATH.
WE DID VERY, VERY WELL WITH INTEREST RATES BECAUSE WE HAD SO MUCH IN RESERVES.
SO THAT'S A POSITIVE FOR THE CITY TO.
OK. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAS ANY SPECIAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON AGENDA ITEMS? IT'S NOT, IN OTHER WORDS, ON ITEMS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS TONIGHT.
HELLO, MY NAME IS RUTH CAULFIELD, 935 DOUGLAS STREET SOUTHEAST.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION AS TO HOW TO ACCESS THIS COMMISSION, HOW TO BE ON THIS COMMISSION AND HOW TO GET INFORMATION ON THIS COMMISSION, SUCH AS TODAY AT 2:30, I WAS UNABLE TO GET THE AGENDA FROM THE WEBSITE FOR A SECOND TIME IN A ROW, SO I DID SEND AN EMAIL TO THE CITY CLERK WHO IS OUT OF OFFICE TODAY.
AND I THINK I FORWARDED THAT TO YOU, SUZANNE, AS AS POINT OF REFERENCE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHO ELSE TO ASK ABOUT IT.
SO THEREFORE I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION CONCERNING THIS CHARTER. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY NOTIFIED AS TO THIS COMMISSION, ITS DUTIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR THIS GO ROUND.
SO BECAUSE I HAD ASKED IN AUGUST OF AUGUST EIGHT TWENTY TWENTY ONE TO BE ON THE COMMISSION TO PUT MY NAME UP AS AN INTERESTED PARTY, TO BE ON THIS COMMISSION AND TO THIS
[00:35:01]
DATE HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN ANSWER FROM THE CITY CLERK AND HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY SORT OF RESPONSE TO THAT EMAIL.IN ADDITION, I DID NOT SEE ANY NOTIFICATIONS IN DECEMBER OF 2021 TO THE PUBLIC NOTIFYING US ABOUT THE COMMISSION WHEN IT WAS GOING TO CONVENE.
WHO'S GOING TO BE ON IT? ANY SORT OF THING THAT I COULD FIND BECAUSE I'VE BEEN MONITORING THIS SINCE AUGUST.
I WOULD PROPOSE, IF I COULD, THAT THIS COMMISSION BE SUSPENDED UNTIL ALL OF THIS PUBLIC CONCERN CAN BE ADDRESSED.
AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE, MA'AM? LAURIE LAFAVE, 12 11, GERALD CIRCLE, BOMBAY.
I WANT TO ECHO WHAT ROUTES THAT I'VE HAD A LOT OF DIFFICULT.
ABLE TO ACCESS THINGS, EVEN WORKING WITH THE AGENDA, NOTHING IS AVAILABLE, I CLICK ON LINKS, THEY'RE NOT THERE.
I WATCHED LAST WEEK'S MEETING WHERE I CAME UP FIRST THING AND SAID, ASK PEOPLE TO PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE SO I COULD HEAR AND.
SOME PEOPLE DID. IT WAS WONDERFUL I COULD HEAR WHAT THEY WERE SAYING AND OTHER PEOPLE AS SOON AS I WALKED AWAY, PEOPLE WERE SPEAKING AND I STILL COULDN'T.
AND I WATCHED IT AT HOME AND I COULDN'T HEAR THEM ON LINE EITHER.
SO ALONG WITH THAT, THIS PRESENTATION THAT WE JUST HAD.
YOU COULDN'T SEE IT ON THE LIVE FEED, SO PEOPLE AT HOME WATCHING IT WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT. NOR COULD I HEAR IT.
I WENT OUTSIDE AND TESTED IT ON MY PHONE.
I COULDN'T HEAR WHAT THEY WERE SAYING, EITHER.
SO THAT MEANS THE PUBLIC IS NOT HEARING IT IF THEY'RE AT HOME WATCHING IT.
OUR REAL CONCERN THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO ACCESS THESE MEETINGS AND TO FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON.
SIX OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST.
TWO ITEMS. DURING THE DISCUSSIONS AND PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
REFERRING BACK TO DIFFERENT CHARTER MEETINGS.
I'VE BEEN TRYING TO BRING SOME OF THOSE DIFFERENT CHARGER MEETINGS UP SO I CAN MAKE COMPARISON TO. BEING DISCUSSED HERE, BUT LET ME GO BACK AND DO MY HOMEWORK.
SOME OF THE OLD CHARTERS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT, IF ANYBODY HAS THEM AND.
SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'LL BRING IT UP HERE.
PROUD TO DO IT. BILL BATTEN FIVE EIGHTY SIX OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST.
IN SOME OF THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE OLD CHARTERS, SO I WANTED TO GO BACK AND REFERENCE THOSE OLD CHARTERS AND FIRMLY NO.
I CAN'T GET THE CHARTER FROM ACTUALLY THAT WE'RE COMPARING IT TO.
I CAN FIND 12, BUT I CAN'T FIND THE ONE WE WERE COMPARING THAT ONE TO, SINCE WE'RE REFERENCING IT. SO IF ANYBODY HAS IT IN HARD COPY, I'LL BE GLAD TO GET A COPY OF IT AND PAY FOR MY PAPER, THE PAPERWORK OR MAKE IT AVAILABLE SOMEPLACE ONLINE SO THE PEOPLE AT HOME CAN ALSO RESEARCH IT.
I BROUGHT UP AT THE FIRST MEETING IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO REDRESS IF ANYTHING WAS BEING VOTED ON AS WE ARE PROGRESSING THROUGH, IF ANYTHING COULD BE REDRESSED, THERE WAS TOLD YES, IT CAN OR WE NOW HAVE SOME OTHER MEMBERS SITTING IN THIS CHAMBER RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE PRESENT FOR SOME OF THE VERY IMPORTANT MEETINGS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANT TO REDRESS IT OR BRING THEM BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION, BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THOSE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY PASSED IN THIS MEETING.
WE HAVE STARTED SIX NOW THAT THAT WAS AVAILABLE FOR REDRESS, IF ANYBODY EVER WANTED TO COME BACK AND REDRESS IT, YOU MIGHT NOT GET ANOTHER VOTE.
BUT THE ABILITY TO REDRESS WAS WAS AN OPTION.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME FOR THE NUMBER OF MONTHS GIVEN THIS CHARTER REVIEW.
THE PREVIOUS CHARTER THEY GAVE US ONE MONTH, 30 DAYS TO DO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IN THREE MONTHS. SO IF WE HAVE THE TIME FRAME ON WHICH TO COME TO ACCOMPLISH THAT OBJECTIVE.
SO ONE MORE TIME IT IS AVAILABLE FOR REDRESS.
AND ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE'RE LISTENING AT HOME, I AGREE YOU CAN'T HEAR WHAT WAS BEING SAID AND I APOLOGIZE.
I'LL PICK IT UP AND SPEAK INTO THE MIC AFTER THIS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU, BILL.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE?
[00:40:03]
DON, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.[ADOPTION OF MINUTES]
THIS POINT, WE WANT TO ADOPT THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING.EVERYBODY READ IT. A MOTION TO ADOPT THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY EIGHT, 2022 MEETING.
REPORTS, AND IT'S FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
THE STUFF THAT WERE PROPOSED AND APPROVED ALREADY BY THE COMMISSION.
MR JEFF. IF I MAY, SIR, I FIND IT AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO ASK IF MR BARTON'S QUESTION WILL BE ANSWERED AND ADDRESSED, AND IF SO, PERHAPS WE CAN ANSWER IT NOW AS WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.
I'D LOVE TO KNOW THE YES NO ANSWER TO IS THIS PURELY FOR INFORMATION ONLY OR IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY OF LOOKING BACK AT ANY OF THIS? MR. CHAIR, I THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PASSED UNDER UNFINISHED AND OLD BUSINESS.
SO. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR BATTEN, I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES, WE WILL ADDRESS THOSE UNDER UNFINISHED IN OLD.
TO THAT END, SIR, IF I MAY, IF I CAN GET CLARIFICATION FROM THE DEPUTY CITY CLERK, IS THAT TO SAY THAT IF IN THE FUTURE ANYONE ON THIS BOARD AT THE ADVICE OF A CITIZEN OR WHAT HAVE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THESE THINGS THAT WE COULD BRING IT UP ON A FUTURE AGENDA UNDER THAT AGENDA TITLE OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS PRESIDENT, WHEN I WAS ANSWERING THOSE AT THIS PRESIDENT MEETING. BUT YOU COULD BRING IT UP, YOU CALLED DIRECTLY TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
[UNFINISHED AND OLD BUSINESS]
FEEL MORE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WE WANT HIM TO REVIEW SOME WANTED TO REVIEW SOME OF THE LANGUAGE JUST TO TRY TO SEEK CLARITY AND TRY TO ALLEVIATE ANY CONFUSION OVER WHAT WE HAD AGREED UPON.AND I THINK WE WERE I WAS DISCUSSING WITH CITY ATTORNEY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AND MAKE SURE THAT SOUNDED CORRECTLY LEGALLY, BUT ALSO JUST WANTED TO ASK HER THERE.
JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT LANGUAGE DOESN'T SOUND REDUNDANT IN SOME SPOTS THAT WE HAD PUT FORTH AND THAT YOU'RE BRINGING IT BACK IN THE WORDING, YES, CORRECT.
WELL. I'M LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO BE THAT THE WORDING IS GOING TO BE WHAT WE AGREED UPON, YES.
AND I THOUGHT WE HAD ALREADY WE HAD LOOKED AT TAKING OUT ONE OF THE SENTENCES FOR THAT WERE STILL THERE WAS THE SIX MONTH REMAINING UNTIL UNEXPIRED TERM, I THOUGHT.
WE LOOKED AT THAT. BUT THEN THERE WAS OTHER LANGUAGE, TOO ON THE ON THE ACTUAL VACANCY ITSELF, IF THERE WAS A VACANCY THAT NEEDED ANOTHER ELECTION THAT THAT WOULD RUN CONCURRENT WITH OTHER CITY ELECTIONS.
I THINK WE DID ADDRESS THAT THERE.
OK. IT'S REALLY ISN'T AS MUCH A LEGAL ISSUE, BUT AS FAR AS BECAUSE IT'S MORE OR LESS THE LAST SENTENCE, WE DID ACTUALLY ALL DISCUSS AND DECIDE THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE IF YOU HAD THIS YOU APPOINTED OR IF YOU HAD THE SPECIAL ELECTION, IT WOULD NECESSARILY OCCUR.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS MENTIONED.
I THINK OUR VICE CHAIR ACTUALLY MENTIONED IT.
I THINK WE DISCUSSED IT, AND I THINK THAT WAS AGREED THAT THAT SENTENCE COULD BE OMITTED.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD, OR ARE YOU? THE ONLY OTHER I THINK THAT ONE SENTENCE SAYS IT ALL IS THAT ALL VACANCY ELECTIONS WILL RUN CONCURRENT WITH A REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY ELECTION, SO IT'S BY APPOINTMENT OR IF IT'S BY. A SPECIAL ELECTION THAT IS NECESSARY, THAT SPECIAL ELECTION WILL RUN CONCURRENT WITH THE REGULAR SCHEDULED CITY ELECTIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE FINAL LANGUAGE THAT WE THAT WE AGREED ON, AND SO WITH THAT FINAL
[00:45:04]
LANGUAGE, THAT WOULDN'T NEED THAT SIX MONTH REMAINING UNEXPIRED TERM SENTENCE IN THERE BECAUSE IT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE NEXT REGULAR REGULAR GENERAL ELECTION.NOW THAT THAT PART WAS REMOVED, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WANT, LOU HAS BEEN REMOVED.
YES. YEAH. WHAT'S WHAT'S IN? YELLOW WAS THE LANGUAGE WE AGREED ON AND VOTED ON AND APPROVED.
EXCEPT FOR THAT LAST SENTENCE.
WHICH STATES THAT IF THERE IS LESS THAN SIX MONTHS REMAINING, THAT SEEMS REDUNDANT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO IT'S MOVING TO THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION ANYWAYS.
VOTED ON THAT, YEAH, I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S REFLECTED DIFFERENTLY.
MAY IT MAY BE REDUNDANT, BUT I THINK IT'S JUST A IT'S A CLARIFICATION MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE. OK.
SO WE'RE SAYING THAT THAT SENTENCE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE THERE OR NO, NO, IT IS, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. IT WAS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE APPROVED.
BUT LIKE I SAID, IT MAY SEEM REDUNDANT.
IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT IN, YOU KNOW, IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE.
IT'S JUST, I THINK IT'S FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION.
OK. I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE ANY THE SAME THING.
YEAH, I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE ANY CONFUSION AS THIS MOVES FORWARD WITH THE THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL. I JUST WANTED TO TRY TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.
THE LANGUAGE CAN GET A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING.
THAT WAS IT. OK. MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE IS ONE OTHER ITEM, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE.
ONE OTHER COMMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE ON THAT ISSUE.
I KNOW A LOT OF THE CITIZENS, A LOT OF CITIZENS HERE OR WERE UPSET AND OR SEEMED TO THINK THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE.
THAT'S NOT REALLY NOT THE CASE.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE.
