City Commission - workshop

Oh yeah.

Good afternoon, everyone. Hello. Calling the meeting to order. Mauricio.

Commissioner Joseph.

Present.

Commissioner Stuyvesant. Here. Commissioner Vizcarra. Here. Excuse me, Vice Mayor Vizcarra. Also here. Commissioner Lama. Here. Mayor Svecin. Here. All members present.

OK, wonderful. So for those that are watching, since there's not really anyone in the audience, you may have noticed that we're doing this a little bit earlier. This was a decision by the commission in order to be more inclusive and allow for more time for the public to engage and to have time for public comment. So the meeting is going to go a little bit different than you're all used to. We're going to start with public comment first. So Mauricio, if you can just explain the process that it would normally take.

Yeah, so normally public comments are reserved for the 630 meeting. where we allow the public to speak on any item that's listed on the agenda and we go a per item basis with a traditional citizens forum at the end of that meeting. However, for the workshops, we're adding this new section for public comments where the public can come and speak on any item that's listed on that agenda. However, whatever comments are made are limited strictly to what's listed on this agenda and not, like I said, the traditional citizens forums that we have at 630.

Okay, thank you. So again, for clarification, if people want to participate and bring up whatever it is they want connected to the city, they should come at 630 and wait for the citizen. Okay, wonderful. So with that, do we have any public comments?

We do not.

Okay, thank you. So let's start with a special presentations.

Okay, the first item on the agenda is three a proclamation for autism soccer day. Commissioner Silas, you want me to read the proclamation? Okay, the proclamation reads, Whereas Autism Soccer is an organization founded in 2012 to create inclusive opportunities for individuals with autism through soccer, sports-based activities, and community support. And whereas Autism Soccer promotes social inclusion, skill development, confidence, and meaningful participation for children, youth, and adults with autism spectrum disorder in an environment of support, understanding, and encouragement. Whereas through adapted soccer training, Autism Soccer helps participants develop physical, social, emotional, and cognitive skills while promoting teamwork, discipline, friendship, and a sense of belonging. Whereas Autism Soccer has impacted thousands of children and families and continues to expand its mission of inclusion and opportunity through programs, events, education, and advocacy, And whereas Autism Soccer Day provides an opportunity to recognize the importance of inclusive recreational programming and to celebrate the abilities, talents, and contributions of individuals with autism. Whereas the City of Sunny Isles Beach supports efforts that promote acceptance, inclusion, accessibility, and community engagement for individuals of all abilities. Now therefore do I versus fashion and on behalf of the city commission of the cities on the out speech hereby proclaim April 18th 2026 as autism soccer day in the city of sunny all speech.

Wonderful.

Did you want to say a few words? Yes, I'm going to read something. So in honor of April as Autism Month, I kindly request a proclamation recognizing autism soccer and its founder, Oscar Amos. More than a decade ago, Oscar Amos, CEO and founder of Autism Soccer, realized that sport required a new architecture to accommodate neurodiversity. After founding the Hope for Autism United for Soccer Foundation in 2013, his work has evolved to create a robust business and educational ecosystem, documenting in his literary publications that today serve as a global guide. Today, Autism Soccer is active in 28 countries and has impacted the life of over 25,000 children and adults with autism. So we have here Oscar Amos from Autism Soccer to receive the proclamation. So if I may, I would like to invite him to say a few words. Sure. Please come up.

Honorable Mayor, Councilwoman, Councilmen, members of this beautiful city. I'm your neighbor. I'm from North Miami. I want to appreciate for this recognition. For me, this is more than a recognition because it's a significant put our name in the company for many, many years working. And for us, it's a real honor to receive this proclamation. Today, we serve at least nine kids for your community. They're going to play with us in Opa Loca. Our organization is in 17 countries. We're going to be close to 20 this year. With the World Cup, everything's going to be better. And we serve a lot of kids around the world. And we develop our own methodology and our franchise. And we're looking forward in the future, try to fit our program in this city. But I think it's too small. It's like, oh, too many people here. But we have the neighbors who help us to receive the kids. So for that, Commissioner Fabiola, thank you so much for the proclamation. Honorable Mayor Larissa, thank you so much for the support in all of you and the community. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. We'll come down and take a picture. Okay. Thank you.

Three, two, one.

Okay. Mauricio?

The next item on the agenda, well, we're now into discussion items. 4A is a discussion regarding e-bikes ordinance.

Okay. Vice Mayor? So this is, you know, as the memo states, like, this is basically a follow-up slash piggyback on the scooter ordinance. The idea is to... For me, obviously, to close the loophole, well, if we're not going to be on a scooter, then we're going to get an e-bike. And then we just have a different kind of problem. And I would like to be able to take action, if possible, in the same timeline as the scooter so that there's the summer to adjust and make plans. And that's basically, I'm just bringing it up. I know that we couldn't do them together because the laws are a little different. So maybe Alan can explain a little bit about that. But I just need to know, we need to know if everybody's on board with adding the e-bikes as a new ordinance to address the same problem.

