City Commission - Special Meeting

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.

Next up is presentations, the city attorney. Open up for public comment, Madam Clerk. Sorry, I thought I was going to print. Go ahead.

Mr. Mayor, I would like to take this opportunity to ask all the participants to rise because they did do a lot of work and I want to thank them. I believe we all want to thank them. So if people, if you can all rise so we can acknowledge who you are. Absolutely, there's a...

So Bruce Cousins and David Templer did not come up to make public comment, but they were also hardworking on this one. I appreciate all of you. Thank you so much.

And I'm game to hearing a presentation if the other commissioners are as well.

All right. Section 4.1. Is that the city attorney or the city manager? 4.1. Yeah, that's the first one, 4.41.

I'm just looking at the agenda form. Oh, I'm sorry. No, it says next legislation 4.1. There's only one item. That's all.

So, I don't think they've made a presentation. No, they... The request is being made is...

You're allowed to make a presentation by a member that I guess the chair recommended. That's what the request was being made.

Yeah, thank you for the committee members. You did a wonderful job. I really appreciate it. We just got the full document completely redlined and everything, so in order for going one page by one page, there's a lot of Scribner's errors, there's a lot of language corrections, and I wouldn't want to go over all those, just the meat ones. That's my preference.

No, not to go through it all, because like when it changes and to or or something like that.

No. Okay. Is that how you want? I'm fine. All right, Commissioner Smith.

Thank you. Through the mayor, I want to thank the committee so much. I know I've heard from A lot of people that went to the meetings, how much former Commissioner David Templer helped and Bruce Cousins. We had attorneys actually on the committee, so I'm very grateful for all of them, very knowledgeable. I'm not, I've been on a charter review committee prior to this, and what we were given before were a list of 10 items. It could have been nine, it could have been 11, and we were told not to pick too many, because when people get to the ballot and they start to vote, they're not gonna read thr

My personal preference would be we discuss each one as a Commission, whether it's the civil, whether it's a new charter officer, whether it's the date of the voting, we discuss it and then at the end of each discussion come to conclusion whether we're putting that on or not putting that on or at the end of all of them. I would like to discuss each one amongst us. That would be my preference.

Thank you. First of all, I want to mention by name. So Mubarak Kazan, Bruce Cousins, David Templer, Barbara Kramer, Geraldine Lazar, Whitney Padote. I want to commend them for the hard work. It was nine meetings in two months. That's a lot of meetings, and each meeting sometimes lasted till nine or ten or later. We bought lunches, we ate together. I had the privilege of attending some of them and I know how much effort they put into this. I also want to commend my colleagues here that appointed such a good team to be on the Charter Review Board as this is an important issue that we are address

No, he gave a suggestion. We're just going to go through it.

If we go through the whole thing, then what is it? We're going to vote yes across the board?

I was going by the... Well, I like that idea.

One by one and then just voting on each one? Which is what Phyllis did, right? Right. I think so. Okay. No, I just wanted to clarify because it seems like the attorney said something else, so I just wanted to make sure.

Mr. Attorney, through the mayor, do you know how many issues there were? Do you know a number?

I'm talking about the major issues. Do you have an idea?

Mr. Mayor, if I could ask Mr. Templer if he has an idea of how many. And the reason, the purpose of me trying to find out a number is if there's 12, maybe we want to pay attention to which ones in particular, because we're going to vote one at a time. that we're gonna try to eliminate, not to have 12 on the ballot, to have maybe eight on the ballot.

No, I know, I was asking major changes. Did you know Mr. Templer made these changes?

Well, look, just to clarify, here's where I can simplify a lot of it. Depending on how you set it up, You can have a million questions or whatever, right? However, if it's like the way the, I guess the city attorney was pointing, the most comprehensive way is like an ominous type of thing. It has everything. And then from that one thing, you can take off from what you want. Now, you can separate it and do it that way, but it will create situations later on down the road. I'm just seeing it that way, but it is what it is. Oh, go ahead. Thank you. Can we get the answer from Mr. Tempore?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So there are not a vast number of changes in the charter. I think it's a lot of work. uh... that went into this first of all i want to thank you guys for all of your efforts uh... but but the changes are not vast to the point where we can't go through uh... the vision of the charter committee the charter review committee i think we should go through one by one And then once we go through one by one, we have a synopsis of, OK, this is where they started. This is where they ended. And then we can come back and then start taking up items individually and deciding what w

Well, I would like to vote on it after each item so that we don't kind of forget.

No, well, I think the synopsis is important as a whole. because perhaps one section may affect the other. And I think that's important as well, because some sections may affect the other. And I would hate to vote on a particular section only to find out that here's how it would affect another section of the charter. So that's the reason behind, and it's not a lot. That's what I'm saying. I think we can just read through it and then come back and vote second.

Isn't that what we're being charged anyway nowadays? He has volunteered many, many, many, many of his hours for the city.

Mr. Mayor, may I ask Mr. Templer a question? I'm sorry? Mr. Templer, so now you're requiring... Yeah, I already did. I asked him. Thank you. Okay. It looks like it's there's I mean like requiring them to do a state of the city address and I mean what came about how this come about.

Does anybody on the board remember? What is the question? Why 2.1 came into place?

And why does it say the mayor shall annually present a State of the City message? Like, why are we forcing that? Why are we requiring that, yeah.

And I would like to know why the words telular head was removed when he is the face of the city to be the cheerleader for people to come to North Rhine Beach?

You did vote or did not? I didn't hear you.

Through the mayor, I think there's a few things in here. We're not Aventura. Aventura mayor is everywhere, everywhere, 12 times a day, 20 days a week. He's everywhere, and he's on social media. If we want that to be part of North Miami Beach, then the requirements of the mayor should be a little more specific, and I just want to understand, because I'm very basic at trying to understand what the paper says, The mayor's gonna have the service of process, execution of duly authorized contracts, deeds, and other documents. Does not that have to say upon commission approval of those things? I mean

Okay, well we're here to decide what we want to change in the charter. So, I would like to make it very clear, I missed the dually, I missed that class of dually authorized contracts, because I think I had the flu in my law class that day. But I appreciate you explaining it to me because I don't, unfortunately, the charters only change, or maybe fortunately, it's such an obvious undertaking, only every 10 years. And what we change in the charter is gonna stick. I would like this paragraph to make sure that the mayor performs the duties because unfortunately, what I've seen is our mayor very ra

I don't think you quite understood what I had as a goal then.

No, but we can, I want to add whatever word that maybe Mr. Templer will help me or maybe Mr. Cousins will help me to make sure whoever is the mayor in this city will be the mayor representing us when and where necessary.

Mr. Attorney. Yes, ma'am. The charter clearly is dictating right now as we read it what the mayor's duties are once a year. He will have a state. We're clearly looking.

Well, that's what I'm trying to do, have proposed language. Maybe you're understanding a little better now because you repeated it. I would like to have proposed language

I heard you, that makes a lot of sense. I heard you loud and clear. I personally, from my seat and my years of experience, would love to figure out a way that the charter does require whoever is the telular head to act like the till your head, to be at meetings, to be out there singing the praises of our city. So if there's some way to incorporate that without, we can think about it, we don't have to have the word this second, but those that go to these meetings, events or those that go to the, whatever it is, a grand opening and do not see our mayor. I mean, even simple events like Juneteenth

I agree with that, but because that's the way it's written, we're here to discuss what else could be added or deleted, and I don't know would, in your, in your thoughts of being on the commission, would the words added, the telular head, then there comes a time when you can say the telular head is not performing the duties. I'm just asking.

No, but we could add it now. We could add a tillular head as a sentence.

Okay, I feel like we're deviating from the original. Yes, and instruction so if we can go through Mister city attorney. Mister vice mayor of the we did say with all that I understand that I'm with that the question and I value her question and I'm I'm not trying to dismiss it, but what I'm saying is we it's been a while so we have to kind of move on and then we'll come back.

right well i do have a question through the mayor if i may oh sorry um so i just want to know where it says the mayor shall annual pres annually present a state of the city message so what happens if they don't nothing so what's the point of even having it that's correct you're correct commissioner

Also through the mayor, if I may, you know, we have ordinances and resolutions. And so I think we have to be mindful of what those accomplish as well. If there are certain things that we want to see done or that we want to make a statement on. So, you know, the charter itself, you know, serves one purpose, but then the ordinances and resolutions we can deal with at another time to address certain issues. So just wanted to make that point.

Any questions or comments? All right, we can move on.