NOW, IT'S NOT THE WRONG ANSWER. IT WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE CITY CHARTER.
WE'RE ASKING THE VOTERS IF THEY WANT TO VOTE TO CHANGE THE CITY CHARTER.
SO WE'RE NOT TAKING THE VOTE AWAY FROM THE CITIZEN.
WE'RE GIVING YOU THE RIGHT TO VOTE.
WE'RE MAKING A PROPOSAL AND WE'RE SAYING, OK, VOTE ON IT, LET US KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, AND THAT'S THAT'S ALL THIS IS ABOUT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YOU CAN'T SPEAK TO US.
YES, SIR, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE RULES OF ORDER BOTH WAYS IN TONIGHT'S PROCEEDINGS, I DEFINITELY THINK NOW WITH THAT BEING SAID, I COME INTO THIS MEETING, SIR, HAVING READ THE MINUTES AND EXTENSIVELY AND TRIED TO UNDERSTAND THE VERBIAGE, AND I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THE LAST SENTENCE IS THERE.
I'VE READ THE MINUTES, SCRUTINIZE THEM AND I HAVE A THEORY OF WHY I THINK IT'S THERE.
BUT I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT I'M LYING IN THEORY IS THE EXACT REASON THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BROUGHT IT BACK UP BECAUSE A FUTURE INTERPRETER WOULD BE LYING IN THEORY, WONDERING WHY THAT LAST SENTENCE IS THERE? BECAUSE WHAT IS THE RESULT IF THERE'S MORE THAN SIX MONTHS IT CREATES THIS, THIS OPEN MINDEDNESS THAT I FRANKLY DON'T UNDERSTAND? NOW, SIR, I DON'T WANT TO BE OUT OF ORDER BY ANY MEANS AND BRING UP THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH.
BUT GIVEN THE SAKE OF THE FACT THAT'S ON THE AGENDA FOR BUSINESS, FOR CLARIFICATION OF THAT LAST SENTENCE, YOU ONLY DETAINED ME, SIR.
I WOULD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT LAST SENTENCE.
THE LAST SENTENCE WAS THERE PRIOR TO SOME OF THE ACTUAL CHANGES TO THE LANGUAGE ONCE WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE TO REFER TO ALL VACANCIES.
THE LAST SENTENCE DIDN'T NEED TO BE THERE AND AT LEAST I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD AGREED ONCE WE SAID, HEY, THIS IS HOW ALL VACANCIES ARE GOING TO BE HANDLED, THAT WE HAD AGREED THAT THAT LAST SENTENCE WAS NO LONGER NEEDED AND THAT IT WOULD NOT BE PART.
OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IT WAS BROUGHT FORTH, BECAUSE BECAUSE WE HAD DISCUSSED IT QUITE A BIT.
AND CERTAINLY WHEN WE HAD, WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL VACANCIES.
ESSENTIALLY, IF ALL VACANCIES ARE GOING TO RESULT IN AN APPOINTMENT, IF NOT AN APPOINTMENT TO A SPECIAL ELECTION, YOU DON'T NEED THIS CATEGORIZATION ABOUT IF THERE ARE SIX MONTHS OR NOT.
IT MAKES SENSE BEFORE ESSENTIALLY A MONTH, ONCE THE COMMISSIONERS TAUGHT IN THE LANGUAGE EVOLVED. IT NO LONGER REALLY MADE SENSE.
YEAH, I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD TO THAT, BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING WAS I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE WAS AN APPOINTMENT, THE APPOINTMENT WOULD ONLY BE UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR ELECTION. AND IF THERE WAS A VACANCY THAT WAS HELD BY A SPECIAL ELECTION, THAT THE SPECIAL ELECTION WOULD BE HELD IN THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED THE REGULAR ELECTION.
[00:50:02]
CORRECT. BUT I THOUGHT THAT THE SIX MONTHS KIND OF CREATED A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION THERE, SO I THOUGHT WE DECIDED TO TAKE THAT LANGUAGE OUT OF THERE.BUT MR OLSZEWSKI, DID YOU READ THROUGH THE MINUTES? SO, MR. CHAIR, IF IF WE WERE TO STRIKE THE SENTENCE, JUST SPEAKING IN THEORETICAL NOW THE SENTENCE DOES NOT EXIST, THEN I UNDERSTAND THIS LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT WHEN A VACANCY OCCURS, WE ARE GOING INTO THIS DEFAULT MODE OF APPOINTMENT AND CONVERSATION SAKE.
EVERYTHING HAPPENS WITHIN THE 60 DAYS.
WE DON'T GO A SPECIAL ELECTION.
EVERYTHING HAPPENS IN LESS THAN 60 DAYS.
COUNCIL APPOINTS WHETHER THAT COUNCIL PERSON'S TERM HAD THREE YEARS AND 11 MONTHS LEFT ON IT, OR IF IT HAD TWO MONTHS LEFT ON IT.
IF THE ACTING COUNCIL MAKES THAT APPOINTMENT RIGHT THEN AND THERE WITHIN THAT 60 DAY WINDOW, SAID COUNCIL PERSON IS GOING TO SERVE THE REMAINDER OF THAT VACATED TERM AND THE REMAINDER OF THAT VACATED TERM.
ONLY AM I CORRECT IN THAT ASSESSMENT, MADAM CITY ATTORNEY.
YOU KNOW, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, PATRICIA, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, ESSENTIALLY, IS THAT THAT LAST SENTENCE WAS NOT WHAT WE AGREED ON AND IT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE REFLECTED IN THE MINUTES AS WHAT WE APPROVED.
CORRECT. THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION.
AND IT SEEMS TO BE I WANT TO CALL YOU MAYOR, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER, BECAUSE IT WAS COMMISSIONER CHANDLER WHO BROUGHT THAT TO THE ATTENTION.
AND THEN IT WAS MCCLEOD COMMISSIONER MCCLOUD WHO SECONDED WHEN PHIL MADE THE MOTION.
AND FROM MY RECOLLECTION, THAT WORDING WAS TAKEN OUT.
SO I WAS WONDERING BECAUSE I CALLED THE CITY CLERK TODAY BECAUSE THIS ITEM WAS COMING BACK UP AND I SAID, WHY IS THIS ITEM COMING BACK UP? BECAUSE WE GOT THE WORDING RIGHT? GET SOME CLARITY. YEAH, SO BASICALLY, THE MINUTES HERE SHOULD HAVE THAT LAST SENTENCE REMOVED, THAT WASN'T WHAT WAS APPROVED.
IT'S THAT SIMPLE. WELL, MR. CHAIR, IF SO NEEDED, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THAT SENTENCE IS STRICKEN.
SECOND, THAT. IT'S THE SECOND ANY MORE DISCUSSION.
I WOULD CALL IT MR. CHAIR FROM AN ENTERTAINMENT.
WE DO WRITE BILL BILL ON PUBLIC.
BROUGHT YOU A SECOND. OH, I WISH ALL MY SECOND, MR CHAIR.
NO COMMENT. THIS GENTLEMAN'S COMMENTS.
HE CAN DISCUSS IT BEFORE WE VOTE ON.
DON'T NEED TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
JUST BROUGHT UP TWO QUESTIONS FOR ME.
OUR ELECTIONS ARE NOT HELD FOR THE ENTIRE COUNCIL EVERY YEAR AT THE SAME TIME THEY'RE DESIGNATED BY WHICH TERM, WHICH SEATS ARE GOING TO BE FILLED DURING WHICH YEARS.
SO A BLANKET STATEMENT LIKE THIS CAN HAVE SOMEBODY SERVING ALMOST MORE THAN THEIR REGULAR TERM WOULD HAVE BEEN ON A ON THE REGULAR VOTE AND FROM THE CITIZENS.
SO THAT CONSTITUTES WELL, YOU'VE GOT A LONGER TERM THAN WHAT I AS A CITIZEN WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR. SO BOTTOM LINE THAT TO ME SAYS, HOLD IT, GIVE THE CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO VOTE AND MAKE EVERY FILL OF HIS SEAT AS CITIZENS VOTE.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS CHANGE, BUT THAT STILL IS NOT THE SAME AS ME VOTING FOR WHO'S SITTING UP THERE.
SO WHICH TERM, BY THE WAY, THIS IS WORDED NOW SOMEBODY COULD FEEL LONGER THAN THEIR DESIGNATED TERM AS IT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN, RIGHT? OK. THAT'S THE WAY I WAS LOOKING AT THAT, RIGHT? THE OTHER THING THAT COMES INTO PLAY WITH IT WAS, IT WAS I FELT REDUNDANT.
ALSO, WHEN YOU HAD TO HAVE THE SIX MONTHS IN THERE, SO BE IT.
PATRICIA, DID YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? RESPOND TO THAT? YES, AS FAR AS THE.
AS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED WHEN WE MET AS FAR AS THE SPECIAL ELECTION.
OF COURSE, THE CITY HAS THE ELECTIONS BY 18, BY INITIALLY AS FAR AS EVERY TWO YEARS, IT IS NOT EVERY SEAT, BUT THIS SEAT.
ESSENTIALLY, THERE IS A REGULARLY SCHEDULED ELECTION, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN THIS REGULARLY SCHEDULED ELECTION AND THAT IT IS SPECIAL IN THE SENSE THAT THIS SEAT NORMALLY WOULDN'T BE PART OF THE ELECTION.
THIS ESSENTIALLY IS TO GET IT ON THE ELECTION CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
IT MAY BE SPECIAL IN THAT YOU NORMALLY WOULDN'T VOTE FOR THIS SEAT, BUT IT'S NOT SPECIAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS OCCURRING AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY NORMALLY WOULDN'T HAVE AN ELECTION. I THINK THAT WAS THE ACTUAL IS ACTUAL OBJECTIVE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ELECTIONS, THAT THE ELECTIONS ARE ALWAYS OUR REGULAR SET AND TIME, IRRESPECTIVE IF WE'RE ADDING SOMEBODY ON OR NOT, IT'S DURING THE REGULAR COURSE OF OUR ELECTIONS.
[00:55:01]
YES, THAT'S CORRECT.AND TO MR. BATTENS POINT, I DIDN'T FORESEE ANY SCENARIO WHERE SOMEBODY WOULD ACTUALLY SERVE LONGER THAN A TERM, A HALF OF A TERM IF IT WAS THE REMAINDER OF A TERM, BECAUSE THEN THERE WOULD BE AN ELECTION OR IF IT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERM, THEY WOULD ONLY SERVE IN TWO YEARS UP TO TWO YEARS BECAUSE THERE'D BE AN ELECTION COMING UP THAT THAT SEAT WOULD ONLY BE UNTIL THAT NEXT GENERAL ELECTION.
IF THERE WAS SOMETHING EVEN SHORTER THAN THAT, THERE WOULD BE AN ELECTION AND THEY WOULD BE EITHER RUNNING FOR THAT SEAT OR THEIR OPPONENT IF THEY HAD TO DROP OUT OR RESIGNED AT THAT POINT. THEY WOULD BE.
THAT WOULD BE A RIGHT, EVEN SHORTER THAN THAT PERIOD.
SO ANY TIME THERE WOULD BE AN ELECTION IF IT CAME UP.
SO IF THERE WERE TWO SEATS LIKE THAT ARE COMING UP IN NOVEMBER, THEN A THIRD, THAT THIRD SEAT WOULD COME UP IN THAT NOVEMBER TWO BECAUSE IF IT WAS ONLY HALF, IT WOULD COME UP FOR HALF OF THEIR TERM. THEY WOULD COME UP THEN.
DID IF I MAY, MR. MOORE, IN THIS CLARIFYING EXAMPLE, THIS IS ONLY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE ACTING COUNCIL FAILED TO APPOINT SOMEBODY IN 60 DAYS, AND WE'RE EXPLORING THE SPECIAL ELECTION. WELL, EVEN IF THEY APPOINTED THAT APPOINTMENT, IT WOULDN'T LAST UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION.
OK, SO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY IN IN AN EXAMPLE WHERE SOMEONE RESIGNS SHORT INTO THEIR TERM.
SO THERE'S THREE THREE YEARS, 10 MONTHS REMAINING.
WHAT YOU'RE STATING IS THE WAY THAT IT'S INTENDED HERE AND IT'S INTENDED TO BE WRITTEN AND PRESENTED TO THE CITIZENS TO BE VOTED ON.
IS THAT IF THAT SITUATION OCCURS AT THE NEXT NOVEMBER ELECTION, THAT'S HAPPENING, WHICH IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, A YEAR IN 10 MONTHS, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE FULL THREE AND 10. WE WILL CALL THAT SEAT TO BE AFFIRMED OR REAFFIRMED OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
CORRECT. THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THAT SEAT, THE APPOINTMENT THEY WOULD APPOINT UNTIL THAT ELECTION COMES UP.
THAT IS CORRECT, MR. OLSZEWSKI, AND THEN IF IT WAS A SPECIAL ELECTION THAT WAS TRIGGERED, THAT WOULD ONLY BE FOR THE SAME, IT WOULD THEY WOULD BOTH HAPPEN AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.
WELL, ONE WOULD JUST BE AN APPOINTMENT.
ONE WOULD JUST BE BECAUSE THERE WAS A SPECIAL ELECTION.
