City Council - Special Meeting

We'll now call this workshop of this actual city council to order. And council, you were provided with a copy of the agenda for tonight's meeting and entertain a motion to adopt this agenda. So move second. A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hear none. All in favor signify by saying I. I and next we have the adoption of minutes and consent items. The four consent items receive on your agenda and the April 21st, 2026 regular meeting. I make good. I'll make a motion we accept the consent item.

Second. Sorry. Yes. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor? I all opposed. Now to number five, which is budget discussion for the FY27 budget. And Mr. Ray,

thank you, mayor. I did have one handout that I passed out to council. It should be sitting at your seat for tonight. This council meeting is regularly scheduled meeting and a discussion for council to discuss the FY27 proposed budget. Uh we had meetings scheduled last week with some members of the council and there were some questions asked basically comparing the tax rates for next year and the questions were uh basically what would the levy be based on each tax rate that's on the sheet here. So we've given you a couple things to review on this page and this will be uh the the information that you can use for your discussion. At the bottom of that page you see that the FY26 tax base is 4.2 2 billion. Right below that, you see the reval FY27 tax base is $6.4 billion. You'll see that the FY26 tax rate is at 60 cents. That's our current tax rate. That is 60 cents per $100 of valuation. And then below that, you'll see the FY27 revenue neutral rate. That's the tax rate by which the council would set to bring in the same amount of revenue as the current fiscal year utilizing the new valuation which is 44.31 cents. In the columns at top you'll see tax rates on the left hand side going from the current tax rate of 60 cent down to the revenue neutral rate of 4431. And then in the middle column, you're going to see the FY26 tax levy based on the 26 tax base. And then you'll see the FY27 tax levy based on the revaluation and those tax rates. Mayor, that's the only information provided from the request from last week.

Okay. Um, so right now, uh, there's a bill in the legislature that has put a stop on the, uh, uh, tax valuations for this year. Is that correct? Yes. It's been proposed in the Senate to pause the FY26 county uh, revaluations, and hopefully the legislature will vote at some point during this session on that bill. And our budget needs to be approved by June 30th. June 30th. Yes, sir.

So, it kind of leaves us a little bit in the lurch here knowing what kind of revenue we're going to have versus, you know, what we're going to be able to do with the budgetary items, the expenditures that are required for this coming budget year. Uh kind of puts us in a unknown territory, right? So uh with this tax levy comparisons here it gives you some idea of what different uh pennies on a tax rate would make what difference it would make here. Um discussion

Mr. Ray, I have a question for you. If um if the rebound um it's being delayed, um has the legislature said whether or not if they are willing to move that June 30th deadline so that municipalities would be able to go back and assess and refigure their fiscal budget?

No, ma'am. So part of this it's not gone into committee yet. And the assumption from the league is when it gets into one of the first two committees. That'll be one of the questions that will be presented to uh to the Senate because it'll be heard there first uh before it gets out of the Senate and goes over to the House as soon as we have that information. I mean, I think that gives us that foundation. Uh, but hopefully, as I've said, I said to the mayor, hopefully they vote on this item sooner rather than later because without it, you're sitting in limbo. So, as soon as we have that update, Dr. Washington, I'll send that out to council as well. You do have that ability to, for example, if the council were to adopt a budget on the May 19th council meeting, you still have up until June 30th to adopt a new budget resolution that could move numbers, move the budget, move a tax rate, but we don't have any information from the legislation

and their session ends in August, correct? So, this could be extended all the way into August into the next fiscal year, correct? Yes, sir. Okay, cuz it really handicaps our decision making. I mean, it puts us kind of in a jam. I remember the process back in 2013 when we had decided on the budget and then we had to go back and modify what was it almost 3 million. We had to cut two 2.6

3 million. That wasn't um that wasn't a very easy process to go through. Well, it's my understanding that that Senator Burgerer is kind of holding things up there based upon the hospital and so it's hard to tell. So, it seems to me that one of the things that we should do is look at, you know, have two budgets ready really. one that relates to the uh the 26 tax levy and one that represents the 27. I mean that would be one way to do it. I was in conference with the attorney and the manager earlier and looking at this these rate comparisons here that looking at a uh lesser uh tax rate go from 60 to 56 and use fund balance. We could continue on with the same budget that we have now. But again, you would be using fund balance to fill in the gaps there. um it was around 3.8 million or something like that. Was that what we said? At different rates, you're going to have that reduction of 3.8 if you're moving the tax rate down. mayor uh to if you use the FY26 evaluation, the reval or use the the eval and try to get back up to the current level, the the 28 29 million, uh then theoretically you'd have to increase the tax rate 8 cent. You'd have to go from 60 to 68 theoretically. Mayor, back to Mr. Yiro's

comment of if you're running another budget with the current before this rebal's completed, you'd have to increase that up to generate that amount of revenue to have the budget at that level. You're you're talking about going up to 38 or um you're talking about 68 cents to get up to the 27. 60 cent. Yeah. It'll basically get you up to that point where you're having that same baseline I don't know for a lot of people. No, I mean and 28 million,

right? That's what we're saying. That gets you to that bottom line. 28 million, not to 38 million. You would have to rate raise the current tax rate using the current reval, the one from 26. We'd have to raise that almost 8 cents to get to 28,64. And that is $10 million less than we built the budget on right now. So, we'd have to remove $10 million of expenses out of the draft budget that you're looking at.

Well, in in that budget, there are some things that we could postpone and look at. I mean I I think I think we need to to think about that in terms of you know are there some projects that can be moved to the next year's budget and when we talk about the 400 acres we had some discussion about uh the paving of the streets I know that some of that comes out of um water and sewer to do some of the infrastructure but the street infrastructure can we move that to another year because uh you know it's my hope that the county supports this project and will help us fund part of it. So if if that's the case then can we uh are there some things that we can move to next year's budget? When I look at uh some of the some of the stuff in CIP, I mean to me there's there are some things about a million dollars that we could kind of uh look at in 27. I know that there's there's some needs there, but obviously there's some things that we could look at to

Did you have any in particular? Uh because 1 million versus the 10 million.

I know. I know it's but but that's just that's just in the in the CIP. There's some other things I think in the budget that we could look at maybe and and and try to reduce it so that we can uh cuz one thing I don't want to I don't want to see is that we are um you know because a lot of folks in our community are on fixed incomes and so how can we how can we make sure that you know we're not we're not hurting those folks and and looking at this in a in a more strategic manner this year versus and next year based upon what we've kind of got stuck with here

other than the uh 400 acres. What are some of the other suggestions from your review?

I I think I think there's you know like there's um I think I highlighted them in here that just have to find them. A lot of people looking at that. I guess one of my biggest concerns is I said this before is if we pick a rate and then we get locked into it, that bill passes, then we're stuck with it for a while. And that's what kind of alarms me because then, you know, that's something we have to deal with for three years, not just this year. We can't go back and fix that. So that's that's really my biggest concern about making a decision with with that leaning over our heads.

I mean the the the Bayroot memorial sign was one of those things. Um the the common softball field if we can if we can move that

say that's miracle field. No, I'm talking about the additional additional f and you know also the uh upgrades of the range. I realize that those are necessary but we may be able to postpone that for a year based upon you know the quandry that we're in. Obviously from a public safety standpoint I'm sure the mayor can agree. I mean there's those those are needed. It's just, you know, my concern is is is especially folks in our community that have fixed incomes, you know, making sure that because of this quandry that the legislature has put us in, making sure that we're looking at everything that we can do to keep the tax rate as low as we can. So with that said, is there some time that y'all can take look at the budget as it currently exists and take out some of those things or move them into out years or so? There's a couple things, mayor. So, we can definitely run two uh two parallel budgets and show uh the the property tax base and the rates and then show this is what the number would be and this is what the fund balance appropriation would need to be as presented and we can give you that number and then you can compare that to what's been proposed here. I think that goes back to Mr. Uniro's point. The other challenge, the police range, that is one item that's that's budgeted at about $100,000. Uh the other two items, um I I'd have to look back here in a second to see if they're scheduled for next year or if they've already been appropriated from previous budgets. Some of these items that are scheduled for construction this year are already approved by council and moving forward. So the other items that we have in for the CIP for this year, the Miracle

Field, which council's moved that project forward, and then the Uptown project, that's moving forward. We do have additional funds on water and sewer projects. That's not tax rate specific. That's utility uh specific. So those items um the challenge with the CIP mayor is uh other than the Uptown project, that's the largest big ticket item. So for example, if that police range is $100,000 on the current tax rate, that's basically a quarter cent of the tax rate. um on the the new reval that's basically 16th. So when you're looking at that impact in the rate that's not the number that impacts the

definitely have to look at the uptown you're going to have to look at change ma'am it's going to have to be a big item not and so for uptown next year back to Mr. S's question and arrows for uptown. You do have things moving forward in terms of the water and sewer. So that as we we're going to do some ground work there. We can move forward on the water and sewer. The challenge is if council wants to go out for a funding package, then we have to have all that package together. That would show how you're going to pay for it. The concept of the county or the state or any other partners being able to come to the table until they give us that financial commitment. It's a wish and I I don't know what the county is going to do with their proposed budget. Sorry.

