Village Council - Regular Meeting

There we are. We are live. All right. Good evening, everybody, and welcome to our special council meeting scheduled for today, Monday, July 20th, 2026. We're starting at 5.33 p.m. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll?

Mayor Karen Cunningham.

Present.

Vice Mayor Mark Meritor. Present. Council Member Patrick Fiore. Present. Council Member Steve Cody. Here. Council Member Marsha Mattson.

Here.

Quorum is met.

Thank you. And with that, I'll turn it over to Council Member Fiore for invocation.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And if we could all bow our heads in prayer. Tonight's reading is from St. Luke, chapter 11, verse 23 to 24. Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see. For I tell you that many prophets and kings have desired to see those things which ye see and have not seen them. and to hear those things which ye hear and have not heard them. Amen.

Thank you. If I could get everybody to please stand. Mr. Kreischer, would you lead us in the pledge? Wonderful. With that, we will take requests, petitions, and public comments. We have five items on tonight's agenda, but this would be for items not on the agenda.

Thank you. Steve Kreiser, 18201 Southwest 98th Avenue. This month has been a pretty productive month for showing just how badly the legal parking is. On 183rd Street, we've had three serious wrecks. One of them, a resident coming out of their driveway got hit by a speeder on 183 ending up into the Vista building over the parking, over the sidewalk, over the hedge, into the cracking the glass on one of the units. Followed a couple weeks later, we had a 98th Avenue, 183rd person at the stop sign, blinded by the illegal parking on the corner across from Vista where the trucks have been there, right with bumpers hanging out over right away. No line of sight off of the speeders coming off of Eureka. Got hit, ended up in a property owner's fence there south of me. Two days after that, we had an accident on 98th Avenue Road, 183rd, where a westbound car hit another car, and the westbound car was driven into two legally parked cars, and the parking space is head-on. This is all a result of improper planning, number one, where we're not having enough parking for these mixed-use facilities for people to park their cars. especially on 98th Court there with a bend in 183rd, we have loading, unloading, we have parking, we have people get out, leave their cars unattended, no hazard lights, nothing. There's no enforcement. But whenever you go down 183rd, you'll always see at least one car sideswiped, parked in illegal parking spaces there at the curb. It's just an ongoing continuous problem. And it's because we are not providing enough parking requirements for these projects. I came home from breakfast Friday and I had rooms to go taking up 98th Avenue. I had two AC trucks and a car parked in front of my gate so that you could narrowly get through 98th Avenue, much less into my gate. And they were all for the townhouse projects. This overflow into the neighboring properties is getting really bad. And when you pull up tonight to the meeting and you look out into the I call it the mud pit out there. You know, parking is a serious issue, but yet we have the, what's it called, the Miami Parking Authority is the only one benefiting from their contract because we have all these empty street legal parking spaces that are not being utilized now because nobody wants to pay to park. So we need to revisit this parking situation before somebody gets seriously hurt. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, very good, very good. With that, we'll move into ordinances for first reading. Yes, I'm so sorry that you told me that right before the meeting.

One public comment was submitted by form by Kelly Willis. residing at 8460 Southwest 180th Street in Palmetto Bay. Good evening, Palmetto Bay. I would like to ask and encourage our village attorney, John Quick, to seek attorney fees from Aljohn Farquharson. The judge dismissed Aljohn's case against our village with bias. Thank you.

Sorry, thank you. All right, we have three ordinances for first reading. The first one is item 3A. Would somebody move it? Move it. Is there a second? Madam Clerk, can you please read the item?

Item 3A, an ordinance of the Village of Palmetto Bay, Florida, creating section 20-7 fee waiver program, transparency and fiscal accountability relating to village fee waivers, establishing requirements for standardized cost accounting, disclosure of the full cost of fee waivers and annual reporting, requiring disclosure of cumulative annual support provided to each organization directing the manager to report to the Village Council with recommendations regarding annual program caps and recovery of direct costs. This ordinance is sponsored by Councilmember Marcia Madsen and is being heard on first reading.

Thank you. Public comment? Madam Clerk, you have one.

One comment was submitted by form by Kelly Wittes, 8460 Southwest 180th Street, Palmetto Bay. I oppose item 3A. That's the end of her comment.

Thank you. With that, I'll turn it over to Councilwoman Manson.

Thank you very much. Well, good evening. I guess it's evening, almost evening. Mayor and Council, this ordinance is about good financial information. It is not about eliminating fee waivers. It is not about criticizing nonprofit organizations. It is about understanding the true cost of a village program before we make policy decisions. Over the past several months, I requested and analyzed the village fee waiver records. And I appreciate the staff's work, especially Director Carmona's help in assembling that information. The data revealed several important findings. First, from February 2023 through May 2026, the village approved 723 fee waivers with a reported value of approximately $243,000. Administering those waivers also required approximately 2,544 staff hours with an estimated personnel cost of more than $46,000. Together that represents nearly $290,000 in known public subsidy before considering maintenance, utilities, custodial services, security, insurance, depreciation, and wear and tear on village facilities. Now this is a significant public investment. Second, a relatively small number of repeat recipients account for a substantial share of the program. The 10 largest recipients receive more than 60% of the total value of all fee waivers. Many organizations appear year after year demonstrating that this program often functions as continuing operational support for them rather than one-time assistance. Third, organizations located outside of Palmetto Bay receive slightly more total subsidy than organizations based within the village. I'm not suggesting that this is right or wrong, but I do believe the council and the public should know where taxpayer supported benefits are going. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the reported value of the fee waivers is not the actual cost of the program. Today, we generally count only the rental fee that was waived and the staff. We do not consistently calculate the cost of maintenance, utilities, custodial services, security, insurance, or the long-term impact of using village facilities. In other words, we know what we forgive in rental charges, but we do not know what the program actually costs the taxpayers. I believe that this is the most important issue revealed by this analysis. Good financial decisions require complete financial information. This ordinance simply fills that gap. It requires the village manager to develop a standardized cost accounting methodology so that every fee waiver is measured the same way. It requires annual and monthly public reports showing the cumulative value of fee waivers by recipient and by facility. Right now what we get is just the manager's report in which discrete requests are fulfilled month by month, but we don't have anything that shows the cumulative value by recipient or by facility. This ordinance requires disclosures of each applicant's cumulative annual support so the council can see the complete history rather than considering each request in isolation. It asks the manager to recommend whether there should be an annual budget for the program and whether certain direct costs should be recovered. These recommendations will come back to the council for future discussion. This ordinance does not establish a cap. It does not reduce funding. It does not eliminate fee waivers. These would all be future policy decisions if the council ever chooses to consider them. Today, I'm simply asking for better financial information. It took me over a year to collect this information. As we begin another budget season, that information is especially important. Our village faces increasing costs for public safety, litigation, insurance, and other essential services. Every discretionary expenditure should be understood completely. Fee waivers are public expenditures. They should be measured, reported, and reviewed with the same care as every other expenditure of public funds. Transparency is not anti-nonprofit. Accountability is not anti-nonprofit. Knowing the full cost of a program is simply good government. Now, every family balances its budget. Every business measures its cost. Local government should do the same. I respectfully ask for your support on this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we'll take questions. We'll start with Vice Mayor and just come on down. I saw your hand up as well, Council Member Cody. Go ahead, Vice Mayor.