So for clarification, I think it would be very helpful if the city attorney could give us some guidance as to what we can and cannot do. Please.

excuse me mayor vice mayor commissioners so e-bikes in the second to last legislative session if you recall with the scooters they passed some additional legislation with regards to two components one adding the age restriction capability of cities to regulate as well as requiring identification At the same time, they did the same for e-bikes, which are defined separately, and they're actually regulated separately in a different statute.

I just want to interrupt you for a moment. So if I can get clarification, because I know there's a difference between e-bikes and then electrical bikes that have pedals, right?

So actually, e-bikes are the ones that have pedals and have a seat.

Okay, the ones that don't have pedals.

The ones that don't have those that are just basically dirt bikes but electric motors.

We can't regulate them.

Those are regulated by the state. Those you have to have a registration like a vehicle. If you can speak to both of those, please. What we're speaking of here are electric bicycles, which I won't read the definition, but essentially it's a bicycle that's power-assisted. It has pedals. It has a seat. It pretty much looks like a bicycle. It's just a power assistance. And there's three classifications of them under the statute. Again, I won't go through each one. But the other that you referenced is basically these dirt bikes, so-called dirt bikes, that have electric motors instead of gasoline motors, which those actually have to be registered like you would a motorcycle, and you have to have a driver's license in order to operate those. You have some, I understand, from PD, having dealt with a few of them here, but generally what we're talking about here regulating would be the electric bicycles, which are conventional bicycles, power-assisted.

Just may I ask a question? Sure. The dirt bikes, they are considered vehicles, right? So they do not go on the sidewalks?

Right. OK. Yeah. So with the e-bicycles, again, there's a separate statutory section dealing with that. But generally, they're treated like regular bicycles, with some exceptions. But where bicycles can go, generally, e-bikes can go as well. I won't go through the whole statute, but I can provide that to you separately by email, because it's relatively short with regards to electric bicycles, but they have some additional components that... that are attributable just to them that wouldn't be attributable to a regular bicycle. For the most part, wherever a bicycle can go, an e-bike can go, including sidewalks. So you are allowed to, under statute, to regulate them. you want them off the sidewalk you can have them off the sidewalks generally they're allowed certainly in the bike lanes and as with regular bicycles on your lanes of travel in roadways and streets but they have to be to the far right of that lane you know the same regulations that take place So to the extent you regulate them, similar to Vice Mayor, what you said, if you want to be consistent with the scooters, you could, from a messaging standpoint as well as a regulatory standpoint, have the age restriction on there as well, have the identification requirement on there as well. And again, that's up to you whether you want to ban them on sidewalks or not. We could add that component. So you do have some leverage there in being able to regulate them you do have an existing bicycle ordinance so we would just need to i couldn't tell you right now exactly where we would put this regulation whether it would be under the more sort of broad electric vehicle section of your code or whether we combine it with the regular bicycle one and we'll see where it fits best we certainly certainly want them to be complementary But that's just a logistical standpoint. I mean, if you give us direction to enact something, then we'll just make it fit.

So before we get into discussion, just for more clarification, do we currently use any e-bikes with the PD? I know we did in the past. I don't know. One. So if we had now an ordinance that would not allow e-bikes on sidewalks, that would include the PD, correct?

It would, but there's certainly some exceptions. If you're in hot pursuit, for the lack of a better term, there's certain different rules that apply. You're supposed to obey the speed limit, as the chief knows, but if you're pursuing someone, you may exceed the speed limit. So there are exceptions.

I'm talking about aside from the exceptions, though.

I mean, generally, yeah.

But we could carve that out. We could carve that out, right? I mean, could we?

I'm not too concerned about the one bicycle the police have. OK, all right, yeah.

I just want to be consistent. All right, so who would like to go first? Go ahead, Commissioner Joseph. Just talk closer to your microphone.

Yes. So originally when we did the city survey, residents had requested and by unanimous decision to have scooters as well as e-bikes off the sidewalks. I believe it was 70% that asked that that happen. It was my intent when I originally asked for a full ban on e-bikes and scooters, which then was modified It was my intent, though, to include e-bikes at that time, which I'm 100% for including them now and banning the e-bikes from the sidewalks. Actually, the e-bikes have had more occurrences with pedestrians than scooters on the sidewalks.

So residents would be so overwhelmingly happy to have those off the sidewalks Okay Anyone else The the scooters cannot be banned from the sidewalks right but the they can but okay Okay, well it's it gets I don't want to put kids on the street right but I feel like we have less e-bikes than scooters. So maybe banning the e-bikes from the sidewalks would be less of a problem because they have scooters as an alternative if they really want to be on the sidewalk.

Does it make it confusing for people to figure out?

That's the thing. I like to be consistent. But I can see how e-bikes would create... They're just clunkier, and you're more likely to hit a pedestrian.

And they go faster.

So I don't know. I mean, I'm not sure. I'm inclined to say no e-bikes on the sidewalks. But it may create confusion. And I mean, I don't know if maybe if PD wants to weigh in on that later, what they think would be better for them enforcement-wise. Well, later. But I think for me, obviously, I mean, I think you guys heard from kids as well, like, They're like, oh, no scooters? Great, I'll get an e-bike. And that's been the loophole, and so we want to make sure we address that. And for me, I think the victory would be if we can see a significant reduction or complete elimination of all of this going to and from school in the mornings and in the afternoons. That's why I thought the age... was important because if you're 16, you're in high school. So we shouldn't be seeing you going to and from SIBK. So for me, as long as we're accomplishing that, I'm open to suggestions.