Mr. Attorney. Yes, sir. Let's go to Commissioner Smith. She has a question, and if anyone else has a question. Okay, so there'll be no more questions after Commissioner Smith.

okay so commissioner smith commissioner jean and then we'll move on from this particular point but thank you for your um comments on that my question was it's the way it's worded the commission shall make written findings okay how is the seven of us going to prepare a written document that's exactly what a commissioner was saying um and and then in the end when Mr. Templer said something about having teeth in it. It says, failure to make. this written document. It says such findings, but this written document. So constitute noncompliance with the charter. So I mean, it doesn't say you'll have

Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Jean.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Good evening. I wanted to also take a moment to thank the committee for their time. I think this is the first time I'm actually making a comment. I have a suggestion. I see that on the revision page, we were given 10 to 14, 16 through 19, and then 21... through 23. Can we take those in chunks? Because I think if we go through this entire document and go back, I think most of the commissioners mentioned if we were to review each and then make a vote, because if we go through everything and then come back, we're going to be here double the time. So my suggestion is that if

So what are you saying exactly? You want to vote? You want to vote in sections?

In sections, but if you have objections for each item, we would still go each item. Once we take your notes, and then we go and take those votes individually so that we can at least get through one section. I second that. Through the vice mayor, I may.

Okay, so is that a motion? Motion, yeah. Okay, you have a second. Second. Okay, Commissioner Smith. I second. No, Commissioner Smucker did.

I just would like to go through them all so I know how many before I vote yes or no on three or four, because we could vote yes on all four and turn up that there's 12 more coming down the pike.

And I think to Commissioner Smith's point, we didn't want for something that affected another piece to be ignored. So that was the reason we were going through all of them and taking notes. But since we have a motion on the table in a second, do you want to keep your motion?

Well, here's what I'll say to that. We need to go faster, that's one thing. The second thing is, if there are any provisions that contradict another, you can highlight those. Hopefully there's some pairing that can be done so that we're not, oh wait, this 99-1 conflicts with this fifth one.

The motion is if we can go through 10 through 14, then go back individually and make those changes individually.

Well, my ask of you as well, through the Vice Mayor, is that we speed it up as well, Mr. Attorney?

Madam Commissioner, are you withdrawing your motion? I'm not. So what are we doing with your motion? Because we have to address it. Okay, so the motion is that we vote in sections. Is that, that's your motion?

Yes, and we still are individually going through each section, each item, but voting in that group and making our corrections as we go.

That's fine. OK, so with that being said, what we're going to be voting on is considering moving things per section for consideration to go on the ballot versus voting on each individual item to go on the ballot. Is that your motion?

That's not the motion. To his point, right, to the attorney's point, not everything is going to be added to the ballot. Now, as we review, we are making our corrections. Not all those corrections will be on the ballot because not every item will be quantified to be on the ballot, right? Does that make sense?

All right, well, let's see how this goes. Okay, your motion, your second.

Do you understand what we're trying to accomplish?

We're just going to vote. There's 10 to 14. We're going to vote 10 to 14 individually. Then when we finish 16 to 19, we'll vote on those individually. And when we finish 21 to 23, we'll vote on those individually.

Right. I understand. Then there's a motion on any items. All right. Okay. So we have a motion and then we have a second. So all in favor.

Okay, so we're currently... Section 2.3.

I made a note to remove the word written, so when you get back to that, I don't know how you're getting back and how we're voting. But when you get back to it, then we have to vote on whether or not that word's gonna be removed.

So to the attorney's point, which I don't think we're even following, to be honest with you, the ordinance that currently is on the books actually has a consideration of cost of living increases. So I think it's, if I remember correctly, maybe, I don't know, it was like 1% or 2%, something to that effect. So it does address cost of living. So if it were to be, this is just my understanding, if it were to be in the charter to go to the voters, it wouldn't necessarily mean that there wouldn't be a cost of living increase. The cost of living increase would still remain because we're... No.

Because it's specific to fiscal year 26 is what you're saying. The charter would control over any inconsistent ordinance. Correct.

Through the Vice Mayor. I'd like to ask the attorney, if we're changing the charter to read this, why couldn't the charter also have, however, there will be a cost of living adjustment of a certain percentage?

You'd have to add that because there's a yin and a yang to this. The yin that's so good about this is it does control how much the majority could give themselves. The yang is it only comes up every 10 years. And who the heck knows what 10 years will be like from now, you have no idea.

I'm recognizing that 10 years is a maximum is not easy to get a charter review committee going and it is very time consuming from the residents. So yes, I'm going to go with that latter commissioners my time in my head rather than the shorter. Are you thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. On the last paragraph where it talks about insurance benefits, the second sentence that says after their term of service, commissioners may be offered the opportunity to remain, shouldn't it be shall be offered?

Shall. All right, so do I have to make a motion for that?

OK, I just want to bring this to our attention. The salary, quote unquote, is like this is not a job for us. Right. We are volunteering our time and being compensated and for our time. So I mean, I think that being on being having this in the charter Amendment is a good idea, even though Mr. Attorney did say something. But I think that adding a CPI index would be fair because eventually the $500 a month that the county commissioners are getting paid from how many years ago was it?

about 60 years ago and it hasn't been able to be voted back in. I think this way we kind of safeguard any expenses that we incur from doing our job as volunteers in the city for eight years maximum, I think is a fair thing. But I definitely think that we should codify that, lock it in, and not have I mean, we have seen cities that have given themselves salaries of like $80,000, $100,000, $120,000. And I don't want to see North Miami Beach do that. So that's my take. Thank you.

Any other comments? All right, so if we can move forward to section 2.4.

Our salary is $3,000 a year. Which is what former Commissioner Temple was saying.

The salary itself is 3,000. Okay, thank you.

Well, there's, respectfully, Madam Commissioner, there's an ordinance that deals with all of this, and it talks about ACPI, right? And so if we can get that, perhaps if we have time to get it, if not, as Commissioner Templer mentioned, you know, we should determine if we're going to have a CPI, what specifically that's going to entail, because 2% on 3,000 versus 2% on the entire... On your package.

But the charter does not... That change, Mr. Attorney, does not affect... of the the health insurance i think it dot i think this change does i thought you're not you're saying that the second proportion is also i don't see anything crossed out Yeah, what it's...

Even if you change it to shall, to remain in the city at their own expense... No, it says here insurance benefits provided to members of the city commission shall only be paid for by the city during their actual term.

You can adopt it any way you want to. Well, okay. I just want to make sure, as we're reading this entire document, areas that are crossed out are being removed. Correct. Areas that have not been crossed out are not being removed. Correct.

Well, it would be nice to have whatever is going to be affected. And areas that are underlined are added. Right. So what I'm saying is if you don't tell us that something is going to be changed or removed as a result. You understand what I'm saying?

I've never heard, with all due respect, I've never heard it this way. It's been two separate conversations, but if that's something that has to be clear, then we need to make it clear. I'll invite Mr. Temple.

It doesn't say that. To address your, I'm sorry, Madam Commissioner, go ahead.

No, we're both in agreement, and it doesn't say that here. And if we don't see it, then can you please tell us where you see it?

Because we're not seeing it. To both of your points, I think what's important here is that... Do you see how we're having this conversation back and forth? It should be clear. There should be no ambiguity to a layman that reads this, right? Because laymen are in fact people who are serving in elected office. But we didn't draft this.

So we'll we'll we'll address that conversation later. And I agree with Commissioner Smuckler. I think the way we do it now is the way that it should remain. But when you're talking about capping specific to whatever that number is that you added for the mayor and for the commission, that was addressed with a COLA maybe about six years ago. And I think we need to also have that reflect in this document as well.

Okay, I appreciate the clarification from you guys. Let's move on.

So why did we take the manager out of this equation here? So before the manager had to give written requests like an email to us, now you're saying emergency matters upon the affirmation request of the four members of the commission other than the mayor. So who's going to give notice? The clerk? Why did we take the manager out?

So is it understood that the special meeting will be notified to the commissioners by the clerk?

No, the thing is, because it's 24-hour notice, I don't want to come up here and there's no quorum, not me, but whoever the next few years.

Because many people come up here and say they didn't know.

Unfortunately, we've come here without a quorum because people just didn't know there was a meeting. Okay.

Thank you. I am imagining a scenario that actually happened when commissioners come, check in, and leave right after. There's that. Is there something that we can put in for that? I mean, can we say your attendance counts as a full day of the meeting? I mean, of course, there are people who do get sick, and I understand that. You know, they would just come check in and leave, and then the city business would not get complete, and that's my concern.