Thank you. Looking through your exhibit on this item, it appears that staff already prepares, I guess, staff time spent on this item. I'm wondering if either the manager or the parks director can speak to, I guess, the calculation of that and what goes into that and also just overall, just to answer, this is already standard practice in terms of the calculation that we're seeing here?

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. So we currently have established a calculation for staff. The only time we use it is when it's outside of the normal hours of operations for the facility that's being requested for a fee waiver. It's an average of $17 per hour per one staff member. times the number of hours for the requested fee waiver, 30 minutes before, 30 minutes after is added.

So by the sounds of it, your office is already doing this calculation, and what's in front of me is what you just said in terms of the actual staff time that you just said with the $17 an hour per staffer. Correct. Got it. Thank you. That's all I have.

Thank you. Council Member Cody?

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I beg your pardon. How about now? Yep. Oh, by the way, viva España. Okay. This question goes to the manager. Councilwoman Madsen spoke of $290,000. Is that money where we have written checks for $290,000? No, it is not. So... Let's take the gazebo in Coral Reef Park. Coral Reef Park only operates during hours when the park is open. If someone wants to use that and we do a feeble waiver for it, do we ordinarily bring on extra staff to service that feeble waiver use?

Not ordinarily. And I think I've brought this up before. The best way to visualize the cost to the village is not a direct cost either in either a check, as your first question was, or in direct employee costs. It's an opportunity cost, the way an economist would view it. For example, if we provide a fee waiver for a nonprofit to use the gazebo at Coral Reef Park, then the gazebo would not be available for a rental should another entity want to rent it at the same exact time that the fee waiver is for. If the park is open, the cost in terms of labor and other expenses are incidental to the operation of Coral Reef Park as it's currently staffed. So it's not to say there's no cost, but I would, again, just to visualize it, I would recommend that the village council residents view it as an opportunity cost.

And taking a facility like Thalotta Estate, where we make it available to nonprofits, has there ever been, in your experience, an occasion where we bumped off a paying user to make room for a not-for-profit and a fee waiver.

I'm not aware of that, and the parks director is shaking her head no for the record as well.

Okay, so this $290,000 is not an out-of-pocket amount that this is costing the village, correct?

There are, and I want to be very clear, especially if we're talking about Falada, there have been cases where due to an after-hour event, the village did incur a direct cost. I don't want to say that none of these are direct costs, but the vast majority of them, the cost to the village in terms of labor and other expenses are incidental to the operation. If someone is wanting to do a seminar at Falada during the normal working hours, that's a good example of it of it being an incidental expense. Falada's already open. The employee or employees are already there. Whatever additional work they needed to do to open up the room and check it at the end for cleanliness is incidental to the normal expense that that employee would have incurred that day anyway. I think that's what your question was. I hope I answered it. All right. Thank you, sir. That's all I have.

Thank you. No, okay. All right, discussion. Yes, Vice Mayor.

Yeah, I support this item. I think it's a good idea. At least from a baseline, we're already doing this work of the calculation here. So to me, if we're just gonna be able to budget what's available and essentially deduct from what's in that calculation, set a budget for it i just think that's responsible budgeting so that we have control over how much in terms of fee waivers we're giving out so i think it's a good idea the other thing i would also point out from an operations standpoint is looking at our budget from 2020 and seeing the positions that we had in parks and recreations then versus now there's actually been a growth in terms of fte equivalents so it's not like staff time is free i mean obviously the parks director mentioned it was about 17 an hour but those staff there's an opportunity cost as a manager said to being able to use that staff for other functions so to me i think this is a responsible move i support it and hope my colleagues will vote for it thank you very much thank you other comments uh council member fiore yeah thank you madam mayor um i i'm just going to speak a general term here and i uh

I understand the intention of Dr. Mattson, but I think it goes, it potentially could go beyond what is, uh, what is asked here. Um, and as our, and as our, and I know you put a lot of time into this, Dr. Mattson, but as our vice mayor would say, I have a philosophical difference and really, which is this, uh, I believe that the benefit to the community always the fiscal benefit, if any, to the village. And I say this because I can go back. It was 14 years ago, October 1st of 2012, where the council I was on at the time passed this fee waiver ordinance that I sponsored unanimously, actually. And if I didn't thank them then, which I'm sure I did, I think. I thank them now. That was former Mayor Stanczyk, former Vice Mayor Brian Pariser, former Councilperson Howard Tendrick, and former Councilperson Joan Lindsay. It did pass unanimously. I think it's worked well for 14 years. And I don't want to pull the rug out on any of our not-for-profits. especially when they only have 100 days left here. It's what I firmly believe in. Now, a new council comes in. Of course, it's their prerogative to move any which way they want to on this. I would actually hope they keep this ordinance from 14 years ago in place, but I'm not going to be supporting it for that reason. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Welcome. Anyone else? Okay. Good.

All right. Listen, we can argue all day long or talk all day long about how a lot is used or how the fellow room is used. That's not what this one is about. This one is about is getting a handle on our expenditures. And we're in a budget crunch right now. I think this is a very appropriate thing to talk about how we really need to look at where we are spending money. The major argument that's going to be coming up in the budget workshop we're going to have is that we're putting a lot of money into things for quality of life. Well, how much money do you want to spend on that for quality of life? Well, this helps us get a handle on how much it costs. Right now we don't really know in terms of maintenance, utilities, insurance, depreciation, wear and tear, we have no idea. My calculation, which I didn't put in the ordinance, was approximately 19% of the costs that we're not taking into consideration. Now that's a leak in our budget, and what I'm calling it for is for the manager to examine that and see whether we want to plug that by perhaps, I'm not saying this should happen, but perhaps by charging some fee for that. We should also look at the fact that the 10 organizations are taking up 60% of the fee waiver. They're using it time after time. I'm not going to name them, but I think we should look at that. Should there be a maximum of how much an organization, how much money or time an organization can use it? Right now, this information is extremely difficult to find.

for the average resident.

In fact, I had to spend a year gathering all this information. So I think it's just important for being financially accountable and transparent to be able to do this. And I'm not saying what the final disposition should be, but I think we need to know if we're a responsible village that watches our spending. So I can see I'm probably not going to get support. I don't know. The mayor hasn't given any opinion, but I do hope that it is supported. This is simply an accountability, transparency measure. We should know where our money is going. Thank you.

Thank you. I didn't make comments because I think everybody already knows where I stand. Very good. With that, Madam Clerk, can you call the roll? This is an ordinance.

Council Member Marsha Madsen?

Yes.

Mayor Karen Cunningham?

No.

Council Member Patrick Fiore?

No.

Council Member Steve Cody?

No.

Vice Mayor Mark Meritor?