Commissioner Lama, do you want to weigh in?

Yeah, so I'd like to hear from our police department, and then from an ordinance perspective, I'd like to understand if, you had mentioned we'll need, well, we already have an ordinance, right, regarding e-bikes, or the state does.

No, so you already have your ordinances, forgetting state law right now, your ordinances, you have an ordinance on regular bicycles. Bicycles, okay. And then we have, obviously, the motor scooter ordinance, which also includes some other segues. Not that anybody uses those anymore, but things like that. It's a little bit more encompassing. And the e-bikes, we just have to really look for placement where it would fit best. But again, it could be in conjunction with the bicycles, or it could be in conjunction with the scooters.

It's just a matter of placement.

From a state statute standpoint, Obviously they're regulated by state statute as well. There's minimum requirements for e-bikes As there are for bicycles and scooters and so on and so forth. So those are complimentary, of course and again, I'm not I'm not talking about The dirt bikes right the electric dirt bike. Yeah, that's state law that that's well regulated and PD has a good handle on those but so there's Both state regulation and then, of course, the important localization of it is from the legislature last year, which gives you that ability to do the age restriction and the identification requirement because that's not required under state statute. So that gives you a little bit more oomph on the local level than you do at the state level.

All right. So it will be basically the same as the current motorized scooter ordinance we have?

If that's what you all decide that you want to keep it consistent.

Word for word, we could keep it consistent?

Right. So from a messaging standpoint, it may be better because you can say it's scooters and e-bikes and they're the same. If you do some disparity, I mean, you could still, I think, to the commissioner's point, you could still ban them on sidewalks, I think, without confusion because An e-bike's an e-bike and a scooter's a scooter. But from that standpoint, I mean, if you stay with the same age and the same requirement for identification, again, from a management standpoint and an enforcement standpoint, it's a little easier. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Stevenson? Nothing? Go ahead, Commissioner Joseph. Your microphone's not on.

Sorry. I would like to say that... Having the 16-year age requirement now, and then including the e-bikes, it would give us a further leverage and also idea going forward as to what incidents we have. I know the PD currently doesn't take accident reports. They only take event reports. and I don't know if actually they keep them recorded or not, but I'd like to be able to somehow gauge in the future once the new school year comes around to see whether we would, and according to how many incidents we actually have, On the sidewalks with pedestrians To see what the Commission might need to do to further ban these motorized vehicles Okay, so Do we have then consensus that we would make it consistent with those scooters?

I

We'd like to make a consistent yes, but I mean I would like some feedback from the police department though will need to well, I think the vice mayor were you hoping to get this on the agenda tonight.

Now what no we can't we can't we can't it would be an ordinance in your change you're adding laws to your books. I I would I would. We don't really it should be on the agenda.

We can start that the messaging.

If we have consensus on what the parameters are going to be, so for example, age and ID, the same as scooters, if you want us to throw in there as we're drafting this proposed ordinance for you to consider on first reading, we can throw in there a ban on the sidewalk and see how that reads. Yes, I would like to see that. And then from that point forward, then between at first reading and second reading, we can have input from everyone and see if there's anything you want to tweak, but at least if we have direction to bring to you those major components. The only thing from a messaging standpoint, I think you can start if you want, if that's your decision, but we'd have to have clarity on definitely age, Identification requirement and then if you do want to ban them on sidewalk.

Yes, so The age and the identification I think we have clarity as far as the sidewalk No sidewalk sidewalks and also the e-bikes go with it at a speed that allows them to be in the roadway That's that's correct, that's correct and that's generally if you read the statute it's really I

the the crux of the statute really directs even bicycles human-powered bicycles right that i know and it really belongs in the street uh... they do allow use on the sidewalk but again they make it very clear that cities can regulate them off the sidewalk They are I mean e-bikes are it's personal opinion, but they are overpowered and it may be difficult on the sidewalk Especially than there are sidewalks.

So if you want us to throw that in there, you know, we can do that But I mean I know as far as regular bicycles we could regulate them and historically we've left them on the sidewalk to avoid pushing kids out onto the street and But with e-bikes, it's a different story. Commissioner Lama, are you in support or against?

No, no sidewalks.

No sidewalks? Vice Mayor, this is your item. I'm meaning no sidewalks, and so it sounds like we have consensus.

OK, so look, we have consensus. And if there is public that public wants to come out, we will give them plenty of time to come out and speak for or against.

We'll draft the ordinance and have it for you.

OK, wonderful. Thank you. OK, thank you, Vice Mayor.

Hold on. So we'll have first reading June, second reading July, and it'll be in place immediately. Perfect.

Yeah, in time for school year. All right. Next item.

4B is a discussion regarding health benefits for elected officials.

OK. Mr. City Manager.

