[00:00:02]
ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
THE MARCH 15, 2022 MEETING OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION IS CALLED TO ORDER.
[CALL TO ORDER]
EVERYONE, PLEASE RISE AND FACE THE FLAG.AND KEN WILL LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
OKAY. CHRIS, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? CAPOTE. VICE CHAIR.
WEINBERG. YOU'RE MR. DELGADO. MR. MYERS. YOU'RE MR. MCCLEOD. MR. MOORE. MR. JONES. MR. CHANDLER. MR. OLSZEWSKI. MISS MARAJ.
FIRST WAS PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR NON AGENDA ITEMS.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
RIGHT THERE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A POINT OF ORDER ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE UNDER UNFINISHED OLD BUSINESS HOUR.EXCUSE ME. AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER ONE, ARTICLE THREE UNDER COMPENSATION AS OF 230, THE AGENDA THAT WAS ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE STILL SAID INFORMATION TO FOLLOW SO IT WASN'T PROPERLY ADVERTISED.
THERESA. DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? PATRICIA. YES, IT WAS.
IT WOULD NOT POSTED ON THE WEBSITE.
INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AS PROVIDED OVER THERE WITH THE AGENDAS AS WELL OVER ON THE WALL. THANK YOU, TERESA.
OKAY. FIRST ITEM IS THE ADOPTION OF MINUTES FROM OUR FEBRUARY 22ND MEETING.
[ADOPTION OF MINUTES]
DO I HAVE MOTION, PLEASE? SO MOVED MOST.MOTION CAN SECOND FROM DAVE ANY DISCUSSION.
WELL, IF WE WERE TO SAY I ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES.
[REPORTS]
NEXT UP IS REPORTS FROM THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THIS COMMISSION TO.THAT'S JUST A RECORD OF EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION TO DATE.
IS IT JUST JUST A QUESTION, IF I MAY.
I KNOW THAT ALL OF THIS GOES FROM HERE TO THE DIOCESE AND TO THE PEOPLE.
AND OUR OBJECT HERE IS OBVIOUSLY TO PASS.
SOME SORT OF CHANGE TO BENEFIT THE CITY.
I'M NOT WANTING TO CHANGE ANYTHING AT THIS POINT AS FAR AS WHAT'S BEEN ALREADY BEEN PASSED. BUT I HAVE A QUESTION.
I ASSUME THAT IF THE VOTERS SAY NO TO ANY ONE OF THE CHANGES, THEN IT JUST GOES BACK TO WHAT WAS. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? YES. OKAY.
SO IF IF THE ITEM LET ME JUST TAKE ONE ITEM.
IT'S APPLICABLE ON ALL OF THEM.
IF THE ITEM ON ELECTING OR APPOINTING AN EMPTY CHAIR.
IF IT DOESN'T PASS AND WE REALLY HAVEN'T RESOLVED ANYTHING.
WHAT IF WE GAVE THEM AN OPTION? IN OTHER WORDS, OPTION ONE.
BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T PASS AND WE'VE DONE NOTHING, WE'VE TALKED A LOT.
WE'VE WE'VE DISCUSSED IT EXTENSIVELY.
SO I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE WHAT ALREADY WAS THERE.
I'M JUST SAYING IF IT DOES NOT PASS, WOULDN'T IT BEHOOVES US TO HAVE A OR B SO THAT THE PEOPLE CAN SPEAK AS IN EITHER, YES, WE WANT TO SAVE THE MONEY AND THEREFORE LET SOMEONE APPOINT OR B, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE MONEY.
WE WANT TO VOTE AND LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK IN REFERENCE TO THAT SPECIFIC ITEM.
OKAY, PATRICIA, DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT? I'M NOT QUITE SURE I UNDERSTAND IF YOU'RE SAYING PUT TWO DIFFERENT BALLOT QUESTIONS OUT THERE. THAT WE COULD DO, BUT WE COULDN'T HAVE ONE, ESSENTIALLY.
ONE IS GOING TO BE THEIR RESPONSE IS THEY EITHER YES OR NO.
THEY'RE NOT. THERE CAN BE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT ITEMS WHERE THEY CAN CONSIDER, BUT THEY CAN'T. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE MULTIPLE CHOICES.
THEY'RE EITHER GOING TO VOTE IT UP OR VOTE IT DOWN.
I MEAN, YOU CAN HAVE ONE WHERE IT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU DO A YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT SAYS YOU DO B WITH THE.
HOPE THAT, OF COURSE, THAT BOTH OF THEM DON'T PASS OR TRY TO ESSENTIALLY FIGURE OUT HOW
[00:05:06]
TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TWO THINGS TO PASS THAT ARE COMPLETELY INCONSISTENT IF IF IT'S IN THE SAME BALLOT.FOR EXAMPLE, IF I MAY IF YOU IF YOU SAID IF YOU SAID THE MAJORITY, WHATEVER IS THE MAJORITY PASSES.
AND AGAIN, THE OR MAYBE I SHOULD ASK IT THIS WAY.
IS THERE A WAY TO CRAFT? A STATEMENT SO THAT WE DON'T GO BACK TO WHAT WAS AND HAVE A BIG BROUHAHA THAT WE JUST HAD. IS THERE A WAY TO CRAFT IT SO THAT.
EITHER. A IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE HAVE AN UP AND DOWN VOTE AND THEY SAY NO, THEN WHAT DID WE ACCOMPLISH? WE DIDN'T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING BECAUSE NOW WE'RE BACK TO WHAT WAS BEFORE.
AND THE REASON WHY WE HAD THE DISCUSSION NOW WAS BECAUSE PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE WHAT WAS BEFORE, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A CONSENSUS HERE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE THAT WAY, IS THERE A WAY TO CRAFT IT SO THAT SO THAT IF NOT A, THEN B? NO. THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
ITEM OF ALL BUSINESS, AND THAT IS ARTICLE THREE, SECTION 303 COMPENSATION.
[UNFINISHED AND OLD BUSINESS]
I THINK WE HAVE A PROPOSED LANGUAGE BY FILM.NOW THIS WAS, UM, INFORMATION THAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE CHARTER OFFICERS BY MR. CHANDLER. AND BASICALLY WHAT I PULLED FROM IT.
THERE ARE THREE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES BESIDES PALM BAY THAT ARE LISTED THERE, THAT LIST THE POPULATION, THE TAXES LEVIED FOR EACH AND THE MILITARY FOR EACH.
AND THEN BELOW THAT TABLE, I PUT THE CHARTER LANGUAGE OF EACH OF THOSE MUNICIPALITIES REGARDING THE COMPENSATION FOR THE COUNCIL AND WHAT THEIR SALARIES WERE AT THE TIME THAT THE SURVEY WAS DONE BY THE QUARTERLY CITIES, WHICH WAS IN 2020.
ANYONE WANT TO COMMENT ON THE ON THESE COMPARISONS COMPARED TO TO PALM BAY? I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE NOT STRONG MAYOR CITIES? THAT IS CORRECT. I THINK FROM OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION WHEN WE FIRST BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF EITHER INCREASING THE PER CAPITA IN THE CHARTER OR LOOKING AT COMPARABLE CITIES AND COMPARING THOSE, WE AGREE THAT WE WOULD NOT ENTERTAIN ANY MUNICIPALITIES WHO HAD A STRONG FORM, A STRONG MAYOR FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
ANYONE ELSE? ANY COMMENTS? I THINK ONE THING THAT THAT STANDS OUT TO ME I OFF THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THESE THESE THESE COMPARISONS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAYOR'S SALARY AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SALARY.
IT ISN'T QUITE AS STARK AS AS OURS CURRENTLY IS RIGHT NOW, WHICH WOULD BE TO ME WOULD KIND OF INDICATE THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE CURRENTLY BEING UNDERPAID.
AGAIN, AS FAR AS MAYOR GOES, YOU KNOW, MAYOR SALARY IS IS AGAIN LOWER THAN ANY OF THESE COMPARISONS, YOU KNOW.
BUT BUT THE CITY COUNCIL IS IS JUST A WAY, WAY UNDERPAID COMPARED TO SOME OF THESE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? KEN, I DO HAVE A THOUGHT.
AGAIN, I'M THINKING AGAIN IN CONTEXT OF.
VERSUS JUST MAKING A BLANKET STATEMENT.
THEY UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU PRESENT SOMETHING, YOU PRESENT SOMETHING NOT NOT JUST THAT WOULD VALIDATE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT EVEN THE COUNTERPARTS.
FOR AN EXAMPLE, I'M FROM TAMPA.
I HAVE A FRIEND IN CLEARWATER.
YOU KNOW, CLEARWATER IS NOT COMPARABLE WHATSOEVER.
THE PRICES OF HOMES THERE FAR EXCEEDS OURS.
AND TO TO TRY TO HAVE THAT AS A COMPARISON, I'M WONDERING, OR FORT MYERS, FOR THAT MATTER, WHY WHY THOSE ARE EVEN SELECTED AS AS A COMPARISON EITHER EITHER ARE.
THE PARAMETERS WE GAVE WERE JUST TOO BROAD AND NEEDED TO BE NARROWED MORE AND HAVE OTHER CITIES THAT COMPARABLE IN MORE THAN JUST A COUPLE OF INSTANCES.
I HEARD ONE PERSON SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S BETTER TO WALK.
LET ME LET ME SAY IT THIS WAY.
IF WE RUN TOO FAR AND WE SET THE BAR TOO HIGH AND THE PEOPLE SAY.
THEN WHAT HAVE WE DONE FOR OUR MAYOR? WHAT HAVE WE DONE FOR THE CITY? ARE WE THINKING BEYOND JUST.
WHAT WE MAY CONSIDER REASONABLE TO WHAT WILL ACTUALLY PASS.
[00:10:04]
THAT'S JUST A THOUGHT THAT I'M THROWING OUT THERE.JORDAN. AND ONCE AGAIN, I THINK THE INITIAL THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND THIS WAS NOT THAT WE WOULD SPECIFICALLY GO WITH THESE COMPARABLE NUMBERS, BUT IT WAS PROVIDED AS AN ADDITIONAL OPTION VERSUS THE PER CAPITA RATE.
SO. SO I JUST WANTED MR. MOORE TO GO AHEAD AND STATE BACK THE TURN ON YOUR MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
OH, IT'S ON. OH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? NO, I JUST WANTED MR. MOORE TO GO AHEAD AND STATE BACK THE SALARIES THAT HE'S PROPOSING AND JUST TO SEE HOW IT COMPARES.
MR. MACLEOD, YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? I AM. GOOD AFTERNOON.
THAT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON CONSENSUS.
AND ONCE WE'VE DONE THAT, PEOPLE ALWAYS COME BACK AND PRESS THEIR POINT OF VIEW.
THE ISSUE IS SETTLED AS REGARDS TO WHETHER THEY'RE UNDERPAID OR NOT.
THESE COMPARISONS ARE NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD.
WHAT THIS IS INDICATING IS THAT CITIES WITH APPROXIMATE SIZE AND GOVERNANCE AS BOMBAY PAID YOUR PEOPLE WAY MORE.
SO IF THE COLLECTIVE VIEW IS THAT THE COUNCIL OUGHT TO BE PAID MORE, WE SHOULD MOVE AHEAD AND SUPPORT IT AND PROVIDE THIS KIND OF DOCUMENTATION TO THE VOTERS.
SO TO SAY IF THE VOTERS DON'T AGREE, WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S A FALLACY BECAUSE IF THE VOTERS DISAGREE.
EXACTLY. WELL, THAT'S THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA OF ESSENTIALLY A DEMOCRACY IS, YOU KNOW, WE PRESENT SOMETHING TO THE TO THE VOTERS AND THEY MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION IS, IS I THINK THAT WE PRETTY MUCH ALL AGREE THAT OUR OUR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ARE CURRENTLY UNDERPAID.
AND AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST FOR COMPARISON, THESE NUMBERS, BUT KIND OF POINTS THAT OUT.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A CONCRETE PROPOSAL? WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY WE CAN'T JUST SAY, OKAY, HEY, WHAT DO YOU THINK? TO THE CITIZENS, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A CONCRETE PROPOSAL, WHICH WE THINK IS IS REASONABLE AND FAIR, AND THEN LET THE VOTERS DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT OR NOT. IT'S REALLY NOT FOR US TO DETERMINE.
THANK YOU. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE HAD A PROPOSAL.
IS THAT CORRECT? BUT WE JUST WE DON'T HAVE.
WERE YOU ABLE TO FIND WHAT WAS PROPOSED? OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO SAY.
I BELIEVE WE ALREADY HAD IT. WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE OF IT RIGHT NOW. WELL, PHIL'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS $0.25 PER CAPITA FOR MAYOR, $0.20 PER CAPITA FOR CITY COUNCIL. BUT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE BASED ON POPULATION.
SO CAN YOU PLUG IN THE APPROPRIATE? AND YOU LOOK AND YOU GET THIS.
JUST GOT TO KNOW THE POPULATION.
WHAT IS THE CURRENT POPULATION OF THE CITY? 115. 118,000.
YOUR COUNCIL MEMBER. SO BASED ON THAT, THAT WOULD MAKE CURRENTLY 31,000 FOR THE MAYOR AND 24,800 FOR CITY COUNCIL, WHICH I THINK THOSE NUMBERS ARE PROBABLY PRETTY REASONABLE IN MY
[00:15:04]
OPINION. THE QUESTION WE GO FROM THERE IS THOUGH, AS FAR AS INCREASES, WILL THAT REMAIN STABLE? WILL WE BUILD IT AN AUTOMATIC INCREASE BASED ON ON COST OF LIVING? BASED ON THE SAME BASED ON ON THE THE INCREASE IN SALARIES THAT WOULD GIVE IT TO OUR EMPLOYEES. HOW DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? YOU CAN'T LEAVE IT THAT WAY UNTIL.WELL, WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT THAT WAY UNTIL THE NEXT CHARTER COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHAT FUTURE SALARIES ARE.
SO WE HAVE TO BUILD SOMETHING IN THERE TO ADDRESS HOW WE'RE GOING TO HOW THAT SALARY IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY BY TIME AND GROWTH.
WELL, CURRENTLY IT SAYS HERE THE ANNUAL SALARY SHALL NOT INCREASE BY MORE THAN THE INCREASE IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.
SO, I MEAN, I'M OKAY WITH THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING IT THAT WAY. AND IT SAYS GIVEN TO THE CITY EMPLOYEES, WHICHEVER IS LOWER.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ADD, THAT IT ALSO INCLUDES CONSIDERING.
IN THE WAGE INCREASE GIVEN TO CITIES SHOULD IT SHOULDN'T BE MORE THAN WHAT THEY RECEIVE.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING NOW.
OR WOULD THAT TAKE IT OUTSIDE THE BALLPARK OF.
JORDAN. I GOT TWO QUICK POINTS ON THAT.
NUMBER ONE, PHIL, WHEN YOU BROUGHT THIS INITIAL PROPOSAL UP, SINCE WE'RE ON DISCUSSION, I JUST WANT TO THROW THIS OUT THERE.
