City Commission - workshop

Good evening and welcome to our workshop proposed charter amendments. It's Monday, June 1st, 2026. Clerk was certified a time. Roll call.

Commissioner Irvin. Here. Commissioner Santiago. Present. Vice Mayor Kelly.

I am present on the stand for the invocation followed by the pledge of allegiance. Eternal God, our Father, we thank you for all of your many blessings. We thank you for life, health, and strength. We thank you for the grace of the Opelika. Continue, God, to give us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding of those things which are pleasing in your sight. In Jesus' name we do pray.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you for one that is here. We understand that our mayor and commissioner bass will not be able to make it. We're going to move to public comments. Public comments. We have anyone online.

No, Vice Mayor, we do not.

Okay, thank you. We're going to move into our discussion of potential charter amendments. And I believe, thank you to the clerk and the manager providing information. I know that there's been a couple of workshops regarding proposed charter amendments, both with the Charter Review Board and with the commission. I know one of them I was not able to attend. But there were some information given out and some information that was requested from the manager that is provided in the packet. So we're going to go through it. It is a workshop. So we will just, if you have any questions, we will try to work through it and answer any questions. The bottom line is that I want to point out To my colleagues, if you notice within the document. And I'm pretty sure it's been discussed before the deadlines to submit. Anything to the supervised elections, the charter amendments, or any other questions we see, of course, 1 day, we've already. passed in terms of, well, not passed, we would have passed about June 12th to be on the primary election. And the other one, of course, the general election for November 3rd, no later than Friday, August 21st. The deadline, no later than Friday, July 24th, 2020. six in terms of charter submissions. With that backdrop, Madam Clerk, I would like for you to just remind us again, the process in terms of your requirement to ask a request of the supervised elections. So that is notated as well.

Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Pursuant to state statute, before a municipality can call a special election, we must first request from the supervisor of elections of Miami-Dade County permission and also receive consent from the supervisor of elections in terms of that date. That is a requirement, Vice Mayor.

Okay. Having heard that, so we know not only will we have to pass, but as we request the supervisor of elections as a part of the process. Because I had requested to have the workshop because getting close to the deadlines and requiring two readings by way of ordinance. I did not want to push us into a situation where at the last moment trying to make some decisions, it was the intent of the commission to put any charter amendments on. So I have asked the clerk to kind of list some of the things that have been mentioned in your previous workshops and meetings. And of course, there's something that you want to add or discuss or alter, or otherwise we can entertain that again. We're not voting today. So it is just discussion. There was some various things come up about compensation and obviously health insurance for not only the official, but the families as well. I didn't hear a lot of discussion in the minutes, but I asked the clerk to also include life insurance for elected officials and of course any other related matters that we might think of. So having said that, I'll open up the floor and I'll reserve any comments I may have after I hear from my colleagues since some of you are already weighed in before on some of the items. So the floor is open. Vice Mayor? Commissioner Sandiego?

Thank you. It's only a question to make clear two points that you mentioned about the elation. Do we have to be in August and the Pride May the 1st? And then after that, we're going to November?

No, the date I was referring to was really for qualifying, but that was for candidates. For our purposes, the date and the clerk can correct me would be July the 24th, 2026. If you see it in the package, I think it's on page 35. It's the no later than for submission for charter amendments or any other questions. Madam Clerk, is that correct?

Yes, but just to clarify, just so that Commissioner Santiago has an understanding. So with these proposed charter amendments, we had two options of two upcoming elections. The countywide primary election, which is scheduled for August 18th. However, that deadline to submit programs. for that ballot has passed that deadline was Friday, May 22. And then the second option would be the general election in November. And that deadline for us is July 24.

Let me we're going to November.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay. The real question, because we know the dates, because that's proposed, we can't change that. The real question is what we want to see, if anything, in those charter amendments. That's really the question, because that has to be framed. Obviously, we have to come back and vote on it, two votes, and then put it before the other process. So the reason we're here today is to try to determine what, if any, charter amendments we want. on the proposed ballot that would take place in November. That's the real discussion. Or maybe we just want to leave it as is. We want to leave it as is then. You don't have to say anything.

Well, you say to leave it like that.

