Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, everyone. We're starting a few minutes later than normal. We have a pastor with us tonight, Tammy Anderson from the House of Hope Ministries. We thank you for being with us tonight, ma'am. She was actually delayed in a car accident and stuck in traffic a few minutes away. So we gracefully waited for a few minutes and got to be social. But now that the pastor's here, we're going to ask her to come up and lead us in the invocation and the pledge.

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. Pastor Anderson, thank you again, ma'am, for coming tonight, braving traffic to come be with us. So thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your words of wisdom, and we could certainly use all the help we could get. With that, additions, deletions, modifications of agenda. First thing up, for those of you that were not here earlier for the CRA meeting, Commissioner Sam Peebles is out of the geographic area with the Navy in his civ

Motion to allow Commissioner Peebles to participate by telecom.

I have a motion and a second. Any concerns or discussion of this request from the audience? Hearing none, City Manager.

Yes. 5-0. Thank you all for that. Beyond allowing Commissioner Peebles to participate remotely tonight, are there any other additions, deletions, or modification requests of the agenda?

Okay, that sounds good. So that's still a work in progress, so nothing to report out tonight. Any other changes? Hearing none, shall we go, I guess we'll probably, we need a vote, correct, City Attorney, for the one amendment, dropping the one, item number 12? Okay, well, I'll ask for a motion and a second.

Motion to, I guess, remove item 12 from the agenda. Second.

Thank you, gentlemen. I have a motion and a second. Any concerns from the public on this? Okay, hearing none. City Manager?

Yes. Thank you all for that. all right we are now moving into item number four and this is the beginning of our public hearing we are officially opening at five forty three p m central time And city manager, and this is, we are opening the public hearing to set the tentative FY2027 millage rate of 4.25 mils for the purposes of submission on the certificate of taxable value to the property appraiser's office pursuant the TRIM Act. City manager. City manager.

OK. Thank you, City Manager. So amongst all five of us, or four and a half of us, because we have Sam by voice but not in person here, Is there anything anybody would like to reopen and discuss? We've had six budget hearings on this now. In budget hearing number five, or budget workshop number five, I think we really came together by and large. Is there anything anyone would like to discuss or any final adjustments to the budget before we move forward? The general fund, that is, budget.

Go ahead. I just know that we've been around the block several times. We're here tonight to set the millage. And if we set the millage at the right number tonight, We're looking at a very, or the number that we have, we're looking at a very, very weak number for a surplus, a number that probably won't survive the year, and we'll be coming back and making an adjustment. So in my mind, in my thoughts, since we got the numbers back from the state in the last, what city manager just said, I have a millage in mind and I can wait to hear from everybody or I can make a motion, but I'd rather hear wha

Yes, sir. Thank you for that, sir. Let's do that. And I'll go last. I'll be the caboose, but we'll start from you. We'll go to Commissioner Peebles and Warwick and Ms. Tender, and then I'll circle back. If there's anything y'all specifically want to talk about relooking at or readdressing before we move forward, we can, and we'll go right into the millage rate from there. So Commissioner Peebles, do you have anything you want to share as we get this party started, sir?

Sure. In this current proposal, I know we're just doing the millage right here, not the actual budget itself per se. But in my opinion, I would rather you lower the CRA to like a 50 or 60 before I'd want to see the millage go up any more than a 4.25. That's really where I stand on that. I know that, because if we're going to raise the millage, I want, you know, I've said for the past three years, I'm not a fan of raising the millage, but I think, I mean, I'd rather the millage, if we vote for a 3-2 and we go back to the rollback rate, we're looking at potentially not even having a city. So tha

Not at this time. I'll let everyone else talk, and then I guess if I have any more thoughts, I can't raise my hand, but I'll chime in.

Yeah, so since you're online or via phone, just go ahead and just say, hey, Mayor, or, you know, whatever, just excuse me or step up. There's no harm or foul in that whatsoever, sir. But thank you. Commissioner Ward.

So I have a presentation I want to go over, but it's going to take a little bit.

Just how about your initial opinions here first and tell us what you want to say and we'll...

I'm fine with the rest of it. I just want to talk about the animal shelter. But with everything we talked about, the budget workshop, I was fine with.

I like Sam's idea. I think we should cut back on CRA. Of course, the last meeting I said we should get rid of it completely, take that $1.3 million and put it in our budget and use it for good use. But I agree, let's keep the millage rate as low as possible.

Yes, ma'am. All right, so anything else, sir?

I definitely think we should keep the animals shelter.

So I'll be the caboose here. I agree with almost everything that's been said up here. I am most concerned about our residents, especially our seniors on fixed incomes, disabled veterans, everybody, but especially those that are most susceptible to increases in taxes. I'm a proud Republican, I'm a proud conservative, have been my whole life, and I will tell you that I do not know of a good tax increase. The way you typically force efficiencies is you give government less money. I will tell you in the seven and a half months that I've been here, though, our city, we were over $20 million in debt

Understood. And I just wanted, you know, guys, bear with me. I'm a college professor in real life, retired military guy. If I explain a little too much, I'm sorry. I would rather you all have a better understanding than not enough. And this is full transparency and openness here and public sausage making and work.

So effectively we double, give or take, we effectively double our surplus.

Okay. I just wanted to run that number to everybody. It's been brought up by three of us now, three of the five. I wanted to make that clear what that would entail. It would basically double our emergency reserve for the budget and the general fund. Okay, so next round discussion thoughts. Not quite sure we're at presentation yet, but any general discussion about the millage rate and any final tweaks?

I'm not for decreasing the CRA more than we're already decreasing it, because once you decrease it, you're never going to get it back, and you're going to leave a lot of money on the table in the future. That's where I'm at.

Yes, sir. My only retort to that, and I fully hear you, Commissioner Ward, is I honestly and openly wonder if the CRA will even exist in anything close to its current form if Amendment 3 passes this November. That's a very real question none of us can answer.

We're combining the millage and the CRA as a bargaining chip. We should just concentrate on setting the millage right now, I think, and then talk about the CRA. Okay. And what Kiki said resonates with me is that we need to set a millage rate now, and at our next meeting, we can lower that millage rate. So I propose, and I'll put this in the form of a motion, that we set our millage rate at a 4.55. We could go down from there and we can adjust things. That would give us a little closer to, I think, somewhere in the $800,000 range of surplus where when you break pipes, when you blow stuff up in

Understood. One other thing I want to share with the public, just for reference, I've actually shared this online. Lynn Haven Neighbors has it as well, but it's the last 10 years of our historical mill rate, our millage rate. In 2015... through 2019, so through Hurricane Michael, we were at 3.900. In 2020, we went to 4.30. In 2021 and 2022, we were at 4.1. Then in 2024 and 2025, we were at 4.05. So our high water mark, just looking at the last decade of millage rates for the city of Lynn Haven, We've gone from a low of 3.9 before Michael, effectively, after Michael hit and we were really deali

Well, if we make a vote in the motion, can we make, is this it, the vote count, the vote throws us to roll back if we don't, we gotta be?

This motion for this millage is just to set till the next meeting. I know we bounce around CRA and whatnot, but we just gotta take the next step. Now this kind of brings the ceiling down a little bit, but it brings it to a more real level. And what we settle on from here you know could be lower than that so my motion for a 4.55 sets sets us to lower the ceiling but puts us in a situation where that that could that could be the millage so i will make the motion for a 4.55 millage okay

Well, thank you for that. I have a motion from Commissioner Pernaut for a 4.55 millage. Is there a second from the rest of the Commission? Okay. Acknowledged. So let me clarify one thing with you, Commissioner Pernaut. I'm the youngest No, no. Here's my personal thought, and I don't know, because this is my first budget rodeo. You've been here seven years, and I want to make sure I'm not missing something. Would it not be better to go ahead, and if we can, nail down a final mill rate tonight amongst the five of us?