YOU KNOW, I FEEL STILL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH KEEPING THAT $0.10 PER CAPITA DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
SO WHETHER IT'S $0.30 FROM THE MAYOR OR $0.20 PER CAPITA FOR CITY COUNCIL, I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT VERSUS $0.25 FOR THE MAYOR AND $0.20 PER CAPITA BECAUSE CURRENTLY IT'S $0.20 FOR THE MAYOR AND $0.10 FOR COUNCIL.
BUT I THINK IF WE DELINEATE THE LANGUAGE IN THERE TO YOUR POINT, MR. MCLEOD, BECAUSE IN THE CURRENT CLIMATE THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, WE KNOW THAT OBVIOUSLY THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX CAN BE A LITTLE HIGH.
SO IF WE SAY THAT, I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S 3% OR THE CPI, WHICHEVER IS IS LESS.
MR. MYERS. WHICHEVER IS LOWER.
FOR THE LAST PART OF HIS STATEMENT.
BUT I THINK THE CURRENT DIFFERENTIAL.
DOES A DISSERVICE TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CLOSER IN PERCENTAGE TO THE. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I AGREE WITH JORDAN.
I THINK THAT. IF WE MADE THE CHANGES TO I THINK IT COMES OUT TO BE 31 AND 24 EIGHT, THAT WOULD MEAN THE CITY COUNCIL'S SALARY MORE THAN DOUBLED AND THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO PASS WITH THE VOTERS.
IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S TOO BIG OF A REACH, WE MAY END UP WITH NOTHING.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE HAD THAT 10% DIFFERENTIATION, WE WOULD HAVE MORE OF A LIKELIHOOD OF THAT BEING PASSED.
AND GOING WITH THE 31,000 FOR THE MAYOR CURRENTLY.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 31,000 FOR THE MAYOR AND 21,800, WHICH WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I DO. SO I WOULD GO BY MY INITIAL MY INITIAL CALCULATIONS.
KNOW, I WOULD HOPE THAT THE CITIZENS WOULD UNDERSTAND WITH THE COMPARISONS OF SOME OTHER CITIES THAT WOULD LOOK AT WHAT WHAT'S EVEN PRESENTED HERE WITH CLEARWATER AND THE CLOSENESS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL THERE IN THEIR PRICE DIFFERENTIAL.
BUT I THINK IF THE CITIZENS ARE RESISTANT TO THE 20% FOR CITY COUNCIL, THEN THE JUMP IN THE INCREASE OR 30% FOR 30 FOR THE MAYOR, THAT WOULD SEEM JUST AS EVEN MORE RESISTANT TO DOUBLE UP THEIR EFFORTS TO SAY NO WAY.
I WOULD THINK, YOU KNOW, EVEN BY GOING 20 AND 25, THAT ALMOST EVEN MAKES IT MORE PALATABLE THAN SAYING 20 AND 30.
AND ONE ELSE. RANDALL, JUMP IN, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
AT A TIME AND PLACE WHERE PHYSICALLY WE'RE TRYING TO SORT OUT HOW TO MAKE UP OUR SHORTFALL AND TO THE END TO HONE IN ON PAYING FOLKS FOR THE WORK THAT THEY DO.
ANOTHER FACT THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED OVER TIME AND THE STAFF IS WORKING THROUGH AN HR STUDY AND THINGS OF THE SORT TO FIGURE OUT THE CITY STAFF'S COMPENSATION AND AND THERE'S
[00:20:05]
FISCAL DOWNFALLS IN EVEN BECOMING COMPETITIVE TO GET TO BE ATTRACTIVE TO FOLKS TO COME WORK IN OUR CITY AND HELP IT OPERATE.I PERSONALLY HAVE NO DESIRE TO, AT THIS CURRENT TIME, MAKE IT FISCALLY ATTRACTIVE FOR ANYONE TO COME HERE AND BE A COUNCIL MEMBER OR A MAYOR.
I HOPE THAT OUR FUTURE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYORS ALREADY RESIDE IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY AND ARE READY WHEN THE TIME COMES TO STEP UP TO THE PODIUM AND THE DAIS FOR REASONS THAT ARE FAR BEYOND FINANCIAL MOTIVES.
I DON'T THINK AS A CITY WE CAN FINANCIALLY INCENTIVIZE ANYBODY TO GO FROM MODERN DAY BUSINESSMAN TO COUNCILPERSON.
TO THAT END, I DON'T STRIVE TO LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT THAT AIMS TO DO THAT.
I THINK THAT THE COMPENSATION BEING BASED ON PER CAPITA IS FAIR.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT PER CAPITA RATE IS FAIR, AND I DON'T HEAR A CLEAR MOTION.
I KNOW WE'RE ON THE DISCUSSION PHASE, BUT I REALLY WON'T DOVE IN ANY FURTHER UNTIL I DO HEAR THAT. TO DIRECTLY SPEAK TO ANYTHING.
WHAT I WHAT? I GUESS WHEN I HEAR THAT, I DON'T THINK ABOUT THAT 31,000 OR 24,000 IS GOING TO BE LIKE THIS MASSIVE INCENTIVE THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LIKE, WELL, NOW THAT IT'S 31, I'M READY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT STILL A YOU KNOW, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR A LIVING.
SO I DON'T WANT TO DECENTRALIZE AMAZING PEOPLE FROM RUNNING BECAUSE THEY SEE THE WORK THAT OUR MAYOR PUTS IN CURRENTLY THAT OUR COUNCIL PEOPLE PUT IN CURRENTLY FOR THE SMALL AMOUNT AND THEY MIGHT SAY FOR THAT A LITTLE BIT AMOUNT, I MIGHT BE A GREAT PERSON TO DO THIS, BUT I JUST CAN'T DO IT.
AND SO TO ME, I THINK RIGHT NOW OUR NUMBER IS MORE DECENTRALIZED, DECENTRALIZED, AND I TALK FOR A LIVING, BUT I DO AGREE THAT IT NEEDS TO INCREASE.
I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THE 31,000 AND THE 24,000.
HONESTLY, I THINK YOU MIGHT FIND SOME CITIZENS SHOCKED TO FIND OUT THAT THEIR OFFICIALS ARE PAID SO LOW, ESPECIALLY IF WE TALK IN COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES AS WELL.
ANYBODY WHO HAS SEEN OUR CURRENT MAYOR, HE'S EVERYWHERE.
THEY TRY TO GET EVERYWHERE THAT THEY CAN BE.
THAT AMOUNT OF TIME, ENERGY AND EFFORT SHOULD BE REWARDED ACCORDINGLY.
AND CURRENTLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS, IS THAT WE ARE NOT REWARDING THEM ACCORDINGLY.
SO I THINK IT'S SMART FOR US THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT OUR CITY STAFF AND WE ARE HAVING A STUDY BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDERPAID.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD EXCLUDE THIS SIDE AS WELL.
PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT'S COMPARABLE.
WELL, YEAH, DAVE, I AGREE WITH YOU.
RATHER THAN LOOK AT IT AS A FORM OF, WELL, YOU KNOW, OF COMPENSATING THEM FOR THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT THEY DO. TO ME, A BIG PART OF IT IS, IS THERE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WOULD CERTAINLY BE QUALIFIED, WHO WOULD REALLY BE GOOD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, POSSIBLY MAYOR? THAT TYPE OF THING SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD TO BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE TIME THAT YOU TOUCHED ON IT, THE TIME THAT THEY HAVE TO DEVOTE TO THIS, TO THIS, IT'S MUCH MORE THAN A JOB, REALLY. THE TIME THEY HAVE TO DEVOTE TO IT AND TAKE AWAY FROM THEIR WHATEVER THEY DO FOR THEIR THEIR REAL LIVELIHOOD IS REALLY EXTENSIVE.
I MEAN, I KNOW AT THE TIME THAT THEY PUT IN, IT'S REALLY AMAZING.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE TO ME, THE IDEA OF INCREASING THE SALARIES IS TO HOPEFULLY ENCOURAGE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE FUTURE TO COME OUT AND RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL WHERE THEY CAN AFFORD TO DO THAT. OKAY.
SO I JUST KIND OF WANT TO COME BACK TO THE PER CAPITA.
I THINK THE WHAT WE THE PROPOSED CENTS PER CAPITA, $0.25 PER MAYOR, $0.20 FOR CITY COUNCIL. I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF EXPLORE THAT A LITTLE BIT.
I AM OF I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE $0.20 TO $0.25, THE $0.25 TO $0.10.
I JUST THAT'S SUCH A VAST DIFFERENCE.
AND I DO BELIEVE THAT KIND OF GOING BACK TO THE INCENTIVES, YOU KNOW, I KNOW FOR ME IT WASN'T SO MUCH ABOUT INCENTIVES, BUT WE HAVE TO BE PRACTICAL AND REALISTIC.
WHAT MAKES SENSE TO COMPENSATE OR OR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
SO AGAIN, I WILL SAY I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE INCREASE, BUT I AM MORE GOING LEANING TOWARDS THE $0.25 TO $0.20 DIFFERENTIAL VERSUS 2020 $0.05 TO $0.10.
[00:25:08]
ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, THAT YOU WANTED TO REMAIN IT? NO. CURRENTLY THERE'S A DIFFERENTIAL OF $0.10 PER CAPITA BETWEEN THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IF WE'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE COMPENSATION OF MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, KEEP THAT $0.10 DIFFERENTIAL.SO WHAT WHAT MR. MOORE IS PROPOSING IS TO INCREASE CITY COUNCIL'S COMPENSATION BY $0.10 PER CAPITA, BUT HE'S ONLY INCREASING THE MAYOR BY $0.05 PER CAPITA.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS KEEP THAT $0.10 DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE TWO.
SO JUST AGAIN, TO CONFIRM THAT AT 20 $0.30, THIS IS WHERE THE 31 WAS, $0.25.
I AM IN SUPPORT OF $0.25 TO $0.20, NOT $0.30.
THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE WAY MORE THAN THAT.
I THINK WHY 2520 IS REASONABLE IS BECAUSE THE CURRENT LEVEL FOR THE COUNCILMEN IS COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE.
SO IT WOULD SUFFICE THAT WE RAISE IT TO 20.
PER CAPITA. YOU KNOW? YEAH. YEAH. PERSONALLY, YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT.
SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET AN ARGUMENT FROM ME, YOU KNOW, IF.
IF ANYBODY HAS ANYTHING ELSE THEY'D LIKE TO ADD CAN.
A VIEWPOINT. NUMBER ONE, TO SAY THAT PEOPLE WON'T.
WON'T. GO FOR OFFICE JUST BECAUSE.
THE INCREASE IS NOT THERE IS TO SAY THAT ALL PREVIOUS PEOPLE THAT HAVE SERVED IN THOSE POSITIONS WEREN'T QUALIFIED, WHICH WE KNOW IT TO BE OBVIOUSLY WRONG.
NOW, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT DUE DILIGENCE SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR FOR WORK.
I'M. CERTAINLY IN THE BEGINNINGS OF THIS COUNTRY, PEOPLE WEREN'T PAID TO SERVE.
DOUBLING. COUNCIL MEMBERS BUY TEN BY $0.10.
I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.
I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY IS MAKING THAT STATEMENT.
BECAUSE WE HAVE QUALIFIED PEOPLE IN OFFICE AND WE'VE HAD QUALIFIED PEOPLE IN OFFICE PRIOR TO. I BELIEVE THE STATEMENT IS, IS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A BETTER TALENT POOL TO SELECT FROM, AND WE'RE LIMITING OUR TALENT POOL OF INDIVIDUALS WHO POTENTIALLY CAN RUN BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO.
STEP AWAY FROM THE INCOME THAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE LEADERSHIP THAT THEY CAN BRING TO THE CITY.
SO I DON'T LOOK AT THIS AS NEEDING AN INCENTIVE, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT AS A BUSINESSMAN AND WHO'S BEEN IN LARGE CORPORATIONS TO A BUSINESS OWNER, I WOULD TELL YOU YOU SHOULD PAY ACCURATELY FOR TALENT.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.
AND SO I DON'T I THINK THAT THE NUMBERS THAT WE SEE ARE THAT WE ARE NOT PAYING ACCURATELY FOR THE TALENT THAT'S THERE.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS JUST FOR THE FUTURE.
I THINK THIS IS FOR THE CURRENT.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE AN OPINION OR ANYONE ELSE WANT TO ADD THEIR $0.02? AND THAT IS A PUN. YEAH.
REAL QUICK. MR. CHAIR, I'M NOT QUESTIONING ANYBODY'S QUALIFICATIONS TO RUN FOR OFFICE, AND THAT WASN'T MY INTENT OF MAKING THE PROPOSAL OF THE INCREASE.
BUT I WANTED TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE FAIRLY COMPENSATING, GIVEN THE TIMES FOR SOMEBODY TO BE ABLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE AND NOT BE ABLE TO DO SO AND BE FINANCIALLY WELL OFF ALREADY TO BE ABLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE.
YOU SHOULD YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO SAY I CAN'T PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RUN FOR OFFICE TO BE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL TO DO THIS JOB BECAUSE OF.
SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOME WORK HERE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FAIRLY COMPENSATED FOR THAT WORK THAT THEY ARE DOING HERE.
IF THEY WANT TO DO OTHER WORK OUTSIDE OF HERE AND THEY WANT TO INCREASE THEIR INCOME OTHER WAYS, THAT'S GREAT IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO DO SO.
BUT FOR THE WORK THEY'RE GOING TO DO ON THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE JUST JUST THE COMPENSATED AND WE SEE A PRICE INCREASE.
ACROSS THE BOARD. IF WE LOOK AT COMPARABLE WATTS WITH OTHER CITIES, THIS KIND OF EVEN STILL FALLS IN THE LOW END OF THE FACTOR.
BUT I THINK THIS IS GOOD FOR FOR THEM AND FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY.
[00:30:02]
RANDALL. YES, SIR.THANK YOU. AGAIN, I REPEAT, IT'S MY STRONG ASSERTION THAT ANY FINANCIAL COMPENSATION FOR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN OUR CITY SHOULD MERELY BE TO OFFSET THE EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH THE JOB. THAT BEING SAID, TIME BUT TO A DEGREE ALSO OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES.
BUT FOR CLARIFICATION SAKE AND THE CITY MANAGER, WHOEVER THE APPROPRIATE PARTY IS, CLARIFY WHAT ADDITIONAL BENEFITS A COUNCIL MEMBER AND OR THE MAYOR GET TODAY BESIDES THEIR SALARY. I WILL ANSWER.
COUNCIL DOES. EACH COUNCIL MEMBER DOES RECEIVE A MONTHLY ALLOTMENT.
THE MAYOR RECEIVES $200 PER MONTH AND THE DEPUTY MAYOR RECEIVES 150, AND THE REMAINING COUNCIL MEMBERS RECEIVE $100 EACH PER MONTH.
CLARK, IF I MAY, IS THAT PAID AS ESSENTIALLY AS CASH OR IS THAT A BUDGET TO BE REIMBURSED IF DO THEY FILE EXPENSE REPORTS, THAT KIND OF THING? IT IS PART OF THEIR PAYROLL.
SO IT'S IN THEIR IT'S IN THEIR PAYCHECK.
