Right. Good evening everyone. My --------- apologies. I was running a few minutes late. I apologize. Uh, okay. We are here this uh for our special agenda meeting. Today is Thursday, July 17, 2025. Um, call to order our meeting. And Madam Clerk, would you do please do the roll
call for us? Mayor Grub here. Vice Mayor Samira. Commissioner Ansler here. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Huntington here. Mayor, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Can we do the pledge of
allegiance, please? Okay. So, our five o'clock meeting uh this evening is uh for the discussion on the uh the manager's contract manager. Hi there. I'm not used to Sorry, I missed you. You're a different place than usual. Um so, uh before we get into the presentations, we have our public
comment. So, we'll go ahead and open public comment at this time. We will start with those here in the log cabin. And just as a reminder to reminder to um any members of the public that wish to comment, um we need your name and address and public comment is limited to three minutes. So, we'll go ahead and start here in the log cabin.
Found it. Clerk is on the way to save the day. Hello, Melanie Oliva, 590 Northeast, 121st Street. Um, hi guys. I was reading over the proposed compensation package for Alchildress. Uh, I was really, really surprised. I
sent you all an email for this to see that it's double of what was advertised um for this position. Where is this money coming from? Uh will our taxes be raised because of this compensation package which was $347,000
inclusive of benefits. We didn't have money for a pickle ball court or pool access, but now we have money somehow for this compensation package. Again, I'm blown away. We don't have money for replacement trees.
By the way, where did that 120,000 come from for the replacement trees? As a resident, I still am not aware. I don't think we can afford El Childris. Please defer this vote so that more residents can be made aware because I
don't think they were aware of this meeting. I did not get a notice about it. It's at 5:00. Very inconvenient for people. I still would like to see a hostile work environment investigation happen where the the police officers who resigned are
actually questioned and where our attorney is questioned. I would like to see a probationary period up to the point of children's first review. Thank you. Madam cler, do we do we know where the
interference is coming from? I know you does it help if we turn the mics off at least for the public comment portion so we can hear everyone further on the record. We'll try. Okay. Uh any others for public comment here in the long cabin? Name is Vicki 528 notice.
You can you can there you go. Biggy 528 Northeast 121st Street. I have nothing to read. I was actually going on my way to Costco when I got a WhatsApp text with the numbers saying that he's
asking for four months personal time off and I almost crash. I was so and I am so frustrated with everything that has been going on in here because we've been told that we don't have money that now we are having
to raise the taxes you know we are receiving more notifications in code enforcement which it's okay nothing happened to me because I just finish a house and I keep everything but we have elderly people like she mentioned in the
past you know suffering in being anxious for what? Because we need money to pay for a manager because in the past we have bad luck with managers and the reason
apparently because they were underpaid. So now they want to bring it in. I don't know guys. I I don't know. I've been living here for 22 years. This is the first time actually I'm here more that doing social life.
I'm frustrated really I am and I feel like you guys are not representing me and when I talk to people I have no clue. So on top of that we are going to pay all of this amount of money. police
pay him a workshop to have to use an app in this century because he can't even text. I'm sorry, but I have a background of being a property manager in a condominium in South Beach
and I never see this kind of behavior. Bob Anderson, 11th place, 11905. I look at what the manager is asking is a negotiation process that the
commission needs to do. I don't consider what he's asking for the commission to go ahead and grant everything that he's asking for. So obviously, you know, when you go into negotiations, you always ask for a lot more than you're willing to take.
So I don't see anything wrong with what he's asking for. It's up to the commissioner to decide what will be accepted on both sides. Thank you. Janie Anderson 11 1905 Northeast 11th Place. I don't know how anybody could
have the idea that this is double what it was advertised. The salary alone was advertised at up to 210. And I don't recall the benefits and everything else being listed in the ad. So that would have upped the title. I'm sorry, up the total. And as far as what
Al is asking for, it's called contract negotiations. It's what you do. You don't come in asking for the bare minimum. You ask for the world and you work back and forth. That's the normal way. Thank you.
Any others here before we switch over? Going once. Going twice. Okay. Doesn't look like we have anyone on Zoom. Unless Paul, if you can hear me, he wants to make public comment, but I'm going to guess he's the answer is no. Um, okay. So um hearing no further for
public comment, we will close public comment. We will move on to our next item which is reply. Uh is there any specific reply from the uh from the commission at this time to the public comments before we move into the presentations? Um c can you verify um Pamela about the
notice that was made aware for us saying there was no notice done? It was noticed. It's been it's on been on the website the day after. Okay. Um we um made the meeting. It was sent out on the app twice.
Email blast. The email you went through the email blast on the app. Okay. Was done twice. And so um because this was noted as a special commission meeting, it does not longer require 7 days notice. Correct. It's a 24 hours.
It's within 24 hours. So that's a change that we did in the procedures last time. Um to your point, I mean it's it's all good. That's what we did. Um just addressing the comments that that came about notice. So on the procedures before it was that every meeting was
seven days before. There was a contradiction as how the the procedures were written. The recommendation was that um we would make this adjustment something for us to visit in the future. To your point, Vicki, yes. uh 24-hour notice obviously doesn't that's why we don't have any any on Zoom etc but um
just making sure that we did at least send it all throughout. Okay, hearing none. Okay, here my comment. Okay. All right. Um so, uh hearing no other reply at this time, let's go on to
our presentation section. Um so uh before we move into the presentation as I believe um uh Mr. Chis your attorney is here to make a presentation. Okay. Um Mr. Attorney did you want to kind of just update us on where we are where we left off at this
point that gets us to this meeting please? Yes. Okay. Okay. So essentially what what you have before you is um or discussion or presentation about the
manager's agreement. Um just so you all have a timeline. Um I know you had all tasked me with to some extent negotiating the terms and conditions of the agreement with the manager or manager's council, Miss
Sigman. Um pronounced that right? Did I not? Yes. Okay. And um essentially from a timeline perspective um Miss Sigman and I had a a brief conversation about how we were going to go forward with this process. Um in the
beginning of July um I believe it was in the beginning of July or late June. And then what happened is on July 7th, I received from Miss Sigman a copy of a draft agreement from the manager.
On the morning of the 8th or the afternoon of the 8th, I provided Miss Sigman with a track change and um underlined strikethrough of proposed changes to to the draft agreement that she provided. Um we had our commission
meeting on the 8th. you all said a um said at this special hearing meeting that we're we're here today. Um the I'm trying to I'm trying to do this from the top of my head. Um unfortunately I was out of town on
Friday through Monday, didn't come back to work until this Tuesday. Um Miss Sigman and I had a brief conversation um about the agreements and about my proposed changes. she implemented some of the changes which you have before you
um and then some of them I guess the only way I can they were rejected or they were not changed um so what you have before you today is m the agreement that was drafted by Miss Sigman who's is Mr. Childress's council which is titled
um the red line managers employment agreement children redlined by attorney sigman. Um that incorporated some of the changes that I had I had requested from the original agreement. You have the original track changes agreement that I provided to Miss Sigman back on July
7th. Um ours at this point Miss Sigman's going to make a presentation on behalf of Mr. Childress. Obviously Mr. Childress can speak on his own behalf if he so chooses. Um and then you will engage in discussions about the terms and conditions. Um there is no formal
resolution that's pore you to to approve the agreement. However, if you all come to terms in discussing this um these this agreement with Mr. Childress and Miss Sigman, then you can put to vote an agreement tonight. All it takes is a motion, a
second, and then a vote. and then a resolution will um be forthcoming to memorialize your vote. But essentially right now we're the negotiations there's no further negotiations between myself and Miss Sigman at this point and you're
now going to listen to the presentation. You can ask whatever questions you deem is appropriate. um make any comments about what they're proposing, come back with counter proposals as a consens but they have to be done by a consensus of the commission and based on your all
direction um we'll govern ourselves accordingly. So back to the drawing board or approving a a version of an agreement. Okay. All right. All right, Brad. Thank you. I'm sorry. Um say your name for me one
more time. Sigman. Miss Sigman. Okay. Great. Thank you. So, Miss Sigman, I I understand it and uh based on um the manager discussions with me, you were going to give us a brief kind of introduction presentation. Is that right? Yes. Okay. Well, the floor is yours then. Thank you.
So, my name is Patricia Sigman. I came down on the Bright Line today from Orlando. Highly recommend. It's big. It's a big improvement to the way I used to drive down here all the time. Um, I've been an employment labor lawyer for 30 some odd years, representing
employees in many different city managers over time. So, I've had the chance to go to many towns and cities across this, uh, great state and, uh, this has to be the coolest building I've presented in. So, um, really amazing. I've had a good time just getting a
chance to see your town. It really is a special place. Um, but it's been a real honor to get to know and to represent Al Childress. We actually met at the Florida City and County Managers Association conference. Al has been a member for 10 years. He
was recognized with a tenure award when I was there at the conference. Um, and uh, he's a true city manager, consumate professional. I do believe this town has not this village has not in the past ever had a professional experienced
village manager. um you have had people with other experience but not with town management, city management experience with the credential from the ICMA, from the FCCMA. And not only does Al bring that to the
table, that experience, but he brings an a master's in public administration from the FIU, which is from FIU, which is the degree that your advertisement said was the preferred credential. In addition to his masters in public administration
from FIU, he has a masters in business administration from the University of Miami. Um, and you know, he's got lots of prior experience in city administration and he he was city manager, assistant city manager and then city manager in Dural
and and in uh Key West. He comes with all of the credentials to take this village and and help it achieve its goals. And those goals don't get achieved without the kind of experience and background and and and skills and uh
and hard work that Al has put in all this time. And you know, Al has been a resident here and a homeowner here for about 40 years. He loves this village. Not only does he love this village, his family
loves this village. His wife was a commissioner and the mayor back in the days before you had village managers, when you had strong mayor form of government. Um, his boys were both Eagle Scouts who did their Eagle project here at the village. This is a person who who
takes great pride and joy in his home here, who who puts his heart into this community. And that is a thing you can't get by just bringing somebody from outside and dropping them in here and showing them your beautiful town. He
understands the challenges. He's he's here. He's the taxpayer. He's your neighbor. So, um, I think that all of that is is really important to understand because he's uniquely qualified to meet the challenges that that the village described in its in its
brochure. Um, and all of you all of you love this village, I'm sure, and you want what's best for it. That's why you're taking time out of your lives to come here and do this and listen to me talk and and and do all of this hard work. you, all of you and Al have that
in common. You all want what's best for the village. You all care and and uh and he's in a position to help you get there. So, you know, the village manager is a big job. Um seven departments, there's no deputy manager here. A lot of
the resources that my city manager clients have in in other in other jurisdictions, he doesn't have that kind of help and support here. It's wear a lot of hats, jock of all trades, do a lot of things every day. It's a hard job, but that's okay. That's what Al has
signed up for. Um, but he has his heart in it in a way that somebody from outside wouldn't because this is his home just like it's your home. And you you can't you can't undervalue that. Now
the let's talk about um the salary. But before I do that, I want to say contract negotiations with current employees. It's always awkward. It's awkward. It's awkward for you. It's awkward for him. You're talking about how much people make and what benefits they're going to
get. It's awkward. But it's important because city managers put themselves right into the middle of the fire. everything that's going on in the town, everything, they're the one on deck for all of it. And so they have to love it and they have to want to be, you know,
immersed in it. But it is no small job. It is a big job. And it is a job that is um it is full of potential political perils. And so city and county and town managers across this state and across this country need contracts. And they
they have to have contracts and they have to have good contracts to protect them because the reality is that you all can terminate Al Childress anytime you want. Anytime this commission meets and there's a majority vote to send him home
and lose his he take his job, his job is gone. He doesn't have job security. So what he has is a contract that provides him a process and severance in the event of that occurring. But in order to allow a city manager to just
throw themselves 100% into this difficult job with all of the competing interest and constituencies and everything that they have to deal with, they need a good contract that they can know is done, put it in a drawer, and hopefully never nobody even has to look at it again because everything's going
well. In the event that things don't go well, then the contract comes out of the drawer, right? And so, um, yes, the city manager needs a good contract to protect him. and all city managers and county managers do and that's part of why they bring me out to speak at their
conference because this is a common interest for all of them. It's a it's a unique and difficult job. So right now to take a $210,000 salary, Al will be taking a pay cut of
26 28 26 to $28,000 a year compared to the prior two city manager jobs he held. And so those jobs paid more. Why is Al willing to work for 210 salary instead of the the the 26 to 28,000 more per
year that he was getting at prior jobs? Because this is his home and he loves it. It's a unique opportunity. Like you know the universe got all the stars aligned and here it is that you happen to have this very uniquely qualified
city manager ready to take this role. He lives in this town. He's been here for 40 years. It's a perfect opportunity for this town, for this village to be able to to accomplish its goals. So, if you look at the advertisement, which
I spent a lot of time looking at, it was very well written. Whoever did this put a lot of time into it. The advertisement goes into all of the things about what's special about the village. And um it it clearly was written to try to kind of entice somebody who doesn't know the village to come and maybe move here to
work here or or come and see how how beautiful it is. Um but in the advertisement um it the a the salary range is 150 to 210. And like I said the top of that range 210 is 26 to $28,000 a
year less than what Al has been making in his prior two city manager jobs. And it's also less in that range and even much less than the average and median of some of the neighboring municipalities that are comparable population and type.
