Village Council - Regular Meeting

No, no, she's got two buttons. Is that it? Isabel?

Do you want to say hi again? On the other side where it plugs into the desk, there might be a switch over there.

Over there, right there where the XLR is. See it? It was on. Okay.

No, no, no, no. It should be. It's on. Do you want to say hi, visibility?

Oh, we don't hear it through the AV system. Oh, are we back?

Here Here At this point in time it's order of business are there any additions deletions and deferrals I Have one I would like to run by since Parks Department has Is that okay with the rest of council we're just swapping the parks to go before the pension talk Okay, it's 11 a to just basically swap numbers. I mean 10 becomes 11 11 times 10, but I mean If you want to move it that we're fine with that too if you want to do that If we're drone for expediting I'll believe that all right yep, so then it would be a Item 11a, right after, right with the consent agenda. All those in favor, aye. Aye.

We just want to move the parks framework and parks department up right after consent agenda. Okay. Is that okay? Yes. Okay. All right. Madam Clerk. Thank you. So it's item 5A. Thank you.

No. Okay, great. Madam Clerk. The, out of the parks, the parks would like to change the amount of, members as they expire so that they could have quorum. So I think it's a nine-member board right now per the memo, and then the first step is to take it down to seven as they term out. It's a report. It was a report from the head of the Parks Department Advisory Board.

Okay. Do you want us to do? It would be later, though.

When we were going over boards and committees, did the parks, have we touched the whole ordinance for parks? Yeah. I mean, there's so many. There's 13, I think, that we're trying to tackle here. I don't think we've done a part.

No, on the record, it would be, in my opinion, is to give the attorney direction that we want to amend the ordinance, I guess, for how many members there are. That's my opinion. That's what's the recommendation. We're having problems in the village of getting volunteerism, and I think any time that we, if the sitting board that's been there for a while sees a problem and then brings it to us, I know that we ran across this, but then the reality of the situation is IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO STAFF ALL THESE BOARDS.

YES. THROUGH THE CHAIR, WHEN IS THE NEXT TIME THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SEATS OPENED UP ON THE BOARD?

How many of those four are expired terms and I know at least one of them is somebody who resigned right?

When you say we have four seats that are coming up, are – Those are four seats that are currently all filled, or some of those are currently empty?

Okay. So, I mean, I would be in support of, you know, yeah, bringing it down to two seats that we have to fill instead of four. That would do. Yeah.

I think the council has consensus on that, Madam Clerk, and also Madam Attorney.

This is a public hearing at this point in time in the meeting. The meeting is open for public comments. It's a three-minute time limit, and it's usually a general comment at this point in time, or if it's item-specific and then the item comes up, you just can't do the comment again during the item. Seeing as there's no public comment or hearing then, are there any e-comments from today?

No e-comments. Next item is the consent agenda.

I have a motion. Second. There's a motion and a second. All in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Next item. We move.

After adoption of this, just recommended next steps if we adopt the resolution. If Ryan can...

No, well, it just would have been nice. This is why we moved it up to not spend some time with him.

Okay, I'd appreciate that. Yeah, in the corner it says click to join audio.

Isn't it telling us to click that? Why don't we click that? I don't think you did. Where's the good news?

Yeah, go for it. We're testing workplaces, what we're doing here, right? This is a Microsoft thing?

Just next steps. No, I want to have a little discussion about it.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Are there any other questions or comments for him?

I don't have a question or a comment for him, but I just want to, through the chair, just want to say we spent a good amount of money on this. We spent a lot of time working on this and waiting for this. And I think that we really got to decide what exactly... going to do with this now because, I mean, I'm sure we have all had our personal conversations with people in the community about the direction of this. We have talked oftentimes about being a bold council that's going to get us to the next steps of things. So I just would hate more than anything for us to have done all this awesome work

I'll take the time right now for doing it. It's 18 months that we've been working on this. Moving forward, realistically, I've asked residents had pushed and see, you know, how this works. And it's like, well, the earliest this could go for referendum would be November for the midterm election. But if you look at the village's timeline for that and even the requirements for Dade County for getting an item on a ballot, That would be pretty difficult to do and a little bit rushed in my opinion We do have the opportunity that we have elections a special election in April of 2027 and what we shoul