Mayor, Vice Mayor, members of the Commission, as we consistently kind of audit our procedures and processes, it was discovered that health insurance benefits to the elected officials were provided via a memorandum back in 2009. So as part of that memo It states that there was supposed to be a follow-up resolution something formalizing the benefits that you all receive that are separate from your compensation in the Charter and We cannot locate anywhere where there was some sort of formal resolution or anything that established what those benefits should be. So what we need to do now is we need to hear from you what you believe those benefits should be and then bring that back to you in a formal resolution so that you can vote on it and the process will be in place going forward. So this does not have anything to do with your compensation, which is set by the Charter This is related strictly to your health insurance and benefits that you get from the city Okay, so just for for clarification Despite the fact that we have no one in the room imagining people are watching

Right now, the city commission can opt in, doesn't automatically receive, but can opt in for health benefits, same as city employees, correct? It's the same exact benefits that they can opt into?

Yes.

All right. And since 2012?

There was a memo in 2009 that made it effective in 2010. So this process has been in place since 2010.

Okay, since 2010, all commissioners that wanted to, including the mayor, opt in were eligible to receive the health benefits. And now we just need to codify it.

Correct.

Okay, so who would like to give their input? Commissioner Joseph, you like going first.

Yes, so... For the commission and the mayor, considering that we're opted in, the city pays the entire cost of our health insurance?

It depends upon your benefit selection, but essentially, yes.

Okay, because I know I have the family plan so I'm paying additional for my wife and daughter. I pay that out of my own pocket. I wasn't actually aware how much the city pays towards my health insurance.

Yes, we pay for your single cost and then you can add on family coverage.

Right. So I pay the family coverage. I wasn't aware how much the city was contributing towards mine. I just knew that there was an amount that I paid each month.

So Mayor, in furtherance of the discussion, some other cities provide these health benefits insurance beyond the term of the elected officials. So if that's something you would like to discuss, we're trying to formalize all of this and put it into a resolution to bring back to you next month.

So if I can add more specifically. So some jurisdictions, so under Chapter 112, you are required for your retiring employees, and retiring is defined by state statute, to keep them or give them the option to stay on your health insurance plan commingled with your regular employees. That's required. Under your home rule powers, though, under Chapter 162, you are allowed to extend that to others. So if you wanted to, let's say, do it for all your employees, you could. And if you want to do it and confer that upon yourselves, you can do that as well. So that's why some cities have opted to do that, where once an official leaves their term, that there's a continuation of benefits for a finite amount of time, depending on what you all want. But some certain cities do that. So as we were looking at, because candidly, it took a while for us to figure out when these were conferred on you and exactly what was conferred on you. So we started looking at everything and what other cities do as well. And that was just one of the things that some cities do. So since we're memorializing it officially now, as it should be, because it should be by resolution since it is conferred as a governing body to yourselves that there's only two ways you can really speak, and that's through resolution or ordinance. So it needs to be memorialized someplace because, frankly, like I said, it was hard for us to find, you know, who do you ask, what are you entitled to, what do you get? It just wasn't anywhere. So we need to have that certainly memorialized. But as we're doing that, we're revisiting exactly what it is you all want, and then we'll be able to put that together and make it official.

And I had asked, and again for clarification, the body needs is treated equally, so the mayor cannot opt out, meaning we can't opt out of it in the ordinance. You could individually opt out. I mean, in the ordinance, you can't carve it out. That's what I meant.

How do you mean?

So that if you were to do benefits but would not include the mayor.

You could do that if you wanted to. Oh, we could. Because again, you're not... State statute does not require you to do it. It only requires you to do it for your retirees, again, as defined by Florida law. What you confer upon yourselves or upon other employees and extend to them, that's under your home rule powers under 162. So you can do what you want in that regard. So if you want to opt someone out, you can. Because currently, for example, You all get a stipend if you opt out. So under Chapter 112, currently, if you're still employed with the city and by employee, you're not really employed, but if you're being paid by the city and you are in the health plan, the stipend is OK, according to the attorney general. The continuation of a stipend post-employment or post-term may be an issue under the extra compensation statute. So we have to look at that a little bit. but I think if you, at the minimum, if you were at least staying on the plan, but then there would be no need for a stipend thereafter. So that we'd have to massage and look at a little bit, but currently the practice of the stipend in lieu of the actual coverage is permissible in the floor law, because I believe you do have that option. So that's still fine.

Okay, and what if well I wanted to just hear from the city manager Is there any sort of recommendation as to how long after leaving office and what that would look like?

I think For us and having dealt with this over the past many years. There needs to be a definitive time period. Okay, so the discussion has been a transitionary time in that when your term is up, you then go out and seek your own insurance. So perhaps a year, perhaps two years. And then I think my recommendation would be if this is something you're considering, I would include all of the commission, the mayor and the commissioners, so that we don't have to then go back and change it. If there's a new electorate in Upcoming years so in other words if you're going to establish this benefit well first We need to define what the benefit is we know right now. It's health insurance for all of you Then second if it's going to be applicable it should be applicable to all of you And then third there should be some sort of definitive time period