So um we can talk specifically about those numbers, but the job requisite the the advertisement for this job was put out stating that the salary would be up to 210,000. And if you've got this kind of a highly qualified city manager with
10 years of experience, ICMA, CCMA, he's got the MPA, he's got the MBA, he's got the experience, who in the world would be qualified for the 200 and he lives here and he lives here and loves it here and staying here. Who would be qualified
to receive the top salary that 210 that was advertised if it's not El Childbrress? So um in addition the advertisement says that the salary in that range will depend on qualifications and experience.
So qualifications I've covered and experience Al has it under the advertisement he meets the definition to get the top of the range which is why 210 is the number that the commission needs to agree to pay in order to employ
this very accomplished professional. In addition, the advertisement says after it says benefit, it it says the salary, then it says benefits are excellent. Doesn't say what they are, but it does describe them as excellent
benefits. And then it says that they they'll be the uh you know, the FRS. So, excellent benefits and $210,000 a year in salary is what was advertised for. It is it is therefore what we are
here asking the commission to approve because that is what it takes to get a manager of this caliber and in reality if Al wasn't a resident here then this salary would be too low for
him to consider. So it based upon his experience. Nobody ever wants to take a step backwards in their in their career path, but this wouldn't be a backward step for Al. This would be a step in a great direction to be able to really put his heart and soul
into helping his own village um achieve all of its hopes and dreams. So now when we come to um the um you know the village the village already decided that 210,000 was doable
because it's in the ad and that 210 plus excellent benefits was doable. Commission already decided that because it's in the ad. So what else is in the ad? Um, besides also wanting somebody with the MPA, which is what Mr.
Childress has. Um, the other thing that I thought was very interesting is that it talked in terms of, you know, some of the more complex challenges that the town faces that the village faces. Um, it says the village's biggest concern is
how to provide necessary services with very limited growth while preserving the special place that Biscane Park has become. And that that is the challenge, right? That's exactly what Al has is is here to do. In fact, he's already been doing
that. There are things that he's already done with the budget, to find savings, to find waste in order to do what the village's biggest challenge is, which is to provide necessary services with limited growth and special to to preserve the special place Bis Biscane
Park has become. You need a manager who really has the experience and and knowledge and skills and training to figure out the details of the budget to understand what's possible to think about well what have we done in the other cities where I was and what can we
adopt here and go to the the international the FCMA conferences and look and because when he's there he's talking with all of the other managers in all the other towns and listening to presentations and finding out what what ideas do they have what are people doing for cost savings? What are people doing
to maximize their productivity of their staff? These are things that he has learned by going to the trainings and doing this. Um he was even when he was at Dural, he was even sent to Harvard for a special training program for executive management. This isn't just Al
Childress showing up and saying I can do this. This is Al Childress showing up after a a long and distinguished career in public service and coming forward to say I can accomplish this. Um it was very fortunate that he happened to be
available when the when the village needed him. It is it is an important thing in my in my view and in the experience of what I have seen at other towns when you bring in a manager that's got all the credentials and all the
training and you let them you give them the opportunity to go do what they know how to do how to work with the budget. When you do all of those things it works. And so, um, I think that I say all of this so that so that everyone has
the understanding and perspective of, you know, if you want a a true professional manager at the helm, which apparently you do because you you picked Al, right? You you took a vote and said,
"We want him to be our village manager." then the package you advertised salary of 210 and excellent benefits makes perfect sense and it's nothing new. This is just the same territory that was already decided and advertised. We're
just executing what's already been advertised and already been decided was available and Al is able to find savings and he is able to do better things with the budget and that's why somebody like him pays for themselves over time.
because they make things happen. So, um, additionally, I wanted to talk a little bit about, um, the the the documents that you have. So, um, yes. Uh, I sent a I sent a a
contract to Brad after we talked. I think we talked for about an hour maybe on the first time. Went through a list of the things that we we needed and wanted. Got some of Brad's feedback on those things and then I drafted the contract and sent it to Brad. Is it
okay? I should I should I'm sorry. Thank you. Feel free to call me Patricia. So, uh sent it to Brad. Brad um did redline it and sent it back to me. I went through it and the things that seemed to be legal issues that Brad had raised um
references to statutes, certain various provisions that that had anything to do with a legal issue or something that I thought didn't really um didn't prejudice my client, but that would would help make the contract more comfortable for for Brad from a legal
standpoint. We we put those things in there. So when you see the red line of my contract, what you're seeing is the things I put in to incorporate the concepts of the things that Brad had raised. But there were other things that Brad wanted changed that Patricia didn't agree to and Al didn't agree to since
we're all using first names here. Um, you know, because those are terms and conditions. Those are those excellent benefits. Those are the protections that a good manager needs in order to just put that contract in the drawer, forget all about it, and go out and just do the
job every day. So um so we we have um already addressed what we think needed to be addressed and um we're asking you to approve the contract
that I presented on behalf of Al and to approve it tonight and get this past the everyone so it can be done and everyone can move on with the other business of the village and Al can focus 100% % of his attention on village business and not
have to spend any time talking to me. So I'm happy now to take any questions that any of you may have. So Patricia, you said right. Is that all right if I Yes, please. Okay, great. So Patricia, um I thank you for for being here with
us this evening. Thanks thank you for the presentation providing information in the background. It's it's helpful for us. Um, so obviously we all need to discuss what's been put before us. It's the first time we've had the opportunity to do so. Um, as a as a commission, should I say. Um, can I just ask you
just kind of based on how you concluded your presentation there I and I don't want to put words in in your mouth, Mr. Manager, or or your mouth, but is is is what you're I guess representing to us is that the only version of the contract that we're willing to accept on behalf of the manager this evening is the
version that's in front of us. Um yes, with one exception. Okay. And that is that um if the commission is concerned about the total PTO that could potentially be paid out at the end of
employment, um Al is is prepared to cut that to 500 hours instead of a thousand. Now, let me point out though, as you guys have a copy, um, one of the one of the commissioners kindly asked for Al today to send him information on his
prior packages, what he had when he was at um, dur. Right. Right. And if if you look at that on I already mentioned the salary, but the, for example, Dural had no cap on the the payout. So the the P and this is
just so the commission can understand. I mean, other other other towns and cities are are doing this with no cap at all. And we're saying we had we think that 1,000 hours is very fair and consistent with other towns. But because Al cares a
lot about this village, the thing he's willing to do is cut it to 500. So it wouldn't affect his acrruels during his employment if you know but but it but it would be capped when he I mean he gets a payout if if he separated at 500 hours instead of a thousand. Is okay that I
say that right Al? Um but and and then if you look at so Dural had no cap and at Key West had a a cap of 960 hours. So 500 hours is much less than the cap that they had at uh Key West as well. And
those are those are on your uh pieces there. So um what's anyone do you have is did it did that answer your question? It did. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Um so I I think at this point it really becomes more of a discussion
by and between and amongst the parties here and the commission because um I of course want all of our commissioners to have an opportunity to kind of voice their opinion on what's been in front of us because again no one's had the opportunity to um in this group before today. So, I think that's probably the best way to start is to just kind of
have the commission um kind of provide their feedback for you uh and for you, Al. Um and I don't really have any specific place where I want I would recommend we start. So, if anyone would like to kind of give their feedback on where we stand with contract, I'm certainly open to hearing that.
I'd like to just go through the whole contract. So, each section Well, is that something that the commission wants to do? Do we want to go through kind of section by section here? If that's the will of the commission, I would rather raise points that people want to talk about rather than go
through each individual section. But so let me clar point of clarification on that. Go through it and as the issues come up. Okay. Yeah, that that's that's fine. Organized. You can name the section. If there's no issues, we move on. Okay. Okay. Can can I tell my three points because
the areas that I maybe that would help? You just have three points. Well, it's the the the uh term of the contract. Okay. the um the payout and of course the salary. So you're saying term salary and severance. Yeah, because because you know the
payout and other well yeah payouts I have concern about the payouts because we do still have hostile complaints out there and uh let me do let me do this then Patricia and and Al this is for you too obviously. Um it sounds like some people want to point some things out. Is this something that we're you're willing to
listen to? Yes. And I I can on the term if you want, I can respond on that real quick. So, it's addressed. That is, you know, it says it's a five-year term. It's it's really not a five-year employment agreement. It's a it's an agreement that lasts for five years, but this commission can terminate AL anytime
it wants to by a vote. So, what having the five-year term does is it it makes it so that you don't have to come back here in a year or two years to like renew the same agreement, but you can terminate it anytime you want. So, it
just takes it out of of the rotation of things you have to attend to for the next five years. And and like I said, everything goes smoothly. Nobody even pulls it out. But it really isn't a five-year contract from that standpoint. Really, the reason that's in there is because Al wanted to show the commission
his commitment to be here. So, it wasn't really put in. It doesn't protect him because he's still an, you know, he can still be terminated at your will, but it it shows you his commitment that he wanted you to understand, you know, he's here to try to like stay and make this work.