That's what we're doing. I've made my motion. It falls in someone else's court. Let's go. Okay.

What was it before? 4.32 we were looking at? 4.35. All right. I'll make a motion for 4.35. All right.

So, Ms. Kiki, while you're speaking, if you could, at the same time, you... That'll be the ceiling, right?

if we do the 4.25 in the CRA at 50%. They're close. Right. Okay. So 4.35 is what we discussed last time, but for not only the commission's clarity, Kiki, but also the public at large. I know that's what we all walked away from, and four of us said we didn't like it, but we could live with that. And then we had one big fat maybe in air quotes. So... You got some additional planning factors in that changed that number from the state. That drove it to 4.25. Can you speak to that briefly?

Right. Based on the new state planning factors. Now you have all of the new state planning factors that you need?

And the rest of the Commission, y'all are clear on that? A 4.35 will now be a 5-0 vote. Correct. And a 4.25 would be a 4-1 vote. 4-1 vote. Based on our historics, just looking at our current millage rate to our new millage rate, roll back aside for a moment, current mill rate to new mill rate, the 4.05 to a 4.25 is a 4% increase. A 4.35 would be about a 6.5% increase. percentage-wise.

So that's what we're talking about, y'all, with a mill rate that has actually gone down over the last five years. We're talking about a very small margin and room for error here. So I just wanted to share that with everybody. As we're going through that, looking at the historics, that's what we're looking at. It's now a 4.35% or potentially a 4.25%.

So now that we have clarification, we have a motion from Commissioner Ward. Do we have a second for 4.35? Okay. Hearing none, the next step would be a 4.25. Which is the next logical?

I'll second 4.35 as a ceiling, as a ceiling. You know, you guys got to understand, this is the highest we're going to go. You can't just, we're not setting the millage tonight. We're setting the ceiling again.

Because you keep haggling with the CRA here. We got to do one and then the other.

Sure. The only, yeah, but, and I say this with all due respect, I love you like an uncle. And I mean no disrespect, so I hope you don't take it that way. This is a very big piece. This is the core funding of our city budget. But we also have the utility rates. There's other expenses. So this is a big piece, but it's not the entire piece of what we're going to have our residents pay. So that's why I'm being a little timid here, because I don't want to make that any bigger than we have to. That's all.

We got to put our big boy pants on and do this. Let's go.

So we have a motion and a second for a 4.35. Any discussion amongst the commission before I open this up to the public? Yes, Sam, go ahead.

Thanks. I just want to piggyback on with it being a, this is just to reiterate what Commissioner Perno is saying, just like the trim thing. I agree that this is just the ceiling. So let's treat it as the ceiling in this vote. It'll make life a lot easier for all of us. And for our next official vote at our next meeting, then we can do more of the negotiating in terms of who want to lower it or not. I'd rather, you know, I, I don't really necessarily want a 435, but I also don't want to handcuff us at the same time. And we need a 50 vote to be able to give us a little talking room. I'd rather b

Okay. Well, thank you for that. And I'll ask both you, Sam, and Commissioner Pernod, because I'm literally, if we can come together as a commission tonight and walk away with a firm set millage rate, why set a ceiling and re-talk and go down again? If we can nail it down tonight, let's do it. Well, understand, if we all come together now and agree to a millage rate, we formality sign off on it next meeting and we're done, versus set a higher number and then play with it again for two weeks. I'm just trying to understand. This is my first budget rodeo. So y'all please, y'all school me a little

I just think it's because we haven't, I think in my mind, when I'm from reading the room, I don't think all five of us see eye to eye on the CRA. And if that's the thing that we're worried about, we need to worry about that when we're actually talking about the budget, not the millage. And so based on the budget, then we can do the millage next time. This will give us a little more time to hash out the CRA bit because I don't think we're there yet.

Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Again, seven and a half months in the job and my first budget round with y'all, so thank you for schooling me on that. Commissioner Warrick, Commissioner Tender, y'all got any thoughts on this?

No, I think, I mean, I'd love to have it done tonight, but... I feel 4.55 is way too high. I could even live with 4.35 tonight as long as we can lower it the next time. But everybody's shaking their head that they want to lower it next time, so why don't we just do it now?

And to my point earlier, we have a couple of different pieces of the puzzle before it gets to a bottom line of what our citizens are going to owe. we'll have an opportunity to make a couple of meaningful discussions. So yes. And the rest of us agreed to a 4.35 at our budget workshop last week. So for that, for this, If that's the way I want to do it, you want to take a two-prong process, I can live with that.

I definitely want to hear from the residents. I want to hear what they have to say if we go in at a 3.5 as a ceiling, or 4.35 as a ceiling.

Yes, ma'am. So we have a motion and a second. We've all five now been able to discuss it. I want to open up the floor.

That's a fair question. I'll open it up to my colleagues here. The CRA has been a discussion item. The animal shelter has been a discussion item. But most of the rest of the budget we seem to be fairly in alignment with. Is that a correct assumption? We have some discussion back and forth on utility rate or garbage rates, and we can even talk about stormwater rate, the non-avalorum, but those are kind of the three financial pieces. Is there anything else that would merit a seventh budget workshop or discussion?

So basically anything we vote on tonight for utilities will be adjusted and be presented at the next meeting and voted on.

Right, yeah, those are enterprise funds, the non-Avalon funds. Can you not hear me, sir? I'm sorry. Are the rest of y'all ladies in the back? Are any of you guys in the back? Please, when y'all can't hear us, and I tend to be the worst at this, I'll lean back from the microphone. If y'all can't hear me, please raise your hand. When I see you, I will gladly adjust. Okay, so... Discussion guidance for the city manager here. Do y'all want a seventh workshop? Do you feel like there's much beyond a couple of the CRA and perhaps an animal shelter presentation to kick around aside from the garbage ra

I thought we already were in agreement on the CRA from the last budget workshop. I'm not sure what's changed between now and then.

On the CRA, the last I heard, we were talking 50 percent and now it's at what, 80?

And that, at 75 percent, that does not eliminate Ben's salary. He still gets that.

Thank you. Basically, it's kind of one being in equals one being out over here. That one budgetary change would basically double our access funding in the general fund, the surplus, which isn't a lot. You're basically 151 versus 300K. That's what that would drive, differential. Okay. What is our collective? Commissioner Peebles, I can't see you to express your body language, but you got any thoughts or inputs here, sir?

I don't think we necessarily need another workshop. I think what you said was kind of The main point is there's two sticking points that we don't all five see exactly eye to eye on. So over the next two weeks, we need to formulate our arguments or debates on why you want the CRA at a certain rate, if you do or do not want the animal shelter, and then make your decision based on that. I think it's as simple as that to me.

I will ask, is there any other budget concerns, line items, expenses? that are of a particular concern to the rest of the Commission, any individual Commissioner that y'all want to bring up and have re-looked at over the next two weeks? Hearing none, then do we do a formal workshop, a seventh, where we plow this out outside? Because our time is short. We have to approve this by the end of the month, correct?

So we have limited runway left to come together as a team on this.

I don't need a workshop. I'm already where I'm at. I'm at 75%.

We have a motion and a second. Let's vote. Let's be unanimous. Let's set the ceiling and go.

Okay. So we're going to open up with that. I've got a bunch. I saw you first, Mr. Langford, and we'll just work our way through. Come on up, good evening.

Mr. Shearer. If I may, sir. Yeah. This is a, I'm reading the agenda right. This is 4A with a motion. We haven't talked about 4B yet. Correct. We shouldn't be combining A and B right now. If we're going by the letter of the law, we set the millage, and then we go on to discussion and approval in B. That's what we're supposed to be doing.