And there's two little caveats. One, of course, in determining these benefits, you ultimately have to determine that there's a municipal purpose to it, because you're expending funds as with anything else. inherent in whatever decisions you make in the background there you have to be able to justify that there's a municipal purpose generally providing benefits to elected officials is deemed to be a public purpose so that's not so much an issue the only other thing I would recommend because your charter is a little vague on this issue so Depending who you ask. So if you look at attorney general opinions, they treat benefits, for the most part, as compensation. Your charter under C2.6 talks about compensation, and what you're entitled to is compensation. So one could argue that that's it. That's your only compensation. You don't get anything. I'm not going into that interpretation because you, as a governing body, are the arbiters and interpreters if there's any sort of vagueness to the language. So we could still do it by resolution, but just in the future, if you get to a point where you're amending your charter again, I would recommend that you make it more specific in this section that compensation either does include benefits or does not and what those may be. So, for example, that you're entitled to the same benefits that are conferred upon regular employees, something to that effect. So in the future, if there's a debate about this, it's clear. So you don't need to do it now. You can do it by resolution. But just as a belt and suspenders type of situation in the future, if you have an opportunity to amend your charter, I would clarify that language in there so there's no question in the future.

Okay. Let's let someone else go first.

Commissioner Stilson, did you want to? But do we need this resolution? Is it mandatory to make it? We have to.

Yes. If you're going to receive these benefits, it needs to be memorialized someplace, yes.

It has to. We cannot go around it.

Right. You need some sort of action from the commission, not just what occurred in 2009 or 2010, where somebody said, yeah, let's do this, and nothing else happened. It needs to be memorialized, yes.

That's what I want to say. It has to. We don't have any other option.

Correct.

So, OK. Another thing, because according to the IRS, employees because we receive a W-2. So federally, I mean, in the eyes of the IRS, are we or we are not employees?

Well, I can't give you tax advice. But from a taxing standpoint, you are, because you do get W-2s. You are paid through a payroll system. But you are from a traditional employment-employer relationship. You don't fit that, because you work for the voters. You don't work for the city. City manager can't fire you. The city commission can't fire you. So you're an employee from that standpoint for tax purposes, because you are paid through payroll. But you do not, in a traditional employer-employee relationship.

Well, but that's an interpretation as well. Because again, in the eyes of the IRS, we are employees.

But there's different things. If you get sued under Title VII, you're not an employee.

OK. OK.

So there's different variations. But for purposes of you getting paid, the city can only pay you, really. Because it is a salary, that's the only way that it can pay you. But again, the scope of an employer-employee relationship is far broader than just your method of payment. So nobody in the city except the voters can fire you, for example. Nobody else can tell you what to do except what you as a governing body have set forth in your code and your bylaws and so on and so forth. So you do not fit the traditional. And this is something that has been discussed in every local government in Florida that I know of, because these issues come up when, let's say, an elected official does something in violation of Title VII or does something in violation of any other federal law. The defense is afforded to employers it gets convoluted because you're not an employee. So I don't have control. The city manager's defenses for his employees with regards to, let's say again, Title VII, is what he does in response to that and what he has in place as policies.

Alan, if you can, just so people understand when you're saying Title VII, if you can clarify what that means.

Title VII is a vehicle, it's a statutory vehicle where the Civil Rights Act applies to you as a governmental body and to employers as well. So if you get sexually harassed, if you are age discriminating, sorry, that's ADA. Sexual harassment, a variety of the suspect classifications that you are protected under Title VII. Those defenses aren't always available because you are not employees. The city manager cannot tell you what to do. His policies don't apply to you. You're not his employees. So in that sense, you are not an employee. And for the most part, you are not employees. You're independent. You answer only to the voters. The mechanism by which you're paid It's just that. It's a mechanism by which you're paid, and the IRS requires taxation in that circumstance.

Okay. Commissioner Stevenson, do you have more to add? Okay. Okay. Let's take turns. Commissioner Lama?

Yeah, I'm just taking it all in, but so I guess we'll have to define. So now we know we have to do this. We'll just have to define what that benefit would be and for how long, basically.

Well, it could be status quo, which you all have now. We don't have to change anything. It could be exactly what you're getting now. At the very minimum, we just need to memorialize what you're getting now. If you want to add something else on top of that, then that's up to you all. But at the very least, we need to memorialize what you currently get.

And you mentioned that other cities do extend the benefit to other. Some do. Some do, OK. Can we perhaps look at some examples of other cities that do this, just to get a better understanding?

I'm trying to remember if Doral does it. I think Doral does it, because we were there for a while. I mean, there's some that come to mind. But, yeah, we could. I mean, we can .

Yeah, I'd like to understand what that benefit entails for elected officials that obviously are no longer there.

The longer the period, so again, you always have to attach municipal purpose, right? So if, as the city manager said, if you justify it as a transition type period where it's two, three years post term to help you transition to private market or whatever else, or another employer, so on and so forth. That's fine. If you say into infinity until death, that's harder to justify as a municipal purpose. If you're 89 years old and you served when you were 40, it's a little hard to justify the municipal purpose in continuing those benefits to that time period. So the longer you go, the harder it is to justify the municipal purpose.

Okay. Yes. If I may answer one question, our HR department did reach out to some neighboring communities to see what they do offer, and only three so far have responded. NMB, they have. covers the employee benefits. And if you have any dependent coverage, as Commissioner Joseph mentioned, they're responsible for that. And their benefits are offered when they term out. They continue beyond their term. City of Aventura, same thing. They cover the employee dependents they have to pay for. And at the end of their term, they're eligible for COBRA. And then Town of Surside basically offers nothing.