THEIR PAYCHECKS THEY GET FROM THE CITY INCLUDE THEIR SALARY PLUS THEIR MONTHLY.
I'LL USE THE WORD STIPEND TO OFFSET EXPENSES.
ANYONE ELSE. DID YOU WANT TO PUT THIS IN THE FORM OF MOTION? I CAN THINK. MR. CHAIR, WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER.
AFTER THE MOTION, BEFORE WE VOTE, AFTER THE MOTION, BEFORE WE VOTE, THEN WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS. MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO A PROPOSAL FOR COMPENSATION.
AND WHAT? SECTION 303 COMPENSATION.
CHANGING THE PER CAPITA RATE FOR MAYOR TO $0.25 AND PER CAPITA RATE FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO $0.20.
AND WHAT ABOUT FUTURE INCREASES TO KEEP THE REST OF THE LANGUAGE THE SAME, WHICH IS THE ANNUAL SALARY OF THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT BE INCREASED BY MORE THAN THE INCREASE OF THE CPI OR THE ANNUAL INCREASE GIVEN TO CITY EMPLOYEES, WHICHEVER IS LOWER.
WE HAVE A SET. MOTION FOR MR. MCLEOD. IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT UP UNTIL THE EARLY NINETIES, THAT JOB WAS DONE AS COMMUNITY. THEY GOT TO HOLD IT UP.
OKAY. UP UNTIL THE EARLY NINETIES, THOSE JOBS WERE ALL DONE AS COMMUNITY SERVICE, AS PEOPLE FEELING IT WAS THEIR CIVIC DUTY.
AND THEN IN THE NINETIES, IT WENT FROM $3,000 PER YEAR PER COUNCILMAN AND 6000 FOR THE MAYOR. AND THEN IN JUST 2016.
WE CHANGED IT TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
AND THE TIME BETWEEN 20 AND 16 AND NOW HAS BEEN THE MOST CORRUPT.
THE MOST. INSIDIOUS TIME AN ENTIRE CITY FBI, FDLE J LACK AUDIT.
SO RAISING THE CITY'S COUNCIL AND MAYOR'S PAY HAS HAD THE OPPOSITE EFFECT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. THANK YOU, SIR.
ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHED TO SPEAK, BILL? BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST ONE.
WHEN WE MAKE A COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES, WHAT IS THE MEDIAN INCOME OF THAT CITY? KAHN HERE CAN HEAR ME NOW.
WHAT IS THE MEDIAN INCOME OF THOSE CITIES THAT WE'RE MAKING A COMPARISON TO? DOES IT EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE CITY OF PALM BAY? THE OTHER ONE WAS WHAT WAS THE OTHER CITY'S TAX RATES? THEIR MILLAGE RATE IS LESS THAN WHAT THE CITY OF PALM BAY IS DOING, AND THEY'RE PAYING THEM MORE. SO THAT MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH WHY WOULD YOU SERVE? WE IF WE'RE TAKING HIGHER TAXES, THEN WHY SHOULD WE GIVE THEM MORE MONEY? THAT'S JUST BATONS POINT OF VIEW.
SOME OF THOSE CITIES WERE MAKING A COMPARISON TO HAD A MILLAGE RATE OF FIVE AND WE'RE AT 8.2.
PAY RAISE LAST CHARTER REVIEW.
THAT'S WHEN THEY GOT THEIR PAY RAISE BECAUSE IT CAME WITH THE LAST CHARTER REVIEW.
WELL, EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER, THEY'VE GOT A PAY RAISE EVERY YEAR WITH THE COST OF LIVING, JUST LIKE EVERY EMPLOYEE DID.
SO WHY ARE WE HAVING TO MAKE THEM LOOK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE PEOPLE THAT WORK WITHIN THE CITY? THEY'RE ALREADY GETTING THEIR INCREASES ANNUALLY.
ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, DO ANY OF THEM RECEIVE A401 OR A403? A RETIREMENT PACKAGE THAT CAN GO INTO THEIR RETIREMENT FUND THE COINCIDES WITH THEIR MONTHLY. A BOONDOGGLE THAT FUNDS.
[00:35:07]
NEXT ONE. WHAT IS THE CURRENT RATE OF INFLATION? THIS PAY RAISE IS HIGHER THAN WHEN THE CURRENT RATE OF INFLATION.YET WE'RE ALREADY AT ONE OF THE HIGH, THE HIGHEST WE'VE HAD IN SINCE, WHAT, 2000? AND DUTY VERSUS RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS MONEY.
SPEAKING FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I WENT IN THE NAVY FOR $280 A MONTH.
IT WAS NOT FOR THE MONEY THAT I WENT IN THE NAVY.
IT WAS FOR WE CALL IT TO DUTY.
MY OPINION SHOULD HAVE PUBLIC INPUT BEFORE YOU CONSIDER A VOTE.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO COMMENT? THERE. I GUESS IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU PUT FORWARD AS AN INCREASE IN PAY FOR SOMEBODY THAT HAS TO RESPONSE, BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TWO MEETINGS A MONTH.
23,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY AND THEY MAY HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO.
I GET THAT. BUT THEY DON'T WORK A 40 HOUR SHIFT LIKE ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S WORKING.
THEY COME AND GO AS THEY PLEASE.
AND I THINK THEY'RE WELL COMPENSATED FOR WHAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE.
BUT I THINK THAT IF YOU PUT A NICKEL.
FOURTH IS A RAISE BECAUSE OF THE OVERTAXATION AND THE BURDEN THAT THIS CITY SEES THAT IS GOING TO GET VOTED DOWN, WHATEVER IT IS.
BUT IT'S ALL GOING IN THE TRASH.
BECAUSE NOBODY'S GOING TO VOTE FOR MORE WHEN THEY CAN'T PAY THEIR OWN PROPERTY TAXES OR PAY THEIR RENT BECAUSE EVERYTHING TRICKLES DOWN.
AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE SITTING HERE DON'T SEE THAT.
THIS SHOULD BE A FREE POSITION.
IF YOU WANT TO BE THE MAYOR, BE THE MAYOR.
COMPENSATION FOR THINGS THAT YOU NEED.
THINGS THAT YOU DO WITH YOUR JOB.
THAT'S FINE. BUT TO PAY SOMEBODY $50,000 TO BE A CITY COUNCILMAN AND THEN COMPARE US TO.
CLEARWATER. THEY'RE NOT EVEN IN THE SAME LEAGUE.
BUT. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT APPLES AND APPLES HERE, THAT'S FOR SURE.
AND BILL BATTEN HIT IT RIGHT ON THE HEAD WHEN HE SAID, WHAT IS THE MEDIAN INCOME IN THESE CITIES? PROBABLY HALF.
I MEAN, COMMON SENSE IS COMMON.
ANYONE ELSE, MA'AM? AND WHEN YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
LAURIE LAFAVE. 1211 GERALDO CIRCLE.
LISTENING TO ALL THE DEBATE BACK AND FORTH, IT WAS GOOD.
I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LOT EARLIER.
ACTUALLY, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH MY BOYFRIEND ABOUT IT AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE SAME THE SAME THINGS HERE.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE MAYOR HAS DONE A GREAT JOB AND EVERYTHING, BUT I DON'T AGREE WE SHOULD GIVE HIM A RAISE BECAUSE OF THAT.
I MEAN, THEY KNEW WHAT THE PAY WAS WHEN THEY.
SO THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING.
YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO WANT TO MAKE PALM BAY THE GREATEST CITY IN THE WORLD, THEN MAKE IT THE GREATEST CITY IN THE WORLD, AND THEN YOU'LL GET A REWARD THAT WAY.
I DON'T THINK RAISING THE PAY IS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT.
ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? MA'AM.
UM, I'D LIKE TO JUST REMIND THIS COMMISSION THAT YOU, TOO, ARE TO REPRESENT ALL CITIZENS OF PALM BAY.
YOUR ACTIONS ARE TO SHOW THE CITIZENS THAT YOU DO NOT SUPPORT A RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT.
YOUR ACTIONS MUST REFLECT THAT YOU TWO ARE A CITIZEN WHO WILL LIVE WITH, ABIDE BY AND COMPLY WITH THE CHARTER YOU'RE AMENDING AS OF TODAY.
THESE CURRENT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DO REALLY NOT REFLECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVE CHARTER.
THIS COMMISSION IS AS UNBALANCED AS THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL.
[00:40:02]
PLEASE PUT YOUR CITIZEN HAT ON WHILE YOU ARE SERVING ON THIS COMMISSION.WE MUST NOT OPERATE OUR CITY IN A DEFICIT BY TOTALLY REMOVING THE CAPS ON THE CITY SPENDING SECTIONS 6.01 OF TAXES REVISIONS TO SAY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS A RIGHT TO FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY TO LEVY TAXES AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
THIS IS A POWER GRAB BY THE ENEMY, SAYING A FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY IS LIKE SAYING THE CITY COUNCIL HAS FULL ACCESS TO EVERYBODY'S MONEY.
THIS IS AS IRRESPONSIBLE AS A TEENAGER SPLURGING MONEY ON A PARTY DRINKS.
I URGE YOU TO REVERSE THIS COURSE.
THIS PARTICULAR AMENDMENT, OR PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RAISE THE SALARY IS AS UNBALANCED AS THE CITY COUNCIL IS.
SO I WOULD JUST URGE YOU TO RECONSIDER AND OR LEAVE IT ALONE.
AND IT IS IN COMPARISON TO CITIES OF THE SAME.
EVEN THOUGH THE CHART REALLY DOESN'T REFLECT THAT IT'S NOT.
I WOULD RATHER SEE CITIES THAT ARE EQUAL TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE IN THE AREA.
BILL'S POINT ABOUT THERE'S WHERE'S THE MEDIAN INCOME? WHERE'S THE TAX RATES? THERE'S MORE THINGS TO CONSIDER HERE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE.
AS OUR FOUNDERS WERE NOT PAID FOR THEIR SERVICE.
THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE PAID THIS MUCH MONEY BECAUSE IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE A FULL TIME CAREER. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? NATHAN WHITE, 1301 SEABREEZE STREET SOUTHWEST.
I'LL BE BRIEF BECAUSE I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE DONE ABOUT THIS.
I JUST WANTED TO INTRODUCE A THOUGHT.
IT WAS ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP SEVERAL TIMES.
THE ONLY NOTE I HAD ON THIS WAS A LITTLE SCRIBBLE ON MY PAPER THAT I PUT DOWN AS SOON AS I READ WHAT WAS ON IT.
24,496. THAT'S THE MEDIUM INDIVIDUAL, MEDIUM INDIVIDUAL INCOME CITY OF PALM BAY.
HONESTLY. YEAH. LET THAT SIT FOR A SECOND.
24,496. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS SHOULD BE CHANGED, THE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE CHANGED.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT SHOULD BE CHANGED, WHAT IT SHOULD BE CHANGED TO.
BUT I THINK THAT THIS SHOULD DEFINITELY BE A NUMBER THAT INFORMS. THE DECISION THAT INFORMS ALL OF YOU AS YOU INFORM COUNCIL AND AS VOTERS INEVITABLY COME TO IT. IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE A NUMBER ASSOCIATED WITH.
THE PAY SCALES, SO TO SPEAK, FOR A COUNCILMAN OR THE MAYOR IF IT WAS GOING TO BE DIVIDED BY ANYTHING. I DON'T THINK PER CAPITA MAKES ANY SENSE IF IT WAS GOING TO HAVE TO BE BASED ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT INSTEAD OF BEING STRAIGHT COMMUNITY SERVICE, WHICH MIGHT BE THE WAY TO GO. IF ANYTHING, IT SHOULD BE TIED TO THIS.
IF ANYTHING, IT SHOULD BE TIED TO THIS.
AND ALSO THAT WOULD BE ABOUT A $400 RAISE FOR THE MAYOR.
IF THE CHOSEN AMOUNT WAS 100%.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT SHOULD BE EITHER.
BUT JUST PLEASE KEEP THAT NUMBER IN MIND AS WE GO.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS, ACTUALLY, AGAIN, $24,436.
OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? PETER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. FILIBERTO.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THESE THESE EXAMPLES HERE SEEM TO BE POT OF GOLD EXAMPLES.
I WANT TO SEE THE THE POOR EXAMPLES WHERE MY DORMITORY DOWN IN MIAMI, THE CITY WHICH I LIVED RESIDED IN.
THE COMMISSIONERS WERE PAID A DOLLAR A YEAR BECAUSE IT WAS A PUBLIC SERVICE.
I WAS ELECTED. I'M UP HERE FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE AS WELL.
I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR A RACE FOR MAYOR OR COUNCIL.
I AGREE WITH MR. DELGADO AND MR. OLSZEWSKI OVER THERE, AND I HOPE YOU ALL WOULD CHANGE YOUR MIND AS WELL.
THANK YOU, PETER. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? YOU KNOW, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
I OPPOSED NAY NAY FROM MR. OLSZEWSKI AND NAY FROM MR. DELGADO. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, I JUST LOOKED UP ON GOOGLE, THE MEDIUM HOUSEHOLD BEING CALLED BREVARD.
[00:45:01]
AND FOR PALM BAY, IT'S $51,408.YEAH. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
OKAY. MOVING ON TO ARTICLE SIX, SECTION 6.2, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR PACKET, YOU'LL SEE THAT ACTUALLY I PROPOSED CHANGING THE CITY CHARTER BACK TO WHAT THE VOTERS APPROVED BACK IN 2016 AND SUBMITTING THAT AGAIN TO THE VOTERS.
AND AS OF THE IN 2016, LIKE I SAID, THE VOTERS APPROVED THAT LANGUAGE AND THEN THERE WAS A PETITION DRIVE, ALTHOUGH THE THE THE PETITION WAS NEVER THE SIGNATURES WERE NEVER CONFIRMED BY THE THE SUPERVISOR ELECTIONS.
THE FORMERS WERE NOT THE CORRECT FORMS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE WHO WERE RUNNING THE PETITION. SO THE SIGNATURES WERE NEVER VERIFIED AND NOBODY KNOWS WHETHER THEY WERE ENOUGH SIGNATURES OR WHETHER THEY WERE ENOUGH LEGAL SIGNATURES AND THAT KIND OF THING.
SO I'M PROPOSING RETURNING THE LANGUAGE BACK TO WHAT IT IS WAS IN 2016 AND LET THE VOTERS DECIDE ONCE AGAIN.
AND YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN YOUR PACKET.
SURE. RANDALL, MAY I HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY? AS FAR AS HOW APPROPRIATE IS IT FOR MR. WEINBERG TO CHAIR THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS ITEM, GIVEN IT'S HIS PROPOSITION? I KNOW HE CAN'T MAKE THE MOTION, BUT IS IT STILL WITHIN THE RULES OF ORDER FOR HIM TO PRESIDE OVER THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS ITEM, GIVEN IT'S HIS PROPOSITION AS STATED ON THE AGENDA? YES.
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY RULE OR PROCEDURE THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS THAT WOULD PREVENT IT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION THAT I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED HOW IS IT THAT WE CAN HAVE PRESENTED SOMEBODY'S POSITION? EVEN BEFORE DISCUSSION AND PRESENTED AS I WANT THIS.