Acknowledged. city attorney can you weigh in there no that's correct we need to keep public comment to those issues related to the village okay so my guidance based on the mayor pro tem and the city attorney is for right now we have a two-part public hearing I'm going to have to request that your comments be held to the millage rate. I know it's all basically tied together, but it needs to be millage specific, otherwise we will be here all night.

Acknowledged. So everybody tracking with that? For the general fund budget and the mill rate, that's the two heads of the same, or two sides of the same coin. But for the other funding, we'll hold that off to 4B. Mr. Beshear.

Thank you, Mr. Beshear. Sir, would you like to remain seated? We can bring you a microphone if you need to. Come on up, sir.

That's in Part B, sir. Right now, it's just the millage rate.

Second row here on my right, and then Zach and Ryan. Y'all come on up. Good evening.

All right. Mr. Detweiler, Mr. Scray, and then I saw Mr. Hines' hand, and then Ms. Parker, then Mr. Schweitzer.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Scray. Good evening. Thank you.

All right, next. And Mr. Hines, Ms. Parker, and Mr. Schweitzer. And then we'll have Ms. Day. Good evening, Mr. Hines.

Thank you, sir. All right, Ms. Parker, then Mr. Schweitzer. And Ms. Day, when we get to you, ma'am, we'll bring a microphone to you, okay?

Yes, ma'am. Come on up. Mr. Schweitzer has yielded. Good evening, ma'am.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Schweitzer. Hey, Mayor. Yes, sir.

I was just going to ask that... if Chris would potentially ask her for her address maybe after the meeting, because if her water bill went from 60 to 200, we have not raised rates, so it's a possibility that there could be a leak. So we need to look at that and make sure that that's not happening.

Ma'am, did you hear Commissioner Peebles? You have my contact information, do you not? Do you have my contact information? We'll need to give it to you. And Mr. Lightfoot, we'll address that. If you don't mind, ma'am, come back up here, please, just a second. And then you'll be up, Mr. Schweitzer.

Thank you, sir. Now, I believe we have Ms. Day. Am I missing anybody else? Okay, Ms. Beshear after Ms. Day.

Thank you, Gina. All right, Ms. Day, the floor is yours, ma'am.

Thank you, ma'am. I'm finished. Thank you, Gina. Anyone else? Ms. Beshear. Good evening.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Anyone else for 4A? Hearing none, city manager, we have a motion and a second to set the ceiling at 4.35.

Yes. 5-0 on that. Thank you. Teamwork. All right. We are now officially public hearing closing at 641 for part 4A. We will now open up public hearing at 641 for part 4B. Discussion and possible approval of the tentative general fund and enterprise funds budget of $54,351,471 for FY2027. Resolution number 2026-09-583, a resolution of the City of Lynn Haven, Florida adopting the tentative budget for fiscal year 2026-2027 and providing an effective date.

Thank you, City Manager. Yeah, that makes sense. You can't fill positions that aren't funded that you don't have. You've got to have a seat to put a proverbial butt in it. All right, so we're on now 4B, our general fund and enterprise funds. Is there any discussion amongst the commission? Anything y'all wanna talk about? We now have our new ceiling. We now have our new ceiling of 4.35. So now we can talk about, Go ahead and open it up. Anyone else? Ms. Tender and then Mr. Ward.

I recently received some information concerning the DEP and Kiki's been helping me all day today get these answers. And it turns out that in 25 we signed a contract with DEP that any fines or penalties we received we would take out in trade. We wouldn't have to pay them in cash, but we would have to have the work done, prove that it was completed, and pay the vendor. Now Kiki's working on a figure for me because I'm curious to know how much we've paid those vendors since 2025, and as well as I want to know how much of our own people, how many of our own employees are doing any of that work. Or

No, ma'am, if I may, are you talking about a consent order? Are you talking about a consent order? Consent order, is that what you're talking about? Yeah, it's a consent order. It's from when it's... Saying that we would take it out and create. Right, we would have to perform that. in lieu of a fine for releasing raw sewage into the bay.

Right. Exactly. That's what I said. And we're trading it out and we're paying a vendor, obviously, and do we have any of our own employees doing any of that work?

So are we all paying one vendor to do all that work? Yes, ma'am. Is that the company in Alabama?

I don't have anything else to say about it. I've just been asking a lot of questions and I think it's... Was that not a project that we had to take off?

Just to go a little further, if I may, You know, this is something that we voted on, you know, in lieu, the project was in lieu of the actual fine. And yes, it was more, but it hardens our system to the point that it brings us up to date in functioning. And also, just to mention that, you know, the infiltration of our sewer system, happens with a frequency of our of our inches of rain, when we can't take, when we get to flash flood status and we can't take anymore ground, you know, our ground can't take anymore, our runoff starts to go into our sewer system. And when that mixes or when that ge

One point of clarification, though, City Manager, on the example that Commissioner Tender brought up, if we were to have a fine, let's say, you said $169,000? So if the city was going to pay the $169,000 fine versus the mitigation, would that come out of enterprise funds or general funds?

Okay, copy. I just want to verify, because literally right now, if we did the 4.25 budget, we literally have a flex of 151.1K. That one incident would wipe out our entire budget.

So actually a pretty good example of just money, but it comes out of a different pot of money than what we're talking about here. But the cost, the impact, one incident, boom, there's $169,000 fine or a 200, what'd you say, city manager, $34,000? $254,656. Yeah, so either way, significant. All right, Commissioner Ward, the floor is yours, sir.

So we'll talk about a popular subject right now, animal shelter. All right, so tonight I want to step back from the narrow question of whether Lynn Haven's Animal Shelter should remain open or closed. This is not about caring less for animals, it's about making sure the care we provide can be sustained over time. The better question is, what service model will protect our residents and animals, provide the same level of service or better, and use taxpayer dollars responsibly? I reviewed all 411 incorporated municipalities in Florida to understand the available options and partnerships. Next sl

Mayor? I would like to say that yesterday I spoke with the chairperson of the Humane Society in Port St. Joe. And I'm supposed to be talking with her again tomorrow. And it does, the Humane Society seems to offer a lot as far as support. Folks can donate. They are a 501-whatever. Yep, and it seems to be, they seem to be very supportive. There's only one Humane Society in Port St. Joan, one in Pensacola or Crestview, wherever it is. The other thing is I had a resident come to me and she offered our animal shelter $1,000. And they said, well, we can't take it because we have to turn it over. And

And that money only goes to the animal shelter? Super. Well, I can answer her question now, because I didn't know where it went. But I'd like for us definitely to explore the Humane Society.

So long-term, I have spoken to two of our Bay County commissioners fairly extensively. The Bay County Animal Shelter is currently going through their own internal operations. Sorry. The Bay County Animal Shelter is going through their own extensive retooling. They're working with local rescues to re-fix theirs, particularly on the cat side of the house. But as the city manager, or excuse me, the county manager's letter directly stated, they're not in a position now to merge with us. Long term, if there is a way to take care of our animals and continue the amazing work that our animal shelter h

I want us to go with what we agreed to do, because what happened is after that thing was agreed on, people went on social media and said certain things. That went back up to the county. Okay. They're not happy. We need to reestablish that relationship.

You're clearly not happy. I get that. I'm not happy. But we're talking about our budget tonight. And funding the animal shelter. They've already said their house is not in order. They're fixing their own processes, and they will re-engage at a later time. So what is it that you exactly want us to do here?