Oh, COBRA actually.

They're not eligible.

COBRA runs only for a short period.

Hold on, Commissioner Joseph. Commissioner Lama, did you have anything else you wanted to ask?

Did you mention the time period there?

For NMB, what's the time period? NMB, it does not say when it ends, but they continue after they turn out. So I guess for as long as they choose.

So they include the employee, but not the... Not the dependents. The dependents can just like... Just like how we have yes, like $80,000 per commissioner Let's do one at a time commissioner you're done. Yeah, I'm done. I'm done vice mayor.

What's your opinion? I like the idea of extending it for two or three years. I think when you consider, first of all, you don't want to be, it's only a couple of people. So you don't want to be dragging a whole crowd of people into this. So it's a finite thing. And people who are likely to be commissioners are often business owners. So when you sign on to the city health insurance, And then let's say that you're running again and you don't get reelected. You get left hanging. Otherwise, you might be able to plan for it. But there's, I think, that transition period. And also, not just in case you don't get reelected, but if while in your employment, you develop a condition or something that maybe you need more time to be able to transition. to find the proper coverage or something like that. I think that's a good thing. But only for a couple, only for a little bit, like two or three years. Or maybe you have a formula, like half the number of years that you served, or the number of terms that you served, or something. You come up with some formula. But it's going to be a set number. And I would welcome that. OK, now Commissioner Joseph.

OK, so I would like to ask, how many people on this commission are currently using the city health insurance?

I think the manager can respond.

Well, I'm hesitant to share that with you because it's personal information. But if you all would like to know, then I can answer if that's your consensus.

And my reason for asking is, if we have a quorum that is not using the health insurance, then I would like to recuse myself on the vote.

You can't. You can't recuse yourself on the vote. You can only recuse yourself if there's a legal conflict. Well, I would be voting to my own benefit. That wouldn't be a legal conflict. The only time you can abstain would be if you have a legal conflict. Because if that applied, if that was a legal conflict, none of you could vote for it and then you couldn't do it.

Right. Mr. City Manager?

I think I can answer without sharing the personal information, where I can say that three of you are using our insurance and two of you are not.

OK. OK. So if we don't do this resolution, we are breaking the law.

Essentially, yeah. You're taking benefits that have never been conferred on you.

Because I want to be very clear with this. I did my research. I believe we don't need it. I'm OK with the status quo, to your question. I do not use the benefits of the, I'm not in insurance of the city. So I have my own insurance.

So like I said,

I don't think we should be continue codifying things unless they have to be codified. Because if that's the case and we want to take other municipalities as an example, there are a lot of things when it comes to our benefits that they should change. And one of them is communications. We are now part of the all staff communication, meaning that we don't know when they're having any kind of events unless We get specifically invited. Last Friday, there was a barbecue for the police department. Everybody got that email. We did not. So we cannot even come to say thank you for your service. So we are not treated with, I'm going to say, particularly I think it's a disrespect the way we are treated by not being part of the all staff communication. Same thing with the budget. However, when there is people that is being hired, fired, promoted, we don't even get informed about that as well. I usually meet people in the elevator and have to introduce myself to them. Again, that is not best practices. That's not what happened in other municipalities. Everything had changed for the bad, because when I got elected, I remember getting many times invited to the police department when we had new hires. All the time. It was put into our calendar, et cetera. someone for whatever reason. And I would want to know why we are not anymore inviting even to our police department new hires. Again, we have to just meet the people in the elevator or somewhere else. So for certain things, we are considered, like I said, federally. According to the IRS, we are employees. I understand we are not. Again, I'm perfectly fine with the status quo. I do not like to codify things that they don't need to be codified, because usually it goes against ourselves and the residents. And if we are not breaking the law, I don't think we should be codifying this. And I would like to know why we are not getting invited to the police department new hires anymore.

If I can answer the first part.

Please, go ahead.

It's not codification. You're not codifying anything. Codification is through ordinances. This is a resolution. You are right now receiving a benefit that has never been authorized.

So we're breaking the law. Thank you. Yeah.

Essentially, you're receiving a benefit that's never been authorized. So you need to authorize that benefit that you're receiving.

Right. Thank you. If the city manager would just answer that question, but I don't want to get off topic because we have a very set agenda. I want to continue this conversation so that we can concentrate on what we're talking about. But please go ahead.