IT WOULD BE VACANT RIGHT UNTIL THAT TIME.
WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION, MR. MOORE. I TRULY DO. WHEN WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT COMES TO THE BALLOT AND I'M SPEAKING TO MY FRIENDS, FAMILY, WHAT HAVE YOU FELLOW CITIZENS OF PALM BAY AND INTERPRETING, HEY, HOW SHOULD I VOTE? WHAT HAVE YOU? I'M ONLY GOING TO WANT TO REFER TO THE LANGUAGE HERE.
I CAN'T REFER TO THIS MEANING.
AND YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, ELOQUENT RESPONSE.
THIS LANGUAGE DOESN'T CONVEY TO THE THE COMMON MAN OR WOMAN EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
AND THAT'S TROUBLING TO ME BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT'S KIND OF GOING ALONG THAT THESE COMMISSIONERS ARE SAYING THAT WE'D LIKE TO BRING THIS TO A VOTE SO THAT IT CAN BE VOTED ON. THE VOTED ON PORTION WON'T GET THE PROPER RESULT, AND THE PROPER RESULT IS ALWAYS THE TRUE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE.
IT WON'T GET THE PROPER RESULT IF WE DON'T BRING TO THE PEOPLE A VERY CLEAR YES, NO QUESTION. ONCE THERE'S ONE ELEMENT OF CONFUSION, SUCH AS THIS WHACK A DOODLE SENTENCE AND WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THAT NOW THERE'S THERE'S AN OPEN END FOR A CONFUSING SITUATION, A FALSE NARRATIVE AND OTHER THINGS OF THE SORT.
SO I DON'T WANT TO HANG OUT ON THIS.
MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH ME HERE, BUT I JUST CAN'T LEAVE THIS CONVERSATION SAYING THAT THIS EXACT PARAGRAPH SUMMARIZES EVERYTHING THAT MR. MOORE SO ELOQUENTLY PUT TO US.
AND I FEEL STRONGLY THAT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, MISS SMITH CAN'T FIND ANYTHING FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED WITH THE EXACT WORDS, BUT SHE JUST IS FROM HER, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, SAYING IT'S NOT BEING SAID THAT WAY ON PAPER, AND THAT'S HOW I FEEL. SO THANK YOU, SIR.
THERE'S MORE TO THIS THAN MEETS THE EYE, BUT GO AHEAD.
I THINK THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION AND CERTAINLY JUST SPOKE IT OVER WITH COMMISSIONER MOORE, IS INSTEAD OF STRIKING THE ENTIRE SENTENCE.
IF SO, ESSENTIALLY THE SENTENCE WOULD READ THAT LESSON IS APPOINTMENTS WILL BE TO SERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION CYCLE PERIOD.
WE WOULD STRIKE IF THERE ARE LESS THAN SIX MONTHS REMAINING IN THE UNEXPIRED TERM.
ALL RIGHT. STILL HAVE A WORD COUNT THAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO PUT ON A REFERENDUM, CORRECT? AS FAR AS THE WELL, WHEN WE SUMMARIZE IT, IT WAS THAT REASON WHY WHEN WE DID THE.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WONDERED WHY WE BROKE IT UP THE WAY IN WHICH WE DID.
SO I THINK IT IN ORDER TO HAVE IT BE CLEAR AND CERTAINLY WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES, I THINK WE ENDED UP BREAKING IT UP TO RECALL IT WAS MAYBE TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT SECTIONS SO THAT EACH SECTION WAS DISTINCT AND MET THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE
[01:00:02]
SUMMARIZATION. AND I WANT YOU TO, I GUESS, FOR COMMISSION PURPOSES BECAUSE THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS TOO, IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THAT WE DO THIS HERE, IT STILL GOES TO LEGAL AND LEGAL, HAS A PARAMETER OF WORDS THAT THEY HAVE TO GET IT BY.THEY HAVE TO FIT IT IN ORDER TO BE IN A REFERENDUM.
RIGHT. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS CERTAINLY THE COMMISSION MAKES ITS RECOMMENDATION.
COUNCIL GETS TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO ACT UPON IT AND THEN IT WANTS.
COUNCIL DECIDES IF IT WANTS TO MAKE ANY CHANGES OR IF IT WANTS TO ACCEPT IT IS THEN THAT WE TAKE WHAT COUNCIL HAS AGREED UPON AND WE GET IT INTO THE WAY IT HAS TO BE IN ORDER TO BE ON THE BALLOT. AND THEN COUNCIL WILL SEE THAT LANGUAGE.
YOU'LL SEE THE SUMMARY AS YOU'LL SEE THE EXACT LANGUAGE AND COUNCIL WILL ACTUALLY VOTE UPON THAT. SO ESSENTIALLY WE GET IT INTO ITS FINAL FORM ONCE WE KNOW WHERE COUNCIL IS GOING. THAT'S WHAT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND, AND I WANT ALL COMMISSIONERS TO UNDERSTAND JUST BECAUSE WE'RE DOING THIS HERE.
THIS IS NOT THE FINAL FINAL LANGUAGE.
THIS IS GOING TO GET TWEAKED AND TWEAKED AND THE FINAL DECISION MAKERS COUNCIL SO WE COULD GO BACK AND FORTH AMONG US.
AND I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO STRIKE THIS.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT STILL HAS TO GO BEFORE LEGAL LEGAL HAS TO GET IT WITHIN A CERTAIN WORD PARAMETER, JUST LIKE IF YOU WERE TEXTING.
AND GIVE IT TO COUNCIL AND THEN COUNCIL DECIDES WHETHER THEY ACCEPT THAT LANGUAGE OR NOT, OR THEY CHANGE IT AROUND AND THEN IT GOES TO THE RESIDENTS.
AND JUST LIKE VICE CHAIR WEINBERG WAS SAYING, IT STILL HAS TO GO TO THE PUBLIC.
THE PUBLIC STILL HAS TO VOTE ON THIS.
JUST BECAUSE WE MAKE THIS DECISION HERE DOESN'T MEAN THIS IS FINAL DECISION.
WE'RE JUST MAKING RECOMMENDATION, AND I THINK THAT'S WHEN IT GETS LOST IN TRANSLATION, WHEN PEOPLE SAY THAT WE'RE TAKING THE VOTER'S RIGHTS AWAY.
WE'RE NOT. IT'S STILL STEPS WHEN TO LET THE PUBLIC SPEAK BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS CONTINUE TO PUT THEIR HAND UP SO. MEN.
AND THEN WE COULD FINALIZE THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE.
HAVE OTHER ITEMS. LAURIE LAFAVE, 12 11, GERALD CIRCLE.
I JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S AN ACCIDENT THAT THIS IS BEING CHANGED ALONG WITH THE PROCESS TO REDRESS THIS, BE A PETITION.
SOMEBODY MAY REQUESTED THE CHANGE TO JUMP TO 10 PERCENT VERSUS FIVE PERCENT ON SIGNATURES FOR PETITION.
WELL, MA'AM, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S BEFORE US. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, RESTRICT YOUR ITEM AND IT GOES TOGETHER. OK. OK.
MY SUGGESTION IS TO MAKE IT REAL SIMPLE AND LEAVE IT LIKE IT WAS THE WAY THE CITIZENS OF PALM BAY WANTED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
RECALL VOTE NINE, THIRTY FIVE, DOUGLAS STREET SOUTHEAST.
I DO NOT AGREE WITH APPOINTMENTS, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE FAIR TO THE CITIZENS TO HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINT, BECAUSE SO FAR THERE HAVEN'T BEEN VERY FAIR THINGS ON THE COUNCIL.
THAT BEING SAID, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT I DO NOT AGREE WITH IN HERE IS NOT BEING STRICKEN, SO I RECOMMEND THAT APPOINTMENTS.
THE SENTENCE THAT SAY IS APPOINTMENTS WILL BE TO SERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED REGULAR ELECTION CYCLE.
I PROPOSE THAT THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM, THOSE FOUR WORDS BE REMOVED FROM THAT SENTENCE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S VERY CONFUSING AS TO WHAT A NEXT REGULAR ELECTION CYCLE IS, AND THE COUNCIL COULD SAY, WELL, WE JUST WANT THEM TO FULFILL THE REMAINDER OF THAT SEAT'S TERM. SO THIS IS THE CONFUSING PART IS WHAT IS THE REGULAR ELECTION CYCLE THAT WOULD PERTAIN TO A VACANCY? AND I SEE THAT WHEN THE.
I ATTORNEY READ WHAT WAS BEING STRICKEN, SHE DIDN'T READ THAT THE LAST PART OF THAT SENTENCE, THE TERM WILL EXTEND TO THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY ELECTION WAS STRICKEN, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND STILL WHAT ACTUALLY IT'S SAYING.
SO THERE'S STILL REAL CONFUSION IN HERE FOR ME.
[01:05:05]
AND IF I'D HAVE SEEN THIS EARLIER, IF I'D GOTTEN THE AGENDA EARLIER, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN.LESS CONFUSING FOR ME TO EVEN TO RESPOND.
SO I THINK THERE SHOULD BE MODIFICATIONS TO THE SENTENCE THAT SAYS APPOINTMENTS WILL BE TO SERVE.
UNTIL THE NEXT REGULAR ELECTION CYCLE.
THAT'S MY PROPOSAL TO SAY WHAT IT SHOULD SAY.
SALLY JOHNSON, 17, 50 SANFILIPPO DRIVE.
I HAVE TO CONCUR WITH THE LAST TWO LADIES.
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE OF PALM BAY NEED TO HAVE A VOICE, AND WHEN YOU SELL A POINT WHEN THIS WHEN THEY HAVE THAT ABILITY, THE PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT THAT PERSON, THEY CAN APPOINT ANYBODY THEY WANT.
SO HOW IS THAT FAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF THIS TOWN? THINK ABOUT THAT.
YOU ARE TAKING THAT AWAY AND YOU NEED TO SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT THAT.
THANK YOU. OK, IT'S NO ONE ELSE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND MOTION.
THE SECOND FLOOR DISCUSSION NOW IS JUST THE COMMISSION TO SPEAK.
COMMISSIONER MACLEOD, MR. CHAIR, ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION THAT YOU'VE GIVEN.
THERE SEEMS TO BE SO MUCH MISINFORMATION ABOUT TAKING AWAY ONE'S VOTE.
THE FINAL SAY IS CITY COUNCIL AND TO THE VOTERS.
SO PEOPLE WHO HAVE THIS OPINION THAT THEIR VOTES ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS WE'RE ENGAGED IN.
AND I THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT PROCESS, THAT CHAIR, MR. CHAIR, IN A TECHNICAL SENSE.
MY MOTION SECOND WAS WITHDRAWN AND I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE SENTENCE THAT'S BEING SPOKEN ABOUT REED APPOINTMENTS WILL BE TO SERVE UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION.
THANK YOU, SIR. DISCUSSION, IF I MAY, SIR.
IF I MAY FOR DISCUSSION, AS IT WAS MY MOTION, THANK YOU, SIR.
THE REASON I WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS IS TO CAPTURE THE CLARIFICATION THAT MR MOORE CAPTURED TO THIS BOARD AND TO BUILD UPON THE CLARIFICATION THAT MR MACLEOD IS EXPRESSING HIS GRATITUDE TO. AND LET ME BUILD UPON THE GRATITUDE.
WHAT THIS COMMISSION IS DOING IS CREATING LANGUAGE THAT WILL GO THROUGH THAT MILL OF A PROCESS THAT YOU DID SO GOOD OF A JOB DESCRIBING.
AND THE REASON THAT I AND THE CITIZENS AND THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS AND THANK YOU, MR MARSH, FOR THE SECOND HERE ARE LOOKING AT THIS LANGUAGE NOW WITH SUCH SCRUTINY IS SO THAT BEFORE THAT MILL OF THE GAME OF TELEPHONE BEGINS, OUR SENTIMENT IS VERY, VERY CLEAR.
SO THAT IS MY GOAL WITH THIS MOTION IS TO GET THIS UNDERSTOOD OF WHAT WAS ALREADY VOTED UPON AND SO ON.
I THINK THAT THIS CAPTURES THAT.
THAT'S WHY I MADE THAT MOTION AGAIN.
THANK YOU, MR MYERS, FOR UNDERSTANDING THAT.
OK, COULD YOU REPEAT? COULD YOU REPEAT TO REPEAT THE MOTION? ABSOLUTELY, SIR. I MOVED TO HAVE THE LAST SENTENCE OF THIS PARAGRAPH IN QUESTION READ.
APPOINTMENTS WILL BE TO SERVE UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION CYCLE PERIOD.
THIS WOULD STRIKE THE WORDS THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM, AS WELL AS STRIKING THE WORDS IF THERE ARE LESS THAN SIX MONTHS REMAINING IN THE EXPIRED TERM, ALL IN THE INTEREST OF CLARIFICATION, NOT IN THE INTEREST OF CHANGING THE MESSAGE, BUT SIMPLY IN THE INTEREST OF CLARIFYING THE MESSAGE THAT AN APPOINTMENT IS ONLY MEANT TO GET US TO THE LINE OF AN ELECTION DAY WHERE WE THEN CAN VOTE SOMEONE INTO OFFICE.