Originally, when we approved the resolution, we were open to all ideas. When we originally talked about the budget, we sat here, and I think it was you that said, all options are on the table. But once it came out about the animal shelter and we started getting pushback, people were saying, oh, we're not for it, not going to support it. And it's like, well, let's wait for the facts and data to come back before we make a decision and start making social media posts about it. That's the issue that we have.

For clarification, my social media post, if you're referring to me, came out after that letter came out. I literally posted that letter. That was my first social media post. where the county manager said, we are not looking to merge with you at this time. So I don't know what else you're referring to. There was a lot. We had protests out here. They had one of the top 10 highest kill shelters in the entire state.

That's the problem right there. Like you just said right there, that's the problem.

That was all over the headlines. That was what people were protesting about. That was your pushback. If that's what you're talking about, that's what you're talking about. Neither here nor there now. So what is it, just for clarification, what is it you want to do with this budget?

I want us to go, I'm fine with the budget now. I just want to make sure that we're all in agreement that when we look at this, we look at all the options and we wait for the city to do their job and get all the data and facts before we make a decisive decision.

Now, your second or third to last slide, and Harold, you can bring it back up, Commissioner Warrick's slide deck. It's either the second or the third last slide, in blue at the bottom. You said, I will not vote for this budget until something is addressed. So let's pull that back up.

I just want to make sure that we are all in full agreement of looking at all the options for the animal shelter, all options.

What would we do with that building if we got rid of the animal shelter? Because I've heard a little gossip about that. What would we even do with that building? I don't know.

Okay. So we have three people and a whole squad of volunteers doing amazing work. They are. Every day, day in, day out. Like I said, I've been there three hours this week and paid $130 out of my own pocket donating kitten kibble food for them because that's what they needed. Twenty-four of their 30 cats are kittens right now. I literally spent time with the workers, the volunteers, they're doing amazing work. We don't have an effective consolidation option at this time. Long-term, whatever takes care of those three amazing, the functions that those three amazing city employees do as the animal

that we agree to look at all options for the animal shelter. And you're right. They do great work out there. I'm not advocating to just go and shut down the animal shelter. I was never an advocate to just shut it down with no alternative. But it just seems like people are going out saying certain things and like, oh, yeah, we're not going to approve that. It's like, well, wait. Just wait until we get all the information before we say anything.

OK. So we are on 4B. We've had a whole doctoral-level dissertation by Commissioner Warwick now, which informed us very good information that we are unique.

Don't be a smart aleck, okay? No, I'll use a dictatorial doctoratation, whatever, but.

Doctoral dissertation. That's a formal doctoral level presentation.

All I want tonight is all of us to agree that we are okay with the city looking at all options for this next, after we approve this budget, next fiscal year. That's all I'm asking.

I'm right here. What's your thoughts? I guess my opinion is I'm always open to looking at options, but I also agree with the mayor that we're at a point where we do need to approve this budget. I'm not, we don't, I would say if we're talking about we're going to improve this budget and then in the future we look at the Humane Society partnering with whatever after this budget, sure, why not? Let's be a team. Let's get all the data. But as far as today, we need to make a decision on, I mean, if the animal shelter is the sticking point, let's just leave the animal shelter. The county, I've talke

I just think the underlying question is, do you agree to continue with the resolution that we all adopted at 5-0 in the wording it was done? That's basically what Commissioner Warrick just did through his presentation and what he just said. And he just asked each one of us if we would agree to continue through that resolution. yes and i and i agree um so i was just asking if you agree to the resolution that we all voted to do because there was a reason why you came back and said well things have changed after we've resolution you brought it back and something changed

So, yeah, I mean, I'll agree to talk to the county commissioners. I got no problem doing that.

Commissioner Tender, you got any thoughts?

I got lots of thoughts, but I'm... You're good on this one?

Yep. All right, well, so with 4B, we have that and we also have, this is, it looks like the only two sticking points we had was the animal shelter, which there is no viable alternative to consider at this point. So it really is moot. And I will say for future record, There are a lot of things I want to re-look at moving forward. Once we get past this budget, realizing regardless of whether Amendment 3 passes or not, we have a massive debt that we have to pay off. We're going to be paying off for the next six, seven years. We cannot continue with a starvation diet long-term. We recognize that a

My thoughts are still kind of the same. If the millage rate is going up, we've got to make some sacrifices. I mean, let's be clear, the city has made a ton of sacrifices already. I believe the budget currently stands at like a 23% to 25% cut, which is probably one of the largest cuts in the history of Lynn Haven. But that being said, I do think that if the millage rate does go up, then we need to do it so that we have more surplus or unallocated funds that we can use in in the sense of an emergency so as much as i love the the i am a fan of the cra uh because it is you know essentially grant m

Again, I've said it before, I think the CRA has outlived itself, but 50% is certainly better than 75%.

I do think from a bare bones operational perspective that would effectively double our emergency, I'll call it mad money for a lack of a better term, emergency fund. I know, Mr. Beshear, you're on the Finance Committee. You're chuckling. You know what I mean, though. It's some bare bones, oh, my gosh, emergency. Here's that jar of cash, right? So, Commissioner Perna, where are you standing tonight, sir, on the CRA 50% versus 75%?

I think we left it at 75 at a 4.35. We got information that our state funds were lower. We should have raised our millage. We didn't. We're at the point we are where we agreed before. I think that we're making a knee-jerk reaction if we pull the CRA funding down. Ms. Kiki? You did a synopsis the last time we met in our workshop. Over time, how much money would the CRA be getting between now and the sunset of the CRA? And you can see that it's a much larger number than the amount of money we'd be creating a surplus for in one year. We're making a knee-jerk reaction. If I can do the synopsis aga

And just remember, when we lower it, it's not coming back.

Yeah, understood. An open question that we can't answer today is what happens if Amendment 3 passes in November? Thank you. Sorry about that. What I said was one question we don't know at this point is if Amendment 3 passes in November, what that does to our CRA long term for both Bay County and for Lynnhaven. And none of us can answer that today. So where are y'all at then with 4B here? I'm just trying to gauge a consensus. We've talked about 50%. We've talked about 70%. Commissioner Peebles talked about even 60%. We need to kind of set a pace here and move forward.

I'm in agreement with Commissioner Perno. I think if we cut this too much, it's... We're putting a lot of money on the table and I'm not for cutting any more than, down more than 75%. Okay.

Copy that. Commissioner Peebles, any final thoughts on this?

This is not like a silver bullet item for me, as you said earlier. So my thing is I just want us as a team to talk it out and really decide as a whole, try to get as much unity as possible in making this decision. So if it's my vote on whether it should be 50 or 75, I'm not a silver bullet on this. This is one of those things where we're looking at pros versus cons. It's not as simple as it's bad or it's good. There is a lot of pros to have 75 instead of 50, but there's also, you know, that's down the road. So what do we want to focus on? Do we want to focus on down the road and how this is go

it we just need to as a commission decide what our goal is if our goal is down the road i'm fine with the 75. okay well i'm fine with 50 i'm fine with 75 i can live with either um it is what it is i think um i think we have i think we have room to you know you We're talking about saving a hundred and some thousand dollars versus, and over time, losing it looks like you know uh eight nine million dollars okay um and and if it goes away tomorrow if it goes away within a with amendment three so be it we got we we gotta huddle up and and and and make decision then but to do something knee-jerk lik

Yes, ma'am. So if we go ahead and vote 75% on CRA tonight, we can cut it back at a later date.

We sure can, and the mayor said that the good people in the state of Florida might do it for us through a referendum in November.

Well, and because, like the mayor said also, we don't know what the future will bring. Heck, the county can show up and say they're out of money and they can't match us.

It can be done at a later date. I won't be here, but y'all will.

Well, and were you asking at a later date, Commissioner Tender, as in our next meeting to finalize, as in the mill rate, or...