Yes. Okay, thank you. The item fails to pass. 3-2 vote. Item 3B. Would somebody move that?

Move it.

Is there a second? Second. Madam Clerk, can you please read the item?

Item 3B, an ordinance of the Mayor and Village Council of the Village of Palmetto Bay, Florida, relating to public safety, creating the Palmetto Bay Public Safety District, as a dependent special district pursuant to Section 189.02 Florida Statutes, amending Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances by creating Section 26-1. This ordinance is sponsored by Vice Mayor Mark Meritzer and is being heard on first reading.

You have one comment by form. Very good. And then public comment.

Kelly Willis, 8460 Southwest, 188th Street, Palmetto Bay. I oppose item 3B. That's the end of her comment.

Thank you. Folks that are here.

Kreischer, 182.01 Southwest, 98th Avenue. Related to what I said earlier on this police situation, I think the idea may work if we had our own police departments. We do not. We are receiving a contracted service and we have no control over the contract amount, basically. And I don't know of any one year that the police were not given 100% of what they needed through our budgeting practices now. In fact, the manager brought up something at the meeting about a $500 savings that if we were in this special taxing district situation, that $500,000 surplus for the contract budget would not have gone back into general fund like it apparently was able to be used to do. This is something that may be good if we have our own police force that we can control, and the other thing is I do not believe that our police department usage is good properly following and forcing our ordinances, our legal and safety issues like the traffic and parking situations, and other incidents. Yes, we have a very low crime rate, if any at all, but that's not proactive. That's a result of they do a good job after the crime. We need to not, in my opinion, not put this in place that guarantees them 100% and then we don't get anything back.

they don't use it they have not had a problem so far let's don't create one thank you thank you no see no other public comment we'll close that and I'll turn it over to Vice Mayor Mark Marwitzer Thank You madam mayor after having conversations with both our police major and also representatives of the police benevolent Association I think it'd be best to give this item some more time to work on and also to address especially in the legal context and also in the context of the November ballot issue. So I would seek deferral to the September 14th, 2026 regular council meeting for this item. That's my motion.

Okay. There is a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Discussion on the motion of moving the item to September 14th. Is that what I heard?

Regular council meeting in September.

Regular council meeting in September. Any discussion on that? All right. It's an ordinance, so why don't we call the roll on the motion, please?

Vice Mayor Mark Meritor?

Yes.

Council Member Steve Cody?

Yes.

Council Member Patrick Fiore? Yes. Mayor Karen Cunningham?

No.

Council Member Marsha Madsen?

Yes. The motion passes 4-1, moving it to the September 14th regular council meeting. Is there anything else that we need to do for that?

Nope.

Thank you. Very good. Very good. Thank you. All right. Next item is 3C. Would someone move that? Move it. Is there a second? Second. Madam Clerk? Can you please read item 3C?

Item 3C is an ordinance relating to the operation of micro mobility devices and electric bicycles amending code of ordinances of the village of Palmetto Bay by creating section 21-1 to establish regulations for the safe operation of micro mobility devices to provide for pedestrian safety, operator training and enforcement and to authorize interlocal agreements. This ordinance is sponsored by Vice Mayor Mark Meritor and is being heard on first reading.

Very good. I see we have one person to speak to the item. And do you have one comment as well by form? Oh, two people.

Yes, I'm generally in support of this item.

Name and address, sir.

Oh, sorry. Eric Tolberg, 7884 Southwest 179 Terrace, Palmetto Bay. There's a few things that need to be clarified. One is there is something I call a personal mobility scooter that does not fit in any of the definitions in Florida Statute 316-003. That's the state of definitions. And I, in my email, I sent a copy of that Florida Statute. There's a device called a personal mobility scooter that is used by the elderly but not necessarily disabled to get around like an electric wheelchair. It has a seat and three or four wheels and is usually less than 26 inches wide so it can fit through a door. They're generally allowed where electric wheelchairs are. The big problem is that many electric two-wheel vehicles sold as electric bicycles are actually electric motorcycles that's greater than 1500 watts or two horsepower that require a motorcycle license or electric mopeds that's one to two horsepower and have cranks and require regular driver's license. It's very important that we have a rule where all such vehicles sold in Florida are labeled as not legal on public streets without appropriate registration and licensing. This is a problem that's statewide. It needs to be handled at the state. I realize we can't do anything on it, but we certainly can make a point of telling our representatives that this needs to be changed. Until that can be done, we need to work out a way for the police to determine which of these vehicles are an electric bicycle, i.e. less than one horsepower or 750 watts, and which are e-motos or electric dirt bikes. They'll have to look at all kinds of things on the bicycle because we don't have a tag system. So it's going to have to be worked out of how we're going to do this. But I think the idea is great, but we really need class one, two, or three tags to show what the vehicle is. Otherwise, we need to work with the police to figure out how we're going to keep these 50 or 60-mile-an-hour electric bikes off the road.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

Steve Kreutzer, 18201 Southwest 98th Avenue. For similar reasons to the previous item, first of all, we don't need another ordinance. This sounds more like an aspirational effort because enforcement is going to be ridiculous on this. You just heard a lot of questions about the definitions and what ifs and things, but we have other problems already in existence like four-wheel ATVs running around that are not enforced. They are definitely illegal to be on the street. They're not inspected. They're not lighted. They're not tagged. They're not even licensed drivers. So enforcement is the thing that's going to prevent this from being realistic. We don't need unnecessary ordinances, in my opinion. We got too many already. And the definitions and then the suggestion that these shouldn't be on the street, where are they going to go? My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks and they're not legal on sidewalks either. So where are they going to be used? So you have a whole lot of definitions, planning, enforcement methods that are going to need to be planned out before you make this law, I hope. Thank you.

We have one comment by form.

Kelly Willis, 8460 Southwest, 180th Street, Palmetto Bay. I strongly oppose item 3C. End of comment.

Thank you. All right, Vice Mayor, it's all yours.