IS THAT OPEN TO ANYBODY? IF I HAD MY OWN PROPOSITION.
HOW. HOW WOULD IT APPEAR HERE IF THERE WERE TWO OPPOSING POSITIONS? WELL, AT THE LAST MEETING, THE COMMISSION CONCURRED TO BRING THIS BACK IN WRITING.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S UNDER OLD BUSINESS.
THEY WANTED TO SEE CHAIR VICE CHAIR WEINBERG'S PROPOSAL IN WRITING, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN IT BEFORE, AND THAT'S WHY I HAD THE QUESTION.
EVEN I THINK EVEN ON THE FIRST MEETING, THERE WAS ALREADY A PROPOSAL IN WRITING HERE.
WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN? HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? WELL, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SAID THAT ANY COMMISSIONER CAN APPROACH ME IF YOU WANT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA AND YOU CAN GIVE ME THE LANGUAGE AND I WILL INCLUDE IT IN THE PACKET.
OKAY. I WAS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION SAKE.
OUR. ARE WE ON VACATION RELATIVE TO THE CHARTER CAP RIGHT NOW? EXCUSE ME. WHAT ARE WE ON DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO THE CHARTER CAP? YEAH. OKAY.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OR THE CHARTER CAP SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
THANK YOU. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
IS IT DEEMED ILLEGAL BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET ALL OF THE SIGNATURES VERIFIED IF THAT WERE THE CASE, I THINK.
IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? THEY DIDN'T CHECK THAT IT WAS THE SIGNATURES SIMPLY WEREN'T VERIFIED. IT WASN'T SUBMITTED TO TO TO TO THE SUPERVISOR ELECTIONS BECAUSE THE FORMS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO THE PETITION DRIVE WERE NOT LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE.
SO THE CITY WOULD NEVER VERIFY.
SO CITY COUNCIL, RATHER THAN PURSUING IT, DECIDED TO RETURN THE LANGUAGE TO WHAT IT WAS PRIOR TO 2016.
IT DID PASS THE WAY IT IS CURRENTLY BEFORE ANY ADJUSTMENT IS CORRECT.
AND SO YOUR PROPOSAL TO GOING BACK IS BECAUSE THE SIGNATURES WERE NOT VERIFIED.
NOW IT'S THE CITY COUNCIL CHANGED THE LANGUAGE.
THIS LANGUAGE WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS.
THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER THE PETITION WAS SUBMITTED TO THEM AND WE FOUND OUT THAT THE THE PETITIONS WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE TO SUPERVISOR ELECTIONS SO SHE WOULDN'T VERIFY SIGNATURES.
SO CITY COUNCIL CHOSE TO RETURN THE LANGUAGE BACK TO WHAT IT WAS PRIOR TO WHAT THE VOTERS APPROVED IN 2016.
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? GOT YOU NOW.
THANK YOU, MR. CHANDLER. I KNOW WE VOTED ON IT LAST TIME, BUT I THOUGHT STILL UNDER OLD FINNISH.
I MEAN OLD FINNISH UNFINISHED AN OLD BUSINESS THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS THE CHARTER CAP IN
[00:50:01]
MY. AND CORRECT ON THAT BECAUSE I THINK AT A PREVIOUS MEETING THERE WAS AN ITEM THAT WE VOTED IN AFFIRMATIVE. AND WE STILL DISCUSSED IT UNDER UNFINISHED AND OLD BUSINESS.NOW THIS ITEM WAS TABLED, AND I KNOW THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT WAS CORRECT.
WELL. MR. WEINBERG, UNDERSTAND YOUR PROPOSAL HERE.
UNFORTUNATELY, I JUST CAN'T SUPPORT IT.
BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE VOTED TO ELIMINATE THE CAP IN THE LAST MEETING.
SO JUST IN MY MIND, ONCE AGAIN, PALATABILITY.
INDIVIDUALS GOING TO LOOK AT THE BALLOT AND SAY, OKAY, WELL, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, GETTING RID OF THE CHARTER CAP. THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS.
AND ALTHOUGH YOU MAY NOT BE IMPOSING ANY ADDITIONAL SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT STRIKE EVERYTHING DOWN.
RIGHT. SO FROM A PALATABILITY SAKE, I JUST.
IF WE'RE GOING TO STICK WITH WITH CHARTER CAP, WE'LL STICK WITH CHARTER CAP.
AND I DON'T THINK ANYTHING RELATIVE TO A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
ANYONE ELSE? IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, TO, UH, ADD ON TO MR. CHANDLER'S POINT HERE.
A BRIEF RECAP WILL STATE THAT ON THIS CURRENT BALLOT, IF EVERYTHING WERE TO GET SENT THROUGH, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET A COUNCIL, GET TO VACATION IN JUNE.
IT TAKES 10% INSTEAD OF 5% OF THE CITIZENRY TO PETITION COUNCIL.
WE DID ADD SOME GOOD ADVERBS THERE AS WELL.
THEY HAVE THE OPEN RANGE ATTACKS.
IF THIS PROPOSITION GOES THROUGH, THEY'LL HAVE THE OPEN RANGE TO ASSESS AND AS THE LAST ITEM SAYS, THEY'RE GOING TO GET A RAISE.
THAT IS JUST WHAT WE ARE GOING TO ATTRACT PEOPLE TO OUR COMMUNITY TO BE COUNCIL MEMBERS, TO BE MAYORS. AND AS I MENTIONED, THAT'S NOT A COMMUNITY I WANT TO LIVE IN.
OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ONE MORE COMMENT. CAMP CHAIR.
I'M JUST TALKING REASONABLY REASONABLE REASON RIGHT NOW.
I KNOW IT'S ALREADY TOO LATE FOR ME BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE ON THE LAST MEETING.
BUT AS FAR AS I CAN SEE IT WITH THE INFLATION RATE.
WITH THE GASOLINE THAT'S GONE UP, WITH THE INCREASED TAXES THAT WE'VE ALREADY HAD BY ASSESSMENT. I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO PUSH IT FORWARD, PUSH IT FORWARD.
BUT MY VIEW IS THAT NONE OF IT'S GOING TO PASS ANYWAY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO, I'M UP TO HERE TRYING TO MAKE ENDS MEET.
I CAN'T EVEN GET A RENTAL HOME.
LET ALONE LIVE WITH THE INCREASED OF COST OF FOOD.
AND AND NOW ON TOP OF THAT, YOU WANT TO HAVE WHAT SEEMS TO ME IS A POWER GRAB IN MY WALLET. AND I MEAN, YOU CAN PUSH IT IF YOU WANT TO, BUT I'M GOING TO GO.
IT'S JUST A PERSONAL VIEWPOINT THAT MAY BE THAT'S NOT FOR US TO DECIDE.
THAT'S FOR THE VOTERS. IT MAY NOT.
BUT THAT'S MY MY VIEWPOINT IN WHICH I WOULDN'T HAVE THAT VIEWPOINT.
THAT'S OKAY FOR ME TO HAVE, RIGHT? OF COURSE. BUT LIKE I SAID, THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE.
JUST LIKE I'LL POINT OUT THAT BY PROPOSING ANY OF THESE THINGS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY SAY, AS MR. GODDARD JUST SAID, THAT THE TAXES ARE GOING TO GO UP.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN BE ABLE TO BALANCE THESE THINGS OUT AND STILL HAVE THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE NOW. SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A FOREGONE CONCLUSION WITH THESE PROPOSALS.
OKAY. MR. MYERS. JUST A QUESTION.
CLARIFICATION, SINCE THIS IS PROPOSED BY YOU, IT SEEMS LIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE CHANGING. IS THAT WORD EXCLUDING FROM THIS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ROADS INFRASTRUCTURE.
IS THAT IS THAT WHAT THE CRUX OF THIS IS, IS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT TO HAVE MORE FREEDOM THAT WOULD THAT WOULD RESTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL SYSTEM ONLY FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER APPURTENANCES CURBS, GUTTERS, THAT TYPE OF THING. OTHER THAN THAT, THEN THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE BASICALLY WHAT THE LANGUAGE WAS BEFORE THAT THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY WAY TO ASSESS A SPECIAL OTHER THAN THAT WOULD BE IF IT INVOLVES MORE THAN 50 PROPERTY OWNERS OR A PROJECT MORE THAN 25,000.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT IN WRITING.
HAS THERE BEEN AN ISSUE IN THE LAST BECAUSE THIS WAS THIS ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT'S COME FROM 2016.
CORRECT. HAS THERE BEEN AN ISSUE SINCE WE WERE ON THAT COMMISSION IN 2016 THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS BEEN HAMSTRUNG FROM BEING ABLE TO ASSESS FOR ROADS AND WHATNOT? WELL, AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY PASSED A BOND ISSUE.
YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUE, WHICH IS ADDRESSING WHICH IS REPAIRING THE STREETS. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OUR CITY MANAGER TOUCHED ON AT THE LAST MEETING, IS THE FACT THAT THE COST TO MAINTAIN THE STREETS ONCE
[00:55:06]
THEY'RE REPAIRED AND I BELIEVE IT'S ESTIMATED IS $4 MILLION A YEAR, WE NEED TO COMMIT TO TO MAINTAINING THE ROADS.IF WE CAN'T COME UP WITH THAT, IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY SET ASIDE TO TO ADDRESS THAT, TO MAINTAIN THE ROADS, THEN THEY'LL FALL INTO DISREPAIR JUST LIKE THEY WERE BEFORE.
SO. AND HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT OR HOW IS THIS WORKING IN CONCERT WITH THE ISSUE OF THE THE THE CAP. THAT WE HAD SPOKEN OF IN AN EARLIER MEETING.
I THINK MR. JORDAN REFERRED TO THAT EARLIER.
WELL, IT WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED BY BY THE BY THE.
THAT'S STRICTLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT.
NOT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, BUT THAT IS STRICTLY FOR THE TAXES.
OKAY. BUT IF WE HAVE THAT IN PLACE WHERE WE'VE REMOVED THAT CAP, DO WE NEED THIS AS WELL? IS IT BECAUSE IT'S DEALING ONLY WITH SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OR.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE'RE REMOVING THAT CAP, THEN WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS? WELL, ONE OF THE ONE OF THE REASONS FOR IT IS THE FACT THAT IN AND I DIDN'T LOOK THIS UP AGAIN, BUT BACK IN 2016, I LOOKED INTO THIS EXTENSIVELY.
AT THAT TIME, THERE WERE FOUR MUNICIPALITIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT HAD A RESTRICTION ON A MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT BEING ABLE TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
YEAH. SO IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HANDICAP A CITY GOVERNMENT OR A COUNTY GOVERNMENT FOR THAT MATTER. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HANDICAP THEIR ABILITY TO DO THAT IF IF NECESSARY. OKAY.
THANK YOU. RANDALL I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE BOARD AND ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT THE SITUATION WITH THE ROADS CURRENTLY IS THAT WE'RE UNDER $150 MILLION BOND, WHICH I'M NOT QUITE SURE THAT WE'VE DRAWN DOWN THE LAST 50 MILLION, BUT IT'S ALL ACCOUNTED FOR. AND WHEN WE RUN THE NUMBERS AND WE FORECAST AND WE LOOK AT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THIS ORIGINALLY FIVE YEAR PLAN TURNED INTO A FIVE PHASE PLAN TO HOPEFULLY TAKE PLACE OVER EIGHT YEARS IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF MONEY AND OUR CITY ENGINEER COMES AND DOES PRESENTATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THEN WHOEVER ELSE MAY BE WATCHING.
AND LET'S EVERYONE KNOW JUST WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE ROAD BOND PROGRAM.
IN THE LAST PRESENTATION, HE SAID, SHORT OF STANDING ON THE ROOF AND SCREAMING IT, HE SAID, WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF MONEY AND WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO.
SO I KNOW THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM.
HOWEVER, A DIRECT SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM, SUCH AS THIS IS, IS TO DIRECT, BECAUSE AS WE TALKED ABOUT AND HAD HEALTHY POLITICAL DEBATE ABOUT, AS FAR AS THE CAP GOES, WHEN WE HAVE CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRAINTS, WE GET CREATIVE AND WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THINGS WORK.
SO TO MR. MYERS POINT, AS FAR AS REMOVING THE CAP AND ON TOP OF THAT, REMOVING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE ARE ALL OF THE SAFEGUARDS THAT THE PEOPLE OF THIS CITY THOUGHT IN THE YEARS 2016 AND THE YEAR 2018 THOUGHT NEEDED TO BE PUT IN PLACE TO PUT THIS CITY BACK ON TRACK.
AND IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS CITY IS BACK ON TRACK AND NOT ONLY LEFT THE STATION, BUT DOWN THE ROAD, I WILL HAVE HEALTHY POLITICAL DEBATE WITH YOU ALL NIGHT LONG ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT TO THAT POINT YET.
SO THESE SAFEGUARDS ARE DOING THEIR JOB.
THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOB WELL, AND WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.
AND AS FAR AS THE DEFICIT GOES ON THE ROAD BOND PROGRAM, SPECIFICALLY, WE NEED RESPONSIBILITY FROM BOTH OUR CURRENT AND COMING COUNCIL MEMBERS, OUR MAYOR AND OUR CITY STAFF TO DO RIGHT BY THE CITIZENS, TAKE $150 MILLION AND GET THE PROJECT DONE BECAUSE THE CITIZENS DID PASS THAT THROUGH.
WE DID ALLOW THAT. WE DO HAVE THAT SHOW UP ON OUR PROPERTY TAX BILL EVERY YEAR AND WE PAY THAT MONEY AND WE EXPECT TO HAVE A VOTE.
AND I WILL MENTION FOR CONVERSATION SAKE THAT MY ROAD HAPPENS TO BE IN PHASE FIVE.
SO I'M GOING TO GET A HALF DILUTED ROAD THAT'S HALF AS THICK AS THE ONES THAT WERE IN PHASE ONE BECAUSE MONEY RUNS OUT OR WE NEED TO DO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
AND THAT'S THE FATE OF ME AND MY NEIGHBORS, SOME OF THE FOLKS SITTING HERE.
WE NEED TO KEEP THE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE AND WE NEED TO LIVE WITHIN THEM AND WE NEED TO GET THE JOB DONE. AND I HAVE FAITH THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE IN PLACE NOW THAT ARE GOING TO GET THAT JOB DONE, PUT THE PURSE AWAY, PUT THE WALLET AWAY, AND LET'S USE OUR BRAINS AND LET'S GET IT TOGETHER AND LET'S BRAINSTORM AND LET'S COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS.
AND TAKING MORE AND MORE MONEY AND ADDING IT TO THE POT IS NOT THE SOLUTION.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE SURPLUS THAT EXISTS IN THE POT.
WE DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT IN THIS SPECIAL ITEM.
ALL WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO USE THE RESOURCES AND THE CONFINES THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTENT TO HANDLE THE TASK AT HAND.
THAT'S WHAT A PROPER BUSINESS PERSON WOULD DO, AND THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD OPERATE.
ANYONE ELSE THEN WILL HAVE AN OPINION.
SO. I WOULD ASK JORDAN IF YOU CAN REPHRASE YOUR STATEMENT FROM EARLIER THAT YOU MADE ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL.