They signed a resolution to support it, but no, a figure has been signed to that. It's just Yeah, we'll help, but we don't know how much yet or when. Just for the public's knowledge, as well as those of us in the room, when we set this rate, we are required to do so legally by June 30th. And when is the next time we can touch it to make an adjustment after June 30th? Uh yeah, you you can't touch it unless there's a couple things, a couple scenarios by the state and and one of those would be the state coming in and taking over control of our financial operations. So So how many years are we in stuck?

You're in for a year. Every tax rate that the council sets annually sets basically for a year and then the council has to come back the next year in your budget ordinance and look at it again. So you council sets the tax rate every year within the budget. So one year, not three or four, but a full year. Correct. Yes, ma'am. So we can run those scenarios, mayor, by and we'll send that out to council in an email that shows you a couple of those scenarios and then you'll have that for the next meeting as well.

Running DS is is not a bad idea. My concern is that we're still going to run up against June 30th when the legislature will not have moved anything enough for us to know what they're going to do. Hopefully, we'll get some feedback from committee, but if we don't, we're going to be in exactly the same bucket with exactly the same problem, you know, in May or June. I I just hate to leave you at 60 cents and then yeah, that fail and then us being a, you know, and I realize we could change it next year and reduce it down,

but that doesn't that doesn't help people with this year's tax bill. I would rather lower it and and not to where we can't survive it, of course, but I would rather lower it to the point that if that were to go through, we would be hurting a little bit and have a larger fund balance appropriation for one year than to lay that on citizens to pay extra above what they needed to just because we didn't know what was going to happen and then we're stuck with it. And I I I would agree with that. But yeah, that's why it's got to be somewhere in a moderate middle because we can't bankrupt the city or overt tax the citizens. We've got to find that sort of happy medium of tolerance where we can tolerate less if we get it and and it's not too painful for our citizens because and I realize

Mr. like even you know even the commons parking lot rehab obviously that needs to be done but is is it possible to put those things off for one year and you know based upon this quandry because if we don't know what the tax rate is then it's going to be very difficult for us to

and I I I you know I realize Those are those are all important things that need to you know just like the ball fields I think you know I mean there is a there is a challenge with those ball fields. Um, but you know, if we have to put things off and even the infrastructure for the 400 acres, if that needs to be delayed or if we need to look at the bonds and put them out a year so that we can, you know, put them out uh where we're going from 20 years to 30 years. I don't know if that's possible. I think that's more of a and in order to do that,

you'll see the needle move more in that matter. Ma'am, that's one of the discussions that Mr. Nero brought up last week was the ability to move typically a capital project of this side would have a 20-year term. And so the question was, can you take that out to a 25 or 30? Speaking with our financial adviserss, uh we feel confident that based on the amount and the size of of this project, we can move it to the longer term. And so part of our dialogue historically has been you spread out the cost to citizens for many years and this is something mayor that you've said before in terms of the ability to share that load not just frontloaded on citizens but you spread it out just like how the commons project is and that's one of the things that uh that Miss Smith had said last week in terms of the dialogue of being able to lower down your debt service. It may result in a larger payment over time, which a lot of us know that in terms of a mortgage, but it would lessen the annual impact. Therefore, the need on the debt service payment would be lower. So, if we're thinking of a debt service payment being between three and $4 million a year, and that theoretically could be 8 to 10 cent, you could knock it down. Let's say it's let's say it's six to to 8 cents. You would effectively lower that. So, uh, back to Mr. Ganero's point, that could be three or four cents on the tax rate right now.

And if we were to do that to extend those projects out, how would that affect our um, credit rating?

So, that's the bigger concern that in terms of the projects that we have now, we don't have a concern about credit rating and ability to fund those projects. Our our big concern is how do we expand the tax base with the Uptown Jacksonville project. So, uh, we we should not, based on the plan that we have in place, the council's reviewed before, have a concern because we've looked at the capital planning model after the 25 or 30-year term, whatever the length, the longer term is. I believe we'll still have a good credit rating, but we will not have the borrowing capacity because we won't have additional revenues per the capital planning model. So, when we're talking about finishing up some of the projects that we're doing now so that we can move into this very large project, that's where our eggs are going to be. They're going to be in that large project to be able to have the borrowing capacity based on our credit rating to make that project happen. That's a great great point, Dr. Washington. That's going to be the impact of a large a large loan, a large debt service that we're going to have to carry for a for a longer term. But if we moved it out for 30 years and then we um obviously we're going to sell some of that property, the cost of selling that property and then if the county and the state provide us funding, then can we uh can we lower that debt by? So theoretically what could happen is every time uh if we have that debt let's say we're we have a $60 million debt for the project for this first that first phase of the project and then the county appropriates $20 million. Just pick a random extremely high number that probably is not going to happen. Theoretically, the council at any point could retire some of that debt with that money and then potentially at the point

that it can be could you're not really refinancing it, but you'd go back out on that. So, you could use that to pay down the debt service year-over-year um depending on what the parameters are on that. This large bonding uh this project has a different repayment type plan. There are a lot of different stipulations that go out and it's a lot market based in terms of what the rates are in the repayment schedule. It's not your typical we're going out to a mortgage and we can pay off the mortgage without a penalty. You have some other requirements that would impact your bonding capacity and your rating.

To me, extending the life of the large project and and working to see if we can't get some collaboration from our partners at the county and state level makes a lot more sense. And we also there are some things that we could kick down a year, but then that bottlenecks the CIP and we have just more to deal with later. If it's small stuff, it just stacks up. And so that's a risk we take as well. So the the moving the bigger egg, if you will, will make the biggest impact. And it's also where we have the most flexibility. Um it's just going to have the greatest impact. And it's it's something we our community has been needing for years and asking for for years. We all, you know, Jacksonville deserves more and we all, you know, but but it's something that we can affect the timeline on to make sure that we don't hurt folks in the short term without creating a bottleneck potentially with the CIP down the road

and we're able to continue moving on with the other projects which we know we need to get done. Well, but the but the other side of that coin is we're every year we're not going to be in this quandry that's been given that's been caused by the legislature.

And you know I I think there's opportunity to look at that as a uh there's other projects and I mean it depends on the budget. I mean, if we if we keep the 60 cents and it's based on on uh what our current values are rather than the revals, then you know what is that what does our budget look like at at was what was that figure? Yeah. Even at that current rate of of 25 million for the year overall, what's it look like at that point? Yeah.

And we'll run that. We'll give you the comparisons. I mean, I think one of the most important things for me anyway is, you know, the issues that we've had with the pay and fixing the pay is is is paramount for me because I I think, you know, competition is steep for for our employees. And we need to make sure that they're being compensated correctly. And I think I think that needs to be obviously the forefront. The second the second to me the second part is how do we how do we go forward with the 400 acres uh because what I see with the 400 acres is this uh ability to increase our uh our revenue through you know selling those selling that property. Um the uptown project as far as the commercial part would increase our sales tax revenue and our our uh our adalorum taxes.

It's an investment not an expense, right? We will pay us back. And so so I see that as being able to keep our tax rate lower. And uh so so I I think those are the two important projects that that really need some really needs to me I need I need some additional information because I learned as as uh my 30 years as a police administrator you got to have all the information before you make a decision. And I think that those are things that we can look at to uh to improve our strategic uh approach toward this.

Good thing we got nothing more costly than turnover. A little bit more time. Mr. Ray turn. Has the county commissioners um said anything about what their tax rate is going to be for this year as of yet?

No, ma'am. So, one of the things is the county typically doesn't have a proposed budget till the first part of May. So, we've not seen that. It could have happened today, but I'm not aware of that today. Uh, so we've only heard informal dialogue from individual county commissioners of where they think that would be. Um, from our numbers, just like where our revenue neutral rate is approximately 44 cent, we would estimate their revenue neutral to be at approximately 49 cent and they're currently at 65 cent. Um, so in theory, they have the same 16 cent swing in between those two numbers. Uh, so we don't have a clue. Dr. Washington where they're going to be at this point because um

you know one of the things that I'm also thinking about too is um if our um general assembly caps adorum and we already know what the sales distribution tax is 100% of that and if it's capped um where do we find that extra revenue in order to make the wheels of our financial budget. Budget go very smoothly because then we will need to look at line items and what we need to possibly cancel and eliminate as opposed to moving it further down the line because um our funding is going to be restricted in more ways than one.