Well, the problem I have with that he can be fired at any time is he has to be fired with cause. if he's fireable cause that we don't pay him. But if he's not fired, you know, I mean, he get the payout, it's going to be the big thing. And that's my big concern is the payout. The year, okay, I have no problem with the five years. Um, but it's the payout.
I mean, the payouts that he's had at the last two places that he's worked. I have major concerns for that. Yeah, I think that's probably a little bit further down. So, uh, we've heard, you know, Patrician and and I don't want to keep doing this alo. I don't if if if Patricia is speaking on your behalf, I
can just kind of I don't I don't want to keep bouncing back and forth. Obviously, you want trade. Okay, we're good. Let me let me Go ahead or let me just say that I'm a little disappointed, honestly, that we got this two days ago. Um I haven't really had I mean, I did go over it. I
really haven't had time to really break it down and dissect it. Um unfortunately, I have a real job and you know where I get paid actually. Um, so you know, I wish we would have had this earlier. Um, because I'm going to talk about some things today, but I'm really
talking kind of blindly because I haven't really had time to look at do comparisons. That's kind of way the way I look at things and the way I think. Um, and yes, I know that Al came from Dural and Al came from Key West and all
that stuff. Obviously, those are much bigger cities, uh, with much bigger budgets and whatnot. And so, you know, it's a little difficult to compare apples to oranges, right? So, um, you know, I think in my humble opinion,
there's really not a lot of different things in here, a lot of different topics. I think if we run through them, we either agree, we don't agree, we come up with suggestions on certain things, whatever we disagree on, uh, and then we can move forward.
That's the way I would do it. Uh, but I'm open to, you know, however you guys want to do it. And I think I think we're kind of saying the same thing. I think the idea is for the commission to look at these and if there are issues that any one individual commissioner has with anything that's included in the agreement to then to voice it at that time and make a
suggestion like like Art has said. So I think that makes sense. Okay. Okay. All right. Cool. All right. So we've talked about term. Is there anyone else that wanted to kind of voice any opinion on on term? We've heard from commissioner vice mayor.
We've heard the uh Patricia Patricia's response for me term five years I think is uh appropriate and I think it shows Al's commitment and as uh his uh council represented very well that we can terminate this this contract at any time with 30 days notice. So that just shows
his commitment to this village. I'm fine with five years. Pardon? Fine with five years as well. Mr. answer. Um, it's not the the size of matter to me. So, I don't focus on the five-year. I think that's that's okay. Well, it sounds like I I I don't
really have much of an issue because I understand the the atill nature of the employment too. So, I don't really think that the term not as you know. Okay. Um, how about section two, employment duties and authority? Is there anything specific there that any of one of the commissioners would like to raise? I personally don't see really have
anything there. I'm sorry. section two. Can I um can I ask so on this section there were uh Brad you had back and forth with the attorney as you stated at the beginning. What were the recommendations because the way you come
to this I I mean I understand you represent Al in this case. We have our attorney representing us. So he came to you with certain points that he saw they were needed to discuss in terms of negotiation. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I I just try and understand what
those points were because what our attorney is doing is taking the village's history to analyze where we stand in the past in similar contracts and and based on that come back to you and and I and I understand that's sort of the dance that happens. Um today you
kind of came forward saying this is what we want, right? Uh so I want to understand from Brad's point because you did this first conversation initially on the document what were the key points that were to be discussed that we were in agreement
and and and for parenthesis um to Art's point we did receive this two days uh ago. So I have a million questions and this is one of the main ones is what did we say as a village when we came back to you as their attorney representing Al I
wish it would have been you sitting there I think that's another thing I would have loved to do I think it's a personable thing um but you know since this happened attorney to attorney what was the the the response from us I don't know that I can summarize
maybe if I Yeah, you're going through you're going through it um in this point. Correct. So maybe I can just address those sections as please. Looking at the section
um there's really not much of a much of a major difference between what um they came up with. He added some of the language with regards to complying with the code of ethics. the International City and County Management Association
and the Miami Dade Code of Ethics. Um, what does that mean? Well, those guidelines that are established by those organizations, Mr. Children would have to comply with those guidelines. Okay. I think the only the only difference just looking at them is I
added some language in there acting in a professional and respectful manner requiring a village manager is just kind of general language um that that Miss Sigman um kind of tailored down to just
focusing on those um standards identified. Got it. The ICMA sets a big distinction between the two. The ICMA rules that ethics are pretty high bar. So all the good stuff is in there.
Yes. Let me just to be sure. So in the package in the agenda, do we have your um uh striketh through copy as well? Okay. Give me just a second to open it. Which one? Well, they're looking for it. the way that I saw it that section three the changes
that that um Patricia sorry um that you is fine that you had incorporated was more just kind of a a truncated version of what had been included and I think you incorporated the final the final proposed uh section that Brad had included which
was um code of ethics section 19. So by including those things it just seemed to be more of a truncated version of that. Correct. and things that are objectively knowable like right standards that are already written. Yes. Just for the record. So in that agenda package where it says draft village
manager employment agreement uh which is supposed to be the striketh through version uh that um I think you have in your computer and that um Brad is making reference is not in the agenda. So you don't it it's there but it doesn't have the strike through. Yeah, I it's on there I guess when it
was converted to be put on the agenda. Neither Miss Sigman's uh is that the PDF or is that the word the agenda word versions are the ones you're going to see the you're not going to see track changes on a PDF though you're going to see track changes on the word no but I'm trying to see what people like that was the package that was
advertised for all of us to come forward and be prepared and this one in particular and it it has a name that's why that's the one I the email that I sent you I sent I think it's the one dog those ones if you open it in word let me follow
through with the doc document that has those uh let me just open it when you it's it would look more like this. Yes, this is the version. This is Bradford. Thank you. We're looking for that. Can I ask I think Paul's on the line, right? I had asked I had asked Paul two
questions. Paul, Paul, are you there? I am. All right, great. So I had asked you what the to what the total difference um was between what Al uh your cost analysis between Al's uh and the
previous manager was what what was that? So the basis final number yeah the basis with the obvious fringes would be about $110,000 if you'll let me round it a little bit. I have an exact analysis I can send you. So, we're talking about $110,000 more
than what we were paying the uh the previous manager. Correct. Uh well, there's a a little bit of a an adjustment there because he his salary was adjusted due at the budget process after he had already resigned. So, it tech it technically was not his salary,
it was the position we budgeted, if that makes sense. Okay. So, it's $110,000 difference, right? Yep. And then the be the the benefit portion. Um what exactly uh are the differences between what is uh asking
and what we had done in the past? Most managers have asked for some sort of health insurance uh premium. Uh the last three did that. Uh the other different the only thing different in this one is is the the the scale of the
personal time off and the uh cap being at at 1,000 hours that that being outlined uh was different. All right. And health insurance that was that the same we were paying for. Chris had that and so did Mario at
halfway through his tenure. he negotiated rather than a raise. He asked for that those funds be used to offset his health insurance share uh in internally. I think he saw some advantages, tax advantages where it would be more valuable to him. So that's
very common rather than salary. It's a deferral of salary. Anything else? Any other differences? Um they're all different heights. They're all different what? Never mind. Bad joke over his own. Okay, I got it both. All right. Go
ahead. Sorry. Just while we were looking or let me just make sure the the question you asked Paul was just kind of what are the major differences between Okay. Just just wanted to make sure I missed the question. I asked Paul was what the total cost difference was between what we were
we're paying before to what we're uh what Al is requesting and the and the difference uh he's saying is $110,000 difference. You talking about salary or you talking about Oh, in total package. Total package. Total pack. Total package. So a lot of times you see a you know you see your advertised uh salary but there are a lot
of other costs associated with uh with a with a manager then that you don't see right like uh retirement and benefits and blah blah blah and that's that adds up and and so people don't see that but it's there. Yep. Whether you see it or not.
Okay. Um Okay. Right. Thanks. Um and thank you Paul. Uh so just turning back very quickly to to section two. Uh were there any other uh questions? I know you were kind of leading up to a question. Yeah. No sound like it. First I want to make sure that what we have and everybody see and it's the same. So I I
we I can get access to the striketh through version that Brad put forward. Um you know I tried it doesn't work. So I grab your email. I'm able to see now what you see. Not everybody can but then I have it. And I think it's helpful to have um Brad go through those sections
and sort of clarify what was tried to be uh negotiated. So I'm I'm okay on that point that he just mentioned this last section on section two. Okay. Okay. So um let's move on to section three then salary. Um is there any points we want to make on on the salary request? Um they're the same in in both
versions in both strikethrough versions. Just just so your commission understands. Yes. I was given no guidance with regards to what the salary negoti right it was of course it was to to Patricia's point I'm going to do this all night I'm sorry
to her point that's it's within that range of of what was included in the in the brochure that we put together which is where I think that number comes from. Yeah. So it you you've mentioned it was 250. Um you've heard some residents come
forward was saying was 15 uh 150. Um so the range was there was a range particular it wasn't just set at two to 10 sorry it was a range starting at 150 right based upon experience and qualifications. Exactly.
So it started at 150 all the way to 210 for us to contemplate. All right. Um, I guess my point on that was that the commission would not have allowed an ad to go out saying that 210 was the top of the range if 210 was not available.
I'm sorry. Go that again. I I to me that what that reflects is a prior decision that the commission came to that that range was something that that this village could do. Correct. And that's why that range was set. Correct. And so if if that range wasn't
set, what Al would be asking for is what he's had at his prior jobs, which is in the 230s. So I think to the that point of what the village can do um has to do with the budget overall. Like I really would love to see what this means
overall budget and to the administration given that we still haven't closed what the next fiscal is going to look like. To your point of what we can do, I don't know. I think this is the the way the vendor came forward saying this is what would be labeled to be considered uh
competitive for the village given uh the pass in the village the needs of the village etc. So I think to your point, yes, that was the top line uh that was recommended. Can we afford it? That's part of the discussion we have to have tonight. On the salary perspective, I
did have Sharon and I did the same thing last time when we hired um Albert on a temporary basis for interim and I request our finance to share with us what the file looked like because there is a salary portion and then there is a
part all these different added benefits. they're on part of the negotiation. I would like to show you if that's okay. Um Pamela, if I can get permission just to put forward so you can see how we arranged to the 176. Originally
the salary from the previous manager was $100,000 and the in October uh into the new fiscal we approved a salary of 112. So now that we're talking about salary,
you are requesting double basically of that, right? Almost double. I'm just talking about salary at this stage. Um, am I okay? Am I okay? Yes. That that's something doubled. Yeah. Right. A manager of this experience and
qualifications does not work for $110,000. No, no, I know. I'm just I'm saying if that's okay. So you're asking double. Basically, we were at 110 in October. I'm saying that's what we budgeted for. The request is that we go up based on his experience to to 210. Right.