I will. So many years ago when I first appointed the chief as the chief of police, we've had many discussions regarding the police department and how we wanted it to move forward. So one of the things that I stated was, over these past many years, there were new officers that started that I had not met individually. So I told the chief, when we hire somebody new, and as you know, we've hired 18 police officers in the past two to three years. So we've really worked steady to build the relationship between the police department, the elected officials, the fellow employees, to build it up to what it is now, which is great. So as part of that, I explained to the chief, instead of me just signing an offer letter when we're going to hire an officer, I want to meet with them. So now we have a process where there's a one-on-one meeting with me, and the chief, and the applicant. And as part of the meeting, and so far the feedback we've gotten has been incredible. I explained to them that, because you know in today's times there's a lot of questions about the police or defunding the police, I explained to them with pride this commission has always voted 5-0 on anything that we do for the police department. And that they have the full support of not only the elected officials, but also the city manager's office. And we found that this has been an incredible tool. And sometimes we're told more often than not that this is the first time any of the officers have ever had a sit-down meeting with the manager. So after that, we were including you in our new officer swearing in. As you know, it's a significant event where we pin the badge on them, we invite their families, and we take photos. So for us, the chief, myself, we take it very seriously. And it's a very, I'd say, poignant moment for the police officers and their families. And then usually I explain to their families that, The chief has built a family environment here. They have the support of the manager. And I want them to know that their loved ones are going to be taken care of going forward.

I always took it very seriously also to appear.

Can you let the manager finish, please? The question has been answered.

OK. So getting to that point. At one of these swearing-ins, we had one or two officers there with their families. A chief has a very formal process where they're sworn in. We video. Everybody's taking pictures. We have media there. We were getting to the point where the elected officials were there, and we were asking them to come up to take pictures. So the family is there, I'm there, the chief, a lot of the command staff. The family's coming up to take pictures, and I'm asking you all to come up without being specific. And at that moment, one of you refused to come up to take pictures with the other. It was a moment of, well, I guess for lack of a better word, shock, disappointment. The family, we're all looking at each other wondering, you know, what's happening. It was a beautiful moment that, for lack of a better word, was ruined by pettiness. So why am I going to subject something like that to that in the future? So now the swearing-ins are handled by myself and the chief. And we take media. So if you're there bickering about who's going to take a picture with who and you're not coming up, And I'm explaining that they have the support of the police department and the elected officials and the city manager's office. It makes for a very uncomfortable moment. And it's not only happened there. It's happened at some of our community events. So the employees don't want to be caught in the middle of this. They don't want to be talking to you, one, hearing about, well, we should do the event this way, or we should have this kind of event, or we should have done this for this event. They don't want to be part of that. And if they're seen with one of you having conversations, then the other one's like, well, what is this happening? Why are they talking to them? Or they support them. So it's an effort to protect the integrity of the process and everything else that we do here. So you're all welcome to go, but you have to have some decorum and understand that in these kind of scenarios, it's not really about you. It's about their family. So if there's a pause when I ask you to come up to take a photo with the families of the police officers that are being sworn in, how does that play out to them? So it's embarrassing to the chief, me, and its poor representation of the city. So that's why it stopped.

Thank you. Commissioner Stevenson, I want to let you keep going, but I want to stay on topic. So please, you can go ahead.

OK, so I wasn't present when that happened. So I'm sorry that the police department and their family had to go through that. And it's very sad. However, for the behavior of one person, everybody else got their rights taken away. I have three children. And we talk about here that we have to be consistent. You have to treat everybody, of course, equally. In that case, the behavior of one person took away the opportunity of everybody else to be there in that moment. That is not consistency. That is not fairness. And that is not a normal behavior. So whoever does behave is part of being a leader to have that conversation with that person. And sadly, and I agree with you, it's completely pettiness to be behaving like that. Me, myself, I have refused pictures in the past because I don't agree with the setting. But I don't make it about me. I just remove myself, and that's about it. But what happened in the police department, I personally I wanted to say to the chief and the whole department, I'm so sorry that that happened. I would like to be informed whenever you have those swing-ins. And if I'm available, I would like to be there just to congratulate the families, the new officer, and not for the pictures. Because I'm actually one of the person here that the camera doesn't like me. So I don't like the pictures.

And just to reply, I would very much like to have all of you there. But when the family's there, you have to understand the family wants a picture with the chief, with me. They also want a picture of the elected officials. So I'm there explaining to them during the interview process how we're going to protect and take care of their loved one. And then some of you don't want to take pictures. So I understand. Should it apply to all of you? Maybe not, but it's also happened at other events. So the staff is scrambling, this person needs to get here. We should establish in the future, if we're going to do this, we're going to have a certain time. If you're there at this time, we're taking pictures. I think it's your responsibility to find us, not us to come find you. There's going to be a photo opportunity at this time. If you want to be part of it, Really think we would all appreciate it but not at the expense of what's happened before it can't happen going forward And I include that for all of the events not just a swearing-in I'm happy to share it with all of you would like for you all to be there.

Thank you. All right If we can get back on the item, please so I Right now, there is, I think, consensus about keeping the status quo of the insurance. And this is more about getting clarification if we were to extend it past the term. So the manager made a recommendation of two years, two to three years. OK. So I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on that. I have never participated in the insurance, but that's just me. I don't want to set up anyone in the future, especially since compared to some other cities, the overall compensation is pretty low. So it's an important part of this, and especially for people, like the vice mayor said, that maybe own their own businesses. It's a big part of it. So I personally am in support of keeping the insurance and some sort of additional term, very limited, perhaps one year. But I'll go with whatever the consensus is. So anyone else? Mr. Joseph?

No. I pass. I will go with the consensus since I'm gaining a benefit.