Okay, so we're going to move on to section 2.6.

Okay, no changes in 2.6, none in 2.7, 2.8, so 2.9.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Attorney. And we're going to move on, if there are no questions, to 3.11.

Yeah, don't crowd me up here. Yes, Commissioner Smith.

I just have a quick question because I like the word may thank you for bringing that up. Mr. Templer.

One moment. Let Commissioner Smith finish and then we will hear from you. Okay, sir. I'm sorry. Commissioner Smith first, and then we'll hear from you.

I was just saying I like the word may, and now I'm interested in Mr. Cousins having a prior ordinance. The only question I have being up here long enough to see, when our fees were so low to do new construction, compared to the other municipalities and we raised the fees to be where they are and then they came down and we didn't get any business because we were so high. So I don't know if, again I'm gonna use my 10 year reasoning that if we say they shall and that does not become the custom around us, it may hurt the city. I like the word may instead of shall.

We do that now, number one, and number two, I use the word fee as an example because that was a fee. I just use that as an example. I understand it's a charge that the city would have to all still do the inspection, still get the results from a professional, and then we would have to eat it, and maybe they wouldn't even build here. So I understand it, but I just don't know if over the 10 years what the custom will be around us. So that's why...

If I may. Yes, Mr. Templer, I also want to add, I think it is an ordinance.

As I said, we already have an ordinance. Mr. Cousins, could I hear what you have to say?

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cousins. Mr. Mayor.

I would like to make a motion. My motion gives these people so much credit for what they did and put together this document. Why don't we just pass it and let the citizens decide what they want?

Yeah, I think if I may, discussion-wise through the mayor, I think part of validating the work that they've done is for us to put in our own work here on the dais, even if it does take a little while. We've already gone through the first portion of it, and we only have two more portions to go. So I feel like we should just... Hopefully we can get this done by 10 o'clock, but I doubt it. I know you, I know.

But I think part of, well, okay, so I appreciate your explanation that it's not about time. And I'm not saying that it is, but I think part of us validating their efforts is to go through every single item, especially for the edification of the public as well. Thank you.

i would like to say something if i may mr mayor um you know we had seven pairs of eyes doing this now we'll have 14 pairs of eyes doing this and you know we like this silly little comment that i made of changing a word from made a shell like little things like that that we can catch as well and make it better um i i you know we we've tried so hard to get this meeting done in the first place that i'm not going to now Sam going home? Yes.

Okay, I think that if we had, I think we received this in our email last night at 8, 11 p.m. I don't know, maybe the attorney had it done prior, a week before.

Oh, okay, you mean the one that wasn't completely reviewed but was written by Ms. Elizabeth Pierre?

We're almost done. All we really have to do is consider the election dates,

civil service mr mayor and i think we'll be pretty much there just continue this and um let's we have to go back and vote on this now as for the motion women yeah you can but you don't have to if you want to hear the rest mr get it done on the table oh yeah there's a motion commissioner smith some of the big items are coming up that we have to discuss do we want a change

I don't think, I think the committee worked very hard, and I think that the appreciation can never be enough. But I think some of these big items, for instance, the civil service, or for instance, when are we changing the date? Those things need to be discussed because it's very effective of a lot of things. And I appreciate the fact that we appreciate what they did, but the purpose, again, this is not my first charter. And what they did is this is the way it's done next. Next is the next step is for us to review it.

That's another option. No, no. What I would suggest is that can we just go As part of the discussion for the accepting and what we're going to eventually put out to the voters, finish out the rest of the section, and then we can vote on what we keep and what we... Just finish the section. Yeah, and so just finish the last sections, please.

Can we just vote on the section that we voted on?

So if you want to go to those two, right, right.

At your pleasure, whatever you like. There's a motion and a second on the table. If you would take a vote so we can move forward. Okay.

There's two things, Mr. Mayor, because with respect to the mayor, there was a vote that was taken about doing it section by section. So I guess we can address your motion, Commissioner Chernoff, and then we can go back to what had been voted on.

I'm just going to tell you one thing. Just because they did all the hard work and they did great work. There's one item that I don't agree with them. And if you want to do blindly pass this, then my vote is going to be no, because there's one item that I don't want to approve.

And I don't want to see it on the civil service board. And amend that motion to take it off.

No, I want to continue this. And we just wasted like five minutes discussing this. So can we just.

If we're not going to discuss it, what are we doing here?

Yeah, why did we come in the first place?

Can we just do as we said we were gonna do, now let's vote on this and continue?

Okay, one question please. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Opposed. Opposed. That's a word. Okay. So now can we vote individually on the first chapter?

No, we made that motion and now we have to go individually. 1 by 1 and say yes or no to each item on pages 10 through 14. like we said, we were going to do.

Could I, Mr. Mayor, could I just ask a question before we go over this? I know you got the majority vote. There was a vote when you were gone. You weren't here. There was a vote. I was the only negative voter. There were two. Okay. So I'm sorry. To take the first section and vote on it first. My question is, if you vote on, I think there were seven, six or seven. and then we do the rest and there's another six or seven, how are you gonna determine what to eliminate or are you gonna put 13 on the ballot? That's my question. How will you know? We haven't gone over the sections.

No, I don't mind. Whatever they want to do, the majority won. I just want to know if you vote for these seven now and we haven't followed the rest and there's another eight, are we going to put 15 things on the ballot? That's what we have to do. That's what we have to do. Well, the thing is, Dade County itself City attorney in the past on my charter, city manager on my charter, recommended that you limit it to eight so that they will answer the questions. And if you've been in to vote, you know how lengthy those questions can be.

The former attorney when I was on the charter, not you. Thank you.

Okay. Through the mayor, if I may. The agenda says presentation of charter review committee final report and review of proposed revision recommendations. So we can, Mr. Attorney, if you can opine on this, decide that whatever we vote on that we want to see on the charter, I mean that we want to see on November's ballot, can come as one question, can come in as two questions, can come in as three questions.

So there's a, there's a motion to, there was, there was a process set up to vote on each section, right? So how many, they're going to vote on one section right now or is that?

There's nine more. Four of them are completely eliminating things which we might wanna bring back, like the civil service, et cetera. But nine and seven, we're gonna have 16 on the ballot. If you vote now for these seven, how are you gonna know what's the priority? Or are you gonna not vote for them and then in the end you'll want them? I would hope somebody would withdraw and we could do it so that we could look at all of them.

Mr. Mayor, if I may. One moment, Commissioner. If I may, what we're reading here as charter language, right, is not specifically word for word what's going to be on the ballot. Can you either agree or disagree with that statement? I agree with that.

Correct. So can you agree with or disagree that if we do, for instance, in section one, decide that we want to see five things, that that can't be surmised within one ballot question. Correct. It can be, right? Yes.

And in your seat, as well as Mr. Templer, can you opine on whether or not we, after voting, could allow the city attorney's office to determine whether we would need one question for, let's say, three areas or two questions? How does that work?

So what just happened in the last 10 minutes? Nothing? Okay, just, that's what I thought.

Can we, all right, well, there's a, just following the process that you guys set up, so. We have to vote on, it's...

So let me help out here. In my seat, if we're going to section, the first section, when it talks about 1.4 powers, I really, that section, I don't see the necessity. So in my seat.

So I'm saying I don't see the necessity of it.

She's saying that she agrees with your point that there is no need to add that one.

Is that what you're saying, Commissioner?

She's making a motion to approve it. I'm motioning to approve it. He's making a motion to not approve it.

Yeah, I'm saying I disagree with it. I'm just saying in my seat. So 1.4, I disagree with changing that. I think that what we have is broad enough.

If no one moves to put a section on, there's no vote on it. All right, so real quick, I'm going to go to Section 2.1 as well, Mayor and Vice Mayor.

Didn't we make a motion to vote on each individual one?

We made a motion. Commissioner Schmucker. Mr. Attorney, the commissioners want that. You're telling us not to. I am not.

I'm sorry, but we said each chapter individually, each item.

It's going to happen with every item, so can we just move on, please?

I bet. You're not letting him speak, so please.

Thank you. So that's how I feel about 1.4. So since you, Commissioner Hsu, since you said you wanted to.

I would, I'd like to add that. So I motion to add this to the list of items that we want to put on the agenda. I mean, put on the referendum. Do I have a second? I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor.

Is there a second? Yes. All right. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any of those I say on those next okay.

So let's cross it out. Okay, I item 2.1 remember that 1.4 and 2.2 are connected to each other correct.

So that would in essence take out that as well.