No, no, no. No, I'm saying we don't want to make any changes and we don't have to do anything. But I'm going by the discussion that was had previously by the child review board, their recommendations and the joint workshop that the commission had where. It was weighed in by some of my colleagues, because I wasn't here at the time, on proposed changes. So the workshop was designed to kind of refine whatever that's going to be so the attorney could work on whatever that will come back before us to actually vote on. But if we don't want to change anything, then we can leave it as it is. So that's the real purpose of the workshop, because we can't just go into a meeting without having some kind of direction or giving the attorney what to put on that can be sent down to the supervised election.

But before we do any decision today, I know that we're not voting, but can we learn a little bit more about the benefits that you're talking about before for you asking for life insurance for the elected official?

Okay. I want to ask a question. It's kind of the same as his question, but I think it's for the manager. We are considered employees. Does the employees of the city, they have a life insurance policy that's paid for by the city?

That is correct.

Okay. So we would, if we, decide to add the life insurance policy for us, then we will fall under whatever it is that you all do for them? Yes. The same thing? Yes. Okay. So the city employees, Commissioner Santiago, they have a life insurance policy that's paid for the city, paid by the city. So if we decided that we wanted life insurance to be an option, then we would receive the same benefit that they're already getting.

The city is going to pay for us. To be clear, I'm not a manager. Well... Same benefits.

Like any regular... Currently, the city of Opelika's employees receive, everybody receives $50,000 life insurance benefit that's paid for by the city. That's the discussion that's here today, if the city commission will also be getting that same benefit. That wasn't previously discussed, but it's coming up today.

Is there any reason that we can not get that type of coverage? If I heard my college say that we are a city employment too, it means we're supposed to have the same rights.

As it stands now, the commission doesn't get any of those benefits. So that's why the discussion is coming up today to see if that's going to be included in the compensation. Before we have it. Yes. They took it away from us. Yes.

Now you don't have that. So that's why it's up for discussion. And... I don't want to say that, but I believe my colleagues, we are the only elected official in the whole county, Dade County and probably Broward County too, that we don't have any of these benefits. And we're serving the community.

That's why we're here now, to make sure it's included in the charter. Okay.

To my colleagues, you know, since we jumped to the life over the insurance, if you notice page 56, page 56, because I had the manager to add the actual cost into the document. And as mentioned, if we do the basic, if they do the basic life, which the employees have, which is the $50,000, you see the cost that it is. for us so it's listed there and as an employee if you notice the annual costs and the annual cost per employee really is minimal I think that's important and that's why I want to add it because when you serve in this capacity and you serve for eight or whatever years And as it stands now with minimal compensation, but nothing for your family in terms of life benefits, if something should happen to you while you're here, I think that's a disservice. And it's not a big cost, in my opinion, on the budget. And since we're listed as employees, that cost would just be factored into the budget process. So that is why I wanted to make sure. That was added in, so you see the numbers for that and you also see the numbers for health. dental and all of the others because i want all of that included because that had been part of the previous discussion if you notice uh and again madam uh manager if you could just elaborate to the commission because they're really four tiers um in terms of the coverages uh what it would mean for um the commission if that were to pass i mean we were to elect to go that route are we on the insurance portal okay so

EE only would be the employee only, which would mean the elected official only. EE and spouse would be if the elected official chose to include their spouse. EE and child, if the elected official chose the elected official and one child. And family, if the elected official chose themselves, their spouse, and kids. So that would be the family cost.

And if I may ask, Vice Mayor.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

So this is me and my husband, but let's say that I chose family because it's more than so. I will be responsible for a certain part of this cost as well. Am I correct? That's correct. Which would be OK. Okay. I just wanted to make sure.

To be very clear, what part would we assume?

The city will pay for the elected official, the same as they do for the employees. All employees are paid for under the city. If you choose to add spouse, child, or family, and that was a discussion during the Charter Review Board meeting, that that portion is supposed to come from the elected officials.

Come from where?

From the elected official.

Okay. Well, there was two different discussions. One was to come from an increase in salary. The other one was to just come from the elected official. And again, that's why we're here, because that's the discussion that needs to take place to give direction to the manager and the attorney. So I don't know how my colleagues feel, if you want to weigh in now, because it was two different proposals. One was, of course, insurance only, which the city pays now for employees, as she said, spouse, child, family, and the elected official would pay the balance after the 6-39-55, correct?

Correct.