Yeah, I think that's the bigger concern that we have Dr. Washington is if there's other there are other bills being talked about at the state right now that could limit our tax rate that could limit our ability to use the valuation or the the level at which the valuation can increase every four years, two years or eight years. And so if the council were to set a tax rate this year, the general assembly could then set a limit on either the rate, the valuation, or even the levy for next year. They could say something as you can only increase your tax levy year-over-year by up to 3%. That's some of the proposals that we've heard. We haven't seen a bill to that point. Uh we haven't seen a bill on limiting the overall tax rate, but we have heard some discussion. Uh currently there's a limit in the state that you can't have a tax rate greater than $150 per $100, but we're nowhere close to that. We're at less than half of that number. So that's not something that would impact the city of Jacksonville, but some of these things do have concerns for staff as well about what next year would look like. So, I think you're I think you're spot on in nailing it that it's not just this year, it's it's next year. And and then to to comment back on Mr. Nero's comment, theoretically, let's say that we're looking at a three to $3.5 million debt service payment on that project based on the 20-year term. Random numbers, mayor, just trying to to capture that. So, if we're going to three to three and 35, maybe we lower that down to about 23 or 24 a year. theoretically or if you go out to 30 maybe you're up to to 3.3 3.4 for with your interest in the longer term, right? So, you could free up some of those uh some of those funds over the longer term. I would say maybe maybe $800 to a

million dollars a year at a best case scenario, and that's not compounding anything annually because I forget that equation. So, some of those projects that were adopted in this year's budget, like I was looking at the car wash or the the vehicle wash, I understand that's important, but that's $3 million. That's funded by grant funding.

Okay. So, when you look at some of these projects like a transit project or a water and sewer project or when you said the the fields earlier, you know, that 25,000 for the softball field, that's design money. So, that's 25,000 towards design. So that makes sense. You would kick that out one year. So you're not spending that in 27. You'd then spend the design money in 28, hope to go to construction by 29. And some of the money that's funding some of those capital projects is out of the capital reserve, which is something that's set aside. We normally don't use that to pay operational expenses. So you'd basically be transferring your capital reserve back in to the unrestricted budget so that you could use it for your annual budget.

But is but is there an opportunity to go through all those projects that were funded this year and look at the ones that haven't been funded or that haven't been bid out and are in the process and looking at saving some um saving some money here. So we could pres preserve first the employee employees um um compensation into the that project. Yes sir. So if anything hasn't been award hasn't gone through the bidding process or has been awarded a contract by council then yes we can review all of those projects that have not gone through that process and been awarded can be reviewed. Yes sir. always an option and we do that a lot in the CIP. That's why when you see the capital improvement plan year-over-year, you'll see some of those projects being moved out. For example, when we were talking about the CIP during our last presentation, one of the comments was we moved some of those projects out either entirely or we moved them out to seven or eight years down because when you saw the capital planning model that Sabrina presented, those items have been kicked out. Why? because we didn't have the capacity to have additional funds to fund those projects. So, you have to move them.

So, is there a timeline you want to bring this back to us as a redo? Mayor, based on all of our comments tonight and any more questions you have now, we're we're going to work towards bringing this back to you as soon as possible in an email and then it'll be on the next agenda as well. So, we're going to leave it on for the 19th. Um, and so council can continue to discuss there and you can always take action or not take action, but we'll send that these comments we have so far. We'll send this all out to you.

And the other thing it'll give us, back to Dr. Washington's point, it'll at least give us another two weeks to listen to any dialogue that we may get from the state, from the general assembly. Um I I'd tell you from Miss Smith's comments uh before and she had the opportunity to visit with two of our legislators at least that would give us more insight individually, but that's two out of the masses. So it's real challenging to see where that's going to take us. But but we'll be on the mark to be able to go either way, right?

We'll be ready to to give you those parallels and put it out there for council to look at and review and then send us additional comments. I say hopefully hopefully they will make a decision in the legislature before then make everything a lot easier but I ain't gonna count on it.

Mayor and on the other side if if you have any influence at the county level if anybody has that and there's some there's the opportunity for them to fund the project with a commitment that would be fantastic that that allows back to Mr. Jiro's point that allows us to utilize that inside of our funding strategy. The other side is for next year, we hope that there'll be some additional dialogue with the county commission on the sales tax appropriation. So, as we look at that, we've presented this multiple times, but based on the county's uh chosen method of sales tax distribution, the city of Jacksonville roughly, Dr. Washington said it earlier, approximately $3 million, and that was 2013. Well, now at this point we're up to 9 10 11 million dollars that that the city doesn't have because the method is based on the ad valorum distribution method and not the per capita method. And uh we know that Jacksonville is the hub for for retail and commercial in Enslo County. Yet we miss out on those revenues and the county is a large benefactor of all the dollars people are spending inside the city. And I and I I'll piggyback on that because you know when you look at the when you look at the sales tax or the the abalorum way it's North Topsole Beach and Surf City that are really gaining and most of those folks don't even live here. Most of them are are not generating they're they're renting those houses out and that's where most of our sales tax revenue is going toward. So I mean from my standpoint, why would we spend money on uh or give our sales tax revenue which is generated here in the city because North Topsel Beach has like one two restaurants and in Enso County I don't think in Surf City there's any any establishments that are getting that. So

why are we sending our sales tax revenue which is generated here and is should be used for paying for services here to North Top soil in in Surf City. It it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me cuz I I mean I I would think that we take that $1 million that I mean we could lower the tax rate no matter what happens if they would if they would change their revenue stream. And my understanding is that it won't affect the county at all. It won't affect Richlands. It won't affect Swansboro Ridge.

Yeah. So, mayor, it it it does affect the county, which is part of their concern, but it would allow the council to reset our tax rate if you wanted to 15 cent. So when you're looking at the tax rate, if you're at 60 cent now, based on that amount, you could be at 45 just if you had those revenues from the sales tax and you could use that. So So back to Dr. Washington's point earlier, you're looking for another revenue stream. I think Mr. Willingham made it months ago. This is the only revenue stream that we are aware of that has any viability that the state has discussed that would create a revenue generator for the city. And without that change, the state's a question mark right now. But this is this is a handcuff.

What's the tax rate north of Beach? I think they're in the low 20s. Mayor and then based upon our our sales tax going to them. Yeah. And they receive approximately 4.5 million a year and we receive 17 million in sales tax. Cost a lot of money to reclaim sand.

I know. And that's where I mean both both Surf City, Pender County and uh and North Topsel are using it to put sand on the beach rather than pay for the services for our citizens. And I mean I mean we need to encourage encourage our citizens get hold of the county commission and tell them to change that because we're paying for sand on a beach. I mean, and city resident, I'm paying for sand on a beach that I mean, I shouldn't be paying for,

especially when they're using that sand on the beach to attract people to rent their houses.

Well, you have to remember, too, when that reourishment program kind of belly up, you got to find the money from somewhere, right? Connect the dots. I mean, we're we're paying we're paying for sand on a beach and struggling to pay for uh for public safety and all the other programs that live inside the city of Jacksonville. And every single one of us vote for our county commissioners. So, we have a voice there. We need to use it. You're right. Our citizens need to reach out to the county commissioners and express concern about this issue and ask them to look at it and re-evaluate. Even if they would do a hybrid, we would be a lot better off if they would if they don't want to switch from 100% advalorum to 100% per capita. If they would do a 60/40 split, it would help us tremendously and we could stair step from there if they agree and if it's helpful and we we can work through it from there. But this 100% adorum is causing four communities in Oslo County to lose revenue every year so that a couple other ones benefit. And I'm sure they had their reasons

where it is generated. Yes, it's leaving where it's generated and where the services are delivered and the streets are driven on and the things need repair and going elsewhere. I mean, believe with the 6040 split, the county didn't wasn't injured. Correct. That's correct. So, yeah, we did have the 6040.

Yeah. When we had the 6040, even now, our estimates say that the county would be what we would call held harmless. So they would be at the same revenue level that they are for FY26 and FY27 if they did a split using the hybrid which the general assembly granted them to use Adalorum and per capita together in a formula and then we would still be roughly let's say 5 million to the positive so roughly 9 cents on a on a tax rate better than zero that was those calculations of held harmless were based on the revals and existing rates, were they not? Yes.

So, if the revals freeze and the rate drops, all of those figures change. Every every figure changes if the if if it's based on the current valuation. But back to your earlier point, it's still going to be greater than the 3 million significantly. Sure. Absolutely. Yeah. I think it was when um county commissioner Lina when he passed away that's when it was changed because he was the one that basically was a proponent of a 60/40 sales distribution. Is there some way um mayor sir that we could um council could sit down with the commissioners regarding our sales tax? I mean I hear telling the public but isn't that a responsibility we have?