Through the chair, if I may? First, let me say I... Well, I didn't really know what to expect, but I was very pleasantly surprised with this. It included a lot of things that were discussed along the way that, you know, I felt were maybe like, you know, real aspirational like pipe dream kind of stuff and I was really thrilled to see them included in this plan. There was some things included that I wasn't really expecting this plan to tackle like the mobility and street access and all that kind of stuff. I think that work was phenomenal. I really have been looking forward to hearing from my col

No, but I think it's made clear, that last one, the deferred maintenance on everything, the demand that the residents want, and it's been obviously the first crack at this in the past 50 years was 2016. We saw why that did not pass. that was just a project and one of the things we've learned from being on this council is that the village does have a plan and first step is adopting this resolution that we're adopting the plan the phase part of it is definitely I mean that was presented to us that it was in phases what I would also like to put out there is also how other communities are dealing

like to do the chair piggyback a little bit off what both of you said i think that um you know normally and we all have different groups of residents some overlap some are our own groups that we talk to regularly but normally when something comes out that the village is not happy with or don't see a path forward for our residents are very responsive and i love that about our community and i'll tell you this time and now Maybe I just haven't had those conversations yet, but I didn't get a ton of pushback after this report came out. I think a lot of great things were addressed. I definitely want

Yeah, I'd like to make just a couple quick comments. When I talk to residents, there's significant demand for the overhaul of our parks and recreation. My only concern would be trying to tackle the funding and implementation of all the projects at once. So I concur with my colleague about perhaps a segmented approach of identifying the biggest wins that we can produce with a master plan and maybe building those and funding those first?

It's a resolution. There's a motion to approve the resolution. Second. It is a public meeting. Is there a public comment? Hearing as there's none or seeing there's none. There's a motion on the table to approve the resolution.

There's a motion and a second. Do you want to read the resolution so that, or do you want me to read it? I'll read it.

You can read about, can we approve it with the caveat that one of the next steps will be establishing that timeline for the next meeting for us?

I think we give direction. I don't know if that's part of this actual resolution. I think that would be a separate.

I think that would be a separate, you know, to rewrite this. I think you're correct in that. I think this is the first step was, If you get over this hump, then the next one. Okay. And because of the timeline, there's a definitive timeline of it's less than a year. Yeah. And then we also take, and we take August off, so. It's going to come quick. Yes. So, just again, the same thing that I did with the infographic for the management company switching out. I did that previous July. So, I think we just do the same thing with that. And there are dates that have to be hit. that we haven't done as a

But she can't hear now. Maybe we should speak more into our speakers.

Just lower it down to the bottom part of the phone. Just lower it down to the bottom part of the phone. That's where the speaker is.

Thank you, Mr. Nunez. This is a public hearing. Are there any public comments at this time?

Are there any other public comments at this time? Council discussion? Second reading, no council discussion. Is there a motion?

There's a motion and a second. All those in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Madam Clerk.

Before council discussion, it's a public meeting. Is there any public comment on this?

Through the chair. I have the same questions that actually we just heard. I kind of feel like, you know, I'm in the twilight zone here. This is, feels like a 180 of what we asked for. If I recall correctly, we asked for a solution That can be applied to everybody and not just a one-off for an individual. And we were also concerned that the previous proposal seemed to go beyond the, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like it's the same as it was before in the sense that we're giving Mrs. Olsen Mr. Olsen's benefits rather than the benefits of a beneficiary. Does that make sense? And is that w

THE QUESTION I'M ASKING IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS THE BENEFITS THAT MR. OLSON WOULD HAVE GOTTEN ON RETIREMENT. I'M ASKING IF THE BENEFITS WE'RE GIVING TO MRS. OLSON ARE THE BENEFITS THAT SHE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED as a beneficiary rather than just, it seems like these are the benefits that Mr. Olsen would have gotten on retirement. But that was not our intent. Our intent was to have her get what she would have gotten had Mr. Olsen, for example, let's say passed away the day after retirement.

So we calculated what his benefit earned through his date of death was, or through the day before he died. That's fine for what you calculated, but those aren't the same numbers that you have in front of us, though. Because you're pushing it up to the 30 years of service.