No, she's talking down the road, right? You're talking down the road?

I'm talking the whole CRA business. As long as we have the option to cut it way back or drop it later on if things go south, then we can do that. Yes, we're going to have to. And I've made very clear how I feel about it. It's my first priority.

I think City Manager already told us if Amendment 3 passes, we're not having only one meeting in November. We're having two. We'll have a special meeting afterwards. We'll start this call session.

okay so tonight we're just doing the military so this part is on the budget itself the only two sticking points we seem to have was the animal shelter and the cra so we're walking through both of those to try to get everybody to a consensus so that we can vote on this tonight after we hear from the folks and get their input so we're going to motion mayor sir go ahead sam so

I'll say this. If we can agree that the focus on the CRA, if we leave it at 75%, if we shift the focus from the paint programs and the residential side to help people that already have houses to actually do things that will bring in revenue to the city, which would be businesses more so, because that brings in more revenue to the city, I am fine with the 75%.

So with that being said, I'll go ahead and make the motion to approve the budget where we keep the animal shelter and have the CRA at 75%.

I'll second that and I'll resonate with Commissioner Peebles that we're all on the CRA board and we can convene at the next meeting and we could direct the CRA director accordingly.

Thank you, gentlemen. We have a motion and a second to fund the CRA at 75% and the animal shelter at 100%.

The budget with those two hot topic items as such, 75 and funding the animal shelter. 75 for the CRA and the full funding for the animal shelter.

Okay, so what we have is a motion from Commissioner Peebles. We have a second from Commissioner Pernod. And now, City Manager, you need to read? You need to read? Okay. So now we'll open up the floor. Mr. Beshear, then I hear Mr. Zach Detweiler. Come on up, Mr. Beshear. Different resolution. And then Mr. Scray. Come on up. Which one? Oh, sir. Okay. Okay.

Yes, sir. Mr. Zach, if you'll hold back. I did not see the individual behind. Come on up, sir. Come on up. Our Navy veteran. Come on up, sir. Do you need to sit down? We can bring you a chair if you need to.

Thank you so much, sir. All right, Mr. Detweiler, come on up. Mr. Scray, you're on deck. Good evening.

Thank you, sir. All right, two more, Mr. Prescott, and then Mr. Schweitzer behind him. Good evening, sir.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Schweitzer, come on up. Good evening.

Comparable to our population size, there's only one other one.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Mr. Langford.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Any others? Sir, come on up. While he's coming up, we'll... After the public commentary and we're able to vote, just so you know, we're going to take a five-minute recess, or maybe ten, depending on how long the bathroom lines are, before we get started. We'll give everybody a bathroom and a stretch break. It's a long meeting, so... We'll take a break here in just a couple minutes. Sir.

Thank you. All right. Ms. Day, are you raising your hand? Okay. Ms. Day. Gina, are you back there? Could you take the microphone to Ms. Day, please? Who? I'm not seeing her. Okay. Hang on, Gina, turn it on for you, ma'am. Stand by just a second, y'all.

He's swapping the batteries out in it. Harold, the IT miracle worker.

Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Your point's well taken. Please do. And we did, to your first point, the CRA, we did discuss the CRA, and Mr. Jenke did multiple presentations in the different workshops. We've talked about it.

All right. Any other public comments on 4B? If not.

You're going to think I'm crazy, but what are we voting on?

Yes. All right. So can we close out this piece of the public hearing now? All right, we are closing out item 4B, the second part of the public hearing at 8.02 p.m. Central Time. Let's take a 10-minute bathroom and stretch break and we'll reconvene. Testing, testing. All right, there you go. All right, everybody, let's hunker down for part two. Hopefully this second part will flow. Hope everybody had a chance to stretch and do a comfort break if needed. We have, if you're looking at the agenda, we've gone through 4A and 4B, and we're now to the consent agenda. The consent agenda consists of fiv

Unanimous consent. Second. We have a motion and two seconds. Thank you, all three gentlemen. discussion for these consent items.

So just to be clear, we will be authorizing the FLOC contract termination. The 12.5K that is in the budget will have to stay there until you are able to clarify there is no withdrawal fees or anything like that in the contract. But when that's done, those funds will return to the general fund.

I'm sure they'll have about 411 municipalities from across the state doing the same thing. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any discussion needed tonight for these six agenda items?

Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Schweitzer and then Mr. Scray. Long time no see.

You're going to buy us all lunch tomorrow?

Thank you, sir. And I saw our fourth volunteer, our fourth speaker. Come on up.

Thank you, sir. All right, anyone else? I'm gonna stay. Gina. Thank you for your assistance, ma'am.

Sure, that's fine. The city manager's going to address that tonight, Ms. Day, and the city manager's report for you. It's not part of our consent agenda.

Yes, ma'am. Anyone else? If not, city manager, call the roll, please.

Mr. Switzer, you know I support you completely, but my votes, no. Mayor Lowry?

Yes. All right, we're on old business number 11, final reading of ordinance 1191, amending rules of procedure. This would be the rules of order for the city commission to do.

Thank you, City Manager. I'm going to ask that we table this. I would like the new City Attorney to be able to review this. Also, as I went through it, I noticed that literally none of my inputs that I asked to be put into this were incorporated. uh... the input that i got from mister jackson our prior attorney was he reviewed it but all he basically saw was commissioner wark's input to him uh... so what i'd really like to do is for us to go through this again i would like the new city manager assuming the new city attorney to be involved as well and do one more scrub on this before we bring t

I want to table it until the new city attorney can review it. There are a couple of Robert's Rules of Order type things in there where it's kind of a big gray area. And I would like to have my inputs actually reviewed as well. And then if any other commissioner has any other thoughts or inputs, I would really like those contributions as well to be brought up and looked at. So table it for now until we revise and have the new city attorney look at it.

I'll make a motion to table it until it's brought back on the agenda.

Thank you, sir. Second. Thank you, ma'am. I have a motion and a second. Any public commentary regarding this? If not, thank you. City Manager.

Yes. Thank you all for that. I want us to have a really good product we're all proud of. So let's fine tweak it a little more and we'll be good to go. We tabled number 12 already because that's still a work in progress between Commissioner Peebles and our new city attorney. So we're on new business item number 13, discussion and possible approval of resolution 2026-08-579, final stormwater assessment.

So two quick things on this, and I wanna open this up and get inputs from the whole commission. This is one opportunity, Commissioner Perna already mentioned this earlier. This is one area.

Yes, sir. Thank you. Sorry. We have two different potential discussion points on this that I can see. One, this is one area where Commissioner Perno has already talked about. We could reduce the financial impact on our citizens by rather than doing a 3% increase here on the stormwater, we could do a 0%. We could hold as is. It was a mighty big jump last year on a whole lot of folks. Mine actually doubled assessment-wise. And to Mr. Langford and Mr. Ganey, I did not forget my commitment to you that we're going to address the vacant parcels. The city manager and I went back and literally talked

Mayor? I make a motion to approve with zero percent increase, keep it the same. Second.

Thank you. Sam, I heard you try to come online, sir.

All right. Well, I guess we'll go first and a second. So it's for discussion now. I was kind of chuckling on mute over there because you said almost exactly how I feel about it, that I've said this in the past. We were just trying, I was trying to at the beginning, I'd never really liked the non out of warm assessment for stormwater. I realize it needs to be funded. I do think I to Mr. Langford's point. The the vacant land thing isn't right. I think now that we we have the Commission that we have, I think we owe it to the city and the citizens. And us as a Commission that this should be a prio

Thank you, sir. And Commissioner Pernaut also mentioned we had some very heavy rains here recently. And I received several, as I'm sure other commissioners did, several videos from folks, text, pictures. Hey, I'm having this drainage overflow. This canal is completely over flooded. These are heavy rains and you guys need to come back out and clean this for me, this culvert. Our 12 stormwater workers do a whole lot of yeoman's grunt work, but they do very important yeoman's grunt work, digging ditches and cleaning culverts and all that stuff to give our water a place to go. We're here basically

Correct me, I misspoke. I was talking about their disposables. Their disposables, about $200,000, right?