OK. And the other discussion that was had was that if you increase the commission's salary to a thousand, then the insurance would come out of the thousand. That was part of discussion, too, because I read through it because I wasn't here. No, it's in there. That's a part of your minutes. That's what I wanted to put in there. That's what was discussed. Of course, I'm not a fan of that, but that was discussed. But the commission can decide whatever it wants to bring forth, but we need to decide on whatever it is and bring it forth. So I'd like to hear. Whatever thoughts, I'm quite sure management needs to know because they're preparing the budget and whatever's going to be encompassed needs to be in the budget process. I will just say, I'm sorry, go ahead, Commissioner. I would just say at the minimum, at the minimum, cover the elected official at the minimum. And then at the maximum, the spouse. That's just me. And I'm only saying that because if you look at the annual costs and the monthly rate, and if you do all five, it does jump up there. But I definitely believe you ought to cover at least each of us. But if you cover us, you know, each of us and the spouse, you can see that number to the right because that's the total number for all five of us. But that's just my thoughts. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the health, dental, vision, because they're all right there in packets. Commissioner Irvin?

Well, what I was going to say, I know there was some concern. There was some chatter about... with the increase that we got, they would take our portion out of the increase. I don't agree with that at all. Um, I'm okay if they only, I know, um, some of the employees, I think it was just police or is it that the spouse also get covered or that's, or that's the whole city. All employees have that option, but they have to pay that difference. Right. So that's what I was, but with the police, they pay the difference too, or it's free.

Yes. Okay.

Okay. So I'm okay with it being, um, elected officials, the city covering us. And if we want to bring our spouses in, then we pay the difference for our spouses. I don't, I don't want anything to be done for us that is not being done for the employees. Um, That's my two cents. If we're already doing it for the employees and we are employee, I accept it, but not Don't do it for us and we're not doing it for other employees. So if we get covered under the insurances and then we want to pay for our spouses to receive the same benefits, then we should pay just like the other employees. So let me, if I may, can I add to that?

So for employees, the city pays 100% for the employee. If they have dependents, the city still pays a portion. The city pays 50% for their dependent. Okay, hold on.

Could you define dependents so everybody knows?

So if they choose spouse, the city pays half of that for their spouse. Employee and child, we pay half. Family, we pay half for their dependents.

And that's why I wanted to clarify that because Commissioner Irvin is correct. I feel the same way. We want the same thing, but reality is the city's already paying half for you know, the child or the spouse, whatever. So they're actually getting more. People don't even realize that, that we're probably one of the few cities that pay half of the dependent or whatever. So that's why I want you to clarify that when you say dependent. So we're paying that now for employees. That's correct. Yes. Okay.

Hold on for a second.

Go ahead, Commissioner Sandy.

No, I follow Commissioner Irving. And let me tell you that you say something that is right. I'm going to feel comfortable if we're going to have the same treatment to the other regular employment. But now I heard something different, that they pay half of the benefits for the children as a sponsor. You see, now we're getting in something that is not equal for us. That we're supposed to have the same benefits like them. That's why we're here. So the commission can direct us on which path we're on. I only want to make clear that we're not even yet. Because if they get that, why we don't have it too?

Vice mayor.

Yes.

So I agree. Commissioner Santiago. That's why I was saying to the mayor, I meant to the manager, whatever it is that they do for employees, then we will get the same treatment, the same benefit. So if I want to add my husband, then I'll pay his half and the city will pay the other half. However, it stands right now for employees. I don't know. Cause we never had the benefits. So, I don't know, but that would be my suggestion.

Yeah, and let me make that point, Vice Mayor and my colleague, Commissioner Irving. We don't think about the manager today about who is here now. for futures, people that coming in and everything, it have to be the same thing. Like me, I'm here because this is something that I have to know and sharing with my colleagues. When that thing coming to all, we know what we're gonna do. Myself, I'm fine because I already over 65. Year old. And I receive what they call it Medicare. I'm free, you know, for that type of coverage that the city pay. But it's people coming that they're going to need it. Here. And that's what we're here. And we want to be sure that they be treating or we be treating the same thing like the other ones. Same thing.