But that's him, again, to Council Member Walensky's point, is that's his benefit. And we don't – there's a bunch of unknowns, and what's presented before us is not what we asked for. I can tell you that right now because the thing is there's a lot of assumptions here.

about what this is a death benefit. We had it for 50 years, A and B, and now there's a C, and you used the word carved out. I don't think we up here ever said the word carved out. And it's an ordinance that you're making it for, and like Ms. Keiley said, We gave direction if we're discussing this and this is what the pension board should have been discussing is how does the current employees that we have plus if we're looking at death benefit, we're looking at death benefit. This case should have been part of that but there's other solutions other than changing the ordinance. You were going wi

That isn't what they were directed to do. yeah I mean that was the board the board's discussion led to that what's before us again is something that we didn't ask for and I could tell you that right now and in the discussion is and should have been a year ago is if the village itself is going to look at all the employees and have a document or an ordinance on there And it's tragic what happened to this family. How do you fix that in the 21st century? And there's other municipalities that have something, so that's not. This was age per person, per RB was age, and then how many years of service.

is seeking out early retirement. And then what's before us is full retirement. So where did the miscommunication happen here? I hear that you say the pension board, but there's two different things here. If you're going to address, we have A, B, and then you come A, B, C, and C, what you're trying to change this over 50 years is just for one individual, and you're doing it by way of ordinance? It was not me or Adam that did that. Did they have direction?

so the board and then it's it's unusual for me that the last meeting there's no recording of it and the minutes haven't been approved until the next meeting so this is again before us the council doesn't have we have what's presented to us we don't have actually that discussion we have what you're telling me there's no representative other than mr bircher but i don't think he's speaking for the board he'd have to only speak as him he doesn't have board approval to speak tonight other than his opinion as a council member So, again, we ask for this, and yes, it's a year later, and then this is,

Well, and through the chair, can I just say, if they're saying that there's like some kind of sense of urgency with this, like it's been over a year, but their solution is to start cutting checks three years from now. So... What's the urgency if that's the solution? We haven't even discussed that. The current situation is that she would get a check for $130,000. The alternative we're proposing is that in three years she's going to start getting checks.

Monthly checks. It's, by my calculation, is going to take probably another three years of those checks to get to this number. And that's not including if she got a bunch of interest over all those years of staying in the packet.

So if, God forbid, something happens to Mrs. Olson in the next three years, they get $0.

No, but if this passes, don't go down that. If this passes as we pass it, then what? Then we wrote this for the one individual, then it reverts back to B?

This is the widow, though. You're creating then something for, I mean, to me, it's, what his point is, is what's with the son. You're taking three years for Miami Shores for the liability of this. What happens in between now and then?

BUT THE THING IS, THE POINT IS, WE'RE MAKING THIS DISCUSSION, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS PERSON OR ANY PERSON IN THE FUTURE, WHO WAS THE BENEFICIARY. IF IT WAS, IF HE CHOSE TO DO THE then the actuarial is going to give this, your pension board, a different number monthly. If he chooses the wife, it's another number. So, again, before us, the making this, this is an important decision. And, again, I'll stop saying that word, but to Mr. Walensky's point, I'm with my council member here. This is not what we asked for.

Lisa. Lisa. My point to that one is, if you think about that, what the plan is, and it's audited, and it's a liability, but it's a trust asset, correct? Correct.

Right. And we're going to do – we're going to want to reward the 25 years of institutional longevity, right? That's what we're doing and discussing here, right?

And retention and we're encouraging and why wasn't there a discussion then if there was a gap in what Miami Shores has Then why are the other employees not discussed in that meeting? This is why it went back to them and it was also one of those earlier meetings that these are not capable of doing pension discussions, but we certainly are and I don't understand as our legal team and also they've heard what this board did since December and board members did and just like it was pointed on public comment it was 4-3 it's not unanimous I don't see I mean for me and these discussions have to happen

I just would like to know, I mean, was there any discussion about a compassionate bridge payment? I mean, was there alternative discussion for like how the direction to go back to the pension board?

I do have one more question on that. Was the math done for the date of 54 years old and the wife's age?

Because that's the age his benefit would start. Understood. But why was the math done from that? If we're doing hypotheticals and he filled out the paperwork for early retirement and day one right after it, what's the wife's benefit?

Was that discussed? I don't have that calculation in front of me. But again, this board asked for that.

Was – just yes or no was that discussed to your best recollection? Was it – on this last one where this is before us, was it discussed that it was early retirement, yes or no?

Okay. But the case is an early retirement.

I just want to make sure I understand what he's asking. The mark that he very nearly missed was the early retirement mark.

Were the numbers, again, I'll ask it again, were the numbers based on this for early retirement, yes or no? No.

