Jan 15, 2026 Charter Review Commission

WE CALL THIS THE NEXT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING.

[00:00:03]

I'M SORRY. 2020 601. THERE WE GO. AND WE'LL START WITH A PRAYER, AND THEN WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS CALLED IN TO DO AN INVOCATION OR PASTOR MILLER, WOULD YOU DO US THE HONOR? AND THEN WOULD WOULD MR.. WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? THANK YOU, HEAVENLY FATHER. WE THANK YOU, LORD, FOR THIS.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND STAND. FATHER, WE THANK YOU THIS EVENING FOR THIS GROUP.

GATHER AROUND THE TABLE. WE JUST ASK LORD FOR JUST FOR WISDOM TO PREVAIL, FOR YOU TO LEAD US AND GUIDE US IN THE WAY WE SHOULD GO.

WE THANK YOU FOR THE BLESSING OF THIS 2026 AND FATHER, EVEN AS THE COLD FALLS OUTSIDE WITH YOUR WARMTH.

FATHER JUST NEED US AND CONTINUE TO GUIDE US.

BLESS EACH AND EVERY PERSON HERE, AND LET US DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THIS CITY TO GLORIFY YOU.

AND WE LIFT YOU UP IN ALL THINGS. IN JESUS NAME, AMEN.

AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU AND HAPPY NEW YEAR. BEFORE WE WE DO START I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I THINK WE COVERED IT LAST TIME, BUT I WAS TRYING TO SEE IT IN THE IN THE MINUTES.

I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK. DID WE REQUEST THAT THE ATTORNEYS LOOK OVER THE CHANGES AND TO PRESENT TO US A WHAT WOULD BE SAID ON THE BALLOT SHOULD IT BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

I DO NOT REMEMBER THAT. OKAY, THEN THEN IF I COULD, IF WE COULD DO ROLL CALL.

OH, YEAH. THANK YOU FOR HELPING ME. NO PROBLEM, MR. DELGADO. MR. MYERS IS ABSENT. MR. MILLER. MR. GORMAN HERE, MR. NORRIS HERE. MR. O'NEILL HERE, MISS SEP HERE.

MISS CAULFIELD HERE. MR. CHANDLER IS ABSENT. MR. WEINBERG HERE. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU. I GET SO FOCUSED, I FORGET THE ORDER.

WELL, THEN, BEFORE I EVEN START, THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THE ADOPTION OF MINUTES AT THIS TIME. AND HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO LOOK IT OVER.

[ADOPTION OF MINUTES]

OKAY. BEING THAT THERE IS NO MAY HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES.

SO MOVED. BY PHIL WEINBERG, SECOND BY MARK MILLAR.

AND ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL AGAINST BY THE SAME SIGN.

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. OKAY.

[PUBLIC COMMENTS]

IF IF THERE IS A PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

YES. BILL BATTEN. DO YOU WANT TO HIT THE BUTTON? NO. IT'S WRITTEN. SORRY. MY BAD. BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST.

SEVERAL SEVERAL OF THESE MEETINGS. AND AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING I HEARD THE PHRASE COME UP.

WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG MAYOR OR CONSIDERING A STRONG MAYOR.

THIS WOULD BE THE GROUP, AND I HOPE THIS GROUP DOESN'T CONSIDER THAT BEING A POLICY THAT THEY'RE BEING PUSHED FOR, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE APPOINTED BY YOUR COUNCIL WHO'S SITTING AT THIS CHAMBER, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE CONSIDERING, IS A STRONG ADVANTAGE TO THE CITY.

I'M JUST KIND OF SPEAKING OUT NOW BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE IT CAME UP TWICE AT CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN I'VE HEARD IT SEVERAL TIMES HERE. I'M PERSONALLY AM AGAINST THAT.

SO I'M ADDRESSING IT NOW SO WE DON'T MAKE A MISTAKE LATER.

THANK YOU. YES. I DIDN'T HEAR THE FIRST WORD HE SAID.

I MEAN, I HEARD SOME OF THE WORDS YOU SAID, BUT THE FIRST PART, WHAT WAS IT IN THE CITY COUNCIL? I APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. CLOSER TO YOU AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING? A COUPLE OF THE COUNCIL STARTED TALKING BACK AND FORTH THAT WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG MAYOR SYSTEM OR WE DON'T HAVE A STRONG MAYOR.

GOTCHA. THANK YOU. TRYING TO TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T START LEANING TOWARDS A STRONG MAYOR GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

[00:05:06]

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A MAYOR THAT HAD THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE THE CITY MANAGER OR RUN THE CITY? BY BILL BATTEN OPINION NO, BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT MINDSET AND A DIFFERENT SKILL SET TO MANAGE A CITY AS TO GOVERN A CITY.

THERE'S DIFFERENT MINDSETS. THANK YOU. GREAT POINT.

ALRIGHTY. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. IS THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? THANK YOU SIR. OKAY.

ANY UNFINISHED BUSINESS REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CITY CHARTER CITIZENSHIP.

QUALIFICATION FOR CHARTER OFFICERS BY COMMISSIONER COFFIELD.

COFFIELD, YOU'RE GETTING BETTER. IT'S ONLY TAKEN ME TEN YEARS.

YOU KNOW HE HASN'T. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU SIR.

AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THAT. BEFORE WE GO TO UNFINISHED BUSINESS REPORTS, LIST OF APPROVED CITY CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO DATE.

[REPORTS]

JUST SO THE MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC ARE AWARE OF EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION SO FAR.

AND THAT'S LOCATED AT THE END OF THE PACKET THAT YOU GAVE US.

CORRECT? NO, IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE BEGINNING, RIGHT AFTER THE ADOPTION OF MINUTES.

OKAY.

JUST AS A QUESTION. ANY OTHER REPORTS, ANY ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NEED TO SHARE ON THAT? NO. ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? OKAY. ON THIS UNFINISHED OLD BUSINESS REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF CITY CHARTER THAT WAS UNDER WHICH

[UNFINISHED AND OLD BUSINESS]

AND WHAT SECTION WOULD THAT BE UNDER? THAT IS UNDER SECTION FOR THE CITY CLERK IS 3.07, FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY IS 3.11.

AND FOR THE CITY MANAGER IT'S 4.01. OKAY. AND MRS COFFEY COFFEY.

SO THIS THESE AMENDMENTS TO THESE SECTIONS WERE REVIEWED BY CITY ATTORNEY.

AND WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE THEM STANDARD FOR EACH SECTION SO THAT BASICALLY WE HAVE APPOINTED POSITIONS, MUST BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, A QUALIFIED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND THAT WAS WHAT I WANTED THAT TO BE CONSISTENT IN ALL THREE OF THESE.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE CITY ATTORNEY, WHERE THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL BE A PRACTICING ATTORNEY WITH AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN PRACTICE IN THE COURTS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. COULD YOU GIVE US A REFERENCE NUMBER, PLEASE, SO WE CAN KIND OF REFERENCES SECTION 3.11 CITY ATTORNEY.

IT'S ON PAGE ONE OF TWO IN OLD BUSINESS UNDER MY REVISIONS IN THE PACKET THAT WE HAVE.

REPEAT THAT ONE MORE TIME. PAGE ONE. PAGE ONE OF TWO.

FOR BEHIND MY NAME. BUT IT'S ALMOST THE LAST PART OF THE PACKET, RIGHT? YEAH, IT'S KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE. OKAY. IT'S BEFORE COMMISSIONER MILLER'S PROPOSED REVISIONS.

SHOULD BE IN HERE. THIS IS THE ONE I PRINTED OFF.

YEAH, THIS IS THE ONE I PRINTED. I DIDN'T LOOK AT WHAT SHE HANDED OUT.

OKAY, I'LL GET ONE. OKAY. OKAY. IN REFERENCE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, YOU SAID. WHAT? YEAH.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THREE IS THAT. THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY BE AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN PRACTICE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT'S ALREADY THERE. OKAY. RIGHT. BUT THE HE'S WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS BEING.

THIS IS A PART OF OLD BUSINESS, BECAUSE WHAT WE DID IS WE DELAYED THIS SO THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT IT AND YOU DID AND YOU DID.

AND THIS IS WHAT'S COMING BACK TO THE GROUP. CAN I ASSUME THAT WE NEED TO ATTACK THIS ONE AT A TIME?

[00:10:05]

YOU CAN DO ONE MOTION. IT'LL STILL BE PART OF THE AMENDMENT PROCESS.

OKAY. AND SO PROPOSAL IS. THEN COULD YOU REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME FOR THE.

OKAY. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR EACH OF THESE SECTIONS 3.07, 3.11, AND I THINK IT'S 401 4.01 CITY MANAGER THAT THE YOU MAY SAY THE LANGUAGE FOR EACH ONE OF THEM OR.

NO. JUST YES. PLEASE DO. OKAY. THE LANGUAGE. I DON'T KNOW WHY IS MATT'S DIFFERENT? LOOKS DIFFERENT. OKAY. OKAY. IT LOOKS THE SAME FOR ALL OF THEM.

SO FOR EACH SECTION, IT SAYS CITY CLERK OR THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY MANAGER MUST BE A QUALIFIED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND A LEGAL CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY BIRTH, OR HAS COMPLETED THE NATURALIZATION PROCESS AND RECEIVED A UNITED STATES CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION. THE CITY OF PALM BAY AND ITS ELECTORATE MUST BE ABLE TO HAVE FULL TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN THE CITY CLERK ATTORNEY MANAGER IN ITS EMPLOYMENT. OKAY. OKAY.

THAT'S ONLY THAT'S THAT APPLIES TO EACH ONE OF THEM.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN SECTION 3.112 QUALIFICATIONS.

3.1 12A THE CITY ATTORNEY MUST BE A PRACTICING ATTORNEY WITH AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND PRACTICES IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

SO AFTER THE COMMISSION LOOKED AT ALL THIS, WE SENT IT OVER TO THE ATTORNEY.

SHE SENT IT BACK, AND NOW WE'RE READY FOR THIS.

OKAY. AND ANY DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER GRAHAM.

THANK YOU. THOMAS. GRAHAM. THE PROPOSED CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENTS MAY VIOLATE FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT LAW, SPECIFICALLY THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 1324 B. IT IS ACTUALLY LEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CANDIDATES BASED ON THEIR CITIZENSHIP STATUS. THANK YOU. AND THAT'S FOUND WHERE THEY'RE NOT CANDIDATES.

THEY'RE APPOINTED POSITIONS IN THE CITY GOVERNMENT.

WE ALSO HAVE A NATURALIZED MR.. I'M JUST ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION.

THAT'S WHY WE DISCUSS THE THEY WANT IT IN HERE, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO LEGALLY WORK.

YOU CAN LEGALLY WORK BECAUSE YOU'RE A US CITIZEN OR THAT YOU'RE NATURALIZED.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING, WHAT HR ALREADY DOES AS FAR AS MAKING SURE PEOPLE HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK BEFORE THEY HOLD ANY POSITION WHERE THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY OR ANY OF THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY'S POSITION DIRECTOR.

EXCUSE ME, BUT THE RIGHT TO WORK GOES BEYOND THOSE BOUNDS IN THE UNITED STATES, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU CAN HAVE A GREEN CARD. MILITARY PEOPLE GET MARRIED OVERSEAS AND BRING THEIR SPOUSE BACK, AND THEY'RE INSTANTLY ABLE TO WORK. I MEAN, THERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.

CERTAINLY, IF THERE ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO WORK, AND WHICH IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED IS WHY OR IF THIS IS ACTUALLY NEEDED, THEN THEY CERTAINLY CAN WORK. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO STOP ANYBODY WHO HAS WHO UNDER FEDERAL LAW CAN ACTUALLY HOLD THE POSITION OR CAN WORK, BECAUSE ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE IS, OF COURSE, INFERIOR TO WHAT FEDERAL LAW.

WE CAN'T VIOLATE FEDERAL LAW IN ORDER TO ENFORCE A CITY CHARTER PROVISION.

IT'S KIND OF THE SAME DISCUSSION WE HAD BEFORE ABOUT WHETHER WE NEEDED ANYTHING FOR SHARIA LAW, BECAUSE TO SAY THAT YOU COULDN'T HAVE IT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU'RE PROHIBITED YOU YOU'RE RISKING THE FEDERAL LAW BECAUSE YOU'RE SINGLING OUT A RELIGION TO SAY THAT, HEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCRIMINATE.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO IMPLEMENT ANY LAW THAT VIOLATES THE FEDERAL LAW. IS THE CURRENT STATE OF LAW. OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT IF I MAY ASK A QUESTION, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE HOW MUCH YOU CAN GO BACK IN YOUR HISTORY.

BUT THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR PRESIDENT IS IT STATED THAT HE MUST BE AN AMERICAN AMERICAN CITIZEN? NATURAL BORN? YES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYEES.

I MEAN, THIS ISN'T EVEN ABOUT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS YOU ALL ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE WE CALL THEM CHARTER OFFICERS.

BUT THEY'RE REALLY I MEAN, THEY'RE UPPER MANAGEMENT.

THEY'RE JUST EMPLOYEES. THEY'RE ALL HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND MEET THE SAME REQUIREMENTS OF ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE.

[00:15:07]

MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, COMMISSIONER NUMBER ONE, IS THAT THE.

NUMBER ONE, TO REQUIRE THAT ALL ATTORNEYS MUST BE A LEGAL CITIZEN BY BIRTH, OR HAS COMPLETED NATURALIZATION, OR RECEIVED A UNITED STATES CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION.

I HAVE TO SAY THEY'RE A LEGAL CITIZEN THAT COMBINES ALL OF THOSE.

SECONDLY IS PATRICIA, HAVE WE EVER HAD A CHARTER OFFICER THAT DIDN'T MEET THESE QUALIFICATIONS? NO. EXACTLY. SO IT'S AGAIN, IT'S IT'S IT'S MOOT.

IT'S TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? ABSOLUTELY. THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN IN AMERICA TODAY REQUIRES THAT WE BE SPECIFIC AND DEFINED IN EVERYTHING THAT WE DO RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE FOR TO SAY THAT SHARIA LAW IS A RELIGION WHEN IT'S NOT IS ONE OF THE DEBATES HAPPENING.

IT IS NOT A RELIGION. OKAY. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS BEING SPECIFIC ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT WE WANT TO DO IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

WE MUST SAY THE US CONSTITUTION, THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION, ALL THESE THINGS.

AND TO TRY TO JUST DISMISS IT, TO SAY THAT IT'S MOOT ISN'T DOING A SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE MUST, IN MY OPINION, MAKE SURE THAT WE WANT THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING OUR CITY TO BE AMERICANS, PERIOD. THEY ARE FULLY AGREE. DO I HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR. YES. COMMISSIONER O'NEILL. TYLER O'NEILL.

TWO THINGS. OFF YOUR COMMENT, SIR. WE'RE MAKING AMENDMENTS FOR OUR FUTURE, NOT BASED OFF OUR PAST HISTORY. SO ESPECIALLY WITH THE STATE OF OUR COUNTRY, WITH MASS IMMIGRATION.

AND JUST THE WAY OUR COUNTRY IS FOLDING WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO COME HERE FOR BETTER THEIR LIVES. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE A POINT HERE OF BEING SPECIFIC OF THERE COULD BE NEW OFFICIALS WANTING TO BE IN THE SEATS THAT WE'RE IN AND THE COMMISSIONER SEATS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH THE IMMIGRATION PROCESS.

SO HAVING THOSE GUIDELINES FOR BEING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, REGARDLESS IF WE'VE THOUGH WE'VE NEVER HAD THAT PROBLEM BEFORE.

IT'S KEEPING THE RAILS ON TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T RUN INTO THOSE ISSUES.

