[00:00:02] OKAY. I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION TO ORDER MEETING NUMBER 2020 6-02. [CALL TO ORDER] THIS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12TH, 2026 AT 6 P.M.. THE INVOCATION WILL BE DONE BY PASTOR MEYER AND IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING RUTH FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. AND I GUESS WE'LL STAND. LET'S PRAY TOGETHER. LORD, WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THIS CITY THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN. WE ASK THAT YOU WOULD GIVE US WISDOM AND CLARITY OF JUDGMENT TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS. HELP US TO EXALT YOU IN ALL THAT WE DO. IN JESUS NAME WE PRAY. 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. AMEN. THERESA JONES WITH THE ROLL CALL. I FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT. MR. DELGADO, PRESENT. MR. MYERS. PRESENT. MR. MILLER. PRESENT. MR. GAUME PRESENT. MR. NORRIS. MR. O'NEILL. PRESENT. MISS. SEP. MISS. CRAWFORD. PRESENT. MR. CHANDLER. PRESENT. MR. WEINBERG. PRESENT. SEE? SHE SMILED. I MADE HER SMILE ALREADY. LAUGHING IS GOOD. OKAY. WE DID. THEY DID SEND. AND THANK YOU, TERESA, AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK AND GETTING ALL THE INFORMATION TO US. YOU'RE DOING AN AMAZING JOB. IT SPEAKS HIGHLY OF YOU. BUT HOPEFULLY YOU ALL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE THE MEETINGS. [ADOPTION OF MINUTES] DO WE HAVE ANY ADJUSTMENTS AT THE MINUTES? OKAY. I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION. THERE WAS A CHANGE MADE TO THE AGENDA TO ADD A DISCUSSION FOR THE CURFEW OF THE CHARTER REVIEW MEETINGS, AND WE HAD A UNANIMOUS VOTE ON THAT. YES WE DID. AND HOW DID IT GET BACK ON THE AGENDA? THAT WASN'T MADE CLEAR. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AS TO WHAT YOU'RE IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE CURFEW, IF YOU'RE ELIMINATING IT COMPLETELY. EXCUSE ME. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO LIMIT IT. THERE WAS DISCUSSION AS TO IT BEING DONE, BUT HOW LONG DO YOU WANT THE MEETINGS TO GO? OR IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A LIMIT? RIGHT. THANK YOU. I THOUGHT WE HAD VOTED ON IT. RIGHT? YEAH, WE VOTED ON IT. AND I BELIEVE YOU VOTED TO BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY WAS THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED THE FIRST TIME. I'M FINE EITHER WAY. OKAY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE SURE WE GET IT RIGHT. IF WE DIDN'T GET IT RIGHT LAST TIME. I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE WE PUT THAT DISCUSSION AT THE BEGINNING SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT LATER. IF THAT'S OKAY. NEED A MOTION? NEED A MOTION, PLEASE. BRING IT TO NUMBER ONE INSTEAD OF NUMBER TWO. REVERSE THE ORDER. SECOND. WHO? WHO? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. PASTOR MARK MADE THE MOTION. SECOND. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? AND SO? SO THE MOTION IS BEING. WHAT? TO MOVE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CURFEW UP TO THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST. CORRECT. AND ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. ALL AGAINST. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. AND SO THAT BEING SAID THE ADOPTION OF MINUTES. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ADOPTION OF MINUTES? DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. MOVED BY WEINBERG AND SECOND. SECOND BY RUTH. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL AGAINST SAME SIGN. MINUTES HAVE BEEN DULY APPROVED. PUBLIC COMMENTS. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? NON-AGENDA ITEMS. INASMUCH AS THERE'S NO AGENDA ITEMS. COMMENTS. MOVING ON TO REPORTS. TERESE. JUST FOR INFORMATIONAL. [REPORTS] PURPOSES THEY DID GIVE. TERESE DID SHARE WITH US A LIST OF APPROVED CHARTER AMENDMENTS TO DATE. AND THIS IS JUST INFORMATIONAL ONLY. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A VOTE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE THAT IT IS THERE THAT YOU CAN SEE IT AFTER. LOOK IT OVER. MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S IN ORDER. [00:05:01] IF THERE'S A CHANGE THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE. WE CAN ALWAYS DISCUSS IT THE NEXT TIME AROUND. OKAY. NEW BUSINESSES. WE'RE STARTING WITH DISCUSSION OF A CURFEW FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW. [NEW BUSINESS] THAT BEING SAID, BEFORE WE DISCUSS THE CURFEW PASTOR MEYER WOULD LIKE TO I'D LIKE TO GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE HIS HEART IN REFERENCE TO THE CURFEW. YEAH, I TALKED WITH THE MAYOR EARLIER TODAY, AND THEN I TALKED WITH THE CHAIR RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING, AND WAS RECOMMENDED THAT MAYBE I MAKE A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT. I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY I'VE BEEN ABSENT ON SOME MEETINGS AND EVEN TONIGHT, I'VE GOT TO LEAVE EARLY. AND I MEAN, NO DISRESPECT TO THE TO THE WORK THAT THE COMMITTEE IS DOING. BUT JUST UNFORTUNATELY, LAST MONTH, MY FATHER WAS HAVING A HEART SURGERY ON THE DAY, AND IT'S JUST IT'S BEEN A SERIES OF THINGS AND I'VE GOT A MEETING TONIGHT THAT'S UNAVOIDABLE. SO IF AT ANY POINT THE COMMITTEE FEELS LIKE I'M A DISRUPTION OR IF I NEED TO BOW OUT I'M HAPPY TO DO SO. BUT I CERTAINLY MEAN NO DISRESPECT TO THE TO THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. AND NO DISRESPECT. RECEIVED I THINK THANK YOU. WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? GREAT DISCUSSION FOR CURFEW. I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION. YES. MY MY ONLY COMMENT BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CURFEW IS IF WE'RE GOING BEYOND WHAT IS CURRENTLY AT THE TWO HOUR LIMIT, I WOULD SAY DON'T GO ANY MORE THAN THREE BECAUSE OF THE WIRELESS MICROPHONES. THEY WILL START DYING. OKAY. SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE A TWO HOUR LIMIT ON THE MEETINGS, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING IN 30 MINUTE INCREMENTS UP TO A THREE HOUR MEETING. SECOND. YEAH. DISCUSSION. ANY DISCUSSION FROM FROM PEOPLE AT LARGE. ALL IN FAVOR? BY THE SIGN OF I I I I I ALL AGAINST BY SAME SIGN UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO EIGHT AND THEN CONTINUING AT 30 MINUTE INTERVALS, INTERVALS UP TO 9:00. GREAT. OKAY. NEW BUSINESS. FIRST ONE IS ARTICLE ONE AS PRESENTED BY RUTH. KAUFHOLD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE? YES. I YIELD TO YOU. OKAY. SO, GIVEN THE STATE OF THE NATION AT THIS POINT, WITH ALL KINDS OF SHARIA LAW GETTING INFILTRATED INTO OUR COUNTRY I JUST REALLY WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT CONSTITUTION. WHAT LAW? WHAT ARE IS THE NATION AND PALM BAY LOOKING AT? OKAY. SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT AND THESE THIS ISN'T ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE CONGRESS RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE CONGRESSMAN ROY AND TUBERVILLE ARE LEADING A CHARGE TO NO SHARIA BILL, STRENGTHENING OUR LANGUAGES AND ALL OF OUR. CITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE THAT WE'RE NOT JUST LAZY, LACKADAISICAL, SAYING THE WORD CONSTITUTION AND THAT THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SPECIFICALLY THE DECLARATION, THE CONSTITUTION, THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S CONSTITUTION, THAT THAT THESE ARE OUR LAWS AND NO OTHER, THAT WE CANNOT FALL DOWN ON THIS. WE CANNOT. WE MUST MAKE SURE THAT THIS THIS INFORMATION IS SOLIDIFIED IN OUR CHARTER. IT SOLIDIFIED SO THAT THERE IS NO WAY THAT THIS CAN HAPPEN HERE IN PALM BAY. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IT IS SUPPOSEDLY, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SUPPOSEDLY OVERTURNED. WELL, THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT IN MINNESOTA. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT IN MICHIGAN. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE THOUGHT IN NEW YORK. WELL, SEE, THERE'S A LOT OF TRASH IN NEW YORK NOW. SO NOTHING'S GETTING REALLY DONE IN NEW YORK, BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE MUSLIM PATROLS RUNNING AROUND TELLING WOMEN HOW TO DRESS. WE HAVE ALL OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE FOR NEW YORK CITY. [00:10:08] WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONSTITUTION THERE? SO I BELIEVE THAT WE MUST SOLIDIFY EVERYTHING THAT WE DO HERE SPECIFICALLY AND TO THE NTH AMOUNT OF DETAIL. THAT'S HOW I FEEL. THE WORDING THAT SHE HAS DESIRED IS THERE IN YELLOW, HIGHLIGHTED ON ON HER REWORDING OR JUST ESTABLISHING WHAT THE WORD CONSTITUTION MEANS. ANY ANY DISCUSSION, MISTER CHAIR? YES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BEGIN WITH. WHEN IT COMES TO HOME RULE, THAT ONLY APPLIES TO HOME RULE OF WHAT A MUNICIPALITY DOES, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T. YOU CAN'T OVERRIDE FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU CAN'T OVERRIDE THE US CONSTITUTION. NONE OF THAT, RIGHT? CORRECT. WHAT I FEAR IS I DON'T WANT TODAY'S POLITICAL CLIMATE WRITTEN INTO OUR CHARTER. BY ESTABLISHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE SHARIA LAW, WE'RE ESTABLISHING ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER, AND THAT'S AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. THIS DOES NOTHING BUT SET THE CITY UP FOR FOR LAWSUITS, AND I'M OPPOSED TO IT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YEAH, I AGREE 100% WITH WHAT TOM SAID. FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE MUNICIPALITY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THAT GOES BY SHARIA LAW. IT'S NOT LEGAL. AND THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE THE ORDINANCES OF OF THE CITY OF PALM BAY. YOU KNOW, THEIR UNQUESTIONED WHAT THEY ARE. YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T INTRODUCE ANY OTHER KIND OF LAW BECAUSE IT'S NOT LEGAL. THE LAW IS WHAT THE LAW IS. YES. RESPOND TO THAT. GO RIGHT AHEAD. WHAT'S THE PROOF THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET LAWSUITS? WHAT SPECIFIC STATUTES WILL WE ENDURE OR OR POSSIBILITY IF WE JUST STRENGTHEN THIS LANGUAGE? I DON'T NEED TO WORK OFF OF WHAT IFS. IT'S OFF OF WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY RIGHT. AND THE CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU WILL NOT ESTABLISH RELIGION. AND BY ESTABLISHING A RELIGION, YOU'RE PREFERRING ONE OVER ANOTHER. NOW, I'M CHRISTIAN DEEP DOWN IN MY HEART, BUT I ALSO KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS. AND I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO SOME SEMINAR TO BECOME A COACH TO FIGURE THIS OUT. I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE PROPOSED WORDING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. IF YOU LOOK AT THE WORD RELIGION THE PROPOSED CHANGE WE HAVE ALREADY CITY IS TO BE CONSTRUED AS A CITY OF PALM BAY. WELL, OBVIOUSLY, IN OUR MIND WE'D GO, IF IT'S THE CITY, WHY WOULD WE BE TALKING ABOUT MELBOURNE? NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY OF PALM BAY. AND IT'S JUST ESTABLISHING THAT THE WORD CITY FOR CLARIFICATION OR AS, AS LAWSUITS USUALLY HAPPEN BECAUSE OF LACK OF WORDING. THEY JUST ADDED THAT THE WORD CITY, WHEREVER IT'S FOUND IS WORD CITY OF PALM BAY, WHERE THE WORD MANAGER IS, IT'S A IT'S IT'S BE CONSTRUED AS CITY MANAGER. COUNCIL IS TO ASSUME THAT IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE CITY OF PALM BAY. COUNCIL HERE. ALL ALL SHE IS PROPOSING IS THAT WE THAT WHEREVER THE WORD CONSTITUTION APPEARS IN THIS CHARTER IS TO REFER TO THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SPECIFICALLY THE UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA. SPECIFICALLY, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS NOT MENTIONING RELIGION. WE'RE NOT PUTTING RELIGION