SO OUR WORST CASE SCENARIO IS THAT SOMEONE APPOINTED WOULD IT BE? WORST CASE SCENARIO WOULD BE ONE YEAR, 11 MONTHS AND 20 SOMETHING DAYS.
THAT WOULD BE THE LITERAL LONGEST.
SOMEONE TAKES THE OATH AND THEN GOES, AND EVEN THAT MATH REALLY DOESN'T EQUAL OUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT OUR TERMS BEGIN AND WHATNOT.
BUT ALL THAT SAID, IT JUST IN AN EFFORT TO REACH THAT CLARIFICATION THAT I'VE HEARD THROUGH THESE COMMISSIONER SUMMARIES THAT THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO SEND TO THAT GAME OF TELEPHONE TO BE PUSHED AND PUSHED AND SENT TO THE JARGON.
WELL, IT'S DEFINITELY SIMPLE, AND IT'S TO THE POINT I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE OK WITH THAT.
SO YEAH, I WOULD I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT SIMPLE TERM.
I MEAN, IT'S BASICALLY SAYING ALL THIS JUST WITH LESS, YOU KNOW, WORDS.
YES, CHAIR, THE REASON I HAD SECONDED IS BECAUSE IN LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION, I THINK
[01:10:04]
THE CONFUSION IS BECAUSE THOSE TWO STATEMENTS ARE CONTRADICTORY.THE PORTION THAT SAYS SERVE THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM AND THEN UNTIL THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION CYCLE, THOSE TWO THINGS CAN CONTRADICT.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THE CONFUSION.
SO IF YOU TAKE OUT THE PORTION THAT SAYS THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM, THEN YOU HAVE CLARITY AS TO WHAT EXACTLY TIME FRAME THAT APPOINTMENT WOULD HAVE.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS, IS BECAUSE THOSE TWO STATEMENTS ARE CONTRADICTING THEMSELVES.
WITH THAT. WELL, MR. CHAIR. SO SINCE IT'S MY IT'S MY LANGUAGE, I'LL JUST SPEAK BRIEFLY.
SO I DEFINITELY WANT TO TRY TO KEEP THE VERBIAGE OF EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC, THE VOTERS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.
IT'S ALWAYS MY INTENT BECAUSE I'M ALSO FRUSTRATED AT TIMES WHEN WE SEE A BALLOT AND WE HAVE AMENDMENTS ON THERE AND SOMETIMES DOESN'T EVEN REFLECT WHAT WE'RE EVEN TRYING TO VOTE ON. SO AND THAT IS NOT MY INTENT AT ALL.
AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOUR VOTE YES OR NO ON WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE.
SO I'M DEFINITELY TRYING TO KEEP IT SIMPLE IN.
AND WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD, I WOULD ALSO VOTE IN FAVOR OF MAKING THAT THAT SMALL.
AND THIS WILL CONTINUE TO BE WORDSMITH, AS YOU MENTIONED, TOO, WITH CITY COUNCIL TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PRESENTING THE BEST SUCCINCT IN KISS.
KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID LANGUAGE THAT WE CAN'T.
OK. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO CALL IT ALL IN FAVOR.
GOT PAST THAT. UH, WE HAVE A CONTINUATION FROM OUR LAST MEETING STAFF NEEDED TO GET US MORE INFORMATION.
IT'S ARTICLE THREE, LEGISLATIVE SECTION THREE POINT ZERO THREE COMPENSATION.
I THINK FOR US, I THINK THEY WANTED TO CONTINUE THAT TILL OUR NEXT MEETING MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. I THINK WE'RE ALL IN THAT WE DON'T NEED A MOTION THAT'S ALREADY IN THE AGENDA TO CONTINUE TILL THE NEXT MEETING.
[NEW BUSINESS]
ONE VIEW DISCUSSION OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE SIX.I DO. I WOULD PASS OUT CHANGE THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE.
AND I'LL NEED A MOTION, OF COURSE, TO SIMPLIFY THE LANGUAGE ON THE TAXATION PORTION, I DON'T KNOW WHY I CAN'T FIND IT IN MY POCKET FOR SECTION SIX POINT ZERO ONE UNDER TAXATION. MY MOTION THAT IS BEING PASSED AROUND.
UM, IS IS JUST A SIMPLE STRIKE BALL.
IT WOULD BE TO REPEAL SOME SECTIONS B, C, D AND E AND LEAVE IT AT SECTION A, WHICH IS WELL, WOULDN'T IT BE A SECTION A ANYMORE WOULD BE THE ONLY SENTENCE THAT THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO LEVY TAXES AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
SO IT WOULD BE TO SIMPLIFY THE LANGUAGE B, C, D AND E YES.
AND JUST LEAVE AND LEAVE LEAVE IT AS A WHICH WAS WHAT WAS IN THE PRIOR LANGUAGE BEFORE THE. YEAH, THAT'S A LOT SIMPLER THAN MY PRIOR PROPOSAL WITH THE THE SPECIAL ELECTION INFORMATION. WE HAVE A MOTION.
I HAVE A MOTION. SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.
I'LL START A COUPLE OF THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, YOU HEARD THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM SYMANTEC DISCUSS, YOU KNOW WHAT THE EFFECT OF THIS THREE PERCENT CAP WOULD HAVE ON OUR BUDGET AND OUR FINANCES, AND IT'S GOING TO CAUSE A REAL PROBLEM IN WITHIN A FEW YEARS, ACTUALLY.
NOW I JUST WANT TO RECAP GOING BACK TO 2016, WHEN THIS THREE PERCENT CAP WAS WAS INITIATED. FIRST OF ALL, IN MY OPINION AND I'M NOT A LAWYER AND I'M SURE MISS SMITH WILL WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS IS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED ILLEGALLY.
[01:15:05]
NOW THIS THIS WAS TAKEN FROM FROM ACTION THAT THE COUNTY TOOK IMPLEMENTING A THREE PERCENT CAP ON ON ON THE AD VALOREM TAXES.MY UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL PROPER WAY TO LEVY A CAP FOR ON A MUNICIPALITY'S BUDGET WOULD BE TO ASK OUR LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION FOR SPECIAL LEGISLATION TO PERMIT A CAP ON AD VALOREM. REVENUES, THIS WASN'T DONE AT ALL.
NOW, IN ADDITION, WE HAVE AN OUTSIDE OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS WHO ARE A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND ONE OF THEM BY THE NAME OF EVAN ROSENTHAL, SENT A LETTER TO ACTUALLY TO OUR CITY COUNCIL.
AND IN THIS LETTER, HE EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCEDURE THAT WAS TAKEN TO IMPLEMENT THIS THREE PERCENT CAP.
AND HE ADVISED CITY COUNCIL THAT IF SOMEONE WERE TO CHALLENGE THIS IN COURT, SOMEONE WITH THE LEGAL STANDING WOULD HAVE CHALLENGES IN COURT.
IT WOULD BE OVERTURNED AS IT WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED PROPERLY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT, PATRICIA? ONLY TO SAY THAT CERTAINLY I RESOURCE THAT ISSUE.
THE CITY ATTORNEY SENT IT OUT TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL WHO RESEARCHED THE ISSUE.
IT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL WHO DECIDED THAT THEY WERE NOT SEEKING TO OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PUBLIC AND LEGAL WAS NOT DIRECTED TO TAKE ANY MORE ACTION ON THAT MATTER.
THANK YOU FOR THAT, I APPRECIATE THAT AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, BUT AGAIN. YOU CERTAINLY DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT WITH MY COMMENTS THAT IF IT WERE CHALLENGED BY SOMEONE WITHSTANDING, IT WOULD ALMOST UNDOUBTEDLY BE OVERTURNED BECAUSE OF THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION DIDN'T GIVE BASICALLY GIVE THE CITY PERMISSION TO LEVY A CAP ON TAX. SO, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS AS FAR AS THE THREE PERCENT CAP GOES, FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS MY OPINION. I DON'T THINK IF WE WERE TO TO ACCEPT PHIL'S MOORE'S MOTION, WHICH I'M ACTUALLY IN FAVOR OF, I DON'T THINK VOTERS WOULD APPROVE IT BECAUSE EVENTUALLY IT GOES TO THE VOTERS AND THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON IT.
BECAUSE ANY TIME YOU HAVE A TALK ABOUT ANY KIND OF TAX INCREASE OR ELIMINATING A TAX LIMITATION, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE POPULAR.
AND, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I WILL CERTAINLY VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION, BUT I REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'M POSITIVE THAT THE VOTERS WOULD NOT APPROVE IT, ALTHOUGH IT DOES SIMPLIFY IT AND IT DOES RETURN THE POWER TO LEVY, YOU KNOW, TAXES ON THE CITY, WHICH DETERMINE WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND AND IN THE LONG RUN. THAT WILL CERTAINLY CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THE CITY COUNCIL CAN ADDRESS ANY BUDGETARY CONCERNS BY DOING THAT.
BUT BUT AGAIN, I SIMPLY I DON'T SEE VOTERS APPROVING THAT.
BUT YOU KNOW IT JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF, YOU KNOW, OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AND FOR THE CITY CHARTER AND TO SUBMIT IT TO THE VOTERS FOR IF THEY UNDERSTOOD, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE EFFECT OF THIS CAB HAS ON THE CITY, IF THEY COULD SEE AND APPRECIATE THE CONTEXT, YOU KNOW, PRESENTATION, I THINK THEY PROBABLY HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THIS CAP IS DOING TO THE CITY AND IT'S NOT GOOD.
IT'S GOING TO BE THE OPTIMIST.
HE'S THE PESSIMIST, I'M THE OPTIMIST BECAUSE I WAS OUT THERE DURING THE TIME THAT THIS WAS PRESENTED AND THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR THIS AFTER THE FACT, THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE, THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING ONTO.
THIS WAS BROUGHT FORTH AND CHAMPIONED IN A WAY THAT THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH TO HELP YOU, GOD.
IT WAS BEING TOLD TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PUBLIC BOUGHT INTO THIS BECAUSE THERE WERE CERTAIN PEOPLE THAT WANTED THIS TO PASS.
AND THEY GOT THEIR WAY BECAUSE THE REALITY I THOUGHT THE THREE PERCENT CAP WASN'T EVEN GOING TO GET PASSED THE CHARTER REVIEW BACK THEN, BUT.
A GRUESOME LEGS, AND I THINK IT PASSED BY FOUR OR SOMETHING, VERY CLOSE VOTE.
THEY GOT TO THE COUNCIL AND THEN IT CAME BEFORE COUNCIL AND COUNCIL SAID, OK, LET THE WILL THE PEOPLE BE? BUT ONCE IT WENT TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, THERE WERE PEOPLE THAT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT ONCE THEY VOTED FOR IT SAYING YES ON IT, THEY REGRETTED IT BECAUSE THEY KNEW EXACTLY THE HANDICAP THEY WERE PUTTING THE CITY ON.
SO I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU PUT IT BACK OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND THOSE PEOPLE, THAT COULD BE IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN THIS THREE PERCENT CAP AS THE COUNCIL DECIDES.
[01:20:03]
LET IT RIP, AND IT GOES TO THE VOTERS BECAUSE THE COUNCIL COULD VOTE IT DOWN AND SAY, NO, WE DON'T WANT THIS TO GO IN A REFERENDUM, WE WANT TO KEEP IT.SO JUST BECAUSE WE'RE DOING ALL THIS DUE DILIGENCE HERE RIGHT NOW, IT COULD GO BEFORE COUNCIL FOR FINAL REVIEW AND COUNCIL SAYS, NO, WE'RE NOT PUTTING THIS TO THE VOTERS.
WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE THREE PERCENT CAP.
BUT I THINK IF THEY DO, THAT WILL BE AN INJUSTICE BECAUSE WHAT YOU CONTINUE TO DO IN IS CRIPPLING THE CITY IN REGARDS TO REVENUE.
WE WENT THROUGH THE GREAT RECESSION AND AS WE GOT PAST THE THE GREAT RECESSION AND WE WERE DOING BETTER, WE THEN CHOKED OURSELVES.
BASICALLY, THAT'S WHAT WE DID.
AS REVENUES WERE COMING IN AND WE COULD HAVE DONE MORE THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO DO WITH THE CITY, LIKE FIRE TRUCKS, LIKE POLICE CARS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO, WE WERE HANDCUFFED TO THE CAR AND THAT WAS ALL BECAUSE THE PUBLIC REALLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, AND THE PERSON WHO CHAMPIONED IT DID IT FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL REASONS.
SO I THINK THAT IF WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE IN REGARDS TO OTHER THINGS, ABSOLUTELY, I BELIEVE THAT IF IT DOES GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC WILL RECONSIDER THIS. SO THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THAT.
IT GOES BACK OUT TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE TO ME, THE PUBLIC REALLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND, DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING ON TO WHAT THE CITY WAS DOING TO ITSELF.
MR. CHAIR. MR. CHAIR, IT IS SO ENLIGHTENING TO LISTEN TO THE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU AND THE VICE CHAIR PROVIDE.
I TRIED TO FIND OUT THE BACKSTORY BEHIND THIS, AND THERE WAS NOT MUCH THAT I COULD DISCERN. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO AX STAFF.