So next item 2.2 are we saying that though that was one is next or you were coming on it. 2.1 already so item 2.2 we're already rotating every 4 months. I think that if we have it if we don't have it by ordinance that still 2.1 Sir.

Oh, I'm sorry. My apologies. Second paragraph. Section 2.2 is where we're at now.

Okay. I'd like to add to 2.1 that the mayor will be until you're ahead.

I want to amend it. That's what we're here. Okay.

So I suppose that we leave it as it is without changing anything. No state of the union requirement or whatever.

I'm making a motion to amend it just to add that the mayor will be the tiller head.

COMMISSIONER SMITH, WOULD YOU MIND IF IT STAYS AS IT IS WITH NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER? IT WOULD KEEP THE ONLY PART THAT WOULD NOT BE ADDED IS BASICALLY THE STATE OF THE MAYOR. STATE OF THE CITY. A CITY. RIGHT.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO EVEN TALK ABOUT IT.

SO WE CAN JUST LEAVE IT AS IS. NOT CHANGING AT ALL.

On the original one, it said the tillier head.

On the original that we now have as our charter, I believe it says he's a tillier head.

I understand that completely, but reading what's written in red, which would be under 2.1, I do not see the word chileeler head at all.

And I'd like to make an amendment to add that. I would like to make an amendment.

Yeah, but I think she actually likes the language that she just wants to add.

Okay, on Commissioner Smith's amendment, is there a second?

There was a second. Nope. I did second it.

All right. There's a motion to say all in favor say aye.

Any opposed? Opposed. Opposed. All right, next, please.

Yes, now Vice Mayor, continue on, please.

No, I was just saying, 2.1 doesn't need to be, we don't need to add this on to at all, so we can move on. All right, so section 2.2. No, we're not asking for it to be added, so there's no vote.

Oh, I make the motion to add it, so that every four months is part of the.

All right, I make the motion to just add that every four months we change vice mayor.

Do we have a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. Next item, next item, please.

All right, so 2.2, I think that's also something that we could remove because of Section 1.4. Right, because those two kind of go together, so we don't have to add this if the first Section 1.4 was not voted on. So that's just my thoughts.

I'll make the motion, I'll second your motion not to add it.

All right, all in favor say, wait, you don't need a motion. So we just keep, okay, so we keep just keep moving.

Do you have some- All right, so as it relates to- Mr. Kempner, the mayor, did you want to say something about 2.2?

As it relates to section 2.3, compensation.

Just watching the show. As it relates to compensation, I think there was a conversation about the health insurance, so maybe we put in language that there be a a cola for the cost of the health insurance while leaving the salary and everything else as is that I remember the cola the colon against the cap didn't mention that.

If there's the cola then the cap can't be in the same conversation is that what it was.

No, I think the attorney said that if we want to add something specific to insurance benefits, we can do that so that it can be delineated or be more clear.

Commissioner Templer, I think you mentioned that the index, there's specific areas of our salaries that would be affected and not affected. Do those have to be delineated in that? No. Areas that are going to be covered or affected and not?

I apologize. Can you say your thoughts, Commissioner?

I think we should leave it as it is, unless we can get more delineation on the cap. Because if there's a cap, then that means that we will be responsible for paying the additional increase, right?

All right, so can we... And also, I wanted to add that word shall instead of may. On the last paragraph, the second sentence, after the term... Shall be notified for the insurance. Shall be offered the opportunity to remain instead of may be offered the opportunity to remain.

Okay, but the... The question I had, because I didn't understand Commissioner Jean's point.

She was saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, Commissioner Jean, that there's an ordinance, and it should be left that way, or it should be amended for what have you, but the complexity of how this can be affected, depending on what your situation is, could be... substantial oh so you're saying don't add it to the ballot yeah that's what i'm saying don't add it to the ballot the the shall word i don't think no the shout the shout part she wants to change but in regards to the the other aspects of the the remuneration in the caps that's why she's like she just wants to add that i guess commissio

No, but Commissioner Smuckler wants that. That's the one thing she wants to change.

Right, to me it's more like of a correction.

Mr. Templer, through the chair, if I may, through the mayor, would you know if we just change it from may to shall, if both of those paragraphs would be on just changing that word, would that be on the ballot for them to vote on?

So I think that when you are elected as a commissioner, I think when you're elected as a commissioner, you read the charter. And you know, that when you leave, you have the option to take the insurance with you by the word may. No, that's not what that says.

That's not what that says. But may could be like, it may offer to you, but it doesn't mean you will.

All right, yeah, if it could be done by ordinance, of course. I'd like to make a motion.

Can, okay, all right, what is your motion?

My motion is to approve the cap for the remuneration, add a CPI in the state of Florida, and add the shall for paragraph two.

All in favor say aye. Hold on. All in favor say aye. Aye. Discussion? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Opposed. Opposed. Opposed. Next item.

All right. The shall can be added by ordinance.

says so like this didn't pass know that we're going we're going to do we're going to do the show by or right but the rest of it didn't have no well, I mean I don't I didn't hear a commissioner Smith we can vote on the rest of we did what then pass was the change she made a motion to pack to prove it for us to prepare for the change.

I added the CPI for Florida and to cap this amount and added the CPI index per the state of Florida because the federal is usually higher. So the state of Florida and then secondly add Commissioner Smuckler's request to change the language to shall.

There's two indexes. State of Florida and the federal.

Well, respectfully, I think that if we're going to do something like a charter amendment, we need to know what CPI we're using and whether or not it exists. But to the motion that was on the table, What I would like to offer or proffer is that I don't have an issue with the CPI and I don't have an issue with even the cap. I just think that we need to be mindful and make that exception for the increases in the benefits. As a matter of fact, maybe we remove the CPI from the salary and then keep it for the benefits.

No, no, no, that's what I just said. Remove the CPI specifically from the executive expense, the salary, and it was salary, executive expense, those were the two things that you can remove the CPI from that, but not specific to the cost of coverage. I don't know if you guys can opine on that.

Okay, so then I amend my motion to include COLA for the state of Florida.

All right, so... Now can we have the discussion?

So CAP? No, no, meaning like this is the base, the base where we start from. So this is the base. Then after, you know, then COLA adjustments, right?

But technically, if you're putting a cap, then the COLA would be negated by the cap.

Okay, no cap, fine. So the baseline is this, and then we add a COLA, and then we add the language, and that's it.

Wait, wait, is there, okay, correct me if I'm wrong, right? We do have an ordinance, right? Can this not just be mitigated by the ordinance?

It can be mitigated by ordinance, Mr. Mayor. I don't disagree with you. However, I think the goal is basically to take that out of our hands and put it in the hands of the public. But I don't disagree with you that we can manage this through an ordinance. But if it is to go on a ballot, I think that we should...

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense because you can't have a COLA and a cap because it's like coal will keep going. It's a little cap. I got it.

I understand. That's why I said, okay, we're going to use this number as the base because then there's a COLA increase. Then after the COLA increase is done, and then we add the shall, the language that Commissioner Smuckler proposed.

The terminology, and I appreciate you saying that, I think it's a terminology issue. So when... When I mentioned COLA, there may be a specific term, the cost of increased to health coverage is specifically what I'm talking about. We may address that by using the word COLA, but more specifically, I don't have an issue with the, the capping or leaving the salary and expense allowance the way it is, unless the voters decide to change it. But there is a difference, you're right, between the COLA, for instance, 2.8% in 2026, versus what the cost of insurance increase was for this particular year, m

All right. Okay. I know we, unless, I want us to move on to the next thing because I know the way that it's just being proffered doesn't, Because it doesn't make any sense. I think this is more nuanced, and that's why an ordinance would be preferable to do that. So is there another item, Vice Mayor, we can go to?

I think there is an item that we can go to, which is the next item. But what I will say is perhaps the commission could be mandated to come up with an ordinance on a certain amount of years or whatever it may be, since there are complexities in the different price indexes and things of that sort.

So I just want to capture the concern that I think the committee had, which was they really don't want us to decide on our own salary increase. And that's something that we are not addressing for what their concerns are. So we should at least put something in there to give them confidence that, like, you know, our salary is dictated by them. I agree.

During the term of office, their first term though?

If they're only in their first term, but they could vote on it for the next.

That's interesting that you would have people on the commission. The idea is more of us, but people on the commission would be earning two different salaries for two years. That's where that would cause a problem.

How about the fact that the salary can't be greater than a cap on it, not specifically saying what it is now, but the salary cannot go up more than a certain dollar, or how about that?