Thank you. I want to start by thanking Major Rodriguez, Village Manager Nick Marano, and also our Village Attorney John Quick for their collaborative effort on crafting this ordinance. This is an incredibly important step forward for our village because over the past year or two, I have heard repeatedly from residents who are concerned about fast-moving e-bikes or other motorized devices on our sidewalks and shared use paths. People should be able to walk through Palmetto Bay without worrying about being struck, forced off a sidewalk, or being surprised by a heavy motorized device moving past them at an unsafe speed. At the same time, I also don't think the answer is to simply just ban these devices altogether. I think e-bikes and scooters can be useful, and they're something that a lot of young people in our village enjoy. And I think part of being a kid is just going outside, riding around, and having fun. And the purpose, then, of this ordinance is to establish reasonable rules so that these devices can be enjoyed safely and responsibly. So going through what the ordinance does, the ordinance sets a speed limit of 10 miles per hour on sidewalks and 15 miles per hour on shared use paths. It also requires anyone under the age of 16 who operates a Class 2 or Class 3 e-bike to complete safety training with a parent or guardian. And the important part here is the parent would actually sign an acknowledgement confirming that the family understands the risks and responsibilities involved in using an e-bike. And to me, the whole purpose of this ordinance, more than anything, is to have an educational component to the families within the village of Palm Meadow Bay. because so many people hear the term e-bike and understandably think that they're purchasing something similar to an ordinary bicycle with just a little bit of assistance. But some of these devices are a lot heavier, faster, and a lot more powerful than a traditional bike. A child may be operating one without either the child or the parent fully appreciating the potential consequences of using one. So this ordinance is also substantially similar to the ordinance that was adopted by Pinecrest. I would also like to explore with us, hopefully, since Pinecrest also has that training requirement within their ordinance, work perhaps on a regional training program where you can go to pinecrest city hall or even palmetto bay village hall as well to get your training as well so i think families across south date are confronting this exact issue and i think that we should adopt what has already seemed to be making progress in pinecrest and also finally i want to be clear i also don't envision this becoming a heavy-handed enforcement operation i think the objective again is education first I don't expect officers to conduct routine checkpoints to stop every young person on an e-bike. The hope with this would be to primarily focus on dangerous conduct like you see people doing wheelies all the time on e-bikes or the reckless riding or coming near pedestrians or other cyclists or the areas where we have repeated complaints over this behavior. This ordinance gives us that balanced approach, and it also preserves the ability of families and young people to use these devices. And I think the number one responsibility of this council is the safety of our residents, and this ordinance advances that purpose and responsibility. I hope to have your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Attorney.

Just one point. In between when the agenda went out and, well, I was going to say tonight, but it was really a couple weeks ago when we had our meeting, there were some tweaks that the attorney's office made for legality purposes. There's a red line that you guys all have in front of you, so we worked with the sponsor on this, and to my understanding, he's comfortable with those changes. So assuming he is with that, we would ask if you consider the red line version as an amendment when considering this.

move the red line version all right it's been moved is there a second second all those in favor anyone opposed all right thank you uh mr quick all right uh questions for the vice mayor uh council member cody thank you um you spoke of training costs or training what's the cost of that going to be for the village

defer to our village manager but my understanding is it would be pretty minimal for example in pinecrest at the moment they're maybe having about once or twice a month a training session within their city hall and if the police are willing and available to do that training i think it's just part of our general programming and i also foresee this being available at the different events that we have across the village of palmetto bay i would agree with that okay other questions

Councilwoman Matson.

First of all, I think really pedestrians are endangered in this city and I wish we would build more sidewalks, frankly. However, I think it's a good idea to have some kind of legislation regarding these mobility devices because I've seen too many wild and crazy drivers of those devices and I'd like to see them be trained, have some education about it, how dangerous it is for pedestrians and for themselves. A question that I have is, well, I do agree with Mr. Kreischer about enforcement. I see that as the biggest problem, frankly. And so I would like to know who, do you have any idea who the fine of $250 would go to?

Yeah, so two things. The first, in terms of enforcement, and to address something that one of our residents mentioned in terms of the visual difference, there's actually throttle on Class 2 and Class 3 e-bikes, which is what this ordinance targets. So on a regular just electric e-bike, that gives you a little bit of pedal assist. You won't even see the throttle. So that's going to be the visual differentiation. In terms of your second question as to who pays, I would defer to our village attorney on that because I'm not fully familiar. And on the enforcement methodology, I'm also happy to defer to our major as well on that.

Yeah, I'm looking up in the statute. It's under the uniform traffic control, so it's going to be set forth in the statute, but I can confirm that, and I'll try to do that before we finish this discussion.

Okay, because the ordinance calls for the enforcement officers are a police officer and also a community service aide. I don't think we have any community service aides. And also code compliance officers. So I think that that would go, if a code compliance officer gave a citation, that would go to the village, right? And if a police officer gave the citation, that would go to where citations go, which is to the county and some to Palmetto Bay, correct?

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council, Councilwoman. To answer your question, if we issue a uniform traffic citation under a state statute, it would be no different than any other uniform traffic citation where there's a portion of the fine that comes back to the village. And Mr. Manager gets a report once a month, I believe, is that he gets a report of the portion of I don't want to call them earnings, but it is a portion of the fine that comes back to the village.

You know what portion that is?

I can research it for you and tell you exactly how much of each citation, but I think it all depends on what the fine is. Speeding fines, I believe it's more. It's a percentage? I believe it is, ma'am.

Okay. Okay. Manager, do you know the exact numbers?

I don't, ma'am, but we'll get that number and get it to you and the other members here. Okay, thank you.

And also a question is, does this include insurance that the parent, let's say, has to have insurance on the vehicle or on the mobility device?

So I don't think we can regulate that. I'll defer to our village attorney. But my understanding is that because under state law, these are not classified as typical motor vehicles, unless it's one of those higher powered, essentially e-motor bikes that you see, those would fall under the same classification as like a regular motorcycle. But for class two and class three, they are under a special designation where the requirements are a little bit different and insurance is not a requirement, which is part of why I wanted to have an acknowledgement. Because for example, if your kid's on an e-bike and they go out and hurt someone, they're now potentially looking at a major civil lawsuit against that individual. So having that training involved and just making sure everyone's aware of, hey, you need to be safe and here are the potential consequences if you're not is part of why I wanted to do this.

Thank you. Any other questions for the major? All right. Thanks, major. All right. Any other discussion? Council Member Fiore.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. Yeah, I think well-intentioned, Mr. Vice Mayor, but I'm going to agree with a couple of the speakers. It's really not enforceable. I really think this is a parenting slash common sense item, for lack of a better word. But I will tell you this. This is something I have heard some of the complaints, and it may be incumbent upon this council to at least maybe ask the manager through some type of directive just to put something on our website to make, I don't know how you would say it, I'd leave it up to everybody here, but just to ensure that parents tell their children or just to tell everyone to be careful when using these e-bikes and be aware of pedestrians. I think something like that issued on our website would be helpful. But I wouldn't vote for the ordinance as is, but there's always a benefit to something, and I think that's something I'd like to see this council do. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you. Vice Mayor?

Yeah, in response to that, I'm wondering if the concern is, if the enforcement's the concern, would you be comfortable approving something that's similar to what's in front of you here, except instead of, for example, a fine, we essentially do education as the penalty, especially in this context of, obviously, we're trying to figure out where the money would go. I think just education in general is a more productive way of handling this problem. So I would defer to you on that, but I think that would be a reasonable way of addressing this issue.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. Yeah, good point, but I just think it's too much government involvement, for lack of a better word, on the whole thing, and it's not something I'd want to put into law. However, again, I think you have brought up a valid concern, a safety issue, and how we can educate the public at a minimal thing, I would think, would just be putting something on our website. I really don't want our police... already have, you know, there's enough to do without that. I know they would have to respond if there was, uh, God forbid some, some incident, but that's as far as I would go. Thank you. But the good point. Thank you, Mr. Vice mayor.

Do you have one question? Where will these education sessions take place?