Okay, let me let me say 1 of the reasons why I wanted to host and convene a workshop, because we do need to clarify all of those points and make a decision. And the other thing is for the future, because there will be folks coming along. But if you were to ask someone now, some up and coming. individual who may be interested in public service, there's no way they can take care of their family and give to this position without something other than just what we're getting now. And a part of that would be insurance. A part of that would be dental and vision, especially if they got children. And that's why it's important, I believe, for us to put something on the ballot so the voters would approve. So folks coming after us, even though we might be getting older or established, can take care of ourselves. But there might be somebody who's 30, 40, got a family, would like to give public service, but nobody can do it, and not have any... benefits coming, whether it's insurance, whether it's dental, whether it's vision, whatever. And that's why it's so important that we put something in place or at least propose something to the voters. And so I would just suggest or since we seem to be along the same lines by the manners, you could just in a nutshell for what the employees get, because that's what we're hearing. What you do for the employees now, what would that look like for all of us? In other words, if you did the employee plus spouse for dental, same thing for, I guess, vision, what would that total be? What would that amount be? Because that's what you'd be looking at. I mean, I can look at it. In a sense, if I had time to add all the numbers, but that's the real cost that you would be looking at from a budgetary standpoint, correct? That's correct. Okay.

It's correct, but we still won't be able to give an actual number because everybody may choose something different. So we still can't give a hard number because one may just want themselves, one may want a family. So we won't be able to give you an exact number right now.

Right. No, no, I wasn't saying if someone were to pick, let's say the family, I'm saying definitely employee and the spouse. Yes. What that number would be obviously, someone decided to go for a higher range. They could and in the future, this should pass and be part of our process. And whoever coming in would have that same option, but they will at least know what it is. But in terms of the cost of how to do it, because. This is proposed for the upcoming budget. So you would basically have to do it based on the five sitting here now, which obviously could change. So then you'd have to... come back or make some kind of adjustments. But based on the five here now and our current status, whatever it is, that's what you have to base the budget on. Yeah, okay. All right, so here is the discussion. I want to behold just like the employees would be obviously with the option. So to get that final number, I guess you would speak to us individually. to find out what we would like per se. Um, and then that will give you a base total.

Yes, definitely.

Okay. Um, so to my colleagues, and of course you will make sure, uh, the mayor and commissioner Bass gets it. Madam clerk will make sure they get the minutes. Okay. And, and, um, To the turning or let me do this last part, because I want to kind of leave here with some some real structure. So we got the insurance and families. I think the life insurance, I kind of weighed in. I don't know if my colleagues weighed in along the same thing, being whole like employees. I thought I heard that, too.

Did I hear that correct? Yeah, they have the same benefits.

I don't want to speak for you. Okay, so those are taken care of. The compensation, again, there was discussion about moving it to $1,000, but having whatever insurance come out of it, I'm definitely not for that. As my colleague mentioned, I've never been for that. So my... thought process is to raise it to the thousand, but it's just, that's just salary, not tied to insurance coming out or anything else. That's just my thoughts. I'd like to hear from my colleagues so we can be on the same page or give some consensus on how to manage to move forward.

Vice mayor. Yes. I do not. I mean, if, if we chose a plan that cost over, then we'll be like employees that money comes out of their check. But if I'm just going with myself, then my check should be a thousand dollars wrap a minus, um, whatever uncle saying bits and his sister, social security and whatnot. Um, So yeah, I totally agree with just the $1,000 per month.

Commissioner Santiago?

I agree with the same idea for the $1,000 raise. But it's a little question to the manager. Okay, for that salary that we're going to receive for the $1,000, we're going to have deductible for the taxes from there.

Yes.

And that's okay with us, no?

Yeah, the taxes, well, that's automatic.

Yeah. That's automatic.

We can't get around that, but nothing would come out of it other than taxes. Okay. The other discussion was insurance possibly coming out of it.

I agree, sir. I agree with the idea.

Okay. So the proposed compensation, I'm just trying to kind of give these so the attorney can weigh in if she has to weigh in at some point. And my colleagues, I'm just trying to tell them it's $1,000. Just trying to get a consensus. Any discussion on any of that, Commissioner?

Vice Mayor, we're saying only taxes, but if we make a choice where we have to pay $200 or $300 for our spouse, then that would come out of our check, correct? No. How else would the city, because the city got to get paid for it. They don't be paying half.

No, Camish. Hold on, hold on. He's getting excited down here when you say take his money. Commissioner Irvin is asking a question because that's the way it kind of came up in the discussion of it coming out of the $1,000. I think that was proposed by the Charter Review Board. Now, that doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but she's asking the question, would it come out of that $1,000? But we're not talking about the insurance for us. I know, you're talking about the spouse or family.