I can't perceive it. I think, honestly, we can do this by orders. Can we just go to 2.4, please?

No, I think we should include this. I make a motion that we do include it with a COLA.

So there's a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye. May I hear the motion again, please? A COLA and a COLA on our- What I propose? On our total package. The COLA would be on the- Total package of a commissioner.

I just want to just get past, like I said, it doesn't, because it's okay. So all of them, all of them say aye? Aye.

No, there were four ayes, right? There were four ayes. There were four ayes. Okay, wait. And Michelle is also going to be. And Michelle also was included in that.

She didn't let me finish. Can we be clear on the language that was just voted on? Okay, so the motion was.

Commissioner Smith said that she agreed, if I'm not mistaken, to put a cap on the entirety. of, not a cap, I'm sorry, to put a COLA on the entirety of the package. That's what you seconded. And you added shall. So, for instance, my understanding, if there's a 2.8 increase for 2026, that 2.8 increase would be for everything.

Oh, no, okay, so. Aye, aye. Hold on. Aye.

Go ahead. I don't want to mistake you. What was it? I guess you guys. Was it Commissioner Smith's motion? I guess you don't, there's no cap, but go on.

The following language, did it pass? Yes. That there will be a COLA on the total package and that a shell should be added in the second paragraph.

No, that's not what you said. That's what she said. I never mentioned the word insurance. No, but you said, but from my understanding of, you said the entire package. So from my understanding of what Commissioner Templer was saying and what the city attorney was saying, remuneration is inclusive of the health insurance. So if 2026 was 2.8% COLA increase, that means the entire package would see a 2.8% increase. So if that meant that for the year, ex-commissioner would get an additional $1,500, that's what would happen. That's what would happen, right? So that's why I was trying to get some clar

no no hang on can i i'm just reading i'm going to read the charter it says i know wait hold on i mean i'm i'm no there's a there's a conflict in in my understanding so it says insurance may i please read this thank you okay it says insurance benefits provided to members of the city commission shall only be paid for by the city during their actual term of service So it's already being paid by the city. The remuneration that you have included is not part of that, is paying for the insurance.

I mean, I don't need the city to pay for my insurance when I'm not here.

So you're automatically getting... I don't think you understand. It's not really a cap. You're actually doing a regenerative type of legislation. That's the part that makes no sense. That's why I was like, do you guys understand?

What's her motion? If she doesn't understand it, what does she get? No, no, Smith was the one that... She seconded what she thought was the motion.

I'm not sure that... I'm just to be clear on the language. I just want to because this was voted on. If they don't change it, that's fine. But I just want to be clear on what the language is. So, for instance, now, Mr. Templer, Commissioner Templer, if and Mr. City Attorney, if the city, let's say, were to cover five hundred dollars a month for a commissioner or the mayor. Right. And that after this would be what, 2028. went up by an additional $300. What you're saying is that if that $300 multiplied times 12 is $3,600, but the cola went up $1,500, then whatever's left over is at the cost of t

WE ALSO VOTE ON INSURANCE, WHAT PERCENTAGE? IT COULD BE BECAUSE THE EMPLOYEES ALSO GET A CHANGE IN WHAT THEIR INSURANCE COSTS AND WE VOTE ON IT.

Why isn't the health insurance considered part of your complete

You want to have a motion for reconsideration.

Okay, but before, I'd like to add something to that.

okay i have a thought oh we have a motion for reconsider second no i'm not seconding it because i'm not either if i may who made the motion commissioner commissioner turn off okay i'll second it for discussion okay

To be clear, I think this should be done by ordinance. I think this is very complex and having it locked, that's just my thought on it.

So I'd like to ask a question to the. I never did my thought. Go with your thought. So if we were to put this on the ballot, And if it were not to pass, that means that this item with the word shall wouldn't pass either. So I would like to actually remove that from the ballot option and change it by ordinance.

that i i'm found that okay i it's i'm disagree instrument through the mayor by ordinance means majority can raise the salary the whole purpose of talking about the talent this time i'm not going to work out how or how or we can do we can do a unanimous decision it could be that the charter says

nothing could be changed without the unanimous vote of the commission. So you can set a five.

I'm just talking about the word shall. I'll second her motion to change it to ordinance to shall.

Okay, yeah. The mayor had actually seconded it, but. I'm going. Okay, so.

Okay, so we're just gonna do the shall part, right? Right, we're gonna do that by ordinance. We're gonna do, but this is not.

No, no, we're not passing the language. We're not passing the language. We're moving on.

We're removing it, that paragraph, and we're going to change it to an ordinance.

No, wait, hold on. I want to make my motion with what Mr. Attorney said, which is we are not allowed to, okay, I motion that what goes into the... Judge Orange, can we go to 2.4, please? No, we cannot. I am not done saying what I want to say. Thank you. There is a concern by the residents who are sitting there for nine meetings saying that we should have something to control this madness about commissioners voting on their own salary. So what I'm trying to say is Mr. Attorney gave one good advice today, which is- How do you like that? I love it. I love it. I love it. So we're going to make a motion to add to the charter that you cannot vote on your own salary rate, right?

Do you have a second? Second. All right. It's going to understand what they said is going to create desperate treatment regardless. Understand that. All right.

To that point, I recall how hard it was, Commissioner Cramer may remember this, when we were even having this conversation maybe six years ago to even get five people in agreement. So what about the, well, I'm talking to you as a few, I should be talking to my colleagues. What about the unanimous vote approach? So if the entire board is not in agreement, then there's no change that's made to the salary. Have you seen any of that?

But I think the reason I mentioned that was because I believe in the charter currently it says supermajority, right? Or no? It doesn't say that? No.

No, that was never, this would be a supermajority.

I thought, maybe I'm wrong, that we had a five out of seven mandate by the charter. The vice mayor...

Okay, so that's what I thought. So that's already there. Okay, so that's, but now are we able to raise that bar Are we able to raise that bar to six, Mr. Attorney?

Mr. Templer, right now it has a supermajority aspect in it already currently, right? It appears that way. It does. So it has that. Would you be disposed, because I understand your standpoint in regards to having because I didn't know I thought it was I thought I wasn't too clear about it but I'm glad that you clarified that there you need a super majority to raise um the benefits or whatever is there um would an ordinance could in order to further clarify if give it because I'm just trying to get because I know that putting it in the charter would be Cumbersome to agree because because of the

I didn't know you could split people up like that.

Mr. Attorney and Mr. Attorney, the reality is if you put it at six and six people aren't here, then you just can't vote on the issue, which means no increase. You could. Right? That's correct. The bottom line. That's correct. If six people aren't present, then there's no vote on the item. And if six people are present, then automatically it means unanimous vote. You could take the... That's fine, too.

There's no vote. Yeah, that's fine, too. I think the supermajority, the way it says it now, the supermajority is fine because once you start going into those nuances, it just gets kind of wonky for me. I know, yeah.

Okay. So the motion to be put in the charter, right?

No, to bring it before the voters. Yeah.

To bring it before? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not less than six. Not less than six.

Right? I have a motion. Okay, well, that's my motion.

I'm going to oppose. Yeah, I'm going to oppose. Opposed?

Aye. All right, it goes. All right. Got it. Next item, 2.4. Please. 2.4. Can we go to 2.4?

Sure, Mr. Mayor, we can go to 2.4. Thank you.

And to change from five to four? No, not that one.

Special meeting, that's a special meeting.

I motion to approve 2.4 section as amended by the committee.

Is there a second? No second. Next item. Hold on. No second. I get it. Let me have a discussion about this shortly. The thing is, we constantly go on without finishing an agenda. Everything gets rolled over month after month. Sometimes discussion items don't get discussed until like three months later. I mean, until now, we still I mean, even in CRA, we don't have our singer building issues discussed. And if we keep kicking the can down the road, we have one meeting a month. And I just feel like this is not enough for us to move our city forward. So this is why I think what the committee is pr

Of course, but I want to amend what it says. If the Thursday's an issue, And I agree completely that we have got to put it in our charter that there has to be a second meeting. If the first not up to votes, if the first means not completed mandatory, but maybe we could say within 15 days.

But here's the issue. Here's the issue. A lot of the reasons why we go over is because we have discussions, a lot of discussions, and we don't limit discussions. You shouldn't have an unlimited amount of discussion items. That's what has the meetings go on and on.

That can be handled by ordinance. But it's not.