IF YOU COULD DO THAT FOR ME AGAIN, PLEASE.
WELL, I THINK MS.. OLSZEWSKI JUST SAID IT A LOT MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I DID, BUT IT WAS,
[01:00:01]
YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT, NUMBER ONE LAST MEETING, WE JUST VOTED TO ELIMINATE THE CHARTER CAP.SO NOW PUTTING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON THE BALLOT OR THE ELIMINATION OF THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, I JUST I THINK IT'S FAR STRETCHED.
OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR AGAIN.
I GOT TO TELL YOU, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE SAME.
I'M STRUGGLING IN THE SAME PLACE AS WELL.
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY THING THAT CAN GET DONE WITHOUT MONEY TODAY.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE THINK OR WANT TO PUT THE ENERGY AND EFFORT INTO IT, IT'S GOING TO TAKE MONEY. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS PARTICULARLY NECESSARY TO.
STRIP THIS AND THEN GO WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE.
SO. AND I LIKE YOUR QUESTION IS THIS WAS THERE IS THERE SOMETHING? I'M TRYING TO FIND OUTSIDE OF THERE WAS THIS THING THAT HAPPENED WITH THE SIGNATURES, BUT IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS DRIVING THE PASSION AROUND THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED INTO THIS NEW LANGUAGE? ARE WE ARE WE HANDCUFFING OURSELVES? IS IT. IS IT STOPPING THE PROGRESS OF WHAT WE NEED TO ACCOMPLISH? AND IF SO, LIKE, HOW IS IT STOPPING? AND THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD MAKE THIS CHANGE.
DID YOU. COULD YOU GET ME THERE? BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY.
WELL, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, ONE OF THE THINGS IS THE MAIN THING IN MY MIND IS IS IS MAINTAINING THE ROADS ONCE THEY'RE REPAIRED.
THAT'S THE MAIN THING IN MY MIND.
AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THAT CITY MANAGER TOUCHED ON AT THE LAST THE LAST MEETING.
YOU KNOW, IF AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A PROPOSAL, IF IF YOU DON'T WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH IT, IF YOU KNOW, IF, THEN THAT'S FINE.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING A AN OPEN DISCUSSION OF IT.
AND WHETHER YOU WANT TO SUPPORT IT OR NOT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME EITHER WAY.
YOU KNOW, IT DEPENDS ON THE WILL OF THIS BOARD AND AND WHETHER YOU DON'T WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT CHANGE, THAT'S FINE WITH ME AS WELL.
I GUESS YOUR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.
I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHICH WORLD ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN WHEN THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND.
INCREASED COSTS, INCREASED PRICE FOR BUILDING SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS.
WHAT WORLD ARE WE LIVING IN WHEN WE FAIL TO REALIZE THAT THE COST OF SERVICES GO UP? AND IF WE WANT THE SERVICES, WE ARE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
SO IF SOMETHING HANDICAPS THE CITY FROM FIXING OUR ROADS.
COUNCIL MEMBER OVER THERE IN FIVE YEARS IS GOING TO BE COMPLAINING THAT THESE ROADS ARE NOT FIXED. SEE.
BUT IT'S HIS POSITION TO SAY, WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE MONEY.
LET'S WORK WITH WHAT WE HAVE WHEN THE ROAD DOESN'T GET FIXED.
THEY'RE THE SAME PERSONS COMPLAINING.
SO IN MY VIEW, THE CITY HAS TO HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT IS FLEXIBLE.
MAKING A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DONE WITHOUT THE SUPERMAJORITY OF THE BOARD AND GOING TO THE PEOPLE.
SO CLEARLY THOSE ARE SAFEGUARDS.
LITERALLY, THOSE ARE SAFEGUARDS WHICH PREVENT RAMPANT SPENDING, WHICH PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK EXIST.
THAT'S MY POINT. CHAIR MOMENT TO RESPOND, IF I MAY, AND I'D LIKE CLARIFICATION OF YOUR LANGUAGE, BECAUSE THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THE FIRST SENTENCE OF YOUR LANGUAGE IS IT'S INTENDED TO LIFT ALL RESTRICTIONS OF NEEDING TO GO TO A BALLOT OR NEEDING TO BE RECONSIDERED AND ALLOWING COUNCIL TO SIMPLY AS AN AGENDA ITEM, PASS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER ORDINANCES, WHICH WE TALK ON THIS COMMISSION ABOUT WORDING ON BALLOTS AND WE CHOOSE A PRUDENT APPURTENANCES.
WELL THAT WAS THAT WAS LANGUAGE THAT WAS ADDED BY THE LAWYERS WE GOT.
BUT IN ANY EVENT, I'M UNDERSTANDING THE PROPOSITION HERE TO BE TO REMOVE THOSE RESTRICTIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR ROAD ASSESSMENTS AND ALLOW THEM TO JUST DO IT IN THE COURSE OF AN AGENDA ITEM. WHICH DOESN'T SCARE ME AT ALL, BECAUSE I'LL BE THERE FOR THAT AGENDA ITEM AND I'LL SPEAK ON IT AND I'LL LET MY MY POSITION IN MY NEIGHBOR'S POSITION BE KNOWN AS FAR AS ANY SHORTFALLS.
I LIVE IN A REALITY AND UNDERSTAND THAT MY ROAD IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET PAVED.
AND IF IT IS GOING TO GET PAVED, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IN THE TIMELINE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED OR EVEN THE SECOND OR THIRD OR MAYBE FOURTH ITERATION OF THE TIMELINE.
MY PROPOSITION IS SIMPLY FOR US TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE, OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST, LET'S SAY FIVE, REALLY, IT SHOULD BE EIGHT YEARS PUT IN PLACE PLANS THAT NEED A LONG TIME
[01:05:04]
TO COME TO FRUITION.WE NEED TO EXERCISE SOME FORM OF PATIENCE BECAUSE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF OUR CURRENT CITY CHARTER, THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN, THERE IS ROOM FOR GROWTH, THERE IS ROOM FOR GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY AND THERE IS ROOM FOR GROWTH IN OUR TAX BASE, AND THAT NEITHER ONE OF THOSE THE TAX BASE GROWTH DOES NOT HAVE TO OCCUR ON THE BACK OF THE CURRENT MODERN DAY CITIZEN EXCLUSIVELY. IF IT DOES, ALL OF THESE SYSTEMS AND INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE IN PLACE TO DRAW CITIZENS TO AND LET THEM MOVE TO THE OUTER BOUNDS OF THE CITY WHERE THEY NEVER SEE WHERE I LIVE AND THEY NEVER SEE MY ROAD IN WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
BUT THE POINT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT THE WAY THAT THE LANGUAGE IS WRITTEN TODAY, AS THE YEARS PASSED AND AS THESE NEW HOMES COME AND THEY GET ASSESSED VALUES WHICH WE ALL KNOW WILL BE HIGH ASSESSED VALUES, THEY WILL HAVE A MILITARY AND THEN THE NEXT HOUSE WILL HAVE A MILITARY. AND THEN THE YEAR AFTER THAT, THOSE WILL PASS THROUGH AND IT WILL BUILD UPON ITSELF, AND IT'S BUILT UPON ITSELF.
I'M LIVING IN A FIVE TO 10 TO 20 YEAR PLAN WORLD, AND THAT IS WHAT I FEEL THE COMMISSION THAT'S LOOKING AT A CITY CHARTER SHOULD LIVE IN.
LOOK AT THE FOLKS THAT DID WRITE OUR CONSTITUTION, YOU KNOW, AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.
THAT'S TOO FAR AGO. LOOK AT THE FOLKS THAT WROTE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THE POINT IS, YOU COME TOGETHER, YOU WRITE A STRUCTURE OF A FORM OF GOVERNMENT, AND IT IS LONG.
IT'S SIMILAR TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WE STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN OUR ARMS AROUND.
BUT WHEN WE DO GET OUR ARMS AROUND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT'S PUT TOGETHER THE RIGHT WAY AND IT'S BROUGHT TO FRUITION THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, THE TAX BASE WILL INCREASE WITH THE INCREASE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT SHOULD AND WILL PAY THEIR BILLS AND THE RESIDENTIAL THAT CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE STOPPED.
THE RESIDENTIAL WILL CONTINUE TO COME NO MATTER WHAT THE CITY DOES, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THE CITY CONCEDES AND GIVES TAX ABATEMENTS TO APARTMENT COMPLEXES.
IF WE JUST AVOID PRACTICES LIKE THAT, THEY WILL STILL COME WATCH IT HAPPEN.
I WILL BE HERE IN THE SAME FIVE TO 10 TO 20 YEARS AND I WILL ATTEST TO IT THEN.
MR. BATTEN, I HOPE YOU ARE TO ANYONE ELSE.
YES. SO I APPRECIATE THE PASSION, BUT I WANT TO KIND OF GO BACK TO WHAT'S REALLY HERE.
NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS NEVER THAT IT WOULD ELIMINATE WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
AND PLEASE, IF YOU COULD CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
VICE-CHAIR WEINBERG IT SAYS HERE THE ONLY ADDITION THAT I SEE HERE COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE IS CITY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE POWER TO IMPOSE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND AND OTHER.
HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE THAT? OPPORTUNIST? APPURTENANCES YES, CORRECT.
AND THEN IT CONTINUES AS IT HAS BEFORE THAT SAYS BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY MAY LEVY IN SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OTHER THAN FOR RULES, INFRASTRUCTURE, ETC., INVOLVING 50 OR MORE PROPERTY OWNERS OR INVOLVING A PROJECT EXPENDITURE OR GREATER THAN 25,000.
THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE AFFECTED OWNERS WHO HAVE RETURNED THE BALLOT.
NOW, THAT IS THAT SECTION IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
RIGHT. SO AND SO TELL ME HOW THIS TAKES AWAY.
AND AND TO KIND OF GO TO YOUR POINT, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED WITH THAT BECAUSE THE ONLY THING I SEE IS THAT NOW WE ARE ABLE TO IMPOSE THAT SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL IS ABLE TO IMPOSE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND ALL OTHER RULES STAY THE SAME.
ONE OF THE MAIN DRIVING FORCES FOR THIS, ESPECIALLY IN 2016, AS YOU ALL KNOW, ANYONE WHO OWNS A HOME, WE'RE PAYING A STORMWATER FEE.
THAT STORMWATER FEE WAS ON YOUR TAX BILL.
PEOPLE WHO OWN VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS DON'T GET A UTILITY BILL.
SO BY CHANGING IT, BY ALLOWING THE CITY TO IMPOSE THE THE STORMWATER FEE AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, IT APPEARED ON YOUR TAX BILL RATHER THAN YOUR UTILITY BILL.
OWNERS OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS DON'T PAY UTILITIES.
SO GUESS WHAT? THEY WEREN'T PAYING STORMWATER FEE.
AND THERE ARE THERE ARE THERE ARE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE CITY WHO OWN THOUSANDS OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
SO ONCE IT WAS PUT ON THE TAX BILL, THEY HAD NO CHOICE.
THEY HAD TO PAY IT. ONCE THIS WAS CHANGED AGAIN, IT WAS REMOVED, THE STORMWATER FEE WAS REMOVED FROM THE TAX BILLS, IT WAS PUT BACK ON THE UTILITY BILLS.
AND NOW THOSE OWNERS OF THE VACANT RESIDENTIAL LOTS ONCE AGAIN ARE NOT PAYING THE STORMWATER FEE. IT'S FALLING ON THE SHOULDERS OF EVERY OTHER HOMEOWNER.
AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN DRIVING FORCES FOR THIS.
THIS MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE PALATABLE TO ME, KIND OF UNDERSTANDING THE SPIRIT BEHIND
[01:10:04]
BEHIND IT. I JUST KIND OF WANT TO GO BACK TO RANDALL, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOUR QUESTION IS GOING TO BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY ANYBODY BUT ME.BUT IT'S STATED IN CLEAR LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE GOING TO GRANT THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT'S THE FIRST SENTENCE.
AND THEN WITHIN THE BODY IT SAYS FOR ANYTHING BUT ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WE HAVE TO GO TO A BALLOT, ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT INVOLVES 50 PROPERTY OWNERS, 25,000 WILL HAVE TO GO TO A BALLOT.
IT EXCLUDES ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE FROM THAT RESTRICTION.
SO IT GRANTS THE POWER TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENT AND THEN IMMEDIATELY EXCLUDES THAT POWER FROM NEEDING TO GO TO THE BALLOT.
THAT'S WHAT THE LANGUAGE SAYS, AND I WILL ANSWER THAT DIRECTLY AND NO ONE ELSE WILL.
AND IF ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO CONTEST THAT ASSERTION, PLEASE DO.
SO TO KIND OF GO BACK TO TO THAT POINT NOW, SORRY, I DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE THAT PART.
SO THIS SECTION THAT SAYS OTHER THAN ROADS, WHY IS THAT THERE? BECAUSE THAT THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE, AS YOU CAN SEE.
BECAUSE WE WANTED TO LIMIT THE CITIES COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO IMPOSE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN FOR THOSE THINGS.
NOW THERE'S THEY CAN'T JUST NOW WILLY NILLY, IT'S AGAIN, PROTECT THE CITIZENS FROM CITY COUNCIL. WELL, LET'S HAVE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR WE'LL PUT STREETLIGHTS AND LET'S HAVE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TO MAKE EVERYBODY CONNECT TO CITY WATER.
LET'S HAVE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR EVERYBODY TO CONNECT THE SEWER.
OKAY. THE MEAN I SAID THE THE DRIVING FORCE WAS WAS A ROADS AND B STORMWATER.
I THINK AND AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, NOW THAT THAT THAT WAS CHANGED BACK.
YOU HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T PAYING A STORMWATER FEE.
SO. BASICALLY, IF WE IF THE CITY IF THE VOTERS CHANGE THIS AGAIN, THE FIRST THE MAIN THING THAT WOULD HAPPEN WOULD BE THAT THE THE STORMWATER FEE WOULD ONCE AGAIN GO ON PEOPLE'S TAX BILLS AND THEY WOULD BE COLLECTING IT FROM ALL THESE RESIDENTIAL LAND OWNERS. THE SECTION THAT SAYS OTHER THAN ROADS, I THINK IS IN ADDITION TO ROADS.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL? OH, IT'S OTHER THAN. OKAY.
AGAIN, STORMWATER FEE COMES TO ROADS, COMES UNDER INFRASTRUCTURE.
CORRECT. THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY THAT WAS IN THERE.
SO THE CHALLENGE HERE BEFORE THE GOVERNING BODY OF THIS CITY MAY LEVEL ANY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT OTHER THAN FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE.
BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS HERE NOW.
TYPICALLY WITHOUT THIS CHARTER PROVISION IN MOST CITIES.
THERE ARE SEVERAL HEARINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE.
THERE'S A. THIS COUNCIL CAN LEVY A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AGAINST PROPERTY SO LONG AS THIS.
WE BENEFITED AND IT DOESN'T GO TO REFERENDUM.
IF YOU JUST GO BY STATUTE, IT DOESN'T GO BY REFERENDUM.