But the whole discussion is that RB doesn't cover it. And what he would have been eligible for was early retirement. I don't know why the two-hour thing that we discussed this was not discussed in that meeting. You asked the people to watch it. I know that one person that did watch it on that board voted no.

Through the chair, it's not here, but previously we had the, when you are eligible for retirement, you get to select, there's options in terms of what happens when you die with your beneficiaries, correct?

And also on early retirement, because I know the mayor wants to understand about being fair, about doing something that was fair for everybody. When somebody passes away, and we're trying to make it right, and you go back and just, you can't just assume that they made the exact right choices to get the maximum amount. Nobody else is going to have the benefit of going back in time like that, which means that this is not fair. I'm sorry, my mic wasn't on. I don't see how that's fair.

There's discussion about alternatives, though, and the reason it went back there was those discussions instead of here. There are other alternatives other than changing the ordinance. and those need to be discussed. There's a one-time thing with the general fund where we just and other municipalities have done this. This is what we asked for. That's the board that does this. It was like it came here as an ordinance. We saw there was irregularities with it when it was brought to us the first time. We asked for it to go back there and have discussion. We did not ask for C. I could guarantee you

But I'm saying for this instance, we were asking that particular board for alternatives than changing the code. And if the only thing you could do was change the code, then that's it.

That is not true. This board right here can have a discussion about it. And that's what that board should have had the discussion about it. Oh, we discussed it for a couple, several hours. No, no, not, what was, was there a bridge talked about? Was there using the general fund talked about? Was there an annuity that was talked about?

Through the chair, the reason the payments are starting in 2029 with this proposal is because we're basing it on the full retirement. If it was based on early retirement, the payments would have already started. Correct. I mean, that's just more reason why I don't understand why we didn't, you know.

But that's what he would have been entitled to if he died at 55 and it hit B. Correct or incorrect?

That's the mark that he just fell short of.

I understand that, but he is the closest to the finish line that we keep on talking about. The solution for this is what he was entitled to, the close to the finish line, to give the benefit. Where this discussion went, that it's the full, it was not from this dais.

There was an employee on the board, like he said, that had this one, and then the board discussed that, correct?

But to my colleague, Mr. Walensky, when we... And we've heard this from staff and we've heard this from the administrative staff. We've heard it from the employees. It's fairness and this day is very fair. But what was given in front of us is a document that's unfair. So, and this goes back to December. I know that the direction then was to and everybody up here wants to be fair. I don't see as it written in front of us that we even like language changing it, that we could do that because we don't have the numbers.

Since you're saying that in fair and you're doing the law, I'll do the thing with what's in front of us. Is it normal practice to backdate something?

Well, in your years of doing, how many laws have you passed that are just for one person?

Those are my concerns. They're not discussion amongst board members. It's just that's, you know, this is when we pass it. It's a law. And those are, yeah, there are discussions about that. But it's not rock solid for what you're saying right now. and it can be challenged.

Not one of us has brought up the cost. So it's obviously not – that's not the main concern that we're having here is the cost. We're trying to be fair. Now, to me and my colleagues, it's obvious to us that the early retirement was – that was the obvious thing for whatever. But from your guys' perspective, this is your experts, your – it seems I'm getting the impression that the obvious thing from your perspective was to do the full retirement, and I'm curious why. Can you explain that?

is you saying that there's no right answer. I'm asking you a pretty clear question. I'm asking you why. Obviously, somebody thought that this was the way to go about it. And when I asked why it wasn't early retirement, it seems like you weren't expecting that question. So obviously, somebody assumed that this was the normal route. To me and the mayor, we're saying that it's obvious to us it doesn't make any sense why you wouldn't do the early retirement. Can you make a case for that? Can you justify that? Can you explain to me why the full retirement and not the early retirement was used to ma

What was the number for partial retirement?

We don't have it. We've never had it. So they didn't even see that number? They decided this was the better number without even seeing the other number?

It's 7%. It's usually 7%, 5% to 7% per year for what you're short from 62%. And then it adds up. So do the math. That's like eight times seven on the high end. It would be – or six times. It's like if he was at 54, at 62, it's eight years. And then whatever the percentage is between five and seven percent, and that's the lower.

It's six percent per year from 62 to 55. So it would be – 42 percent reduction of this 32 – Yeah. $100 number? Basically. Yeah. But you would be getting those checks starting immediately?