THE CITY MANAGER, WHAT IS HER VIEW AND HOW THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION AS EITHER HANDICAPPED OR FACILITATED POMPEY'S GROWTH? UM, REGARDING HANDICAPPING OR FACILITATING PALM BAY'S GROWTH, IT'S IT'S NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THE CITY WILL CONTINUE TO GROW AND WE HOPE CONTINUE TO GROW FOR MANY YEARS TO COME.
WHAT HAS BEEN THE CHALLENGE WITH THE THREE PERCENT CAP, THE WAY IT IS IS STRUCTURED AND THE WAY WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR REVENUES AS THEY COME IN EACH YEAR.
IS IT ESSENTIALLY HAS NOT ENABLED US TO GROW THE CITY OPERATIONS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OF THE CITIZENS, SO AS THE CITY HAS GROWN, IT HAS BECOME WITH A CHARTER CAP IN PLACE, INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO FIND THE FUNDING TO ADD, FOR EXAMPLE, ADDITIONAL FIREFIGHTERS TO PREPARE TO BUILD A NEW FIRE STATION, IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT TO FIND THE MONEY TO BUILD A NEW FIRE STATION.
WE'RE TRYING TO MEET BASIC WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE BASIC CORE NEEDS.
FOR EXAMPLE, CAPITAL CAPITAL ASSET NEEDS LIKE BUYING FIRE TRUCKS AND POLICE CARS OR JUST BEING ABLE TO PROPERLY FUND A ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND.
SO THE THINGS I MENTIONED BEFORE, SO IT REALLY HAS MADE THE CITY OPERATIONS DIFFICULT TO FUND EFFECTIVELY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF A GROWING CITY.
AND THAT WAS PRECISELY MY UNDERSTANDING.
AND FOR THOSE IN THE PUBLIC WHO ARE LISTENING OR WATCHING THIS MEETING, THAT'S THE MESSAGE THAT I WANTED TO BE MADE CLEAR BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE SAY STUFF AND THEY DON'T PROVIDE A BACKGROUND AND SOMEBODY RUNS WITH IT AND EVERYBODY GETS CONFUSED.
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE.
THANK YOU, SIR. TWO THINGS I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT YOUR SENTIMENT IS NOT THE SENTIMENT NECESSARILY IN YOUR CAPACITY AS THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD, BUT YOUR SENTIMENT AS A CITIZEN. SO WHEN YOU SAY THE MOTIVATIONS AND HOW THESE THINGS OCCURRED, IT'S YOUR PERSONAL SENTIMENT. NOW, AS THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD, YOU HAVE THE RIGHTS BUILT INTO YOUR DUTIES TO COMMUNICATE THE SENTIMENT OF THE BOARD AS A WHOLE.
AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THE SENTIMENT OF THE BOARD AS A WHOLE IS THAT THE CAP WAS IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE OF ONE PERSON'S AGENDA.
IN ADDITION, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT ANY CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPEN OUTSIDE OF THE CONFINES OF THIS COMMISSION THAT WOULD LEAD TOWARDS THAT SENTIMENT, I DON'T THINK SHOULD BE REFERRED TO BECAUSE THIS CONVERSATION SHOULDN'T HAPPEN ON SPECIFIC BUSINESS.
AND IF THEY DID EVER OCCUR, WE SHOULDN'T REFER TO THEM.
SO WHEN YOU MENTION, YOU KNOW, TO GET ASSERTION AND BUILD UPON THE OPINION CONVERSATIONS
[01:25:03]
THAT YOU'VE HAD WITH MR. VICE CHAIR OUTSIDE OF THIS VENUE, IT DOESN'T HELP THE OPTICS PROBLEM THAT WE'RE SHOOTING FOR HERE. THAT'S THAT'S JUST ME STATING WHAT I'M SEEING.WHAT MAKES YOU MISINTERPRETING THIS WAS A CONVERSATION I HAD WITH RIGHT? JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A NOTION.
I'M TALKING FROM SITTING IN THAT CHAIR, OF COURSE.
NOT A CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THIS IS MY PERSONAL, NOT OPINION, BUT EXPERIENCE, RIGHT? AND I'M SPEAKING OF.
SO IT'S NOTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH COMMISSIONER VICE CHAIR OR THE COMMISSIONER.
DON'T MISINTERPRET THAT THIS IS MY DUTY, THAT I HAD TO DO MY DUE DILIGENCE OF WORKING OUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND LISTENING TO RESIDENTS.
IT'S ABSOLUTELY I'M SPEAKING ON FACTS.
THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING, SIR.
AND AS A FELLOW CITIZEN, A FELLOW CITIZEN LIKE YOU ARE NOT A FORMER MAYOR, BUT A CITIZEN, AS YOU ARE TODAY, JUST AS WELL.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND FROM THE CITY MANAGER, AS WE'VE HAD THE CHALLENGES RECENTLY JUST TO KIND OF REAFFIRM AND BRING UP TO SPEED FULL SENSES OF INFORMATION IN THE RECENT FISCAL YEARS THROUGH DISCIPLINED FISCAL BEHAVIOR.
WE'VE BUILT A SURPLUS THAT, AS WE'VE ESTABLISHED AS FACT IN THE PRESENTATION SECTION, EXCEEDS THE SURPLUS THAT WE THOUGHT THAT THE THAT THE PROJECTION THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE AT. MR. MACLEOD, THANK YOU FOR ASKING FOR CONFIRMATION CLARIFICATION OF MY FACTS BECAUSE I ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT JUST REMEMBERING INCORRECTLY.
ALL OF MY FACTS ARE BASED FROM MY SERVICE ON THE CITIZEN'S BUDGET ADVISORY BOARD LEADING INTO THIS FISCAL YEAR, AND THIS PROBLEM WAS BROUGHT UP AS A PROBLEM IN THE BUDGETING PROCESS. AND THE ENTIRE TENURE AROUND THIS FISCAL YEAR IS BUDGET OF THE CITIZENS BUDGET ADVISORY BOARD FOLLOWED THE NARRATIVE OF THIS CAP AS BEING A PROBLEM, AS OPPOSED TO FOLLOWING THE NARRATIVE OF HERE'S THE CAP AND HERE'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
BUT WHEN WE DID GET TO, THIS IS THE CAP ON WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
WE HAD REALLY, REALLY GOOD CONVERSATION AND WE LEARNED A LOT.
AND SO I JUST WANT TO SAY OUT LOUD THAT MAKING MANEUVERS LIKE THIS ARE ARE ARE ONE POTENTIALLY NOT NECESSARY, BUT TWO THERE THEY CAN'T JUST BE SUMMARIZED IS THE POINT.
AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHERE I'M TRYING TO COME.
FULL CIRCLE IS YOU CAN'T JUST SUMMARIZE TO, WELL, IT CAUSES A FISCAL ISSUE BECAUSE THERE'S THINGS THAT COME UP THAT OFFSET THOSE FISCAL ISSUES, LIKE THE $18 MILLION THAT THE CITY HAS COMING OUR WAY TO OFFSET THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE COVID 19 PANDEMIC.
THERE'S A SITUATION THAT EXISTS IN THE FISCAL YEAR 20 22 THAT WE ARE IN A SURPLUS STATE AND WE WERE ABLE TO.
I COME FROM A PLACE OF GRATITUDE.
THAT'S HOW I LIVE MY LIFE, SIR, AND I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ALLOCATE ALMOST $5 MILLION OF FREE AND CLEAR CASH THIS YEAR AND GET US AHEAD IN OUR BATTLE.
BUT THE WAY THAT EVERYTHING'S WRITTEN AND THE WAY THAT EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED, THE RESTRICTIONS THAT EXIST WITHIN THE CURRENT LANGUAGE STATE THAT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT BE WITHHELD, IT WON'T BE COUNTED AGAINST IN THAT TOTAL EACH YEAR THAT THESE THINGS ARE CALCULATED. SO AS THE NEW GROWTH COMES IN AND BECOMES AN OLD PROPERTY IN A SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEAR, WHAT HAVE YOU? THINGS WILL GROW IN THE BASE ITSELF WILL GROW.
EACH TAXPAYER IS JUST SET OUT TO BE HELD TO THE MILITARY THAT WOULD EQUAL THE CITY MAKING THREE PERCENT MORE THAN THEY MADE WHEN THAT TAXPAYER WAS INCLUDED IN THE PROCESS LAST YEAR. THAT'S HOW ITS LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN.
THAT IS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
THAT IS TO THE CITIZENS, TO THE PUBLIC THAT I HOPE IS WATCHING.
I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S HOW IT'S WRITTEN IS TO COMPENSATE FOR YOU AS A TAXPAYER, YOU ARE HELD TO A.
AN ECONOMIC RATE THAT YOUR INCOME RISES, THIS IS WRITTEN TO SET OUT TO HOLD THE COUNCIL TO HOLD OUR REVENUE DOWN TO THREE PERCENT.
NOW WITHIN THAT BUILT INTO AND MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR ENTERTAINING ME, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TO EVERYBODY THIS COMMISSION IN THE PUBLIC THAT IN PARAGRAPH C OF THE CURRENT LANGUAGE, SECTION SIX OR ONE PARAGRAPH, SEE, WE HAVE SOME REFERENCES TO PARAGRAPH B AND THEN WE HAVE A SENTENCE THAT SAYS IF A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURS IN A FINDING THAT SUCH AN EXCESS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF AN EMERGENCY OR OF A CRITICAL NEED THAT THEY CAN, AND THIS IS LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN USED IN THE BUDGET PLANNING PROCESS.
BUST THE CAP THE SUPERMAJORITY CAN BUST THE CAP IN ANY GIVEN FISCAL YEAR TO ADDRESS AN EMERGENCY OR A CRITICAL NEED THAT THEY ALL CONCUR IS EXISTENT.
SO IF THE CITIZENS OF PALM BAY ASKED THE CITY TO TO HANDCUFF THEMSELVES, HOLD THEMSELVES
[01:30:01]
TO HANDCUFFS AND TRY AS HARD AS THEY COULD TO FINANCIALLY PLAN WITHIN THOSE HANDCUFFS.AND IF THERE'S AN EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL NEED, COME TO COUNCIL AND SAY THAT AND THAT PROCESS HAS HAS BEEN EXERCISED FOR FOUR YEARS, THE CAP WAS KEPT TWICE AND NOT KEPT TWICE IN THOSE FOUR FISCAL YEARS.
IF THOSE THINGS HAVE OCCURRED AND WE'VE BEEN IN THIS STATE OF SURPLUS THAT BEATS THE PREDICTIONS WERE WE'RE MOVING IN A STEADY DIRECTION.
THE CITY DEPARTMENTS HAVE QUITE FISCALLY CLEANED UP.
HOUSE IS CLEAR, WHICH IS POTENTIALLY WHAT I FEEL IS ONE OF THE CITIZEN'S MAIN OBJECTIVES IN SETTING. THIS IS WE KNEW THAT CITY OPERATIONS NEEDED TO IMPROVE, BUT WE KNEW THAT IT WAS GOING GANGBUSTERS THAT PEOPLE COULD UNCHECKED, UNINHIBITED, SO TO SPEAK IN THE MOST EXTREME, RAISE TAXES TO MAKE UP FOR INEFFICIENCIES.
WE'RE NOW IN A STATE AND A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE WE ARE ELIMINATING THE INEFFICIENCIES AND FORGIVE ME, BUT I HAVE TO PRAY AS MISS SHERMAN AS A CITY MANAGER FOR THAT.
IN HER TENURE, SHE'S BEEN EXERCISING PRINCIPLES THAT WERE LAID BEFORE SHE GOT THERE, AND NOW SHE'S HERE AND SHE LIVES THAT LIFE EVERY DAY OF WORKING WITHIN THE CONFINES THAT SHE HAS. DOES SHE WISH THAT THE CAP COULD BE TO GO AWAY? YES, BUT SHE IS A GREAT FISCAL MANAGER OF A CITY, AND SHE'S GETTING US BY IN THIS TIME.
THE NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL CATCH UP, AND WHEN THE NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL CATCH UP, OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE WILL BE ABLE TO RISE TO THE LEVEL THAT WE NEED IF WE GET TO A POINT THAT THAT STATEMENT IS PROVEN INCORRECT FISCALLY.
PAPER NUMBERS WE CAN ALWAYS COME TO A COUNCIL AND I SERVE ON A CITIZEN'S BUDGET ADVISORY BOARD AND I'LL BE ON THERE THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
THE ONE AFTER THAT HAVE THREE MORE YEARS.
HOPEFULLY, I GET MORE AFTER THAT AND I WILL HAPPILY SAY WHEN A CRITICAL NEED IS IDENTIFIED. WE HAVE A GAPING HOLE.
LET'S ENTERTAIN THAT CONVERSATION.
HOW IS THE CITY CHARTER READ? WE HAVE TO HOLD OURSELVES TO THIS CAP UNLESS THERE'S A CRITICAL NEED FISCAL YEAR BY FISCAL YEAR. LET US SUGGEST THAT LET THE PUBLIC COME IN, LET EVERYONE SHARE THEIR OPINION AND LET EVERYONE SAY, DO WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL FISCAL NEED FOR THE FUTURE FISCAL YEAR THAT WE'RE PLANNING RIGHT NOW THAT SAYS WE SHOULD AND I HATE THIS TERM.