SECONDLY, DIALING WAY BACK HERE FROM THIS POINT, A, YOU TALKED ABOUT HAVING AN ATTORNEY IN PLACE FOR FIVE YEARS WITH EXPERIENCE AND PRACTICE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. ARE YOU ALSO SAYING THAT YOU WANT THEM WITH FIVE YEARS OF PRACTICE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, OR ARE YOU ASKING FOR A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IN STATE OF FLORIDA, A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, SO THAT THOSE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA BE ADHERED TO? SO FIVE YEARS, SO FIVE YEARS OF MINIMUM PRACTICE AND FIVE YEARS OF FLORIDA PRACTICE.

OH, NO. NO. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. OKAY. NO.

FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND PRACTICE IN THE COURTS OF FLORIDA.

OKAY, SO. SO BECAUSE I DON'T WANT SOMEONE COMING IN FROM MICHIGAN WHO HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY SHARIA LAW TO COME IN HERE AND BE AN ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY.

THAT'S MY MY WHOLE IDEA ABOUT THESE QUALIFICATIONS BEING VERY SPECIFIC.

I MEAN, WE HAVE A A COMMUNIST MAYOR IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK RIGHT NOW.

SO THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS WE REALLY NEED TO BE GUARDING AGAINST.

ATTORNEY SMITH, I JUST WANT TO REPEAT THE THE ONLY CHANGE THAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE SUGGESTING IS THE ONE AS FAR AS THE CITIZENSHIP, THE FIVE YEARS IS ALREADY IN THERE.

THAT'S CURRENTLY WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CHARTER. SO THAT'S NOT NEW. SO SHE IS ACTUALLY PROPOSING A CHANGE.

THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL BE A PRACTICING ATTORNEY WITH AT LEAST FIVE YEARS EXPERIENCE IN PRACTICE IN THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS RIGHT IN THE CHARTER RIGHT NOW.

SO THAT'S NOT A CHANGE. OKAY. THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED.

SO I WAS JUST WONDERING OKAY. SO THAT'S OUR OKAY.

SO THAT'S THAT'S ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF. YEAH.

THAT'S ALREADY DONE I PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT.

IN THE CASE OF SOMEBODY THAT WANTED TO APPLY FOR ONE OF THESE POSITIONS DUE TO INCREASING AMOUNTS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS APPLYING FOR THESE POSITIONS, LET'S SAY WE CAN'T STOP THEM FROM APPLYING OR EVEN GETTING THE JOB PER FEDERAL LAW, WHAT HAVE YOU.

[00:20:01]

TOTALLY. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THAT, INASMUCH AS IF IF THEY DO VIOLATE THE LAW, IT'S ALREADY ON THE BOOKS THAT THEY MUST BE DEPORTED. BUT A GREAT, GREAT.

YEAH. OKAY. YES. COMMISSIONER. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE, I LOOK AT THIS AND I SEE A DOJ INVESTIGATION FAR MORE LIKELY THAN THE SCENARIO PLAYING OUT THAT'S BEING PRESENTED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. PLEASE. ON THE MICROPHONE FOR ILLEGAL HIRING PRACTICES FOR DISCRIMINATION.

WELL, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK THESE POSITIONS SHOULD BE ELECTED, WHICH WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

IF THEY'RE ELECTED AND NOT SUBJECT TO REGULAR HIRING PRACTICES, WE NEED TO BASE OUR DECISIONS ON LAW, NOT ON FEELINGS. THANK YOU. THAT'S NOT A FEELING.

THAT'S. THAT'S WHAT I AM HOPING WILL HAPPEN. COMMISSIONER YOU HAD A COMMENT.

I JUST WANT TO ADD AN OPINION THAT IF WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE TO CONSIDER NON-CITIZENS FOR POSITIONS WITH THE CITY OR THE GOVERNMENT, WE'RE FAR BEYOND WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK WE'RE AT AS FAR AS THIS COUNTRY FALLING APART.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? SO WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? WOULD YOU SOMEONE MAKE THE MOTION, PLEASE? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS HER AMENDMENT AS AS SHE SAID IT.

MAY I HAVE A SECOND? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

PASS HER MOTION OR PASS HER AMENDMENT AS WRITTEN.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. AND WOULD YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY PEOPLE ON THE THAT NEED A COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE? I'D ASK YOU, PLEASE HAVE TO BE ON. ON. THE ONLY THING I'D LIKE TO ASK IS WE ALLOW NON-CITIZENS TO JOIN OUR US MILITARY, AND THEY TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.

AND THE SAME THINGS THAT I TOOK AND BILL AND SEVERAL PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM HAVE TAKEN.

SO I'M KIND OF CONFUSED AS TO WHY WE'RE REQUIRING OUR CITY MANAGERS AND THE ATTORNEY AND THE OTHER ONE, THE CITY CLERK AS TO WHY WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THEIR CITIZENS.

I MEAN, I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE WHAT THE REASONING BEHIND THIS IS.

THANK YOU. RUTH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT? BUT ARE YOU ASKING WHY THEY SHOULD BE A CITIZEN, TO BE A CITY ATTORNEY OR CLERK OR CITY MANAGER? VERSUS VERSUS THE ARMED FORCES. THE ARMED FORCES TRAINS THEM.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATE WOULD DO.

SAME THING THAT THE MILITARY GOES THROUGH. THEY BECOME CITIZENS.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER. NEAL TO ANSWER WHAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING TO.

I THINK THAT WAS A BAD EXAMPLE BECAUSE SOMEONE I'VE.

I'VE GONE TO BASIC TRAINING WITH INDIVIDUALS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES WHO ARE SIGNING A BLANK CHECK BOOK TO UNCLE SAM UP TO THEIR LIFE FOR CITIZENSHIP, WHERE SOMEONE APPLYING FOR CITY MANAGER IS NOT WILLING TO PUT THEIR LIFE ON THE LINE.

IF SO, BE, THEN APPLY FOR THE MILITARY AND JOIN AND GAIN CITIZENSHIP LIKE THE INDIVIDUALS I HONORABLY SERVE NEXT TO.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. WE HAVE WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? BY THE SIGN OF I, I, I AND ALL.

NAY, NAY. SO IT PASSES. HOW MANY OF US ARE THERE? EIGHT. EIGHT. YOU WANT TO DO OKAY. ROLL CALL.

I WAS GOING TO SAY 6 TO 2, BUT WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL.

MR. DELGADO. YES, MR. MILLER. AYE. MR.. GORM.

NAY. MR. NORRIS. AYE. MR. O'NEILL. YAY! MISS SARAH.

I MISS COFFEY. I, MR. WEINBERG. NAY. OKAY. PASSES.

TWO. FOUR. HOW MANY IS THERE? EIGHT OF US OR NINE OF US? SIX OF TWO. THERE'S EIGHT OF US. OKAY, 6 TO 2.

NO, THERE'S IT'S SIX OF US HERE. OKAY. TWO. FOUR.

SIX. EIGHT. 6 TO 2. I'M SORRY. OKAY. ALRIGHT.

[00:25:01]

[NEW BUSINESS]

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? YES. YOU ALL HAVE MADE A LOT OF SUGGESTIONS THUS FAR, AND IT IS LIKELY THAT ALL OF THESE SUGGESTIONS ARE NOT GOING TO BE ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL AND PLACED ON THE BALLOT.

THE BALLOT STATEMENTS ARE NOT DONE IN HOUSE. I SEND THEM OUT TO AN ATTORNEY WHO DOES THIS ALL THE TIME, TO ENSURE THAT IT IS NOT LIKELY THAT THIS WILL BE CHALLENGED.

SO ME PROVIDING THESE STATEMENTS TO YOU ALL WOULD BE ME EXPENDING PART OF MY BUDGET ON THINGS THAT COUNCIL MAY NEVER APPROVE OR COUNCIL COULD APPROVE, WITH SITE CHANGES WHICH WOULD RESULT IN MORE EXPENDITURES.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU ALL ARE GOING THROUGH ALL THE PROCESS AND I KNOW YOU'RE ALL WORKING HARD, BUT IT IS VERY MUCH LIKELY BECAUSE THERE ARE ONLY SO MANY THINGS THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY ASK THE PUBLIC TO VOTE ON.

I MEAN, THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT THEY AGREE WITH YOU ALL ON, BUT IF YOU PUT TOO MUCH STUFF OUT ON THE BALLOT, WHAT PEOPLE TEND TO DO IS I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF IMPORTANT PEOPLE HERE.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO TAKE THE TIME. AND IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE TIME, WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU DEFAULT TO THE STATUS QUO. YOU JUST DECIDE TO VOTE NO ON ALL.

SO THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE MORE OF A NARROWER FIELD AT WITH MY BUDGET THAT I'M VERY MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT.

I DO TRY TO DO THE BEST I CAN. I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE EXPEDIENT FOR YOU ALL TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

CERTAINLY COUNCIL WILL DECIDE ONCE COUNCIL DECIDE, THAT'S WHEN WE SEND IT TO THE ATTORNEY TO DO MAKE A STATEMENT AND DO SOMETHING WHERE, HEY, IF A CHALLENGE CAN COME, I KNOW THAT I'VE GOT AN ATTORNEY WHO COULD DEFEND US AND WHEN THOSE COME, THEY'LL BE ON THE AGENDA. COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE THEM.

AND IF YOU ALL THINK, WELL, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE MISSED OR YOU THINK THEY'RE CONFUSING YOU, COME OUT WITH EVERYBODY ELSE AND OR YOU SEND THE COMMENTS THEN BECAUSE OTHERWISE I'M PAYING PERHAPS DOUBLE AND NOBODY WANTS MY OFFICE TO BE PAYING DOUBLE.

I'M SURE NONE OF YOU WANT THAT. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THAT.

IF I MAY CLARIFY SOMETHING, THEN WHEN? WHEN IT'S PRESENTED.

AND BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER THE PROCESS IN TIMES PAST WHEN IT IS PRESENTED TO THE TO THE CITY COUNCIL, IS IT PRESENTED IN A WAY WHERE THEY CAN CHANGE WHAT IS SAID OR HOW IT'S PRESENTED? IF THEY HAVE ANY ISSUES, THEY COULD TELL ME. WE STILL GO THROUGH THAT SAME PROCESS BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING, I WOULD TYPICALLY ASK THEM NOT TO ADOPT A REVISION THAT THEY MAKE ON THE FLY, BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE A REVISION, THEY LET ME KNOW. AND THEN I RUN THAT REVISION BACK THROUGH THE ATTORNEY, BECAUSE WE ALWAYS WANT TO MAKE SURE, WHATEVER THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE, WE'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT'S DEFENSIBLE.

BUT THEY ARE THEY ARE GIVEN A TIME TO WHERE THEY CAN REVIEW THE THE VERBIAGE AND MAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS, OR IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED AND GIVE THEIR OPINION TO SEND IT BACK.

THEY DO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. YES. TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEBODY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT IT? THEY WILL TYPICALLY CONTACT THE INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY CONTACT ME AND LET ME KNOW THAT, HEY, I HAVE SOMETHING. SO IN THE HOPES THAT THEY TELL ME, THEN I CAN RUN IT BY THE LEGAL ATTORNEY SO THAT IT COULD HAPPEN AT THAT COUNCIL MEETING RATHER THAN HAVE. BUT CERTAINLY IF IT HAPPENED AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, I WOULD ASK THEM TO DELAY TO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE TIME, WHICH IS TYPICALLY WHY IF THEY HAD ANYTHING, THEY TYPICALLY WOULD TELL ME INDIVIDUALLY.

BUT IF IT HAPPENED AT THE DAIS, WE WOULD ACTUALLY TRY TO GET THEM TO DEFER.

OR WORST CASE, MAYBE WE WERE TIME PRESS, HAVE THEM MAYBE SKIP THAT ITEM AND ME AND TRY TO GET MY ATTORNEY. BUT I WOULD WANT THE ATTORNEY TO HAVE REVIEWED AND HAVE NO ISSUE THAT THE LANGUAGE MEETS THE LAW,

[00:30:01]

THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. BUT YOU BUT YOU WILL OR OR SOMEONE YOU DESIGNATE WILL PRESENT IT TO THE COUNTY.

TO THE CITY COUNCIL. EXACTLY AS IT'S APPROVED HERE.

OKAY. THE CHANGES WE HAVE MADE, HAS IT HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO GO THROUGH IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WAY WE'RE STATING IT IS CLEAR OR NOT? HAVE WE DONE THAT OR DO WE DO THAT? WELL, I, I MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS, SOME OF WHICH YOU ALL MAY HEED OR MAY NOT HEED.

AND. IT GOES FORWARD, CERTAINLY, IF AT THE END.

IF YOU WANT ME TO. BECAUSE IF I CAN SAY THIS A POINT WHERE YOU ALL HAVE TO PRIORITIZE THESE IT DEPENDING ON HOW MANY OF THAT YOU HAVE, I'M SURE EVERY RECOMMENDATION YOU HAVE YOU WANT COUNCIL TO ADOPT.

BUT IT MAY BE SOMETHING WHERE YOU'RE LIKE, HEY COUNCIL, WE WANT YOU TO DO ALL OF THESE.

BUT IF YOU DECIDED THAT YOU ONLY WANTED FOUR THINGS ON THE BALLOT, THESE ARE THE FOUR THINGS WE THINK ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT.

IF I MAY CLARIFY, THEN YOU'RE THIS IS GOING TO BE A LEGAL DOCUMENT.

AS LEGAL DOCUMENT. YOU'RE TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE LEGALESE LANGUAGE.

AND SO WE WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO STIPULATE OUR THOUGHTS, BUT IN A WAY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN LEGAL FORMAT. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS IF, IF WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT THIS, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IF I'M GOING TO PRESENT THIS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THAT IT BE IN THE FORM THAT WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED AND THE WAY WE'VE DISCUSSED IT IS CORRECT IN ITS PRESENTATION AND THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING GIBBERISH.

SO NOT THAT QUOTE UNQUOTE, IT NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED AS IT'S GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC WHERE YOU HAVE TO HIRE IT OUT. I'M ASKING IF WE CAN REVIEW WHAT WE'VE SAID AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CLEAR IN ITS UNDERSTANDING, AS YOU VIEW IT, AS A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. OKAY.

DO WE DO WE NEED TO PASS A A VOTE HERE TO TO HAVE YOU LOOK THAT OVER? OKAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE.

AND THEN IF YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T CLEAR, I'M READING IT, AND EVEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, THEN THAT'S PROBABLY A CLEAR SIGN THAT WE DIDN'T EXPRESS IT CORRECTLY.

AND WE NEED TO REVISE THE WAY WE STATED IT. I SAW A HAND ON THIS SIDE OF COMMISSIONER.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION. HISTORICALLY, WE'VE HAD THESE MEETINGS.

THEN THE THE COUNCIL TAKES IT AND THERE'S NO EXCHANGE AS TO WHAT OUR THOUGHTS WERE IN THAT PROCESS.

SO I THINK HAVING A WORKSHOP WITH THE COUNCIL PRESENT SO THEY CAN REVIEW WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH AND WE CAN HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT, OR IN OUR YOU KNOW, IN THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE, WHY WE'VE COME TO THESE CONCLUSIONS.

THEY DO WORKSHOPS AND I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ONE.

I THINK WE COULD OFFER THAT TO THE TO THE CITY COUNCIL IF THEY IF THEY WOULD SO SO CHOOSE TO DO SO.

I'M SURE WE CAN'T VOTE ON THAT. COMMISSIONER O'NEILL BEFORE MOVING.

I'M NOT A BAD IDEA, BUT MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT IN ANY WAY GO AGAINST SUNSHINE LAW? NO, NO, YOU CAN HAVE A JOINT WORKSHOP. THE JOINT WORKSHOP WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE SUNSHINE.

YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT AS LONG AS WE HAD THE WORKSHOP BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU ALL AND IT WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED, AND IT WOULD BE FINE. COMMISSIONER MILLER, JUST JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

SO WE HAVE ABOUT FOUR OF THESE MEETINGS LEFT, I THINK, ON OUR ON OUR SCHEDULE.

WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE OF SECTIONS LEFT TO GO.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SERVING ON THIS. PHIL MIGHT BE ABLE OR SOME OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS MAY BE ABLE TO SHARE. ARE THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS US GOING BACK AND REVIEWING ALL OF THE CHANGES AND VALIDATING THE WORDING.

[00:35:01]

IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE COMMISSION? OKAY. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PROCEED FORWARD OKAY, COMMISSIONER.

THAT BEING SAID, I HAD REVIEWED, GONE BACK AND REVIEWED SECTION 401, AND I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE ADD THAT TO THE NEXT AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING. I HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED MY CHANGES TO THE CLERK THAT'S NOT IN THIS PACKET, BUT IT WAS BASED ON THAT. I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.

SO I DID LOOK AT IT EXTENSIVELY. SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE ADD IT TO THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING.

WE CERTAINLY CAN. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

GREAT. AND TODAY WE HAVE A SPECIAL SPEAKER. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE NAME ESCAPES ME AND I APOLOGIZE.

AND ANGELICA. VERY CLOSE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ANGELICA COLLINS.

I'M THE ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

MY PRIMARY JOB IS TO OVERSEE THE CITY'S BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND DETERMINING THE TAX RATE FOR THE CITY THAT GENERATES FUNDING. TO GO AHEAD AND PAY FOR THE SERVICES THAT WE FREQUENTLY TALK ABOUT.

SURE. MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER. MAY I MAKE A STATEMENT? COMMISSIONER? GO AHEAD. THE CITY CHARTER IS A COVENANT BETWEEN THE VOTERS AND ITS ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND THE CHARTER OFFICERS ALL TAKE AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CHARTER.

THE CHARTER IS WRITTEN CURRENTLY, THE CHARTER CONTAINS A 3% CAP FOR ANY STAFF ELECTED OFFICIAL OR ANYBODY TO SPEAK CONTRARY TO THE 3%, CAP IS SPEAKING CONTRARY TO THE CHARTER AND GOES AGAINST OUR OATH OF OFFICE.

I WOULD ASK THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION.

WITH THAT IN MIND. I NEED SOME ATTORNEY HELP, PLEASE.

IF WE CAN GO WITH WITH THE ATTORNEY FIRST. OKAY.

I'M SORRY. CERTAINLY. YOU ALL THE POINT OF YOU ALL BEING HERE, AND WHICH IS NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, THE CHARTER, A LOT OF IT WAS DRIVEN BY THE SPECIFIC PROVISION IN WHICH COUNSEL IS WANTED TO RECONSIDER AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT BROUGHT THIS AND A PERSON, EVEN AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY, SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD BE CHANGES, WHETHER IT'S THE CHARTER OR ORDINANCE. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.

YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH, BUT IF WE SEE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, IT IS OUR JOB TO CHANGE OR GIVE YOU INFORMATION FOR YOU TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU OR COUNCIL WHETHER IT'S CHANGE SHOULD BE MADE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROVISION THAT CAN SAY THAT ONCE SOMETHING IS ADOPTED, YOU CAN'T SAY, WELL, NOT THAT I THINK WE CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT SAYS, YOU CAN'T SUGGEST ANYTHING OR YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING THAT'S CONTRARY.

OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD NEVER BE ANY CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS. YOU'D SEE SOMETHING AND IT WOULD BE STUCK BECAUSE NOBODY COULD SAY ANYTHING. I MEAN, CERTAINLY WE CAN'T GET INTO YOU CAN ADVOCATE ANYTHING ABOUT OVERTHROWING THE GOVERNMENT.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE DO MAKE THOSE TYPE OF PLEDGES, BUT THE FIDELITY TO THE CHARTER IS NOT SAYING THAT THE CHARTER CAN'T BE CHANGED.

RIGHT. BUT THEN YOU GET INTO THE ADVOCACY VERSUS VERSUS EDUCATION.

YOU CAN EDUCATE, BUT YOU CAN'T ADVOCATE. SO IT'S FINE TO LAY OUT DATA POINTS.

AND REVIEW THOSE THINGS. BUT IT'S NOT OKAY TO ADVOCATE FOR CHANGE.

YOU CAN'T USE PUBLIC RESOURCES TO ADVOCATE FOR A CHANGE ON THE FOR AN ITEM THAT'S ON THE REFERENDUM.

WE ACTUALLY HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE. SO THERE IS DEBATE ABOUT WHEN THAT OCCURS.

BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT ONCE COUNCIL DECIDES THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE PUT OUT FOR VOTERS, THAT THERE COULD BE NO GOVERNMENTAL RESOURCES TO ADVOCATE FOR CHANGE. I WILL SAY AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T KNOW THAT THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IS ADVOCATING FOR ANYTHING OR EDUCATING BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T REALLY GIVEN HER A CHANCE TO DO MUCH OTHER THAN, SAY, HER NAME.

WELL, LET ME ASK ONE MORE QUESTION ALONG THESE LINES.

IF THE 3% CAP WAS CHALLENGED IN COURT AS BEING ILLEGAL, WOULDN'T THE CITY HAVE TO DIVEST OR USE ALL OF ITS RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO DEFEND A 3% CAP. THE CITY WOULD DECIDE, BASED UPON THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, WHETHER THERE WAS A LEGALLY VIABLE WAY IN WHICH TO DEFEND WHAT WAS BEING CHALLENGED.

[00:40:10]

SO SINCE THIS WAS NOT, CAN WE DELAY IT UNTIL NEXT MEETING, INASMUCH AS WE HAD STIPULATED IN THE FORMAT THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO IT, THAT IF THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OFFER OF CHANGING ANYTHING ON THIS DOCKET, THAT WE WOULD PRESENT IT BEFORE THE ACTUAL SPEAKING OF IT, SO THAT WE CAN LOOK IT OVER, UNDERSTAND IT, UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS IF WE WERE GOING TO ADDRESS IT.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. BECAUSE I'M NOT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS OR AT LEAST INTELLIGENT QUESTIONS ON THE FLY.

RIGHT? SO I HAVEN'T COMPLETELY GONE THROUGH THIS BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY LOOKS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU PRESENTED BEFORE.

COUNCIL IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT WAS AS FAR AS LANGUAGE YOU ALL DIDN'T WANT.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE STATE IN LANGUAGE THAT YOU HADN'T SEEN.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS PRESENTATION IS ACTUALLY TO PROPOSE A SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR THE CHARTER.

THAT IS CORRECT. I'M GOING TO SAY THIS. WHAT IS SHE PRESENTING? WHAT ANGELICA IS PRESENTING IS NOT A REQUEST.

IT'S NOT A REQUEST TO CHANGE. YOU'RE JUST GIVING US INFORMATION.

THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE PRESENTATION IS ESSENTIALLY A COMPILATION, A SUMMARY OF ALL THE PRESENTATIONS I'VE GIVEN TO CITY COUNCIL.

I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR TEN YEARS. IT'S SIMILAR SLIDES FROM OUR MOST RECENT BUDGET WORKSHOP.

I INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE CHARTER NOW AND KIND OF TALK HOW HOW I COME UP WITH THE COMPUTATIONS THAT I PRESENT.

SO IT'S AN EDUCATION ON UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE 3% CAP DOES TO REVENUES THAT COME IN. SO, SO THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE MATH BEHIND THE SO YOU'RE NOT PRESENTING ANY POSITION WHETHER TO CHANGE IT OR NOT. YOU ARE JUST GIVING US INFORMATION THAT THAT IS MY JOB FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS, AND I'VE BEEN DOING THIS WITH CITY COUNCIL MULTIPLE TIMES A YEAR.

I DON'T ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST IT. THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN DO IS PROVIDE YOU WITH DATA AND INFORMATION ON CURRENT HISTORICAL AND PROJECTIONS ON WHAT THE CITY SEES IN THE FUTURE.

OKAY, WE WILL ACCEPT THE INFORMATION. HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT ACCEPTING OTHER THAN WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN PRESENTED FOR PROPOSED CHANGES.

THAT'S WHAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING. SHE THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE OR ON THE FLOOR OF THE TABLE.

THE ITEM. WAS THERE A SECOND? I DON'T THINK THERE WAS.

I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A. POINT OF ORDER. SO IF I NEED TO.

IF I NEED TO MAKE THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION YOU CAN MAKE, YOU CAN.

BUT AGAIN, WE'RE WE'RE NOT ASKING. SHE'S NOT PRESENTING SOMETHING TO CHANGE SOMETHING.

SHE'S JUST INFORMING US HOW HOW IT IT WORKS. FOR INFORMATION SAKE, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

IT'S JUST THAT I'D ASKED FOR IT TO BE TABLED AND THAT'S STILL ON THE TABLE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? IT DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

THANK YOU. OKAY. IF I MAY. YES, COMMISSIONER WEINBERG.

ESSENTIALLY, IT'S JUST. JUST AS AS PATRICIA PROVIDES EXPERT OPINIONS ON THE LAW.

TERESE JONES OR CITY CLERK PROVIDES EXPERT OPINION ON PROCEDURE.

AND ANGELICA, WHO IS AN EXPERT IN BUDGET. AND SHE'S HERE, JUST TO CLARIFY, TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE 3% CAP IS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE DISCUSSION ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND ANY INFORMATION THAT WE CAN GET TO HELP US MAKE ANY DECISIONS.

THAT'S GREAT. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO ADVOCACY AND I WANTED TO KEEP THAT.

SHE'S NOT HERE TO ADVOCATE. SHE'S HERE TO INFORM HER.

WELCOME AND AND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TO SHARE.

THANK YOU. WHAT A WELCOME. I MAY HAVE TO TAKE TOMORROW OFF.

AGAIN, MY NAME IS ANGELICA COLLINS. I'M THE ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR WITH THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

BEEN WITH PALM BAY NOW, COMING UP ON MY TEN YEAR ANNIVERSARY.

AND THIS IS REALLY MY REALM OF WHAT I DO DAY TO DAY.

[00:45:02]

IT WAS FOUR YEARS AGO. SO THANK YOU, MR. WEINBERG, FOR ASKING ME TO COME BACK.

I LOVE TALKING ABOUT THIS. I LOVE MY JOB. AND FOR ME, IT'S IT'S AN EDUCATION, EDUCATING PEOPLE ABOUT THE NOT NECESSARILY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES THAT COMES FROM OUR PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE.

BUT HOW WE TAKE THESE NUMBERS AND HOW WE COME UP WITH THE REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED IN THE CITY.

THERE IS A LOT OF MATH BEHIND THAT. AT AND SOMETIMES I DO FEEL WHEN, WHEN INDIVIDUALS SEE THAT THE 3% CAP, I JUST WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO RELATE HOW THAT TRANSLATES INTO PROPERTY BILLS VERSUS WHAT THE REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED IN THE CITY, WHAT THAT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE. ALSO FOR STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S ALWAYS ALL THESE RATES THAT YOU HEAR 6.76.7339 AND A ROLLBACK RATE AND A 3% CAP RATE. AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS THAT HAVE TO BE THROWN OUT THERE PER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.

SO I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE, WHAT THEY MEAN IN CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTS.

SO THAT WAY MAYBE WHEN WE DO HAVE THESE BUDGET WORKSHOPS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY HAVING ONE NEXT WEEK ON TUESDAY, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP THAT YOU KIND OF HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTAND ON WHAT THIS NUMBER DOES OVER HERE VERSUS OVER HERE VERSUS OVER HERE. SO THAT WAY YOU CAN MAYBE GET A HIGH LEVEL UNDERSTANDING WHEN YOU HEAR ALL ALL THESE BUDGET WORKSHOPS THAT THAT WE KIND OF HAVE.

SO FOR THE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION I HAVE SORT OF LAID IT OUT TO WHERE WE'LL FIRST TALK ABOUT, LIKE WHAT THE CAP ACTUALLY IS AND THEN WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORICAL AND STATISTICAL DATA AND THEN JUST SOME CALCULATION METHODS.

IN OUR BUDGET WORKSHOPS, I ALWAYS PROVIDE A 20 YEAR HISTORY OF OUR GROSS TAXABLE VALUE, HOW THOSE OPERATING MILLAGE RATE WORK AND THAT TYPE OF REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE ROLLBACK RATE WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT MEANS.

AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THESE ROLLBACK RATES SORT OF BRING TO MUNICIPALITIES AND MAYBE SOME OF THE BENEFITS AS WELL.

RIGHT. AND THEN WE HAVE OUR TAX BILL, MILLAGE RATE SLIDE, I LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT SO WE CAN KIND OF SEE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE TAX BILL I GET A LOT OF CALLS FROM OUR TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY AND THEY SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS MY TAX BILL, BUT WE KIND OF BREAK IT DOWN INTO YOU DON'T JUST PAY THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER TAXING AUTHORITIES IN THE CITY THAT THAT SORT OF GENERATE REVENUE FROM YOUR BILL.

AND THEN WE'LL KIND OF TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER SLIDES THAT I LIKE TO INCLUDE VISUALS ON REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED, HOW THAT IMPACTS THOSE DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND.

SO WE'LL GO TO SLIDE THREE. SO I WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT OUR 3% CAP.

AND REALLY WHAT OUR CHARTER SAYS. SO THIS IS SPECIFICALLY IN THE CHARTER.

SO THIS IS SORT OF THAT YOUR ASSIGNMENT TO REVIEW AND TALK ABOUT OUR CITY CHARTER WAS VOTED ON IN THE NOVEMBER 2016 ELECTION. SO IT'S ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO WHICH WAS IN FISCAL YEAR 2017, AND THEN IT BECAME EFFECTIVE IN 2018.

SO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT IT IS BEING VOTED ON, BUT THEN THERE'S ALWAYS THAT LAG YEAR UNTIL THE TAX BILLS ARE ACTUALLY PICKED UP AND WE GO THROUGH THAT CERTIFICATION PROCESS. SO ANNUALLY MY OFFICE GOES THROUGH WHAT WE CALL OUR TRIM PROCESS.

SO WITHIN BETWEEN THE MONTH OF JULY AND THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER IS WHERE WE WORK WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND OUR TAX COLLECTORS. AND THERE'S ALL THESE FORMS THAT WE HAVE TO FILE AND ALL THESE LIMITS WE HAVE TO SORT OF ABIDE BY.

AND THAT IS OUR TRIM PROCESS. SO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO REMEMBER AS SOON AS IT'S ON THAT TAX BILL, I MEAN, ON, ON, ON YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION CARD IN OUR RESIDENTS VOTE ON THAT.

IT'S STILL GOING TO NOT TAKE EFFECT FOR THAT WHOLE NOTHER YEAR JUST BECAUSE IT HAS TO GET ONTO THAT TAXATION CYCLE.

SO WITHIN THE CHARTER. IT DOES SAY THAT IT'S AN INCREASE OVER THE BUDGETED AD VALOREM REVENUE.

REVENUE FROM THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR BY NO MORE THAN 3%.

SO WHAT I ESSENTIALLY DO, WE'RE GETTING READY TO PREPARE FOR FISCAL YEAR 27, WHICH IS EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST OF THIS YEAR.

SO IT'S THAT THAT'S OUR LIFE CYCLE FOR OUR OUR FISCAL YEAR.

SO I LOOK AT WHAT WAS BUDGETED FOR 26 FOR OUR AD VALOREM TAXES.

AND THEN THAT'S WHERE YOU START WITH A CALCULATION ON THAT 3% CAP.