THIS CHARTER PROVISION SAYS THAT AS IT IS NOW, A, IF YOU'VE GOT 50 OR 25,000, IF IT'S MORE THAN THAT, IT NEEDS TO GO TO REFERENDUM.
THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS BEFORE, BECAUSE IT USED TO GO, WE HAD A FEW TIMES WHERE WE SENT THINGS OUT TO REFERENDUM AND THEY FAILED MULTIPLE TIMES.
SO THERE WAS A CHANGE IN WHICH.
ESSENTIALLY THE COUNCIL ASKS FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE A LITTLE FAITH IN THEM.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ALL ASSESSMENTS.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO ASSESS YOU FOR TRASH.
BUT LET US ASSESS YOU FOR ROADS, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, BECAUSE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS IT.
AND THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BENEFIT YOUR HOUSE.
YOU'RE GOING TO GET EXTRA VALUE.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE THINGS, AT LEAST WAS THE ARGUMENT, WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SOMEHOW GET IT.
AND WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT FROM TAXES.
AND FROM THAT ONE OF THE ASSESSMENTS, ONE OF THE VERY FIRST ASSESSMENTS WAS THE STORMWATER ASSESSMENT, BECAUSE IT PREVIOUSLY WAS BEING CHARGED AS A FEE.
SO THE SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS IS THAT IT STILL DOESN'T ALLOW COMPLETELY UNDER THE STATUTE FOR COUNCIL TO DO ALL, BUT IT SEPARATES INTO THOSE IN WHICH COUNCIL ESSENTIALLY COULD ACT AS UNDER THE STATUTE AND THOSE FOR WHICH THERE'S THE.
AND IT REALLY BE IF IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED, IN ESSENCE, THOSE ARE THE ONES IN WHICH HOUSES CAN JUST GO BY THE STATUTE.
IF IT'S NOT, THEN THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO.
PRETTY MUCH FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO DO IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE MORE THAN 50
[01:15:01]
PEOPLE AND IT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE MORE THAN 25,000.SO PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO REFERENDUM.
I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO THIS IF I KNEW FOR SURE THAT TWO THINGS WERE GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOUR POINT. NUMBER ONE, EVERYBODY THAT OWNS VACANT LAND HERE RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE NOT PAYING STORMWATER BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE TAX BILL.
IF WE PASS THIS TO ME, THAT'S MORE PEOPLE SHARING THE BURDEN OF THE ROADS.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE LESS FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT OWN VACANT LAND HERE NOW WOULD HAVE TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.
SECONDLY, AND MAYBE THE CITY MANAGER, SOMEBODY CAN SPEAK TO THIS.
SECONDLY, IS THIS GOING TO FREE UP THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO MORE QUICKLY DEAL WITH INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO ROADS, IF I KNOW FOR SURE THOSE TWO THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.
I JUST DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CONFIDENCE THAT WHEN WE PASS THESE THINGS, WE DON'T WE DON'T ACTUALLY SEE THE IMPROVEMENTS ANYWHERE.
AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE GET FRUSTRATED.
I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 50 YEARS AND PALM BAY IS STILL HAVING ISSUES WITH ROADS.
I'M FORGIVEN. RAISES, INCREASES, FREEING UP.
WHAT HAVE WE GOT TO DO TO FIX THIS? BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME CONFIDENCE THAT WHEN WE DO MAKE THESE CHANGES, THAT SOMETHING'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN. THE CHURCH THAT I PASTOR ON ON EMERSON, THE ROAD GOT RESURFACED ALL THE WAY UP TO ONE SIDE AND THEN THE OTHER SIDE ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
THERE'S BIG, MASSIVE POTHOLES.
I CAN'T UNDERSTAND. WHY DID WE NOT JUST RESURFACE IT ALL THE WAY TO MALABAR? I CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT. I DON'T KNOW WHO MAKES THOSE DECISIONS.
I'M ALL FOR IT. IF WE CAN GET AN IMPROVEMENT, IT'S JUST HAVING THE CONFIDENCE THAT THESE TYPES OF THINGS WILL MEAN IMPROVEMENT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
IT JUST HAD OUT OF CURIOSITY, IF IF WE WANTED EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE EMPTY LOT OWNERS TO PAY FOR STORM WATER OR WE'D HAVE TO DO IS PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.
WHO WOULDN'T SAY YES? HAVE HAVE THEM PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE.
WOULDN'T THAT TAKE CARE OF THAT PROBLEM? IT CAN'T BE DONE.
THE ONLY WAY TO GET THEM PAY IS BY PUTTING IT ON THE TAX BILL.
THE ONLY WAY THAT CAN BE DONE IS THROUGH A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
BUT DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT THAT YOU CAN DO IT BY REFERENDUM? IT SAYS HERE THAT THE PERSON MUST.
THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT MUST FIRST BE APPROVED IN WRITING.
A MAJORITY VOTE AFFECTED BY PROPERTY OWNERS WHO RETURN A BALLOT.
WELL, THE WHOLE POINT IS THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO OWN THOSE VACANT LOTS AREN'T GOING TO APPROVE A SPECIALIST ON THEMSELVES TO PAY FOR STORM WATER.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. EXACTLY.
YEAH. ANYONE ELSE? I THINK WE'VE KIND OF REHASHED THIS.
AS IT CURRENTLY IS RIGHT NOW, THE FACT THE LANGUAGE IS STILL THERE, THANKS TO THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR CLARIFYING THAT.
ALL I SEE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT WE'RE GIVING THE CITY COUNCIL THE POWER TO IMPOSE THESE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
AND AS AS WRITTEN HERE, I DON'T SEE HOW IT IS A NEGATIVE, ESPECIALLY HEARING THIS KIND OF SPIRIT BEHIND IT.
AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO GET TO WHERE RANDALL IS.
I HEAR YOU, BUT I CAN'T SEE HOW IT RELATES TO THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
AS I SAID BEFORE, NOT ALL THE HOMEOWNERS IS THE PROPERTY OWNERS IS GOING TO CHOOSE TO.
OH, YEAH, YOU KNOW, I'LL PAY MORE.
SO I THINK HAVING THAT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, HAVING GIVEN THE THE COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE THOSE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, BUT WE STILL HAVE THE SAFEGUARDS BECAUSE ONCE IT AFFECTS MORE THAN 50 HOMEOWNERS, IT STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH THE SAME AS IT IS RIGHT NOW.
SO I'M AGAIN, RANDALL, IF YOU CAN.
I AM TRYING SO HARD TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE AS YOU AND SPEAK AND HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND ME. I THOUGHT MISS SMITH BROUGHT IT HOME TO THE POINT THAT YOU DID.
BUT THIS GIVES A GO DIRECTLY TO THE BOARDWALK, GO DIRECTLY TO THE NEXT PROPERTY PASS, GO SKIP THE REFERENDUM PROCESS IF IT HAS TO DO WITH ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE OR APPURTENANCES.
AND INFRASTRUCTURE IS BEING SUMMARIZED THIS EVENING AS STORMWATER AND ROADS.
AS ROADS ARE PERTINENCE IS EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH THE TWO ESSENTIALLY, WHICH IS TWO
[01:20:06]
WAY TOO BROAD OF A VERY MANY LETTER TERM.BUT THIS LANGUAGE EXCLUDES AND GIVES THE COUNCIL TO SKIP THE PROCESS PART.
TO MISS SMITH'S POINT, IT WILL BE A LABORIOUS PROCESS AND THE RE MULTIPLE HEARINGS AND THINGS OF THIS SORT. BUT IT WILL NOT GO ON TO A BALLOT.
IT WILL NOT GO ON TO A BALLOT IF IT IS A ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE.
I WILL NOT SAY THE WORD AGAIN.
ALL RIGHT, DAVID, WELCOME TO YOU AGAIN.
I DON'T THINK THAT EITHER WAY YOU CAN GUARANTEE IF THIS HAPPENS, THEN THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. SO I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IF WE PASS THIS WITH THIS NEW LANGUAGE, WOULD IT BE MORE THAN LIKELY? BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WE CAN ASK FOR THAT WE WOULD SEE TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WITH THE TAXES OR EVEN GIVE THE ABILITY FOR US TO MAKE SMARTER, FASTER, WISER DECISIONS AS IT RELATES TO ROADS.
IS IT MORE THAN LIKELY THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN? BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT EVERYBODY AGREES THAT IF IF.
IT'S BETTER IF WE ALL KIND OF SHARE THE POT.
YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD OPERATE AS A SOCIETY.
SOME PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE GETTING A PASS JUST BECAUSE OF SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS THIS.
BUT THAT WOULD FOR ME WOULD GET ME COMFORTABLE.
AND I GUESS I WOULD LOOK AT EITHER THE CITY MANAGER OR THE CLERK OR ANYBODY WHO CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION IS, DOES THIS GET US TO A MORE THAN LIKELY, BECAUSE I CAN'T GET A GUARANTEE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING CAN BE A GUARANTEE.
YES, THIS WOULD GET US CLOSER TO BE ABLE TO DO X, Y AND Z.
KEN, MAYBE WE'RE ATTACKING THIS WRONG.
LET ME LOOK AT THIS OUTSIDE OF THE BOX.
WE'RE TRYING TO TO WORK ON JUST THIS WORDING WITH THIS CONCEPT.
TRYING TO AFFECT A GREAT POSITION OF HAVING EVERYBODY PAID THEIR STORMWATER BILL.
WHAT IF WE CHANGE THIS WORDING COMPLETELY AND AND HAVE IT ALONG THIS LINE AND THIS IS JUST OFF THE CUFF, SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT.
BUT WHAT IF WE SAID IF IF IF THERE IS AN ASSESSMENT FOR 50 PROPERTY OWNERS OR 25,000, WHICH IS JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY, YOU CAN CHANGE THE NUMBERS.
BUT WHAT IF WE SAID THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE RIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IT ON THE BALLOT FOR VOTING WITHOUT THE OF.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE WANTED EVERYBODY TO PAY FOR THEIR STORMWATER, THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE CAPACITY TO JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT IT ON THE BALLOT.
YES OR NO? SHOULD EVERYBODY PAY THEIR STORMWATER? FIRST OF ALL, THOSE LANDOWNERS CAN'T VOTE BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIVE HERE.
THE PEOPLE THAT DO LIVE HERE WILL BE VOTING AND SO THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND SAY YES, PAY THE STORMWATER. IN OTHER WORDS, RELEASE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OR GIVE THE LIBERTY FOR THEM TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT SO THAT THEN PEOPLE CAN VOTE ON IT.
WOULD THAT RESOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT WE FACE AND GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH SOMETHING FASTER THAN TRYING TO FIND A MAJORITY VOTE? AS WRITTEN, SIR. I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
AS STRICKEN AS MR. OLSZEWSKI, IF I CAN, PLEASE JUST WAIT TO BE RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIR.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NO, GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR.
MR. DELGADO THE STRICKEN SENTENCE IS THE WAY THE CHARTER CURRENTLY READS, AND BY STATING THAT IF THE CITY COUNCIL COMES TO THE CONCLUSION, HAS A HEALTHY CONVERSATION, THAT THEY WANT TO DO A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR STORM WATER.
THEY CAN MOVE FORTH WITH TRYING TO TO GET THAT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND PUSH IT ONTO THE BALLOT. AND ALL OF US CITIZENS HERE IN PALM BAY CAN CAN VOTE YES OR NO ON THAT SPECIFIC ITEM, ON A ROAD, ON ON WHAT HAVE YOU IN TODAY'S WORDING.
THE ONLY GOAL THAT THE AMENDED WOULD ACHIEVE IS TO RECREATE AN EXCLUSION FROM THAT PROCESS FOR THE THINGS MENTIONED.
BUT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE SETS THE EXAMPLE YOU SET.
AND TO MR. MEYER'S PREVIOUS POINT, IT SETS THE EXAMPLE THAT IF COUNCIL COMES WITH THAT ITEM, MAKES CLEAR TO THE RESIDENTS THAT COME OUT AND SAY, WE HAVE A PLAN WHERE WE ARE ASKING YOU GUYS TO APPROVE X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS.
CITY STAFF HAS THIS WRITTEN PLAN.
THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO SPEND OUR DOLLARS.
SIMILAR TO HOW THE ROAD BOND WENT THROUGH.
THEY CAME WITH A PLAN THAT SAID HOW THEY WERE GOING TO SPEND $150 MILLION COMPELLING ENOUGH TO GET A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS TO SEND IT THROUGH.
THE OPTION EXISTS TODAY, SIR, AND THAT IS WHY I AM SO PASSIONATE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THINGS.
[01:25:01]
IF WE AS A PEOPLE, WE AS A PEOPLE DETERMINE IT'S A CRITICAL NEED.THE ALTERATION HERE WOULD TAKE THE WE AS THE PEOPLE OFF THE TABLE FOR THINGS SUCH AS ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND FOR ME PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT WE AS THE PEOPLE HAVE PLENTY TO OFFER AS FAR AS OPINION GOES ON THOSE ISSUES.
OKAY. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? YEAH. PATRICIA, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, AS FAR AS A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IS DIFFERENT, I KNOW WE'RE STAYING PUT ON THE BALLOT AS OPPOSED TO A REFERENDUM.
AND THERE IS ACTUALLY A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND WE HAVE A REFERENDUM, IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW.
VOTERS OR THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
IT IS. YOU'RE GOING TO ASSESS MY HOUSE.
I AM A PROPERTY OWNER, SO I HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE I AM BECAUSE I HAVE A RIGHT UNDER THE REFERENDUM BASED UPON MY STATUS AS A PROPERTY OWNER, BECAUSE THAT IS GOING TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST MY HOME.
SO IT IS NOT SO MUCH THAT IT'S THE RESIDENCE AT LARGE BECAUSE THIS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TAX WHICH IS AT LARGE AND A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT WHICH IS GOING TO BE SPECIFICALLY BENEFITING A CERTAIN PROPERTY, IT'S THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WOULD VOTE IF THERE WERE A REFERENDUM. I JUST WANT TO BE I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GETTING A MIXED UP. OKAY.
ANYONE ELSE? I THINK WE'VE WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS, I THINK, KIND OF AD NAUSEAM.
I'VE GOTTEN EVERYBODY'S OPINION ON IT.
WE DON'T HAVE EMOTION. SO, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE EMOTION, OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, THIS WILL THIS WILL DIE FOR LACK OF EMOTION OR SECOND OR WHATEVER.
ARE YOU MAKING THE MOTION? NO, YOU'RE NOT.
OKAY. AND WHAT IS YOUR MOTION? I MOVE THAT WE PASS.
LET ME GET TO THE. I MOVE THAT WE PASS THE UNFINISHED AND OLD BUSINESS ARTICLE SIX TAXES AND FEES SECTION 6.02 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS LANGUAGE PROPOSED BY VICE-CHAIR WEINBERG AND THAT IS THAT WE ADD THE LANGUAGE THAT THE POWER TO IMPOSE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ROADS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER APPURTENANCES COULD PASS THROUGH WITHOUT THE REFERENDUM.
OKAY. WE HAVE MOTIONS. WE HAVE A SECOND.