BUST THE CAP YES OR NO SUPERMAJORITY OF COUNCIL PASSES THAT THROUGH.
WE MEET OUR EMERGENCY NEED THAT HAPPENED FROM A HURRICANE OR A TROPICAL EVENT OR WHATEVER IT IS. AND WE CONTINUE.
BUT WE CONTINUE IN RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW TO TRY TO HOLD TO EFFICIENCIES.
I DON'T HAVE TO SUMMARIZE WHERE MY VOTE WOULD BE ON THIS MOTION FOR THIS COMMISSION TO PUSH THAT FORWARD AT THIS TIME IN THIS FISCAL YEAR FOR THIS ELECTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR, FOR LETTING ME SHARE. I GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.
OK. WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT FIRST? I ACTUALLY WAS GOING TO CLARIFY IF YOU STILL WANT IN MY RESPONSE.
I'LL START ACTUALLY WITH WITH ONE COMMENT, SIR, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR WORDS REGARDING MY MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY.
I GUESS ONE OF THE THE COMMENTS WAS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, RAISING TAXES TO ELIMINATE EFFICIENCIES, THAT KIND OF PERSPECTIVE.
I WHEN I FIRST RETURNED TO THE CITY, I WORKED HERE PRIOR AND CAME BACK.
I ACTUALLY I VOTED AGAINST JUST TO SAY I VOTED AGAINST THE CHARTER CAP WHEN I WASN'T WORKING FOR THE CITY BECAUSE I KIND OF HAD A SENSE OF WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE, BUT I DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT UNTIL I UNTIL I CAME BACK.
AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT STRUCK ME WAS THE FACT THAT WE WEREN'T PROPERLY FUNDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH WAS KIND OF STARTLING TO ME, TO BE HONEST, BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE A FAIRLY NORMAL AND NOT SIMPLE, BUT AN IMPORTANT THING TO DO TO PRIORITIZE, OK, YOU SHOULD REPLACE THIS MANY VEHICLES THIS THIS OFTEN SO THAT YOU'RE KEEPING ON A GOOD PATH AND EVERYTHING DOESN'T BREAK AT ONCE, RIGHT? SO WHAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT STRUCK ME? THE SECOND THING THAT KIND OF REALLY STARTED TO CATCH MY ATTENTION WAS OBVIOUSLY THE ISSUES WITH ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND.
I WON'T TALK ABOUT THAT AGAIN. I'VE ALREADY SAID IT TWICE, SO I THINK YOU'RE GOOD ON WHERE I'M AT ON THAT AND NEEDING TO FUND IT.
BUT THE THIRD THING THAT BECAME EVEN MORE INTERESTING WAS THE ISSUE THAT I FOUND WHERE WE HAD NOT ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE PAY RANGES FOR OUR EMPLOYEES FOR, LIKE OVER 10 YEARS.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A BIG DEAL ON THE SURFACE, BUT WHAT THAT HAS DONE IS IN VERY SPECIFIC AND VERY IMPORTANT POSITIONS.
WE WERE NOT BEING COMPETITIVE AND WE'RE STILL NOT COMPETITIVE IN A NUMBER OF OUR DEPARTMENTS. SO WHAT THAT HAS LED US TO IS A SITUATION WHERE IT'S BEEN.
IT'S BEEN ACTUALLY VERY HARD TO FILL CERTAIN POSITIONS BECAUSE WE PAY SO, SO MUCH LOWER THAN OUR COMPETITORS.
THE CHALLENGE, THOUGH, IS TO FULLY COMMIT TO WE'RE DOING A PAY PLAN STUDY FOR THE WHOLE
[01:35:02]
CITY TO FULLY COMMIT TO CHANGES THAT MAKE OUR WAGES MORE COMPETITIVE WITH OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES, ET CETERA.TO FULLY COMMIT TO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY CHALLENGING WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
NUMBERS THAT SHOW ME IN A COUPLE OF YEARS.
THE ONLY WAY TO MAINTAIN CURRENT OPERATIONS IS TO DIP INTO FUND BALANCE, WHICH I CAN'T DO TO MAINTAIN CURRENT OPERATIONS, SO I WOULD BE AT AN IMPASSE.
SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS, AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT TOO, ABOUT THE THE FEDERAL ARPA FUNDING THAT'S COME THROUGH.
THAT IS CORRECT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STRINGS ATTACHED.
SO WHICH YOU CAN DO WITH THAT.
SO WE KIND OF WORKED THROUGH THAT.
AND REALLY, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE MOST THAT WE CAN GET OUT OF IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE MEETING SOME MORE CAPITAL NEEDS, DEPENDING ON WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO.
SO THAT'S A ONE TIME THING, AND IT'S GREAT AND IT'S HELPFUL.
AND I WAS SO PLEASED WE WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY INVEST IN OUR CAPITAL THIS PAST YEAR AND PUT OVER FOUR MILLION DOLLARS INTO IT TO START MEETING SOME OF THOSE OUTSTANDING NEEDS.
BUT THE CHALLENGE REMAINS THAT BEING ABLE TO FUND THAT PROPERLY IN THE FUTURE RIGHT NOW IS NOT A VERY CLEAR, SUSTAINABLE PATH WHEN I'M ALSO FACED WITH THE FACT THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WE JUST TORE DOWN THE OLD FIRE STATION ON PALM BAY ROAD.
MOST PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THAT.
OUR INTENTION IS TO BUILD WHAT WILL BE NEW FIRE STATION NUMBER SEVEN.
UM. ON THE SURFACE, ALTHOUGH I'M WAITING FOR LIKE MORE SOLID PROJECTIONS, THE COSTS OF THAT IS PROBABLY SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF FOUR MILLION ISH, DEPENDING ON A LOT OF FACTORS. IT COULD BE MORE THAN THAT.
I KNOW THINGS KEEP COSTING MORE THAN WE EXPECTED NOWADAYS.
THAT'S JUST A COST FOR THE BUILDING.
I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES WHICH NORMALLY EXCUSE ME, A FIRE IMPACT FEES, WHICH WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD NORMALLY USE TO PAY FOR A BUILDING IF I HAD ENOUGH. I DON'T HAVE MUCH OF THAT, IN PART BECAUSE OUR IMPACT FEES WERE VERY LOW FOR A WHILE AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT MUCH DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT PAYS INTO FIRE IMPACT FEES.
SORRY TO GO A LITTLE INTO THE WEEDS, SO TO BUILD A FIRE STATION THAT WE NEED TO SERVICE THAT SECTION OF THE CITY, I WOULD HAVE TO USE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS.
THAT'S THAT'S A DIFFICULT THING TO GET TO.
AND I HAVE TO ADD TO THAT THE VIEWPOINT OF NOT ONLY DO I HAVE TO BUILD THE STATION, BUT I HAVE TO BUY A VERY EXPENSIVE FIRE APPARATUS TO BE IN THAT STATION, SO YOU HAVE TO BUY A FIRE ENGINE FIRE TRUCK.
AND I HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO FUNDING THE STAFFING.
SO WE'VE WE'VE CALCULATED THE STAFFING.
IT'S WELL OVER A MILLION DOLLARS TO STAFF A NEW FIRE STATION.
SO THAT'S ADDITIONAL NEW COSTS WE HAVE TO BEAR EVERY SINGLE YEAR GOING FORWARD.
AND THEN THERE'S MULTIPLIERS ON THAT.
SO, YOU KNOW, I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT, BUT I GUESS WHEN I LOOK AT SOME OF JUST THE BIG THINGS THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO DO FOR THE FUTURE, THAT'S WHERE I'M I'M TROUBLED BY THE MATH AND MAKING THAT WORK.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
OK. THANK YOU FOR ELABORATING ON THAT, BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO TOUCH ON THAT BECAUSE I SIT ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD AND SEEING THE FIRE STATION FIRE DEPARTMENT COMING TO BEG FOR MONEY TO HIT THE FIRE STATION TO ACTUALLY GET FIRE TRUCKS.
WE ARE IN CRITICAL NEED RIGHT NOW, SO WE CAN'T WAIT FOR THE FUTURE TO BUILD IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE TO BUILD BEFORE ANTICIPATING THE GROWTH OF THE CITY.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE FUNDING FOR OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THESE ARE THOSE CAPITAL NEEDS THAT WE HAVE.
SO WHEREAS IT'S NICE TO HAVE THAT CAP, BUT REALLY IT'S REALLY A HANDCUFF AND IT DOESN'T ALLOW US TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE EVERY TIME WE HAVE TO BE LOOKING INTO IT OR FUNDS TO TO GET MONEY, THEN WE'RE NOT REALLY PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE.
AND WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL WE NEED TO DO IT, THEN OH, LET'S BUST THE CAP AND IT'S A SURPRISING OUR CITIZENS.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PLANNING AND SO I COULD NOT SUPPORT HAVING THE CAP OR THE RESTRICTION HERE.
I THINK WE HAVE TO BE PRACTICAL, WE HAVE TO BE REALISTIC AND THE PEOPLE THAT WE PUT ON THE DAIS ARE GOING TO MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT IS GOING TO HELP OUR CITIZENS HELP OUR CITY. AND SO I AM DEFINITELY LOOKING TO TO REMOVE THAT LANGUAGE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GROW SUSTAINABLY, PROPERLY AND RESPONSIBLY DOING IT MINIMALLY, JUST BARELY GETTING OVER THE THAT'S NOT RESPONSIBLE.
[01:40:02]
AND MY EXPERIENCE BEING ON THAT WAS.THAT WE HEARD APPEALS AND BUDGET REQUESTS FROM ALL DEPARTMENTS, THAT WAS THE HEART OF WHAT WE WERE CHARGED WITH.
TO HEAR THAT AND TO ADVISE COUNSEL HOW TO MEET THESE NEEDS.
AND. WITH THE CAP, IT WAS ALSO CLEAR TO ME THAT THE BEST WE COULD DO WOULD BE TO MAINTAIN.
BUDGETS AND EXPENSES THAT WERE ALREADY IN PLACE, BUDGETS AND EXPENSES THAT ALREADY WERE NOT ENOUGH.
SO WE WERE IT WAS VERY FRUSTRATING AND.
WE ALL WE WERE ASKED IN THE BEGINNING, AND I WISH AARON PARR, WHO IS A MEMBER OF THIS, HE WAS OUR CHAIR AND HE CAN ELOQUENTLY SAY HE'S A VERY GOOD SPEAKER, AS MR. OLSZEWSKI IS AS WELL.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT THAT WHEN WE WERE ASKED TO PRIORITIZE THE DEPARTMENTS THAT WE FELT.
EVERYBODY HAD A NEED, BUT WE HAD TO CHOOSE.
AND EVERYBODY SELECTED TO BEGIN WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIRE SAFETY FIRE DEPARTMENTS. AND THOSE NEEDS, LIKE YOU SAY, FOR CARS AND PERSONNEL, AND IT JUST THE MONEY WAS NOT THERE.
THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR BOARD TO CITY COUNCIL, WE WERE ASKED TO, ERIN CARR WAS ASKED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
AND AS MR. OLSZEWSKI HAS SAID THAT IN TIMES OF CRITICAL NEED, THAT THERE IS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AND TO NOT ACCEPT THE THREE PERCENT CAP.
AND IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE ADVISORY BOARD ABOUT KOFOD.
THAT WAS A CRITICAL NEED, IT SEEMED.
I AGREED WITH IT THAT YES, THAT WAS A CRITICAL NEED AND IMPACTED ALL OF US, THE CITY AS WELL. BUT EVEN WITH THAT.
IT WAS NOT OUR OUR OUR GROUP WAS AN ADVISORY, SO THAT WAS AN ISSUE RAISED.
ALSO, WHEN ERIN PARR WENT TO THE COUNCIL, IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR, I BELIEVE, THE.
I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL THE REASONS, BUT THE OVERALL RECOMMENDATION.
I'M SORRY YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP, BUT OH, I DIDN'T KNOW I HAD THREE MINUTES.
YES, PUBLIC COMMENTS AFTER YOU.
WELL, I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY FIGURE OUT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
THE TIMER AWAY IN THE WORLD IS IN TROUBLE.
GILBERT IN FIVE EIGHTY SIX OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST, WHEN LISTENING TO THE SAND TECH PRESENTATION, I NOTICED THAT FOR SEVEN YEARS IN A ROW, WE'VE EXCEEDED INCOME OVER THE CAP OVER OUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT WAS SEVEN YEARS OF PRODUCTION ALREADY WITHIN THE CITY THAT IT'S WORKING RIGHT? THE NEXT THING I NOTICED DURING THAT PRESENTATION, OPERATION GROWTH RATE FOR THE OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT GREW AT TWO POINT SIX PERCENT.
CURRENT INFLATION THAT THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE CITY, BUT THE INFLATION RATE FOR THE RESIDENTS. INFLATION RATES ARE LIKE AROUND SEVEN POINT FIVE PERCENT RIGHT NOW.
SO IT'S GREAT THAT THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, WE NEED A MECHANISM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET MORE MONEY TO THE CITY.