[00:50:03]

EXCUSE ME IF YOU CAN TELL US WHICH ON WHICH ONE YOU'RE AT SO I CAN FOLLOW YOU.

I'M ON SLIDE THREE. SLIDE THREE. YES. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND THEN THAT'S SUBSECTION C, IT SAYS IT MAY OPPOSE AN COUNCIL MAY IMPOSE AN AD VALOREM TAX FOR MUNICIPAL PURPOSES AT A RATE WHICH EXCEEDS THE THE LIMITATIONS IN PARAGRAPH B, IF A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURS IN FINDING, THEN SUCH AN ACCESS EXCESS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF AN EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL NEED.

SO YOUR 3% CAP IS IN PLACE, AND IF FOUR OUT OF FIVE OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTE TO EXCEED THAT CAP, THEN THAT IS THE LAW WITHIN OUR CITY CHARTER.

SO IN ORDER TO EXCEED THE CAP RATE, WHICH WE DETERMINED IN THE MONTH OF JULY FOUR OUT OF OUR FIVE MEMBERS HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT, AND IT SHOULD BE FOR THE EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL NEED.

SO AT THAT POINT, I WORK WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

WE HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT ACTUALLY TIES TO EXCEEDING THAT CAP THAT OFFICIALLY GETS FILED WITHIN THE CITY AS WELL.

AND WITHIN THAT RESOLUTION, WE ITEMIZE THE REASONING FOR EXCEEDING THAT CAP.

SO THAT DIFFERENCE IN REVENUE WE GENERATE I KNOW FOR THIS YEAR WE EXCEEDED THAT CAP IS DEDICATED TO VEHICLE PURCHASES, FIRE ENGINES, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WAS THAT ALREADY PASSED BY THE.

YES. SO WE PASSED OUR RATE. WE PASSED IT IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER.

AND THEN IT BECOMES EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST. AND THE VOTE WAS I BELIEVE THE VOTE WAS 4 TO 1.

I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND PULL IT. BUT WE DID HAVE IT WAS VOTED ONE.

YES. SUBSECTION D SURE. YEAH. GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER VICE CHAIR A 3% PLUS GROWTH. AND WHAT DOES THE GROWTH MAKE UP AS FAR AS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET YEAR AFTER YEAR? SO IT'S ACTUALLY A 3% YOUR NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUATIONS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE 3% CAP IN THE FIRST CALENDAR YEAR.

AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT CALCULATION IN A LITTLE BIT.

SO INITIALLY WHEN WE DO THE 3% CAP, IT IS BASED ON CURRENT AD VALOREM TAXATION PLUS THAT 3%.

SO I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUATIONS IN A LITTLE BIT.

SURE. WHEN YOU GUYS GO INTO THE EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL NEED PORTION, IS THERE A SET CAP IN THERE OF OF HOW MUCH FURTHER YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GO UP? SO THE STATE ACTUALLY HAS A MAXIMUM SET RATE THAT CAN BE ADOPTED AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT GO OVER THAT.

IT IS UP TO COUNCIL TO CHOOSE THAT THAT LIMIT.

SO THE STATE ESSENTIALLY ALREADY WE COME INTO THE FISCAL YEAR ALREADY AT A STATE CAP.

SO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CAPS HOW HIGH WE CAN GO, HOW HIGH YOU CAN ACTUALLY INCREASE A RATE.

BUT THAT IS A STATE STATUTORY LIMIT THAT THEY IMPOSE BASED ON THE CURRENT YEAR THAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY IN.

SO THEY'RE SAYING CURRENT THIS CURRENT YEAR YOU'VE ADOPTED THIS RATE WHICH WAS THIS MUCH ABOVE YOUR ROLLBACK RATES IN THE FUTURE YEAR.

YOU CANNOT RAISE YOUR TAXES HIGHER THAN THIS RATE, ESSENTIALLY.

OKAY IF COUNCIL CHOOSES TO INCREASE THE RATE FROM THE CURRENT YEAR, WHICH IN THE PAST TEN YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE THAT THEY HAVE NOT THAT IS UP TO THEM. AS LONG AS THEY DON'T GO OVER THE STATUTORY LIMIT THAT THE STATE HAS SET FOR OUR MUNICIPALITY. SO THEY COULDN'T NECESSARILY COME IN AND SAY, WE ARE RAISING THE RATE BY FIVE MILLAGE POINTS BECAUSE THEY'RE STATUTORILY NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. SUBSECTION D ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT THAT EXCLUSION OF, OF THAT REVENUE. SO EXCLUDE FROM THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES ARE ALL REVENUE CHANGES FROM THE FOLLOWING KINDS OF PROPERTY NOT APPEARING ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S TAX ROLL. SO YOU HAVE NEW CONSTRUCTIONS.

ADDITIONS OR DEMOLITIONS IN WHOLE OR IN PART OF THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION.

AND CHANGES IN THE VALUES OF IMPROVEMENT. SO WITHIN THE CALENDAR YEAR.

ANYTIME ANYONE DOES ANY NEW CONSTRUCTIONS OR ANY KIND OF CHANGES TO.

WHETHER IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT CHANGES THE VALUE OF YOUR HOME, THAT IS CONSIDERED NEW CONSTRUCTION.

AND THAT VALUATION WE RECEIVE FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SEPARATELY.

SO IT'S A SEPARATE ESSENTIALLY NOTATION ON THE FORM WE RECEIVE.

AND THIS AMOUNT IS EXCLUDED FROM THE 3% CAP FOR THE FIRST YEAR.

THE FOLLOWING YEAR WHEN WE COME BACK, THAT IS THEN SUBJECTED TO THE 3% CAP.

[00:55:05]

THEREFORE, IN THE FUTURE YEAR, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY INCREASING MORE THAN 3% IN REVENUE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

BUT BECAUSE WITHIN THE CHARTER IT STATES THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION IS EXEMPT, RIGHT.

SO THAT'S HOW THE CALCULATION SOMETIMES WORK.

SO SOMETIMES I, I DON'T ENCOURAGE INDIVIDUALS TO LOOK AT, HEY, THIS YEAR THIS IS HOW MUCH YOU TOOK IN IN REVENUE AND A 3% INCREASE, BUT YOU'RE TAKING IN MUCH MORE. BUT YOU SAID YOU ADOPTED THE CAP.

THE REASON IS BECAUSE PART OF THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE IS THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION.

SLIDE FOR SOMETHING THAT I INCLUDE IN MOST OF MY PRESENTATIONS WHEN WE GO TO COUNCIL WORKSHOPS.

SO THIS IS THAT TEN YEAR HISTORY OF WHAT OUR RATES WITHIN THE CITY HAVE LOOKED LIKE.

SO LIKE I SAID, IT'S 2017, 2018. THAT FIRST YEAR WE DID NOT HAVE A 3% CAP.

THAT IS WHEN THE VOTING HAPPENED AND YOU HAVE THAT LAG YEAR.

BUT STARTING IN 2018, YOU SEE THOSE THREE DIFFERENT COLORED LINES.

SO ESSENTIALLY YOUR GRAY LINE IS THE RATES THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED HISTORICALLY FOR TEN YEARS.

THE YELLOW LINE IS THE 3% CAP RATE. SO AS YOU SEE, WHENEVER THOSE TWO LINES MEET TOGETHER, WE ESSENTIALLY ADOPTED OUR CAP. AND THEN THE ORANGE LINE IS THE ROLLBACK RATE.

AND I'LL SPECIFICALLY IN YOUR PACKET, IT DOES EXPLAIN WHAT THE ROLLBACK RATE IS AND A LITTLE BIT.

SO I'LL GO OVER THAT AS WELL. HISTORICALLY THE 3% CAP RATE HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOVE THE ROLLBACK.

HOWEVER, THIS YEAR IS THE FIRST YEAR THAT WE'RE IN CURRENTLY WHERE THE ROLLBACK RATE IS HIGHER THAN THE CAP RATE.

SO YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY YOUR CAP IS LOWER THAN WHAT YOUR WHAT YOUR CURRENT ALLOWABLE RATE IS TO TO BRING IN. THE REASON WHY THAT HAPPENED IS BECAUSE WE USED TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE CRA AND THE CRA WHILE WITHIN THE CITY AND DID NOT TAX, HAVE ITS OWN TAX RATE.

SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS THAT WE TAX THE WHOLE CITY OF PALM BAY CITY LIMITS, AND THEN THAT PORTION IS SET ASIDE FOR THE CRA THAT THAT'S PART OF HOW THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKS.

COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ALSO RECEIVES REVENUE FROM THE COUNTY.

SO THAT'S HOW THESE DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES WORK.

THIS PARTICULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SUNSETTED, MEANING THAT IT IS NO LONGER A LEGAL ENTITY.

SO NOW THAT PORTION THAT USED TO BE THAT WE HAD SET ASIDE FOR THAT TAXATION AREA WHERE THAT REVENUE CAN ONLY BE USED IN THAT SORT OF DIAMETER OF THAT CITY WE CAN NO LONGER SET THAT ASIDE.

AND NOW EVERYTHING IS BEING TAXED. SO THAT THIS YEAR IS THE FIRST YEAR THAT THAT TAX ROLL CAME OFF.

SO NOW WE'RE TAXING EVERYTHING, AND EVERYTHING IS UNDER THE 3% CAP ESSENTIALLY.

SO THAT IS WHY THAT SHIFT HAPPENED. MR. QUESTION.

ON SLIDE FOUR, YOU JUST SHOW THE MILLAGE RATE AND HOW IT'S DECREASED AND DECREASED OVER TIME.

WHAT'S MISSING IS THE RECIPROCAL NUMBER OF HOW MUCH PROPERTY PROPERTY VALUES HAVE INCREASED? YES. AND THE TOTAL REVENUE OF THE CITY OVER THE YEARS.

OKAY. I HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL SLIDES WE'LL GO THROUGH.

SO. YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO AGAIN IN SLIDE FIVE IT'S JUST THE WORDING SORT OF EXPLAINED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. SO WHAT IS THE 3% CAP.

SO IT'S JUST LIKE WE COVERED IN THE CHARTER SLIDE.

THE OPERATING MILLAGE WAS THAT'S APPROVED IN SEPTEMBER, EFFECTIVE THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR, IS CAPPED TO A SET RATE THAT WILL NOT GENERATE MORE THAN A 3% REVENUE INCREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR BUDGETED AMOUNT, EXCLUDING NEW TAXABLE VALUE AND CONSTRUCTION ADDED TO THE MOST RECENT TAX ROLL.

SO EXAMPLE, WHEN WE PREPARED THE FISCAL YEAR 26 CAP IS BASED ON FISCAL YEAR 25 BUDGETED REVENUE.

[01:00:08]

SO AGAIN WE DO SIMPLE MATH. WE LOOK AT WHAT WE BUDGETED THIS YEAR.

WE DO 3% OF THAT. SO THAT'S ALREADY SET ASIDE.

THAT IS YOUR 3% REVENUE THAT YOU'RE BRINGING IN.

WE DETERMINE THE OPERATING MILLAGE RATE THEN WHEN APPLIED AGAINST THE CURRENT YEAR ADJUSTED TAXABLE VALUE AT A 96% COLLECTION RATE, AND IT GENERATES FUTURE REVENUE JUST BELOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AMOUNT IDENTIFIED IN STEP ONE.

SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT I DO IS I GET OUR PROPERTY VALUATIONS FROM OUR PROPERTY APPRAISER.

WE GET SOME EARLY ESTIMATES IN MAY END OF MAY USUALLY.

AND THEN BY JULY 1ST THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY US WITH OUR ESSENTIAL TAXABLE VALUE.

SO PLEASE NO I DO NOT KNOW INDIVIDUAL UNITS. I DON'T KNOW PROPERTY.

PRIVATE VERSUS COMMERCIAL. I GET A LUMP SUM. I KNOW THE LUMP SUM VALUATION FOR THE CITY OF PALM BAY AS A WHOLE.

SO THEN I PLUG THOSE IN, AND THEN I LOOK AT THE RATE AND LOOK AT BEFORE NEW TAXABLE VALUE.

IF WE WERE TO GO AHEAD AND APPLY THAT RATE AGAINST THE EXISTING TAXABLE VALUE ON THE BOOKS.

IF IT ESSENTIALLY GENERATES REVENUE BELOW THAT 3% CAP AMOUNT.

RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHAT I START WITH IS THE VALUES THAT THEY RECEIVE.

SO THAT DOES INCLUDE THE VALUATIONS OF THE HOMES.

SO AS YOUR AS YOUR PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE. RIGHT.

THAT TAXABLE VALUE WILL COME DOWN BECAUSE YOU'RE TAXING MORE HOMES RIGHT.

SO THAT'S SORT OF THE IDEA BEHIND IT IS, IS THAT THE RATE WILL DECREASE BECAUSE YOU'RE CAPPING HOW MUCH YOU'RE BRINGING IN, BUT YOUR GROWTH IS HIGHER THAN THAT 3%. SO NATURALLY YOUR RATE WILL DECLINE, RIGHT? SAME AS THE OPPOSITE. IF HOME VALUES ARE LOWER AND YOU'RE NOT TAXING AS MANY PEOPLE, IF GROWTH STARTS SLOWING DOWN, THAT RATE WILL EITHER DECLINE SLOWER OR NOT. THAT I'VE SEEN IT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, BUT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE TAX RATE INCREASES IN ORDER TO DRIVE UP THE REVENUE THAT COMES IN, THAT IS THE THAT IS SORT OF ALL THE PARTS THAT ARE IN PLAY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, THE INCOMING GROWTH, PROPERTY VALUATIONS, COMMERCIAL GRADE TO HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THE BOOKS.

BUT AGAIN I ONLY SEE ONE LUMP SUM. SO THERE'S A WHOLE LOT THAT GOES ON BEHIND THE SCENES.

SO THAT'S THE FIRST STEP ESSENTIALLY IN JUST FIGURING OUT WHAT IS THAT RATE.

RIGHT. SO WE COME UP WITH THIS RATE, IT GOES OUT FOR DECIMALS.

AND I WILL TELL YOU, JUST CHANGING THAT LAST DECIMAL BY ONE NUMBER YOU'RE OVER OR UNDER RIGHT.

SO IT DOES GO OUT FOR DECIMALS. THEN WE GO AHEAD AND APPLY THAT OPERATING MILLAGE RATE TO THE NEW TAXABLE VALUE.

BECAUSE REMEMBER THE FIRST YEAR IT'S EXEMPT. AND WHATEVER REVENUE YOU'RE GENERATING OFF THAT YOU ADD TO YOUR INITIAL RIGHT.

SO HYPOTHETICALLY IF YOU HAD NO NEW REVENUE COMING IN, IF IF THERE'S NO GROWTH, YOU HAD WE GO IN THE YEAR THE SAME AS WE HAVE BEFORE.

RIGHT? YOU WILL NOT GENERATE ANY ADDITIONAL REVENUE JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT NEW REVENUE AS A BUFFER TO ADD.

YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY JUST CALCULATING 3%. THAT IS THE REVENUE YOU'RE BRINGING IN BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO ADDITIONAL VALUE TO ADD.

I DO MAKE A NOTE THAT WE ALWAYS BUDGET AT A 96% COLLECTION, WHICH MEANS WE NEVER ANTICIPATE 100% OF OUR PROPERTY VALUE REVENUE TO COME IN. THE STATE OF FLORIDA REQUIRES 95% COLLECTION.

SO 96 IS IS PRETTY GOOD. I'VE SEEN OTHER CITIES THAT BUDGET AT 98% COLLECTION.

BUT JUST KNOW THAT THE HIGHER YOU BUDGET, IF YOU DON'T GET ALL OF THAT, FUND THOSE FUNDS IN BY INDIVIDUALS.