That's what I was referring to, not the multimillion dollars of actual infrastructure assets. But I appreciate the clarification there. There's no intent to use a wrong term there. So thank you for that. All right, any other discussion among the commission on this one? Hearing none.

Just one more thing. Just one more thing I just wanted to say. I would like to say that we do owe it to the staff that if we don't do the 3%, that we, again, need to make it a priority to fix this so that they have clarification on what the way is forward.

Yes. And I'd actually like to go back to Commissioner Warwick's proposal from last December, roll the tape back, blow it off, update it as needed, and let's, as a commission, take another hard look at that.

to go with an as-is versus a 3% increase?

Sorry, I misunderstood. I understand what you're saying now. Basically, go back to scratch, ground zero. Potentially, what other options do we have with this commission award pitch? Gotcha. Gotcha. Okay. All right. No other comments from the commission? I'll open up the floor. Mr. Langford, I'm giving you the first time, sir. And then Mr. Scray, you're second.

City Manager, City Attorney, can you all speak to that?

Sir, you've had your three minutes plus some. I gave you some extra. Your three minutes is up. Thank you, sir. Respectfully. have to treat you just like everybody else. You're my senior and I'd give you six minutes if I could, but I can't. It's three minutes.

Mayor? Can I just ask a simple question? It says here, discussion impossible. Yes, ma'am. Can't we take a harder look at this before we

So what I would like to do, or propose to the rest of the team here, I actually like Mr. Langford's proposal, and Commissioner Pernaut, you motioned for this. I believe you motioned.

Was it Commissioner Warrick motioned? I'm sorry, you seconded, right? My apologies. Commissioner Warrick, you made this motion. Would you be willing to amend your motion to no increase, proceed as is currently, We all seem to agree that there needs to be a major hard look overhaul of stormwater. Still no increase, but per Mr. Langford's request, amend to state out clearly our intent in the new budget is no increase. And in the first quarter of the new FY, the city commission will deep dive into this and earnestly work at getting to the bottom of how we need to overhaul and rework the stormwate

I'm fine with that. So I'll amend my motion. Same motion as before with I plan in the first quarter to relook at stormwater methodology.

Yeah, that's the other thing. So it's going to be enterprise fund, not going to affect general fund, right?

I'll rescind my second and second that motion.

Sincerely, gentlemen, thank you all for that. So the motion is being amended to add the first quarter focus. I gave you my word, Mr. Langford, and I intend to keep it. So thank you, gentlemen, for being agreeable to that. Any other discussion on stormwater before we vote? Ma'am, come on up.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you for that. That's a thoughtful observation. Ms. Day? Hang on, Ms. Gina.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any other public commentary on item 13? Hearing none, city manager, would you call the roll? Mayor, can I say something? Yes. I'm sorry. Commissioner Peebles, go ahead.

Yes. So I just also wanted to say that thank you for amending the motion. That was a great idea by Mr. Lankford. I chuckled when you said that because if you didn't say it, I was going to say it because I didn't even think about that. So thank you, Corey, for that suggestion. that's a perfect way to do exactly what I was trying to articulate that if we're gonna do this, we need to do it. And so I appreciate that. While everyone was talking, just something to keep in mind, maybe we can talk about maybe doing like a hybrid where my issue, we didn't really get a chance to talk about this a lot, o

Yes. Thank you all for that. All right, we are down to number 14 now, discussion and possible approval of the roles and responsibilities and selection slash appointment process of the city clerk. As you know, the people of Lynnhaven, the voters... passed by 72, 73% our request for that for the city clerk. I believe it was number one. So now we have the authority to do so. We talked about this a little bit last meeting and now we're back here. We kind of have two kind of tracks to look at. One is a finance related and one is a administrative related. Those are kind of the two pathways that we h

You can take my slide down, Harold. um i think the first thing we need to determine is do we want to go with the initial plan that we originally discussed with the city clerk slash treasurer i think that's the first thing we got to determine I'm a big proponent of it. I know you said you're not, and I don't understand why, because we talked about this multiple times. I just, there's a lot of benefits to it, because when you look at the past history of Lynn Haven, especially when it comes to finance, you want those checks and balances in place, and by putting it as independent from the city, pu

Do we, have we advertised for applicants yet?

No, no, no. We're still in the initial phase where the five of us need to determine what our game plan is going to be here. So my thoughts are, and as I've said all along, y'all have heard me say this many times, if we hire internal, if we promote from within, We really have a couple of different contenders, right? If we go administrative or if we go financial for the core clerk, okay? If we take an existing full-time resource and promote it, we're not costing a whole new salary, right? You're taking a small amount of a fully funded salary line. And so we will be able to save, depending on wha

I think we need to determine if we want clerk, treasurer, or just clerk. I think that's the first step.

I definitely think we just need a clerk that reports to the commission.

Okay, thank you for that. Commissioner Pernaut, what's your thoughts, sir?

We're creating a position that's gonna answer to the commission, correct?

So would they be fiscally responsible for the checks and balance of the commission?

you know, the ledger, so to speak. So if it's a clerk treasurer, yes, they will be responsible for all the revenue and expenditures that come to the city.

And if it's a clerk, an administrative clerk, Tiki could not have the title director of finance, but she could be a treasurer or a comptroller and report to that clerk. So yes, either way, either way we set it up with an administrative.

Can you bring my slides up, Harold? See what you got. All right, go to the next slide. Next slide. Next slide. No, keep going. There's one that I think there's a definite or the roles and responsibilities. Keep going. Here it is. Well, this would be all the responsibilities for clerk treasurer. So if you look at that clerk and commission support, that's basically what you call ministerial duties of a city clerk.

The one on the left. On the left, yes. Okay. And then the center is your treasurer, basically, your financial manager, and then financial?

The financial management and control would be the treasurer piece.

Okay. So just to clarify though, city manager, we talked about this a little bit in the last meeting too. So is there a requirement if it's a clerk treasurer, right? That's the money person, that is a standalone report to the commission. But you just said, if I understood you right, that if the clerk is an administrative, that the finance person, the director of finance would need to stay under you as the city manager. That's correct. And my question is, what drives that? Is that city charter, is that state law, or what is that?

tracking my only Clarification question because I'm just not understanding. I want to make sure I understand what you're saying If the city commission was to assign say talking about we're talking about the two options, right? So we have an administrative clerk or we have a financial clerk treasurer right the bean counter slash clerk if you have an administrative clerk or What is there if the city commission reassigns the head bean counter, for lack of a better term, the treasurer person, under the supervision of the administrative clerk? How is that?

And there's a lot more certifications that are involved in that too.

So what I hear you saying is they're a treasurer first and then a clerk.

That's what I was missing. So thank you for that.

Well, I wish I could explain this better. I have it in my head, but if you think about whenever we, like, us as the commission, we set the priorities. We say, like we did tonight, we went all over the budget and saying, hey, this is what you got. Now the city manager has direction on how to work all his operations, administrations, with the budget that he has. now if he whenever him and the department heads all have to spend money that's all going to have to go through the city clerk slash treasurer and that's what creates the checks and balances because if somebody accuses to the city manager

But if they're a clerk treasurer, no. But did it happen? It didn't happen. But if you had a clerk treasurer that is an officer that worked for the commission, the expectation is to tell us what happened. And if it doesn't, then it's our responsibility to terminate them and then hire someone else that will do that.