The request is to to do what the advertisement placed as the top of the range because because that matches his expertise and qualifications. Got it. And then the benefits come along with that. Like the Florida retirement system
charges what they charge. Yeah. And you know that that goes like that. the insurance company charges what they charge. Um, okay. So, that's my the point of salary. Since we're going per section, I just want to make sure we're on the same page. So, we're asking double of what we
had already budgeted in October last year going into uh budget of next fiscal. That's all I'll say. So, and just to follow up on what was asked of me going section by section. No, that's sorry. Um the only the only
change in the section was that I proposed um really relates back to the the issue of term. So if you all recall when when you selected Mr. Childress as your permanent manager, it would the
commission decided to leave him in his capacity as an interim but until a contract was um approved and executed by the agreement uh by the commission, I'm sorry. Um the agreement that was that's being put forth by
Patricia um anticipates that his contract essentially would have begun on the date that you all granted him to the permanent position that you would give him pay and make his salary full to the salary that um you would
approve on this contract um which would include and Paul you can correct me if I'm wrong but which would include include also payments of um into his F FRS payments for the that additional salary to make his resident salary up to
whatever the contract salary. Um so what I had done is I had I had removed that language. Um but again if you're approving the term then the language changes that I proposed would not would not ne would not be appropriate.
So you're if I follow you basically said I want the contract to start based on on how it's worked before the contract should start when the contract is signed not to go retroactive. It was my understanding by the commission back on the day that
yeah that you appointed Mr. Childris as the permanent manager. Um I think I made this request or made the point to you all because I kind of anticipated this is that he remained in the status of an interim was receiving his interim pay
until a formal contract putting him in place. That's the was agreed to. Um obviously the agreement that they're putting forth retroactively brings his salary back to the to his appointment they or to your
select as the as the permanent manager. So just using numbers if he's making a if he was making a salary based on 176,000 and you approve his salary to be 210,000
then from what was it June 3rd but whenever we execute this agreement formally the village will have to make him whole for the difference in the salary whatever that is between a rat of 176,000
210,000 And again, I Paul, but I believe that would also require um some additional contributions into his um large retirement account. Okay, got it. So again,
my modifications or my proposed modifications on subsection D in section 3 salary would no longer be necessary. Yeah. Can I say something in regards to salary real quick? So, I wasn't here when you
all decided the range the whole range thing. Um, and I but I'm fine with the range thing. And I and I said this here uh before and I'm going to say it again. One of the reasons that I was pushing for a seasoned managers having sat up here as long as I have, I know that the
city has lost hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars uh due to mismanagement and bad management. And the reason that we're trying to bring in somebody with uh his background and his caliber, and it's not just necessarily Al. If there was
somebody else sitting in that chair, I would be saying the same thing that had those kind of qualifications. I know for a fact that having that professionalism is going to save and it's going to gain the city money. Um, one of the issues I think uh Al has is he doesn't like to
pat himself on the back very often. Uh but I see and I know the things that he's been doing uh behind the scenes and you know he's already gotten the city hundreds of thousands of dollars that we probably wouldn't have gotten if we wouldn't have had him at the helm. So is
he worth $210,000 in my opinion um him not just him but anybody else that would be sitting in that chair with those qualifications I think they're well worth the $210,000. That's just my opinion on that. Okay. Yeah. I I completely agree with
Commissioner Gonzalez. Uh 210 was what was advertised. Uh this candidate is well worth 210. He's worth more. He's he's been paid more, but that's what's advertised. I see why they went to the top of the range. I agree with it to suggest that it's double. It's not. We never paid him 112. That 112 was
designed for a different manager than this manager. This manager came in at 176. He's asking for 210. It's plus benefits. It's more than fair. 210. I agree with it. And to go to argue about retroactive pay back of ma I'm sure Paul can maybe correct my math but back and napkin math for me says about $1,300 a
paycheck additional. So I don't think we have to worry about another month of uh retroactive pay. If it was a year I'd say that that's it's uh something that we talk about. But a month it's not a huge impact to the village to go retroactive back to the day he was appointed.
Okay. Maybe Paul correct my math though when my math is wrong. Paul, do you want to correct Commissioner Huntington's math? I'm trying to keep my words conserved, so he I he didn't say anything wrong, so Okay, I won't say anything. That's fair. Okay. Any um can I show this uh Excel that shows
sort of the benefits and the salary base? Um, Pamela, can I have access to that? [Music] Go down to the green there in the middle and see. Oh, so this should do it. Yeah, you can just select the window. Okay, get to that. There you go.
Okay. All right. Zoom in a little bit. Oh. So that's what we had. So um so I you know so this is what we had budgeted for. So you know
just to correct you Ryan. So I never said that we're paying him double. I'm just saying him as part of the negotiation what we had budgeted for was 112 for salary. Okay. We here are
considering doubling that as a base salary of 210. So these are the numbers that we have. So in the past just to give you an idea. So these are the salaries uh from Mario for example. So you guys can see here um
more or less what we used to pay. We had $100,000 of salary before we had the FRS pension. Sorry, Commissioner. I'm sorry. Sorry, I don't want to interrupt you, but as a point of order, uh it is 6:05 and we have another we have another meeting. Yes.
Uh scheduled for at 6 o'clock. So maybe we should put this on the table. Yeah. When that meeting up and then continue this. Well, that meeting let the commissioner finish her. Sorry, I meant to say it at 6 o'clock. I just missed five minutes. You have to adopt your tenative millage and it's advertised for six o'clock.
Well, that should take all of five minutes. So, that is something that we we need to do. Yeah. Commissioner, I do apologize for interrupting you. I just I understand. Should I stop this and stop sharing or if do we keep it? I don't know. Well, question for the clerk is to begin
the second the six o'clock. Got to go out and then we can go back into this one for the five o'clock. Correct. I just want to make sure we don't lose. Okay. And then for point of uh I guess point of order or procedure, however we
want to call it, Brad, can we temporarily adjourn You're going to take a recess of Perfect. Okay. Okay. And it will be convened at the uh immediately after the six o'clock special meeting.
Okay. Um we need that by motion is can we just can I do it unilaterally? You need that by motion. Okay. So I'd like to make a motion that we put the five o'clock special agenda in recess so we can address the six o'clock. Do I have a second? I'll second it. All in favor? I I
I Okay. Okay. So, our 5:00 special agenda meeting is in temporary recess while we get ready to call to order our 6:00 on the millillage. Do you need a minute, Madam Clerk? Not trying to rush you. I understand.
Let others know to see down there. Part: 2
Who does that? We're on the record. All right. I'm gonna give just another minute because I know we had two of the commissioners that were logged in. I'm sure they're trying to get in and then I know we had Paul. We got Oh, we got people in the waiting room.
See my request for There's We There's three in the waiting room. Right. So, Commissioner Ams. All right. So, we are now back on the record for the 5:00 special agenda commission meeting. We will resume where we left off uh in
the discussions uh on item 6A. And Commissioner Ams, you were in the middle of presenting. So, I'm going to wait for for the clerk to give me access. You let me know. Ready? Okay. Go back to that. All right. I think this is it. Yeah.
All right. So, um um one of you made the point that uh when when we talk about negotiations is not just the salary. Uh although that's the part we're discussing now in the contract. It's just a a different uh numbers that come together to let us know what the final
uh salary plus compensation is going to be for the manager. And so what I I did uh was the same thing I did before when we hire all on a temporary basis as interim. I asked the finance team to share how it's been in the past so that
we have a historical because um to your point I do agree I mean the experience comes from other cities you know makes it very relevant for so many years to to the request of salary it's important um that the the other part is the reality
of the village and what we've been doing so I thought it was interesting to have that context so in the past we used to pay $100,000 to Mario uh we had a for a pension of 34.52. We have health insurance at $13,000,
life insurance premium, vehicle allowance, cell phone allowance, and memberships and dues. And these were annual, uh, charges. Um, for Chris, uh, which was our latest manager, it was very similar. Please let me know if you
don't see it to make it bigger. Uh, very similar. uh and you know that totaling to about 159. Now um specifically to the the the package we approved not not the package let me
rephrase that the salary we approved uh during budget season uh we made an increment so we we changed it from 100 grand to 112 to make it more attractive. Not that we did much because it was very low. So, you know, if you add that the
different um the different benefits, we came out to 176. And the reason I bring it up if because Albert, if you remember, I was the one to make the suggestion. Um you are highly qualified. You come from a
lot of experience, many years, big cities and a a big salary. So, asking you to switch from that high-end salary to a 100 grand was not going to happen. And we knew that. and you made it very clear to us and we had a whole back and forth as to whether it was fair or not
because it was advertised for 100, right? And I said, "Okay guys, but at the end of the day, we did have budgeted for 176. So if we don't pay you any of the other compensation package in terms of
benefit, what we have is, you know, could be interesting. Now we're not talking about 100 grand or 112 starting in October. we are talking about $176,000 which you agreed to and in that case the manager moved forward saying yes. Um
it's important to say that because it's not that we are paying a salary of 176. Our salary was always 112, but the budget sitting for us that was going to be regardless um sort of given to the
manager at the at the term whoever that might be Albert or not uh was going to be totaling for 176. So we agreed to move forward with that with no extra benefits. So 176 what we budgeted for not a dollar more. And that was a lot of
feedback from residents saying okay that seems fair because then although it's a lot and you know people are like how can you jump from 100 to 176 but it's what we budgeted for because it's includes all of these benefits. Um so now we're saying it's
um 210 right so and that's what I was coming from we had budgeted 112 now we're talking about 212 so that's makes a big difference um so I just wanted to have this in in reference um just so
that I clarify it's not that we were paying 176 of salary we started from 112 um so we're this is a big ask when to the base salary 210 because then then it sort of trickles down every other
number. Um let me pause this to show what the latest number was um shared. Do do you guys agree with me so far? That's what we did, right? We approve
176 using all those benefits, right? You are not Yeah, I remember. Um, Art, were you part of that decision making? You were not. Okay, Ryan, you were agree that his salary was 176 minus benefits. That's what the salary was. So, it was just like it wasn't the
salary. I mean, it was the total package for the manager at that time. We said no benefits. It was a salary, no benefits. Correct. Um, and so the latest one, and she sent it to me today, so mind me as I look for
it. I'm going to show it. This is what Sharon sent to me. Um, do you see it? You'll see the extension. You have to when you go down to the share, you have to switch the um switch
the the window that you're sharing. Okay. So share. Yep. And then you can select the window that you want the tabs. So I guess it's the you see it. No.
Do you guys see it? There you go. Okay. So, that's what she shared today. Okay. Uh today uh or yesterday, I don't know. Um so, she shared this with me. So, it says 176, right? That's what basically
happened. I don't know where this 1550 came from additional. It was 176. But regardless, right, it's it's a bond there. It was a budgeted item. Yeah. Um I mean it's it's part of we have as as a package.
This is what it is now. If we were to take the 210 as a initial base, so it jumps from 177550 to um 331
640. Paul, please keep me um in line here. I just want to make sure these are the numbers Sharon um shared. Um the other thing that jumped to me was the fact that the salary had um it says here it's 176 and again I you know I had
a conversation with Paul before and I said we're not paying a salary of 176. It was an all income pacing um money that had v you know excluded benefits. Um did you get FSR on top of this?