SOME DON'T PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES. THEN THERE IS THAT LOSS IN REVENUE.

SO YOU BETTER OFF IS PROJECTING AT A LITTLE BIT OF A LOWER RATE.

ALL RIGHT. SO SLIDE SIX AND SLIDE SEVEN. THAT'S SORT OF WHERE YOUR MATH COMES IN.

RIGHT. SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY PUTTING OUT THE DATA FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IS LOOKING AT RATES. WHAT ARE WE BRINGING IN, WHAT ARE WE ADDING TOGETHER AND WHAT AMOUNT ARE WE BUDGETING FOR OUR ANTICIPATED REVENUE COMING IN? THERE'S NO PROJECTIONS FOR 27, 27.

[01:05:04]

SO THIS IS ALL PUBLISHED. THESE ARE ALL KNOWN.

KNOWN. THIS IS ALL KNOWN INFORMATION THAT WE'VE, WE'VE SORT OF DISTRIBUTED IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

SO I'LL GIVE YOU FIVE YEAR HISTORY. I LIKE DOING THAT SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE MATH.

IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS WE HAVE ADOPTED THE CAP THREE TIMES AND EXCEEDED IT TWICE.

SO YOU CAN KIND OF ALREADY SEE FROM THE MATH ON HOW THAT IMPACTS THE REVENUE COMING IN AS A WHOLE.

I ALWAYS HIGHLIGHT FISCAL YEAR 26 JUST BECAUSE THAT'S THE YEAR THAT WE'RE IN.

SO WE CAN START WITH THAT AND THEN KIND OF COMPARE IT TO 25.

SO YOU CAN YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE. SO FOR 26 OUR 3% CAP RATE WAS SET AT 6.3658.

AND AS YOU KNOW, THIS YEAR WE DID EXCEED THE CAP AND THEY ADOPTED A RATE OF 6.7.

STILL A REDUCTION FROM 25. SO THEY REDUCED THE RATE BUT SET IT AT 6.7, WHICH IT DID EXCEED THE CAP.

SO DID WE STAY WITHIN THE CAP? NO, THIS YEAR WE DID NOT.

SO BASED ON THAT THAT RATE OF THAT 6.7, OUR 3% MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE REVENUE FOR THE GENERAL FUND, EXCLUDING NEW CONSTRUCTION. SO LET'S LOOK AT JUST NOT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION IS THE $59.5 MILLION.

SO ESSENTIALLY WE'RE TAKING 25 DATA CALCULATING 3%.

THIS IS THIS IS WHAT WE'RE COMING UP WITH. SO THEN OUR GENERAL FUND PORTION OF THE ADOPTED MILLAGE RATE AGAIN EXCLUDING NEW CONSTRUCTION RIGHT IS THE $62.7 $7 MILLION, WHICH MEANS BECAUSE WE EXCEEDED THAT RATE, THAT DIFFERENCE OVER OR UNDER THE 3% CAP RATE IS $3.1 MILLION.

SO THAT $3.1 MILLION IS THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE GENERATED FROM EXCEEDING THE CAP.

IF YOU COMPARE THAT TO FISCAL YEAR 25, AND YOU SEE HOW IT HAS A -$721.

THAT'S BECAUSE WE STAYED AT THE CAP. YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO HAVE THE BREAK EVEN NUMBER, BECAUSE IF I WOULD HAVE IF I WOULD HAVE EVEN GONE DOWN OR UP BY ONE ONE DECIMAL POINT AS SOON AS IT GOES A DOLLAR OVER, YOU'RE EXCEEDING THE CAP.

SO USUALLY YOU'RE ALWAYS A LITTLE BIT UNDER. SO IT'S ACTUALLY A LOSS OF $721.

BUT THAT'S THE MATH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO AS YOU COMPARE TO 25 AND 25, THE CAP WAS 6.7339.

WE ADOPTED THE CAP, WHICH MEANS THAT OUR GENERAL FUND ADOPTED MILLAGE RATE EXCLUDING THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS SET AT THAT 53.18 MILLION. SO THAT'S THAT 3% INCREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

SO THEN IF WE MOVE BELOW THAT GRADE LINE, RIGHT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND FOR FISCAL YEAR 26 CARRY DOWN.

THAT'S $62.7 MILLION. SO AGAIN WE THAT'S THE PROJECTED REVENUE.

YES MA'AM. OKAY. SO IT SAYS ADDED NEW CONSTRUCTION EXCLUDED FROM 3% CAP ON YEAR ONE. YEAR ONE MEANING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2017.

NO. SO SO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUATIONS WHEN I DO MY INITIAL CALCULATIONS I CANNOT INCLUDE.

RIGHT. SO WHEN I RECEIVE WHEN I RECEIVE THE NOTICE FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER I RECEIVE.

YEAH, WE'RE ON SIX. SO WHEN I RECEIVED THE NOTICE FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, I RECEIVE NOT JUST A LUMP SUM SAYING THESE ARE YOUR VALUATIONS. I RECEIVE EXISTING VALUATIONS THAT ARE OLDER THAN ONE YEAR, AND THEN I RECEIVE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT WAS ADDED TO THE TAX ROLL THIS PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR.

THAT PORTION IS DEDUCTED FROM THE TOTAL VALUATIONS IN ORDER TO DO THE 3% CAP.

SO WHEN I DO THE CALCULATIONS HERE, I HAVE TO SEPARATE THEM.

THESE ARE NOT VALUATIONS. THIS IS REVENUE COMING IN RIGHT AT THE YEAR.

ONE IS CONFUSING ME OR JUST ALL OVER THE PLACE OKAY.

BECAUSE I. OKAY. SO IT'S RIGHT HERE. OH YES, BECAUSE THAT'S ADDED TO IT.

OKAY. ANYTHING ABOVE THE GRAY LINE, RIGHT? I RECEIVED THE TAXABLE VALUE FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER.

[01:10:03]

ANYTHING THAT'S A YEAR OLDER, $1 MILLION OF NEW TAXABLE VALUE FOR A TOTAL OF 10 MILLION.

OKAY. SO THAT'S THE FIRST STEP. I HAVE TO TAKE THOSE VALUATIONS AND DETERMINE A RATE THAT, WHEN APPLIED, DOES NOT EXCEED 3% REVENUE INCREASE FROM THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR.

RIGHT. SO WE HAVE OUR TAXABLE VALUES. WE DON'T HAVE A RATE THAT'S THE X THAT I HAVE TO FIND IN ORDER TO NOT INCREASE THE Y MORE THAN 3%. IT'S THE FORMULA.

I GET THAT PART RIGHT. THE TAXABLE VALUE. WHAT? I DON'T CAN'T LOOK AT THE 10 MILLION. THE TAXABLE VALUE IS ONLY THE 9 MILLION.

I THINK YEAR ONE TO ME IS 2017. THE YEAR ONE IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.

YOU HAVE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT FIRST YEAR IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN IN THE 3% CAP.

AND THEN THAT SECOND YEAR IS GOING TO BE PART.

SHE IS THAT THE YEAR EVERY FISCAL YEAR IS ITS OWN YEAR.

2017 IS DONE. WE ARE YOU'RE YOU'RE I YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE RATE FROM 2017 WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED.

CORRECT. RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S THE FIRST YEAR IS IN MY MIND.

YEAH. OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING FIRST CONSTRUCTION MEANING IT IF A HOUSE IS BUILT.

THAT FIRST YEAR. ALL THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN HERE.

CORRECT. SO THAT HOUSE COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT IN 2024.

SO IN 2024, THAT VALUATION IS NOT UNDER A 3% CAP LIMIT.

IN 2025, THE VALUATION OF THE HOME NOW IS UNDER 3% 3% LIMIT.

OKAY, I GET THAT RIGHT. YES. JUST THREW ME RIGHT OFF.

YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. VICE CHAIR. THAT'S RIGHT.

SO OVER FIVE YEARS, THE WE'VE COLLECTED $37.9 MILLION IN YEAR ONE.

AND IN YEAR FIVE WE WENT TO 66.85 MILLION. THAT'S A 55% TAX INCREASE WHILE STILL STAYING WITHIN THE 3% TAX RATE.

THREE OUT OF THE FIVE YEARS. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND IF YOU GO TO SLIDE 11.

SO SLIDE 11 PROVIDES YOU WITH A TEN YEAR TAXABLE VALUE HISTORY WHERE IT SHOWS YOU YOUR CURRENT YEAR ADJUSTED TAXABLE VALUE.

SO THAT'S ANYTHING OVER A YEAR. AND THE SECOND COLUMN IS YOUR NEW TAXABLE VALUE.

SO AS YOU SEE IN 2017 YOUR TAXABLE VALUE WAS $45 MILLION.

AND IN 2025 YOUR TAXABLE VALUE WAS $618 MILLION.

AND REMEMBER THAT PORTION IS NOT SUBJECTED TO THE 3% CAP.

THAT IS WHERE YOUR REVENUE IS COMING FROM. AND THAT'S SORT OF THE THAT'S SORT OF THE PICTURE THAT I'M TRYING TO SHOW.

IS THAT THE 3% CAP. AS LONG AS YOUR NEW REVENUE CONTINUES AT THIS RATE AND CONTINUES TO INCREASE. THAT IS WHERE YOUR TRUE GENERAL FUND REVENUE, EVEN AND UNDER A CAP, IS GENERATED. AS SOON AS YOUR NEW GROWTH SLOWS, YOU WILL SEE YOUR GENERAL FUND REVENUE START GROWING LESS OR DECLINING BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE NEW REVENUE TO REAP THAT BENEFIT FROM THAT FIRST YEAR.

RIGHT. SO SO THAT'S THE MINDSET YOU HAVE TO BE IN IS IF YOU CONTINUOUSLY ADD THAT NEW GROWTH, WHETHER IT'S PRIVATE OR COMMERCIAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S EXCLUDED FROM THAT LIMITATION.

THAT IS WHERE THE CITY IS, IS GENERATING MOST OF ITS REVENUE, EVEN UNDER THE CAP THE FOLLOWING YEAR. ALL OF THIS AMOUNT IS SUBJECTED TO THE CAP, RIGHT? AND THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THE GROWTH HAPPEN. SO BETWEEN 2017.

RIGHT. WHILE YES, YOU HAVE 45 MILLION IN NEW TAXABLE VALUE, BUT THEN AS YOU GO INTO

[01:15:03]

SO THAT'S WHY WHEN I, WHEN I DO THE MATH, I ALWAYS TRY TO EXPLAIN, LET'S DETERMINE YOUR 3% CAP RATE FIRST.

ANYTHING THAT'S OLD ON THE TAX ROLL IT'S BEEN ON THERE FOR OVER A YEAR, RIGHT.

IT'S EXISTING. AND AND THAT'S WHY IT'S BROKEN OUT WHEN THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S SEND THAT TO US.

THEN LET'S DETERMINE THAT FIRST. AND THEN WE APPLY THAT RATE TO THE NEW REVENUE.

AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE ADDITIONAL THAT YOU CAN ADD TO WHAT YOU'RE GENERATING UNDER THE CAP.

SO YES, YOU WILL HAVE A YOU HAVE AN INCREASE IN REVENUE.

55%. YOU HAVE AN INCREASE IN REVENUE. BUT THE REAPING OF THE BENEFIT OCCURS FROM THE NEW TAXABLE VALUE THAT'S ADDED TO THE TAX ROLL. RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHY I, I, I TALK IN THE REVENUE QUITE A BIT THAT YES, YOU HAVE AN INCREASE IN THAT 55%, BUT IT IS IN THE REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED BASED LARGELY ON THE NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUATION THAT'S BEEN ADDED TO THE BOOKS.

DOES THAT KIND OF DOES THAT HELP? I HELPED WRITE IT.

I HELPED WRITE THE 3% CAP. I WILL ALWAYS BE OPPOSED TO REPEALING IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I JUST PUT I PUT THE NUMBERS OUT THERE.

BUT WHEN WHEN THE GENERAL FUND, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE REVENUE, IT IS IT IS ALMOST LIKE IT'S STATING I COMPARE IT TO LIKE A, LIKE LIKE A WIDGET. RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE A WIDGET THAT IS A DOLLAR, RIGHT? AND A COMPANY SELLS WIDGETS TO HOMEOWNERS IN A PARTICULAR CITY, AND EACH HOME AND EACH COMMERCIAL PROPERTY GETS ONE WIDGET THAT'S WORTH A DOLLAR, RIGHT? SO YOU GO FROM YEAR TO YEAR, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE AN INFLUX OF PROPERTIES COMING IN.

YOU'RE STILL SELLING THE WIDGET FOR A DOLLAR, BUT YOUR REVENUE WILL DOUBLE OR TRIPLE BECAUSE OF HOW MANY HOMES THAT YOU'RE SELLING WIDGETS TO. BUT THE WIDGET IS STILL A DOLLAR.

AND YES, THERE ARE INCREASES AND DECREASES IN IN YOUR PROPERTY TAXES.

EVEN IF WE DECREASE THE RATE OR INCREASE THE RATE BECAUSE YOUR PROPERTY VALUATIONS VARY AND THE PROPERTY VALUATIONS ARE DETERMINED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER.

SO THERE IS A LINK. SO YES, I CAN'T SAY THAT YOUR PROPERTY VALUES WILL STAY THE SAME EVERY YEAR.

BUT THE IDEA IS THE MATH IS STILL THE SAME, THAT THE MORE PEOPLE YOU ARE TAXING, WHETHER IT'S BUSINESSES, PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, PERSONAL PROPERTIES, YOUR REVENUE WILL INCREASE REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO WITH THE RATE.

JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE TAXING MORE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE CITY.

SO THE MORE YOU GROW, THE MORE HOME OWNERS AND AND AND AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COMES INTO THE CITY TO TAX YOUR REVENUE WILL INCREASE. I UNDERSTAND HOW THE NUMBERS COME.

THE POINT OF THE 3% CAP WAS TO KEEP PEOPLE IN THEIR HOMES, NOT TAX THEM OUT OF THEIR HOMES.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER HAD A QUESTION. YEAH. I'M CURIOUS, HOW ARE NEW CONSTRUCTION RENTALS ASSESSED TO MITIGATE THE TAX BURDENS ON SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNERS AND THE CITY RESOURCES THAT THEY TAKE UP? SO WE DON'T ASSESS THE VALUATIONS. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE DOES THAT.

SO THE CITY HAS NO, NO SAY IN IN HOW THOSE DEVELOPMENTS ARE GOING TO BE TAXED.

NO, IT IS A SO THE ONLY INFLUENCE WE HAVE IS THE RATE THAT WE PLACE ON THE TAX ROLL. THE RATE ITSELF IS APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY VALUATIONS OF THAT PROPERTY.

HOW THE PROPERTY IS VALUED IS DONE BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE FOR THE COUNTY.

I THINK THAT'S UNFAIR TO PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, YOU'VE GOT YOU CAN HAVE AN APARTMENT THAT HAS SIX PEOPLE OR ONE PERSON.

WE HAVE HOUSES THAT HAVE ONE PERSON OR AN ENTIRE FAMILY.

[01:20:01]

WHAT THE THERE WILL BE THINGS ON THE BALLOT THAT WANT TO GET RID OF PROPERTY TAXES.

ARE YOU TAKING THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND LOOKING AT WAYS TO YEAH.

SO WE OUR CITY WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARATION FOR OUR NEW BUDGET YEAR, AND WE ARE LOOKING AT WAYS TO CUT OUR REVENUE INTAKE AND HOW THIS EACH DEPARTMENT CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT CUTTING VARIOUS EXPENSES.

THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK ONE SECOND, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER MILLER WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING FIRST. I'M OKAY TO YIELD FOR HIM TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT EILEEN WAS SAYING.