We we have worked hard to try to get that done. It's it's not like it it's not been brought up in conversations. It's been brought up in meetings. Uh we we actually have uh by monthly meetings with the county manager and the uh chair. We've talked about the sales tax on many occasions. We got a lot of empty promises along the way, but again, you know, it's correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, it's a it's it's just been a aruous task to try to get them to move off of it. Best time to get them is an election year, but then once election year, you get all the promises in the world. After election year is gone, they forget about it. So, and not not singling out any one commissioner, but you know, it's just it's just been a hard fight ever since then. Uh matter of fact, in when they changed the uh they changed the uh method of distribution, I remember Mr. WC German Darman was the chairman of the board of county commissioners at the time and I went there and spoke at public comment in descent of the uh tax ch tax rate change on on sales tax and uh I was given three minutes and got hammered out of order. So that's that's the respect we get cuz I talked over the time limit. But anyway,

well maybe that maybe it's, you know, based upon upon this with that that we're having issues with, maybe it's time for a joint meeting to talk about this in a in a Well, that could certainly happen. We What was the last one? Uh, mayor, I've been here about 3.75 years and it was before that. So I'd say if you Well, we're due then. If you want us to you get them get them all together. Give them Mr. Foster. I'll show you a little trick when we do.

Mr. Ray, um concerning our general assembly, isn't um it's their proper protocol that when they are distributing funding to the counties, it's based on per capita. Absolutely. So why not have a conversation with the general assembly? You know that if this is their method then why is that not the same in terms of when it reaches the county level you follow suit that the general assembly is setting forth? I can pull up on my phone right now a text to Senator Bazar where I said the exact same thing. Excuse me. And Dr. Washington that's right.

So that's a thing that the mayor's been pushing consistently. So the basic presentation method or distribution method from the state is per capita. There are some caveats there, but the the main principle distributions based on per capita. One of the things that we're working on with our military host city coalition is the fact that all five military host counties distribute using the adalorum method. So if we're talking about being a military host city and the challenges that we have, if each county decides to use the adalora method, it's costing every host city significantly inside of their distribution method. For example, our $11 million plus or minus is the same thing that happened to Fagatville last year when Cumberland County switched over. Fateville lost $11 million. So they had to go back and figure out what that number uh was to them. It's a little different for Fatville because their budget is roughly twice our size, but it was still 11 million that they had to figure out. So, one thing we are pushing as a coalition is for the state to push at least in those five uh five counties to distribute per capita. That's one of the initiatives that we are pushing and hopefully this week we'll be able to uh to push that a little more when some of us are in Raleigh. I just don't know how that'll work, but I just don't know how this general assembly works in the first place. So,

well, it also seems that there should be a cap if it's going to be a hybrid as opposed to and I can understand probably for some counties, um, you know, when you think about Keratuck County, when you're talking about the Outer Banks, um, and what they might be going through, that's totally different than what Enselo County and your larger counties.

Yeah. As of last year, the split was 52 counties used the advalor method, 48 counties used the per capita method in North Carolina. So, it's pretty close to a split and no one has to have a rational thought. You know, Miss Smith's question is how does that change? It's pretty simple. The county commission votes and it takes just a simple majority to pass that and then they would do it. And I agree, every county is going to be different in their comments. It's just interesting that all five military host counties choose the admillorum because uh because the numbers work out in the county's favor there. So, mayor, we will uh if you're good with that, we can follow up with the county chair, talk about a joint meeting on one side and then we can continue to push the potential change in sales tax distribution at the at the state level as well. This is very good for television consumption. It explains why we may be in a predicament. It doesn't change anything. It won't change until the people sitting around this table support a candidate who supports per capita. And by per capita, we mean that we get the money back based on population that's spent here. And as long as the people sitting around this table support people who are not in favor of that, it's going to continue and it won't be a campaign issue. If we're in an election year, why is it not a campaign issue? It's not I'm I'm I don't know about the forums. I'm pretty sure they they haven't been asked that question at the forum. Who's the candidates supporting it? Who's the candidate that's supporting uh per capita? You can't tell me because we haven't made it an issue. So, it's good that we explain to the public so they understand that we're in a pickle,

but it's not going to change until we insist on that. It's a campaign issue and then the campaign the candidates that identify with that position can be supported and we'll know who they are and we can call their names, but we can't do that. And it's tough from a staff to staff perspective, mayor, because just like this, the council's going to set the budget, the council's going to set the tax rate. You know, the staff doesn't do that. Just like at the county, we have that dialogue with them and ask them to present this to the county commission. And once the county commission has a dialogue, if it's not pushed as a prior priority, then they say, "Well, we're going to need that revenue this year, so we could look at a different

We have right at the edge." I think so, too. We have right at the edge this year. What did they say? Remember the uh what did the manager tell? I was going to go back to the to the text message, mayor, because I think that's what the response was, but um I don't remember. But it just didn't happen is what I remember. Mayor, they didn't even talk about it. Yeah. Okay. I would agree with you. I mean, I I think we need to we need to lobby our folks because I mean, to me, this is a serious issue. It has to be an issue. If they're not talking about it, they're not being elected based upon it. Yeah.

And I wouldn't even talk about hybrid. I think we ought to talk about what's most just. That's it. And that's the full 100% per cap. I I would I would, you know, I would agree with you 100%. Cuz we're we're generating it here.

We're paying for police. We're paying for fire. We're paying for streets and it's going for sand. I I I just can't, you know, if I owned a house on the beach and I was and I had a uh and and you know, I was renting it out and and getting a revenue, then I could afford to pay for sand. But me living in Jacksonville in uh in country club estates, I I don't think I ought to be playing for sand that's going on a beach in Pender County. I just don't

Well, you know how we ended up in this table to start with, right? Aren't you on counsel? Yeah. He got mad at us. It was purely emotional decision. A lot of decisions between the county and the city were personality conflicts, including why we didn't result with one uh government building. That was the plan.

I remember that. So, we bought the old we bought this is the old belts building. So, we bought this and renovated it and they still promised to build downtown. That was part of the jail. That was part of the jail house deal. They promised to put their government center where the parking lot is. And then they said that the new council is not committed to the promises of the old council. So that's what they said.

There's a few takeaways that we'll work on. One being we will complete that comparison of current rate and the new rate and the movement within there. and then we'll reach out directly to Mr. Chairman Foster for the county and see about scheduling that discussion for a joint meeting that's been brought up a couple times. And we'll we'll give you updates via email so that you've got it in real time and not have to wait for the two weeks. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. All right. So, we're going to number

six. Move my screen back up here. MR. WILLHAM, this is going to go into your discussion on House Bill 1038. You asked for that to be on the agenda for tonight.

Yeah. And um thank you all for cooperating and allowing that to be one of our agenda items. Um, and I kind of felt it was appropriate to have it at the workshop because I think it's a time for listening and I know we don't have public comments at the workshops and I thought it was a certain um sense of urgency because things were happening at the state level that I was not aware about. um maybe about a week I've known about um what was going on. So we get drawn into this uh race discussion and we don't want to talk about race. We want to talk about Jacksonville Harbor. We want to talk about progress. We don't want to talk about race. But we've grown into it and so here we go. Uh a few years ago uh we were sued by General McLaclin and others over the election system. The city was accused of discriminating against him and others and I really couldn't understand how they were discriminated against. I'd like to ask the city attorney, did the court in that litigation determine that the plaintiffs had standing? So, there were actually three plaintiffs in that lawsuit that sued the city of Jacksonville, and the court ruled that two of the three um lacked standing because they actually lived outside of the districts um that were the subject of the lawsuit. Um the court did rule that the third party had standing. I

think it was the third named plaintiff in the case actually. Um but they did eventually dismiss that claim as well because even though that plaintiff I think it was word four that pliff lived in. Um that plaintiff did not allege facts that were sufficient um and the court used very legal language there. They said did not allege facts sufficient to permit an inference that that was racially um gerrymandered. Okay. So that's where that was.

What what is standing? Um, so standing is is basically someone's ability to go into court to litigate a particular issue. So if I had a problem with something that my neighbor was doing, I could go into court and I could say, "Judge, I'm going to sue my neighbor because I don't like that they're making extra noise. It's infringing on my right to enjoy my property." And a judge would probably say, "All right, you have standing to bring that claim. We can go ahead and hear that in this court today." Um, but if I saw my neighbor um and his wife and I didn't like their relationship, I couldn't come into court and say, "Judge, I want to make a a lawsuit here. I'm going to sue for divorce of this couple." The judge would say, "Well, you don't have standing to do that. This doesn't really involve you. This doesn't really affect you." That's it in kind of a nutshell. Um, and often times lawsuits are dealt with at that very early stage by a judge just saying you don't have the right to bring this type of case into this type of court at this time.