ABOVE THE OTHER, ALTHOUGH SHE'S REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT IT SHARIA LAW IS THE PROBLEM. ALL SHE IS CHANGING HERE IS JUST SPECIFYING THAT WHEN THE WORD CONSTITUTION COMES UP, IT JUST MEANS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE CONSTITUTION OF FLORIDA. AND IT'S JUST CLARIFYING WITH VERBIAGE THAT BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO SHARIA LAW AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THAT THAT IS AN EXAMPLE. YEAH. AND THE POINT RATHER THAN ARGUING ALL OF THE PERIPHERAL POINTS, ALL YOU'RE DOING AND ALL YOU'RE ASKING IS JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORD CONSTITUTION APPEARS, THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS, NOT REFERRING TO CHANGING OR TO BRINGING RELIGION INTO THIS, THIS AREA. IT'S JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. IF I IF I COULD SHOW THAT. YES, I'D LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT SHARIA LAW. SHARIA LAW IS NOT A RELIGION, OKAY? ISLAM IS A RELIGION. SHARIA LAW IS NOT. IT'S A GOVERNANCE. IT ALLOWS MEN TO RAPE WOMEN, AND THEY CAN'T CONTEST IT UNLESS THEY HAVE FIVE MALE WITNESSES TO STAND UP FOR THEM. IT ALLOWS A MAN WHOSE SON WAS, YOU KNOW, RUN OVER BY A CAR. [00:15:05] AND I SAW THIS, OKAY. A SEVEN YEAR OLD BOY WAS RUN OVER BY A CAR. THE HUSBAND BLAMED THE WIFE. THE WIFE WENT INTO A SHARIA COURT AND THE COURT SAID SHE'S GUILTY. SHE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THEIR SOLDIERS WITH A BAG OVER HER HEAD WHILE HER HUSBAND CUT HER HEAD OFF. WE PAGANISM IS A RELIGION WE DON'T ALLOW. HUMAN SACRIFICE. THERE ARE THINGS THERE ARE LIMITS TO. WHAT IS A RELIGION. IT'S MORE OF A CULT OR A GOVERNANCE. BUT SHARIA LAW SPECIFICALLY IS NOT A RELIGION. IF I CAN JUST SAY SOMETHING HERE. LISTEN, THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE CALLED LIKE STRAW MEN, WHERE WE DEVIATE FROM A SUBJECT AT HAND AND WE TALK ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE PLACING IT BECAUSE OF THESE SITUATIONS. COULD WE COULD WE ESTABLISH THAT? LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE VERBIAGE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE AND NOT ABOUT QUOTE UNQUOTE, WHETHER SHARIA LAW IS A RELIGION, NOT A RELIGION? IS IT A POLITICAL ENTITY, NOT A POLITICAL. IT MAY BE A POLITICAL ENTITY, MAYBE RELIGION, IT MAY BE BOTH. ALL OF THOSE THINGS MAY BE TRUE, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY THE SUBJECT MATTER OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE HERE. THE VERBIAGE, IF WE CAN LIMIT OUR, OUR DISCUSSION NOT ON THAT WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IS SPECIFICALLY SAID HERE, LEST WE SPEND 15 MINUTES, HALF AN HOUR TRYING TO FIND OUT IF SHARIA LAW IS IS IS A RELIGION OR IS IT A POLITICAL ENTITY OR BOTH ENTITY. LET'S PUT THAT ASIDE FOR A MINUTE AND JUST DEAL WITH THE SUBJECT AT HAND, AND MAYBE WE CAN SHORTEN THE TIME TO DISCUSS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE. SO. YES, SIR. YEAH. JUST IN THE INTEREST OF MOVING THINGS ALONG, I THINK IT'S SUFFICIENTLY VAGUE TO PASS A SMELL TEST ON ANY SORT OF THIS OR THAT PREFERENCE. SO I MOVE TO ADOPT IT, AND THAT WAY WE CAN MOVE ON AND DO SOMETHING ELSE. WE HAVE A MOVE TO ADOPT THIS AS IT SAYS. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND. BY MR. O'NEILL. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION BY THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE? ANY COMMENTS BY THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION HERE? YES. YES, SIR. GO AHEAD. MR.. TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. IT'S JUST AGAIN, WHY ADD THINGS THAT SERVE NO PURPOSE? THAT IS HIS POSITION. OKAY. WELL RECEIVED. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. A MOTION HAS BEEN MADE. THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR BY THE SIGN OF I? AYE. ALL AGAINST. NAY. OKAY. DO WE NEED. DO WE NEED TO DO BY BY NAME? OKAY. WOULD YOU PLEASE DO IT BY ROLL CALL, MR. MYERS? OH, YES. MR. MYERS, I'M FOR IT. I'M SORRY. I'M FOR IT. OKAY, MR. MILLER. AYE. MR.. GORM. NAY, MR. NORRIS. AYE AYE AYE. MR. O'NEAL, I MISS, I MISS I, MR. CHANDLER, I, MR. WEINBERG. NAY, MR. DELGADO, I, I. THANK YOU. OKAY. AMEN. PASSES. WHAT'S 8 TO 2, 8 TO 2 PASSES. OKAY, NOW WE'RE ON PART NUMBER TWO. WE ARE REALLY MOVING FORWARD TODAY. I'M SO EXCITED. YOU GUYS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB. ARTICLE NUMBER FIVE. ARTICLE NUMBER FIVE. AND I AM GOING TO YIELD THE MICROPHONE TO AT THIS POINT TO VICE CHAIR TOM GUM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT YOUR, YOUR POSITION AND, AND IF YOU HAVE A STATEMENT OR SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, IF YOU WOULD LET US KNOW. NOTHING, REALLY. IN ADDITION TO WHAT I SUBMITTED I'M SORRY. NOTHING MUCH MORE THAN WHAT I SUBMITTED FOR THE THE AGENDA TONIGHT. BASICALLY, ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS MODERNIZE THINGS SO THAT ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEARS, WE STILL ELECT A MAYOR AT LARGE. WE ELECT TWO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT LARGE, AND THEN TWO YEARS LATER, WE ELECT TWO MORE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT LARGE, AND WE GET RID OF THE SEAT ONE, SEAT TWO. AS THAT IS. AND EVERYBODY GOES INTO A POOL. SO IF YOU HAVE 13 PEOPLE RUNNING FOR TWO SEATS, THE TOP TWO VOTE GETTERS OUT OF THAT POOL ARE THE TWO THAT ARE SEATED. IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WEST MELBOURNE DOES. [00:20:02] AND THAT IS IN WHAT WHAT SECTION THERE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 5.03. IT RUNS THROUGH SECTION. SECTION 505.03 AND RUNS DOWN INTO 5.04. I MEAN, IT BASICALLY OVERHAULS THE WHOLE ELECTION PROCESS. AS MISS JONES STATED BEFORE THE PRIMARY AND THE GENERAL ELECTION COST THE CITY DOUBLE, AND IT OPENS UP THE CAMPAIGN FINANCES. IT'S TWO SEPARATE ELECTIONS. SO IF YOU HAVE OUTSIDE MONEY POURING MONEY INTO PALM BAY TO TRY TO WIN AN ELECTION, THEY GET TO DO IT TWICE. OKAY. BEFORE WE HIT, THAT'S AT 5.043. CORRECT. IT'S 50450431. ALSO FIVE ADDRESSES SEATS. OKAY. OKAY. SO DISCUSSION. YES. I READ IN THIS A BIT THOUGHT ABOUT IT A LOT. AND GIVE ME A MINUTE. I HAVE A LOT OF TOPICS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ON THIS ONE. IN THIS LAST RACE. SEAT TWO. THERE WERE SIX CANDIDATES. AND I'M SORRY. SEAT FIVE WAS SIX CANDIDATES, AND SEAT TWO WAS TEN CANDIDATES THAT RAN. SO YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF 16 CANDIDATES. IF WE MOVE TO AN OPEN POOL SYSTEM, WE ARE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY FOR, AS YOU PUT IN THERE FOR A FAIR RUN POTENTIALLY 12 TO 16 CANDIDATES. NOW, IF WE PUT THAT IN A SINGLE POOL SYSTEM AND PEOPLE VOTE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY 10% TO 12% OF THE MAJORITY OF OUR REGISTERED VOTERS, WHICH IS AROUND 90,000 HERE IN PALM BAY. SO YOU'RE LOOKING ONLY ABOUT 1,020% OF THE ACTUAL VOTES GOING TO THE WINNERS WOULD BE OF THIS AT THE TOP POOL. AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY DISENFRANCHIZING MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS OF A MAJORITY THAT DIDN'T EVEN VOTE FOR THOSE PEOPLE. SO YOU'RE NOW SPREADING THAT VOTE THINNER FOR THEIR OPTIONS. YOU TALKED ABOUT HERE IN ABOUT STRATEGIC SEAT SHOPPING. I WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE EXPLANATION ON THAT AND EXAMPLES OF WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FAIRNESS. AND THEN YOU LOOK AT EXAMPLE COUNCILMAN HAMMER RAN AGAINST AN INCUMBENT AND HAMMER HAD ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT, NO MONEY, AND STILL CAME OUT ON TOP. SO WHEN IT COMES TO FAIRNESS, I'M NOT SEEING A GOOD EXAMPLE THERE EITHER. I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE HERE TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN ON SOME OF THESE TOPICS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND KIND OF GO AGAINST, IF YOU WILL, WITH DISENFRANCHIZING THE VOTERS POTENTIALLY. I'M SPREADING THAT VOTE THINNER FOR US. WELL, PAST HISTORY WILL SHOW THAT THE PRIMARIES HAVE HAD NO IMPACT AT ALL IN THE FINAL OUTCOME. ALL THEY'VE DONE IS COST US MONEY. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SEAT SHOPPING IN 2020, I ANNOUNCED THAT I WAS GOING TO RUN AGAINST HARRY SANTIAGO AND HE WITHDREW. MY ONLY PURPOSE WAS TO GET HIM OUT OF THAT SEAT. SO WHEN HE WITHDREW, I CHANGED MY SEAT AND I WENT AFTER BRIAN ANDERSON, AND THEN HE WITHDREW AND WE CAME DOWN TO RANDY FOSTER AND I AFTER THE PRIMARY. SO I SEE SHOPPED. BUT WHAT YOU CAN END UP WITH INSTEAD OF THAT POOL OF 16, YOU COULD END UP WITH THE TWO STRONGEST CANDIDATES RUNNING AGAINST EACH OTHER IN 14 RUNNING AGAINST EACH OTHER. AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST, AND THAT'S WHAT HISTORY WOULD SHOW. MR.. COMMISSIONER YES. MR. WARREN A COUPLE I'M TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THE SYSTEM THE WAY IT IS. AND THERE'S TWO REASONS WHY. PRIMARY ELECTION. YES, IT'S COSTLY, BUT WHAT IT ALLOWS THE VOTERS TO DO IS TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE CANDIDATES BY HAVING TWO ELECTIONS, ONE A PRIMARY WHERE THEY CAN MEET THE CANDIDATES IF THEY'RE SO INCLINED TO LEARN ABOUT THEM, AND THEN THE TWO TOP VOTE GETTERS IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. SO I THINK IT SERVES CERTAINLY SERVES A PURPOSE AND I SEE NO REASON TO CHANGE IT. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? YES, SIR. I'M NOT WILD ABOUT THE AT LARGE BEING THE TOP TWO. I THINK IF THEY WERE SEPARATE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER. IT'S A SMALLER POOL. I DO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD GET RID OF THE PRIMARIES BECAUSE IT'S TOO SMALL A POPULATION MAKING A DECISION ON WHO WE FINALLY GET TO ELECT. SO I AGREE WITH TOM ON THAT. [00:25:03] I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE EACH SEAT ELECTED, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, BECAUSE THE TOP TWO, IT JUST REEKS OF RANKED CHOICE, WHICH WHEREVER IT'S BEEN PLAYED OUT, IT'S AN EASILY MANIPULATED SITUATION. YOU MAY NOT THINK SO, BUT I'VE SEEN IT. ALASKA. IT'S BEEN A TOTAL DISASTER THERE. AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN JUST THE WAY WE'VE DONE THINGS IN THE PAST, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE EVERY SEAT ELECTED SEPARATELY. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WOULD CHANGE. ON WHAT? TOM'S PROPOSAL IS PERSONALLY, I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE DISTRICTS, MOSTLY BECAUSE. NOT THIS ELECTION, BUT THE PREVIOUS ONE. EVERYBODY ON THAT DAIS WAS FROM THE SOUTHERN PART OF PALM BAY. ONCE PETE FILIBERTO WAS OFF. AS SOMEONE WHO'S LIVED IN THE NORTHEAST SECTION FOR 35 YEARS, IT WAS CLEAR THAT NO ONE WAS PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THAT AREA. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT GOT ME INVOLVED WITH THE CITY OF PALM BAY WAS BECAUSE SIMPLE THINGS LIKE CHECKING THE WATER TAKING THE WATER SAMPLES, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A SAMPLING STATION, WHICH BY LAW, WE WERE SUPPOSED TO, BUT NOBODY PAID ATTENTION BECAUSE THERE WAS NOBODY STANDING UP FOR THE PEOPLE WHO'VE LIVED HERE PROBABLY THE LONGEST. YOU KNOW, SO MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE. BUT IF WE'D CONTINUE JUST DOING IT THIS WAY, AND YOU WANT TO HAVE EXTRA SEATS, AT LEAST HAVE THEM ELECTED SEPARATELY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION IN JUST A SECOND? YES. I'LL JUST SAY I DEFINITELY I AGREE WITH THE DISSOLUTION OF SEATS BECAUSE THEY REALLY ADD NO VALUE. THEY DON'T REPRESENT A PARTICULAR TARGET AREA OR ANYTHING. SO I AGREE WITH GETTING RID OF THE SEAT NUMBERS. AND JUST PUTTING EVERYBODY INTO THE AT LARGE POOL. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THAT POOL NUMBER COULD BE A LITTLE BIT LARGER, I WOULD WANT TO RETAIN THE PRIMARY TO NARROW A POTENTIAL 16 OR 8 DOWN TO FOUR AND AND THEN HAVE A FINAL. BUT THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON IT. RUTH. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CLERK. SO IN THIS, I'M NOT SEEING WHAT THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE WOULD BE IN ORDER TO SEE WHAT WE WOULD VOTE ON. YEAH. EXCUSE ME. I CAN'T DRAFT LANGUAGE JUST BASED ON WHAT WAS PROVIDED. I DON'T COME UP WITH A LANGUAGE LIKE THAT. RIGHT. TYPICALLY LANGUAGE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS PROVIDED, AND THEN YOU ALL DISCUSS THAT. BUT I. I CAN'T CREATE LANGUAGE BASED ON THIS. NO, YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTING. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE. IT SAYS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. BUT HERE HERE'S WHAT I'M THINKING. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE RIGHT, OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE THERE. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M OPPOSED TO AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL IDEA OF CHANGING HOW WE'RE DOING. I LIKE THE WAY WEST MELBOURNE DOES IT. THEY HAVE IT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE SO MANY SEATS AVAILABLE. EVERYBODY GOES AFTER IT. SO I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S WORDED IN HERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EVALUATE WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON PRETTY MUCH. WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, I COULDN'T HAVE THE ATTORNEY SPEAK. I WAS, IF YOU ALL, ONCE YOU VOTE ON WHAT YOU WANT. AND I KNOW I'VE HEARD A COUPLE PEOPLE MENTION THE WEST MELBOURNE OPTION. IF YOU VOTE ON THIS IS WHAT WE WANT THE AMENDMENT, I CAN WORK AFTER THE FACT AND BRING THE LANGUAGE BACK AS LONG AS I HAVE ENOUGH DETAILS OF WHERE YOU'RE GOING, RIGHT? AND THE WAY THE CHARTER IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IN ORDER TO MODERNIZE THAT SYSTEM, IT REALLY COULDN'T TAKE AND STRIKE AND AND ADD REALLY DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE TOTALLY REWRITTEN. AND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO I'M NOT GOING TO PROVIDE THE LANGUAGE FOR IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET ME OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR A MINUTE. YES. HE'S BEEN WAVING WAVING US DOWN. BILL BATTEN 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST. THERE'S THREE ITEMS I'D LIKE TO BRING UP WITH THIS ONE. THE FIRST ONE IS I'M AGAINST DISTRICTING, BECAUSE WHEN I HAVE A CITY COUNCIL, I WANT EVERYBODY AT THAT COUNCIL TO BE REPRESENTING ME, NOT JUST THE DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE IN. SO I'D LIKE EVERY ONE OF THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE CITY. [00:30:02] RIGHT. I AGREE WITH MR. GOMES PRESENTATION ON THIS AND THE REASON WHY I'D LIKE THAT IS BECAUSE IT HELPS ALLEVIATE THE FACT WHEN YOU GET YOU'RE HAVING TO SELECT THE LESSER OF TWO. I HATE SAYING IT THIS WAY, THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS, BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S REAL GOOD OVER HERE RUNNING AGAINST EACH OTHER. AND OVER HERE THERE'S TWO THAT AREN'T AREN'T AS QUALIFIED BY MY STANDARD. AND I HAVE TO VOTE ON ONE OF THEM. I COULD VOTE FOR TWO PEOPLE THAT I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE CITY. RIGHT. OR MORE BECAUSE AT ONE POINT IT WOULD BE THE MAYOR IN TWO SEATS OR TWO SEATS. EITHER WAY. THE OTHER THING WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS CHANGE WOULD BE IT WILL TAKE AWAY THE 50% VOTE. IF A PERSON'S RUNNING IN A PRIMARY AND THEY GET 50% OF THE VOTES, BUT IN THE PRIMARY, ONLY 20% OF THE POPULATION CAME OUT TO VOTE. SO IT DOES NOT GIVE YOU A FULL REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY ON THAT INDIVIDUAL THAT GOT 50% OF IT IS NOW SITTING UP THERE AS YOUR MAYOR, EVEN THOUGH ONLY 20% OF THE POPULATION VOTED FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL. SO THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS THAT I SEE IN FAVOR OF WHY THIS WOULD BE ADVISABLE. THANK YOU. DID I MAKE MY THREE MINUTES? YES. BUDDY. BUTCHER RAN 219 TRENTON AVENUE. THE UNIFIED ELECTION WOULD SAVE MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. I MEAN, WE DIDN'T HOLD A OFF ELECTION DUE TO A SEAT BEING EMPTY, AND THEY OPERATED WITH, WHAT, 3 TO 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR SO LONG. AND IF ONE GUY IS GONE, THEN THERE'S NO FORUM THERE. THE OTHER THING WITH THE PRIMARY PARTY, I MEAN, THE PRIMARY, IF THERE'S ONLY ONE PARTY REPRESENTED IN THAT PRIMARY, THEN YOUR DEMOCRATS OR INDEPENDENTS HAVE NO VOICE. IF YOU GO TO A WHAT HE'S PROPOSING, YOU GOT A WHOLE CITY WIDE TO COME AND VOTE. NOW, IF THAT THEY CHOOSE NOT TO MAKE THEMSELVES AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON, THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM. BUT AT LEAST THE DOOR IS OPEN FOR EVERYBODY TO VOTE. SO I WHOLEHEARTEDLY. WHICHEVER ONE YOU COME UP WITH, LEGAL WORDS ON IT. ONE OTHER THING ON THE PRIMARIES IS EVERYBODY HATES TO SEE THE CAMPAIGN SIGNS ALL OVER THE CITY. AND THIS BASICALLY CUTS THEM IN HALF BECAUSE IT SHORTENS THE CAMPAIGN SEASON. I HAVE A QUESTION. AREN'T THE POSITIONS NONPARTIZAN? YES. YEAH. SO? SO YEAH. PARTIES DON'T MATTER. JUST JUST AS A POINT OF OF UNDERSTANDING. DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE INDEPENDENT OR NOT. YOU GET TO VOTE. PERSONALLY AND I'M STILL NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING HOW IT WOULD WORK. BUT MR. TYLER O'NEILL MADE A GOOD POINT. IF IF YOU HAVE 20 PEOPLE RUNNING AND THE TOP TWO GET IT. THE TOP 2ND MAY ONLY HAVE 10% VOTE. WHICH MEANS THOSE WHO HAD VOTED NOT VOTED FOR THOSE 20% GET SOMEONE THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN WANT. WHEREAS IF THERE'S A DOUBLE OPPORTUNITY OF SOME SORT THOSE WHO DID NOT MAKE THE CUT NOW HAVE A CHOICE TO CHOOSE WHICH OR WHO WILL BE THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. AS AN EXAMPLE, IF IF I WERE TO SAY THERE WERE FIVE PROGRESSIVE JUST TO USE THE WORD PROGRESSIVE FOR A CHANGE, FIVE PROGRESSIVE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING AND AND OR 15 RUNNING AND FIVE CONSERVATIVES AND THE TWO TOP TIER ARE OUR PROGRESSIVES, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO WERE CONSERVATIVES DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN TOGETHER TO ELECT THE ONE PERSON THAT THEY WANTED REPRESENTED. BECAUSE YOU'VE SPREAD IT OUT, IT'S NO LONGER A DEMOCRATIC. IN ESSENCE, IT'S NOT REALLY A DEMOCRATIC METHOD OF DOING IT, INASMUCH AS THE REPRESENTATION IS NOT EXTENDED TO EVERYBODY BECAUSE YOU EITHER GET IT ON THE FIRST TIME OR YOU DON'T. WHEREAS ON PRIMARIES, YOU'RE YOU'RE SHORTENING THE POOL SO THAT THEN PEOPLE CAN MAKE A CHOICE. IF MY CANDIDATE DIDN'T WORK, I HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE TO PUT SOMEONE THAT I WOULD PREFER IN THAT POSITION. WAS THAT CLEAR? DID I EXPRESS THAT WELL? YES, AND I TEND TO AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT OF IT AS WELL. MR. CHAIR. YES, SIR. I CONTEND THAT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO GET THE SAME 20 PEOPLE, WHETHER THEY'RE IN ONE POOL OR TWO. [00:35:08] AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, IS THEY'RE IN ONE POOL. YOU GET THE TOP TWO. IF THEY'RE IN TWO POOLS, YOU MIGHT GET THE TOP ONE AND A THIRD. BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF CANDIDATES TO WEED THROUGH AS AS A VOTER. AGAIN, MY QUESTION WOULD BE THEN, IF IT'S ONLY JUST A ONE TIME GO, THERE ARE ONLY 24. ONLY 24% OF THE VOTERS SHOW UP FOR PRIMARIES. WE GET 60% IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. THERE'S FAR BETTER REPRESENTATION IN THE GENERAL. IT IS, BUT THE PRIMARY. BUT MY QUESTION IS THIS. IF THERE'S IF IT'S JUST ONE TIME VOTE AND 60% PEOPLE VOTE, BUT THE BIGGEST ONE WHO WON OR THE TOP TWO ONLY GOT 15% AND 14%. IS THAT TRUE REPRESENTATION? I THINK IF YOU WENT BACK AND YOU LOOKED AT THE HISTORY OF PALM BAY AND LOOKED AT THE ELECTIONS, THAT YOU'D FIND THAT IT MADE ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE THAT THE SAME PEOPLE STILL GET ELECTED. I WOULD TEND TO DISAGREE, WHETHER IN PRIMARY OR GENERAL. YES, SIR. MR.. I HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO QUESTION, BECAUSE THIS LOOKS LIKE IF THIS WERE TO MOVE FORWARD, THIS WOULD TURN INTO A MAJOR ELECTION INFORMATION CHANGE. AND I THINK THIS QUESTION IS PROBABLY MORE FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. AND LIKE, HOW DO WE WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS OF GETTING THAT INFORMATION TO OUR REGISTERED VOTERS HERE IN PALM BAY AND THAT TIMELINE AND THAT PROCESS? SO PEOPLE ARE NOT STUMPED BY A CHANGE LIKE THAT? I WOULD THINK IT'D BE SIMILAR TO WHEN WE CHANGED THE ELECTION CYCLES. YEAH, IT WOULDN'T BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY. IT MAY NOT HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY WITH THE NEXT ELECTION. IT WILL TAKE TIME. JUST AS WHEN WE IMPLEMENTED THE PRIMARIES OR WHEN WE CHANGE THE TERM LIMITS OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. IT TOOK SOME TIME BEFORE THOSE CHANGES COULD BE IMPLEMENTED, BUT THAT I WOULD HAVE TO COORDINATE WITH. ALSO WITH THE ELECTIONS OFFICE AND THEN WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY. SO THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS, IN A SINGLE STEP, UNIFIED ELECTION, ARE THERE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE WHERE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ENTIRE CITY COUNCIL CHANGING ONE ELECTION? IN OTHER WORDS, IS THE UNIFIED SYSTEM ONLY FOR CERTAIN SEATS AND CERTAIN YEARS ON THE YEAR OF A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, YOU ELECT THE MAYOR AT LARGE THE SAME WAY WE DO NOW, ONLY THERE WOULD BE NO PRIMARY. AND YOU ELECT TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND THE OFF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TWO YEARS LATER, YOU ELECT THE OTHER TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO THERE'S ALWAYS TWO LEGACY, RIGHT? COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE COUNCIL. AND THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE WITH THE NEW SYSTEM. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. I HAVE A QUESTION. WOULD YOU MAKE THE THE TWO AT LARGE ELECTED EVERY TWO YEARS? HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT? EXCUSE ME. IT'S A GOOD POINT. WOULD THE AT LARGE, THE EXTRA TWO PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING ON THE DAIS, WOULD THEY BE TWO YEAR TERMS OR FOUR YEAR TERMS? NO. THEY'RE TWO THEY'RE FOUR YEAR TERMS. YOU WOULD HAVE A FOUR YEAR TERM FOR THE MAYOR ON THE ELECTION YEAR THAT WE ELECT THE PRESIDENT, ALONG WITH TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS. TWO YEARS LATER, ON THE NON-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, YOU ELECT YOUR OTHER TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE MAYOR RACE WOULD GET THE MOST TURNOUT BECAUSE IT'S A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. MR. JUST SUGGESTING THAT MAYBE IT'S A GOOD THING TO HAVE US, THE ABILITY, GIVE US THE ABILITY TO CHANGE IT UP. IF THOSE EXTRA TWO PEOPLE ARE NOT WORKING OUT THE WAY WE PLANNED. IT ALWAYS HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET A NEW COUNCIL THERE'S ALWAYS SOMEONE THAT DISAPPOINTS. THEN YOU END UP. THEN YOU ENTER INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF ELECTING A TOTALLY BRAND NEW COUNCIL. AND THAT'S NOT GOOD. MR. WEINBERG. YEAH. MR. CHAIR. TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, TOM, TOM'S PROPOSAL HAS HAS JUST HAS TWO ITEMS ON IT. REALLY? HE'S TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING THE NUMBERED SEATS ON CITY COUNCIL. THEN HE'S ALSO TALKING ABOUT ELIMINATING PRIMARIES. SO YOU'VE GOT TO BREAK THAT UP INTO TWO SEPARATE PROPOSALS AND TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS, BECAUSE YOU CAN DO AWAY WITH ONE, BUT NOT THE OTHER. I COULD DO THAT IF YOU WANT TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, AND I CAN GIVE IT AND STRIKE OUT AND MAKE ALL THE LANGUAGE. AND DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M COMING FROM, THOUGH? I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. I WAS JUST TRYING TO ELIMINATE A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH BY MAKING IT MORE CONSUMABLE. AND MAYBE IT WAS THE WRONG MOVE. TO THE ATTORNEY. IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN TO ME WE HAVE CURRENTLY [00:40:09] ADDRESSED AS SEAT NUMBERS. WE HAVE THAT. FOR WHAT REASON? I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT SURE. OF COURSE, IT'S BEEN THAT WAY SINCE I HAVE STARTED WITH THE CITY ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO. I BELIEVE IT WAS JUST TO GIVE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO JUST RUN FOR A CERTAIN SEAT. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY REASONING BEHIND IT. THEY COULD EASILY REMOVE THE SEAT NUMBERS, AND THEY COULD JUST BE AT LARGE. AND YOU JUST CHOOSE THE TOP TWO OR THE TOP THREE. OKAY. SO, PATRICIA, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE WEST MELBOURNE MODEL? I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WEST MELBOURNE MODEL I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WHEN I LOOK AT THE BALLOT, I SEE WEST MELBOURNE SAY, OKAY, HERE'S TEN CANDIDATES, PICK THREE. AND I HAVE SEEN THAT ON THE BALLOT. AND THAT'S LITERALLY JUST WHAT MR. IS PROPOSING. OKAY. THERE'S JUST NO THERE'S NO DESIGNATED SEATS. YOU'RE LITERALLY JUST CHOOSING WHOEVER GETS THE TOP THREE VOTES GET THE MOST THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTES THEY ARE ELECTED. THAT'S IT. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. AND QUITE A FEW MUNICIPALITIES DO THAT. OKAY. YEAH. BASICALLY THEY'RE ALL ELECTED AT LARGE IN WEST MELBOURNE. YEAH. PASTOR MARK. NO, I JUST WANTED TO BUILD ON WHAT COMMISSIONER WEINBERG SAID. I MEAN, I AGREE. TO ME, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO TABLE IT OR NOT, BUT QUESTION NUMBER ONE IS, DO WE DO AWAY WITH THE SEATS AND PUT EVERYONE IN AT LARGE, RIGHT. FOR THE TWO AND TWO, AS YOU SAID, DO WE KEEP WHAT WE HAVE TODAY WITH SEAT NUMBERS SO THAT PEOPLE RUN FOR INDIVIDUAL SEATS EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC AREA. AND THE THIRD ONE IS DO WE ASSIGN DISTRICTS RIGHT? TO ME, THAT'S REALLY THE THREE OPTIONS THAT ARE ON THE TABLE. SO CAN WE CAN WE VOTE ON ENACTING ONE OF THOSE. AND THEN SECOND TO THAT IS THE VOTE OKAY. SO DO WE WANT A PRIMARY OR NOT. RIGHT. AND AND TO ME IF WE HAVE SEATS ASSIGNED TO A SPECIFIC AREA THEN PROBABLY NOT A NEED FOR FOR A PRIMARY IF IT'S AT LARGE AND EVERYBODY'S RUNNING FOR THE SAME TWO SEATS, THEN MAYBE WE WANT A PRIMARY BECAUSE THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR A LOT MORE PEOPLE RUNNING. RIGHT. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS, CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION THAT JUST TALKS ABOUT WHAT DOES THE COUNCIL VOTE LOOK LIKE, WHICH IS NO SEATS AT LARGE, RIGHT? OR LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS OKAY FOR DISTRICTS? CORRECT ME IF IF I'M HEADING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. THE AT LARGE IS SECTION NUMBER 5.041, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. 5.041 IS WHERE IT SAYS THEY ARE ELECTED TO A SPECIFIC SEAT ON COUNCIL. OKAY. SO THE FIRST QUESTION, AS WEINBERG SO WELL SAID, WE NEED TO SEPARATE THEM BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT AREAS IS DO WE HAVE SEAT NUMBERS OR WE JUST SAY AT LARGE? AND SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION? RUTH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THE SEAT NUMBERS AND DO AT LARGE. DO I HAVE A SECOND, RUTH. FIRST, SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY PASTOR MARK. ANY MORE DISCUSSION? FROM FROM THE AUDIENCE. ALL IN FAVOR? BY THE SIGN OF I I I I ALL AGAINST NAY, NAY. OKAY. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MR. MYERS? NAY. MR. MILLER. AYE. MR. GUM. AYE. MR. NORRIS. NAY. MR. O'NEAL. NAY. I'M SORRY, MR. NORRIS. HOW DID YOU. NAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. I'M JUST CHECK HAPPY ON HERE, MISS SAPP. NAY, MISS. COFFEY. YAY! MR. CHANDLER. NAY. MR. WEINBERG. NAY. MR. DELGADO. YES. DO WE HAVE FAILS? 6 TO 4. OKAY, SO WE MOVE ON. THAT REMAINS THE SAME AS AS 5.041, AS STATED MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, SIR. THE REST OF IT MAKES NO SENSE WITHOUT WITHOUT THAT. SO I'D LIKE TO PULL MY REMAINING ITEMS. OKAY. MOTION. IT WAS NEVER MADE A MOTION. SO HE'S JUST PULLING THE ITEM. SO IT WOULD CONTINUE AS IS UNLESS BETWEEN HERE AND NEXT TIME WE MEET, SOMEONE THROWS OUT ANOTHER PROPOSAL AND THEY WANT TO REDRESS IT, THAT THAT CAN BE DONE. BUT AT THIS TIME, THAT'S THAT'S COVERED. I DO HAVE HERE 5.042 BY BY. COUNCIL. COMMISSIONER MILLER REQUESTING [00:45:06] AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THAT APPLIES TERM LIMITS RECOMMENDING LIMITED MAXIMUM TO THREE TERMS OF FOUR YEARS EACH, WHETHER THEY ARE CONSECUTIVE OR NOT. TOTAL TIME SERVED CANNOT EXCEED 12 YEARS, HE SAYS. PERSONALLY, I WOULD PREFER EIGHT YEARS, TWO, FOUR YEAR TERMS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN THAT? SURE. I MEAN, THE RIGHT NOW YOU CAN RUN FOR A COUPLE OF TERMS, TAKE SOME TIME OFF, COME BACK, RUN FOR SOME MORE AND SERVE AGAIN. GIVE ME A QUICK SECOND. THIS WAS GIVEN WAY AT THE VERY BEGINNING, SO YOU MAY NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT AT YOUR YOUR FOREFRONT. I HAVE IT HERE, STAPLED FROM WHEN EVERYTHING WAS PRESENTED AT THE, AT THE BEGINNING. SO INASMUCH AS IT WAS PRESENTED AT THE VERY BEGINNING, IT STILL REMAINS TO BE DISCUSSED. SO IF YOU COULD START ALL OVER AGAIN, WE'D APPRECIATE IT. SURE. THANK YOU. FOR ME, IT WAS TO ESTABLISH SOME TERM LIMITS. THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN OR THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS YOU COULD SERVE FOR A COUPLE OF TERMS, TAKE SOME TIME OFF, COME BACK, SERVE FOR A COUPLE OF MORE TERMS, TAKE SOME TIME OFF, COME BACK AND SERVE FOR A COUPLE OF MORE TERMS. SO FOR ME, IT WAS JUST ESTABLISHING SOME TERM LIMITS. RIGHT. SO THREE TOTAL TERMS, 12 YEARS SERVED IN THE CITY COUNCIL ROLE. AND THEN YOU COULD ALSO SERVE UP TO ANOTHER 12 YEARS IN THE MAYOR ROLE. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT LAST PART. YEAH. SO IT'S IT'S THREE, FOUR YEAR TERMS IN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THREE FOUR YEAR TERMS AS THE MAYOR. SO I'M KEEPING THOSE TWO OFFICES SEPARATE, OKAY. EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE SIMILAR. SO. SO YOU COULD GO 12 YEARS AS A COUNCILMAN FOR 12 YEARS, AND THEN FROM THERE YOU COULD SERVE AS A MAYOR FOR ANOTHER 12 YEARS. AND THE 12 YEARS DON'T HAVE TO BE CONSECUTIVE. THEY CAN BE THREE TERMS SERVED OVER 40 YEARS. BUT THEY JUST CAN'T TOTAL MORE THAN 12. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION, MISTER CHAIR? LET ME START OVER HERE, IF YOU MAY, PLEASE, MISTER. I WOULD JUST SAY A TOTAL OF 12 YEARS. AND ANY PORTION OF A TERM COUNTS AS A FULL TERM. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, ACTUALLY. AND THAT THE MAYOR'S JUST A CEREMONIAL SEAT. THEY HOLD NO MORE POWER THAN ANY OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. SO TO GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL 12 YEARS JUST REALLY IN MY MIND. DOES IT MAKE. YEAH 12 TOTAL. OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. ANYBODY FROM THE FROM THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO OPINE IN ON THIS. OKAY. MAY I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TO HAVE A 12 YEAR MAXIMUM TERM LIMIT OR SERVICE LIMIT FOR CITY COUNCIL. AND, AND ARE YOU GOING TO ADD VERBIAGE THERE IN REFERENCE TO WHETHER CONSECUTIVE OR NOT? NO, NO. JUST 12 YEARS TOTAL. TOTAL. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE CONSECUTIVE. JUST 12 YEARS TOTAL MAXIMUM TIME SERVED FOR COUNCILMAN. SO POSITION IF THEN TO EXPLAIN IT THE YOU CANNOT BE ON THE DAIS MORE THAN 12 YEARS IS BASICALLY WHAT HE IS SAYING. COULD WE REFINE THAT A LITTLE MORE TO SAY THREE TERMS BECAUSE ANY PARTIAL TERM COUNTS AS A FULL TERM. THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S GOOD. ALL RIGHT. I'LL BE HAPPY TO WITHDRAW MY PREVIOUS ONE AND SUBMIT A NEW ONE. OKAY. WE HADN'T. SECONDED, BUT GO AHEAD. WOULD YOU REPHRASE IT AGAIN? ALL RIGHT. ALONG WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER JUST SAID IS THAT WE'LL HAVE THREE TERMS, A MAXIMUM OF THREE TERMS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A PARTIAL TERM. OKAY. AND AND IF IT NEEDS TO BE REWARDED AT SOME POINT. NO, I'VE GOT ENOUGH. AND I'LL BRING BACK THE EXACT LANGUAGE. BUT I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT HE'S SAYING. I CAN MAKE THE STRIKETHROUGHS AND I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU. OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. MARK WITH A MOTION. AND WE HAVE A SECOND WITH COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU, MR. NORRIS. I APPRECIATE THAT. PRAISE GOD. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL AGAINST. UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. VERY GOOD. OKAY. SO NEXT SECTION THAT SOMEONE HAD MENTIONED IS A RECALL SECTION 5.05. THIS SAYS THIS SECTION CURRENTLY STATES RECALL IS POSSIBLE AS PER STATE LAW. ANY NEED TO EXPAND THIS SECTION WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE FOR STATE LAW IS THE QUESTION IF LEGAL, [00:50:04] SHOULD WE CONSIDER ENACTING A MID-TERM RECALL VOTE AND BE ABLE TO REMOVE A CANDIDATE IF TWO THIRDS OF THE ELECTORS AGREE? THIS ELECTION WOULD BE HELD DURING THE STANDARD ELECTION TIME, WHICH WOULD BE TWO YEARS IN TERM. I DO NOT KNOW WHO PRESENTED THAT. THESE ARE QUESTIONS, SO I'M GOING TO DIRECT IT TO THE. IT WAS YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY THERE? SURE. SO SO JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THE FOR THE WHOLE TEAM HERE. SO WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS, I JUST READ THROUGH THE WHOLE THING, WROTE DOWN A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS SUBMITTED IN QUESTIONS. NOW THAT WE'VE SERVED HERE A FEW TERMS, YOU KNOW, OR A FEW MEETINGS, I KIND OF UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS. SO I'M HAPPY TO I'M HAPPY TO WITHDRAW THAT IN A COUPLE OF OTHER COMMENTS THAT I HAVE. OKAY. YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN. WITHDRAWN. YEAH. I HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR 504. IF YOU COULD SUBMIT THAT IT IS IT'S IN YOUR AGENDA. IT IS THE AGENDA. LET ME FIND IT. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE THAT DOWN ANYWHERE IN PARTICULAR. YEAH, I APOLOGIZE, MR. WEINBERG. I DO NOT HAVE THAT INCLUDED IN THIS AGENDA PACKET. YOU DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE AGENDA PACKET. IS THAT FROM THE LAST MEETING? I SUBMITTED IT BEFORE THE LAST MEETING. WE DIDN'T DISCUSS IT IN THE LAST MEETING. WE DIDN'T GET TO IT. THAT'S PROBABLY MY FAULT. WE DIDN'T GET TO IT TO IN THE LAST MEETING. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY PAPERWORK ON THAT. IT WAS IN THE LAST. YEAH, IT WAS IN THE LAST AGENDA PACKET, BUT I DID NOT INCLUDE IT. OKAY. PROCEED THEN. OKAY, WHAT I'M. WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS NOW THAT THAT THAT WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THE SEATS. OKAY. IS THE FACT THAT, AS YOU KNOW THE COUNTY COMMISSION, FOR INSTANCE, HAS DISTRICTS. OKAY. I'M NOT PROPOSING THAT WE CHANGE THAT IN PALM BAY BECAUSE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE POPULATION. IF WE BROKE IT UP BY DISTRICT NORTHEAST, NORTHWEST, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST, YOU WOULD HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVING TO TO BE QUALIFIED FOR AN ELECTION, THEN VOTE FOR THEM. SO WHAT I, WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS THAT WE STILL MAINTAIN THAT THAT ALL SEATS ARE, ARE VOTED ON COUNTY OR CITY WIDE. HOWEVER, IN ADDITION, MAKE EACH CERTAIN SEATS RESPONSIBLE FOR CERTAIN DISTRICTS OF THE CITY. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'D HAVE A SEAT. TWO WILL REPRESENT THE CONCERNS OF THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT. SEAT THREE. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT. SEAT FOUR. NORTHWEST QUADRANT. SEAT FIVE REPRESENT THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT. THE PURPOSE OF IT IS WILL STILL BE ELECTED CITYWIDE. THEY STILL CAN QUALIFY FROM THE ENTIRE CITY. BUT YOU MAY NOT KNOW THIS, BUT WHEN YOU'RE ON CITY COUNCIL WE GET AN AWFUL LOT OF EMAILS, A LOT OF CONCERNS FROM RESIDENTS. AND WHAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THAT THAT CITY COUNCILMAN CANNOT ADDRESS THE EMPLOYEES, CANNOT INSTRUCT AN EMPLOYEE TO TO HANDLE ANY KIND OF PROBLEM. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER. AND SO AS YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL GETS BOMBARDED WITH EMAILS FROM ALL ACROSS THE CITY. SO IF THIS WAY, IF YOU MAKE A CERTAIN SEAT RESPONSIBLE FOR A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY RESIDENTS WOULD KNOW WHO TO GET IN TOUCH WITH AND THEN THEY COULD HANDLE THAT. IN ADDITION TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES TO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, THEY WOULD ALSO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE RESIDENTS OF THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT OR DISTRICT RATHER THAN DISTRICT, I SHOULD SAY AREA OF THE CITY. AND THAT'S MY PROPOSAL AND DISCUSSION. YES, SIR, I WOULD MY I LOOKED AT THAT FOR YEARS AND I LIKE THE IDEA. THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT AS THE SOUTHEAST GROWS IN POPULATION AND WE END UP WITH 60,000 PEOPLE IN THE SOUTHEAST AND 30,000 PEOPLE AND ALL THE OTHER QUADRANTS, WE DON'T HAVE EQUAL REPRESENTATION. WELL, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF EQUAL REPRESENTATION. AS I SAID, THE QUALIFYING CANDIDATES STILL ARE QUALIFIED CITYWIDE, NOT THEY'RE NOT QUALIFIED BY A CERTAIN AREA. LIKE WHAT MR. BATTEN SAID EARLIER ABOUT HAVING ALL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT MY DISPOSAL. AND I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, CITY COUNCIL COULD DECIDE THAT, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO SPLIT UP, AND THIS IS YOUR PRIMARY THING. YOU KNOW, THIS IS YOUR PRIMARY SECTION, BUT TO DO IT AS PART OF THE CHARTER I THINK CAUSES SOME LEGAL ISSUES. AND I DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THAT AS FAR AS ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE AND REPRESENTATION. WELL, HE'S NOT CREATING DISTRICTS, SO THEY STILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO EVERYONE ELSE. BUT IT IS MORE LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. WHERE YOU THINK THAT WHERE YOU'RE SAYING ESSENTIALLY COUNCIL COULD AMONGST THEMSELVES SAY, HEY, WE'RE ALL HERE AND EVERYBODY'S RESPONSIVE, BUT THESE ARE I'M NORTHEAST AND I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS AND THAT. [00:55:06] AND SO EVERYBODY HAVE A SEAT BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL NOT I THINK IT MAY BE CONFUSING, BUT YOU'RE NOT CREATING DISTRICTS BUT YOU'RE SO SEAT ONE. YOU MAY ASSOCIATE WITH AN AREA, BUT THE PERSON DOESN'T HAVE TO LIVE IN THE AREA. AND EVERYBODY ELSE HAS JUST AS MUCH AUTHORITY TO HELP THAT PERSON. I THINK IT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT IS GOING TO CREATE CONFUSION BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY, HEY, HE DOESN'T LIVE IN SEAT ONE. HE'S NOT IN THAT AREA, ALTHOUGH HE DOESN'T ISN'T REQUIRED TO LIVE IN THAT AREA. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO CREATE MORE CONFUSION THAN IT IS GOING TO BE HELPFUL. NOT A LEGAL THING, MORE OF A POLICY ISSUE, BUT COMMISSIONER COFFEY I SAW YOUR HAND MOVE. I GUESS I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE. AND HERE YOU'RE TRYING TO CHANGE SOMETHING. SO. 50415041 OKAY, YOU HAVE THE AGENDA PACKAGE FROM LAST MEETING. IT'S IN THERE. OKAY. WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO CATCH UP BECAUSE I DID READ IT, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT MY COMMENTS WERE ON THAT. SO I WANT TO KEEP OR IF WE, IF WE CAN CHANGE IT TO SAY. LIKE WHAT YOU SAID. ALL COUNCIL, ALL CITY, WHATEVER IT IS, EVERYBODY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CITY. AND ANY CITIZEN CAN, YOU KNOW, ENGAGE ANY. COUNCILMAN. PERIOD. AND THEN COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER O'NEILL TO TAIL OFF OF WHAT MR. BATTEN SAID AND WHAT VICE CHAIRMAN GUAM SAID THERE'S A VAST POPULATION DIFFERENCES HERE. AND SO WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS I LIVE IN IN MR. BATTEN, I LIVE IN THE SMALLEST POPULATION QUADRANT HERE IN PALM BAY. NOW, I SEE MULTIPLE ISSUES HAPPENING HERE WITH THAT. SO YOU'RE DESIGNATING ONE OF THE COUNCILMAN TO AN AREA THAT'S HEAVILY, HEAVILY POPULATED. THAT'S WHAT IT'S NOT. THE PROPOSAL. WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING? AGAIN, AS I SAID EARLIER WE'RE NOT LIMITING THE CANDIDATES TO A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN SEAT TWO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, NECESSARILY LIVE IN THE NORTHEAST OR NORTHWEST OR SOUTHEAST OR THE SOUTHWEST, OKAY. JUST LIKE IT IS NOW. THAT'S ALL I'M PROPOSING. IS THAT TO TO SOMEWHAT FOCUS YOU KNOW, CITIZEN COMPLAINT, CITIZEN PROBLEMS, TO TO A CERTAIN CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. THAT'S ALL I'M PROPOSING. IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE IN SEAT TWO, FOR INSTANCE IF PEOPLE IN NORTHEAST QUADRANT HAVE A CONCERN, THAT'S WHO THEY WOULD DIRECT THEIR CONCERN TO RATHER THAN TO EVERYONE ON CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. IF I MAY EXPLAIN IN DIFFERENT WORDS WHAT HE IS TRYING TO SAY, I'M NOT AGREEING OR DISAGREEING. I THINK I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE'S SAYING. SO THAT PERSON IS THE FOCAL POINT OF THAT AREA TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THAT THAT PROBLEM. HE IS JUST A MESSENGER TO THE MANAGE AND HOW TO MANAGE THESE ISSUES. SO YOU'RE DESIGNATING THEM AS BEING THE DOOR TO WHERE THE ISSUES ARE. EXACTLY. THE LIAISON TO A SPECIFIC AREA, BUT ELECTED AT LARGE. THAT MAKES MORE SENSE. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. AND THAT BEING SAID, IF THAT QUADRANT HAS 60,000, THEN HE WOULD GET THE VAST NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS GOING TO HIM VERSUS ONE THAT HAS 30,000. HE WOULD SAY, BOY, I'VE GOT IT. I'VE GOT IT REAL NICE. I DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS ALL THOSE SITUATIONS, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADDRESS ALL OF THEM ANYWAY. ET CETERA. THAT'S. YEAH. BUT I SEE THAT PUT IN A BIGGER WORKLOAD ON WHOEVER THAT IS FOR THAT AREA. AND I FEEL LIKE THAT WILL GO BACK INTO MAYBE HAVING A TRUE PURPOSE OF WHAT SEAT ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR AND FIVE ALL DO OF HEY, THIS IS WHAT YOUR AREA IS. YOU'RE THE DEPUTY MAYOR. LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THE MOST BECAUSE YOU'RE THE HIGHER UP. FIGURING OUT KIND OF HOW TO MANAGE THAT PROPERLY WITHOUT OVER BOMBARDING ONE OF THE COUNCILMAN. WHOEVER IS OVER THAT AREA. COMMISSIONER CHANDLER. YEAH. I UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE, BUT THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE WITH IT IS I DON'T THINK THAT IS A PLACE FOR THE CHARTER. I THINK ULTIMATELY THAT SHOULD PROBABLY BE A POLICY DECISION MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. AND I ALSO THINK IT SHOULD ALTERNATE, RIGHT. I DON'T THINK IF YOU PUT IT IN THE CHARTER, YOU SAY SEAT FOR US IS QUOTE UNQUOTE, RIGHT. THE REPRESENTATIVE OR THE PERSON WHO IS THE DOORWAY TO EXACTLY RIGHT. EXACTLY RIGHT. AND AND THE CHARTER RELEGATES THAT PARTICULAR SEAT JUST TO THAT PARTICULAR ZIP CODE. I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. RIGHT? I THINK IT SHOULD ULTIMATELY ALTERNATE, AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE A POLICY DECISION ULTIMATELY MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. [01:00:08] YES, COMMISSIONER GUM. I'D JUST ADD TO THAT THAT THAT GIVES EACH COUNCIL THE FLEXIBILITY TO BUILD THEIR OWN POLICY AS THEY SEE FIT, AND TO DRAW THOSE LINES HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT IN THEIR POLICY. AND THEY CAN CHANGE IT EVERY TWO YEARS IF THEY WANT TO. OR THEY CAN SAY, THIS ISN'T WORKING AND CHANGE THE WHOLE THING. AND DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THAT LARGE? YES. BILL BATTEN 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTHWEST. THE ADVANTAGE TO NOT HAVING A DISTRICT IS THAT WHEN I MAKE A CALL INTO THE TROUBLE LINE THAT'S AT THE CITY, THE STAFF IS DETERMINING WHO IT NEEDS TO GO TO. AND THEN IF I SEND OUT A GENERAL EMAIL TO THE COUNCIL, I'LL SAY CITY COUNCIL AND IT'LL BE AT LARGE. IT GOES TO EVERYBODY. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE JUST PICKING CERTAIN DESIGNATED DISTRICTS AND PEOPLE ARE CALLING JUST THEIR COUNCIL MEMBER, THEY'RE AVOIDING THE REGULAR ROUTINE OF HOW THEY CONDUCT BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY. SO I'M AGAINST DISTRICTS, AND I'M LIKE IT WHEN I STAND UP THERE AND ADDRESS MY COUNCIL. I'M ADDRESSING MY COUNCIL, NOT JUST ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT'S SITTING UP THERE. I WANT THEM ALL TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING WITHIN THE CITY, NOT JUST A CERTAIN DISTRICT OR AREA. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I MEAN, PERSONALLY, I JUST THINK AS AS IT WAS SAID BEFORE, IT BRINGS MORE CONFUSION THAN ANYTHING. OH, I'M SORRY, MISS, I DIDN'T SEE YOUR HAND. I THINK WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE GROWING POPULATION THAT WE HAVE. IT IS A LOT OF WORK FOR ANY OF THEM. WHEN I PUT IN A REQUEST TO A NUMBER OF COUNCILMEN, I'M GETTING NO ANSWERS AT ALL. IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW THAT AT LEAST SOMEBODY IS, OR THEIR STAFF, OR WHOEVER THEY HAVE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESPONDING WILL ARE COUNTY COMMISSION HAS DISTRICT CHAIRS. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU GO TO THE COMMISSION, YOU CAN TALK TO ANY OF THEM. I HAVE MET WITH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. NOTHING STOPS ME FROM TALKING TO THEM AND TRYING TO CONVINCE THEM, YOU KNOW, THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO. BUT AS FAR AS TAKING KNOWING THE ISSUES FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA IF EACH ONE SAID, OKAY, I'M GOING TO BE ON TOP OF WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE, IT DOESN'T STOP YOU FROM TALKING TO ANYBODY ELSE, BUT AT LEAST YOU KNOW THE ONE PLACE TO GO TO FOR YOUR PARTICULAR ISSUES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THAT'S HELPFUL. WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 20 AND 30,000 INCREASE IN POPULATION IN THE NEXT 2 TO 3 YEARS, BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE. THAT'S A STATISTICS THAT I SAW. IT'S ALREADY A PROBLEM THERE. ONLY ONE. THEY DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE STAFF. IT'S JUST THEM. SOME OF THEM HAVE, LIKE, A ROBO RESPONSE. YEAH. IF IT'S IMPORTANT, I'LL GET BACK TO YOU. AND THEY DON'T GET BACK TO YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A RESPONSIVE COUNCIL. AND HOW DO WE MAKE THAT HAPPEN? SO I AGREE WITH WHAT PHIL IS TRYING TO PROPOSE. IF IT'S ONLY FOR THEM KNOWING THE ISSUES, BUT IT DOES NOT STOP ANYONE ELSE FROM RESPONDING IF THEY FEEL YOU KNOW, THAT THAT IT'S IMPORTANT AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T STOP YOU FROM WHEN YOU COME TO A COUNCIL MEETING, ONLY SAYING YOU CAN ONLY SPEAK TO ONE OF THEM. WHEN I GO TO THE COUNTY, I'M SPEAKING TO ALL OF THEM. YOU KNOW, BUT WE HAVE THE LARGEST POPULATION, AND WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. I KNOW YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO HEAR THIS. I SAID IF THEY HAVE AN ALTERNATE, THAT MIGHT HELP THEM WITH THE WORKLOAD. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DO THINK THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST BE SUPER AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN DIFFERENT SECTORS AND SO THAT THEY CAN INFORM THE REST OF THE COUNCILMAN. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO LOOK AT. SO, COMMISSIONER. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER NORRIS. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES OF THIS, LIKE PROS HAVING A POINT OF CONTACT BECAUSE I HAVE I HAVE QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO APPROACH THE CITY ABOUT. SO IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE LIKE, SOMEBODY WHO'S OUT FRONT. ANOTHER PRO IS THAT IT'S SOMEWHAT UNOFFICIAL AND IT'S JUST SORT OF A RECOMMENDATION. BUT THE CON IS I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE A CHARTER ISSUE LIKE A COMMISSIONER, CHANDLER SAID. SO JUST MAYBE HAVING A CITY DELINEATE THAT IN AN UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY, IT MIGHT NOT NEED TO BE THE CHARTER. [01:05:04] YOU COULD JUST SAY, HEY, IF YOU HAVE PROBLEMS IN THIS QUADRANT, GO TALK TO THIS PERSON. THAT'S YOUR AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY. B A A A OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND YOUR AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S SORT OF UNOFFICIAL. SO I CAN SEE THAT EFFICIENCY IN THAT. YEAH. COMMISSIONER. WEINBERGER, ANY LAST STATEMENT BEFORE LOOK, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN, THAN, THAN BREAK UP THE, THE CITY COUNCIL TO DISTRICTS BECAUSE LIKE, THE, LIKE BREVARD COUNTY IS SIMPLY WE DON'T HAVE THE POPULATION TO DO IT. YOU'D BE LIMITING THE QUALITY, THE QUALIFICATIONS OF, OF YOU KNOW, APPLICANTS IN CERTAIN AREAS TO SAY DISTRICT ONE. DISTRICT TWO. DISTRICT THREE. DISTRICT FOUR. YOU HAVE SUCH A WIDE VARIANCE IN THE POPULATION OF EACH QUADRANT. SO IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO IT BY DISTRICT. THIS WAS JUST A WAY OF ADDRESSING IT WITHOUT BREAKING UP THE CITY INTO DISTRICTS. THAT'S ALL. DO I HAVE A MOTION? WELL, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE SUPPORT FOR IT, SO I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR IT. SO. OKAY. MOVING ON THEN TO SECTION C, WHICH IS ARTICLE SIX, TAXES AND FEES. CHAIR, IF I COULD JUST SAY ONE THING, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT PROBABLY A BUNCH OF MY NOTES IN THERE. I WANT TO JUST GO AHEAD AND WITHDRAW ALL OF THOSE AND SAY TO LEAVE THE VERBIAGE AS IS. OKAY. PRIMARILY BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION RIGHT AT THE MAYOR, NOT THE MAYOR THE GOVERNOR'S LEVEL TO RELOOK AT THE WHOLE PROPERTY TAX PROGRAM ANYWAY. SO FOR ME TO JUST WITHDRAW EVERYTHING AND I'M FINE LEAVING IT AS IT IS. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW. ANYBODY ELSE? YES. AND WHAT SECTION WERE YOU ON? SECTION 6.01. YES. AND YOU'RE BACK TO, I THINK YOU HAVE IT HERE AT THE LAST PAGE, THE REVISIONS BY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AND ALL I WANT TO DO IS I WANT TO REMOVE THE TERMS EMERGENT AND CRITICAL NEED OF FROM THE 3% CAP LANGUAGE AND MAKE IT SO IT'S A CONSENSUS OF FOUR. THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE EMERGENT AND CRITICAL NEED LANGUAGE IS IT'S HONESTLY, IT'S REALLY NEVER MATTERED. THEY THEY HAVE TO DECLARE IT AND THEY DO AND THEY JUSTIFY IT, BUT IT JUST CAUSES ANOTHER STEP IN THE PROCESS AND MORE STAFF TIME AND HAVING TO JUSTIFY IT TO ME. IT'S A MANDATE BY THE VOTERS PUT IN BY 71% OF THE VOTERS AND THEN UPHELD BY 65% A FEW YEARS LATER. AND CHANGING IT AT ALL IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO PASS BY THE BY REFERENDUM. BUT THE BEST CHANCE TO CHANGE IT IS CHANGING THAT. AND THE OTHER THING I WAS AT IS EVERY CITY MANAGER WE'VE HAD HAS HAD NO PROBLEM MAKING A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO BREAK THE CAP ON THE YEARS THAT IT'S BEEN BROKEN. SO JUST MAKING IT A CONSENSUS OF FOR US, IT ELIMINATES THAT THAT LANGUAGE SPECIFICALLY ELIMINATES THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING SHORT. ONE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER AND THREE OUT OF FOUR PASSING A BUDGET THAT RAISES THE 3% CAP. SO THE CONSENSUS OF FOUR IS PURPOSELY PUT IN THERE. DISCUSSION. YEAH. MR. CHAIRMAN. YES. I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO TO TO OVERRIDE THE 3% CAP. BUT BY REMOVING THE, THE, THE REQUIRING OF A FINDING OF EMERGENCY OR CRITICAL NEED THAT BASICALLY FORGIVES THEM FROM HAVING TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE PUBLIC WHY THEY'RE DOING IT. I'M FINE WITH LEAVING IT. I'D PREFER TO LEAVE IT AS IS, BUT IF THEY NEED ANYTHING CHANGED, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I SEE AS A POSSIBILITY, AS CHANGING, AS MAKING IT PAST THE VOTERS. YEAH, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IT'S I SEE NO NEED IN TAKING OUT THAT LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, REALLY THIS WAY IT REQUIRES THEM TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION OF WHY THEY'RE DOING IT, WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATION OR NOT. BUT THE PUBLIC HAS NEVER ONCE GOTTEN THAT EXPLANATION. IT'S DONE IN PAPERWORK AND HELD IN CITY HALL SOMEWHERE. WELL, THEY THEY'VE ANNOUNCED EXPLANATIONS ON, ON ON THE AS YOU KNOW. YEAH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THAT VERBIAGE DOES SEEM A BIT BROAD. IT SEEMS LIKE ANYTIME YOU HAVE YOU SAY CRITICAL NEED OR SOMETHING. I CRITICALLY NEED A DONUT RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, LIKE, IT COULD BE A CRITICAL NEED, A COFFEY. I SECOND THE MOTION. I NEED, LIKE, A DONUT RIGHT NOW. JUSTIFY ANYTHING AT A CRITICAL, CRITICAL NEED. I JUST FELT THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DEFINE A CRITICAL NEED OR EMERGENT THING IF THE CITY NEEDS THE FUNDS, THEY SHOULD HAVE NO DIFFICULTY GETTING FOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO AGREE THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO BREAK THE 3% CAP IN ORDER TO ISSUES, [01:10:07] WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT ANY FURTHER. I AGREE WITH THAT. YEAH. COMMISSIONER. WELL, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY SHOULD ALSO HAVE CONTINGENCY FUNDS IN THE BUDGET. SO FOR THINGS LIKE THAT AS WELL. SO THAT YOUR I AGREE WITH YOU, THIS IS WAY TOO BROAD. IT NEEDS TO BE MORE DETAILED IF, IF WE ARE, YOU KNOW, GOING TO DEFINE SOMETHING THAT WOULD ACTUALLY NEED TO BE BROKEN. BUT I AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID ABOUT THE THE VOTERS HAVE ALREADY SAID IN TWO PREVIOUS ELECTIONS WE HAVE TO KEEP IT BECAUSE WE DON'T TRUST THE CITY NOT TO OVERSPEND. YEAH, I, I TEND TO DISAGREE. I THINK THE COUNTY ALSO HAS A 3% CAP AND THEY HAVE A 3 BILLION, ALMOST $3 BILLION INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIT. SO BUT BUT JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION FOR MR.. ARE YOU SAYING REMOVING THAT LANGUAGE WOULD ULTIMATELY IMPROVE ITS CHANCES DOWN THE ROAD POTENTIALLY BEING REPEALED? THE 3% CAP? NO. ALL I'M EXCUSE ME. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THE LANGUAGE REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. IS THAT IF YOU WANT TO BREAK THE 3% CAP, YOU NEED A CONSENSUS OF FOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS. YOU NEED NO OTHER REASON OTHER THAN FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. THINK WE NEED TO BRING THE 3% CAP AND THOSE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. FOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN ANSWER TO THE VOTERS AT THE NEXT ELECTION. NO. OKAY. NO. MY QUESTION WAS DIFFERENT. I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. THE ONLY WAY THAT THE 3% 3% CAP WOULD BE ADDRESSED ON THE BALLOT IS IF YOU'RE REMOVING THAT LANGUAGE FROM THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT, MOVING THE CRITICAL AND CRITICAL NEED OR EMERGENT LANGUAGE AND CHANGING IT. SO INSTEAD OF BEING A SUPERMAJORITY, IT'S A CONSENSUS OF FOUR. I GOTCHA. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE ANY FROM THE FROM THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN. DO I HAVE A A MOTION. SO MOVED. COMMISSIONER SIP MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND. MOTION TO REMOVE. WHAT IS THE MOTION TO CHANGE IT FROM A MAJORITY TO FOR RIGHT TO CONSENSUS OF FOUR? I'M NOT GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION, BECAUSE I HONESTLY WOULD PREFER MYSELF THAT IT REMAIN EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS. IT'S JUST THAT IF IT'S GOING TO CHANGE, THIS IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE CHANGE. OKAY, I SEEN AS BEING A POSSIBILITY, SO I WON'T SUPPORT IT AND I WON'T VOTE FOR IT IF SEEING THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT ANYWAY. OKAY, THEN THEN CAN WE SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION. NOT A SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION, BUT NOT A SECOND. WELL, WE DON'T EVEN REALLY HAVE A MOTION SINCE WE COULDN'T VERBALIZE WHAT WHAT THE MOTION WAS. SHE SHE DIDN'T. YEAH. WOULD YOU WOULD YOU LIKE TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION? OKAY. MOTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. OKAY. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT NEEDS TO SPEAK IN REFERENCE TO SECTION SIX? YEAH. YES, SIR. YES. YEAH. MY PROPOSAL IS. AND WHETHER IT'S GOING TO HAVE ANY. I DOUBT IT, BUT I'M PROPOSING THAT WE REMOVE THE 3% CAP, REMOVE ALL LANGUAGE FROM THE CITY CHARTER REGARDING THE CITY, THE 3% CAP. AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY. IF ANYBODY HERE PAID ATTENTION TO TO TO MISS COLLINS WHEN SHE GAVE A PRESENTATION SHE PRETTY MUCH EXPLAINED WHY THE 3% CAP IS HANDICAPPING THE CITY COUNCIL. AND I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE HANDOUTS SHE GAVE THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THIS YEAR IN 2026, THAT WITH, YOU KNOW, THE 3% CAP LIMITS US TO EVEN BELOW THE ROLLBACK RATE. AND THE ROLLBACK RATE IS WHAT THE AMOUNT OF TAXES THAT THE PREVIOUS YEARS AD VALOREM RATE WOULD, WOULD WOULD CREATE. AND THAT'S GOING TO GET EVEN WORSE AS TIME GOES ON. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MILITARY WITH THE 3% CAP, IT IS THE REDUCED AND REDUCED AND REDUCED. AND NOW WE'RE IT WILL BE BELOW THE ROLLBACK RATE. SO WHAT IT IS IS LOOK, IS THE CITY. WE HAVE SO MANY UNMET NEEDS. HONESTLY. AND THE 3% CAP EXTREMELY LIMITS WHAT CITY COUNCIL CAN DO AS FAR AS BUDGET WISE. YOU ALREADY HAVE A 3% CAP ON ON YOUR TAXABLE VALUE FROM THE STATE. IT'S CALLED THE SAVE OUR HOMES AMENDMENT. SO IT LIMITS ANY INCREASE IN YOUR TAXABLE VALUE. BUT BUT TO TO ENACT IT FROM CITY. YOU KNOW, FOR FOR MUNICIPALITY. [01:15:02] IN 2016 I DID SOME RESEARCH. THERE WERE ONLY THREE MUNICIPALITIES IN THE STATE THAT HAD A CAP ON THEIR AD VALOREM TAXES. AND THERE'S A REASON FOR IT BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST SAID. IT JUST LIMITS THEM SO MUCH. NOW, THE THE THE COUNTY COMMISSION IN IMPLEMENTED A 3% CAP, BUT ACTUALLY THERE'S A DEBATE ABOUT ABOUT WHETHER IT CAN EVEN BE DONE LEGALLY. I'VE GOT A LEGAL OPINION FROM A LAW FIRM THAT STATES THAT IT WASN'T LEGALLY IMPLEMENTED, BUT THE REASON THAT THEY DECIDED NOT TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT LAWSUIT WAS FOR POLITICAL REASONS. OKAY. BUT WHAT IT DOES IS, I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK RIGHT NOW AS OF AS OF YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING ANOTHER HALF HALF CENT SALES TAX BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY IN THEIR BUDGET TO, TO HANDLE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY JUST DON'T. SO THEY HAVE THERE'S A ON THIS COMING ELECTION, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A QUESTION OF WHETHER TO RENEW THE HALF CENT SALES TAX FOR THE SAVE OUR INDIAN RIVER LAGOON. AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO DISCUSS WHETHER TO PUT ANOTHER HALF CENT SALES TAX ON THERE TO, TO TO HANDLE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, TAKE CARE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS THAT THE COUNTY HAS. WE HAVE A SIMILAR PROBLEM HERE IN PALM BAY. SO THAT'S WHAT THE 3% CAP DOES. IT JUST ABSOLUTELY HANDICAPS YOU. WHEREAS RIGHT NOW, LIKE I SAID, WITH THE WITH THE THE SAVE OUR HOMES THE INCREASE IN YOUR, IN YOUR TAXABLE VALUE IS RESTRICTED TO 3%. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER O'NEILL? I WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE INFORMATION. I'M SURE YOU PROBABLY HAVE GOOD EXAMPLES OF THIS, AND I'D LIKE TO PULL MORE FROM IT. WELL, IF I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE HERE AT THE LAST MEETING, I WAS, AND IT WAS A INFORMATION THROUGH A FIRE HOSE FOR ME. YEAH I UNDERSTAND. AND IT WAS MORE PUSHING THE PROS OF A 3% CAP THAN IT FELT AS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS REMOVE IT, AND I WANT TO PULL ON THAT STRING MORE FROM YOU, WHICH IS, YOU SAID IT RESTRICTS US. I WANT TO GET MORE INTO WHAT THE US IS RESTRICTING THE CITY OR RESTRICTING THE TAXPAYER. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS THAT RESTRICTS THE AMOUNT OF TAXES THAT THE CITY CAN COLLECT? I UNDERSTAND, BUT THERE WAS A TOPIC THAT TALKED ABOUT WAS LIKE OUR PROPERTY VALUE TAXES AND THAT BEING AN ISSUE, IT WAS A BIG ISSUE EVERYONE TALKED ABOUT. AND OBVIOUSLY THAT WENT THE DIRECTION IT WENT. BUT THE TALKS OF HOW IT'S PROPERTY TAXES GOING UP AND HURTING PEOPLE WITH REMOVING 3% TAX. DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES OF WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE? WELL, WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, THE THE MAJORITY OF OUR BUDGET IS SPENT ON FIRST RESPONDERS, POLICE AND FIRE AND PENSION. THAT'S ALMOST ALMOST 70% OF THE CITY'S BUDGET FOR POLICE, FIRE AND PENSION. SO WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM? THE REST OF THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAINTAIN IT. YOU'VE IF YOU'VE ATTENDED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OR YOU WATCHED THEM, PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY GETTING UP AND TALKING AT THE DAIS ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE. WE NEED MORE ROADS. WE NEED MORE, MORE, MORE YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC SIGNALS. WE NEED ALL SORTS OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. BUT IF THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY, HOW DO YOU PAY FOR IT? AND LIKE I SAID, WITH THE 3% CAP DOES, LIKE I SAID, RIGHT NOW THE 3% CAP IS LIMITING US TO WE CAN'T EVEN CHARGE THE SAME AD VALOREM RATE THAT WE HAD AT THE PREVIOUS YEAR, CAN'T RAISE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAXES BECAUSE THE 3% CAP IS IS CREATING A SITUATION WHERE YOU COLLECT LESS MONEY. AND IF THAT CONTINUES, WE'RE REALLY GOING TO BE IN TROUBLE. LIKE I SAID, IF YOU LOOK AT THE THE INCREASE IN, IN IN, IN THE POLICE AND, AND FIRE FOR INSTANCE THE, THE 3% CAP CREATED REVENUE OF WELL, THE TOTAL TAX REVENUE WAS 9 MILLION, $7,000. THAT'S THE ADOPTED MILLAGE RATE OF FISCAL YEAR 2026. BUT THE THE THE 3% CAP IS IS REDUCING THAT FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR, ACTUALLY BY $310,000. SO THE CITY IS COLLECTING $310,000 LESS THAN THEY DID THE PREVIOUS YEAR BECAUSE OF THE 3% CAP. NEXT YEAR IT'S GOING TO BE WORSE. THE YEAR AFTER THAT. IT'S GOING TO BE WORSE. SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? HOW DOES THE CITY RESPOND AND HOW DOES THE CITY PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS? NO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND OBVIOUSLY THE CITY NEEDS THE FUNDS TO FIX THE BIG PROBLEMS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH MALABAR ROAD AND SO FORTH. BUT IF TAKING THAT AWAY, THAT OPENS UP A DOOR. I FEEL LIKE THE EVERYDAY CONSUMER AND TAXPAYER MAY NOT BE READY FOR WITH WHAT KIND OF INCREASES IN OUR TAXES WILL THAT OPEN US, [01:20:08] MAKE US SUSCEPTIBLE TO? NOW, YOU DID MENTION, YEAH, IT DOES CAP US ON SAVE OUR HOMES TAX, BUT THAT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE OTHER LEGAL PROCESS OF GETTING MORE AND MORE IMPLEMENTED TO SAVE US IN TAXES. BUT ON THE BACK END OF IT, WHICH IS GOING TO FEEL LIKE LEVELING THAT LEVEL THAT OUT IS, YES, IT'S BRINGING MY TAX VALUES DOWN, BUT I'M STILL PAYING A SIGNIFICANT MORE IN TAXES. IF OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO PUT MORE INTO THE CITY, WE WANT TO MAKE THE INFRASTRUCTURE BETTER, BUT OBVIOUSLY IT'S COMING FROM THE TAXPAYERS. SO THAT'S NOT MY MY SOURCE OF INCOME ISN'T GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE INSTANTLY TO ADJUST FOR THAT EITHER. SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT HOW WILL THIS ALSO NOT JUST HELP THE CITY, BUT HELP THE PEOPLE LIVING HERE AND NOT CRIPPLE OUR POCKETS TRYING TO MAKE OUR CITY BETTER? I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, THE AD VALOREM TAXES ARE A RESULT OF TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE IS THE TAXABLE VALUE OF YOUR HOUSE. AND THAT'S LIMITED TO AN INCREASE OF 3% BY STATE LAW. THE SECOND THING IS THE AD VALOREM TAX RATE. THAT'S THAT'S ASSIGNED BY, BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT HAS GONE DOWN EVERY YEAR FOR THE LAST WHAT, SIX YEARS, I BELIEVE. SO THEY KEEP REDUCING THE AD VALOREM RATE BECAUSE BECAUSE TAXABLE VALUES BY CITY, AS THE CITY GROWS AND MORE HOMES GET ADDED TO THE TAX ROLLS THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, THEY COLLECT MORE MONEY FOR THAT, BUT THE AMOUNT OF TAXES THAT YOU PAY AS A RESULT OF OF THE YOUR TAXABLE VALUE AND THE AD VALOREM RATE, AS THEY KEEP REDUCING THE AD VALOREM RATE THAT LOWERS THE AMOUNT OF TAXES THAT THAT THAT EACH PERSON WOULD PAY. COMMISSIONER CIP, I BELIEVE YOU. I SAW YOUR HAND GO UP BEFORE BEFORE YOURS, MR. COMMISSIONER NORRIS. FOR ONE THING, I DON'T THINK THE ELECTORATE IS EVER GOING TO GO. IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE ITS MIND. BUT THE OTHER THING IS, IN THE WAKE OF DOGE, I THINK THE CITY MANAGER IS DOING EVERYTHING THAT HE CAN TO REDUCE COSTS. AND I'VE EVEN SUGGESTED A FEW THINGS. FOR INSTANCE, ON POLICE, WITH THE POLICE, HALF THE EXPENSES ARE ON VEHICLES. AND WHEN THEY'RE CALLED, I SEE AS MANY AS SEVEN CARS. AND THEN I LOOK IT UP AND REALLY, NOTHING EXCITING HAPPENED. BUT THERE'S ONE PERSON PER CAR IN LARGER CITIES, WHICH WE ARE, WE ARE A LARGER CITY NOW, HAVING TWO IN A CAR MAKES IT SAFER FOR THE POLICE, AND THEY HAVE TO LEAVE IT AT THE STATION. WE'RE NOT PAYING FOR THEM TO TAKE IT HOME. WE'RE NOT PAYING THE GAS FOR THEM TO TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH TO WORK. AND I SPOKE TO THE POLICE. CHIEF, ABOUT THIS. AND HE'S LIKE, WELL, YOU TAKEN AWAY PERKS. I SAID, WELL, THE CHOICE IS PERKS OR SAFETY. I THINK YOU WOULD CHOOSE SAFETY. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO. AND I'M HOPING TO MEET WITH PUBLIC WORKS BECAUSE I HAVE A WHOLE WAY OF ELIMINATING A LOT OF EXPENSES FOR THEM, AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL WORK OUT. WE CAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S YOU GET X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS IN YOUR PAYCHECK. IF YOU LIKE A MONA LISA, YOU DON'T BUY IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT. THERE ARE THINGS YOU JUST DON'T DO WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. AND TO ASK PEOPLE TO SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, JUST DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. IT NEVER WORKS AND IT WILL NEVER PASS A VOTE. RIGHT OVER HERE FIRST COMMISSIONER NORRIS. TWO QUICK THINGS IS FOR ONE THING, WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING AROUND TOWN AND YOU SEE ALL THE FANCY NEW FLOCK CAMERAS EVERYWHERE, WELL, THAT'S SOMEWHERE THAT WE DON'T REALLY NEED TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY ON. SOMETHING THAT'S SPYING ON US CONSTANTLY. SO THAT'S ONE THING YOU CAN KNOCK OUT RIGHT THERE. ANOTHER THING IS, HAS THERE EVER BEEN A CASE WHERE THE TAXES GO DOWN, OR IS IT JUST RATCHETING UP AND UP AND UP AND UP AND UP AND IS IS IT JUST WE'RE PLAYING DRIVE THE SPEED LIMIT HERE OR JUST BLAST THROUGH THE TRAFFIC? BUT YEAH, I JUST DON'T I DON'T SEE IF IF THE CITY CAN'T PAY FOR SOMETHING AT A CAP THAT WE'RE AT. I DON'T SEE RAISING THE CAP AS INSPIRING CONFIDENCE IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE IT'S LIKE, IT'S LIKE YOU KNOW, YOUR HUSBAND OR WIFE GOES SHOPPING AND THEY'RE LIKE, HEY, I NEED SOME MORE MONEY. OR IT'S LIKE, WELL, I JUST TOLD YOU, THIS IS WHAT WE HAD AT THE BUDGET. YOU KNOW, IT DESTROYS CONFIDENCE IN YOUR ABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS. SO THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT ON THIS SIDE. CAN WE GO DOWN? CAN WE TAKE THE TAXES IF WE CAN JUST KIND OF GO DOWN THE ROW HERE BECAUSE A LOT OF ARMS MOVING AND I'M FEELING THE WIND. YEAH. I THINK THE LAST TIME I WAS ON THIS CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ACTUALLY PROPOSED INCREASING THE CAP TO 4 OR 5% TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD DO. I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE MORE PALATABLE TO THE VOTERS. AND AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME, THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION JUST DECIDED TO GET RID OF IT COMPLETELY. WHICH IT FAILED ON THE BALLOT, [01:25:06] WHICH I THINK MR. GAUME HAS HERE IN HIS PROPOSAL. I WAS AT FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES LAST YEAR AND WAS TALKING TO AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS A CITY MANAGER OF A MUNICIPALITY UP NORTH IN NORTH FLORIDA. I CAN'T THINK OF IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THEY HAD ACTUALLY LOOKED AT BREVARD COUNTY AND THEIR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION HAD LOOKED AT BREVARD COUNTY AND THE CITY OF PALM BAY AS AN EXAMPLE OF OKAY, WELL, THEY SEEM TO BE OPERATING WITH A 3% CAP. LET'S TRY IT OUT. HE TOLD ME THAT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RAVINE WITHIN ABOUT TWO YEARS, BECAUSE THEY SAW THE DEGRADATION OF WHAT A CAP COULD DO TO A MUNICIPALITY. AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE LANGUAGE IS 3% OF THE CPI, WHICHEVER IS LESS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE COUNTY IS. I THINK WE ULTIMATELY ADOPTED WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE WAS FROM THE COUNTY. AND, WELL, THIS IS THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE RIGHT HERE. YOU SEE. OKAY, THAT'S THE COUNTY THEN. BUT I WOULD ALSO CAUTION TO SAY I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF IT REALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THERE IS A CLAUSE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL COULD EXERCISE WHICH IS BUSTING THE CAP FOR A CRITICAL NEED. RIGHT? SO I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO DO AWAY WITH IT COMPLETELY, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S ULTIMATELY PALATABLE TO THE VOTERS. BUT ONCE AGAIN, YOU CAN LOOK IT BACK UP HERE. THOSE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WHO DON'T HAVE A CAP HERE I CAN ASSURE YOU THEY'RE NOT FACING THE SAME CHALLENGES THAT THE CITY OF PALM BAY AND UNINCORPORATED BREVARD IS MORE ESPECIALLY FROM AN INFRASTRUCTURE. RIGHT. SO FROM INFRASTRUCTURE STANDPOINT. SO I, I'M WITH YOU MR. WEINBERG, I WOULD SUPPORT IT. BUT I JUST KNOW THAT IT WON'T PASS ON THE BALLOT. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. I MEAN, LOOK, WE DOWN THE ROAD MR. CHAIRMAN. OKAY. OVER HERE. COMMISSIONER O'NEILL. NO. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT MOST BOTH MR. WEINBERG AND MYSELF WANT NOTHING MORE THAN THE CITY TO HAVE ALL THE MONEY IT NEEDS TO FIX EVERYTHING. IT NEEDS TO FIX MR. WEINBERG'S PROPOSAL TO SCRAP THE 3% CAP. ALLOWS THREE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO RAISE THE TAXES TO WHATEVER THEY SEE FIT UP TO WHAT'S LEGALLY POSSIBLE. TEN MIL. ALL I'M ASKING IS FOR THE ADDITIONAL CHECKPOINT OF ONE ADDITIONAL CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. A CONSENSUS OF FOUR, IN ORDER TO BUST THAT 3% CAP. AND THAT'S THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW. YEAH, IT'S. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT SAYING YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN'T BUST A CAP. WE'RE JUST SAYING WE WANT ONE MORE VOTE BEFORE YOU DO. YEAH. AND FROM THE AUDIENCE. THE CITY OF PALM BAY CITY COUNCIL HAS VOTED SEVERAL TIMES TO BREAK THE CAP. THEY'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT THE MECHANISMS TO GET TO TO DO THAT. AND IT'S ALMOST ALWAYS BECAUSE THE POLICE AND FIRE OR SAFETY IS THE CRITERIA THAT THEY USE FOR IN ORDER TO DO THAT. SO WHAT'S WHAT'S THEIR NEXT PROPOSAL THAT THEY'VE ACTUALLY PRESENTED. THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, WE CAN'T RAISE THAT. WE CAN'T RAISE YOUR TAXES ABOVE 3% BECAUSE OF THE CAP, BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT ANYHOW. AND WE FOUND ANOTHER MECHANISM CALLED NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT THAT THEY'RE NOW CONSIDERING IMPOSING UPON INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE MOVING INTO THE CITY OF PALM BAY. SO THIS NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT THAT WILL BE ON TOP OF THE 3% CAP THAT THEY'VE ALREADY BUSTED, AND IT WILL NOT COUNT ON YOUR TOTAL MILLAGE RATE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS ARE ARE LOOKING AT. SO JUST BECAUSE BILLS ARE DOUBTING TOM ON WHAT CITY COUNCIL DOES, THEY'RE LOOKING AT OTHER MECHANISMS TO TAKE YOUR TAXES. I DON'T CARE IF THEY CALL IT AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT OR BREAKING THE CAP WHEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR MORE MONEY, IT STILL COMES OUT OF THE TAXPAYER'S POCKET. SO ME PERSONALLY, I DON'T LIKE THE 3% CAP, BUT ANYTHING I CAN DO TO KEEP MY GOVERNMENT IN CHECK, I'M GOING TO USE THAT LITTLE DRAW REIN JUST TO KEEP THEIR HEADS DOWN TO THE BOOKS. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? LET ME JUST SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS. I DID HAVE ONE MORE THING. YES, SIR. I'M SORRY. YEAH. AS FAR AS THE LEGALITY OF THE 3% CAP IT WAS DRAWN UP LEGALLY PUT BEFORE THE VOTERS. THE VOTERS VOTED ON IT. IT'S IN THE CHARTER. THAT IN ITSELF MAKES IT LEGAL UNTIL A JUDGE SAYS IT'S NOT. AMEN. I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS. I HAVE YET TO SEE THE GOVERNMENT EVER SAY I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY. [01:30:10] AND AT SOME POINT, I HAVE COUNSELED PEOPLE FROM $20,000 A YEAR TO SIX FIGURES A YEAR. AND THE SIX FIGURES A YEAR DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY A PAIR OF SHOES, AS DID THE $20,000 A YEAR. AND THE PROBLEM WASN'T, QUOTE UNQUOTE. THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY. IT WAS SIMPLY SPENDING MORE THAN WHAT THEY HAD. THAT BEING SAID, THEY ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS THE CAPACITY TO ADD MORE TAXES, WHETHER IT'S THE FOUR VOTE OR WHETHER IT'S THEY FIGURE OUT SOME OTHER WAY THAT THEY CAN STICK THEIR THEIR HANDS IN THE POCKET. I REMEMBER SOME 15 YEARS AGO, 16 YEARS AGO, THEY SAID, WE NEED MONEY DESPERATELY OR THIS CITY IS GOING TO GO DOWN. 16 YEARS AGO AND HERE WE ARE TODAY AND WE'RE STILL NOT GOING DOWN, AND ROADS ARE STILL BEING PAVED AND THEY'RE STILL MOVING FORWARD. I HAVE HERE THAT IN 2021 THEY HAD AN INCREASE OF 6%. IN 2022. THEY HAD AN INCREASE OF 17% OF REVENUE. OPERATING MILLAGE INFORMATION 2023. THEY HAD A 22% INCREASE IN 2024. THEY HAD A 12% INCREASE IN 2025. THEY HAD A 15% INCREASE. SO APPARENTLY THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM SPENDING THE MONEY. AND YET THEY'LL PROBABLY STILL HERE. I NEED MORE MONEY. WELL, THIS YEAR, THIS LAST YEAR, I GOT A WHOLE WHOPPING COST OF LIVING. 3% RAISE, COST OF LIVING, PERIOD. THAT'S IT. THAT WAS MY RACE. NOW, I WOULD LOVE TO SAY I WANT MORE MONEY. WHO DOESN'T WANT MORE MONEY? OR WE CAN SAY DOGE IS ON THE MOVE. THEY'RE SEEING HOW THEY CAN DO IT. THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD OVER THE DECADES. THEY ARE GETTING INCREASE EVERY YEAR BECAUSE EVERY YEAR WE HAVE NEW HOUSING, WE HAVE NEW COMMERCIAL, WE HAVE NEW REVENUES. MONEY IS INCREASING. THE THE INFRASTRUCTURE ALWAYS FALLS OR LAGS BEHIND CONSTRUCTION. ALWAYS. WHY? BECAUSE THEY WANT THE MONEY UP FRONT SO THAT THEY CAN DO IT. BUT IF WE DON'T GET MORE COMMERCIAL, WE DON'T GET MORE MONEY. AND SO SOMEWHERE IT'S LIKE IT'S A CATCH UP UNTIL YOU ARE MAXED OUT. AS FAR AS ALL CONSTRUCTION IS CONCERNED, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IT EVENTUALLY CATCHES UP AND THEN YOU HAVE THE OVERFLOW. AS LONG AS THEY ARE BUDGETING THEIR MONIES CORRECTLY, I CAN MAKE NUMBERS SAY ANYTHING I WANTED TO SAY, AND THEY HAVE BEEN TELLING ME EVERY YEAR AND AT EVERY CHARTER THEY'VE BEEN TELLING ME WE SIMPLY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY. AND YET HERE WE ARE. AND THE CITY IS STILL MOVING FORWARD AND STILL INCREASING. SO WE ALREADY HAVE THE, THE THE, THE, THE, THE CAPACITY TO BREAK THE 3%. IT'S ALREADY THERE. JUST GET A FULL MAJORITY. IF IT'S THAT, IF IT'S THAT CRITICAL AND THAT NECESSARY, THEY CAN VOTE IT IN. NOW THEY PREFER NOT GETTING IT VOTED IN BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT MIGHT HURT THEIR ELECTION. MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE REASONS. SO LET'S SEE IF WE CAN FIND A NON AD VALOREM TAX METHOD TO GET THE MONEY ANYWAY WITHOUT GETTING IN THE HOT SEAT. WELL HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WILL KNOW ABOUT IT AND THE HOT SEAT WILL STAY. WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE ON THE HOT SEAT KEEPS THEM IN CHECK. YES, BECAUSE IF THERE'S NO CHECK, THEN THERE'S UNLIMITED CHECKING, AND THEY'LL ALWAYS WANT MORE MONEY. THAT'S MY VIEWPOINT. YOU HAD SOMETHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY, RUTH COMMISSIONER. RUTH. WELL, WE ALL TALKED ABOUT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF GROWTH. WELL, WITH GROWTH, ISN'T THERE MORE REVENUE? EXACTLY. SO WHAT ARE THEY DOING WITH THAT MONEY? OKAY, SO THIS IS WHY THE CITIZENS DON'T TRUST THE CITY. BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN MORE PEOPLE MOVING IN HERE. THERE HAS BEEN MORE REVENUE COMING INTO THE CITY. YET WE CAN MAKE ALL KINDS OF MONEY FOR THINGS THAT ARE NOT STRUCTURALLY NECESSARY. THEY NEED TO TIGHTEN THE BUDGET. I LOVE THE CHRISTMAS EXTRAVAGANZA, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE SPENDING MONEY ON RIGHT NOW. [01:35:08] I MEAN, WHEN THERE WAS A PROBLEM IN OUR BUDGET, IF I DIDN'T HAVE A CONTRACT AT A TIME. I HAD TO TIGHTEN MY BUDGET. SO AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE REVENUE IS COMING IN. SO WE LOOK AT THE ELECTORATE. WE MULTIPLY IT BY WHATEVER. AND THERE'S YOUR BUDGET WORK WITHIN YOUR BUDGET. AND WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT CAP THERE. AND I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD INCREASE THE CONSENSUS TO FOUR COUNCILMAN. AMEN. ANY ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? DO I HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION ANYWAY. JUST I MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE ALL REFERENCES TO THE 3%, TO REPEAL THE 3% CAP AND REMOVE ALL REFERENCES FROM THE CITY CHARTER. SECOND. OKAY. MOTION BY WEINBERG. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CHANDLER. PRAISE GOD. GET THESE NAMES. I LOVE NAMES LIKE I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH AT THE CHURCH THAT I HAVE TO MEMORIZE. I COULD GET MORE. PRAISE GOD. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ANYTHING FROM THE AUDIENCE? ALL IN FAVOR? BY THE SIGN OF I, I I. ALL AGAINST. NAY. OKAY. IT DOES NOT PASS. 7 TO 2. AND I THINK. IT'S A MIRACLE. IT'S NOT EVEN 8:00. OH MY GOODNESS. WHO SAID MIRACLES DON'T STILL HAPPEN? PRAISE GOD. ANYTHING ELSE? YES. I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE A PROPOSAL ABOUT THE FOR COUNCILMAN. I THINK THAT'S ALREADY THERE. IT'S. SOME SUPERMAJORITY IS ALREADY IN THERE. IS THAT THAT WHAT THAT MEANS? OKAY, JUST TO BE CLEAR. A SUPERMAJORITY CAN BE THREE OUT OF 4 OR 2 OUT OF THREE. NO. WELL, IT DEPENDS ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE SITTING IN CITY COUNCIL. THAT'S TRUE. A CONSENSUS OF FOUR IS FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS. NO, BECAUSE THERE IS A SEPARATE SECTION THAT SAYS IT TALKS ABOUT A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. THIS IS A SUPERMAJORITY OF CITY COUNCIL. CITY COUNCIL IS FIVE I. YES. WE'VE ALREADY WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE WHERE I THINK WE ONLY HAD FOUR. IT WAS LIKE YOU GUYS HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS. IT SAYS A SUPERMAJORITY OF CITY COUNCIL, BUT NOT ONES PRESIDENT. THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION THAT HAS LIKE A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL PRESENT OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT, BUT IT IS FOUR VOTES IN ORDER TO BREAK THE CAP. YES, BECAUSE COUNCIL IS FIVE. THEN I'LL HAVE THE TELEPROMPTERS AND EVERYTHING UP THERE. THEY'LL ALL BE THERE THAT DAY. THEY'LL HAVE THE MICROPHONES, THE CALL INS. I JUST WANT TO. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. HAVE A QUICK PROCEDURAL QUESTION. YES, SIR. I SEE ALL THESE PEOPLE PUTTING THESE COOL IDEAS FORWARD AND THESE NEAT THINGS THAT THEY WANT TO SEE PUT IN THE CHARTER. HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT DOING THAT? DO I JUST EMAIL THE STAFF THE LIKE? IS IT WHAT'S THE TIME FRAME TO PUT IDEAS. IF YOU SEND IT IN TO TERESE, IT WILL BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA. AT LEAST IF IT'S SIX AND BELOW, IT CAN COME BACK ON THE AGENDA. BUT THE NEXT AGENDA WILL COVER WHAT WHAT WHAT SECTIONS? I FORGET OKAY, PROBABLY SEVEN, AT LEAST SEVEN AND EIGHT. MOST LIKELY. MOST LIKELY SEVEN AND EIGHT. I WOULD APPRECIATE RECEIVING ANY PROPOSED CHANGES AT LEAST TEN DAYS PRIOR. HOW MANY MORE DO WE HAVE? WE ARE SLATED TO GO THROUGH MAY BECAUSE WE DON'T OF COURSE, COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE ANY MEETINGS IN JUNE, AND WE HAVE TO GET ALL OF THESE ITEMS TO COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHAT THEY WANT TO PLACE ON THE BALLOT. AND THEN I HAVE TO GET IT TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS BY AUGUST. OKAY. 2 OR 3. BUT THERE'S ONLY HOW MANY SECTIONS ARE THERE? THERE'S ONLY TEN SECTIONS AND WE'RE ALREADY ON SEVEN, SO WE MAY FINISH WAY BEFORE MAY POTENTIALLY. HOPEFULLY. BUT I'M HAVING SO MUCH FUN WITH YOU GUYS. ANY OTHER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER LAST MINUTE STATEMENTS. WANT TO WELCOME OUR TWO OUR TWO GUESTS OVER THERE IN THE BACK. THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING LOOKING OVER US, MAKING SURE WE'RE BEHAVING OURSELVES. AND SO IT'S SO GOOD TO HAVE YOU WITH US AGAIN. THANK YOU FOR TERESE JONES. GIVE HER A BIG HAND CLAP FOR ALL THAT SHE DOES. AND RIGHT NEXT TO HER IS NONE OTHER THAN CITY ATTORNEY PATRICIA SMITH. AND FOR ALL OF YOU THAT WERE HERE TODAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOD BLESS YOU. MY WIFE'S GOING TO BE SO HAPPY TO SEE ME AT HOME. [01:40:02] GOD BLESS YOU ALL. HAVE A GREAT REST OF YOUR DAY. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.