No, technically we had a part of it worked out by the manager, worked out. We could amend it and say no member of the commission can have no more than two discussion items. That would save us a

Well, let me say this. Things happen in a city. I don't think that that's the way to do it, Mr. Mayor. Things happen in a city that we don't know are going to happen in a month. We didn't know it. It needs a discussion. There's seven of us. We cannot discuss it outside of here. It has to be transparent. There are too many times where a second meeting, which should have been mandatory... And we vote not to have it. It doesn't make sense. I agree with Commissioner Hsu. So instead of it saying Thursday, and you don't want Thursday, say within 15 days. But a mandatory second meeting will take plac

Okay, I heard what the mayor said. Thank you, Mr. Attorney, however, What if it's my discussion you want to take off of there? What if I've been waiting to discuss this? I don't think that's a good idea. It means something to the commissioner that that's why they put it on to discuss it.

All right, so I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

Mandatory second meeting within 15 days if the first meeting did not.

Within 15 days and I'm like that, that's going to create. All in favor say aye. Aye.

We have to wait until our commissioner comes back. She has to vote when she comes back. Yeah.

All right, can we, all right, can we get, can we go to the next item, please?

All right, 2.5. 2.5. Forum and attendance at city commission meetings.

Did we move on or are we going back? I don't know.

No. In paragraph as well, right? You mentioned the four majority, four can call a special meeting?

All right, so is there a vote on this, please?

Second. Approve second paragraph, yes. Second. Aye.

All right, so this is the second thing we've actually passed?

Yes, four instead of five. But that does not include the mayor. We still have five.

Huh? No, it does. What are you talking about?

To call it. To call it. Other than the mayor. To call the meeting.

To call the meeting. The mayor can call and four commissioners can call. That was a commission. Correct.

I think the next one is the 2.9? Section 2.5. 2.5. And then I missed it.

Move to approve. No, she did already. Oh. He did. I second it. Okay.

To vote. Call the question. I'm calling the question. I'm a yes. Okay. You called the question? I'm calling the question. Okay. I'm a yes. Well, the mayor has to call the vote. Oh, mayor? Mayor?

Mr. Mayor, can you call the vote, please? Yeah, I could. Okay. Call the vote. All in favor?

It's a definition. Okay, go on. Remember, that was the whole lawsuit.

2.9 is just... minor changes to section 2.9.

It's ministerial to comply with general law have a motion make a motion or there is a second.

Then we're at 3.1 or section keep a 3.11 section K. We have to go over one second 2.9 we voted yes, I was going to add it to the to the ballot.

I thought it was a simple change. That was the motion.

That's what the motion means. It was a simple change.

That was the motion. It's such a simple change. Can we do that by ordinance?

I don't think you can change the charter by ordinance. Even to change one word, it has to go on and out. Correct.

I can't change that by ordinance. But Mr. Attorney, if we come back and we have too many, if you're on the winning side, could we go over that vote and then ask for a vote to amend it?

I don't think this should go on. I don't think that we could go... Yeah. No, 2.9. I'm going to resend my...

I don't understand. If we can put the word shall in ordinance, why can't we put this one in ordinance?

So we were changing it from may to shall, that's okay.

So on chart 2.9, we're just changing herein.

And we cannot do that by charter. Pardon?

All right, next item, please. Section K, I don't think that needs to be added as a ballot question. And section 311. Yeah, I think, look, we have our quasi-judicial, we have staff, we have a lot of things that we are responsible for in quasi-judicial that are mandated by law. And while I understand the intent of this, I think that we can probably do something about it within an ordinance versus putting it in charter form.

I have to agree with what the group came up with. This is when a developer comes before us has a bad study and we want to have them a new study we don't pay for it they reimburse us for it right you can still mandate that through an ordinance right we have an ordinance could require that of them but i think people would approve something like this i mean it's it's a no-brainer okay i mean i'm okay with it i'm okay seriously all right so make a motion

Make a motion to put, I make a motion to put that K in there.

That's what I'm saying. It's going to get knocked out. What was it voted on? But if it's not legal, why would you probably do it? No, but it was presented. It was presented.

Yeah, but the attorneys are supposed to be there and say it's not legal.

No, he said it was questionable. Well, can you clarify, city attorney?

You're saying that it's better to have this as an ordinance than in the charter? Yes.

We already have an ordinance. I think that's the 12th time I said it. Correct. We already have that ordinance. Correct. Mr. Templer, you wanted to make it permanent in the charter in your committee because?

Since Commissioner Chernoff, with respect to Commissioner Templer and the city attorney, you made the motion. You're hearing the statements about ordinance versus charter. So it's back in your court if you want to reconsider it.

I think Commissioner Schmuckler made the motion.

They're giving great deference to the committee. So whatever it's on here, they think that it's fully fleshed out. Even though, as you pointed out, a lot of this stuff is by ordinance in other cities. And we're doing a lot more restrictive approach in making this applicable. We would be going a step further than other cities that have this as ordinance. That's why it seems kind of bizarre to me. Commissioner Chernoff just said move to the next item. OK. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not a vote.

All right, you heard it. Is there a motion to accept it? Wait, question.

I don't have a problem with making them a charter officer, but making them a charter officer makes them have us as their boss. And we don't have enough knowledge of the water department to direct the director, and we're taking that away from the manager.

We don't have the knowledge to be an attorney.

We don't have knowledge to be an attorney. As someone that missed most of her law school, I don't have much expertise in that field either. One of the residents pointed out something very astute. how much the value of that water plant is and how much the city's value is and the water plant surpasses it. I think one of the things that will be difficult is to find the right employee because they have to really inside and out know a water plant and Again, like you say, what expertise do we have? But we'll have to study it like we study anything else. I think it's a good idea that our main asset f

I'll make the motion. Is there a motion? A second.

IT OPENS A CAN OF WORMS FOR ALL YOUR OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS. I AGREE.

So I'm actually in agreement with what the city attorney said. I really tried to look into this for reasons that, you know, I believe the charter committee came up with. But, you know, it can really become a political issue with us having to pick a water utility director. And throughout this whole state, I think there's only two cities that have that, and that's Gainesville, if I'm not mistaken, and Riviera Beach. And I think Gainesville is a special district, or Riviera Beach is a special district Gainesville is a special district, and I think Riviera Beach, I'm not sure what their makeup is.

Thank you. Whitney, were you on the commission?

So what was the thinking, let me ask you, what was the thinking that this came about?

I'm not certain I understand the explanation. Oh, were you done?

No, I just want to say that one of the, hearing what he said, and thank you very much, one of the things that is a differentiation is it wouldn't come through the manager. It would come directly to us. There's pros and cons to that without a question. There's pros and cons to that. We have a manager that has a lot on his plate and can handle more, but who knows who's the manager? Once you put in the charter, that's the way it's going to be either way, either way, because you don't know who would be the charter officer at the water plant. So it definitely has its pros and cons. It's not a strai

through the mayor so we have a public utilities commission who is like appointed residents with expertise in this area um i think we underutilize their abilities and their knowledge okay so there's that one thing that we have as support for the commission um the other thing is by the way there are more than that apart from gainesville and whatever you mentioned there's orlando there's jacksonville also So there are organizations that have that. Now, I think the reaction to this, when I attended the meeting during the charter review and they voted on this, this was a unanimous vote. People who

Well, then I added Gainesville. No, it doesn't show just Gainesville. The charter officer? I said Jacksonville and Orlando. Orlando doesn't have a charter officer? We're talking about who, which city has a charter officer. That's what Commissioner, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor was talking about.

No, what I said was cities that have water utility directors who are charter officers. Well, I mean, I'm not seeing the Orlando. I just wanted to make sure so I can take that into consideration.

Okay. Got it. Now, my point is that I think that by us doing this, separating that, it would be actually another buffer for us to not have, I can't explain myself right now, think it's it's what he was talking about in terms of guardrails like today we have a wonderful manager we have a great water utility director or our utility director but we have to prepare on days that it's not these people so this is why these things are put in place so that we can be the city could have that buffer and be protected okay through the mayor as a matter of law i just want to point out that whether you

I think there's also salary implications as well, right? Absolutely. Because when you're talking about our city manager, his responsibility includes a large water utility, which we took into account not only for him but any previous city manager or moving forward, right? So now if we say we're going to have a charter officer separate from the manager and he's no longer responsible for that, And I'm not speaking specific to you. I'm just speaking to the position. Then we're talking salary implications. And then there was a conversation about the CRA, which is, you know, a conversation that I al

Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Manager, for the insight. I think from the moment that I've gotten on the commission, the last time that I've gotten a thorough picture of the water plant was when we approved the WIFI alone. That was the last time that I really was able to kind of see what was happening. Since then, I can't tell you what's really going on. I think each manager that we've had has tried their very best to sustain the entity, but as we see what happened now, it's been a compounding effect of not being able to thoroughly do that, even with the political wills. So I thi

I just think that bifurcating it is completely different than just doing the charter officer. So, you know, we shouldn't like... do the charter officer and then let's figure it out from there because now we're just opening up a can of worms without even giving instruction and fullness of what the authority and vision of the charter officer should be so you know I think while it's something that we definitely need to take a look at the direction of our water plant the charter officer alone is not going to address that issue

So what would what does anybody here know what the steps are to to move into bifurcating the city from the water.