Right, because if you all are saying that you want the same as the employees, that's what it is for the employees. I would need some guidance from you all as to which way you want to go. Just the way you do the employees. Say it again, I'm sorry. I said you all said that you want to do it the same way that we do the employees. The employees pay a portion for their dependents. Right. I would need some guidance from the elected officials on if you want it to be like that or you don't want it. I don't know. Because you said you wanted the same with employees. That's how we do it for the employees. They pay a portion.

So it comes out of the check. Yes. Okay. So the thousand, okay, it goes to a thousand and you pick the, I'm just using the example here. This is dental. Yeah. The employee and spouse. And I'm looking at dental. That 2285 would come out of the thousand. Yes. That's what you're saying. Yes. Okay.

Only half of that.

No, I'm just using dental now. I'm just using dental.

Oh, yeah, but it will be half of that.

I mean, that would be the spouse. Half of that, which would be 12, whatever. Right. That's what we paid. And go to the big one because that's really the one. Yeah. Which is the medical. So you did the spouse. Okay. And it's 12, 79, 10. Okay. The city pays half, so that's six.

Yes.

Okay. So if we go to 1,000. That means 600 is coming out of the 1,000.

No. We would pay the 639 for the employee, the elected official, and half for the spouse. So we'd be responsible for the remaining half.

And what's the remaining half?

Half of the 639.

Half of the 639, which would be whatever that is.

Yes. Okay.

334 and 50 cents. And if you go to the family, it just goes the same way. Okay. How it breaks down, I mean, I don't know the exact numbers, but I don't have a problem with that. Just to be clear, that's how it works. Again, you have to see what plan all of us want.

And after I meet with each of you individually, we can give you those numbers so you'll know exactly what it is, what it would look like.

Okay. All right. And just for a futuristic thinking positive, the voters vote for it. It's approved. But of course, it's going to maybe change because of November. Anybody coming in then would have to initially be based on that or just have your amendment or you do something budgetary wise to adjust.

They'll be able to elect their support. Right.

And then you make a budgetary amendment.

Right.

Okay. All right. Having...

I heard all that. We're on the same page now. Oh, go ahead, Commissioner. Well, no, we are. But now it's coming, you know, news, you know, like about that $600 and something dollars, you know, cut it in half. It's going to come out from our check and everything. We're going to be almost in the same situation because of it. Commissioner Irving had to bring his sponsor, you know, your husband in, and I had to bring my wife for you. Okay, we're going to have less of the money that we're supposed to have. Okay, now we're not talking about $1,000 minus the taxes, minus the insurance or whatever. We're going to have almost the same thing, like $600 every month. You know, what I... I think... I don't know if we can change that $1,000 by vice mayor here or give you an opinion that I have.

Give you an opinion. That's why it's a workshop. We're not voting. Give me your opinion.

I believe to make the team more comfortable, that $1,000 is supposed to be $1,500 a month, and that we can count it with the discount that we're going to have for the insurance.

So you would suggest instead of $1,000 per month that it go to $1,500 per month?

Yes, sir.

Okay. So therefore, that total for five would be whatever it'd be times 12. Okay. And what would that be?

Yeah. You got five minutes. Whoa, wait a minute. We're fine.

You got many people here to count that.

Yeah, yeah. We counting the license is very expensive right now.

The compensation will be $90,000. The what now? $90,000. Okay, so it'll be $90,000 with a compensation side at $1,500 a piece.

$1,500 a piece, it'll be $90,000.

Mr. San Diego was saying, which I kind of understand what he's saying, by the time you take out insurance... especially if you get the family, even with a spouse, you're at about $300. So you're kind of back to even. So he's proposing $1,500. So you would be getting some conversation. I guess the question becomes, is the health benefits more important or not important, but more succinct than the $1,000 as is, and you just go do whatever you're doing with insurance. I mean, that really comes to question. So we know it's $90,000 if you go to $1,500. Okay. And... insurance then obviously you'd have a little more that you would have on your check. Even if you were treated as employees with the minus. Okay. Uh, let me ask the question attorney and then commissioner Irvin, I see your hand. So I don't know if that's a, you know, I'm good at seeing those body language.

Um, I guess my, my, my question probably will be one for the attorney too, but yeah, I'm headed to the attorney so you can bring your behind mine.

Okay. Um, How language-wise, and I've seen the language in previous Howard's words, shall, whatever, I guess the question becomes the number side of it. Would the language kind of read shall, whatever, and have the numbers laid out, or is it more just the wording or verbiage?