SO, MR. MCLEOD, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE BRING IT TO A VOTE? IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS? THANK YOU, MR. WEINBERG.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE BOARD THAT THIS ISN'T EVEN AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN FOUND BY A COURT OF LAW IN HANNA VERSUS PALM BAY IN 1991, WHERE THE JUDGE SAYS IN THE CASE OF THE CITY, APPARENTLY RECOGNIZE THAT AT LEAST INITIALLY, THAT IT'S MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL CITY STREETS SHOULD BE FUNDED FROM THE GENERAL REVENUE SOURCES.
THE LEGAL ALTERNATIVE LEFT TO THE CITY FATHERS BY THE VOTERS REJECTION OF THEIR PAVING PROJECT IS TO FORGO THE REPAVING UNTIL SUCH A TIME IS, THE VOTERS MAY DECIDE OTHERWISE.
AND IN 2019, SHORTLY AFTER, MR. WEINBERG STOOD OUTSIDE THAT BOARD AND TOLD ME WE HAD TO DO ALL THE ROADS BY ASSESSMENT BECAUSE WE NEVER GET A BOND PASSED IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY.
SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED BY LAW.
WE HAD THIS LANGUAGE IN A CHARTER.
IT WASN'T IN THERE FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OFFICIALLY.
WHEN THE SETTING CITY COUNCIL THEN ABUSED THAT POWER AND PUT THE STORMWATER FEE IN PLACE AND STARTED TALKING ABOUT ASSESSING FOR ROADS AND UNITS 31 AND 32.
WHERE YOU YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A YEARLY ASSESSMENT OF NEARLY 1000 IN ADDITION TO YOUR TAXES. SO.
IN 2016, THAT LANGUAGE WAS PASSED WITH 54% OF THE VOTE.
AFTER COUNCIL ABUSED THAT POWER.
AND WE, WHICH WE'LL GET TO IN A MINUTE.
THAT LANGUAGE WAS CHANGED BACK WITH 87.81% OF THE VOTE.
STOP WASTING YOUR TIME ON ALL THIS STUFF, BECAUSE SO FAR, THIS BOARD HASN'T PUT FORTH ANYTHING THAT I WOULD VOTE FOR.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? BY THE WAY, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SEE THE PETITION.
THERE'S OVER 8000 SIGNATURES IN HERE.
[01:30:01]
ALL OF THEM ARE HERE. ALL OF THEM ARE LEGAL SIGNATURES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE.AND THAT'S TREY BOLTON'S MOTHER.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FOLKS LIVE IN YOUR HOME AND HOW YOU BUDGET YOUR MONEY.
BUT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, THIS CITY DOES A PISS POOR JOB OF BUDGETING MONEY.
THERE'S MORE HOUSES BEING BUILT THAN IT'S BEEN IN THE LAST 12 YEARS THAT I'VE LIVED HERE.
EVERY DAY YOU DRIVE DOWN AND THERE'S LOTS CLEARED AND THEY'RE THROWING HOUSES UP.
THERE'S MORE MONEY COMING INTO THIS CITY THAN THEY EVER HAD.
WHERE'S IT GOING? HOW IS IT BEING USED? OKAY. HOW CAN IT BE THAT THERE'S IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, IF THINGS STAY ON TRACK, THE CITY IS GOING TO DOUBLE IN SIZE.
AND WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE SHORT OF MONEY.
WHAT DOES THAT TELL ME? YOU GOT A SPENDING PROBLEM BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
YOU CAN'T RUN YOUR HOME THAT WAY.
YOU CAN'T RUN YOUR BUSINESS THAT WAY.
BUT YOU SURE WANT TO DIG INTO EVERYBODY'S POCKET TO MAKE IT BE THAT WAY.
AS FOR THE FRAUD WITH THOSE PETITIONS, I PAID FOR THOSE PETITIONS TWO TIMES.
I WAS ASSURED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT THEY WERE LEGITIMATE.
THEY SAT IN HER OFFICE FOR SIX MONTHS.
GIVING US THE STORY THAT THEY WERE OFF BEING CHECKED.
WHEN WE WENT UP TO LORI SCOTT'S OFFICE TO SEE WHY WE HAVEN'T GOT RESULTS BACK ON THESE YET, SHE SAYS.
I RETURNED THEM THE SAME DAY THAT THEY WERE HERE.
THEY'RE NOT IN THE RIGHT FIT AND FORMAT FOR WHAT THESE WERE DESIGNED TO DO.
SWEPT IT UNDER THE RUG BY REVERTING TO THE OLD LANGUAGE.
OKAY. BUT THEY STILL STOLE MY 500 BUCKS.
I DIDN'T GET IT BACK. NOBODY EVEN SAID I'M SORRY.
HOW CAN YOU JUST STEAL FROM PEOPLE AND BE OKAY WITH IT? A GOOD EXAMPLE.
OF THIS CITY DRIVE BY CUMBERLAND FARMS. OR WAH-WAH AT 8:00 IN THE MORNING, PEOPLE START WORKING FOR THE CITY AT SEVEN, I WOULD ASSUME MAYBE 730.
I CAN'T EVEN GET IN THERE TO GET GAS.
THE PLACE IS FULL WITH CITY WORKERS THAT ARE ON THE CLOCK AND I'M PAYING FOR IT.
NOBODY'S WATCHING WHAT THE LEFT HAND IS DOING WITH THE RIGHT HAND.
NOBODY PAYS ATTENTION TO ANYTHING.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME THAT THERE'S NO OVERSIGHT OF ANYTHING.
IT'S OKAY. WE'LL JUST RAISE TAXES.
UNACCEPTABLE. THE STREET THAT I LIVE ON.
AND COGAN AND TOWER DRIVE BY THEM BEAUTIFUL PAVED STREETS UNTIL YOU GET TO THE INTERSECTIONS. THEY FORGOT TO PUT THE STORMWATER PIPES IN.
HOW COULD THAT EVER HAPPEN? BECAUSE NOBODY'S PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
I ALREADY I'M PAYING FOR THESE ROADS.
ANYONE ELSE FEEL? THE CURRENT POLICY ALREADY ALLOWS FOR ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE BUILT.
IT JUST GIVES THE INDIVIDUALS THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT.
THE CITY CAN STILL PROPOSE IT ANY TIME THEY WANT.
UNDER A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, IT JUST MEANS THAT IT GOES TO THE CITIZENS TO SAY YAY OR NAY IF THEY WANT TO DO IT. SO THERE'S NO REASON TO EVEN CHANGE THIS CHARTER.
SO MY QUESTION IS, WHY IS IT THAT OF ALL THE THINGS THEY COULD ASK FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, THEY WANT TO PICK ON ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
COULD IT BE FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT OVER THE YEARS THEY HAVE FAILED TO MAINTAIN THEM AND THEY DETERIORATED TO THE POINT THAT IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE TO BRING THEM BACK.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO IMPOSE THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THEN WHEN YOU ADD THAT OTHER WORD, WHAT IS IT, APPETITE? APERTURE LENSES, APERTURE CURTAINS.
WHEN YOU ADD THAT ME BEING THE SLOW WITTED PERSON I AM, I HAD TO LOOK IT UP.
IT MEANS ANYTHING ELSE THEY WANT TO ADD TO INFRASTRUCTURE.
SO AGAIN, YOU COULD PUT ROADS, STORM WATER, PARK BENCHES, ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT TO SAY COULD BE BECAUSE THAT WORD IS IN THERE.
IT IS NOW A PART OF INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE CITY.
[01:35:01]
ALL RIGHT. SO GO BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS.GIVE THE CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT JUST THE WAY THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON WHO SITS AT THE DAIS.
BUT THEY TRYING TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM US ALSO.
RIGHT. AND AS FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE, THE CURRENT WHAT ARE WE 35 MILLION A YEAR THROUGH BRING AN AD FOR AD VALOREM TAX.
WE'RE LOOKING AT 4 MILLION A YEAR THAT WE NEED FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE THAT'S TO MAINTAIN THEM ONCE WE SPEND $150 MILLION TO BRING THEM BACK UP.
THAT'S THE ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.
THAT'S WHAT'S BEING LOOKED AT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY.
SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND THAT WE HAVE TO SPEND, THEN IT WILL GO BEFORE THE VOTERS.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE, MA'AM? RUTH CRAWFORD, 935 DOUGLAS STREET SOUTHEAST.
IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME THAT THERE OBVIOUSLY IS A HUGE COMMUNICATION PROBLEM BETWEEN THIS, THE CITY ELECTORS AND THE CITY AT THIS POINT.
BECAUSE WHEN I GOT HERE NINE YEARS AGO, I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO FIX OUR SEPTIC TANKS BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT ISSUE A PERMIT.
I HAD TO PAY $8,000 TO THE CITY TO JUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE CITY WATER.
I STILL HAD TO PAY FOR THE PLUMBER, THE HOOK UP, THE WHOLE THING.
WHEN I RESEARCHED THAT, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE MISMANAGEMENT OF SOME FIRE ISSUE IN PALM BAY IN THE CITY.
AND I HAD TO USE THAT MONEY WAS GOING TO PAY FOR THAT MISTAKE.
WELL, IT WAS EITHER PAY IT OR HAVE NO WATER OR HAVE NO SEWER SERVICES I SUPPOSED TO DO.
SO I HAD NO TIME TO RESEARCH THAT TO EVEN I JUST HAD IT HAD TO BE PAID.
THEY PAID THE 8000 AND THEN I STILL HAD TO PAY FOR THE PLUMBER AND WHOEVER TO TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THAT WAS ANNOYING ENOUGH.
NOW I SEE ALL OF THIS GROWTH, WHICH IS FINE, BUT IF WE HAVEN'T FIXED WHAT WE HAVE YET, WHY ARE WE EVEN ALLOWING ANYONE TO COME IN HERE AND MAKE SUPER SUBDIVISIONS FOR PEOPLE? LIKE LAST WEEK'S APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION OR TWO WEEKS AGO THAT WAS RENTAL PROPERTY THAT A ONE BEDROOM FOR $2,000 A MONTH.
THEY WANT TO PUT IT OVER BY HERITAGE HIGH SCHOOL.
SO TO SIT HERE AND ALLOW OR PUT LANGUAGE IN HERE TO ASSESS ANY TAXPAYER FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS UNTIL WE GET EVERYTHING FIXED IN OUR OWN COUNTY RIGHT NOW IS RIDICULOUS.
SO WE HAVE TO CLEAN UP OUR OWN HOUSE, MAKE IT WORK, SO THAT IT WILL BE EVEN MORE ATTRACTIVE TO THOSE THAT WANT TO COME HERE.
THE SECOND THING IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT EVER, EVER ALLOW ANY SORT OF DEFICIT TO HAPPEN.
IF WE CAN'T OPERATE IN OUR OWN BUDGET, IN OUR OWN WAY, THAT WE CAN GET THINGS DONE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? PETER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. FILIBERTO.
I NOTICED YOU BROUGHT UP STORM WATER.
I JUST WANTED TO MENTION TO THIS THIS BOARD, THAT STORM WATER WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE TAX BILL AND IN COUNCIL A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO MOVED IT TO THE UTILITY BILL.
ALSO WHEN IT COMES TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
WE HAD A COMPARABLE HERE FOR WHEN IT COMES FOR WHEN IT COMES TO PAY FOR COUNCIL.
WE HAD A COMPARABLE HERE WHEN IT COMES TO PAY FOR COUNCIL.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT ANOTHER COMPARABLE IS HO.
IF THEY WANT TO DO A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT IN MY HO.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A VOTE IN THAT HO.
A REFERENDUM. IN OTHER WORDS, I FEEL SHOULD STAY THE SAME HERE IN PALM BAY.
I HOPE YOU ALL MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE.
MY VITALITY IS 2183 THEMES ROAD SOUTHEAST.
I'M JUST CURIOUS IF MR. MYERS IS LOOKING TO PULL BACK HIS MOTION AFTER HEARING EVERYBODY JUST SPEAK.
[01:40:11]
NATHAN WHITE, 1301 SEABREEZE STREET SOUTHWEST.THE COUNCIL THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL REFERENCES RELATIVELY WELL.
I WON'T SAY OFTEN, REGULARLY THAT THE OLD COUNCIL OF CORRUPTION IS GONE.
NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE HERE.
BUT. WE PASSED THE $150 MILLION ROAD BOND BECAUSE THE CITY HAD NOT MAINTAINED THE ROADS PROPERLY FOR.
SO. IF IT'S MISMANAGEMENT AND.
BASED ON OTHER EXAMPLES, POSSIBLY EVEN LIKE UNDERHANDED DEALS, BACKDOOR DEALS, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, ANY AND ALL OF THE ABOVE.
THAT'S WHY WE DIDN'T MANAGE THE MONEY PROPERLY, FIX THE ROADS PROPERLY, MAINTAIN THEM, I SHOULD SAY, EVEN SO THAT WE NEVER HAD TO GIVE SUCH A OR USE SUCH A LARGE BULK AMOUNT OF MONEY TO FIX THEM IF THOSE ARE ALL GONE.
WHY DO WE NEED MORE MONEY? MORE POWER.
BASE LEVEL FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT.
I KNOW A LOT OF YOU SEEM DISTRACTED, BUT PUBLIC SAFETY IS PROBABLY THE ONLY THING.
AS LONG AS WE'RE GOING TO EXCLUDE NATIONAL LEVEL STUFF, PUBLIC SAFETY IS PROBABLY THE ONLY THING SOMEONE WOULD LIST FIRST BEFORE ROADS.
WITH REGARDS TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
BUT WE WANT TO GIVE COUNCIL POWER TO DO A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
ESSENTIALLY LEVELS LEVY SPECIAL TAXES ON THE RESIDENTS TO DO PROBABLY THE NUMBER TWO BASE LEVEL THINGS GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO DO.
I CAN'T THINK OF ANOTHER WORD WITHOUT TAKING A LOT MORE TIME.
IT IS SAID A LOT THAT YOU SHOULD TRUST YOUR LOCAL, YOU SHOULD TRUST YOUR OFFICIALS.
YOU SHOULD TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT. YOU SHOULD KNOW YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO.
AND BASED ON CURRENT EVIDENCE, WE STILL HAVE A WAYS TO GO BEFORE WE HAVE REBUILT THAT TRUST IN PALM BAY.
AND THEREFORE, I THINK IT IS A POOR TIME IF THERE IS EVER A GOOD TIME TO INCREASE COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO ACT IN THESE WAYS WITHOUT THE INPUT OF THE VOTERS.
AND I HAVE TO ADMIT, I AM CONCERNED BY THE MENTION OF THE STORM WATER EXAMPLE SAYING HOW WE CAN'T MAKE THE LANGUAGE SPECIFIC TO FIX THAT PROBLEM BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE VAGUE SO WE CAN. THIS WORD WAS NOT USED, BUT ESSENTIALLY.
TRICK THE PEOPLE THAT AREN'T PAYING THE STORMWATER INTO APPROVING IT, BECAUSE IF WE SPECIFY THAT IT'S FOR THAT, THEN THEY WOULDN'T VOTE TO APPROVE IT.