WELL, WHO'S GIVEN THAT MONEY TO THE CITY? THEY'RE LOOKING AT MECHANISMS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET THE MONEY.
BUT WHERE IS THAT MONEY COMING FROM, FROM THE RESIDENTS HERE? AND THAT'S WHAT IS BEING TAXED OUT OFFSHORE AD VALOREM TAX, WHICH IS BASED ON YOUR TAX, A PROPERTY OF YOUR VALUE OF YOUR HOME.
THAT'S WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LOWER THE VALUE OF YOUR HOUSE, SO YOU PAY THE SAME AMOUNT TO KEEP YOUR BUDGET THE SAME COMING IN HERE, EVERYONE.
WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE VALUES OF YOUR HOME? THEY'RE GOING UP EVERY YEAR.
SO THE THREE PERCENT I'M PERSONALLY, I'M NOT A FAN OF THE THREE PERCENT CAP, BUT I ALSO SEE THE POSITIVE SIDE OF IT.
AND THAT POSITIVE SIDE OF IT WAS IT PROTECTS THE RESIDENTS FROM OVERTAXATION IN LARGE QUANTITIES. WE'RE CURRENTLY HAVE, BY MY STANDARD, A VERY FAIR MILLAGE RATE.
[01:45:07]
BUT I'VE ALSO SEEN THE MILLAGE RATE OF PALM BAY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT NINE POINT FIVE PERCENT MILLAGE RATE NOW DURING THE SAME, OK, WE GOT USED TO OPERATING ON THIS AT THE HIGHEST MILLAGE RATE WE CAN CARRY.WELL, NOW WHAT HAPPENS IS WE RUN OUT OF THE MILLAGE CEILING AND WE STILL DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO OPERATE THE CITY IN.
AND THAT'S THAT'S THE BIGGEST FEAR THAT I'VE SEEN, AND I EVEN WATCH THE MAYOR.
HE WAS FACING THAT WHEN IT WAS AT THAT TIME FRAME WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE TO.
WE HAD TO DO CUTBACKS ON PERSONNEL, BUT.
THE BIG THING, THE THREE PERCENT CAP IS THIS TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS, YOU HAVE A MECHANISM CURRENTLY IN YOUR CHARTER THAT DOES GIVE THE ABILITY TO BREAK THE CAP, AS WE'RE CALLING IT, IT'S THERE.
THIS KEEPS THE CITY BEING RESPONSIBLE.
AND MAKES IT HARDER ON THE MANAGER, BUT IT DOES KEEP THE CITY RESPONSIBLE.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, YOU'RE REVERTING RIGHT BACK TO WHAT THE WAY THE CITY CHARTER WAS PER SAY.
ALL SECTIONS, SIX POINT ZERO ONE TAXES.
ALL IT SAID IN THE PREVIOUS CHARTER WAS THE COUNCIL SHALL HAVE FULL POWER AND AUTHORIZED TO LEVY TAXES AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
SO ALL THEY'VE DONE IS TAKEN AWAY WHAT WAS PROTECTING THE RESIDENTS AND GIVEN FULL POWER BACK TO YOUR GOVERNMENT.
THAT'S ALL THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF YOU PUT THIS IN THE CHARTER NOW.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE, MA'AM? RECALL FOR $935 STREET SOUTHEAST NOT TO BE ACCUSING OF ANYBODY, BUT THERE'S A SAYING THAT I USED TO HAVE IN MY OFFICE WHEN I BEFORE I RETIRED AND BASICALLY SAID BAD PLANNING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN EMERGENCY.
SO WHEN WE LOOK AT A BUDGET AND WE DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW IT, WE JUST SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY BASICALLY.
AND UNLESS WE HAVE SOME SORT OF LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION THAT LIMITS A RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT WITH THE MONEY, THEN THIS LANGUAGE IS TOO VAGUE.
WE NEED SOME SORT OF LIMIT IN HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T RUN AWAY WITH THE MONEY AND JUST DO WHATEVER.
SO IN 1999, THE AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION TO CONSISTENTLY AND CONSTANTLY OPERATE UNDER A BALANCED BUDGET WAS VOTED DOWN JUST BY ONE VOTE.
AND WE HAVE NOW AN AWESOME DEBT IN THE TRILLIONS ON A FEDERAL LEVEL.
THE PRESENTATION THAT I JUST SAW SHOWED AN INCOME AT TWO PERCENT GROWTH TWO POINT SIX, BUT AN EXPENSE AT TWO POINT NINE.
SO WHAT IS THE PLAN TO BALANCE THOSE NUMBERS AND OPERATE PROPERLY IN A BALANCED SITUATION? WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT ZERO POINT THREE PERCENT THAT WE ARE EXCEEDING THE EXPENSES ALREADY JUST BY THAT PRESENTATION? SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT COUNCILMAN OR COMMISSIONER MOORE TO MODIFY THE LANGUAGE TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY CANNOT OPERATE IN A DEFICIT OR IN A, YOU KNOW, RUNNING AWAY WITH THE MONEY AND A NEGATIVE SORT OF WAY.
CANNOT IN THIS CITY BE OPERATING IN A, YOU KNOW, IN A NEGATIVE FASHION? WE MUST OPERATE IN A BALANCED BUDGET.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK? AT THIS POINT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN, IT'S TIME WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
I'M GOING TO CALL IT ALL IN FAVOR FOR THE CHANGE OF THE LANGUAGE THAT COMMISSIONER MOORE PUT FORTH. SAY I WILL OPPOSE OLSZEWSKI BAY.
OK. SPECIAL SECTION TWO, SIX POINT ZERO TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THIS, TOO.
I WANT TO GIVE A LITTLE A LITTLE BIT OF A GO BACK AND GIVE A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON BACK TO 2016.
IF YOU LOOK AT THESE THESE MINUTES, IT SHOWS THE CHARTER LANGUAGE PRIOR TO 2016, WHICH IS
[01:50:04]
EXACTLY WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS RIGHT ABOVE IT.IN ACTUALITY, IN 2016, THE VOTERS VOTED TO CHANGE THAT.
THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO SAY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO IMPOSE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER EMERGENCIES.
AND THEN BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY FOR THE CITY MAY LEVY ANY SPECIALISTS OTHER THAN ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER EMERGENCIES INVOLVING MORE THAN 50 PROPERTY OWNERS ARE INVOLVED IN A PROJECT EXPENDITURE OR GREATER THAN $25000.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MUST FIRST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS TO RETURN OF BALLOT, SO THE CHANGE WAS TO ALLOW THE CITY COUNCIL TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER ORDINANCES.
NOW, IN 2016, WHEN WHEN THE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION PROPOSED THAT AND THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IT, PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND THE CITIZENS VOTED FOR THAT.
THE PURPOSE OF IT WAS WAS TWOFOLD, REALLY.
NUMBER ONE IS THE THE STORMWATER FEE.
A STORM WATER IS UP UNTIL THAT 2016 LAW CHARTER AMENDMENT WAS PASSED WAS ON YOUR TAX BILL ANOTHER ONE, YOUR TAX BILL RATHER, BUT ON YOUR UTILITY BILL AND OWNERS OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS WHO PAY NO UTILITIES, THEY HAVE NO CITY WATER, THEY HAVE NO SEWER, THEY HAVE NO TRASH COLLECTION, SIMPLY DIDN'T PAY IT.
AND THERE WAS THERE WAS NO WAY TO ENFORCE PAYMENT OF THE STORMWATER FEE ON THOSE THOSE PROPERTIES. SO BYE BYE, BY CHANGING THIS THIS CITY CHARTER, IT ALLOWED THE STORMWATER FEE TO BE PUT ON THE TAX BILL.
THEY HAD NO CHOICE. THEY PAID THEIR TAXES.
THEY HAD TO PAY THE STORMWATER FEE.
ALSO, THE CITY STRUGGLED FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM WITH OUR ROADS. OUR ROADS ARE IN HORRIBLE CONDITION, MANY OF THEM STILL ARE, BUT THEY'RE GETTING IT FIXED.
SO THE WE PROPOSED THAT SHORT AMENDMENT TO TO ALLOW A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO BE APPLIED TO ADDRESS OUR ROAD PROBLEM, TO FIX OUR ROADS.
INITIALLY, THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT WAS GOING TO BE APPLIED TO UNITS 31 AND 32 AND THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, THE AMOUNT OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THOSE UNITS WAS GOING TO BE $321 A YEAR FOR 15 YEARS, OR IT COULD BE PAID OFF IN A LUMP SUM.
AND IN OTHER OTHER UNITS WHERE THE ROADS WERE IN BETTER SHAPE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT MANY PROBLEMS. THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THAT AREA WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH LESS NOW UNDER THE WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT AND I DID A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS BEFORE THIS CHANGE WAS MADE AT THE TIME IN 2016, AND I FOUND ONLY FOUR OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN THE ENTIRE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT HAD A RESTRICTION ON THE CITY IMPOSING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BECAUSE IT JUST SIMPLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO TO RESTRICT THE CITY FROM DOING THAT.
WHY IT WAS IN THE CITY CHARTER IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BEYOND ME, BUT I SAID I FOUND ONLY FOUR OF THE MUNICIPALITIES WHO HAD THAT RESTRICTION, AND THAT WAS THE PROBLEM IN ADDRESSING OUR ROADS FOR, YOU KNOW, WE WERE TRYING TO FIND WAYS OF FUNDING TO FIX OUR ROADS FOR 30 YEARS.
WE SIMPLY COULDN'T COME UP WITH IT.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT.
SO WE DECIDED WE CHANGED THE CITY.
CHARTER PEOPLE VOTED TO APPROVE IT.
WE WERE GOING TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, STARTING WITH UNITS 31 AND 32.
BUT A CITY COUNCIL, I THINK KOWTOW BASICALLY TO A VOCAL MINORITY AND DIDN'T APPROVE THE SPECIAL SYSTEM FOR UNITS 31 AND 32.
SUBSEQUENTLY, A GROUP OF CITIZENS STARTED A PETITION DRIVE TO OVERTURN THAT PART OF THE CITY CHARTER AND TO RETURN THE CITY OF CHARTERS TO WHAT IT WAS PRIOR TO THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS NOT DONE LEGALLY, AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THIS.
ANY TIME YOU HAVE A PETITION DRIVE LIKE THAT, YOU GET FORMS FROM THE CITY.
AND YOU GO OUT, YOU GET YOUR SIGNATURES AND THEN YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT THOSE FORMS TO THE SUPERVISOR OR ELECTION WHO THEN REVIEWS THEM, MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE SIGNATURES ARE LEGALLY REGISTERED VOTERS.
AND THAT 10 PERCENT OF OF, YOU KNOW, THEY HAD A MINIMUM OF 10 PERCENT OF THE ELECTORS IN THE CITY IN ORDER TO TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE THE FORM, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT WAS APPLIED BY SAID.
I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT IT DIDN'T MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS FRANKLY SAID, NOW THIS ISN'T THIS AREN'T LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE FORMS. I AM NOT GOING TO VERIFY THE SIGNATURES.
SO WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THOSE SIGNATURES WERE
[01:55:02]
VALID OR WHETHER THERE WERE ENOUGH OF THEM.OK, I UNDERSTAND AND THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ORGANIZED THIS PETITION DRIVE EVEN KNEW THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH LEGAL SIGNATURES, NUMBER ONE. AND AND SO IT WENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND RATHER THAN THAN FIGHTING IT RATHER THAN LITIGATING IT. CITY COUNCIL SIMPLY SAID, WELL, OK, WE'LL GO BACK TO WHAT THE CITY CHARTER WAS BEFORE. AND, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THE ABROGATED THE VOTE OF THE CITIZENS WHO VOTED TO APPROVE THIS BY DOING THAT.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED THEN WAS WE WEREN'T GOING TO ADDRESS THE ROADS.
SUBSEQUENTLY, THE THIS GO, THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND $150 MILLION WAS WAS WAS BROUGHT UP. IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AND INCREDIBLY, THE VOTERS ACTUALLY APPROVED A $150 MILLION BOND. SO WHAT YOU'RE PAYING WITH THAT $150 MILLION BOND IS TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SEVEN DOLLARS A YEAR PER $100000 OF TAXABLE VALUE.
THE RESULT OF THAT IS MANY, MANY, MANY PEOPLE ARE PAYING MUCH MORE UNDER THIS ROAD BOND THAN THEY WOULD HAVE UNDER THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
THAT'S SIMPLY THE RESULT OF IT, ESPECIALLY ANYONE WHO'S BOUGHT A HOUSE IN PALM BAY BECAUSE OF THE INFLATION OF REAL ESTATE VALUES.
ANYONE WHO'S BOUGHT A HOUSE IN PALM BAY OVER THE LAST FIVE OR SIX YEARS IS REALLY, REALLY GETTING IT STUCK TO HIM. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE RESULT OF IT NOW ON THE YOU KNOW, ON THE OTHER HAND, PERSONALLY, I WOULD BE REALLY HAPPY THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY FINALLY GETTING OUR ROADS FIXED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, HOW IT CAME ABOUT IN THE WAY IT'S BEING DONE.