To answer your question, instead of the $1,000 per month. That's in the draft right now. It will be $1,500 a month is what I'm understanding you all saying. So it would just change to $1,500, but everything else would remain the same in terms of the compensation side.

Okay. So just the wording of that amount.

Yes, sir.

Okay. And in terms of the Insurance, because again, it's going to depend, I guess, on all of us, which plan, but from a general standpoint.

The insurance would have some language to the effect of the same as, and I'm not sure how I'll word it right now, but basically the same as that afforded to regular employees of the city.

Okay, now the thing is, because the one that's in the book, I guess it was semi, or not semi, but it was proposed, dealing with the compensation, but also taking the money out of the health insurance, whatever, that language would still say the same thing?

From what I'm hearing, that's not what you, at least the majority here, would want. You all don't want to see that. So, no, that language would not be in there. It would just have language to the effect of the insurance would be afforded to elected officials, the mayor and all other city commissioners, to the same extent as regular city employees.

So that would be a separate...

That would be a separate ordinance, yes.

Separate ordinance. Okay. All right. Let me yield now. Commissioner Irvin had a question for you as well. Commissioner Irvin.

I just wanted to know, since the Charter Review Board came up with the amount and whatnot, do we have to go back through them? No.

No, you do not. It is an advisory board of commission. And so you are considering their recommendations, but you are free to change in any way that you feel appropriate.

Okay. I just wanted to know. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Did you have a question for the attorney?

No, no, I think we're okay with that two changes that we make. And reminding the same thing, like we're going to have the same treatment, like the regular employment is fine.

Okay, so the language would be $1,500 instead of $1,000, and then it would be a separate... recommendation or charter amendment, I guess, for the insurance and that part, which you would obviously put together the language. But again, would it have that amount or would just say insurance as employees currently get?

The latter. Yes.

The latter. The latter. So it wouldn't have an amount.

No, it wouldn't be an amount because you don't know what the amount is. But you all could, if you wanted to, you could say up to an amount of blank.

No, I don't want to put amount in there at all.

If you don't do that, we'll just say afford it.

And I'm going to just say this. You're the attorney, so I know you will word it legal sufficiency. As much as it can say, like other black employees... So it's known we're not getting something more.

That's exactly what it will say.

Yeah, okay. So it doesn't get appearance, we're getting more than employees are getting. We're along the same lines. I think that would be it sufficient for that. So even though we got them separated into like five bullet points, I think the reality is they will come down to really two at this point, correct? Two proposed charter amendments. Okay, in terms of the, well, before I ask my last questions, any other related matters or anything else before I give my last comment and allow colleagues? I just want to kind of make sure, because I always like to lead workshops with a structure and some kind of plan. So the concept would be, The manager would meet with us on the insurance and all that, get those numbers, get what I preference, put that in some kind of, not some kind, put that in a package. Obviously, the attorney would weigh in if need be. But I don't, that's not your area. Not the numbers, not the numbers. I get that. But once that's done, you're going to be working on the language for the actual charter application. Okay, and then the other 1 would be just the compensation, which kind of mirrors what's already here. All right, so those would be the 2. Polls and the time frames, madam clerk. I know the man is going to meet with everybody. I don't know how quickly my goal as I mentioned the clerk was trying to have the 1st reading by the 1st, no, the 2nd meeting in June. And then the 1st, the 2nd meeting. The first meeting in July will be the last one. That would give us, give the clerk enough time way ahead of the 24th deadline of July. And I want to get that clarified. Would that give you enough time, Madam Clerk?

If I may. So in looking at the draft legislation in the packet, it's actually a resolution. So it's my understanding that a resolution will not require two readings. And Bernadette, the city attorney, can chime in.

Right. A resolution will not require two readings. In most cities, it is done as an ordinance, but I don't think that's required for the city of Opa-locka.

Well, I was basing it on most of them are done by ordinance, so it gives the public a chance to weigh in, so it's not seen as something that's under the rug, as they say, because it was only a resolution and nobody knew. So that's the only reason I said the ordinance, because it requires two readings, public notice, public can speak, et cetera, as opposed to three minutes they may get. I mean, it could go either way. That's just my preference for... transparency so it can't be said that you know we didn't know this was coming or whatever um again to my colleagues that's up to to um us i i can do it either way but i don't want the public to think like we passed resolution to put us on the uh to the voters as they say and they had no real input because they wasn't here for that resolution of course the ordinance requires two readings public notice and gives a little more I just want to make sure whichever way we're doing it, that it meets enough timeframe for the clerk to submit to the supervisor elections. So to my colleagues, can I hear your thoughts?