I'm wondering if on top of FRS on top of 176 he doesn't get any benefits right now. You have no F FRS. So Paul that's different to what I heard today because we were discussing about it. Yes. about a couple weeks ago, FRS uh
they they audit your payrolls and they identified this salary as a requirement. It was not you're not able to wave it or opt out of it. So, it had to be paid. So, what does that mean? That means that your employees have to
have FRS payments. They can't opt out of it. And what's the base that was FRS calculated on as a city manager? So the current is the 3452 I believe or 30 I don't remember. So basically
we approved 176 but you're saying that here basically was this times the percentage. Am I correct? Uh well if it were for a full year. Yes. Correct. But it's only for a few months. Y
why did this happen? That was my first question. And maybe this isn't a question for you. I'm sorry. I'm just wondering why are we paying benefits if we agree that the total budget was going to be 176
and at what point did we know that now FRS needs to be addressed to this number? You are talking about an annual difference of $60,000. Um you know you've been in the position for eight months at least.
This is not something Al filled out a form to request. I think this is news to him. He's hearing it here for the first time as I am. But I mean FRS has the the the special class of people that are these local top managers and the statutes do what they do.
Um so apparently they decided that interim isn't the different. It's a big diff. So, let me tell you in context to I I think there was a comment from the public came about, you know, us making an agreement for a pool uh usage that's $30,000. You know, the thought
about pickables at some point it was $90,000. We're talking about potentially adding into benefit something we didn't agree on as a commission. Okay. So, as a commission we said the total amount was 176. So, uh Paul I I want to have an understanding of this. We don't need to
clarify today. What I'm saying is that we approve something, we're paying a different number. We're paying more. We're paying 34% more than what we approved in um October 15, I guess, when you started,
right? Um so yeah, I know. Okay, I understand. But we will have to I I know. I know. That's the part I'm asking Paul to clarify. I don't know where is it coming from. Well, it's probably coming from the Florida statutes.
Yes. So, am I what I'm what I'm saying is what I discussed with our finance director this morning is that this has to be applied. So, am I am I and I'm asking Paul there's a question Paul is this the number if we were to leave it for a year. This will be the number that
I would be making um as an interim 238. Correct. Okay. But that wasn't agreed. It was agreed at 176 there. whatever that's between the commission and the manager. I'm only able to tell you what we pay. Okay. Okay. So, that that that's
something for us to sort out like why did it happen and what do we do now because we're going to have to pay it based on statitude, right? That's what you you said. I mean, those are requirements. Sounds like that's what FRS is saying. I mean, maybe maybe the thought and I don't know, I wasn't at the meeting. Maybe the thought was that interims wouldn't be considered in the special
management service class and maybe the FRS has decided that they are. Okay. But so that's not an issue of any kind that Al could have like I know if you try to read through the FRS stuff which it's it's bulky, right? No, but we do have processes.
Obviously, we cannot just wave the fact that we said it was going to be 176 and we're talking about a yearly in, you know, impact to our budgets about $60,000. We find out today. Well, I think that the the idea, my understanding is the idea of of being
interim was like, let's get let's get Al in here because we're bleeding and we need help, right? He's already found, as you heard, hundreds of thousands of dollars of savings. He's already paying for himself. Let's get him in here. We need help. Get him in here quickly on this interim contract and we're going to put out for for bid statewide this
advertisement. And we took candidates, right? And that's how we got here. So I think that that in my understanding the the interim thing was just a temporary thing to get to the point where you guys could get to this point of doing a contract. So he hasn't it hasn't been that long.
So can I just I'd like to kind of try I understand the point you're trying to make and I'd like to try and get us to a conclusion very quickly. I I don't know that this is gerine to the discussion that we're having. I understand the point that that you're you're making and it's a valid point but I I think based on my recollection of that meeting and based on what we're saying here is is we weren't really advised that that was
going to happen. Yeah. Um, and we're now we're now finding out about it and there's really nothing at least right now there's not much we can do about it. No, my question for that was what can we do because that has an impact to the budget that we didn't approve. That that was my point. So I just found out about this
today as as speaking with Paul. I want to make sure that whatever is next to do we have in consideration that we're you know we're going to have to pocket this from somehow if we're going to have to pay for it if that's our requirement. Yeah. So I think the I so mess just to finish my point the baseline of comparison I wanted to
understand so do I have to calculate right if that's the answer we're paying today we're not paying 176 then to all we're paying 176 times um the FR so we're paying 238
we didn't approve 17 but if if we have to move forward and keep it you know based on what we found out today that would be his salary and I use this as a bench benchmark to compare what is being requested uh through you today. Okay. I I I understand where you're
getting to it now. So it's part of the consideration that we make in in the total total comp I think. So and as far as what we do from it, we'll have to I think discuss that at another time. But as far as turning back to the point where we are section three, the salary
the the base salary that we're talking about because I want to keep us going through these sections. Um, you know, I've already heard I've already heard some support that that salary makes sense from the level of experience that we're looking for based on the advertisement. Is there anyone else who wants to be heard on section three on
those two items? Been heard. We've had we've had our point. Vice Mayor, well, I just think that's the highest amount. I mean, like you said, you request you they if they offer 210, that doesn't mean you're going to get 210. I
I still have a problem with the with the 210. Well, the thing is is that I'm sorry. Did I step on the um you've got you so this this village has not in the past stepped into
having a professional trained educated for the job city manager. It's a different it's a different type of a person to fill the role. And if you went to the MA conference, which is going to be in October, and you put up a
sign saying, you know, here we have this job and here's what it involves and here's the salary, everyone's going to walk by because it's not market, you know, if you look at the survey of the local of the local cities, you know, and you compare um like similar size cities
um El Portal, Bal Harbor, Bay Harbor, I mean Golden Beach, I recognize it's very high-end, But it's also small. And Miami Shores and you look at the salary survey, the salaries there are the median's like 243. Um the average is
like 237 247. So and that's salary not benefits. So this is just what it costs to get somebody who when you go home and you go on vacation and you go home at night, it's Christmas, you close your door, go home with your family. This guy has the
helm. He's the captain. And that's I think what you guys are looking for. Somebody to go through the budget and find the the fat and find the leaks and plug it up and do all the things that need to be done to take you guys where you want to get and maybe find enough savings to get the pickle ball courts
and the other things people want, but you haven't had somebody in there digging in to get it done. and and you can continue to have people for, you know, who don't have that background and pay them 130 a year and they'll probably try really hard, but they just don't
have the background. You know, before Al became um assistant city manager, deputy city manager at Dural and then manager, he worked in that in that city for, you know, he was there 16 years total. So, he worked his way up. He learned how to
do all this stuff. How is it supposed to be done? And so you you bring a whole different view, you know, you sit down with a whole different set of eyes at this stuff. And so I just think it it it's it I I hear you and I I understand. I mean, I I have a home with my own, you know, my home has a budget, too. Your
home, everybody's home has a budget, right? But certain things just cost what they cost. And so if if you want that level of service and you want that opportunity, then that's that's what it costs. So Al 210 is the salary that this
commission needs to pay to have Al Childress put his heart and soul and do this job. And like I said, it's a pay cut for him, but it's close to home. So I don't I don't by no means do I mean to diminish or demean or any any of the arguments you made. I'm just going to preface this with I'm comfortable with
210. I'm comfortable. Um with a couple of conditions, of course, not conditions, they're cav. It's it's hard for us to accept the comparisons um just very candidly because even place like Bell Harbor, they may be small. Golden Beach is very small. They're not comparable to our budget. I I historically we have a hard time with
comparisons. We brought those managers up. I recognize and validate that managers all over this county make far more than here. And that's 100% true objectively. Um it's just it's the comparison is very difficult. But again, I'm comfortable I'm comfortable with that salary. We advertised it. So, we're
we're beholden to it because it is and I the point that you made that if there's someone who's more qualified, if you're looking for a qualified candidate to to be entitled to 210, you know, the the the background and the experience is there to qualify for that. So, again, I
think that I'm going by that. I'm going by that we are beholden to it and that he's experienced. Um, and I agree with that and I agree that there's savings that the manager has already found and, you know, going forward there's going to be some things that come up. We're hiring a police chief. um you know, we have uh another constitutional officer.
You know, as we pay more, more costs are going to go up, but we're going to leave it in uh the manager's hands. You know, assuming going forward that that this is acceptable and we come to a meeting of the minds here, we leave it in his hands to take care of that. So, um I'm comfortable with that number. I just
don't mean to demean again any of the arguments you're trying to make. I just want to try and put us in context. Um, the point I'm having is the 2000 and maybe Paul through through you to ex Paul about the budget. How is the budget going to Well, I don't know that we would advertise it if we couldn't afford it,
but I'd be happy to listen to Paul say, Paul, if if and approving a 200 a $210,000 salary for our village manager, from your perspective in the finance department, are we able to to fit this into the budget going forward? We have a lot of budget work to do. That's an unfair question. It's
premature to answer that officially, but of course you have the funds. Your your new uh tax base uh went up another 10% this year. You you're you need you know if you decide to climb into this category of pay, you're sort of you're very close to it today already. So it's
really not a a difficult budget process by itself. All budget processes are difficult and you know we're going to go through it. But I can I can kind of jump in a little bit further and say that in the eight or nine years I've been helping your your village prepare a
budget, you are far closer to doing a a more effective, more efficient budget than you would have been at this point any other time. So, I'm very confident uh staff will bring you a budget you're going to be uh pleased with. And can I just ask you Paul again I I know these are unfair questions because either
these are premature is is the fact that Al has been in the position of interim village manager has been helpful to prepare the budget in a better position than it has been in years previous based on your experience. Absolutely. Okay. And I'd just like to note something that Al said just during the
last special meeting that it's his intention to try and lower the tax rate. So it's not like we're paying for this additional salary by a higher tax rate. So that's the intention. I hope it works. Um, I've said my piece. Um, I'm certainly open if anyone else wants to share move on to the next item.
Is there anything else, Commissioner? No. In terms of this part of the salary? No. Okay. Um, all right. Um, how about section four? I know that there were no based on my review, there were no um no changes based on what we received for Jonathan. Just because there's no
questions doesn't mean we agree. So the question I guess the question is before we move on to a next topic kind of because if we're going if we're going to approve this tonight we have to either agree or a majority has to agree or not. Right. Understand?
So if we wait till the very end we'll have to go back and start going over everything. So I think if we do it each section then we'll just that that I I apologize. I thought that's what we were doing and it sounded like we had three people say they were comfortable with the salary. But if that's not the case, certainly happy to
revisit and any questions that we may have. So you're saying are you saying this is the chance basically for us to if we agree and at the end of this we you know majority agrees we move forward. If not not okay that if we do it by section that's a good point that you made that
because then my answer would change. Um I I'm not comfortable though with the 210. Thank you. Um good point commissioner. I'm I'm glad we clarified. Okay. Um so I see it differently. Um for me you know you brought forward um what the value is. I haven't seen all the savings
that the commissioners are speaking about. I think uh when it comes to uh that's one of my questions marks is how does this going to affect a budget? We still haven't prepared. Um again going double on the salary. Uh I was a no for
the vote for the permanent manager uh to take the seat. So obviously I don't see the value myself and I wouldn't be okay with paying 210 for that specifically knowing that there were other candidates that we interviewed many of them two who came forward many other who didn't who
were willing to consider it uh the position at at the starting point of 150. Um so I would for those reasons I would say I'm I'm not in agreement with the salary. Okay. Well, yeah, I know. I appreciate that.