And would you be getting those checks starting immediately rather than in three years from now?

If the ordinance was written that way, yes. We didn't have that presented to us.

There is another board member here. Mr. Manager, do you want to opine on this or do you want to on the subject? To what degree, Mr. Mayor? Just your perspective from.

Yes, through the chair, I'd like to ask the actuary. We have numbers here that the funded ratio would go down to 92.2, and the actuarial liability would be $221,000. Yes. Did the pension board happen to make those similar calculations if we gave this benefit to the beneficiary, but also extended the option to every employee?

So necessarily... this would be a carve out whether we pass this ordinance as it is on first reading or if we rewrote the whole pension system to accommodate everybody and Mr. Olson's case right I believe the overall I'd have to go back and verify this but I believe the overall change did not take into account any deaths I think it was do you have the original one all right good

If I may, here's my concern with that. If we were discussing, as we were last time this came up, a global change that was going to affect everybody, then the concern, which was our concern, the number one concern is, does this make sense for everybody? Is this fair? We decided that this... We were not comfortable applying this to everybody because it didn't, it seemed like it gave, you know, it went beyond, you know, what we were trying to accomplish, which was people that were falling just short of that finish line, you know, get something rather than nothing. And that's not what we have here

But where we left off is that we didn't like it as a solution for everybody. So what we got was the same solution for everybody but just carved out for the Olson situation and... As the mayor said, it's really not what we asked for. And I'm not really sure where to go, how to proceed from here, actually. This is rough.

Well, I think one of the other discussions, since it is budget season coming up, the manager has instated what the law is right now. And also to honor him for 25 years Whether it's a you know Something definitely over at the Aquatic Center and we'll discuss that as a council But it's also like I said before there's a bridge that could be done. There's a hybrid there we could talk about Again in fairness for this one and also the other one does not table the discussion about the actual pension in the 21st century. Some of the stuff that was brought up to us, and it might have been too much for

I just want to point out that if they started getting those $1,700 checks today, it's – in sixty while okay uh... okay about seven years to catch up now that she's young that will be added that's why you want to have it for a long time to see i'm trying to make it make sense like in terms of yes she is she is young so i'm trying to put myself in her shoes and see like does what what makes sense like what Are these options better than me just getting this $130,000 check today? Is getting a $1,700 check starting today every month better? Or is waiting three years and getting this $30,000? I don'

So this was made from the January meeting?

Right, but then the document had to come back and they had to read it and then approve it. Those minutes aren't available. The April 28th minutes are not available. So that's the discussion. That was 4-3, correct or incorrect?

So the opposing were just Mr. Longman and Mr. Dorsett at the last meeting? And the other four voted yes.

I mean, in my opinion with this, again, the closest thing to when using the word finish line would be the benefit for early retirement. But we don't even know what the, again, like I said before, sorry, is that that piece of paper wasn't filled out. So you're doing assumptions then.

I mean, I've just been crunching some basic numbers here. And as far as I could tell, six years from now, If she was getting $1,700 checks, that would be about $120,000. Okay. If she started collecting these $3,200 checks three years from now. $3,600. Okay.

That's $5,000 less. And if she started getting the $1,700 checks today. Of course, but we can't predict the future. I'm just trying to game this out because I don't know what the future is. I'm just trying to see what does this scenario look like? What does that scenario look like? And as far as I could tell, six years out – If we went with doing nothing, she would have even more money. She would have 130, and that's without collecting any interest between now and six years.

Yeah. This is obviously not an easy discussion in any way you dice it, but... I got to say, I've been listening to you all this whole time here, and I've been thinking a lot. And if we're talking about a reduced – first of all, Ms. Keeley is absolutely right. We do have to be fair to everybody. Using our emotional decision-making compass is not really, I think, necessarily a good preemptor to make a decision here. But I will say – From what I'm listening to, $1,700 in payments, it's going to take at least 72 months to accumulate $130,000 in benefit. If you take the $130,000 today and you inves

Say that last, but as long as both of them live?