It can't just be something that you can do. I guess I would ask just to have the manager or the water plant director provide a plan to do that or give you the plan. You can take a look.

No, I mean like when we normally in any business, if it's a holding and there's several companies in there, Usually, like, if one is not doing so well, you want to cut it out and then have the prospering business continue, right? And then this one, you can either claim bankruptcy or try to revive it some other way, sell parts of it or whatever. So that's, I'm not trying to sell the city out, for the record. so um so what i'm trying to say is like now that we know that you know the situation in our spending is this way and we know the water plant is making money the best way to do it is to seve

Is there a second for that motion? Seeing none, next item.

Okay. To me, this seems like we're going backwards. Every other city around us has a November election. Sunny Isles, Aventura, North Miami. Miami Gardens is in the, they have like their general in August, but they have their runoffs technically in November. The whole reason this passed last time was because of the cost. And even Coral Gables went from, to now went from May to now November. It seems kind of like we're trying to reduce the participation and it doesn't make any sense. And you're gonna have a lower turnout regardless based on that assumption. You just will, it's gonna cost more mo

Mr. Mayor. I came, when I came elected four years ago, I asked the city manager if we could move it back to May. I'm sorry, not the city manager, the city attorney. And the reason being that When we have a voter who votes in November, they vote for state first or national first, state second, county third, us fourth in every election. So if we have all these charter amendments up, you know how many people are going to read them?

Not many. And that's just because The other thing was that we used to have it in May because there was a reason because of it. We wanted the educated voter. Well, that's not true anymore because all the snowbirds came and left and they were only here for three months. That was the reason for being in May so that they couldn't vote in our elections. That's why they were there. Well, now there isn't a snowbird area anymore we have full-time residents now that were never here before and I guarantee if we go back to May there's not going to be 3,000 there may be half of what we get now 11,000 vers

I just wanna say that if they're snowbirds and they were voting, then they shouldn't have been voting.

Right? I didn't hear what you said, I'm sorry. Could I just, I don't know if we need to separate these two issues, but having run seven times, well, five times in two runoffs, the difference between May and November It's so night and day. In May, you get the locals' attention. In November, you are lucky if anybody stops. It's that different at people voting. And what I also wanna say about November, and having charter review questions, You have to remind them to turn to the last page. You're trying to get votes, but you have to remind them there's questions there. Don't forget to vote on the l

I think when it comes to this item, when we talk about quote unquote educated voters versus, to me that's a really, nuanced slippery slope everyone has the right and an ability if they're if they're so blessed to cast their ballot to do so um and so when we have the opportunity to get the most of those voters to come out and vote i think that's something that's really really important Now, there was the conversation about run-offs being two weeks after the general, which is definitely understood. Our sister city of Miami gardens does August and then their runoff is in November. And then subseq

May I? Yeah, so I think saying that the smarter people would be voting in May is not the correct language that should be said. I think what happens in November, it'll either be for the governor of Florida or for the presidents of the United States every two years. and um you know people generally go out to vote for that and then there'll be like oh yeah that's right there's let me pick this name because i like this name or i've heard of this name right those are the those are the people that vote in those elections but the people that that we want to vote right are the the people who who actua

That happy medium, I think, is August. Okay. if we're going to do something about it. Because August, you have your primaries.

Yeah, but you're still in the same situation. You're going to have that.

Well, to your point, which I tend to disagree with what type of voter you want to reach to come out to any election, because you want every voter to come out to every election.

No, you want every voter to come out, but in the May vote, It'll be people who will understand in the November vote. It'll be people who may not understand and they're just gonna pick a name because, oh, I know somebody by that name or I like that name or it's a woman or it's Jewish or it's Haitian. They may just pick a name because they're there and they're gonna pick a name, but the person who's gonna go out and vote in May is gonna go out and vote because they are informed.

Well, the primaries are similar to what you're saying, right? I think with primaries, you're going to get your quote unquote super voter that comes out during the primaries. And then if you want to have your runoffs four weeks from that point or you want to have it in November and everyone takes office in November, I think you're still able to accomplish the same thing. Save the city. a significant amount of money, still get good participation, you know, while getting a quote unquote super voter to participate in your elections. That's that's my thought. But like the mayor said, a lot of citie

They may go back too. They may reverse too.

Recently, Carl Gables just did it. I mean, that's pretty much comparable to our size from a population standpoint. I think it would look like we're disenfranchising a lot of people because now you're saying that instead of 11, no, I think we had like 17,000 people vote. You're going to expect on average 3,000 to 4,000 people at most, not 7,000, not 6,000, 3,000 to 4,000, and having that group decide You know how a city of hopefully fingers crossed and an excesses 50,000 plus one gets the move and I think it's unfair It's it's disenfranchised Anybody looking at it from an objective standpoint i

What I'm trying to say, though, in reference to how many people vote, their vote, their coming to pay their attention is on the governor or the president. When they come to vote now, I think you'll see a difference. If the elections move to May, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised that you'll have very high numbers. If I may, Mr. Mayor.

I want to say something. So it's like you're like the candy bar at the cashier checkout right now. This is how people vote on our ballot. They just look down, they either vote the first or the last or whatever it is, and only the same handful of people that vote in the May election will still vote by actually knowing who they're voting for. Otherwise, you're the candy bar at the cashier. That's how I see it. When we do have that May, I don't know if you understood my pun there about the candy bar at the cashier. But what I'm saying is like they're walking out and they're like, oh, you know wha

Okay. Yeah, but I'll go, like, look. You got 18,000-something people voted.

That's the presidential year, by the way.

Yeah, but you're not taking consideration. Not all of them, like, we didn't get the same, like, the same people that voted for president and the same people that didn't vote for in our municipal election. It doesn't work. There's a drop-off. Oh, yeah. But you still had 18,000 people that went all the way down and made that decision to vote on a particular municipal issue. It just is counter conducive to the fact that one, this was voted initially in May, initially to go to November. And to now say that, well, we don't feel that those voters that vote first, the one that initially pushed us bac

You know, I mean, so what you were saying just now, it's, I think we're not eliminating anything. They're given more opportunities to vote. And so they can vote in November and May now. So, but anyway, I'm just going to let Mr. Templer talk.

I don't remember when we voted in May, did we have all the polls open or we had just one?

We had all the polls, but you didn't have the early voting.

Well, there's mail-in ballots still, right? Yeah, they always have mail-in ballots.

So mail-in ballots, no early voting, and then one day election. I love that.

Commissioner Jean? Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. I think that, you know, Commissioner, so you were voted in in November, right? You wanted a runoff. yeah so i think that we when we analyze these points we have to look at them from all vintage points um because technically if there was no runoff you would not maybe you won't be here right so i think that when we look at what the state has put in place as it relates to as it relates to what suppressing voters is giving them less options when you take out early voting You see what has happened. So many thousands of voters have been stripped off t

Because back in the day, it would stay. ABs would stay. They don't stay anymore.

And also to say that our voters do not know who they're voting for is also insult to injury. That's kind of saying that the voter doesn't care who their mayor is, who their commissioners are. People, when you knock on doors, people are vested into the city. So whether it's the seven or the six that attended the, you guys, just like we're a sample size of the entire community, the committee was also a sample size of the community. The thousands didn't get to really, we're speaking on behalf of the residents. So to say that this would be the best for them when you're eliminating options, That's

To your point, what this does is, one, it creates a perception that doesn't even look right. One, you're extending the terms of everybody up here. That's one. Two, because that's going to be the first perception. It's going to say extending terms right off the bat. That's what it's going to say. Because the way to accomplish your goal is that you have to do that. Two, the way that they would normally have been doing it for over a decade, is going to be changing, and there's no more early voting. It's going to be day of election, and you have to sign up for ABs because it's going to reset after

I like your comment, Mr. Templer, in the sense that I think once you remove an option, just like early voting, you're limiting the options of the voter, right? Because now people who may not, like for example, Washington Park is under construction. The amount of people that's going to have to wait in line to vote the day of. Now, of course, those people can definitely choose to vote by mail, but each community has its limitations. That's why you have the early voting in place for working people, for people with whatever the need is. The second thing is, just this charter review i'm not sure if

They're just voting. They're just going in and saying, oh, who's this? That happens a lot. Who's this? Who's that? You'd be surprised. But again, I think that for the sake of argument's sake, if we're dissecting arguments, a runoff gives somebody a second win and a lot of so it's like the goose and the gander it was good for one time but now we're taking it out because it doesn't serve a greater purpose well hopefully by if this were to change then the next election would be in 2029 no it would be in 2029

So Washington Park better be built by then. Oh, it will be. Okay.