Commissioner, clarify. I'm still on board with 210 and art. Okay. Okay. So, then moving on to section four. Uh, again, I don't think that there were any changes on the red lines. I I don't think that there were any issues between the two versions. Does
anyone have any questions or concerns with section 4? Can you make a preface of what those changes were, Brad? Uh, there there were none. Okay. There was nothing changed. Okay. So, no questions. Do we have an agreement on four? I'm fine with four. Yes. Okay. All
right. That's on four. How about five? Sure. So essentially the discussion that uh Trisha and I had was that customarily what the village have done is provided the manager the same benefits of any
other employee as it as it's um laid out in your employee manual. So that that is pretty much what I went on the basis of in in the edits that I made. Um as well as with the life insurance, it's been
customarily the life insurance has been a death benefit equal to one year of the former management salaries. They're asking for a two-year which obviously would be. So essentially the the proposals or or
the um revisions the proposed revisions that I that I um put into the agreement basically reflected just that. So these were the things with regards to insurance
would be that which been historically given to previous managers and is same being treated the same as any other village employee. So for insurance benefits it wouldn't the village would would not under my proposal would not pay 100% of the premiums. There's a
certain amount of the premium that's paid by other employees and the manager would do the same. Obviously, uh Patricia's and and Al's um proposal, the village pays 100% of any of the premium costs for health and dental. Um two
years, you pay 100% of the premium for life insurance and the insurance policy is equal to two years. So, um $420,000 of would be the policy. And um the same thing with the disability insurance. What's the additional yearly cost on
that? Uh Paul, do you know for insurance it's uh the annual is 22,000 22,000 for employee and spouse for the yeah for the spouse portion. Yes. So 22k and then what about uh the life
insurance? It's identical. Yeah. But it's one we do one year and they're asking for two, right? And and Brad just said that the rates increase, right, Brad? You said that if you're paying if the pre if the death benefit is increased the premium is
going to be I don't know I don't know h how much but if you have a if you have an insurance policy for $200,000 death benefit the premium is less than an insurance policy for have we have we have we paid that in the past the life insurance
you've paid my understand from my my reading of the employee rules and previous contracts you've paid life insurance for the manager in the same way that you've paid any other employee. So there's um which is 100%. It's 100%
but I believe it's 100%. All correct me if I'm wrong. Yes. Yes, you're right. And it's uh but it's for one year as opposed to two years as well. I have to defer to you on the disability payment. Yeah. I I don't have the uh the the premium quote for what that would cost.
It was not able to be given to us. So it's unknown. But we've had we've done it in the past is my point. Uh, not not the two-year request. No, no, I'm talking about the talking about disability insurance. Yeah. Yes, that's that's already built into the health insurance. It's an option. So, yeah, it's we've done it
before. Okay. All right. Got it. So, so the 20 So, 22,000 is for the family thing, right? So, what if it's a single person? Is that half of that or is that less than half?
No, it goes it becomes zero. The the there's no charge. the the the co-pay or the Yeah, it's the dependent fee is what is being added in. And what is that? Uh that's the 22,000. It's a Oh, you mean just one dependent or family?
No. So, so let's just say we're just paying for the manager and not uh for the spouse. If it's the manager was alone, he was a single guy. Yeah. What was what would what would be that cost to to us? Uh it would be the same for every employee.
So, I I don't have that calculated. I don't know what your insurance is, but it's it's probably about 1,100 a year or a month per per employee. So, about half maybe half of that, right? Yeah. Okay. Okay.
Any other questions on that section? Paul, just for clarity, if you have that number, what were we paying for our previous permanent village manager for insurance? It was on your spreadsheet. Yeah, his was a little higher. Uh the insurance rates adjusted a little bit more favorably for that because we we
adjusted our our contribution to it historically. So that it was it was 23,000. I think it was within a thousand. We're seeing $1,000 reduction. So Chris and Paul looking at what Sharon shared Chris um yeah she had it at 17
$17,000 versus um the 23 that is being requested now. Right. And those are what she's what she did with the 23 is she we estimated it uh a week a couple weeks ago when this was
first presented or a week ago. Uh so today when she put it in she had the new premiums and so she updated it. Those are the new premiums based on the increase. Uh just she got a more accurate number today. Okay. And that but at least at least
part of that Paul is the fact that these premiums go up every year. Correct. Yeah they do. Okay. Well in some cases they go down but it it throughout your pool of employees. Some can go up a little bit some can go down. our costs
depends on their factors. So my question is with the with the health insurance the employee we we don't pay for their family, right? We just pay for the if if they're married. We we subsidize it, but they still pay a
an employee share of it. And it's it's a little over a thousand. It's just a little under a thousand a month for family. Any other questions on this section? All right. Well, Commissioner, no. Right. Well, then I'm going to just
start down on your end. Um, I'm fine with it as written, which the the version that we have received. Okay. say that, you know, in my job, I'm a director and a partner in my firm, and I have I have to contribute. Yes. Through
my insurance uh for my wife. I wish I didn't have to, but I do. Um so, I'm okay either way to be honest with you. So, however, wherever which way this bl this blows, I'm good either way. Well, I think that the city manager
needs contribute a little bit. If if the other employees have to contribute with their families, he would have to. But if it's left in, it's not a big thing. Is that the case? So, the the rest of the employees, what do they get? So, what what is Albert asking versus the
rest of the employee? I'm trying to understand that difference. the the value is the $22,000 or 23 in this case of what uh if Al wasn't given this benefit in his contract and he wanted the insurance, he would have to deduct
$1,000 approximately out of his pay every month to cover this bill. And so it's a Yeah. And there's an added benefit internally that if it were $23,000 as salary base, he would have, you know, greater this is a way to give
him money with where he gets a better tax advantage versus putting it in his salary. It's it's a great way to negotiate a salary. So, but so are we covering the employees in the same way? No, no, this is only available to to a
private cont or one-on-one contract. the other employees that are not in a collective bargaining unit uh do not receive you know we we subsidize theirs this your village is very generous with all employees uh but but most of your employees are in a in a bargaining unit
and so their negotiation is uh separate of this discussion okay so so I guess my feedback would be here I think the fair thing would be to remain to keep the manager the same sort of benefits that the rest of the employees do said that would be my point
here. I will clarify that if you remember our former permanent manager, we gave him this benefit. We covered his family% because he made 100 grand. Yes, I know. Yeah. That compensate for his the I'm just just you know it's history of
doing this before. Yeah. And that that was our way to sort of compensate a bit. Um 100 grand of salary. I mean we were okay with giving that in. Yeah. If I if I may just a quick comment. I I think that also Mr. Diaz received coverage for his spouse at 100%.
He was also comp,000 salary reasons for salary reasons. And then um if just two more points real quick. Sure. If you look at the prior experience uh sheets that Mr. Childress presented um he received coverage for himself and his wife at both of his
prior cities. Um, and it is very common for managers, professional managers to have a benefit package that is more than the way the way that the employees have it work, both PTO and and because they're because they're out there in the fire. They're out there on the front
line. They don't have the kind of, you know, support job security. They are they're out there doing it all on their own. So, um, it's it's consistent with his prior experience and consistent with many other managers across this state to
have more benefit in that regard than the the rank and file. Yeah. So, what was your proposal then, Commissioner Ams? Um, that we keep in the contract the same benefit level that we give the rest of the employees. So, no, I would not be
okay uh giving the full benefits that are being requested. I would want it to be fair across the board. And just to be clear, Paul, um and you may have answered this already, so I apologize if you have, but the the the line item that we're talking about, the the insurance is is for the dependent.
It's not for the employee. Correct. Correct. We the village pays for the employee. Yes. Okay. Uh what about the life insurance we pay? Do we we do one year? You're trying to see. I was Yeah, I was asking. Okay.
Yeah, there's one year. The first year our salary is paid. So for life insurance um we have that we paid Chris 600 and now for the required um what was sent for proposal for Albert
is 600 still is that okay? Uh yes it hasn't changed. And um what was your feedback into this? Did you have you just changed it from two to one correctly? have any? No, no, I'm just All right. is based on based on what the
village traditionally does it or I I proposed it being of one year's out the premium in the payout the death benefit would equal one year opposed to two years 210,000 as opposed to
so what you've done in the past I have no position whatsoever on I know so to clarify the village offered one year value life insurance and that cost would be $600 $00. That's what we had. They're asking for two years. You could probably double it, maybe a little
bit less. I mean, get for a good back of NAM math, you're talking 600 bucks. So that that's over 600. That's the question for Paul because he's saying it's the same, but if I'm understanding correctly, we said earlier is this is a two-year request. I did not explore that. I
cannot speak to it, but I doubt it's a significant number. Okay. So, it would it would not be 600. would be altered because it's two years instead of one. So it would be more. We just don't know how much. You probably estimate probably estimate double because you're doubling it. Got it. Yeah. I think for argument sake that
that's a safe bet. Same. I mean for me it's how we've been managing just doing it for one-year contract was fine. More so when we don't know what that impact is. Okay. Any other points? All right. So,
um, do we have then a consensus? Is there any consensus? I'm going to try and split this down the middle then. If we were to cover employee and spouse, but then go to one on the life insurance, do we have consensus on doing that? That's kind of halfway. I would be okay with that. But um that's
that's a question if if we have consensus of that if our I'm just making a proposal based on trying to trying to go down the middle. I'm fine with that. So you have to repeat that again. Yeah. So if we're if we pay for the if we're paying the the insurance for employee and sp independent and then but
changing the life insurance from two back to one like we do for our other employees. I have no problem with that. All right. The proposal would be to keep the line item to pay for employee independent insurance, but move the two year uh the
two-year life back to one like we do for other employees. Your mic's off. A very insignificant win, but if if that's what you if I'm I'm okay with I'm just making a proposal. I I'm just asking people position what this is
pennies this point, right? I I I I 600 bucks, but if that gets us there, I'm fine with it. If if our client or if our uh the attorney and our manager Well, I got to start here before I can go here.