Yes, sir. You want to start first? Oh, thank you. We'll be dealing with this situation already like from the beginning of the year. I'm not making a mistake, Madam Clerk.

Yes.

Yes. OK. And and like the recommendation for the city attorney about this is not a first or second reading. That's a resolution.

That's not the recommendation. I can't hear you. I said that's not a recommendation. I just said I don't know that that's necessarily a requirement in Opelika. Yeah, we follow you. I'll take a look at it.

Yes, but we follow you. But what I need to let you know, Macaulay, is uh i don't know if we're going to require the manager after uh this uh resolution or ordinance pass if this is have to go through the state oh okay that's time there too let's keeping that in mind because after we pass it into the two meetings first reading second reading and the second reading is going to be uh the first meeting of july In July. What day do you like? Because we are July 4th. They are closed. Uh... Second meeting of July is going to be what, the 10th, 11th, 12th?

We have July 8th and July 22nd.

Okay, July is the first meeting in July. Okay. And the time limit that we have is July 24th. Correct. Okay. Yes, thinking about that we're going to have that in the middle, the state, you know, to wait for their approval. Okay. It's me. Myself, I think people know about that already from the beginning of the year or the meeting the community have, and they agree with that. And I think we already be talking about that before. It's me. The community outside, they know what's going on, and they're going to have it in the ballot to make the decision yes or no. Problem, I don't think that we be clear and transparent. My recommendation is to go only, you know, like for the second meeting of this month to bring that resolution to the table, like that we have time to send it to the state and get it in that ballot.

Okay, I don't have a problem with that, but be very clear. The community is not really waiting because you've had workshops. You haven't had any meetings. And as you see now, nobody's even here. And from the other workshop, you didn't really have a lot of folks. I just want to follow whatever the requirement is, because I'm not sure if the attorney saying it only requires a resolution. Well, I.

In fact, I just shared some language with Joanna. I think you should do it as an ordinance. And I think it looks like that's the way to do it. So Joanna has some dates in mind. That's what I said on first names. That's what y'all said last. Yeah. Dates and minds that she can she can share with you.

Okay, I don't technically really have a problem with the resolution. I just know for so the public has ample time because they're not really waiting. We've not really pushed to say be here for this or had any town hall or it hasn't really been discussed about it. I just want to make sure from a legal standpoint, if a resolution is all it takes. I don't have a problem with that, but I still think the July 8th meeting, if it passes, because the state is fully aware, they watch all our meetings anyway, it will still have time to go to them. But more importantly, that the clerk would have time to get to the supervisor of elections. That's really my major concern, that we meet that deadline. So I'll, in terms of, you can let us know, Madam Attorney. your legal opinion should be ordinance versus resolution. My colleague has weighed in. He thinks it should just be a resolution, and if that suffices, the commission can go that route. If you say it's an ordinance, then obviously that way. I think either way, I just want to make sure we meet the deadlines properly, but I also want to make sure we give the public as much notice as we can to weigh in on it. Um, just to not say, like, they feel like we kind of didn't know we're having this at 530. Some of the other workshops was with the chart review or people may not have fully been, even though they're hearing about it. But I go either way. I just want to make sure that your legal opinion is resolution is fine versus ordinance. You can let us know individually. Commissioner Irvin.

Well, I just want us to do whatever it is. It will be nice if we can bring it back to the commission in that July 8th meeting. That way it gives us a couple, a couple more weeks for it to go travel abroad, Florida and back and whatnot, you know? So that's what I'm for. I'm for whatever is going to get us, get it on our July 8th meeting.

And I think to that, and I know the manager can weigh in if she likes. I know historically we have major – not major. We have financial situations. We kind of run about a state in advance. It's not like something they don't know about. So if there's some – challenges. I'm quite sure it'd be known prior to, but either way it go, I think July eight, uh, madam clerk, excuse me, if it comes back to the commission, if we do go ordinance, uh, would be sufficient time for you to get a supervised elections. I don't think the state's gonna take that long to weigh in.