I mean I think there's three points here that have been discussed that the village itself should look at implementing a board forward-looking policy reform is number one because it wasn't I mean it says it's going to take time but we really should do that and look into that and then try to so that this isn't a single it removes the single case precedent risk number two I think we should utilize and we should discuss it is a non-pension municipal settlement also which wasn't we it's an honest discussion we could have amongst ourselves the dais and even in that if it's an item on the thing then

Through the chair, I cannot support what we have in front of us. I would entertain doing something that was based on early retirement. And I would like to see some, you know, changes here to address this going forward. I know it's a very rare circumstance or I just, I don't like doing specific carve outs. I think if the policy is good for one person, it should be good for everybody. Which, I mean, it is basically, I hate to say it, but it is exactly where we left off. The last time we addressed this is like we want a solution for everybody. And, you know, it has to make sense. This is a soluti

No, with that said, the three points that I brought up and the one where it cost the village money is if you're finding a solution, there's two different things. One is you saw that there's a gap, but then the other two things that I brought up here, It's probably for best for everybody if maybe the solution for this, the manager presented one which is the exact pension and that's what the benefit is. But then there's the in between, that one that I thought would be discussed amongst professionals in retirement. There's a non-pension, so we're not dealing with the actual code. We're not dealin

It wouldn't be insurance. I think what we have to do is the non, we'd have to work with staff on the non-pension municipal settlement is what it would be. And that's through the general fund. Good, good. Well, we have to, and then it's, I don't know if on the dais right now is give a direction or if it's consensus. I mean, I think that's a good idea. I think that might be the solution for this. And also that all three of these points that I brought up are addressed in a timely fashion. It's been a year, so. It's a hard discussion. I mean, I'll be frank with everybody. And, you know, we're all

Through the chair, if I may. Well, to your last point there, yes. I don't think I've ever had a conversation about pensions before getting elected here. So this is all, you know, me learning as we go. I think it's fantastic, the stuff that – the couple ideas you had there. I am interested, though – in some clarity on the life insurance part because I'm not sure I'm understanding that as filling the gap because that seems like something that's just that stacks, you know. So in other words, is there going to be a situation where.

The employee has choices. Yeah. That's what it is. I mean.

If I'm working past retirement, past the age that I qualify for retirement, I'm going to get the pension. If I pass away and I'm also going to get the life insurance.

Well, the life insurance, I mean, even at the place, everybody gets life insurance because that's what we have here as employees.

So the life insurance is... No, no, not no.

I mean, as an employee, it's the life insurance that's here. What it is is you're an employee, and what we have now, Mr. Olson was $94,000 for his salary. What we're discussing in that third one is... we only have one thing for an employee right now and we could look at this because when the employee is educated about what their benefits are they can look at you don't know how many children they have you don't know if they're single so it's just looking at the benefits package and that's what we should do and that's what should have been done for the last year but And it's actually the last ye

Will that come up before, like when we're in budget season?

Multipliers or whatever different cuts that ages, but yes, it's feasible And it's an option that I believe will enhance our benefits All right, and if there's anything more to that point three that I brought up for enhancing that that would be appreciated My enhanced municipal life insurance player and she just pointed out one that we didn't have before which is a retiree Say the three again my three are implement implement Abroad forward-looking policy reform for a pension fund okay, and then utilize a non pension municipal tool and then Well, we'd have to discuss with that. There's you can b

I don't think it goes back to the pension board, though, I think. Well, if we have to rewrite the pension, it's going to happen. And you're saying forward-looking, so it's going to have to go back to the pension board. No, the number one will go to the board.

Is that, what was the suggestion, is this defer this first reading or table?

number two might be a little bit quick with just the next meeting just for looking at it and working with staff probably that's the one with non-pension using the municipal other options that other municipalities have done but I think that's too I mean next meeting would be too quick

And then best practices defer... I mean, this ordinance has been written by the attorneys. I mean, is it best to table it or defer it? What's the... It was first reading.

Well, since the vote hasn't taken place, and I don't want to anticipate what votes are, if it does get a vote, it's voted down, this document, then legally, I mean, it can't be brought forth again, or?

So make that new business and this is first reading. Okay.

And we're either in favor of it or you're not. So you don't want to defer it then?

Madam Attorney gave us multiple options here. She did understand what we're trying to accomplish here. One is new business. One is that we have this ordinance as written. The question is if it goes to vote and voted down no, there's rules and procedures of how it would be brought back forth to the public.

you can separate it you can do a motion to deny and then follow up with direction for staff to bring forth the options um and none of those options would include what's before you tonight okay through the chair if i may i i think uh the next time we discuss this i think it should just be a discussion item where I guess I'm trying to say, I don't know if we need all of the resources that we're expending tonight. for the next discussion that we need to have. I think there's a lot that just this council needs to decide in terms of like what direction we want to go that doesn't necessarily require

Well, that will give direction and those numbers then.