Maybe moot continue. I I don't think there's a deal at one year and I and like when you price I mean we're probably talking about an incremental increase as opposed to any kind of a doubling. It is because when
you when you go to get life insurance you know they give you the proposal and it's always like the main amount is the high and then it adds incrementally small amounts for steps up. This isn't like going to $2 million in coverage or something. So wait because now I'm confused. Um,
Patricia, right? Yes. Um, so, Patricia, from what I'm gathering, right? So, so obviously we don't need to go line item by line item because you guys have come in here today uh with with your minds made up on what you will and what you won't uh want to
negotiate. Uh, it seems to me because you basically said in the beginning, the only thing that you're willing to negotiate is the PTO from a,000 to 500. Okay. So, from what I'm hearing, there's no need to continue this conversation
really. So, we either agree to the contract as it is. Um, we can lower the,000 to 500, including the all the other stuff that's on here, uh, or they're going to walk away. So, that's the decision that needs to be made
tonight. And so, we're really wasting our time going through item by item. It sounds like you're probably right. And none of this was done lightly. I mean, we spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to make this fair for Al given what his other opportunities are
and the pay cut he's taking. So it this the benefits the remember excellent benefits in your ad. These benefits are part of compensating for the pay cut that Al is taking and it's consistent with the packages he's had elsewhere and not to take a step backwards. So he's
conceding, you know, $26,000 a year on salary, but trying to keep his benefits like they were at his prior jobs. So he's losing the salary, but he's not also losing the benefits because this kind of benefit, this level of benefits is available, you know, out there for
professional managers. Would Al prefer to be here? Sure, he loves this place. This is where he lives. It's close to home. He knows the town. Like he would love to do it. Um, but also he has to be fair to himself. I don't disagree and I and I listen,
Patricia, I'm going to be very honest with you. Uh, and Al knows. Uh, I've become a huge fan of Al. I've gotten to know Al. I know how good he is. Uh, but I don't honestly appreciate the fact that you came in here today saying this is it and we're not willing to negotiate
anything. I I had some things that I wanted to talk about, you know, like the $500 a month stipen. Never heard of that before. You know, maybe that's good, maybe that's not good. I don't know. I was going to talk about that, but you've given us no choice. So now, basically, you just put our backs to the wall and
said, "This is it." Um, and so if that's the case, then I I'm going to have a problem with this, quite honest with you. Still love you though, Al. Yeah. You said in the beginning this was a negotiation from what you what you're saying is not a I don't I don't know that she said that.
I think that was one of the members of our public. What I came here to do was to sh was to try to explain to you why we are where we are and and having gone back through it and having gone through Brad's requests and having tried to accommodate as much as we could. So, we did do that. I I did do
that and I spent a lot of time doing that and then we got to a point where like okay here what we have now is what what is fair to Al and what he's prepared to do as a financial package. And so
that's what it is. Like that's what it's to do. Let me just be direct as I possibly can. And respectfully, very respectfully. Sure. I'll ask you, Al, straight up. Um we, you know, we were talking about, you know, maybe making some changes here and just seeing if it was something we could come to an agreement on. I just want to
make sure is is what Art said correct that these are the terms and we got to vote on this. Is is that your position? I I mean, I'm not trying to belittle the position. I'm not taking a position. I'm just asking is that what we're voting on? That's all. Yeah, certainly. Of course.
While they're speaking, I will also for clarity just for math since I'm back at napkin math all night tonight. He back uh our manager did voluntarily take a $67,000 reduction by going from 1,000 hours to 500. That's where $67,000 of potential
payout. So just keep that in mind that there was a reduction here. Reduction of what? I'm sorry. Huh? The reduction in the in the PTO. The PTO. What does a standard PTO go for normally? Well, at his prior two jobs, one had no
limit and got all paid out and one had a 970 hour limit that got paid out. Those are both way higher than the 500 that we did concede. And so yeah, we Okay, so let me let me ask you came in today with that with all the feedback if you don't mind
asking that you received and you got you you were saying there was a lot of negotiation between you and Brad back and forth in terms of you know his comments of what needed to happen until we land here. What of the things that you heard from the village through the
representation of um Brad that were in consideration? What were the things that were included that originally you didn't you didn't contact? If you look at the red line of my agreement, so you have you have in your
packet um a document that should have at the bottom of the first page a little bit of red. Yeah, that's the red line. And if you go through it, everything that I added there was to accommodate something that was in Brad's red line. So he gave me a red line. in some ways,
you know, I tried to understand what was he trying to do, what was this intended to do, and then tried to incorporate it as best I could into here. So, the things that I added that were from Brad's feedback are in red throughout the agreement here.
But, but can you point it alo salary for example? No, salary. Brad did not make an assertion on salary. Got it. So basically the things that we just talked about the health insurance sort of that back and forth of you know this is what we normally do for employees but you know this is what I
would want to see. Brad's feedback was here's what we've normally done and my feedback was what you've done in the past hasn't been for a person that has the qualifications and is prepared to do the job that this manager is prepared to
do. So it's like apples and oranges. Yeah. I I get what you're saying. All right. So, um, thank you. So, again, no, go ahead. Sorry. I was just going to say u I'd asked a question. Sure. No, I I had asked a question about about
this is basically this is the version with the modification of the 500. Correct. Right. And and I say that with your understanding that I did I did take in what Brad is trying to address those. We did come in today with a big concession to try to to to do something in that
regard, but that that already puts him well below, you know, his other benefits. And we're trying to keep even though he's taking a salary cut and now he's cutting his PTO essentially in half, we're trying to keep the rest of his benefits consistent with what he had
in the past. and and that's fair to him because if if you just take your average candidate off the street who's historically made X package, you know, running whatever they've run and then they come here and everything's less, it's it's not it's not forward progress. It's not consistent with their with
their own track record. So, and Oh, right. I just wanted to add one one quick point of additional context to what Commissioner Huntington said, just because this was my back of the matt napkin math on the PTO point. Um it was in the red line that uh Brad
had returned. It was reduced. It was reduced. I don't want to say reduced. It was modified to be consistent with what the village has done typically for other employees and that cap is 640 hours. Um so the what was the number we had talked about? Is that not correct?
Because I saw eight weeks plus four weeks per year. Yeah. But that was what he acrewed for annual leave. That's not his payout. So, and you're and again, I'm going to go back to the employee manual, but I do want to make well, let me do this one. Um, when I'm looking at the employee
manual, an employee of the village cannot carry more than 200 hours of annual leave forward at the end of the year. Okay. So, their payout could never be more than 200. Got it. Okay. Now I I understand
Vicious's position is not he's not a a regular employee. He's the manager. I I get that, but I'm just that that's the number. So the number you're talking about was the acrrual number, not the payout number. The acrruel. Got it. Okay. Got it. I just wanted to make there is um if if you're getting to the
point where you're um going to decide whether or not um you're going to accept this agreement as there is one point in one of these predictction protection but I certainly want you to be aware of it's an issue that
not not with Mr. Children but with managers in the past if you would you please highlight that would you please address that yes and and you and I Mr. talked about this. So there's there's the severance provisions are pretty clear as far as
the severance and the exceptions as they're in the agreement proposed by U. Patricia are essentially limited to um allegation of or termination for misconduct as defined by Florida
statute. Um there what I proposed to add to this section was also that the exception to severance would would also be for a breach of the manager is a breach of the agreement that was rejected. That means
if the manager breaches the terms and conditions of this agreement and you end up terminating him because he's breached the terms of this agreement, you're still going to have to give him his severance and you're going to still have to give him his separation benefits that he would would normally have gotten if
he would have left at the end of the contract or on normal terms. So I just if you recall with the former manager former manager breached the agreement where he he left his employee at the village without without giving the
proper notice and then demanded his his benefits and you all decided to give them to him. Um although there was a vision in that agreement that that excluded his sever his separation benefits the terms of condition
agreement all decided to give them to him because this has potentially to be a much larger amount than we're talking okay I just want you to be aware of that provision you're you're okay with it that certainly within your pro
Okay. All right. May I respond? Yes, please. Feeling like move court now. Um, so just a couple of things. If you look at the statutory definition of misconduct, which is what the severance statute requires there there be an exception for, it's very comprehensive
and if he if he's doing bad things, he can be gotten rid of for cause under that provision and then he wouldn't get the severance. Um and and also if he were to resign and just leave with short notice, he doesn't get the severance because if he resigns, he doesn't get
the severance unless it's something where there's a you know the the uh villages it according to as what's written in there if the village is doing something that violates the law or violates his rights etc. then he has a process where he can give the village notice and say hey please cure this and
if they don't cure it then he can leave and get severance as if he was terminated because it's essentially the same thing but if he just resigns and Brad's example was somebody resigned and they didn't give you very much notice that he would if he just resigns without
uh he he even if he gives you 30 days notice on voluntary resignation he doesn't get any severance and can I just jump ahead of you really quickly is that section division are you referring is that section 13 subb termination by employee resignation. Correct. That just for everyone's benefit, it
reads employee has the right at any time to voluntarily resign voluntarily resign from his employment by providing employer at least 30 days advance written notice of the effective of effective his resignation date. If employee voluntarily voluntarily resigns from his employment, then employer shall
not be obligated to pay the severance. That's correct. Yes. Actually, yeah. I think I'm Yes. Got it. Okay, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. Ask the attorney a question. Sure. Okay. Um, we got we still have an alleged This is alleged. We still have
four hostile claim that will be terminated cause or we have to still pay in the 70s. It would not. Well, that's what I'm at. That's a that's an interesting question because the I hate to do this here, but I'll do it
anyway. Um, so those are conduct alleged conduct that occurred prior to him entering this agreement. So I there would certainly be an argument that that if in fact that that conduct is is
somehow determined to be sustained that it does not it it does not fall into the because it was during interim and not the permanent contract. Got it. But the statute would cover the statute
would cover that kind of misconduct. I think it would depend on what's found but I mean so so hard sounds like a it sounds like a question that fires up right for big picture this the the legislature many years ago put in a statute that
says limited to 20 weeks in a in a contract and said in the statute your contract must have an exception to not pay severance if there's misconduct under this other statute. So what this does is exactly what the statute says. is the 20 weeks unless there's
misconduct under the statute. It's just the same thing the statute provides. It's it's asking is it's conduct that occurred prior to is employment the question that was being asked of the attorney. That's the question he's asking. If
the question is when he's terminated, is he terminated for misconduct prior to him entering into this agreement? I don't I don't I don't know that there's a distinction or not. I think that termination for misconduct is termination for misconduct. I think this is all I think we're
waiting into very speculative territory here. Um the question I think Okay. So all right because remember you guys can terminate him without cause without paying him anything. I mean and pay him or you can terminate him with cause and then and
then not pay him. That's that's really how it goes. If you terminate him without cause he gets paid and if you terminate him with cause he doesn't. So then let me try and get us to a conclusion here. Well, the conclusion of this item for right now. Yeah. Um the conclusion of
the item is again it's part of the question that I that I asked Al directly was it's this version of the agreement the version that you had redlined in return the the July 11th one with the the caveat that we are changing the thousand hours to 500 hours. Is that right?