Vice Mayor, if I may. So if it does require an ordinance and based on the language that the city attorney just showed me in the charter, that's what we're leaning towards. So our recommendation would be to do first reading at the June 24th meeting and second reading final adoption at the July 8th meeting. That way it will give us that time to be able to submit to the state for approval and also to be timely to the supervisor of elections by their deadline as well.

Okay. Question. Commissioner Santiago.

Okay. Let's go back. with the time that we have to submit it to the election department out there, and the time that we're going to have also to send it to the state to be approved, you say that we're going to do the first reading, if that's an ordinance, the 24th of this month. First reading. Now the second reading is going to be the 8th.

July 8th.

July 8th. Okay. Passing in the second reading is already passed. We don't have to bring it back.

That's correct. All we have to do is submit it to the state for approval. Once we get that approval, then we go ahead and submit it to the elections department. And we're hoping to have that all done prior to July 24th, which is a supervisor of elections.

It is going to be enough time to submit it to them and submitted it to the state because the problem, I don't want to lose the chance to bring in now in November 4th, because if it's not, we had to wait for the 28th.

I think what you're hearing, he's asking, based on what the clerk is saying, to answer your question, yes, I don't want to speak for her, but based on what she said, that would meet the requirements and be sufficient of time. That's what he's asking. I mean, I know you can't say it was a perfect world, but...

So vice mayor, I would say yes. However, I would recommend what you stated earlier, vice mayor, that we communicate to the state prior to. This is legislation that we anticipate and we would appreciate approval ASAP or whatever so that we can get it to the super. And I'm sure Ms. Lawson can submit something like that to the state.

Well, that's why I mentioned it, because I know we've had other things. They're always watching anyway, especially with infrastructure things. So I'll let the manager weigh in, because she would know those numbers anyway.

And that's a guarantee that you can do that, or they're still going to...

Passing it's not guaranteed, but what we can do, and we have did it in the past, we would send them the draft legislation before the meeting, letting them know that it's going to be presented to the city commission for consideration and ask them upon approval of the city commission. Once we send it to them, if they can review it on an expedited basis, if they can take it out of the order and just review that 1 to get it back to us. As soon as possible.

And they have did that in the past. Okay, but we don't have any warranty about that. And I know when the state see all these changes that we're doing tonight to passing, they're going to start, you know, to asking question about, well, the Spencer that we're going to, extra Spencer.

Well, as part of the discussion we're going to have with the ordinance, that's what we're going to have to discuss. That's why we have a workshop. The manager will give us the numbers of what it equals or what it totals, and that's why you have the two ordinances, or whichever comes back, I'm going to say ordinance, that would come before us. Not only would the public get to weigh in, but we would get to weigh in. Maybe after seeing the numbers, we might decide something different. My biggest thing is whatever we're going to do, we need to move on doing it because we're right up against the deadline of anything to happen in this particular election cycle where we don't have to pay for it. We're already piggybacking, but if we tried to do this on an off election and had to pick up the costs, that's even more. Whatever we're going to do, I would prefer, for example, to have this on the August ballot, but we didn't get it there, so here we are now. I just want to give some consensus, and I'm quite sure they're going to be watching now. The manager can reach out. Usually, I would say probably have the mayor to reach out to the state as well and see if there are any concerns. But as you get the numbers, you meet with us to see what our totals are. The attorney will do her due diligence. The clerk will do hers. If something else changes, let us know. But I think that gives us enough time to do what needs to be done to get it before the voters, and hopefully they would approve it. That's my final comments. My colleagues, any final comments, and we'll be done.

Last question for the city attorney about the two auctions that we're presenting to you. Are you already putting out of the side of the way to doing it in a resolution? Or you want to make a little story about that and come back and let us know?

I already have the language in mind, and I can do it fairly quickly.

Okay, yeah. Well, you're going to bring him in an ordinance, not in a resolution. Well.

He's asking that question, I guess.

Oh, okay. Let's see what happens. Let's count it, you know, like we're going to have enough time to bring that in the ballot in November.

Yes, that's the discussion you all just had, I think, though.

Okay. Okay.

Madam clerk, anything else? Madam manager, anything else that needs to be asked or any concerns? Because I try to want to leave here with a consensus so that you will have what you need to do to formulate legislation and get it back for us before us and the public.

So not at this time. I don't have anything.

Not this time. Okay. All right. Hearing nothing else, motion to adjourn. Move it. Move it by Commissioner Sandiego, Commissioner Irvin is second. This workshop is adjourned. The clerk will certify the time. Thank you very much.