Thank you. So that case didn't determine that our election system discriminated against anyone. There's this concept in law also uh in tort law it's about making the plaintiff whole. That means that if you suffer a harm and there's liability you get made whole. Our case when we sued the city was to be made whole and we had to prove that there was discrimination and we did that. But if you didn't suffer the discrimination, you don't get made whole. If you're not in a car accident and there's liability, then you don't get compensated. So the remedy can't be discrimination. That's the remedy and the remedy is the the directed to the person um to suffer. So how can our system discriminate when all of our districts are majority white? mine, Dr. Washington's, Councilwoman Smith, they're majority white. So why somebody accuses this system or us of discriminating is beyond me. Although we know all of the districts are based on population, the opponents argue that we should use an unconstitutional method of trying to project who votes.

That's unconstitutional. It has to be based on population. How do you know who's going to vote? How can you draw a boundary based on who you think might vote? But let's play that game. The opponents say that we should redraw the districts because of low v voter turnouts in districts one and four. So that would lead to if there's low voter turnout across the city, we just cancel the election. Doesn't make sense. Okay. But one of the plaintiffs ran for the third congressional district in 2017. The third congressional district in 2017 had 100 31,000 167 less voters than the fourth congressional district by um David Price. Okay. Now, there's no problem with that. But you got a problem when my district has 287 81 fewer voters in 2017. 200. And we have to redo the system. That's the argument. Over those 200, what's the difference? 170ome thousand versus 200. What's the problem? The problem is not with the turnout. The problem is with us.

All of our districts are the same in population roughly within a certain percentage point. And uh Councilwoman Washington knows the percentage point. Was it five plus or minus five?

There you go. So now all of the sudden they argue that um we ought to not include the military people who have a a right to vote. They shouldn't be in war one. Shouldn't be in war four. or if they do get counted, we disperse them amongst the other wards. Okay. Where's Camp Lun? Where's the air station? On the east side of 17. Where's Ward One? Where's Ward 4? On the east side of 17. That's where they should be in those wards. And you talk about odd mapping that would result very irregular if you jumped over one and forward and put him on the west side. Okay. And that just brings me to another point because didn't the Supreme Court just say that Republicans can draw whatever they want? Okay. But they have a problem with how we put Camp Lun TT and New River Air Station on the east side of 17th where it belongs. It's hypocritical. It's illogical and it doesn't make sense. I'd like to ask the attorney if the court determined in my lawsuit against the city of Jacksonville's um that the against the city of Jacksonville that the ATM large system was determined to be discriminatory.

What was that? So, I've got a I've got a copy of a lawsuit I printed out just in case there were questions like this. Um, it's this a civil action in federal court in 1989. U, Mr. Willingham was a plaintiff in that case as was uh it looks like Ernest J. Wright, Sylvester Howard, Heris Coleman, Fanny K. Coleman, James C. Brown, Erica B. Buffong, pardon me if I pronounced names improperly, and Alan D. Hunt. And then the plaintiffs were the city of Jacksonville and that included um named council members, mayor and then it looks like also Enzo County members of the board of elections. Um and I I pulled that lawsuit out. What was the specific question?

Did the court determine that the system the atlarge system was discriminatory in that case? Well, it was it was kind of strange actually because actually the way the case worked is it looked like the court um didn't issue a formal opinion. Instead, it sounds like the matter was settled out of court and what was settled out of court um did result in Jacksonville putting in place a district system with four wards. And then as a result of that there was a a dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and that the plaintiff's dismissal does reference uh does reference the fact that they got basically the relief they were seeking from the lawsuit. Is that correct?

The the the lawsuit had to determine who was the prevailing party. The judge in that order determined that we were the prevailing party. To be the prevailing party, you have to prove your case. And we proved our case and the judge established that we were the prevailing party because of that. Our case was about the discriminatory system. So yeah, it was strange. The judge issued two orders. There's one grant granting the plaintist motion to voluntarily dismiss and then there was one on attorney's fees and that one does say I see the prevailing part is to the lawsuit

prevailing we want for the for the court order there. So now we're supposed to acquies with um House Bill 1038 which imposes on us colonial style because we didn't ask for it as far as I know. Y'all can help me out if y'all asked for this. To my knowledge, I know I didn't personally ask for it. We didn't ask for this?

Nope. Okay. So, they're imposing a system on us that a court has already determined is discriminatory. That does make sense. So,

so I apologize. I might have misspoken because I was looking at the there's two orders. Sorry. Um I'll I'll just quote it. It said the plaintiff's council had sufficient forecast from the proceedings underway in the city of Jacksonville that there was a likelihood of success and then in addition the council representing plainter here being fully compensated for all the services they attributed to the litigation. So I'm sorry if I misspoke.

I don't think you misspoke. um the um determination that we would prevail in party means that the system was discriminatory. So, why on earth would this council, and I'm not saying you do support it, but I'm saying why would you support something that's already been um determined to be discriminatory, especially in light of the fact that this council, but for myself and council woman Oh, and um

Yiro and uh Councilwoman Smith. defended the lawsuit successfully when it was attacked as being discriminatory. Y'all stood up and that was your one city moment. Okay, this is not I have a quick question. Um, and this is a matter of just educating me. the to initiate the lawsuit. Um it was basically we were at an all at large county or city um electoral type of situation.

The reasoning behind the suit was to acknowledge the fact that there were communities under or not being represented. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Um but it was not once the um lines were drawn, it wasn't drawn just for that community. It was that community plus other communities. You get what I'm saying? It was uh two sets of lines if you if you will. Um we had a proposal and the city had a proposal. Okay. we like theirs better. So, we went with the two

with the four uh districts and the two at large. Yeah. Um I think for me um I'm trying to find out and and just in some questions and just sitting in um the face of several individuals regarding this. When did these two wards be considered the minority ward? They're not minority wards. I know, but I think that's people can can label them that way because they choose to label them that way because the result is that we've gotten blacks elected and so they say minority ward.

So there it goes. Okay. And because anyone in that in those wards can run um i.e. I'll just take an example. your last election, you were contested and the other individual, the onus was on you guys to get your voters out to vote for you. So, I was contested twice, too, at Los.

I didn't want to bring it up. I you know, I didn't want to hit you like that. Trying to be nice. But um I guess my point is that when it comes to and and and I don't know why ward one and four are being targeted and I say targeted based off of um videos and conversations that I just haven't been privy to. Mhm. So, um the myth is that it doesn't take much for you guys to get elected as it would for the other WS to get the other two uh wars along with at large to be elected when that's just not the case. It's the voter turnout cuz you can't campaign that way. You you can't

you can't campaign and some people in here to help you campaign. U we sp probably spent more money than anybody on campus cuz we wanted to see what could be done out there. How much you spend? No, let me stop. I mean, but I bring it up only because the fact that, you know, even though it's low v voter turnout, to me, that's voter education. That's um and it could easily, if I didn't know, I would think that, well, maybe their ward doesn't have as many in my ward as far as the per capita, you know, for my ward and yours. I got 10,000, you got 5,000. That's not the case. No. So,

and it's actually harder to campaign. It's like campaign if you fishing in a a pond in your backyard versus um fishing in a ocean cuz you got all these people that are possible candidates that you still try to reach.

Well, I can go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead.

No, go ahead. And you know, I mean, I I sat here and I've heard I've heard from a lot of people about, yeah, we need to go to at at large. And I know there's there's a number of people that think we need to stay with the ward system. And you know, in light of Louisiana versus Kas, you know, and and even even when we're talking about this lawsuit, I mean, I I think that as far as me, uh, I would like to see one, you know, us postpone any decisions that we have to make today and give an opportunity for public comment and also give the attorney some time to look at at at that Louisiana versus Kalish decision because, you know, anything we do subjects us to a lawsuit. And so what I want to do is I want to make sure that as we move forward that we're not putting ourselves into a lawsuit uh by you know because because I what I can see with that that decision that Supreme Court decision is to have some impact on this is to have some impact based upon you know looking at our our wards or looking at an at large and I and to me I would say we we need some time and I I understand you you know that I mean I don't know the legis my experience with the legislature is it moves very very slow

that's if they wanted to um thank you the thing is what it doesn't matter what we decide here at this table the bill is there and we didn't initiate it at least I can only speak for myself I didn't initiate it um so I think I would want to know as a member of this council is the council by majority in support of it. And if we're not in support of it, then we need to take on the next step on what we need to do.