OKAY. AND THEN I'LL COME BACK. GO. RIGHT. I WAS GOING TO ASK IF YOU HAD. YOU SAID EARLIER I THINK YOU MENTIONED YOU HAD NO WAY TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL WHATSOEVER. THERE'S NO DIFFERENTIATION. SO CURRENTLY, HOW THE PROPERTY PROPERTIES ARE TAXED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS THEY'RE ALL TAXED AT THE SAME RATE. IT'S A FLAT RATE.

AND THAT'S NOT A CITY THING. THAT'S A STATE THAT'S A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.

SO SO WE ARE ABOUT WE ABIDE BY STATUTORY LAW FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.

AND THAT IS HOW YOU APPLY THAT TAX RATE. YEAH I'M WITH EILEEN.

I JUST OR MRS I JUST, I DON'T SEE HOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOME COULD BE TAXED WHATSOEVER.

I DON'T THINK THAT LIKE, A RESIDENCE SHOULD BE TAXED AT ALL IF YOU MAKE UNDER A CERTAIN AMOUNT.

LET'S REMIND OURSELVES WE'RE HERE TO ATTACK THE CHARTER, NOT WHAT THEY'RE DOING UP AT THE STATE, AND THAT THE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE FOR UNDERSTANDING STATE SAKE, NOT FOR AGREEING, DISAGREEING, HOW THEY'RE DOING IT. THIS IS HOW THEY'RE DOING IT. WE'RE GETTING INFORMATION.

UNLESS WE SPEND ALL OUR TIME VOICING ON SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY POWER TO CHANGE.

IF THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT, THEY'LL CHANGE IT AT THE STATE LEVEL. AND THEN WE'LL WE'LL GO THROUGH FROM THAT BUDGET WORKSHOP NEXT TUESDAY ON THE 20TH AT 6 P.M.

WITH CITY COUNCIL. YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO ATTEND.

I THINK THEY'RE ASKING QUESTIONS IS MORE PERTINENT. I MEAN, IF WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DIRECTION WE'RE GOING, WHAT'S HAPPENING? THE QUESTIONS ARE GOOD, QUESTIONS ARE GOOD. I'M JUST SAYING LET'S NOT LET'S NOT ATTACK WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE PROPERTY TAXES OR NOT, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT'S IRRELEVANT.

PASTOR MILLER, FIRST, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.

SO IF I, IF I LOOK AT THE 2025 NUMBER 53 MILLION 3% MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 3% ON THAT WOULD BE LIKE $54 MILLION OR 54.7 MILLION. SO IT GOES UP TO 59, WHICH IS ABOUT A 12% INCREASE.

SO THAT'S THE 3% CAP PLUS ALL THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT'S OVER ONE YEAR OLD.

AND SO THAT'S HOW IT BRIDGES THE GAP AND GETS THE 12%.

ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. THANK YOU. OKAY.

BACK OVER HERE TO COMMISSIONER SAID I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY.

AS A HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY, DO WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO WEIGH IN ON ON HOW THESE THINGS ARE CALCULATED? NO, BECAUSE THAT'S PREEMPTED TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER.

YEAH. WELL, MY QUESTION WOULD BE IF IF IT'S A STATE LEVEL THING, THEN WHY ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT HERE? THAT'S THAT'S THE POINT I'M TRYING TO WE'RE USING ALL THIS TIME.

IS GOING ON. WE'RE NOT ATTACKING WHAT? WE'RE HERE TO ATTACK.

IT'D BE NICE JUST TO GO AHEAD AND FINISH THE THE WHAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED HERE.

IF WE CAN DO IT QUICKLY AND LET'S GET ON BACK TO BUSINESS.

YEAH. SO JUST TO FINISH IT OUT. SO AGAIN PUTTING THAT AS YOU'RE EXCEEDING THE CAP FOR FOR 26, YOU'RE REAPING IN THAT ADDITIONAL $3.1 MILLION.

SO THAT IS BECAUSE THE COUNCIL CHOSE TO EXCEED THE CAP AND ADOPT IT.

6.7 AND THEN WE GO AHEAD AND APPLY THAT RATE TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTIBLE VALUATIONS, WHICH WOULD GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL $4.1 MILLION, TOTALING OUT 66.8 MILLION. SO AS YOU SEE, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUATIONS IS IS ALWAYS EXEMPT.

SO THAT'S WHY WE CARRY THAT DOWN. ON SLIDE SEVEN, HONESTLY IT'S, IT'S AGAIN JUST THE SAME SETUP JUST DISPLAYED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

WHERE IN FISCAL YEAR 26, THAT ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF THAT 3% CAP, THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE YOU'RE GENERATING FOR THE YEAR FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR IS $1.7 MILLION. SO AGAIN, WE STARTED THE YEAR'S CALCULATION WITH 57.8.

AND THEN WE GO AHEAD AND CALCULATE 3% OF THAT.

SO AGAIN, IF THERE WAS NO NEW CONSTRUCTION, NO NEW ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS, THEN THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR THE YEAR WOULD BE $1.7 MILLION MORE THAN WHAT YOU ESSENTIALLY GENERATED FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

BUT OF COURSE, THIS YEAR WE DID EXCEED THE CAP, SO THAT 3.1 MILLION WAS ADDED.

[01:25:05]

SO IN TOTAL THE CITY IS GENERATING NINE MORE MILLION DOLLARS THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

SO IT WAS THAT INITIAL 57 MILLION, THAT WE STARTED WITH.

AND THEN WE'RE BRINGING AN ADDITIONAL NINE BETWEEN EXCEEDING THE CAP IN THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION VALUATIONS.

SO WHEN WE. SURE. YES OKAY. SO NOW THE THE NEW BUDGET IS 66.81 OR 61. YES. CORRECT. OKAY. FOR THE GENERAL FUND.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE NEW BUDGET THAT THEY MUST STAY UNDER OR THEY WERE.

THAT'S WHAT WAS ADOPTED FOR THE YEAR. THAT'S WHAT WAS ADOPTED EVEN THOUGH THEY EXCEEDED IT.

CORRECT. OKAY. IN THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHO ANSWERS THIS QUESTION OF THE IS THERE A DETAIL TO DETERMINE WHY IN ANY PART OF IT? AND WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHY? SO WHEN THEY ADOPTED IT, DO THEY GET TO TELL ME OR TELL YOU OR SOMEBODY RECORDING ALL THIS? DID IT WAS IT AN EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL NEED? YES.

ALL OF THAT WAS ADOPTED VIA RESOLUTION IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

AND SO ALL OF THAT IS PUBLIC. OKAY. SO BECAUSE THEY EXCEEDED THE CAP BY ADOPTING THE 6.7, A RESOLUTION WAS DRAFTED OUTLINING SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS PURCHASED WITH THE ADDITIONAL $3.1 MILLION.

OKAY. AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS WHAT THE OPERATING BUDGET IS, WHICH IS OUTLINED AND DETAILED IN THAT AS WELL.

SO EVERYTHING IS ALLOCATED ALREADY. SO THEN GOING INTO FISCAL YEAR 26, OBVIOUSLY WITH THAT ADDITIONAL 9 MILLION I JUST WANT TO SORT OF HIGHLIGHT ALL THE OTHER INCREASES THAT WE'VE SEEN THIS YEAR THAT WE ARE ANTICIPATING ON SEEING IN THE FUTURE.

SO ANTICIPATED INCREASES A LARGE PORTION OF OUR GENERAL FUND IS OUR PERSONNEL COSTS.

SO ROUGHLY ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF THE COSTS IN THAT FUND ARE JUST FOR PERSONNEL.

SO WE HAVE SALARY, WAGES, BENEFITS, PENSIONS, RETIREMENT, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND THE FUND ITSELF A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN HALF IS DEPENDENT ON AD VALOREM TAXATION.

SO THE FUND ITSELF, THE, THE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN HALF OF THE REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED IN THIS FUND IS YOUR TAXATION PROPERTY.

AND THEN OF THAT FUND, THREE QUARTERS OF IT ARE SIMPLY JUST FOR OUR PERSONNEL RELATED COSTS.

LARGE OF THAT IS PUBLIC SAFETY. AND I'LL KIND OF JUST SHOW THOSE NUMBERS IN A LITTLE BIT.

OUR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS ARE ARE ESTIMATED UP 6.6%.

ELECTRICAL SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE CITY LIMITS ARE UP 15 TO 20%.

CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS TO PAY ARE UP 10 TO 15%.

WE HAVE OUR CONTINUED DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS OF $7.3 MILLION.

WE'RE LUCKY THAT WE HAVEN'T. THAT HASN'T REALLY INCREASED, SO WE HAVEN'T TAKEN ON ANY NEW DEBT IN THAT PARTICULAR FUND.

SO THOSE ARE SORT OF JUST THE INCREASES THAT WE'RE SEEING.

SO ELECTRIC. ELECTRIC INCREASES IS CITYWIDE. REMEMBER, WE DO PAY FOR TRAFFIC LIGHTS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS WELL.

SO THAT IS ALL INCLUDED IN THAT AS WELL. THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET PROCESS, WE HAVE DEPARTMENTS SUBMIT WHAT HIGH PRIORITY NEEDS ARE HIGH PRIORITY NEEDS ARE ANY INCREASES THAT ARE DUE TO NEW CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, ONGOING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS, AND MANDATED LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.

THESE ARE BILLS THAT HAVE TO BE PAID. WHETHER YOU'VE BEEN IN A CONTRACT AND YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PAY IT.

THEY ARE ANY KIND OF STATUTORY CHANGES THAT WE NOW HAVE TO INCLUDE IN THOSE EXPENSES.

A LOT OF IT IS ALSO EQUIPMENT THAT HAS LIKE A DEBT SERVICE DATE.

SO JUST BE MINDFUL. LIKE OUR POLICE OFFICERS, THEY WEAR THEIR VESTS, AND THOSE VESTS ARE ONLY GOOD FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF YEARS.

AND THEN AFTER THAT, LIKE THAT DROP DATE, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO REPLACE THOSE.

SO THAT'S LIKE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT 3 MILLION OF THAT CRITICAL NEED FUNDING THAT ISN'T BUDGETED BUT HAS TO BE BUDGETED IN ADDITION TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BUDGETED FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR, 1.6 MILLION IS PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED, WHICH IS YOUR FIRE AND POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE GOAL FOCUS FOR OUR CITY MANAGERS HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE,

[01:30:04]

ANY TYPE OF ROAD MAINTENANCE OUTSIDE OF YOUR ROAD BOND, WHICH THAT'S SEPARATE.

SEPARATE SITUATION IS ALL GENERAL FUND FUNDED.

SO AGAIN REMEMBER THE FUND 50% OF THAT AT LEAST IS YOUR TAXATION THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDES.

AND OUR CURRENT CITY MANAGER HAS ALSO STARTED A FLEET REPLACEMENT PLAN, WHERE WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO SET ASIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT ANNUALLY TO START BUILDING FOR TO REPLACE OUR FLEET. AS YOU KNOW, OUR FIRE AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS THAT IS WHERE A LOT OF THAT IS BETWEEN THE POLICE VEHICLES, THE FIRE TRUCKS AND WE NEED TO PUT THEM ON A PLAN TO REPLACE EVERY FIVE YEARS, DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT TYPE OF VEHICLE IT IS.

AND INSTEAD OF EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE TO BUY THEM RIGHT THEN AND THERE AND WE HADN'T PLANNED FOR THEM, WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS BUILDING UP A RESERVE TO WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO CONTINUOUSLY RETIRE THOSE VEHICLES THAT ARE NO LONGER SUFFICIENT FOR THE JOB THAT THEY'RE DOING. SO THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED THIS YEAR, AND WE'RE HOPING TO CONTINUE THAT.

ON SLIDE NINE, YOU WILL SEE OUR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, AS I JUST SPOKE ABOUT OUR PERSONNEL COSTS.

SO THIS IS OUR PAYROLL AND PENSION IMPACTS. SO AGAIN, I MENTIONED ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF WHAT'S SPENT IN THAT FUND IS JUST FOR PERSONNEL. WE HAVE FOUR PAY GROUPS, BUT REALLY THREE UNION GROUPS WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND.

WE HAVE OUR INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS.

THERE'S TWO UNION CONTRACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

SO THOSE ARE OUR FIREFIGHTERS. THEY ARE REQUIRED PER CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO RECEIVE A 10% ANNUAL PAY INCREASE.

OUR FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE HAS THREE SEPARATE UNION CONTRACTS OUR OFFICERS, SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS.

AND THEY ALL RECEIVE AN ADJUSTMENT ON THEIR BASE SALARY AND THEN THEY RECEIVE A MERIT INCREASE.

THE MERIT INCREASE IS USUALLY ANOTHER 3%. SO OUR OFFICERS, FOR EXAMPLE, GET A TOTAL OF EIGHT FOR THE YEAR.

OUR SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS GET A TOTAL OF FIVE BECAUSE IT'S 1.9% INITIALLY WHEN THE FISCAL YEAR STARTS.

AND THEN THERE'S A MERIT OF LIKE THAT 3%. SURE.

DOES THE MERIT IS THAT VARIABLE BASED ON REVIEW? I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT. IT IS THEIR IN THEIR CONTRACT THAT IF THERE IS THAT MERIT INCREASE THAT THEY ARE GETTING THE 3%. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE ON THE CONTRACT UNION UNION CONTRACT.

SO BUT WHAT'S BEHIND THE MERIT EVALUATION. THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR OUR HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT.

OKAY. SO IT COMES OVER FROM HUMAN RESOURCES, WHETHER OR NOT THEY GET WHATEVER STATED IN THE CONTRACT.

I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE CONTRACT. I JUST KNOW THAT IF THEY RECEIVE THE MERIT INCREASE, THEY ARE SUBJECTED TO THAT 3% INCREASE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE OUR NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

SO WE HAVE OUR WHAT WE CALL OUR AN AGE. OUR AGE.

BLUE AND ORANGE. WHITE. THEY JUST STARTED THEIR CONTRACT THIS YEAR.

THE OTHER TWO, I THINK WE'RE IN THE SECOND YEAR AND THEY'RE USUALLY THREE YEAR CONTRACTS.

SO THE AGE EMPLOYEES JUST STARTED THEIR NEW CONTRACT THIS YEAR, AND THEY ARE RECEIVING A 3% INCREASE ON TEN ONE AND THEN ANOTHER 2% APRIL 1ST.

SO ROUGHLY ABOUT 5%. COMPOUNDS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT ROUGHLY ABOUT 5% A YEAR ON THEIR SALARY INCREASES.

OUR GENERAL EMPLOYEES ARE NOT OUR UNION CONTRACTS, SO THEIR ANNUAL COLA OR COST OF LIVING IS ADJUSTABLE.

SO FOR FISCAL YEAR 26, IT WAS APPROVED TO BUILD IN A 5% INCREASE FOR THAT GROUP, AS WELL TO MIRRORS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE OTHER OTHER IN SORT OF UNION CONTRACTS ARE RECEIVING.

I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION. DID YOU. I WASN'T HERE LAST MEETING. DID YOU GUYS VOTE TO HAVE A TWO HOUR LIMIT ON THE MEETINGS? IF SO, CAN I JUST ASK FOR AN OVERVIEW OF FOR A NON-POLITICIAN? OKAY. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? IS THIS AN INCREASE ON THE TAX RATE THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE DOING LATER OR WHAT.

WHAT'S THE PITCH? BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A TWO HOUR TIME LIMIT. RIGHT.

OVER. DO YOU HAVE AN OVERVIEW LIKE A ONE SENTENCE OVERVIEW FOR NON-POLITICIAN LIKE MYSELF.

SO I AND PATRICIA MAY MAY CORRECT ME. BUT WITHIN THE CITY CHARTER, IT STATES THAT THE CITY CANNOT TAX HIGHER THAN A 3% UNLESS THERE'S A VOTE TO EXCEED THAT CAP.