Right. The duties that I read that Jennifer sent out, you sent out that sheet, isn't that something, who's doing all that now? Isn't it CJ? Doesn't she do all those items?

And like you were talking about with bidding, remember you brought up about opening the bid and all that stuff? and you wanted the checks and balances and that opening, right? You could even delegate the city clerk-treasurer, even though you got a procurement manager, which still would fall under the city manager, we could put that in the roles and responsibilities, which I think I did in my, where the clerk-treasurer will go to the opening of the bid to make sure that the city is doing what they're supposed to be doing on top of what the procurement manager's already doing, and that creates m

And that was my question. And that was one of my questions why that last line you read, additional duties by the commission, that's why that line's in there. And that's why we determined not to write it out yet and strictly define define it because let's say it doesn't work out. We have the flexibility and opportunity to change it back if we wanted to and say this is not working out. But let's say we do this for a couple, two, three years and we're like, this is working out great. Then we can put those things in the charter to define all that when we know this is how we want it to look. Becaus

If I may. Go ahead. As far as education, I mean, do you have, I know you, your education, do you have the education to do all that?

Are you a licensed CPA? I am not a CPA. She is not.

Sam, what's your initial first blush thoughts here as we talk about administrative versus treasurer?

So my idea is kind of that just like what Chris does as a city manager right now, the treasurer would just Be ultimately the person that signs off on the checks. That doesn't mean that they have to do all the financial work. It just means that the financial side of things is going to be more directly connected to. Reporting to the Commission so you still would have all the stuff that's being done right now at the clerk on the ministerial side, but also you have that final sign off on the check. Signing off on the check is the big thing, right?

So if we go with the treasurer versus the ministerial, that's not going to, in my opinion, change any, it's really not going to change anything in terms of candidates or requirements. It's more so the function of the job. And if the whole purpose of a clerk is to be checks and balances, that signing of the check is what matters. So I've also talked to multiple commissioners from multiple cities. And they all have different opinions. There's no unified decision. But based on what I've gathered for a city our size, the treasurer clerk seems to be, in my opinion, the best route to go.

Okay. Thank you for that. Commissioner Pernault.

Let's move on. All right. Motion and vote.

So we have everybody's initial kind of first blush inputs. What are y'all looking for in terms of filling it? Do y'all want to do an internal, as we've talked about?

So one point of clarification on that, are we looking, and this is one thing I guess we need to give you as staff, Internal or external? Internal saves money, but external, you could do, I guess, cast the net for internal and external. So what are y'all's thoughts?

We'll get to that second question. I'll just make the motion to approve city clerk slash treasurer. Second.

I have a motion and a second for a city clerk slash treasurer. Any thoughts or inputs from the public tonight? Come on up, Mr. Scray. Should be a hot mic.

There you go. So that's what I have set up here is a procurement manager administratively falls under the city manager.

Thank you. Who else? Anyone else on this? All right. City manager, well, any other discussion amongst the commission? It seems like, and Jamie, I see where you're going with this, the city clerk treasurer. I was operating under the assumption that we could have either an administrative clerk with a financial person under them, or we could have a financial clerk with an administrative person under them that either one, basically like two colonels, you have a wing commander and a group commander, basically one plugs under the other, and can switch either way.

And I looked at that. The issue I had with that is they both have their own responsibilities. And if there's a conflict between them, it's going to create a lot of problems. And that's why I think you need one POC or point of contact that you go through for all that. And of course, they're going to have the deputy treasurer and the deputy clerk under them to kind of help them all with that too.

Well, this leads into how we staff this, but I see this as the administrative clerk, if you have the finance person under them, they're basically the comptroller, right? But the comptroller clerk, I'm trying to come up with, I guess it would be like an MSG, mission support group commander slash comptroller, if you add the two together, because you're gonna have the clerk doing all of the administrative functions, the record keeping, all of the core, mission support squadron, for lack of a better term, right? But it is a possibility. We have two good applicants, our two good, very strong clerk

than someone subordinate to them and that is topsy-turvy that makes sense and we're not looking to add anything else other than at this time correct me if i'm wrong fellow commissioners but we're basically looking at just the bean counting and just the records we're not looking to add anything else the the clerk duties we're not looking to add anything else to that everything else stays under the city manager except for the I guess you'd say trust but verify, right? The actual authentication. Is there anything else y'all are looking to put duty-wise under the city clerk at this time? Because w

Mayor, here's how I thought we were trying to figure it out. If we went with just a clerk, they would report to us. If you go with the treasurer, then they would report to city manager.

No, ma'am. You're talking about clerk treasurer? Yeah. Clerk treasurer? No.

If we go with clerk treasurer, that would be an officer that's under the commission, they would report to the commission.

But Kiki has a hard enough time with what she has. How could she possibly, I should be asking you this, how could she possibly do all that?

She'll be doing the same thing she's doing now.

But the reporting. the person that they report to will be different. That's where the checks and balances comes into place.

So basically this comes down to a grades thing is what you're telling me. Y'all are recommending against a clerk with a treasurer underneath because of the grades disconnect effectively, right?

And not only that, let's say you did put a treasurer under the clerk. You want the clerk to be reporting to you, but you also want them to be the subject matter expert. So if they're not the subject matter expert, that's where I have the problem with the treasurer underneath, especially if there's some type of conflict between the two. And that's why I think it's so important to have that one point of contact.

And I hear you, Commissioner Wark, and I understand what you're saying. I don't know, I just, I keep going back to the administrative clerk with a treasurer or a comptroller underneath. But I see your city clerk, I see what you're saying as well. You have two very specialized SMEs, subject matter experts, right? So one's gotta fall under the other regardless. I don't know.

And I did do a lot of research to look around other municipalities to see if they're set up like that. There was one I found, I don't remember what state it was in, but it was a very unique form of government that they had. The only time I saw it where they were separate is they actually had a city clerk as an officer and a treasurer or comptroller as an officer. So they had two officers that were reporting to the commission. I've seen it set up that way too, but if we were to do that, I think we would have to add an extra position though, and I don't think that's really the road we should be

Well, along that tonight, and it's been a very long night. It's already almost 940. I don't want to belabor this any more than we have to.

Let's vote on this, if you don't mind, and I'll give you my idea of what I think we should do.

In regards to what we're about to vote on?

No, no, no. If this passes, if we hire internally or if we go out and advertise for it.

So, yeah, so that'll be a whole separate piece regardless. The first step is, do y'all want to do the admin clerk or do you want to do the... We got a motion.

But from a legal perspective, we're talking about grades and that kind. We have two very distinct subject matter experts, and one's going to have to roll under the other if we don't plug in another. We don't bring in an outside person with a new position and Kiki and CJ fall under that person. We've got two subject matter expert superstars. One's going to have to subordinate under the other structurally, organizationally, if we go with an administrative clerk with a treasurer underneath, or if we do this clerk-treasurer combination.

So we have a motion and a second. We've had public commentary. We've had additional conversation amongst the commission. I guess now is the time to do the city manager vote. Unless there's any other discussion amongst the commission, we'll go forward with this. Sam, you're not here, so I can't see you, buddy. Is there anything else you want to add?

I just want to be clear on what we're voting on. Okay. Clerk-treasurer. We want clerk-treasurer.