But I I don't think I'm I don't think, you know, um and I'll take I'll take M Councilman Willingham's, you know, so some consensus with with those folks. So maybe maybe it requires us to have a discussion with our legislaturators before we start drawing our line in the sand because strategically we need to look at Louisiana versus Callus and you know some of some of this takes is going to take some time and and I want to hear from I want to hear from community members and I totally agree

and and we don't have you know having the opportunity to have public comment. I think is important and you know we didn't advertise for p public comment today and you know we may have 500 people I mean I sat in the council meeting I don't know I think you might have been on the council that we were here till 2:00 in the morning listening to public comment and you know but I to me I want to hear from what what people have to say and their reasoning for one whether we'd go all at large and or two cuz cuz when I campaigned I campaigned on listening to the public and listening to to uh um what our con constituent has to say

and they don't have the opportunity to talk today and again maintaining consistency I don't think we should give it to them today but in two weeks from now if people want to come and and and give their give their two cents because to me if we say, "Oh, no. We're not going to support this." And the majority of our constituents want us to support it. It's important for me to hear what they have to say. Yeah. And I hear that, too, cuz I totally agree with you. Um, I guess I'm being a little sarcastic in this way because those who submitted the bill didn't want to hear from us. Well, maybe, but it maybe it's time to have and and I

and and the conversation was missed. I know because that's a good point. the conversation was missed. So I I mean I I would agree with you and maybe it's a time for our staff and us to reach out to uh to to our delegation and say why did you do that? But I don't you know I mean this came out last week. Both of those things came out last week. I was surprised as everyone else that uh that that bill was passed. And then on top of that came that Louisiana versus Callus. And so what does that what does that mean? What does that mean for uh you know as we move forward? I don't know.

Let me let me say this. Um we weren't pressing for first of all I never thought that there would be any split over this from council particularly since council defended the action just defended it. So, what has changed? You defended a lawsuit about this. So, what has changed? So, I never thought it'd be any split about it. I know you you you're new to the to the council, but I wasn't eager to have a a vote on this today. Well, I I hope so. I think we I think we I wanted to discuss it.

Yeah. and the the public discourse can benefit from discussion because a lot of people don't know the history.

And so putting the public in a position of choosing sides and not understanding what's going on um before they form whatever position they want to form. But for me um um our rights aren't up for bid. Okay. these civil rights. I don't care if 50 million people say do something that's wrong. Um it's just not up for bid. But uh we do have the custom and policy of you know public comment but and and so but to answer your question to answer your other question uh that was a question that I had for the attorney and that question is whether um that case um impacts the um HP 1038.

I I don't know. We'll find out. And I think I think it t it's going to take us some time to it's going to take the attorney some time to do some research. And and what I heard right now about that other case is I mean I think we need to have some time. This is the question. Whether 1038 impacts whether we choose a large system or a board system. That's the question. better answer. Go ahead. Oh, what was the question? Whether the whether

1038 whether we have a large system or a ward system is is um impacted by this case.

Okay. So, that is it's going to require a lot more legal analysis than I'm prepared to give tonight. Um, so the problem is there are attorneys much smarter than I am at much higher pay grades than I have who are right now busy at their desks trying to figure out how this new Supreme Court case is going to affect us. Um, the big law that no one's talked about yet is the Voting Rights Act. And the Voting Rights Act was mentioned, I know, um, in the lawsuit that we've been referencing that was um, that changed the system from 1989 from all at large to wards. And it was mentioned in the lawsuit that was more recent. Um, that uh, as you pointed out, two were dismissed for lack of standing and one was dismissed for lack of state lack of um, stating a claim palry relief could be granted. Um, and both those cases talk about the Voting Rights Act, as does the new Supreme Court case. Um, I'm I'm looking a little bit at Miss Moore back there because she's been one of my mentors throughout my years. And unfortunately, even though lawyers can do an analysis, they're never really going to be able to tell you what a court is going to do. And I think this will be litigated. The Supreme Court case itself remanded the underlying case back to a lower court. It said, "We are basically talking about the Voters's Rights Act and we're interpreting it in a new way and we are establishing a new threshold for whenever folks are bringing claims on racial gerrymandering." And now that we've established a new interpretation of the Voters's Rights Act, you guys in the lawyer in the lower courts, go ahead and implement that as you see fit. So, I I can tell you I can research more, but everyone else is researching it as well right now. And the answer I have for you is unfortunately it is not super clear how if at all that's going to affect our legislature. And even if our legislature is is really paying close attention and

listening to their lawyers and doing what their lawyers are saying, it still doesn't guarantee that a lawsuit against our legislature is going to come down on one side or the other on this. So, I'm sorry, but from my standpoint, I think strategically, uh, we need to we need to know, I mean, and I'm sure you can get the school of government to participate as well. How do we how do we make our best estimate as to what our course of action would be?

Well, the interesting thing is this isn't a course of action for us. So, I I I tried to come a little bit prepared today. I did I did pull out um a great school of government article about modifying our own charter, right? About what we could do as a council if we were to go um pass an ordinance to change to at large or if we were to pass an ordinance that said we want to change the wordbased system and and re redistrict some of these wards and things like that. And I mean this lady the school government did a whole question and answer session about that and it is as thick as you can imagine. And then the very and that's all about what we can do as a council. Then the very last question is does this limitation she's been discussing apply to the general assembly? And the answer is just two lines out of these 20 pages. No. The general assembly may amend a city's charter at any time and in any way that it wishes to. So, the advice I have for you today is we're facing we're facing a legislative action on a bill that frankly as a council we have very little control over.

We can we can certainly and we have in the past come to a consensus about whether or not we're in favor of this or whether or not we are not in favor of this. But beyond that, the legislature has that authority. So basically we're in that that place where um someone else has made a decision on how us as elected officials for the city should operate basically. That's correct. You know and that is correct. They've not they've not done any of these things that we can do on our own with these ordinances. They've gone straight to what they can do as the legislature which is quite a bit.

Right. And at this point, and like you know, and this is to um Councilman Ganero's point, you know, of course we want to hear what the public has to say. Of course, we want to go into a discussion and say that we have Is that me?

Um cuz it's always me um that we have time. Well, if it's in a place that we have actually no um no authority on as far as how it goes up or whatever is said in my conversation with uh Representative Shephard um at the end of that conversation the hopes is that it would be amended amended in such a way that since we don't have a say on it already why not amend it so that the city can vote on what the city wants. They voted us in. So, can an amendment be placed on that bill to put the authority or the weight back into the voters's hands, vice, the county, the representatives making that decision for us.

So, that's that's also certainly an option. So, a city can change its charter. There there's basically three ways that a city charter gets changed. A charter is what's going to lay out what type of election system we have. And the three ways can those can be changed are via the legislature itself saying you're going to change it and this is how you're going to change it. Via the city council that sits here today saying we're going to go through an amendment to our ordinances process and by ordinance change the way we do elections. And the third way is via a referendum. That's when the public votes. Now referendum can start by petition of the general population and a referendum can also be ordered by the general legislature. So the legislature could amend this proposed House bill at any point to change it to saying we're going to order a referendum or in any number of ways that I'm not even going to speculate to that they could also change it because remember they've got the most power to go ahead and decide this issue without the public's input and even against sometimes public input and council input. And now is that in the hand of those who sponsor or is that once um it goes through committee for vote?

So you mean the the ability to amend that bill? That's right. So the ability to amend that bill can come at almost any phase of the process and it's done via vote in some of those committees. It's done via sometimes just via an individual saying this is my bill. I've decided I'm going to withdraw it. They have that authority too. Thank you, Madam Attorney. Let me um ask something for clarification. So, with the WAR system that we currently have in the city of Jacksonville, we have a war system where there's four distinct wards. Wars 1, 2, three, and four. Correct. Correct.

So, when there is an election, only individuals that live in Ward One can vote for Ward One. Individuals that live in W 2 can vote for W 2. W three and W four candidates, but the two at large, as long as you live anywhere within the cities within those four wards, anyone can vote for the atlarge. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am. So please explain to the public if you can what is the difference between our ward system and the ward system at the state level how we elect our officials and how we elect our congressional delegates to go to Washington DC. Is it not the same system? So I would say it's it's apples to oranges. It's we we tend to historically and I can't speak to you know everything. I have a quote but I can speak to it. Can I just finish real fast with a thought? So we so we tend to historically um take census data.