No, but I'm saying, like I said in my comment, I use Washington Park as an example, but every community has its limitations as it relates to voting. When you go to different precincts, they have different limitations. So that's why I'm saying early voting, taking out early voting would not benefit our city as a whole.

Can I just say, Commissioner Jean, there's all different kinds of voters. Really, when you work the polls, you meet all different kinds. And you'd be surprised how many people say, oh, I never met you. I didn't know you after all these years. But I'm a crazy voter. I've never missed a vote since I'm 18. And so no matter what, pouring rain, no matter what, I make sure I get to the polls. Does the date make a difference to somebody's motivation to make sure they vote? If they want to vote, whatever the date is, they're going to make sure they vote. They're not going to miss it.

Sorry to interrupt. I just want to ask this question. What if a voter gets to the poll on a particular day and there's an issue that can't be rectified on that day? Right. If we have early voting, perhaps they're able to have time to rectify that issue and come back to cast their ballot.

What happens if that issue actually happened on Election Day in November?

Well, these are all the different nuances that we have to consider. Right.

But it could happen. Well, we don't have to consider that if they have an issue, they have to work with. No, no.

When we ran for office in North Miami, there was an issue. There was something because I remember Pizzle went and bought water for everybody. There was an issue there at early voting. So it could happen.

Yeah, it could be an outage. There's a lot of different things that can happen. What I'm saying and what I'm hearing some of my colleagues are saying as well is, with all that's happening around voter suppression, we shouldn't be adding to that, right? And so not having runoffs, eliminating early voting, these are things that really do matter. And that's why I proffered the August option, because you can still manage to accomplish the same goals, but do it in August. And then also there's your runoff question as well. Commissioner Smith doesn't want to eliminate runoffs, neither do I, and we h

I have a question. I just want to add to your thought of the elections in August.

They're voted in August. No, you're not reducing. Because if you're doing the election in August of 28, and then you're doing runoffs in November of 28. No, everyone would take office after the runoffs, like we normally do. Yes. Everyone takes office after the runoff.

So you win in August and you don't take office until November?

I can only say to you, I think when you run, and you've run before, I don't know if you've ever had a runoff, but that's when the momentum is there for people to continue to vote that care about the city. That's when you've worked very hard for them to get to know you. To go from August to November to start all over again, for people to not know, not remember that you came to their door. I just think it's too long of a time. I do like the way this is worded. The only thing I would say, and again, I thank you very much, Commissioner Templer. The only thing I can say is, what he told us is, are

Could you, Mr. Attorney, change that from being two weeks to three days or five days?

You pay for county when they run it. They don't do it for free.

You know, again, I think 14 days is way too long, way too long, way too long.

You know, can we amend this to say that? Early voting will be no longer than three days?

Can I question? No, but I would like to make an amendment. I would like to make an amendment that we... Make this also include that early voting will be no longer than three will be three days or no longer than three days or three days Same same thing again.

No, but I'm I would make a motion to divide it just some of the one may call the question.

I make the motion that the early voting is only three days. By ordinance. By ordinance.

Yeah, I agree with the no less than three days. It could be more, but no less than three days.

Correct. If it's an ordinance, we don't have to vote on that right now.

The motion as amended... No, we have to vote on the amendment and make sure there's...

Okay, before we vote on this, we're not voting for the... Yet, for the... No, we're not voting for the second part. Only the first. Only May.

And it says May, but is it May 1st, May 31st? Like when would it be? The first week of May?

I think it's usually like the first Tuesday after the second Monday or first Monday.

Yeah, but you don't have the choice of specifying a date. It's up to the county. Okay.

Second. Jackson. But wait, are we going to talk about? So we will have a runoff. It's not going to be the most votes. Okay.

All right. So we've got a motion and a second. Was there a second? Aye. Aye. Aye.

Wait just a second. If we're opposed to this, it does not go on to have runoff. I oppose.

So you oppose it? Yeah, I oppose. I don't want to put this on. I want to run off. I don't want to get rid of runoffs. I'm taking it off.

No. Voting yes puts it on for them to vote. Wait, I thought the runoff was only in the case where there is a tie.

No, that's what we're just agreeing with.

Is that going to be two items or one to put together? Two. Two?

Do we have to vote on the two or four? Or it's already automatic? Okay.

So we're going to the Civil Service, right?

This would be, I guess, picking the ball along in regards to that issue.

And can this be an ordinance? It can be an ordinance.

Attorney Geller, can we make it an ordinance?

We're changing the language of the charter, right?

Second. Which one are you on now? 4.3. 4.3.

All right, is there a motion and a second?

Yeah, the moment that election happens, that's it.

Has Mr. Kazan said about the president or even the governor?

So you're saying there's a Florida law that says...

So what about when you vote to certify it? Remember how we vote as a commission to certify it?

So if we have a... a commission meeting the following week to certify it, right? Like I'm termed out, so we'll use myself as an example. So we have a commission meeting, there's an election, somebody wins, a week later, we vote to certify it, which is what we've always done. I can't do that. I can't certify it anymore.

Wait, can I ask a question? I just wanted to clarify this for myself. So, okay, so you're saying that the county certifies the votes, right, after the election. Now, whether it be the general election day, let's say we don't change it, it's still November, then we do a runoff four weeks later, then we do a runoff four weeks later, then they certify the votes. We have to, within two days, we have to get together and certify the vote.

oath of office they can take it and like i said if the hurricane comes right it's the new people believe me where does it say within two days mr man it says on the second business day immediately the first line okay after b thank you um so mr attorney please continue hurricane what in effect

So basically, the ideal thing to do, whether it's preliminary or final certification, the safe thing to do if there is an emergency meeting to be called on, they should take an oath before they attend the meeting. That's correct. So any meeting, any decisions to be made will have to happen after an oath is taken. Is that correct? Right, okay. Okay, can I call the question?

Mr. Attorney, can I ask you a question from the last one? I was out of the room for a minute. Through the chair. Is it possible to add when they, we were talking about residency, that the clerk would have to be provided proof by, they don't do a, they just sign an affidavit now.

I'm asking because when I was first elected, they came to my house to make sure I lived there.

So could it be legal for the clerk to ask for proof showing their driver's license?

So what if someone were to, let's say, file a police report or something? Then does the police have to investigate it? And then there'll be proof?

But if the police, let's say, were to investigate and they can, they'll see that there's no, that the person doesn't live there. That's it.

Right, but... All right, can you explain real quick the last item of civil service? I can make this quick and you'll be happy.

That being said, is there a motion for this? There's a second? To accept it? No, not yet. Yeah, they'll be removing it.

So is there a motion for 7.1? Yes. Is there a second? All right, it fails.

We already voted on it. We already voted on it. It did not get a second. It did not pass. You have one last question.

So we have decided to keep the Civil Service Board.

7.1 is not about- It has nothing to do with eliminating the- Okay, that's it. Mr. Mayor, please let the attorney speak because even the commissioners are confused.

I didn't have a confusion. Let me make the record straight, but I heard my commissioners having a confusion.

All right, now we're in 7.2. We don't have to take up 7.2 if we don't want to. Does anybody want to take up 7.2? No. Or anything moving forward. Or anything else?

Yes, I don't want to eliminate civil service.

All right, all that being, okay, since we have no other further business, can I get a motion to adjourn, please?

Wait, wait, isn't there a, is that it? 7.26, are you making any justifications?

No, are we putting 7.1 on the ballot or no? No, we're not.

All right, I have a motion to adjourn. I have a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. How is this going over civil service?

We're not eliminating it. So we're adjourned.

The comment that I was going to make was can we get the civil service board backing up and running? Wait a minute. We didn't take it out, but they took it out.

No. You have to vote on it to put it on. You didn't agree with the ticketed out.