So Pinecrest is currently doing them at village hall, um, at their village hall. And then also the idea as well as I know that the sheriff's office has a tense, the parks record parks and recreation department has a tense at most of our events. So I feel like doing some outreach there would be a good idea. And I also know historically speaking, I remember seeing some like helmet giveaways in the past as well. So maybe that can be part of that program as well.

So that's something that would be determined by them. You don't stipulate in here.

Yeah, it's administratively flexible. Yeah, my preference with ordinances is to leave it as administratively flexible as possible.

So from my perspective, And I travel around the community quite a bit. I think there's a very large number of e-bikes, even in my own neighborhood. And I'm talking little people, little kids, elementary school kids riding e-bikes. We have issues in our parks as well, periodically. I don't know that we've had any recent issue, but I know in the past I've reached out to the manager. We've got kids doing donuts and you know, in the grass, and then residents will do outreach. It's like anything else, unless you're trained and understand the dangers, which, frankly, in a lot of cases, I would imagine young people don't, because I think young people think, you know, hey, we're going to live forever, everything's going to be fine. I think they do pose some issues. I don't think they belong on sidewalks, to be honest with you. but then I don't want kids on streets either with these vehicles. So some kind of training, I'm in agreement with Council Member Fiore, some kind of training I think is necessary. My concern in some respects, and I guess I'll just ask the manager, is this something that you feel like, given the time constraints, the number of police officers that we have, and I know we have a community policing department, that likely this would, I'm guessing, likely it would... I don't want to use the word fall on them, but it would become a part of their responsibilities either at events or in our neighboring parks. Is that how you envision it?

Well, I'll let the major come up. But for the record, he's my apologies if that's me. He was shaking his head in the affirmative. So he was agreeing with your statement. Both the Major and I are good with this proposed ordinance. Go ahead, Major.

Good evening once again. Madam Mayor, yes, that would be the idea is that once, if this isn't in fact passed during our discussions with both the Vice Mayor and and the village manager, it is to make that training as simple as possible. We would take literature that's already in publication from the state of Florida, from the Department of Transportation, and we would take that literature with those laws that are already written. There's a lot of good information that's already publicly available, and we would take that and make sure that it would be... the operators of the micromobility devices. We would just be the mechanism, the delivery mechanism.

And I'm sure it's probably already happening. We are doing some kind of enforcement as it relates to... I know we do golf cart enforcement all the time. I'm assuming we do electric bike enforcement.

Thank you for asking, 100%. The majority of that enforcement, however, is more in the realm of the e-motos, those devices that qualify as a motor vehicle, as a motorcycle. And unfortunately, we had an incident just this past weekend. We really have not had many with the micro-mobility devices, per se. The scooters that everybody sees, it's more so in the realm of the e-motorcycle.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh, vice mayor, I'm going to support the item, uh, tonight and likely on second reading. The only thing I would just say, and just, you know, putting it to the record, I'll be gone in four or five months. I would maybe for second reading, I don't want to call it a pilot because I think it's an important initiative, but maybe for second reading, we can add some kind of language that will come back, uh, six months from now, seven months from now, whatever you and the manager and the major come up with, and then you all revisit it, maybe the manager and major give some kind of report, and if there's any tweaking, let's say we have zero people coming to trainings, you know, I'm trying to, you know, if there's tweaking that needs to be done, tweak it at that time, because sometimes we pass stuff, and it just passes into the night, and so if you're tracking this, I think it's good policy, I, along with Several friends here in the village of Palmetto Bay knew Miss Andrews from Key Biscayne. This was well over a year ago. Actually, probably two years or better now. Super, I mean, awful and tragic, not only for Meg, who died, but also for the young man. I don't remember. I feel like he was 11 or 12. You know, he's just a kid. And that's something he'll sleep with and wake up with every single day of his life and his family's life. And if we can educate, we can't stop every tragedy, but if we can educate people, I think that's definitely an important component.

So in responding to that, Mr. Attorney, I believe we can put a sunset clause in the ordinance. I'm happy to put, let's just call it December 31st, 2027. be the sunset if that would be appropriate because that way we have the whole year of 2026 to assess this and then the council can come back next next year and evaluate the effectiveness of the program and make changes as they see fit so is that something that you'd be open to madam mayor i i don't know i mean sunset seems severe right to me i'm just saying you know i don't know if i'm going to be following it in 2027.

but I'm gonna leave it to you and council member Cody to do that and of course the major and manager to do the follow up. I feel like saying sunset is harsh, I'm not asking you to sunset it, I'm saying would you put in something at some point to say on such and such in the month of whatever, six, eight months from now, I'll be gone, don't worry, I won't be pining on it, just that you'll revisit it and say, hey, the major says, You probably want to make these tweaks. The attorney says, hey, we might want to look at this a little bit differently, just to hear something. I don't want you to sunset it. I think it's an important piece of policy. I'll be honest with you.

Yes, sir. Yeah, Madam Mayor. I usually don't chime in, but 100 days to chime. Just a suggestion, Mr. Vice Mayor. Perhaps you want to bring this back as a resolution. as far as it concerns the educational component at the September meeting, and I will support it. By that I mean we could, I think as the mayor said, there could be a seminar at Coral Reef Park. The police could pass out the brochures or whatever. Maybe we could do that once every few months, every three months, something, just an idea. But if you bring it back as a resolution like that, I would definitely support it in September. Just an idea. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you. Yes, Councilmember Cody.

Thank you. I think sunsetting would not be a bad idea because the state of Florida, at least back in the 80s, when I worked with the legislature, we had an entire committee that was chaired by Bill Sadowski where various parts of the Florida Code were... equipped with sunset dates, and it was up to the various legislative committees to take up before the expiration of that to see whether they wanted to keep it intact or not. If Mark wants to make a motion to add that sunset language, I'll second it.

Councilwoman Matson?

Yes, I think this is a very important piece of legislation. I think we really do need to have some regulation and enforcement on these vehicles. I think they're dangerous. And the major thinks it's a good idea. The manager thinks it's a good idea. It's a good idea. These are the two people who are responsible for it. So I don't think it needs any tweaking in terms of sunsetting. I think that it will have training, as the commissioner mentioned. I think there will be training. I think the police will do that. They will hold sessions for training. So I think it's good as it is. And thank you for proposing it.

Thank you. Vice Mayor?

Is there language out there? I haven't heard of this, but is there language where we can revisit in the December regular council meeting of 2027?

I mean, yes, you could put, I don't think you need it in there. I mean, you can just, if this passes on second reading, you can also put a directive that it be to the administration that we revisited in December 2027 to provide an update, any potential amendments, tweaks, or anything like that, or repeal, I guess, as well.

I'll make a motion to add that to the ordinance, which is in the December regular council meeting of 2027, the administration shall make a report as to the trainings provided and enforcement and all other relevant information related to this ordinance. So that's my motion.

Second. Okay. And there's a motion and it's been seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Okay. I'm sorry. Ordinance. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll on the motion that's just been made?

Vice Mayor Mark Meritor?