Yes. And use that whenever we're talking about our wards,

right? Um and there's any number of ways that words can be established on legislative levels and congressional levels. Um those can be done and in some ways the laws even said it's fine to do gerrymandering based on political right and things of that nature. Um, so I I would have a hard time kind of weighing in on the differences except to say again with congressional things like that, they're usually set out by the folks who have control over those types of national things. And here, I don't think, and I may be wrong about this, but I don't think the federal government could tell us necessarily where to draw those boundaries or what kind of elections we could have. I think that's still a power reserved by the state and in that case it would be the legislature or the power that's delegated by the state to local governments and the legislature has delegated to the city council I think it's 168 101 and 102 the authority for us to do some of those things ourselves through ordinance

in our most recent lawsuit case. It was mentioned by our former city attorney, Mr. Carter, that the plaintiff's complaint had both legal and factual flaws. The article goes on to talk about former mayor George Jones says, "Compared to what our nation's forefathers and our states did when they set up the election systems for our members of the United States House of Representatives and members of the North Carolina House of Representatives. They set up voting districts same as wards. So it's really a pattern after our federal and state election system.

So are I'm I'm sorry. Are you quoting an article or a deposition? This was this was part of when initially the lawsuit was filed for the city of Jacksonville in the article and our former attorney and our former mayor was talking about the benefits okay that the board system I see had brought to the city of Jacksonville.

Okay. And having our reward system locally is no different than if you live in district 14, you can only vote for that individual to go to the North Carolina General Assembly. If you live in Congressional District number three, you can only vote for that individual if you live in that district. In other words, if I lived in congressional district number four, I could not vote for that house of representative candidate to go to Washington DC. I only can vote for the congressional district that I live in.

Sure. Sure. That's the same thing with our ward system. I I think everyone would agree probably that that that analysis, right, is analogous. those two things are are similar and that whatever you're distracted for is what you can vote for. I unfortunately I don't I don't know the context and I can't speak for Mr. Carter or Mr. Jones though,

but this was part of that most recent lawsuit in which the former council gave Mr. or authorized Mr. Carter to seek legal counsel and we won that lawsuit, the second lawsuit with this So, I have another question that I wanted to ask you. Um, when the city of Jacksonville won this most recent lawsuit, did the plaintiffs have an opportunity to file an appeal? Okay. So, we're we're going back to making making sure to understand we're talking about the most recent lawsuit being the one that

and that would have been that would have been the one that's captioned primarily McLaclin. Yes. Versus the city of Jacksonville. Okay. And so you're asking in that question, would they have an opportunity to appeal? Yes. At the time that the judge ruled in the in favor of the city of Jacksonville. So there's almost always an opportunity to appeal a case. Is there a statute of limitations for appeals? It's not called a statute of limitations, but there's statutes that bar the amount of time in which they could appeal. And I'd have to double check, but it's my understanding they didn't appeal. Okay. So, here's dismissal.

Here's my sec my next question for you. Does the general assembly have a right or the right to overturn a federal judge's decision?

Oh boy. Okay. So, the ability boy um it's kind of a a question of when I was a kid, I'd always say, "Dad, can I do this?" And he'd say, "I don't know. Can you?" The question was, right? Say, "I may." So the legislature can do just about anything. I mean, they can write up a bill tomorrow and pass it that says that the moon is now pink right now. Whether or not they have the ability to do it doesn't necessarily mean whether or not they should do it or whether or not it can withstand a lawsuit. But I I have not and I will not weigh in on what I would recommend the legislature do because they have their own attorneys

and they would not want me stepping on their toes. I have another question for you. So if I am the plaintiff in this case and I have not appealed because I have not appealed. Could I then ask the general assembly to enact a law in which I want it to be appealed? And does that not violate my right? Because if I'm not happy with the judge's ruling, then I should have appealed the case in the beginning.

Okay. So, yeah. Now, you're bringing me You guys are really challenging me tonight. I appreciate this. Um, first of all, I want to make it clear. I am not giving legal advice specific to any council members, nor am I giving legal advice to the majority of the council. I'm trying to speak as best I can on fact and not advice just on what the facts are. Um, so we have a checks and balances system in local government and in national government where there is a legislative, executive, and judicial function. And the question you've asked is as old as the time the constitution was completed because absolutely there are times where a court will say this is my interpretation of the law and now that interpretation becomes law. Anytime there's a judicial ruling it becomes what's known as common law as opposed to legislative law. Becomes case law which is binding. Right? But at any time a legislature can say, "I don't like that opinion that that judge ordered. I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to now issue a law that basically would make it so that in the future that same lawsuit could be filed and it could be won because now it's explicit what the legislature is saying and in a way they're sort of overruling the judiciary and the checks and balances on that are always the constitution." So that's a very long way of saying yes. It's a very long way of saying if somebody lost in front of a judge, a legislature could could then pass a new law in which someone could then win that same set of facts in front of a judge because the law would change.

Let me add something. The Louisiana case involving Kas had nothing to do with ATL large system or whether we could choose a atlarge system over a board system. That case was how you draw the lines. That's what that case was about. So it does not impact HB 1038 because it has nothing to do with whether um it's a at large or award system. Right?

If it is a district system then you it it you have to meet whatever standard they established in that Supreme Court case. So, um there are a lot of benefits that we've had from having neighborhood representation cuz that's what we have ne neighborhood representation.

That's the most effective democracy that you can have cuz you have democracy at the lowest level when you have your neighborhoods represented. And part of the lawsuit that we filed was because that was not the case and you had everybody coming from one part of town. And when that happened, just let me give you some examples. Uh neighborhood um representation uh benefited Jacksonville. Before there were wards, the city didn't care about Pickicket Town or Georgetown. Okay. Before there were wars, Riverwalk Crossing was a ratinfested warehouse. Serious rat infest. They know. Okay. Before we had neighborhood representation, there was dominant slum and blight in downtown residential communities. Before we had wards, there were no splash pads, no professional level baseball field in the river. before wards there were no public safe safety station and I don't know if the chief remembers but everybody didn't agree with that.

Oh yeah. Okay. We had opposition and I think I played a role in the fact that we got it and I can give you some design features that are in there as a result of that. The shading on this outside of the building for one to to reduce the heat loss. So, we've had these benefits. Before there were wards, there was no land application treatment center that help uh a system that helped clean the new river. Um the ward system prevented an attempt to give Kur Street Recreation Center away.

Okay. Before there were wards, there was no television of city council meetings and these things weren't inevitable. Having neighborhood representation made a difference. So when we discuss, oh, we can um vote on uh award system. You're voting on a system that has already been declared discriminatory. Why would we want to do that? For what? Why are we even here? We should be talking about Jacksonville Harbor, but we got a race battle that people want to drag us into. And the benefit of discussion for me was not to poll and see if we can switch a system that has been working is that we could unite as a council and say to the legislature that in a year when we're celebrating 250 years of colonial independence, We're not your colony. Because if we accept being the colony where someone outside can dictate what we do, you're also accepting that your voluntary annexation is up next. And you won't have voluntary annexation cuz it's been promised. Phil Sheper came before you and said that if he had known you could do it, he would have stopped it.

Okay?

And we sit around here and we talk about tax revenue and and how we going to voluntary access annexation is a way we grow. Okay? So go along with him if you want to, but I guarantee you that's next if if we do this. So the intent was uh like I said I didn't know that there was dissension about the voting system that we have. Okay, that's news to me. Um because of the history that you all supported it and defended it. So the intent from my point of view was that we express our disapproval with actions that weren't initiated by us that control us colonial style and we communicate that y'all. you you act like and it is true that most local bills pass and local bills if you don't know they're a form of pork and that's what conservatives complain about and what it means is that if I want something for my district no matter what it is if it's unconstitutional or whatever no matter what it is everybody else turns their back and go ahead and do it. And they want the privilege to be able to do that. And it's not efficient government. It's poor barrel government where your tax monies could be used for any kind of purpose that they choose because it doesn't go through the normal process and people aren't watching. They let each delegate get away with it. So if it's not um something that we initiated or support,

the um course of action shouldn't be to throw up our hands. It should be to we going to be in Raleigh for two days. um some of us it should be to talk to the legislators and talk to the um uh the league that is supposed to lobby for us if it's not something that we want. So this is not inev inevitable in my mind and it just takes unity and one of those um one city moments in my opinion and we express to the caucuses that might be relevant to this um that this is not something that we support and the whole general assembly can vote against it possibly. I'm not saying it's likely because we know how these things go, but that's what a unified city that is really concerned about those one city moments would do in my opinion. So, one city got to be more than just a slogan.

Okay, if these people around the room don't feel it's one city, okay, that's a concern that everybody should be uh concerned about. and um doing this split thing where we we um sign on for something that we've already determined that the judicial system has already determined is discriminatory is is um I think is an offense personally. So that's all I got to say.

I just have I just have something real quick real quick from your statement and I don't need to target this. I just needed for clarity. Um you mentioned um elector um individuals were elected from one part of town before the ward system took place. That was the case as far as where individuals were voted from. Okay. So and let me add this. Okay.