THEN I WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD BEFORE I CALL FOR A VOTE. I JUST WANT TO CORRECT SOMETHING.
YOU MENTIONED, PETER, THAT, YES, THE STORMWATER FEE WAS ON THE TAX BILL BECAUSE OF THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN 2016.
IT WAS TAKEN BACK OFF THE THE TAX BILL AND PUT BACK ON THE UTILITY BILL BECAUSE THIS WAS OVERTURNED. THAT'S WHY THAT HAPPENED.
OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.
HEY. HEY. OKAY, YOU'RE GOING TO SHOW A HAND.
CAN DELGADO, DAVID JONES, REYNOLD OLSZEWSKI, JORDAN, CHANDLER, CAMERON AND PHIL MOORE.
OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES OUR BUSINESS.
OUR NEXT MEETING WILL BE MARCH 29TH.
WELL, YOU MENTIONED INDIVIDUAL INCOME.
YOU MENTIONED WITH THE HOUSEHOLD. YOU NEED TO SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE.
THE NUMBER I MENTIONED WAS THE MEDIAN INDIVIDUAL INCOME, 24 ISH THOUSAND.
THE NUMBER THAT WAS THEN USED AS A EXACTLY.
THAT WAS THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME THAT HE REFERENCED.
SO THERE ARE JUST TWO DIFFERENT FIGURES.
CAN I JUST MAKE A QUICK NOTE? I JUST WANT ME TO FIX IT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A QUICK CLARIFICATION.
AFTER LISTENING TO EVERYBODY SPEAK AND KEEP HIM BACK IN THERE, I REALIZED THAT WE WOULD BE AT THE MERCY OF THE COUNSEL AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN FIVE YEARS OR SO.
[01:45:03]
SO I THINK THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, WE COULD BE CONFIDENT THAT THE CITIZENS WOULD BE HEARD. SO THANK YOU.MS.. MR. VICE CHAIR, I THINK YOU HAD SOME.
SO THE NEXT MEETING, OF COURSE, IS GOING TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 29TH AT 6 P.M., AND STAFF WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD AT THE DIRECTION OF A COUNCIL MEMBER A POSITION OR POSSIBLE CHARTER POSITION TO BE CALLED THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
SO WE'LL BE BRINGING IT TO YOUR FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AT THE NEXT MEETING.
AND ALSO, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE TO THE AGENDA CONTACT.
MR. JONES. I DO HAVE A QUICK, QUICK I DO HAVE A QUICK QUESTION BECAUSE LAST MEETING AND I REFERENCED THAT SEVERAL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE MEETING, BUT LAST MEETING WE APPROVED TO ELIMINATE THE CHARTER CAP.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
THIS PROCEDURALLY WOULD BE CORRECT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WE VOTED ON PREVIOUS PREVIOUS MEETING.
SECOND, WE HAVE MOTIONS, MOTION STATEMENT TO RECONSIDER THE THE 3% CAP.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR THE LANGUAGE.
JUST KNOW WHAT WHAT WE APPROVED LAST TIME.
I WOULD LIKE US TO RECONSIDER THAT.
HEY, YOU KICKED IN. SO YOU WANT TO REVISIT THE.
NOT JUST THE LANGUAGE, BUT YOU WANT TO REVISIT THE ENTIRE CONVERSATION? YES, SIR. OKAY.
WE HAVE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF OF REOPENING THAT FOR CONSIDERATION AT OUR NEXT NEXT MEETING.
WHAT WAS YOUR. OH, LET'S HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS.
BUT ALSO JUST A CLARIFICATION.
I DID REMEMBER THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY BRING UP ANYTHING TO TO TO DISCUSS.
DOES THAT DOES THAT ELIMINATE WHAT HE SAID OR BECAUSE AT ANY POINT WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP TO RE REVISIT ANY TOPIC HERE DISCUSSED.
YES. I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE ACTUALLY CAN.
YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO RE TO REVISIT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND VOTED ON. SURE. BUT I BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THOUGH, IS BUT ONCE WE VOTED ON IT, IF WE WANT TO BRING IT BACK, THEN IT WOULD TAKE US TO ACTUALLY.
YEAH, YEAH. BECAUSE IF NOT, WE WE COULD SPIN OUR WHEELS FOREVER.
GOTCHA. YEAH, WELL, AND THAT WAS MY MY ORIGINAL POINT IN THE BEGINNING, THERE WAS AN ITEM I CAN'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT WE HAD.
I WANT TO SAY WE APPROVED AND IT CAME BACK UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND THEN WE HAD AN ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON IT.
AND THEN WE HAD DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO CHANGING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE, WHICH IT WAS A PROPOSAL MR. MOORE PROPOSED.
SO SINCE IT WASN'T ON HERE FOR O BUSINESS TODAY, THAT'S WHY I MADE THE MOTION BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IF WE VOTED ON IT, SINCE I VOTED IN AN AFFIRMATIVE PROCEDURALLY, I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT ITEM.
BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE ON OLD BUSINESS.
MR. CHAIR. MR. CHANDLER'S POINT WITH THE ITEM THAT HE'S REFERENCING WAS THIS EXACT ITEM, AND WE DID REVISIT IN THAT AGENDA SESSION AT THE REQUEST, I BELIEVE I'M NOT MISTAKEN OF MR. MOORE TO CLARIFY HIS HIS WORDING.
BUT BEFORE WE VISITED THAT ITEM, MR. BILL BATTEN BROUGHT UP A PUBLIC COMMENT AND SAID, CAN WE REVISIT ITEMS ON THIS BOARD? AND I ASKED A CLARIFYING QUESTION OF IT WAS THE DEPUTY CLERK AT THE TIME A PROCEDURALLY? HOW WOULD THAT WORK? THEY SAID, ANY BOARD MEMBER THAT WANTS TO BRING AN AGENDA ITEM TO REACH OUT TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE AND IT WOULD BE HOSTED ON THE AGENDA.
SO IN MY OPINION THAT THAT VOTE IS MOOT AND MR. CHANDLER SHOULD BE ABLE TO REACH OUT TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE ON HIS OWN TIME AND ADD THAT ITEM AS AN AGENDA ITEM.
IF IT POPS UP ON THE AGENDA AND NO ONE MAKES A MOTION OR A SECOND TO ENTERTAIN IT OR TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT, THEN WE CAN MOVE ALONG.
WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND 20 MINUTES IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE BEFORE A MOTION IS MADE.
WE CAN OPEN THE ITEM, WE CAN ASK FOR A MOTION AND WE CAN ENTERTAIN IT PROCEDURALLY.
THAT WAS THE CLARIFICATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME BY THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT? UNFORTUNATELY, I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK.
I. I DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THAT THE PROCEDURES ADDRESS THE RECONSIDERATION.
SO TO ME, I WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST LEAVE IT UP TO THE BOARD HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PROCEED MOVING FORWARD WITH RECONSIDERING ANY ITEMS IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER OR
[01:50:02]
IF YOU JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO JUST BRING IT TO MY ATTENTION AND I PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE COMMISSION.
WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BRING AGAIN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION TO PUT ON THE AGENDA, TO RECONSIDER IT, I MEAN, AGAIN, BASICALLY, WE'D HAVE TO VOTE ON IT ANYWAY.
SO IF IT'S IF THIS BOARD VOTES AGAINST RECONSIDERING IT, IT'S IT'S A MOOT POINT.
WHAT DO WE DO NOW? I GUESS THE CHALLENGE WOULD BE TO WHAT END? WE STOP.
SO IT. IT'S A CATCH 22, I GUESS IF.
IF MY RECOLLECTION SERVES ME CORRECTLY, THE ISSUE BEING RAISED BY JORDAN REGARDING THE LANGUAGE WAS CLARIFIED BY MR. MOORE BEFORE WE VOTED ON IT.
CORRECT. SO THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THE CORRECT LANGUAGE.
AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY TO REHASH IT.
I THINK KAY HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.
JUST. IF IF WE DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THAT WE WANT TO GO BACK ON OR IF THERE'S NEW INFORMATION.
I BELIEVE THAT A ONE OF OUR ONE OF US CAN ACTUALLY SAY, HEY, BASED OFF THIS NEW INFORMATION, I THINK WE SHOULD REVISIT AND THEN TAKE THE VOTE THAT WAY INSTEAD OF JUST SENDING THE INFORMATION.
BECAUSE IF NOT, THIS COMMISSION WOULD NEVER END.
BUT IF THERE IS NEW INFORMATION, THEN IT IS UP TO US, WHOEVER BRINGS THAT MOTION TO SAY THIS IS WHY, AND IF THE WHY MOVES US, THEN YEAH, WE WILL REVISIT IT.
AND AND LET ME JUST CLARIFY MY POSITIONING ON THAT.
SO OBVIOUSLY THE LAST MEETING I VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE OF THE CHARTER CAP AND FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, ALSO SIT ON THE CHARTER REVIEW FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSION.
AND WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ITEM RELATIVE TO THE CHARTER CAP IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT.
BUT I SAT UBER QUIET ON THIS ITEM, THOUGH I VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, BUT I HAD REACHED OUT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEE IF THERE WAS POTENTIALLY ANY CONFLICT.
SO I DIDN'T EXPRESS MY MY DESIRES THEN.
SO I'M SAYING, NUMBER ONE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T AGREE WITH A CHARTER CAP IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT I ALSO DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH ELIMINATING THE CHARTER CAP AND.
IF YOU LOOK AT FLORIDA STATUTE 200.081 MILLAGE LIMITATION ON MUNICIPALITIES, THERE IS ALREADY, IN ESSENCE, A CAP IN PLACE BY THE STATE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO LISTEN TO THAT BILL BATTING ON MY SHOULDER RIGHT WHEN IT GOES ON THE BALLOT. FROM A PALATABILITY SAKE.
LET ME SAY THIS. NOT KNOWING WHAT WHAT I KNOW I NECESSARILY WOULDN'T VOTE TO ELIMINATE THE CHARTER CAP. TOO MANY PEOPLE.
I HAVE GOTTEN REALLY COMFORTABLE, IN MY OPINION, WHAT THEY CHARGE TO HAPPEN, TO BE BLUNT.
THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF PALM BAY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ARE REALLY THE ONLY GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE A CAP IN PLACE.
RIGHT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE PALATABLE TO INCREASE THE CAP FROM MAYBE 3% TO 6% VERSUS JUST COMPLETELY ELIMINATING THE CAP.
AND SO I SAT UBER QUIET ON THAT LAST TIME BECAUSE OF I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY RELATIVE TO IF THERE WAS POTENTIALLY ANY CONFLICT, ANYTHING THAT I WOULD SAY HERE COULD, IN ESSENCE, HAVE AN IMPACT ON FROM FROM THE COUNTY LEVEL.
BUT SHE ASSURED ME THAT IT DIDN'T.
AND SO, LIKE I SAID, I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO COME BACK UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND THEN I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR CONCERN TONIGHT.
SO BUT BUT WHATEVER THE WILL AND THE PLEASURE WAS, OBVIOUSLY, I BROUGHT IT UP FOR A VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION, AND IT DIDN'T PASS, SO I'M OKAY.
MR. VICE CHAIR, I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT.
SO. I MEAN, HE CAN BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
NO, YOU CAN'T. OKAY, SO YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? SO WHEN WE VOTED ON THAT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BRING THAT BACK.
OKAY. DAVID, YOU HAD SOMETHING.
THANK YOU, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I DIDN'T HEAR BEFORE IS IT WAS JUST LIKE, HEY, I WANT TO BRING THIS BACK.
BUT THERE WAS WASN'T REALLY ANY CONTEXT TO WHY WE WERE GOING TO REVISIT.
AND THAT'S WHAT SCARES ME IS IF WE DON'T HAVE CONTEXT TO WHY WE'RE GOING TO REVISIT ANY ITEM, WE WILL BE HERE AND UNTIL THEY SAY WE CAN'T BE HERE ANYMORE.
SO I JUST THINK FOR FURTHER BECAUSE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT MIGHT HAVE SWAYED OR CHANGED THE DIFFERENCE FOR WHAT WE JUST DID HAD WE KNOWN THE CONTEXT BEHIND WHY THE MOTION WAS MADE. SO THAT'S ALL.
CHAIR. WITH THAT SAID IN THE INTEREST OF PROCEDURE IS CHANDLER MADE A MOTION I MADE A
[01:55:04]
SECOND OF A MOTION BEFORE THE QUESTION WAS CALLED.WE SHOULD HAVE ENTERTAINED SOME FORM OF DISCUSSION WHERE MR. CHANDLER COULD HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO EXPAND UPON HIS POINT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO CALL FOR A REVOTE, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN CALL FOR A REVOTE BECAUSE I WAS IN THE FAILING.
SO I'LL SAY THAT AS A COMMENT SIMPLY.
I GOT MORE QUESTIONS. WELL, AGAIN, AS FAR AS.
RECONSIDERING SOMETHING TO BE RECONSIDERED.
SO THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD.
MR. CHAIR, I JUST HAVE TO LEAVE THIS WITH CLARIFICATION AND UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS EXACT ITEM WAS BROUGHT BACK TO THIS BOARD AFTER HAVING BEEN VOTED ON WITHOUT A PROCEDURE LIKE THE ONE WE JUST EXERCISED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS ITEM WAS WRITTEN TWICE, WAS VOTED ON TWICE WITHOUT THIS PROCEDURE BEING FOLLOWED.
HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? WELL, THE PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED, A MOTION WAS MADE, IT WAS SECONDED, AND WE HAD A VOTE.
MR. CHANDLER BROUGHT UP HIS HIS HIS HIS HAD HIS COMMENTS AND WE VOTED ON IT.
FOR CLARIFICATION, SIR, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE LAST MEETING WAS A CONTINUATION OR A SECOND VISIT OF THIS EXACT BUSINESS ITEM.
YEAH, BECAUSE IT WAS CONTINUED, IT WAS VOTED ON AT THE MEETING BEFORE THAT IT WAS PASSED AS SUCH AND THEN IT WAS BROUGHT BACK UP AND RE VOTED ON TO MY UNDERSTANDING.
I REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS. IT WASN'T THIS ITEM.
IT WAS THE ITEM RELATIVE TO SPECIAL ELECTION VERSUS GENERAL ELECTION.
SO WE HAD ORIGINALLY VOTED ON THAT, BUT THEN IT WAS BROUGHT BACK UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND THEN WE THEN CHANGED THE LANGUAGE.
SO THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING, YOU KNOW, PROCEDURALLY, I THOUGHT THIS ITEM WOULD HAVE COME BACK UNDER OLD BUSINESS SO THAT I COULD ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS TONIGHT.
BUT SINCE IT WASN'T THEN PROCEDURALLY I HAD TO MAKE A VOTE OR EXCUSE ME, A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. I JUST DIDN'T CORRECT IT, SIR.
I. HONESTLY, I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT.
I DON'T HAVE THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN FRONT OF ME, SO I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE INSTANCE THAT THEY WERE REFERRING TO.
OKAY. THEN WE CAN WE CAN DISCUSS THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING AND DECIDE WHETHER HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED ONCE, ONCE, OR A CITY CLERK DETERMINES THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION.
OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.