Yes.

Council Member Steve Cody? No. Council Member Patrick Fiore?

No.

Mayor Karen Cunningham? Yes. Council Member Marsha Martin?

Yes. The motion passes 3-2. So now we're back on the item as amended. And Commander, I think you're good. Yeah. Thanks. Anything else on this particular item? Do you want to make closing remarks?

I know to quit when I'm ahead.

Okay. Wow. Look at this. Tonight we heard quit when ahead, and if the manager thinks it's good, it's good. So I'm going to remember that through the budget workshop. I'm just kidding. That was great. All right. Madam Clerk, when you're ready, if you could call the roll on the item as it has been amended.

Council Member Steve Cody? No. Council Member Patrick Fiore? No. Council Member Marsha Madsen? Yes. Mayor Karen Cunningham? Yes. Vice Mayor Mark Meriter?

Yes. The item passes 3-2. Thank you. All right. We'll move into resolutions. We've got two, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you doing a withdrawal of item B? I've already withdrawn it. Okay. I just want to make sure because I still see it.

Yeah, 4B was withdrawn prior to the meeting, but today it was before the agenda could be...

Very good. So we only have one resolution then. Item 4A. Would somebody move it? Move. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Madam Clerk, can you please read the item?

Item 4A is a resolution requiring enhanced transparency and fiscal accountability for legal services and litigation expenditures... requiring regular public reporting of legal services and litigation expenditures directing implementation and providing for an effective date this resolution is sponsored by council member marsha madsen public comment did you have anything One public comment was received by form from Kelly Willis, 8460 Southwest, 180th Street. I oppose item 4A. End of comment.

Thank you. All right. I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. I'll turn it over to Councilwoman Matson.

All right. This resolution is for enhanced transparency and fiscal accountability for legal services and litigation expenditures. This is another item that I worked on quite a while. I wanted to bring it because this is one of the main drivers of our budget deficit coming up in our budget workshop. And I think that we need to have more or we need to have more transparent reporting so that people really know what's going on with our litigation expenses. The purpose of this resolution is not to interfere with the village attorney or litigation strategy. is to provide the council and the public with meaningful oversight of one of the fastest growing expenditures in the Village budget. The Village reports on almost every other major expenditure. Litigation expenses should receive the same level of transparency. Why is this needed? Well, legal expenditures have increased dramatically, and if the public would like to look at the agenda online, I have a couple of exhibits in here that show how the expenditures have increased. Also, the budget workshop following this meeting will also demonstrate that. The adopted legal budget this year from this fiscal year bears little resemblance to actual spending by year end. For example, during this budget cycle, general legal services were budgeted at approximately $323,576, but now are estimated to exceed $1.1 million, an increase of 248% above budget. Litigation expenses have grown because of the Luxcom litigation, which is approximately half of the expenses, the Palmetto Bay Village Center litigation, the Fairchild litigation, multiple lawsuits involving Councilman Cody, and other legal matters. These costs compete directly with funding for parks, roads, landscaping, recreation, and other village services. Current reporting is inadequate. The village attorney submits monthly invoices, and these invoices generally include the date, the client, the subject, the hours, and the amount billed. But they do not tell the council or residents total spending by lawsuit, cumulative spending by case, expert witnessing costs, consultant costs, e-discovery costs, mediation expenses, outside council expenses, and projected remaining litigation costs. Without that information, meaningful budget oversight is impossible. Now what I'm recommending in this resolution is a monthly legal expenditure report. Each month, the manager would provide a public report showing each active lawsuit for every case, the case name, the purpose of the litigation, the status, and the department involved. The current month expenditures would include the village attorney, outside counsel, expert witnesses, consultants, mediators, investigators, e-discovery vendors, court reporters, filing fees, and all other litigation expenses. Then we would have the cumulative expenditures for every lawsuit, the fiscal year total, and the total spent since litigation began. At this point, let me just do an aside. I've been following litigation expenses since I've been on council for eight years. And frankly, at this point, I can't even tell you, I can just estimate how much we've spent on it, which I believe is over a million dollars. but I cannot really tell you the exact number and we should know that. So another aspect of this would be a budget comparison for each case, there would be the budget, the expenditures to date, and the estimated remaining costs. Now, the benefits of this resolution. This report would increase transparency, improve fiscal accountability, allow earlier identification of rapidly increasing legal costs, improve budget planning, help the council determine whether settlement should be considered before legal costs become excessive, and provide residents with a clearer understanding of how litigation affects taxes and village services. Now, why does this matter? Every additional dollar spent on litigation is available for public services, is unavailable for public services, When legal expenditures increase by hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions, other priorities are affected. We're going to be talking about that tonight later on in the budget workshop. Fiscal accountability requires not only approving a budget but also monitoring whether actual expenditures remain consistent with that budget. So I hope you will support this. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions? Council Member Cody? Thank you. This is for the manager.

I seem to recall that when we passed our current fiscal year budget, there was a decision made to not budget for litigation expenses. Is my memory correct? Correct. And so is that one of the reasons why the apparent number between what we set aside for the village attorney at about $300,000 and the amount that we spent total village attorney plus litigation expenses was so much greater. That is correct. So it was not that we were not aware that we would be having litigation expenses. It's just that a decision was made to move it off the books. Is that correct?

That's correct. We moved our litigation-reserved funding line off the budget for the current year, correct.

And for the village attorney, in the report that you provide for us at each regular council meeting, you give us a breakdown of what various expenses are generally for your services as... village attorney and also expenses related to other attorneys at your firm who have worked on items correct correct all of my bills are available and some might be redacted for if they're in litigation but they're all available and they're all public records but you also in those bills will reference um expenses with regard to uh cases that we have pending or matters correct

That's correct. A lot of times, in terms of using the court reporter, for example, usually what we do is that gets attached to the bill, and actually the court reporter invoice is also attached to our invoice, and that's all included in that. Yes, absolutely.

And that's just a pass-through? Correct, yes. You don't charge a markup on that?

No, whatever the invoice we get from the court reporter is, we just send over.

I know a few firms that used to put a little bit of a markup.

We do not do that. We do not offer our own court reporter services. We just send you what they tell us.

All right. And all of that information is included in the report that you provide with us as part of our regular council agenda packet, correct?

Yes, with one exception. The litigation matters are not included in that for attorney-client communication purposes, but they are public records, but they would need to be redacted for litigation, attorney-client communication.

So if we have an active... litigation matter, even under this resolution, would we have to redact that information in order to preserve our legal status regardless?

Absolutely, because if you don't, if you could imagine, say, we're researching kind of a nuanced area of the law, and if whoever is suing the village finds that out, they can they would be able to identify what our legal strategy might be. It's a window into our mind, I should say.

And so the idea that this resolution would give us complete transparency is not something practically that we're going to be able to do simply because we have to protect the legal position of the village, correct?

Absolutely. I would hope not because if you were to turn over basically access to your lawyer's minds, I mean, any attorney on the other side would kill for that, I would say. I mean, you know. I mean, you would love to have access into your opponent's mind. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

You're welcome. Are there other questions?