The ward system is inherently I mean the uh ATLAR system is inherently unfair and it's meant to be that way. It's meant so the dominant community can choose every single seat. That's why you have five votes. It never occurred to anyone that you should have one vote and the top five should get in. That's the fair way to do it. But they give five votes to everybody because they can outvote you five to one on every single seat and you get nobody. And that's what has historically happened. It's no accident that what we've done for 36 years, okay, we've had representation from one and four. Where's the county's comparison? Eight years of Ernie Wright and he got defeated twice. That's not one city. That's not one county. That's not anything that we can brag about.

So, okay. No, I I just wanted to make sure I understood that statement. Um, I just have something I'd like to read and uh this this is my final word on it on the whole situation as far as tonight. Um, the ward system is not just an election structure. It is a community accountability model. It ensures each section of Jacksonville has a direct advocate who understands the streets infrastructure gaps, neighborhood concerns, public safety needs, and civic priorities. One city does not mean one voice. One city means every neighborhood has a voice at the table. HB 1038 would replace Jacksonville's hybrid ward at large system with all ATL large council uh elections beginning 2027. HB 1038 will reduce it causes a reduction in neighborhood representation, a top-down change to the local governance structure, a risk to minorities, renters, military families, seniors, and lower turnout neighborhoods voice and moves that could make campaigns more expensive and less accessible to grassroot candidates. One city does not mean one voice. One city, our city, my city is a voice of every neighborhood having an opportunity to say what they want. And to follow suit on someone's initiative, I can say someone because I don't know who initiated HB um 1038. Um, I do know that uh, Representative Gable

was the primary sponsor, but it doesn't mean that he initiated. Um, and I can't accuse anyone because of past litigations that they were the ones that submitted it. What I do know is that it's there and we can either give the authority that we have as elected personnel or elected officials here in Jacksonville. We can give that authority for them to make a decision on how we are elected and then follow suit with every other change they want to make without our consent. Now, we just spent about an hour and a half, two hours, I don't know, it felt like three um about a budget that we knew tonight we weren't going to make a decision about. But then it comes to this 1083 that affects all of us. It doesn't just I mean 10:38 10 What time is it? It's probably at 10:38.

It's probably 10:30. It doesn't just affect W and W 4. Although for whatever reason they're targeted, it affects all of us. And we already have two at large seats. I believe that's all we need. And the city does need to be um structured in such a way that each um ward has that um those numbers that equate and balance itself out when it comes to elections. No matter where you are, the onus is on you to get your voters to vote for you. But Jacksonville has adopted a system that said, "We need to know what they think. Our action should be based off what they want done. not what someone who doesn't live in our city wants done. And that's where my problem is. So, I know we're not voting on this cuz if we voted, it didn't matter because this is legisl is a is it's a house bill is our vote here means nothing. But we do need to know whether or not our council is going to join together against it or not, cuz it lets me know what my next move is. I I I have absolutely no um problem in going up to Raleigh at any point in time and talking to those and and stating the case. I know I can't state it on behalf of council, but I can state it on uh behalf of the fact that I've been in this city since 2003 and I love this city. And the fact that we had a nonpartisan council is one of the reasons why I fell in love with it because I wasn't fighting and battling um political divides. I wasn't fighting and battling uh white, black, no, it was about who the people wanted to represent them. And um and I just think we would as a council um do an injustice to each other

by not finding out where we where we stand on this. Either we're going to be for it. Oh, excuse me. Either others are going to be for it because I can tell you now I'm not for it. Um or we can stand as a united front and say regardless of what happens in Jacksonville, we are the ones that need to be making that decision, not someone who doesn't live in the city. And that's all I have. Okay. Mr. next to it.

We've had a lot of conversation and a lot of discussion tonight. Um, all very good and all very important to put on the table. Um, I agree with Michael in that what's not on the table is good legal analysis yet of what all the impacts of all these things will be. And the acid test is going to be in a courtroom, not in a council workshop or in the legislature. No matter what the legislators do, it's going to have to stand up to legal scrutiny. I guarantee you there will be a lawsuit. No matter which way that thing goes, it's going to be challenged and it will be decided in the courts. Um, based on statements from our legislative delegation, I can tell you this originated from citizens in our city. Um, it was not presented by council but by citizens and it's not one individual. There's a cohort of people who think this is something that should be looked at. Um so based on that I think that more public input is required if regardless of the outcome we we don't have to give and we can't give the general assembly our permission or our consensus on something. I mean give our opinion a consensus and an opinion but they don't need our permission to do anything. They have all of the legal authority and we don't as you stated very well. We can't stop it. We can't start it. can't whatever they do they do and then it gets challenged in court and we wait to see what happens and that's how it plays out. It always plays out that way. Um but I also think that when you've got citizens in your community questioning this that they have a voice as well and having time for public comment and time for both sides to air their concerns is going to be helpful not only for us but also for our general assembly folks and the delegation. There has been some talk as I you might have heard I don't know I have heard there's been some talk about that amendment. I didn't see it filed as of today when I looked but they are talking about amending that piece of legislation to put it on the ballot. That is in conversation. So that may happen soon which would shake and change how the dust settles on some of these things. Um

but I think we need um our citizens to have a chance to express their opinions either way. tell us what they think either way. And then depending on what the legislature does with an amendment or not an amendment, that will tell us a lot of what about what happens next and how it plays out until it gets to court where it will be challenged and ultimately interpreted by folks in robes with lots of degrees. I had a comment I wanted to make. Um, going back to something personal, having been born and raised right here in the city of Jacksonville, is he okay? He's just standing up. Okay.

Um, and I grew up in St. Julia am church on Kur Street. And one of the things that I can remember as a child is listening to my pastors talking about the opportunity to vote. I can remember my church secretary who was also my second grade teacher, Mrs. Osha Rosley at Claude Urban Elementary School. telling the parishioners when it's time to vote and that your vote means something. I used to ride with my mom to New River Jack at recreation center because that's where my parents voted. And I didn't understand all the complexities of what she and my father were doing when they went into the recreation center, but I just knew that they were voting for something. It has such an impact on me that I was 18 and a half years of age when I registered to vote in Osmo County. And no matter where I've lived, I have always done my due diligence to exercise my right to vote. What gives me pause at this moment? Our very first mayor of the city of Jacksonville was elected back in 1896. So basically from 1896 until now you're talking about 130 years. Now just sit with that for a moment.

130 years. Out of that 130 years, 94 years, nobody that looks like me was able to serve on this council. Think about that. Just think about that. Now imagine you have to switch places with me and now my history becomes your history. So for 94 years, you didn't have somebody representing you. It's only been 36 years, only 36 years that African-Americans and people of color could actually serve on this Jacksonville City Council. So basically that means for 72% of our mayor and city council, nobody a person of color could ever serve. It was only because a lawsuit gave us that right when in fact it should have been my right just as a United States born citizen. But even that, people of color had to fight for 36 years. And we're angry because people of color have only served for 36 years while you have served for a 130 years. Your vote has never been impacted. It's never been restricted. As a matter of fact, in 130 years, when has a person who is white not been elected? Your competition may have beat you, but

still your face was at the helm of the city. And now we're angry that in 36 years our council is changing to be inclusive versus exclusive. And we're angry about 36 years. We're angry about that. And yet that's supposed to be okay. You're telling us we don't matter. You want to minimize, dismiss, devalue, disenfranchise, and marginalize. And that's supposed to be accepting. two lawsuits and we're still trying to find a way to suppress the representation and that is supposed to be accepting because on July 4th we're going to celebrate 250 years and what exactly are we celebrating? What are we celebrating? the fact that this is one of the greatest nations on earth, but yet we want to divide the citizens that make it so great. Is that where we are? Is this really who the city of Jacksonville is? When you take off your mask, is this really who you are?

We have many families whose compositions aren't just black and just white. We have different ethnic backgrounds of family members. The compositions of families are changing. And we want to tell our children, you got to choose the box because your dad might be white, but if you're a little bit too tan, that's not how America's going to see you. But yet, that's still my dad. I can't change what's in my DNA. I can't change my skin color. So, this is what we are about. This is who we become. Because your silence is complicit. You may not say that you disagree, but if you're not standing up, is your silence not complicit that you do agree? We have too many lawsuits that have already decided that this is not fair. This is not just and this is not right. And if council less than three years ago was willing to support the war system, council should be even the more to fight with seal to keep it in place and not destroy it. That's all I have to say.

All right. So, we're going to move on now. Uh, I think we've talked a little bit tonight about this, discussed. I think Mr. is right that we need to get some more background, more information, more legal research, and come back to it. But with that, Mr. manager. We're going to push number seven seven out of time. I want you to talk about the trees.

Winter like our street covered trees. Let's go to I need a motion to go into close session. Oh man.