[01:35:06]

I CAN I CAN LET YOU KNOW. AND IT'S IN THE PRESENTATION THAT THERE'S 12 MUNICIPALITIES OR TAXING AUTHORITIES IN THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTIES THE 13TH WE ARE THE ONLY TAXING AUTHORITY THAT HAS A CAP.

THE COUNTY HAS A CAP. THEY HAVE A 3% OR CPI, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

I GOT IT IT WAS A WONDERFUL PRESENTATION TO THANK YOU.

IT REALLY I CAN TELL YOU REALLY WORKED HARD ON IT. I WILL SAY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE ARE THE ONLY TAXING AUTHORITY OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT HAS THE CAP. SO. OKAY I HAVE ARE WE WANTING.

YES. GO AHEAD. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION YOU DID MENTION DURING THE THE PRESENTATION, THERE WAS A STATE CAP.

SO IF WE WERE SURE IF WE WERE TO PUT THAT INTO A PERCENTAGE TERM, HOW CLOSE IS THAT TO THE 3% CAP THAT WE HAVE TODAY? SO THE STATE CAP THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IS ACTUALLY A LIMIT ON THE RATE THAT YOU CAN INCREASE BY.

BUT IN YOUR IN YOUR PACKET TWO IS IS THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY A TAX EXEMPTION ON YOUR HOME.

SO IF YOU EVER GET YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILLS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE YOUR STANDARD DEDUCTIONS THAT YOU GET.

BUT ON YOUR, ON YOUR, ON YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILL, THERE'S CALLED YOU HAVE A SAVE YOUR HOMES TAX EXEMPTION IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT.

BE HONEST WITH YOU I STARTED HERE YEAH. ON THE TERM NOTICE OKAY.

YEAH. SO ESSENTIALLY YOU WHAT THE STATE HAS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED IS WHEN YOU ARE TAXED ON YOUR HOME, YOU'RE NOT TAXED ON YOUR MARKET VALUE. SO REMEMBER YOUR YOUR BILL SHOWS YOU HAVE A MARKET VALUE.

AND THEN THERE'S THE SCHOOL EXEMPTION. YOU GET 25,000.

ANOTHER 25,000. SO THERE'S ALL THESE DEDUCTIONS THAT HAPPEN THAT COME UP WITH A BOTTOM LINE TAXABLE VALUE.

RIGHT. SO YOU MAY START OUT WITH 200,000 MARKET VALUE.

BUT YOU'RE ONLY BEING TAXED ON LET'S SAY 85,000 OF THAT 200.

RIGHT. BECAUSE THERE'S ALL THESE DEDUCTIONS. SO THERE'S A SAVE OUR HOMES LIMIT THAT ACTUALLY LIMITS YOUR ASSESSED VALUE FROM INCREASING MORE THAN 3%. YEAH. SO I'M I'M JUST TRYING TO GET DOWN TO AS YOU SAID.

YEAH. JUST IF WE, IF WE DECIDED OKAY, LET'S ELIMINATE THE 3% TAX CAP THEN.

DOES THAT CREATE AN UNLIMITED TAX INCREASE ABILITY.

NO. AND IF IT DOESN'T CREATE AN UNLIMITED THEN WHAT IS THE LIMIT? ROUGHLY IS IT 5%, 10% OR TEN. YEAH. RIGHT. SO YOUR ULTIMATE LIMIT FOR ALL ALL CITIES OR ALL TAXING AUTHORITIES IS TEN MILS. TEN MILS. SO TEN OKAY.

OKAY. HOWEVER. HOWEVER, IT ADJUSTS ANNUALLY ON WHAT OUR LIMIT IS.

SO FOR EXAMPLE THEY SAY CITY OF PALM BAY, YOU ADOPTED A 6.7 WITH A FOUR OUT OF FIVE VOTE THIS YEAR.

NEXT YEAR, YOU CAN ONLY GO UP TO A 6.89 IF YOU VOTE FOUR OUT OF FIVE, RIGHT? SO THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL LIMIT OUTSIDE OF THE TEN MILS.

AND THAT ISN'T PUBLISHED UNTIL YOUR YOUR YOUR MAID MAID COMES.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND RISK VERSUS REWARD. RIGHT. LIKE RIGHT NOW WE KNOW WE'RE AT 3%.

IF WE DECIDE NOT TO HAVE IT. YEAH. NO, I'M GOING TO ASK.

I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION. WE'VE SPENT A I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T FINISHED YOUR PRESENTATION.

THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE HERE, IS THERE SOMEONE HERE WHO WANTS TO CONTINUE ON THIS PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME? I'M READY TO MOVE ON. OKAY, THEN THEN I'M GOING TO SAY THANK YOU FOR A VERY EXTENSIVE AND COMPLETE PRESENTATION.

CERTAINLY THE THE INFORMATION HERE, WE CAN REVIEW IT ALSO AT HOME.

AND BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A TWO HOUR LIMIT AND I THINK WE NEED TO PROGRESS FORWARD.

AND WOULD YOU ALL GIVE HER A HAND CLAP FOR THE EFFORT THAT SHE PUT IN? BECAUSE THIS IS QUITE AN EXTENSIVE EFFORT. AND AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT SO MUCH.

YES. YES, SIR. IT REALLY IS GREAT. IF I MAY I JUST WANT TO THANK ANGELICA FOR FOR GIVING THIS PRESENTATION.

AND IN CASE ANYBODY WAS WONDERING WHO THAT GENTLEMAN SITTING OVER VERY QUIETLY THERE, THAT'S OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR, LARRY WITKOWSKY. SO THANK THANKS FOR ATTENDING, LARRY.

AND ALLOWING ANGELICA TO COME. YEAH. OKAY, SO WE'RE BACK TO ARTICLE NUMBER FIVE AND AND PRESENTATIONS FOR NUMBER FIVE. AND I BELIEVE AT THIS TIME VICE CHAIR GAUME HAS SOME SUGGESTIONS STARTING ON

[01:40:09]

WE STILL HAVE TO DO IT ONE AT A TIME, UNDERSTAND? 5.02. ALL I WANT TO DO IS CURRENTLY ALL THAT'S REQUIRED FROM A CANDIDATE IS THEY SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT SAYS THAT THEY'VE LIVED IN A CITY FOR TWO YEARS.

THIS PROVIDES A MEANS BY WHERE ANY CITIZEN CAN GO CHECK OUT THE VOTER ID.

IT'S IT'S PUBLIC RECORD THEIR PUBLIC OR THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION AND VERIFY THAT THEY, IN FACT HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE CITY FOR TWO YEARS AND BEEN A VOTING, YOU KNOW, BEEN A PART OF OUR ELECTORATE FOR TO TWO YEARS PRIOR TO.

IT GIVES A EVERY PERSON IN THE CITY A WAY TO CHECK THAT, OTHER THAN JUST A SIMPLE AFFIDAVIT, AND THAT'S ALL THAT IT REQUIRES. I'D LIKE TO ASK THE ATTORNEY, SMITH.

I'M TRYING TO READ THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IT WAS BEFORE AND WHAT IT IS NOW.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT HAS THE SAME VERBIAGE. AT LEAST TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION SHALL BE A REGISTERED VOTER RESIDING AT THE CITY ADDRESS. HE'S MENTIONING THAT ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS AN AFFIDAVIT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THEY DO. WE DO REQUIRE AN AFFIDAVIT THAT STATES THAT THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO RUN FOR OFFICE, WHICH INCLUDES THAT THEY ARE REGISTERED VOTER, THEY RESIDE AT A CITY ADDRESS AND THEY'VE BEEN A REGISTERED VOTER FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION.

AND SO THE AFFIDAVIT IS JUST HIM SAYING, I AM DO WE CHECK UP ON THAT OR IS THAT CHECKED? NO, I AM NOT REQUIRED BY MY ROLE AS MINISTERIAL IN NATURE PER STATUTE.

SO IF ANYBODY WANTED TO CHALLENGE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SO ONCE THEY GET INTO OFFICE.

OKAY. AND THE PROPOSAL THAT HE HAS AT THIS POINT IN TIME, DOES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING OR IS IT DOES THAT REMAIN THE SAME? THAT REQUIREMENT JUST MAKES IT SO THAT THEY HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE ELECTORATE, TWO YEARS IN THE CITY BEFORE BEING SWORN IN THE OFFICE? RIGHT NOW, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT SAYS, HEY, I'VE LIVED HERE TWO YEARS AND THERE'S NO WAY TO GO BACK AND CHECK IT.

THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO PROVE IT OTHER THAN THAT THIS GIVES EVERY CITIZEN THAT IS VOTING.

EVERY VOTER IN THE ELECTORATE GIVES THEM AWAY ON THEIR OWN TO GO AND CHECK THE VOTER REGISTRATION AND SEE.

IN FACT, THAT THAT CANDIDATE LIVED IN THE CITY FOR TWO YEARS.

AND AND AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. I'M READING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE, AND I DON'T SEE ANY DIFFERENCE FROM WHAT I'M SEEING RIGHT HERE, BECAUSE IT SAYS AS IT STANDS, IT SAYS IT SHALL BE A REGISTERED VOTER.

LET ME GO BACK. IT SAYS, LACKING THE CLARIFICATION OF BEING ABLE TO PROVE IT.

AND I DON'T SEE WHERE WHERE THIS ADDS ANY TEETH TO MAKING THEM PROVE IT, BECAUSE YOU CAN GO TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS WEBSITE AND PULL ALL THAT PERSON'S VOTER REGISTRATION INFORMATION OVER THE YEARS AND PROVE THAT THEY LIVED IN THE CITY.

YEAH, AGREED. I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT IS. I DID THEIR VOTER REGISTRATION.

NOW IT'S THERE RIGHT NOW. IT SAYS SHALL BE A REGISTERED VOTER RESIDING AT A CITY ADDRESS FOR TWO YEARS.

RIGHT. BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT WHEN THEY FILE THEIR PAPERWORK DURING QUALIFYING FOR THEM TO VERIFY THAT THAT TWO YEAR STATUTE IS MET. IT'S JUST TAKEN ON THE WORD OF THE CANDIDATE IN THE FORM OF AN AFFIDAVIT.

WELL, YOU COULD HAVE A CITIZENSHIP SET OF TEETH LIKE RUTH ADDED TO THE.

YES. O'NEILL MRS JONES. WHEN THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE SIGNING THE AFFIDAVIT, IS THERE A PROCESS FOR VETTING WHAT THEY'RE SIGNING WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THE QUALIFICATIONS RATHER THAN JUST READING AFFIDAVIT? TAKING THEIR WORD AND GOING FORWARD, ARE YOU GUYS DOING WHAT HE IS SUGGESTING IS DOING THE RESEARCH ON THIS CANDIDATE? NO, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO VET CANDIDATES. OKAY.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THEM SIGN AFFIDAVITS SWEARING THAT THEY MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS.

HERE WE GO. MAY I HAVE THE ATTORNEY TO SPEAK FOR A MINUTE, PLEASE.

I JUST WANT TO AUGMENT THAT. SHE ALSO HAS NO AUTHORITY, WHICH IS WHEN SHE'S SAYING THAT HER JOB IS MINISTERIAL.

IF SHE DECIDED THAT. WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT PERSON, YOU KNOW, LIVED HERE.

SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY AS THE CITY CLERK TO SAY THAT THAT PERSON NAMED CAN'T BE PLACED UPON THE BALLOT.

[01:45:09]

A JUDGE HAS THAT AUTHORITY, BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHAT SHE'S DOING. I'M ASKING HER AS A CITY CLERK IF THERE IS A A PANEL IN PLACE DOING THAT, VETTING IT, RATHER THAN WAITING FOR THE PARADE OR THE CIRCUS TO TAKE PLACE, OR SOMEONE TO GET THE HUNCH THAT, HEY, THIS PERSON I DON'T THINK IS A QUALIFIED MEMBER, AND GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF INVESTIGATING AND FINDING OUT, HEY, THIS PERSON DID LIE, AND NOW WE WASTED CRITICAL TIME OF SOMEONE'S CANDIDATE CANDIDACY AND COMMISSIONER.

GUAM. YOU ARE IN REQUESTING THAT WE PUT IN SOME TYPE OF PANEL TO REQUEST THIS.

CORRECT. OR I'M JUST TRYING TO VERIFY THAT OTHER THAN TAKING SOMEBODY AT THEIR WORD, SIGNING AN AFFIDAVIT, DO YOU HAVE A HAVE A, LIKE, COMPLETE, ARTICULATE VERBIAGE OF WHAT WE WANT TO AMEND OR PUT INTO PAPER? NO, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'M I'M MOVABLE IN MY POSITION, AND I SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT AND I'M WILLING TO NOW I TO DROP THIS, BUT LIKE I SAID, I LIKE WHAT YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF SOMEBODY JUST BEING ABLE TO SIGN A PIECE OF PAPER.

NO, I'M WITH YOU. I MEAN, THEY'RE POLITICIANS.

THEY LIE FOR A PROFESSION. I'M 100% WITH YOU.

I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP YOU WITH THIS. WITH. OKAY.

I WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT. BUT WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? LIKE, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. WE'RE ADDRESSING YOU AND I.

OKAY, WELL, WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE MOST ARTICULATE BEFORE YOU GO? COMMISSIONER NORRIS. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE WANTING TO SPEAK, BUT ALREADY STATED THAT THEY CAN ALREADY GO CHECK OUT.

AND THAT'S THAT'S THE SOLUTION THAT I OVERLOOKED.

YEAH. SO YOU CAN ALREADY DO IT. SO THIS THIS ACCOMPLISHES BASICALLY NOTHING, RIGHT.

LET'S MOVE ON. BUT WHILE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, RUTH, DO YOU HAVE TO BE A CITIZEN TO BECOME A COUNCIL MEMBER? NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A CITIZEN TO BECOME A CONGRESSMAN OR A SENATOR.

NOT ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER. RIGHT NOW I'M NOT I KNOW, RIGHT.

SO I'M NOT. YES. IF WE CAN WAIT TILL WE'RE RECOGNIZED.

COMMISSIONER. SEP WAS WITH HER HAND UP. YEAH, I'VE ADDRESSED THIS BEFORE, BECAUSE WHEN I RAN, THERE WAS A CANDIDATE WHO DID NOT LIVE HERE LONG ENOUGH TO BE ELECTED, IN MY ESTIMATION.

AND WE'VE HAD SEVERAL. RANDY FINE, FOR INSTANCE, DID NOT EVEN LIVE IN THE DISTRICT.

UNTIL HE MANAGED TO GERRYMANDER AND CHANGE IT.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS THE STATE HAS A STATUTE THAT SAYS SHE CAN'T VERIFY IT.

SO AS A AS A COMMISSION, WE NEED TO PUT SOMETHING IN THERE AND SAY WE WANT IT VERIFIED.

AND JUST BY SAYING, WELL, CITIZENS CAN GO LOOK IT UP, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE REALLY GOING TO DO THAT? YOU'RE STILL GOING TO WIND UP WITH SOMEONE WHO KIND OF BROKE THE LAW BY BEING A CANDIDATE.

AND THE ONLY REMEDY RIGHT NOW IS AFTER THEY'RE ELECTED AS AS TERESA SAID, THEN SOMEBODY HAS TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE FEC. IS IT? YEAH, WITH THE STATE. AND THEN THAT GOES TO A COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE AND THEY INVESTIGATE IT.

AND IF IT'S FOUND TO BE CORRECT THAT THIS PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUALIFIED, THEN THEY REMOVE HIM.

THIS GETS TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE AND TIME CONSUMING, AND WE WIND UP WITH ANOTHER EMPTY SEAT ON THE COUNCIL OR WHATEVER.