So can I just kind of say something where... My opinion is, since we're not adding any positions, and I think we can put all the same people in these slots here, that we should hire internally. And the reason I believe that is this is an organizational change. The last thing we want to do is bring in someone from outside. They come in, and not only are they trying to figure out how we're reorganizing and we're trying to redo some policy to line up with all this,

i think it's a lot easier to use the same people because they already understand how the operation is working currently in the city i like kiki i like cj i think either one of them could do a great job it's just a matter of which way are we going to go and the only reason i hesitate a lot on the clerk treasure and i don't want to belabor it because we got other stuff to do is i actually got to talk with uh mayor branch from panama city this past week at the league of cities and they're actually moving away from that model it didn't really work for them anymore. That's the whole reason I actual

Well, they're actually keeping the treasurer portion, and they're putting the clerk under the city manager, which I told them all I disagree with it, but that's on them. That's their city.

Yeah, copy. But they're moving away from the clerk treasurer, and that was the example that you and I referenced as trying to look for a model to model after. So that's what caused me to back up and go, An administrative makes more sense to me. Why don't we, so we've given direction of 3-2 to... No, sir. What else do you need?

You'll bring it up at the next one. okay so we're three two on number fourteen um fifteen approve and amend restated municipal legal services agreement between the city of lynnhaven and dunlap and shipment llc uh one aspect of that i'm gonna for this obviously i'm not representing the city related to 15. i think the city has kayla platt that's reviewed this on that respect but i am here

No, no, you're fine. This is brief and this was for one item only. So did everybody get a chance to look over the revised legal services? I used the metaphor of wax on a newly washed car and kind of refinement. Did everybody get a chance to look at it? It's 20 pages. Yeah. Any issues or concerns with it as presented?

So I had a response there of some of the things that we had talked about before that I didn't have my original. And I sent the email, and I don't know if Dunlap Shipman had any issues with those.

Okay, copy that. So most of these changes for the few of our diehards still in the audience, it was adding the city clerk, I think in three places. It added reference to coordinating with the city manager and the new city clerk when that person gets hired on. And there was one or two other minor word changes like happy to glad, puppy to small dog kind of stuff. They were not significant edits at all, but it just added a little bit more clarification, which was, I believe, my colleague, Commissioner Wark's intent to begin with. So we have the amended proposal, a good faith amendment, and I woul

Second. I have a motion and a second. Anything from our few diehards left? I know it's pushing 10 o'clock. Any questions or comments on this? City Manager?

Yes, so 4-1. All right, as we wrap up here, these last few should go quickly. We've got a first reading of three different ordinances that we worked recently with our Charter Review Committee workshop. And so city manager, if you want to, do we need to, they're just first reading, so do you want to just plow through 16?

Yeah, so sanitation for one can goes from 2486 to 36, and two cans goes from 2808 to 42. And this will be the first increase in how many years?

The only feedback I've gotten from the public on the fee schedule was the gym, actually, and it was like, why do you have three lines? It's $900, I think, for one day, $1,800 for two days, and $2,700 for three days on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Yes, sir. It's like, why not just $900 a day and be done?

That is literally the only constructive feedback I've received was that question on the fee schedule. The rest of it, let's see, sports and recs changes, you were adding youth volleyball and you were adjusting some like flag football for youth. There were a couple of minor adjustments there, but nothing really controversial. So. I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second?

Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any other discussion among the commission? No. Open it up for our public. Come on up, Mr. Langford.

Thank you, sir. You want to speak to that?

What's driving the actual increase this year?

All right. Anybody else? Ms. Day? Gina, one more time, ma'am. Thank you for being our mic support tonight, by the way.

Okay. Oh, you're not finished yet. I want to say something when you're done.

I can honestly say that I have been told by employees, if you live in the garden club, country club, I mean, the country club, you can get your garbage picked up for free. Your landscaper, oh, yeah. Oh, yes. Don't look at me like I'm an idiot. Right. I have been told... that if you have a landscaper, they can come and dump all their garbage in your front yard, and the driver has been told, don't write a ticket on that one. Don't write a ticket on that one. So there's a lot of garbage being picked up that we don't charge for. I'll also say this. In 2017, I met with Joel Schubert two weeks after

Yeah, so a couple things with that. So is it trash or yard debris that you're talking about?

I'm talking yard debris. They were told not to write a ticket on it.

So a landscaper can come and cut down palm tree and everything, just pile it up, and we don't charge them to pick it up?

Well, we better triple our charges. If someone was doing yard work in your yard, and they had a bunch of clippings and branches and that, you can put them in front of your house, and they come pick it up for free.

I always throw mine over in Libby Tenell's yard.

That's fine. But you know what I'm saying? That's for everyone in Lundheim, not just the country club. Okay.

I'm just telling you I was told they're very selective.

And the other thing that Mr. Lightfoot was talking about where they hire one contractor to pick up all the trash, well actually that's commercial. I'm trying to remember. So the advantage of that is I remember, this was probably about three, four years ago, Panama City Beach, they had a special meeting about trash pickup. And one of the problems they're running into is because they get a lot of traffic from tourism and that, but especially your secondary roads, those trash trucks when they come through, they're very rough on the roads and they can tear them up and then they have to get repaire

We have probably five or six of us that all put our yard clippings in the same area because it's a win-win for everybody. It's less wear and tear on the trucks, but it also means that the trucks are only picking up from one area. So it's only messing up grass in one area rather than messing up grass in multiple areas. So if you can get your neighbors to all decide on one spot to put the yard clippings, it's a win for everybody. So, I mean, The fact that the country club is doing that, I think that that's a wise thing to do. Because rather than destroying grass on public right-of-ways all over

I understand. Thank you, Commissioner Peebles. Any other discussion among the commission before we vote on this? Hearing none. I'm tired, so excuse me if my hard drafts gets the step here. We've already had a motion and a second. We did public commentary, right?

Number 19. So it was a 3-2 vote to approve the fee schedule. Okay. Last item up tonight. Thank y'all handful of folks still with us. We're literally down to the last one now.

Thanks. No questions from the Commission? Questions among the public or concerns for item number 20?

No questions. All right. City Manager, call the roll.

Yes. 5-0. All right. We're going to get to, this brings us down to the last section, public commentary. This may be the first time we've ever done that. We drug y'all five hours into this. Okay, one more for Ms. Day. You're saving yours, bless you. Well, thank you, Ms. Day. I appreciate you being here tonight, ma'am. All right, no public commentary, reports. I'm skipping the mayor's report tonight. It's been a long time. I appreciate y'all all being here with us tonight. We'll start with you, Ms. Tender, and we'll work this way.

Probably the most important thing I have to say is this is definitely my last meeting. I'm retiring tonight. That's all I'm going to say. Up to here. Past up to here. So do whatever you want with it. Sorry. There's a rat in the woodpile.

I'm sorry to hear that, ma'am. So do I understand this? You're retiring, resigning effective tonight. I'm very sorry to hear that. And I want to thank you for your two terms of service. Sincerely. I'm proud to call you a wing woman and a friend and a fellow teammate.

Integrity and honesty are the most important things that should go on here, and they do not.

Thank you, Mayor. Just a few quick things. Commissioner Tender, just from the bottom of my heart, thank you for all your years of service to the city. It's very clear that you care about the city and its citizens and thank you for all that you've done. You know, maybe we haven't always voted exactly the same, but I know your heart and I know that it was in the right place and I appreciate you. So don't be a stranger and I'll come and see you at Victoria's, all right? And then I also wanted to give a shout out to Battalion Chief Ingram and Company A at the Fire Department. They hosted me This w

I have no report. Thank you, Commissioner Tender, for everything.

Sure. Is there anything we can do to convince you to stay?

Well, I hate to see you go, and it's just weird if all of a sudden I didn't expect it and didn't see it coming. So I'm sorry to see you go.

Kiki, anything from the finance report? Not that we haven't talked enough about numbers.

City Attorney, our infamous caboose, last but certainly not least.

You have been a hell of a commissioner, a hell of a constituent services, a friend and a mentor, and thank you sincerely for your service.