I agree. I agree. Obviously, we have to do the resolution. We can't keep conferring a benefit for 16 years without it. So we have to formalize that. And I definitely support an extension of a set period of time. What period of time? I like the idea of two years. It's like the number of terms for most, if you serve two terms.

OK. Commissioner Lama?

Yeah, let's say the same OK you formalize what we already have and then look into. An extension period of 2 to 3 years.

2 to 3 years.

I think they should be in the arm. The decision should be for the voters is their money so I think we should do a referendum for these and as a voters what is their opinion. if we're going to be doing this, then why not the four of us, we are term out for commissioners. So maybe we should be looking forward to help the new commissioners that are coming, not only with better benefits, two or three years or so, but also maybe a better compensation. So we are very low compared to many municipalities. We're higher compared to other ones. But if we want to also get more talent, maybe if we have better benefits to whoever decide to run for office and eventually getting elected, we should go through the real path of asking the electorate to give a better compensation to their elected officials, including this package of benefits. So I do believe this should be in the name. I mean, the decision of the voters and us, because I agree with Jerry, we are kind of compromised because we are getting the benefit. I'm not getting the insurance as well. But in general, we as a body, we are getting this benefit. So I do believe that we should not be making this decision. Right now, just... stop breaking the law and make whatever resolution for the status quo and make a referendum to ask the electorate about this.

Just for best practices, I'd like to get clarification from the city clerk and maybe actually the city attorney as well. It is the norm for commissions and councils to vote on these sort of things, and not necessarily go out to a referendum? And then if that was the case, what would that look like?

GARY GENSLER- Well, it depends on what your governing documents is. So I have one jurisdiction that I know that there is a provision where they cannot confer the benefit upon themselves. They have to do it for the future commission. That's specifically within their charter. So you don't have that in your charter. So there's nothing prohibiting you from doing it. best practices again it depends on the jurisdiction and what's in their code some of their charters actually provide for benefits so that's already said and done so there's no need to do a referendum because it's already in the code I mean I'm sorry in the Charter so it's kind of hard it's kind of like apples and oranges here your Charter really only speaks of compensation But has it been done? Certainly. I mean, it's not unusual for you all to vote on that. That's not unusual because it's done. Fort Lauderdale, Fort Myers, all these other jurisdictions, St. Augustine, all these other places have done it by resolution and conferred it upon themselves. City of Hollywood, I know that was controversial because they gave themselves a big raise. But yeah, Doral, Hollywood. So it's done. It's legal for you to vote on that.

So us voting on it is consistent with what others do.

Politically, that's up to you all. But from a legal standpoint, you can, unless it's prohibited.

No, I meant that Doral has to do a referendum to raise the money for the compensations, yes.

Right, yeah, it depends on the charter and everything else. Because for example, sorry, for example here, let's say you want to, because you get $1,000 a month. let's say you want to make it $2,000, that you'd have to go to referendum because that's in your charter, right? And that's why, from a standpoint of the next time you do that, for clarity, you should add and make some changes to your charter in that regard. But at least for now, the status quo, I would put in a resolution and get that squared away.

OK. And we addressed our compensation when we did the charter review a few years ago. And that went to the voters. And that's when we discovered. that we've been doing that wrong for however many years. Right, right, right. And we have the adjustment, so I feel the compensation has been addressed, and I'm comfortable with this because it's not an exaggerated thing. It's not for life, and I think it's a fair adjustment.

Okay. Maurizio, if I can just get clarification, how would this even work if this is the direction we would take?

So in terms of a referendum, I'd have to speak with the supervisor of elections to see if there is enough time to be able to add this to the November 3 ballot. This is a little bit different than having, let's say, a seat, for example, placed on that ballot because it's an actual question, which would take up more space on the page. But like the city attorney said, you know, it's a matter of the direction that the commission takes and gives staff on how to proceed with this.

Okay.

And you can always, I mean, you can always do a standalone. referendum, but that's at a higher cost. Ideally, you want to do it in November.

But I do have a question because of the referendum. Because for a discussion that we had a few months ago about the inspector general, I was told that we don't have no time for that to be in this ballot.

Yeah, again, I don't believe there is time, but I would have to get confirmation from.

That's the case. I can bring both items back and request a referendum with whatever language necessary, because I'm going to continue pursuing that. So we could do both, the one for the inspector general and also the one for the compensation and benefits of the future commission. Right.

Remember, keep in mind that whether it's the new office that you're speaking about or whether it's a charter change, it requires an ordinance, which requires two readings. So that extends the time, which is why I need to speak with the supervisor of elections to see what the exact timeline would be.

Okay. So I'm comfortable with having this body vote because it does give the opportunity for the voters to come and speak. against if they would like to. I lean very much to the two years rather than three years. But I think it's important to actually also know what the what that means fiscally for the city. If for instance, right now we have three people on and two people off. What does that look like if you had, you know, cumulatively, what does that cost every year? If you know, for the next maybe four years or five years, depending on when people are terming out. Okay. All right. Did anyone have anything else to add? No? All right. That's our last item ratio?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. So just a reminder, we have the meeting at 6.30, but we're going to have the LPA at 6.20. 6.20. Okay. All right. This meeting is adjourned. See you all at 6.20. Thank you.

Thank you.