SO WE REALLY NEED TO PUT SOMETHING IN HERE THAT SAYS WE WANT VERIFICATION.

WE IF TELL THEM TO BRING A UTILITY BILL OR SOMETHING AS PART OF IT, BUT LEAVING IT UP TO THE CITIZENS TO LOOK IT UP, YOU KNOW, UNLESS SOMEBODY STICKS IT IN THEIR FACE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW.

I'D JUST LIKE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY AS TO WHY THIS IS ALSO IMPORTANT IS WE ACTUALLY HAD A MAYOR IN THE PAST WHO SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT SAYING THAT HE'D NEVER COMMITTED A FELONY, AND HE WAS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR OFFICE, AND HE WAS EVENTUALLY REMOVED BY THE GOVERNOR BECAUSE HE HAD A FELONY DRUG CONVICTION IN THE SAME GOVERNOR LATER RESTORED HIS RIGHTS, AND HE WAS REELECTED TO BE MAYOR.

BUT THE POINT BEING IS HE SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME THING.

COMMISSIONER NORRIS. DID YOU DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY? I THOUGHT YOUR HAND WENT UP. COMMISSIONER RUTH MARCUS FIRST.

THANK YOU. BASICALLY, WE HAVE ABOUT 11 MINUTES, SO.

OKAY. BASICALLY, THIS IS HISTORICALLY BEEN A PROBLEM FOR THE CITIZENS.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE I HEAR A LOT OF CITIZEN THINGS IN MY CLASSES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

[01:50:01]

AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO OBJECT TO IT, YOU GOT TO FILE A LAWSUIT.

THAT'S A RIDICULOUS STATEMENT. THAT IS RIDICULOUS BECAUSE I IF THE CITY PUT UP THE PUT UP THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A CANDIDATE TO FILE IN THIS CITY, THEY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VETTING EVERY SINGLE DATA POINT IN THAT DOCUMENT.

COMMISSIONER MILLER. I WAS JUST GOING TO GOING TO TRY TO SUMMARIZE, IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY.

I MEAN, BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS LIKE WHEN YOU HIRE ON FOR A NEW JOB, HR RUNS A BACKGROUND CHECK ON YOU, RIGHT? TO VALIDATE THOSE THINGS. AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HERE IS A BACKGROUND CHECK ON ANY CANDIDATE THAT DECIDES TO RUN FOR OFFICE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M HEARING IT RIGHT. AND THEN WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TO DO THAT? YEAH. YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER. NEIL, TO HELP PUSH US.

IT SEEMS LIKE MAJORITY OF US ARE ON THE SAME PAGE HERE. SO KIND OF FAST TRACKING SINCE WE'RE SUB TEN MINUTES, MA'AM.

BEING OUR CITY ATTORNEY, WHAT OPTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR FOR IMPLEMENTING A SOLUTION TO WHAT WE ALL SEEM TO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT? THANK YOU. THE PROBLEM IS ELECTIONS ARE ACTUALLY, BY AND LARGE, PREEMPTED.

SO SHE YOU CAN SAY, HEY, WE WANT THESE PEOPLE TO BE VETTED.

THE PROBLEM YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IS, IS YOU VET THEM AS, SAY, THE VETTING COMES OUT THAT THIS PERSON SHOULDN'T BE HERE, AND THEN YOU ALL ARE GOING TO WANT TO KNOW WHY SHE IS NOT PROHIBITING OR WHY COUNCIL IS NOT PROHIBITING THAT PERSON THAT YOU ALL VETTED FROM BEING ON THE BALLOT.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY. YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO YOU KNOW, IT'S HAPPENED IN SOME OF THE CITIES DOWN SOUTH MIAMI AREA. YOU'D ACTUALLY HAVE TO PETITION THE COURT TO ACTUALLY ENJOIN THE SUPERVISOR ELECTIONS FROM PLACING THAT PERSON ON THE BALLOT. SO WHAT YOU CREATE IS YOU GET ALL THIS INFORMATION AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO EXPECT, HEY, YOU HAVE THIS, YOU'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT.

SHE HAS NO LEGAL ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT.

THE ONLY THING YOU'VE GOT IS YOU'VE GOT THE TO ENJOIN IN THE BEGINNING YOU GOT AFTERWARDS.

OR CERTAINLY IF YOU CAN SHOW THAT THAT PERSON LIED, IS TO SEEK THE STATE ATTORNEY BECAUSE THEY DO SWEAR UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY THAT THAT INFORMATION IS TRUE. BUT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING THAT THE CITY CLERK OR THE CITY COUNCIL ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO.

SO THAT'S MY CAUTION, IS YOU'RE GOING IT CREATES AN EXPECTATION THAT YOU'VE GOT THIS INFORMATION, YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT. AND THEY LEGALLY CAN'T WAIT.

CAN I? LEGALLY CAN'T. IF THAT PERSON HAS SIGNED AND ATTESTED THERE IS NO WAY FOR HER AND THEY'VE COMPLETED THE OTHER QUALIFICATION OTHER THINGS. THEY'VE GIVEN THEIR MONEY, THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING.

SHE HAS NO ABILITY TO STOP THEM FROM BEING PUT ON THE BALLOT.

WAIT. BECAUSE WHY? BECAUSE THE ELECTION LAW IS HAS THE STATUTE GIVES AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO HER THE WAY IN WHICH YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE SOMEBODY'S RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS IS YOU.

YOU CAN DO AN INJUNCTION BEFOREHAND, BUT SHE DOESN'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY, AND THE INJUNCTION ISN'T EVEN AGAINST HER.

YOU'RE NOT ENJOYING THE CITY CLERK. WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS FROM PUTTING THEM ON THE BALLOT.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, AND WE HAVE TO PROVE THEM GUILTY.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT UP TO HER OR THE CITY TO FIND OUT.

I MEAN, THE STIPULATION, THE STIPULATIONS ARE THERE.

THEY HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT FOR TWO YEARS. CETERA.

ET CETERA. WHATEVER THE LIST IS YOU APPLY, IT WOULD BE LIKE YOU'RE APPLYING FOR YOUR LICENSE.

YOU APPLY FOR YOUR LICENSE. WELL, THEY THEY THEY DON'T, QUOTE UNQUOTE, DO A BACKGROUND CHECK AS YOU GO TO PREPARE A LICENSE, NECESSARILY. YOU GO IN, YOU FILL THE FORM, YOU APPLY IT UNTIL IT GOES THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS, AND THEN YOU FIND OUT, OH, WAIT A MINUTE, THIS PERSON'S NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A LICENSE AND THEY GET CAUGHT.

THAT MIGHT BE A BAD EXAMPLE THERE, BUT BUT SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT APPLICABLE.

THEY'RE INNOCENT AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU THE TRUTH AS THEY APPLY.

OKAY. GOING BACK TO THE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS PART, THAT IS A DUTY OF THE CITY.

RIGHT. WHICH WHICH THEY, AS IT SAYS, THEY MUST BE REGISTERED VOTER FOR THE CITY ADDRESS FOR TWO YEARS.

[01:55:06]

THE CITY WANTS TO SAY, HERE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS.

TO BE A CANDIDATE, YOU MUST FULFILL THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

GOOD. IF THEY APPLY. ATTORNEY, DO THEY HAVE TO SHOW THEIR THAT THEY HAVE BEEN THERE FOR TWO YEARS AS A REGISTERED VOTER? NO. THEY ARE SIGNING THE AFFIDAVIT. THE COURT HAS SAID THAT HER ROLE, THE CITY CLERK'S ROLE IS MINISTERIAL. I SEE. I SEE THE HAND. BUT GO AHEAD SINCE YOU START.

JUST JUST TO CLARIFY, THEY CAN GO IN THERE AND SIGN THE AFFIDAVIT AND SAY THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT THEY'VE NOT ACTUALLY VIOLATED THE CHARTER OR BROKEN ANY LAWS UNTIL THEY'RE ELECTED AND SWORN INTO OFFICE.

OKAY. NOW, THE PROBLEM IS THE CITY HAS DONE BACKGROUND CHECKS.

WHEN FILIBERTO WAS REMOVED, ALL OF 30 SOMETHING CANDIDATES HAD TO PAY 25 BUCKS TO HAVE A BACKGROUND CHECK.

SO. COUNCIL DECIDED TO DO THAT. YEAH, WELL, WE'RE THE CHARTER, SO MAYBE WE SHOULD DECIDE TO DO THIS.

ONE LAST QUESTION. IT IS, IT IS IT IS IT. CAN IT BE EXPECTED THAT AS THEY APPLY, RATHER THAN JUST QUOTE UNQUOTE AFFIDAVIT, THAT THEY MUST HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION WITH THEM IN THE APPLICATION? WHAT DOCUMENTATION? THE VOTER'S REGISTRATION.

AT THIS POINT, IT SAYS VOTER REGISTRATION. THEY'VE BEEN IN THE PLACE FOR TWO YEARS. I MEAN, IF YOU APPLY FOR FOOD STAMPS, YOU HAVE TO SHOW CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION.

IF YOU IF YOU APPLY FOR, FOR GOING INTO OFFICE RATHER THAN JUST THE AFFIDAVIT, IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO JUST SAY YES, PLEASE BRING PROOF OF RESIDENCY FOR TWO YEARS AND AND VOTER REGISTRATION.

IS THAT IS THAT PERMISSIBLE? IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH? IS THAT TOO DIFFICULT? IS IT LEGAL? THANK YOU.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENT IF YOU CAME UP WITH WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THESE DOCUMENTS.

THEY PROVIDE THESE DOCUMENTS AND THEY SAY THAT THEY'RE SUFFICIENT.

IF YOU THEN HAVE THIS PROCESS WHERE SHE SAYS THAT THEY'RE NOT SUFFICIENT, THEY THEN HAVE TO HAVE SOME MECHANISM FOR BEING ABLE TO HAVE SOME DUE PROCESS, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT FRAUD, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THIS IS SOMETHING WHICH IS WHY CITY CLERKS, TYPICALLY THEIR DUTIES ARE MINISTERIAL, WHERE IT COULD BE ABUSED TO PREVENT PEOPLE THAT YOU DO NOT WANT RUNNING IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS.

THAT'S WHY THEY'VE KIND OF GOTTEN THE PERSON THAT SHE WORKS FOR.

COUNCIL. SO THE PEOPLE THAT MAY BE RUNNING FOR HER BOSS, YOU'RE ASKING HER TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T RUN.

THAT'S KIND OF NOT WHAT THE SYSTEM WAS SET UP FOR.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP SOMEBODY, THE THAT VOTERS FROM BEING ABLE TO VOTE FOR SOMEBODY.

IT SHOULDN'T BE THE PERSON THAT WORKS FOR THE BODY.

IT SHOULD BE SOMEBODY, A NEUTRAL PARTY, WHICH IS THE WAY IN WHICH THE SYSTEM IS SET UP.

MR. CHAIR. YES. GO AHEAD, MR. WEINBERG, IF I MAY.

TOM'S THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THIS UP, SUGGESTED IT.

TOM WITHDREW HIS HIS HIS. I UNDERSTAND THAT, SO LET'S MOVE ON.

AND DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SAY? YES.

PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE. MITCHELL RAN 219.

WELL, YOU DON'T NEED MY ADDRESS. BUT THAT DOCUMENT THAT THEY SIGN, IS THAT NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT THEY CAN BE BROUGHT CHARGES AGAINST FOR FRAUD? RIGHT? OR A I'M SORRY. NO. IF I GO DOWN TO THE VOTER'S OFFICE AND THIS AND HE SIGNED UP TO RUN. NO, NO, I'M JUST USING YOU AS AN EXAMPLE.

HE SIGNED UP TO RUN AND HE HASN'T VOTED IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

THERE'S THE SUIT RIGHT THERE. NOT ACCORDING TO THEM.

RIGHT? NO, THAT'S MY MY SUIT AS A CITIZEN. CORRECT.

HAS THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. RIGHT? CORRECT. RIGHT.

SO SINCE IT'S 8:00. RIGHT. LET I'M GOING TO ASK A MAN, MAKE A SUGGESTION TO YOU IN IN YOUR PROPOSALS, WHICH SOME OF THEM ARE VERY GOOD RATHER THAN A PROPOSAL, IF YOU MAYBE COULD SUBMIT THE NEXT TIME WE MEET WHAT YOU WANT IT TO SAY FOR THEN IT TO BE DISCUSSED. AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE LEGAL WORDING.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS FOR. WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IS FILING IS COMING UP WITH INTENT.

[02:00:07]

CAN I JUST SAY THANK YOU TO TERESA AND PATRICIA FOR YOUR HARD WORK TONIGHT AND EVERY OTHER NIGHT.

YOU'RE REALLY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. I KNOW WE'RE ADJOURNING.

HOW HOW CAN WE. IS THERE A WAY? THERE'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

I UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK. AT SOME POINT, WE GO SPEAKING AND SPEAKING.

BUT I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING. I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING. I WANT TO SAY. IS THERE A WAY WE CAN SHORTEN THIS DISCUSSION THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE OR TAILOR IT BETTER SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IF WE HAVE TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, TWO HOURS TO DO ONE THING.

YES, SIR. I'M GOING TO SPEAK FROM MY HEART AND BE QUITE HONEST, I WAS RATHER APPALLED WHEN I SEEN THAT THERE WAS A LIMIT PUT ON THESE MEETINGS.

THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. I MEAN, THIS IS THE CITY CHARTER, AND THERE'S TEN PEOPLE OUT OF 150,000 WHO HAVE THIS TASK BEFORE US, AND YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT IN TWO HOUR MEETINGS.

I FOUND THAT VERY OBJECTIONABLE, AND I'M SORRY I WASN'T HERE TO OBJECT TO IT AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS GIVEN TO US. I DON'T THINK WE VOTED ON IT NECESSARILY.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD MORE MEETINGS IF WE SO CHOOSE.

WE CAN ADD MORE MEETINGS AND LENGTHEN THEM. IT JUST CAME TO THAT PLACE WHERE WE SAID TWO HOURS.

I WASN'T HERE FOR THE VOTE EITHER. IS THAT A HARD LIMIT? THERE'S NO WAY TO ADD TO THAT. COULD YOU REMIND US TERESE, OR HOW DID THAT COME ABOUT? I DIDN'T, I WASN'T HERE. THAT IS WHAT CAME ABOUT.

ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS BROUGHT IT UP AND THEY TOOK A VOTE AND IT PASSED.

BUT OF COURSE, THIS COMMISSION CAN OVERTURN THAT.

THAT IS UP TO THE COMMISSION. I DO WANT TO ADD THAT FOR THE NEXT MEETING, WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THESE TWO ITEMS COME BACK BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T COMPLETED THEM YET.

WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE MISS CAULFIELD'S SUGGESTIONS FROM THE TITLE.

ARTICLE FIVE. YEP. YEP. CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO LIMIT PRESENTATIONS TO, LIKE, AN HOUR? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN I'M SURE WE CAN.

WE CAN PUT A LIMIT ON PRESENTATIONS. I DON'T THINK EITHER.

YEAH. SO. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST FOR THE NEXT MEETING ON THE AGENDA IS THAT WE CONSIDER REPEALING THAT TWO HOUR RULE. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY.

PROPOSED BY SECONDED BY NORRIS. ALL IN FAVOR BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. AYE. ALL AGAINST. SO MOVED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR DEDICATION AND FOR YOUR DESIRE TO BRING THIS TO A FULL, FULL DISCUSSION. APPRECIATE THE AUDIENCE FOR BEING HERE.

I HOPE YOU ENJOYED THE VIEW. AND MAYBE NEXT TIME YOU CAN ADD A LITTLE MORE TO TO WHAT'S HAPPENING, AND MAY YOU ALL HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. GOD BLESS YOU ALL.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.