I WASN'T HAPPY WITH BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY AS A RESULT OF OF THE BOND VERSUS THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
SO THAT'S THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED AGAIN WITH WITH THAT PETITION, I HAPPEN TO KNOW AGAIN BECAUSE I WAS APPROACHED TO SIGN A PETITION THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE MISLED IN THIS PETITION DRIVE, BUT ENOUGH ENOUGH SAID ABOUT THAT.
WHAT WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR WHAT CHALLENGES DO YOU? WELL, THAT WAS AGAIN, JUST THE HISTORY.
AGAIN, MY PROPOSAL AND MY MOTION IS TO RETURN THE CITY CHARTER TO WHAT WE APPROVED IN 2016. THIS BASICALLY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO IMPOSE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER ORDINANCES.
AND BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY FOR THE CITY OF BEIT LEVY, ANY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OTHER THAN FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER IMPERTINENCE IS INVOLVING MORE THAN 50 PROPERTY OWNERS OR INVOLVED INVOLVING A PROJECT EXPENDITURE OF GREATER THAN $25000.
THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT MUST FIRST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS WHO RETURN A BALLOT.
HOW DO YOU FEEL? I HAVE A MOTION TO I HAVE A SECOND.
I'M JUST A BIT CONFUSED BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THIS WRITTEN.
OK. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO RESTATE, BUT I WON'T DO THAT NOW.
OH, WELL, MR OLSAVSKY ASKED ME TO RESTATE THE MOTION, AND I'LL RESTATE IT A LITTLE SLOWER.
THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO IMPOSE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER APPEARANCES BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY FOR THE CITY MAY LEVY ANY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OTHER THAN FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER PERTINENT SOURCES INVOLVING MORE THAN 50 PROPERTY OWNERS OR INVOLVING A PROJECT EXPENDITURE OF GREATER THAN $25000. THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT MUST FIRST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS WHO RETURN A BALLOT.
LET ME JUST CLARIFY THE ONE THING OBVIOUSLY, THE SPECIAL SYSTEM FOR ROADS IS IS IS OBVIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE STORMWATER, FOR INSTANCE, REPAIRS AND OTHER PERTINENCE, AS THE OTHER PERTINENCE COULD MAYBE SIDEWALKS TO THAT TYPE OF THINGS.
SO ANY SPECIAL SYSTEM FOR ANY OTHER REASON, IT WOULD REQUIRE AN APPROVAL BY BI IF IT AFFECTS MORE THAN 50 OWNERS OR TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE BOTH PEOPLE. HAVE A SECOND.
ONE MOMENT, MAN, I I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN WRITING.
SOMETIMES I EVALUATE SOMETHING BETTER WHEN I HEAR IT AND THEN I REVIEW IT.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GET THAT INFORMATION AND WE TABLED VOTING ON THE MOTION UNTIL
[02:00:01]
WE GET THE WRITTEN LANGUAGE.KATE, CAN YOU PULL YOUR SECOND? OK. OK, THAT'S FINE, I'LL GO FIRST, AND WE'LL WE'LL WE'LL TABLE THAT UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK.
WE'LL PROVIDE EVERYONE A COPY OF THE WORDING AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT THERE.
OK, SO ALL IN FAVOR AT THE TABLE, SAY I, I, I.
THAT BILL. WELL, THERE'S NOTHING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT VOTING ON IT.
RIGHT TO COME UP. BILL BURTON, FIVE EIGHTY SIX, OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST.
I SAT ON THE CHARTER WHERE THIS WAS PRESENTED, AND I FOUGHT AS HARD AS YOU DID TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DID NOT GET IMPOSED UPON THE RESIDENTS OF PALM BAY.
AND I WAS OUTVOTED AND IT DID MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO WHERE THE CITIZENS DID VOTE IT IN.
HERE'S WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
THE CITIZENS DIDN'T REALIZE WHAT THE IMPACT WAS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT WAS GOING TO BE.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS A YEAR.
I KNOW BILL BATTENS PAYMENT WAS.
HE WAS LOOKING AT $70000 TOTAL.
THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY THAT WAS MORE THAN I BUILT MY HOUSE FOR.
ALL IT IS IS A SIMPLE STATEMENT THAT SOUNDS GOOD AND IT'S GOING TO HELP THE GOVERNMENT.
BUT WHERE DOES THAT GOVERNMENT FUNDS COME FROM, THE BACK POCKET OF THE TAXPAYERS? THAT'S WHERE IT COMES FROM.
THAT BEING SAID, AND I FOUGHT HARD AGAINST IT AND I LOST, BUT THAT'S THAT'S OK.
WITH THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, BECAUSE I WON'T YOU WON'T HAVE MINE IN YOUR PACKET BECAUSE I'M A CITIZEN INSTEAD OF A CHARTER MEMBER HERE.
I WOULD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION SOMEHOW THAT IT SHOWS UP THAT THE PERSON BEING ASSESSED IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE LIMIT THEIR PERSONAL MILLAGE RATE OF 10.
THAT WAY, THEY CAN CALCULATE THEIR TAXES.
THEY CAN CALCULATE CALCULATE THEIR GROWTH RATE.
THEY KNOW THAT THEIR MAXIMUM TAX RATE AND THEIR OF THEIR PROPERTY VALUE IS NEVER GOING TO EXCEED THE MILLAGE RATE OF 10.
THAT GIVES THEM A BACKGROUND AND A BACKING THAT DOES PROTECT YOU AS A RESIDENT.
UH, RUTH CRAWFORD, $935 STREET SOUTHEAST, SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO THE AGENDA, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT EVEN ON HERE, NOT EVEN ON THIS AGENDA FOR TODAY AT ALL.
SO THAT WAY, NONE OF US HAS ANY, ANY INKLING THAT IT EXISTED AS BEING PART OF THIS.
SO THE PUBLISHED AGENDA THAT'S OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
RIGHT. BUT WHERE'S THE REST OF IT? BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE REST OF IT UP THERE.
SO LIKE I SAID, I COULDN'T DOWNLOAD THIS TODAY, THE WHOLE THING AT ALL BEFORE COMING OVER HERE. SO THE ONLY THING I HAVE IS WHAT'S OVER THERE.
SO NOTHING ELSE WAS GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC.
SO JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT NONE OF US HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT ANYTHING.
TALK ABOUT ANYTHING OR SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
I SAT OVER THERE GOING, WHERE WHERE IS THAT? I HAVE NO NONE OF THAT.
THAT'S THE REASON IT WAS TABLED.
WELL, THE REASON IT WAS TABLE IS BECAUSE IT WASN'T WRITTEN, WRITTEN, BUT I'M SAYING IT WASN'T EVEN ON THE AGENDA FOR US TO LOOK AT BECAUSE WE COULDN'T DOWNLOAD IT.
UNDER THE AGENDA, IT'S REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CITY CHARTER ARTICLE SIX.
THAT'S WHAT THIS CITY CHARTER ARTICLE.
THE AGENDA WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC TODAY.
THAT WHOLE AREA, JUST BECAUSE IT'S SET A COUPLE OF TIMES BECAUSE I.
I THOUGHT IT WAS READILY AVAILABLE, I WAS ABLE TO PULL IT FROM THE WEBSITE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS MAYBE SOME TYPE OF DOCUMENTATION OR INSTRUCTIONS OF HOW THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GIVE TO INDIVIDUALS.
BECAUSE I WAS ABLE TO READILY PULL IT, I WAS ABLE TO SEND IT TO PEOPLE WHO WERE READILY ABLE TO PULL IT, BUT I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE THE CAUSE OF CONFUSION.
BUT I WAS ALSO ABLE TO PULL IT UP TODAY.
[02:05:01]
I WAS ON AND PULLED IT UP.SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A VENDOR ISSUE, IF THERE IS SOME KIND OF ISSUE GOING ON WITH COMPUTERS AND PUT IT ON FRIDAY.
SO THAT'S WHY I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT EARLIER TODAY, BUT I KNOW LIKE I JUMPED ON NOW AND I'M SEEING AN ERROR CODE, SO THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE GOING ON WITH THE VENDOR WE HAVE. OK, I'M JUST CURIOUS TO SEE THE LIVE STREAM, SO THAT IS WORKING.
BUT THE AGENDA ITSELF, I'M NOT ABLE TO SEE, BUT I DID.
I WAS ABLE TO SEE IT THIS AFTERNOON.
SO I KNOW THERE'S PROBABLY SOMETHING GOING ON WITH THE VENDOR THAT I WILL GET WITH THE CITY CLERK AND HAVE HER CONTACT THEM.
OK, THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO ADD TEXTURE TO THIS.
I'M GOING TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO YOU, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER AND JUST LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS AGENDA WAS ACTUALLY SHARED WITH THIS COMMISSION VIA THE LINK THAT IT'S HOUSED ON THE CITY WEBSITE.
I SERVE ON OTHER BOARDS AND I USUALLY GET IT A PDF, FILE, WHATEVER.
THE ONLY WAY WE GOT OUR HANDS ON THIS TODAY, BESIDES THESE PRINTED COPIES IN IN AHEAD OF THE MEETING, WAS ON THE WEBSITE WHERE IT WAS POSTED TO MISS LOEFFLER'S POINT.
I GUESS THE VENDOR IS IS MESSED UP.
THAT HAPPENED TO ME A LOT AHEAD OF COUNCIL ITEMS. YOU KNOW, I WANT TO SEE IT RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING AND IT SEEMS TO BE DOWN, WHAT HAVE YOU? BUT THIS ONE DOES GET POSTED WELL IN ADVANCE OF OUR MEETING.
I THINK WE WERE NOTIFIED OF IT EARLY LAST WEEK.
SO IT DOES GET POST. I JUST WANT TO MENTION TO YOU AND IN THE FUTURE, IF WE CAN HELP YOU GET IT, I CERTAINLY HOPE WE CAN BECAUSE I WANT YOU AND ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO SEE IT, TO SEE IT WHEN IT'S THERE AND IT IS ON THE WEBSITE.
ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN'T DO THAT WHEN YOU ENGAGE JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
OK. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO SECTION SIX.
IT'S THE CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, THE CITY CLERK STATED THAT THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THE VENDOR AND THE WEBSITE, AND AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, SHE SAID THOSE ISSUES HAD BEEN RESOLVED.
SO AS FAR AS WE KNOW AND I HAVE DOWNLOADED IT FROM THE SITE AS WELL.
SECTION SIX POINT THREE LICENSING FEES.
IS THERE ANYTHING ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD THERE? NO, NO. OK.
MOVING TO ARTICLE SEVEN, CITY BORROWING, SECTION SEVEN POINT ZERO ONE AUTHORITY TO BORROW ANYTHING TO ADD THERE.
SECTION SEVEN POINT ZERO TWO BOND ISSUES.
AND SECTION SEVEN POINT ZERO THREE SINKING FUNDS.
NO, NOT WE'VE COME TO THE END.
JUST COMING FROM. I'LL SPEAK MICROPHONE.
I'M SORRY. AND I'M SPEAKING TO THE CITY MANAGER, DOES THE THREE PERCENT.
CARP HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR SINKING FUND.
UM, SO A SINKING FUND IS, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED TO DEDICATE FUNDING TO PAY OFF DEBT FOR ANYONE WHO MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR AND.
CERTAINLY HAVING A THREE PERCENT CAP KEEPS US VERY MINDFUL OF THE IDEA OF TAKING ON ANY ADDITIONAL DEBT BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE FUNDING TO PAY FOR IT.
SO I GUESS MY MY ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY IS SOMETHING WE WOULD CONSIDER IF WE GOT INTO A POSITION WHERE WE WERE.
WE NEEDED FUNDING AND THE ONLY WAY TO FUND SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT FOR THE CITY WAS TO TAKE ON DEBT. THAT COULD VERY WELL BE A SITUATION GIVEN CURRENT CHARTER LANGUAGE WHERE WE MAY HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL AND ASK FOR A DECLARATION OF A CRITICAL NEED.
BUT THAT'S, I THINK, A LITTLE BIT MORE INVOLVED TYPE PROCESS.
SO CERTAINLY IT DOES HAVE AN EFFECT ON HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL DEBT WE CONSIDER TAKING ON TO FUND NEEDS OF THE CITY.
WITH THAT, I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSION TODAY FOR ALL YOUR INPUT.
THAT'S MEETING. THAT IF GOING ACCORDING TO SCHEDULE EVERY TWO WEEKS, IT WILL BE TUESDAY, MARCH EIGHT AT SIX P.M.
OH. AND WHAT SECTIONS, WHAT SECTIONS YOU SUGGEST? YES, THERE WILL BE.
OH, YOU'RE SKIPPING THE EIGHTH. SEVEN.
[02:10:03]
ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S GO. HOLD ON, I'M.WHEN IS THE NEXT MEETING ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO COVER? OK, SO THE THIRD, THE THIRD AND THE FIFTH.
SO THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE MARCH INTO TUESDAY, MARCH 15TH, AND IT WILL BE SIX P.M..
AND WHAT WILL WE COVER? NOT THAT INFORMATION HASN'T BEEN HANDED TO HER, SO WE WILL GET IN AND THANK YOU.
OK. WITH THAT MEETING ADJOURNED.
SO THE AUDIENCE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.