Respond to that, please.

Sure, and then the attorney has a question. Okay. You go ahead.

Yes, currently on the manager's reportable checks, the... expenses regarding various litigation like Lexcom are reported. So it's not exactly a secret. What I'm, I mean it is reported and they're in litigation so that part of your argument is not true. However, what I'm looking for is a comprehensive overview because these are individual items that you can't keep track of in terms of how the money is accumulating. And that's the important thing is people need to know how much these things are costing. And really it's mystery unless you follow it every month. And even then it's hard to follow. I think, I don't know how many public records requests I did on this in order to be able to get what I think is the accurate count. It's just not transparent. It's not readily available. It's hard to put together. So, Really, all this is transparency and fiscal accountability in terms of what is happening with our exploding litigation expenses.

Go ahead.

Does either the village manager's office or the village attorney's office have a, I feel like in front of us is all of the different cases that we have and also description of the hours billed, et cetera. I'm wondering, do we already track by case the expenditures that we have?

Yes, my invoices are sent by case. I mean, I do have some that I call general municipal because there's just daily things that come up that you wouldn't plan for. But if it's a litigation matter, Um, there's a number of reasons why we track those by case number one for budgeting purposes and for accounting purposes for the village. But also, um, it's important to do that for litigation purposes because if we're entitled to costs or fees, uh, under any, uh, there's a statutory basis or a contractual basis for fees. You need to be able to justify that in the litigation. So It's there. Say if you were to do a public records request for all my invoices for X case, we would have to go in and redact some of the, if it's in active litigation, redact some of that information to avoid revealing our mental impressions. But that would all be available and would be produced pursuant to a public records request.

So it's already being tracked by case and it's already public records requestable, correct? Correct.

On that aspect, some of the other things that are being requested are not in that, no.

Of course, and do you make the determination when the public records request comes in, or is it on a... Like, as you're giving us the invoices, for example, I believe I saw in one of your attorney's reports, like, it would probably give, like, a more vague description as to what the actual work was, but, like, I'm wondering, like, what the process is for that.

I... So... The bills are whatever they are. So depending on what it is, if it's... know sometimes you know if there's a research project on a certain issue you know I would include that in there but that chances are if there's a I just answer your question in terms of whether it would be produced would be on a case-by-case basis depending on the public records request because it would depend if the case is still open and would depend on the actual specific You know, the specific item, like if there's a entry that says, you know, telephone call with client about executive session, that's not revealing any mental impressions. Probably chances are that wouldn't be redacted. But if I went in and said prepare for executive session and listed out a bunch of things I prepared for, that definitely would be.

And I guess to the sponsors, the intent here to essentially like have a report during our meeting where it says, like, for example, Steve Cody versus Mark Merwitzer. I don't know which one it would be because there's multiple of those, but it'll list that case and then it'll say expenditures and then so on and so forth. Like in, for example, we're in a slip and fall case right now and would show the expenditures there. is that the intent to include in the manager's report, like, just that overall line of, like, here's what was spent per case, and is that something you'd be open to? Because, like, by the sounds of it, yes, there is some, like, attorney-client questions, but to me, as long as it's public record and it's reportable, why not? And it seems like we're already doing that work. Is the intention here to just say, okay, we're spending X amount of money on a slip and fall, we're spending X amount of money on another case, so on and so forth. Is that what you're going for?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm looking for, is something that is transparent, and something that people don't have to spend hours digging for and maybe not getting the right information. I mean, it's just putting it out there for the public to see. That's all.

Sure.

I mean, so just as a cleanup then, instead of saying no attorney-client privilege information shall be disclosed, I would just add another sentence saying only public records, only information subject to public records requests may be disclosed as an addition to your point, just so that essentially if it's public records, We're publishing it automatically as part of our agenda, and if it's not, it's not, and that way we don't have to worry about mental impressions or anything else.

Well, I already have in the resolution on page 203, line 13, no attorney-client privilege information shall be disclosed.

Exactly. It's already in there. Yeah, exactly. I just want to add one more thing. It just has to be public records requestable. That's all. All public records requestable information shall be disclosed.

Okay. I don't see the problem with that.

and i guess the last thing and just to reiterate this wouldn't create like i guess any administrative hassle because it's already being tracked by case and i'm wondering instead of showing all the um invoices as well um would it be possible to just show like for example slip and fall case i don't remember like the person who trips somewhere on one of our sidewalks x dollars steve cody versus mark morowitz or x dollars so on and so forth would that be possible

I mean, that's not what's being required in this. There are administrative requirements, like putting together a proposed budget, projecting the remaining litigation costs, and I'll get into that. I do have some concerns with this as to how it might be impacting litigation strategy, and I was waiting for you all to finish speaking. I can address that when I do talk, though.

I'll wait to hear that then. Thank you. Great. I'm going to turn it over to you, sir.

So I do have some concerns about this in terms of litigation strategy. I do want to just address up front the transparency issue. Everything is transparent here. All of our bills are subject to a public records request. If you do a public records request that says, I would like all legal invoices for X case, you're going to get them all. So it's all there. The issue was the requests that were being made That's not the request that was being made. The request that was being made was to create documents that did not already exist. And that was what the issue that was being run into. But if you just do a request for all invoices, attorney's fees, whatever else related to, we'll say the Luxcom case, the village can get it to you. That's not an issue. And obviously we would have to go in through redacted. The concern that I have, I have a couple of concerns when it comes to litigation strategy. And I do think that this would impact litigation, notwithstanding what I think is a good-natured intent. The part of, when I talked about wanting to have a window into somebody's brain, if you're an attorney, and on the other side, one of the ways that we know that, or one of the ways that we do get access to it, is by seeing what they request. So if somebody sends a public records request, if somebody sends a request for production, if somebody sends interrogatories, that gives us a little bit of a window into their brain. It may be a smoke screen, it may not be, but it may be substantive, but that gives us a window, your lawyers, a window into that person's brain. And at a very minimum, just at an absolute minimum, we know that they have it and we know that they might use it. If we... are going to be giving this and putting this on the website and giving this to the people that have sued the village up front, your lawyers will not know that that's something that they are looking for. Your lawyers will not know that that's something they might try to use against you. And so it basically is going to take a proverbial arrow out of this council and future councils quiver. As your lawyers, I want you to have as many arrows in your quiver as you possibly can. This would definitely take out an arrow from that quiver because we would not know that they want that information or that they even have that information. The other issue that I see in terms of litigation strategy is, you know, We prepare a budget during the budget season, as was addressed before. That budget was zeroed out for litigation, and that's why there's no surprise that the number does not match up. It's not zero. We knew it wasn't zero at the time because we were in active litigation at the time. But creating a projected litigation cost for each case, number one, is really difficult and really kind of leads you nowhere because Litigation takes so many twists and turns that you have no idea what you might uncover, and you might double what the budget cost is, or it might be half because you're able to resolve it much quicker. But when you are asking your administration and you're asking the lawyers to not so much create a budget, but then actively every month project out the remaining litigation costs that gives information to the people that are suing the village that we don't need them to have. We don't need them knowing. this is how much we think it's gonna cost any longer. And then they have a window into your mind as a council or the future council, I guess that we'll have three new people up here soon, but at least as of right now, this set of five, they'll have a window into your mind of, okay, they're comfortable with that amount. So you know what? I'm gonna make them spend more money. I'm gonna make this more difficult. I'm gonna go out and hire an expert for this so that I can bleed them. And that that's going to then, again, have an impact on the litigation strategy and might send you to a result that you would otherwise not go to if it weren't for them having this information or the potential cost of the remaining litigation because they know what it's going to take to bleed you out. The third issue isn't so much a litigation strategy issue. It's just something I want to remind you all that starting in April, the ADA law as it applies to websites is altering or it's not altering, it's being brought up to date, I should say. So for cities of our size, starting in April of 2027, everything that goes on the village website is going to need to ensure that it is ADA compliant, which means the village has had to hire, retain experts to make sure that everything is screen reader compliant, things like that. So this is really more of a reminder that everything you put onto the village website, there's a cost to that. I know it sounds easy, just put it on the website, but there's a cost to it. Number one, there's a staff cost to creating these documents. but number two on the back end, and it's, like I said, it's really not litigation strategy related, but it's something that you all should keep in mind. There is an actual cost that's going to go into that because you're going to have to have your compliance folks make sure that everything that is on the website is in compliance, because if not, then we will be sued, or I shouldn't say will be, we will likely be sued for an ADA violation and attorney's fees do go along with that. So I do have concerns with this because I think that it gives information to people that are suing the village. The information is frankly there. If they want to ask for it, they can ask for it just like anybody else can ask for it. But as your lawyer, I would like to know that they asked for it so that I can be prepared for it and I can make sure that we're ready for it.