My concern is if we defer this and then when it comes back, you know. Oh, I see what you're saying. We're going to have to do it with everybody, you know, whereas if. YOU KNOW, IF WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO DEFER THIS BUT HAVE A DISCUSSION BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT TIME WE BRING THIS BACK OR IF WE GET RID OF THIS AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, I GUESS WHAT I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR IS THAT WE HAVE A DISCUSSION, THIS COUNCIL NEEDS TO HAVE A DISCUSSION

You've had a discussion about this one, and to the attorney, I'm going to put words in, but my interpretation of the attorney's direction is as it's presented in front of us in its first reading, we can vote it down. And then we can also then make a motion to what we want. Okay.

sounds good to me through the chair I'd like to make one quick comment if we defer this is not really a situation where we would defer it and you bring it back to us with just small edits to the language I think what we're arriving at is that we need like a significant rework and to explore all the options and that leads me more so towards voting it down rather than deferring

He called a question, so is there a motion? Move to deny item 10A. All those that want to deny item 10A, signal by saying aye. Aye. Motion carries. And now I need a motion for... Why don't you make a motion?

The three options, which is, yeah, and it's clear and direct. communication from this dais about that reform of it. And like it has lived for 50 years and going through this exercise, it should be an open discussion about it. And then, yeah, then two and then three. And we'll go from there. You have consensus from council? Yes. Okay. All right. Madam Clerk?

Let me just start for thank you my colleagues for having this discussion tonight It's not an easy subject matter and it's it's been long overdue. I I spent a lot of time on thinking and it's been a year of this and Like I said earlier and in the meeting I was disappointed what was presented in front of us I understand the work that the pension board did and the attorneys saying they can only see it from a pension boards view but I appreciate that all of you joined in and it's not an easy subject matter for what we're dealing with over the past year. But it is, the importance of it is, shows yo

to the chair I have some things I'll be bringing for the first meeting in June for council comments but I didn't get all the answers I wanted yet tonight one of those is the electric car thing as I talked to George about earlier we ran into each other so that's going to come back for discussion along with a couple other things but I'm not ready to speak on them tonight so we will do so at the next meeting appreciate it I appreciate what you said as well, Mr. Mayor.

Appreciate that clarification. Anybody else?

I look forward to seeing everybody out for Memorial Day. I think Wednesday we're going to be dedicating something at the pool also.

It's Wednesday, right? No, it's June. June. June 3rd.

The following week. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. Okay, so we got a couple weeks.

Are you going to – do you want to – has Ms. Dorney reached out to her? Are you going to speak on Memorial Day again? Do you want to do another speech?

I was going to ask you guys what your plans were.

I mean, I'll do a short one again as an intro, but I know that you like the holiday and your kids like it. Man, it stresses me out giving those speeches. Do you want to do it or not?

I mean – I – I will be there. I'm happy to speak. I don't know if I'm going to give as elaborate a speech as I've given in the past, but I'm happy to speak.

I think you could actually, to be honest with you, you could dust off the one from two years ago. You could dust off the one from two years ago, and it'll ring true on this Memorial Day because that was a really good, that was a very good speech.

I appreciate it. Thank you. And other than that, yeah, this is just another example of sometimes – well, not sometimes. A lot of times I'm on my way to these meetings and I'm really stressed out about how I'm going to approach something or – I – This group, as far as I know and I'm concerned, when it comes to that Sunshine stuff, we are brutally adherent to that, to the point. I wish that we could call each other up and discuss this stuff. I'm so anxious when I'm on my way over here just to hear, are they concerned about the same things I'm concerned about? I'm always... pleasantly surprised b

The bike ride was a big... We had a very nice turnout. The weather was very, very hot. I forgot about that one. I think the chief says he might shorten it up a little bit next time. But, man, it was a nice tour around the whole village. The police were amazing. It was very impressive. We got to basically feel like we were the president getting a motorcade through the village. And, man, there's quite a lot of moving parts to do. to make that work, and it was very impressive to see.

Oh, man, I got it. I didn't steal the helmet. Let me borrow a helmet. It had somebody's name on it, so that's actually somebody's helmet. I hope they're not mad at me. Motion to adjourn.