Thank you, Mr.

I'd like to respond to that, please.

Good.

Well, Obviously, I don't want your legal mind to be made available to people who are suing us. And if your concern is the budget, anything about budget, I'm certainly willing to delete on page 1 of 3, line 40, and page 2 of 3, lines 1 and 2, which mention budgets. And I'm certainly willing to do that. That was not my intention whatsoever. As I recall, I either ran this by you or by your associate. I really don't remember at this point because I was putting other things out there to you and you were out of town. But I wish I would have heard this before because I hate to bring something to council that you object to. I've always worked with you in terms of eliminating it or changing it if you object to it. So I really am disappointed about that.

It's my recollection. This was sent to us on the day that it was due, and we were asked to review this for legality, not for actually substantive analysis. That's my recollection. The other ones you did send to us in advance, and we did work with you, but this one came to us at the last minute.

It was just a review for... All right, so my understanding of this is sending something for legal sufficiency, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed, and there can't be negotiation. So... That's what I'm talking about. I wouldn't bring something to this council if I knew that you were going to object to it. I really wouldn't. I mean, that's not a good idea, right? Okay. So I would like to amend it. Is that acceptable to you then, to amend it by eliminating page one of three, line 40, page two of three, line one and two, that reference budget?

I mean, it's better. I'll say it's better.

It's better. Okay, so it's better, so. I would like to make that amendment.

Second.

Okay, discussion or questions on the amendment? Go ahead, Vice Mayor.

Yeah, I just think, I mean, What I was getting at earlier is I think it would just be easier to just report the total litigation expenditures, not just from the month and fiscal year to date, but total from when the case was first brought on to us or served to us to date so that we can see the totals. And also, yes, the year to date would be nice as well. And then just have that included as part of the manager's report. And that would just make it very clear if someone wants to find that information, like how much did we spend on a... trip and fall, or how much do we spend on something else, we're good. And if someone wants to make the public records request, they're welcome to do that. And I just think it's a lot simpler to do it that way. So I'll support this amendment, and I'll also just be making an amendment to number one to say fiscal year to date and totality of the case as well. So that'll be a separate discussion, but that's what I'd like to do.

Question for him? Okay. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Because right now in the manager's checkbook, items are detailed in terms of litigation expenses, but they're detailed in such a way that there's no way for the public to have the overall view of what's going on. So I think you're talking about essentially what we're doing now, except adding an overall annual or fiscal year to date.

Is that what you're asking? Yes, and just make it really simple. We already do this work. We already have it available. Instead of having a member of the public have to essentially crunch up the numbers on Excel or whatever else they use, as part of the manager's report, we'll show the year to date and also the total expenditures on a case-by-case basis. And that's all we're adding to the report, which is what I'm hoping for as well. So I'll support the amendment.

Okay, did you propose the amendment? Well, we have an amendment, so I guess we can incorporate that into the amendment that I already made for the budget.

I think we're going to need some clarity on what it is.

The motion on the floor is eliminating line 40 of page 1 of 3 and eliminating lines 1 and 2 of page 2.

All right, and also... I want to incorporate the suggestion of the Vice Mayor. Can you read that back?

Essentially be striking the entire resolution except for line 39 on page 1 of 3, and then also at the same time adding the words and total litigation cost to line 1 as well that you have there. So essentially what we're doing with this item is to direct the manager to go ahead and publish a total for litigation across the board on a case-by-case basis, and then that will be part of the report as well.

All right, that's my amendment.

Can you read the entire amendment?

I understood that the intent of the vice mayor's motion is to strike the remainder of the resolution except for lines one through 39 of page three and adding verbiage that the village manager is directed to add the overall fiscal year to date on the expenditures on a case-by-case basis.

And the overall litigation cost for the case. Yes.

Thank you. Point of order.

Yes. Isn't what the vice mayor is suggesting is actually a motion to amend the motion? And wouldn't that require a separate, once Marsha's motion was made, would require a motion to amend the motion?

So Marsha, sorry, Councilwoman Mattson and Vice Mayor Mervitzer were the first and the second, correct, on this motion? What I understand it to be is a request for her to modify it and that he would maintain his second. I'm okay with that, doing it this way.

Thank you. All right, so we're back on the motion as it has been amended. Anything else? Are there questions? Okay, this is a resolution. All those in favor, this is just the motion, but all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay, so now the item is amended. And we're back on the item as it has been amended. Is there anything else? Anything else?

I think that this is getting now to With the amendment, it's getting, I think, to a resolution that I hope satisfies the attorney and also gets to the gist of what I'm looking for, which is transparency for the public so that they don't have to spend hours and hours trying to figure out what the litigation costs are and legal costs are. So I hope you'll support it, everybody. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anything else? All right, Madam Clerk, why don't you call the roll on it?

Council Member Marsha Madsen? Yes. Council Member Steve Cody?

No.

Mayor Karen Cunningham?

No.

Vice Mayor Mark Meritor?

Yes.

Council Member Patrick Fiore? No.

Okay, the item fails 3-2. Seeing none, okay, there's a motion to adjourn. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. We need five minutes to queue up. Is that right? Yep. Okay. Five minutes. So take a break.