Yes. Yes. you know, if there's a typo here or something that that's a legal issue that we can notice. I mean, we can those are the terms the material the monetary terms are all we tried to do this to what what the least is that Al is willing to take,
right? The substantive material terms are are there in the red line. We reviewed them with again that one caveat of the of the the hours the thousand to 500 cap. So that's the version that we we need to vote on because if we have any changes to it, we're not getting
Yeah, please. We don't in my opinion continue. Yeah. I think that we continue to go down. No, I'm sorry. Can you go down the list? Agree to disagree or agree to agree or whatever
we're going to do. Present them with want. then give them time to look. I think the the bigger issue is that we got this to but I think that if I think if we But go through the list
that we and then to give them times, right? Okay. Now, my my only only question exactly what you're saying makes a lot of sense, but are you going to be willing to listen to what the commission have and possibly change your mind? If if you're not going to change your mind, then we
need to decide to vote on it. I So, I'm just saying if if that if that's what you're going to say that there is no chance. If if anyone makes an offer to me for a client, I always and I have a duty to show it to my client and discuss it with my client. So, I'm not I would never say, "Oh, I'm going to throw it in the trash. I'm not going to do that." But I
I just want you guys to understand like this is the value that this that that Al brings. He brings this value. He's this is this is less than his prior packages. And I I believe that if the if the village understands his value, this this
will all make sense. Patricia, I understand his value. Trust me that I understand. Not only do I understand, I've seen his value. But I've lived this what he's going through. I've lived it. I left my former corporate job and joined another
corporation and I had to take a huge pay cut. Not because I wanted to. It's because that's what they've been offering. and I didn't have an option at that moment. Right. So, I understand what you're saying, but you know, we're responsible to the the the the community
and to the residents and we have to do what's the interest, not what my interest or Al's interest. It's what's the best for the residents of this community. So, we have to take everything into consideration. So, I think that we should do what I
suggested. go down the line, agree or disagree and then give them time to consider it and come back with a count and and not we can vote on it. If you guys want to vote on this, I can vote we can vote on it right now. It's up to you guys. Whatever you want. If I can say one last thing and I will
sit down. Famous last words. Um it is that if you take a chance on this and you do something a little outside of your comfort zone, it's going to be a historic move for the village because you haven't had a manager like this in the past. you haven't had a professional
manager, it it will pay for itself. This you are doing if you if you bring Al in and you give him the compensation package that is needed to get a manager like this in, he will serve and pay for itself. There will be benefit beyond he will pay for himself and I think he's
already been paying for himself and and so it that's that's just that cost should be factored in. Thank you. Thank you. Understand. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Hunting, you were gonna say something. Uh I'm just going to say let's I would like to get back to section by section.
Right now we have a proposal for 100% uh for employee and spouse and for one year of life insurance. We're talking a difference of $600 to say yes to this whole package as written or walk away. So to me, I'd say let's have a
conversation about this one. If we're if that's a line in the sand, I don't agree with it because you're sh you're talking about $600 here. Um but let's start moving down this. Uh yeah, yes, let's get back to it. I don't know that I was making it a line in the sand. I think it was more of a proposal to try and meet
what I was hearing, but um it sounds like the alternative is to accept the proposal as it's been written. Is that what you're saying? Well, I'm saying that that we we that we had Mr. Gonzalez said he was okay either way. So, he was okay with this section. I'm just talking to section five, right?
Yep. mayor has proposed uh 100% benefits for employee and spouse and six and with the one year so we're talking a savings of potentially $600 maybe less if if the quotes come in less that to me is not a reason at this juncture we're not continue down this
list $600 and we and by the way if you've agreed to the salary FICA FRS all those are given those are in so now we're down to the very minor meat and potatoes of this or not meat the very minor parts of this dish that
don't cost a lot of money. Does it all add up? Yes, it all adds up. But right now, we're talking about $600 to move to section six. So, for me, I agree. I agree. I agree with they're on the the spot on that. I think the difference is not going to be much on the rest. I think the main thing was the salary because that from that point,
everything is a percentage base that triggers. Sure. So, I think that's how you need to see it. Um I just want to state um again I obviously you guys know how I feel about the manager p in you know in this case but I looked at it as a as a position
itself. I couldn't agree more that this was a conversation to be had regardless whoever was sitting in this the position needed a better salary period. Um it was wrong to advertise for 100 you know definitely we needed to do the analysis.
I'm glad we had a vendor do that and with that came you know a range to be considered. I also want to caut cost you just to you know remember we had a lot of interests on this position. We had 14
candidates also and um I don't know if you did I did ask around about what the expectations on the salary was and no they were not all on top of the 210. Um and I think to ask a village of our size to start with a manager at this salary,
it's a it's a big ask. Uh but also what we don't understand in order to make the decision today if that's where you guys are hoping to do is what the impact is. We are not knowing what our budget is in any way. We don't know what the chief of
police is going to make. We don't know how that is going to trigger down the rest of the staff. Um, I could tell you that morale wouldn't be great if I hear that my employer, my boss is making a better health insurance plan than
anybody else. Um, I would be the first one knocking on the door. So, I think this is going to trigger historically the largest contract you guys are thinking of passing. Um, also other considerations that were not discussing.
Um, because if the idea is to go point by point, those are going to be out. We don't know what the budget's going to be. Again, I think that it is going to be a positive note, but this has other effects. The other thing I have reservations about, and I'm not
directing this to Albert again with the position itself, is that if you're paying 150, which is 50% more than what we used to pay, huge increase for anybody, any position, corporate, government, you name it. We could move
them make them move. What does it mean in terms of the contract with services that we've signed? I mean, I can tell you because for some of the contracts we've signed, we there's been a contract for $25,000 approved to get help with procurement. That's not going to fall in the lap of the manager anymore. There
was a contract for $15,000 put to a vendor to help us with the ARPA funds. Very needed. $15,000 additional. All this and I'm I'm stopping there because that's what I know. I've asked uh two weeks ago but I haven't received yet the list of all the
contracts. I wanted to understand what are we paying in consulting fees. So these are hands are going to be helping the manager on top. This is not just in the past Mario which make a 100 grand um was by himself trying to figure this
out. It wasn't someone doing procurement. He did it in the past. Anna Garcia same situation. So we had different managers go through the challenges of not having enough money or hands you know and there is no assistant manager. All of this very true. So I'm
happy we're here having the conversation. I'll leave it at that. I think it's needed to consider but the impact is far beyond this just this contract and I think it's very narrow just to see this numbers and go one by one to understand if this is the right
contract for Albert because what the attorney is here to do is prove the point that no better manager well we went through a lot of great managers that were willing to take less didn't get to the negotiation so that's her job
is to tell us why this matters you you understand I don't see the value in Albert and that's why I wouldn't vote for this to move forward. I do see the value for restructuring the salary once and for all. Yes. But this is a nit
because the impact will be huge. So if I had at my hands to the point of um art uh that um that you were making you know we don't have all the information we just got this two days ago. I would want to know, can we have a contract base of how many vendors are assisting or, you
know, are we going to keep kind of pushing contracts for us to help us out on top of paying $331,000 salary plus benefit to the next manager? Those are questions that sort of came up to me. Um, I think I think I think based on the
conversations that we're having tonight, yeah, we're going to have additional thought reviews. Okay. I don't know. That's why that I I wanted to put that before because the way it's going at the beginning of the conversation one was well if we all
agree then it moves forward. Yeah. Yes. That's negotiation. The context is what I want just to again part of the discussion that my feedback I'm giving again you guys know how I feel. It's far
more than just the points of this contract. My question to Paul was what does it mean on the budget? His feedback was we'll make room. The manager's responsibility is to make room for that. Of course, we don't know how much it's going to be. I want to know where are
plans for CIP. I want to know where our plan we we're not even there yet to understand what this is. I asked Paul, what does it mean in terms of millage rate? The 10% of the millage rate for us is $42,000.
$42,000 is a tenth of a millage rate. We're increasing salary. We're doubling salary. So in essence, we have two times that at least here just on one salary. we don't know how much the rest of the structure and again a part of the
conversation when we were thinking about the departmental uh presentations was to understand what your vision was right I don't have that clear I don't know how the public works is going to look like I don't know how the police department finalized structure is going to look like all
these expenses I don't know so saying blindly let's review this contract approve an increase of over 100% that's what it is if you make at versus the previous manager hoping that the rest
takes place is leaving the village behind. The the attorney's job is to make Albert's job, you know, responsible for shining today. He is putting himself first and I understand that. That's how
I see it. And I think our job is to look at the broader picture that is not just this. So again, you guys know how I feel. Well, I made my my comments about the points we've seen so far. I'm happy to continue doing that. It's just an overall I think we're being very narrow.
I just thinking this is it. We'll hope that the rest happens. I haven't seen it and I I would love to see you know when you talk about savings that would have been my first uh proposal today. I would have been I already saved you this much that proves my job and my worthy and my
value. I'll do it again and you'll get the money. I don't have that. I just have a contract that is very rigid as we seen and it's uh this is it. Um with that in mind, happy to continue doing this. Uh but I wanted to give context as
to where I think we're not looking. I would like to rebug that. Uh commissioner talked about impacts a lot and you have to look back at the impact that manager children has had since you've been here. The American Rescue Plan funds were suggested to be given
back $1.5 million. This village was going to suggested give back. Why was I to suggest to give back? Because we because fire prior managers did not do their due diligence. The money was not was not allocated properly. It was not being spent. Yeah. These managers saved those funds and with the use of appropriate vendors
helped us get it back into compliance and get that money spent on the residents. We pay $15,000 for that to happen which I $15,000 reimbured out of the American Rescue. Correct. That's what I'm saying. I mean in a way we're paying that money could have been used for something else. My
point is commissioner I gave you time. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You're sorry I didn't want to. We also got state appropriations this year which we did not get. We got vetoed last year. So they have another $400,000. But if you look at the financial statements, look at the money he's
saving. He's saving dollars. We think have spent $120,000 removing dangerous trees. So we've done major projects in that time. Our employees morale is up. If you ask our employees, he actually sit down with them, the employee morale is high. There's been a very large
impact because of this management. Even our vendor who uh covers our finance department says we are in a better financial place than we've ever been in this village. And that's a longstanding vendor who's covered our finance department for a long time. To have that opinion is huge. So right now we're
we're working down this list and we're going to get to a very small number that's going to be a line in the sand whether or not to continue with this contract or not. Yeah. But when we talk terms of impact, I just want that to be to think about that impact. When we talk about other candidates, one of the three candidates that sat up here was employed
within 24 hours of work of of sitting in this this room for a very comparable salary to what we're what what manager children is asking. So if we would have employed him 24 hours later, he would have resigned from us. We would have had the shortest history uh of a village manager ever in Biscane Park, 24 hours.
So that also has to be considered. the five-year term is shows his commitment to this village that that other candidate would have committed 24 hours and rightfully so because it would have been a much higher salary for him. We don't know but but don't believe that you don't believe that. I hear you and I think at the at the end
that's why it's my baseline. Um I I don't have the tangible numbers to give value right now. Um that's it, you know. All right. So, look, I I appreciate both both opinions on that and I think you
both made it very clear on how how we're kind of viewing this uh you know, micro macro. So, I I do I do think it's important that we get through it, though, because if there's going to be a continued conversation, we got to get through it. So, let's let's look at this based on what Commissioner Huntington
and Commissioner Gonzalez said about section 4. I'm going to withdraw that that proposal to the one because you're to your point, it's it's a very small amount of money. So, it sounds like you would put forward that we just I think we're in section
I'm sorry, section five. My apologies. Section five. It sounds like Commissioner Huntington that you were putting you were putting forth a proposal to approve section five as it's written. Okay. Do we have is I'm just going to ask down the line because it's the best way to do it. Commissioner
Gonzalez, how do you feel about that? I think there should be a contribution from employees. I am I I I contribute like I said. Um but I'm going to go ahead and agree to this just to say that you know I want I want this to work out
to be honest with you guys. Um but I did come here thinking that we were going to talk about and have opportunities to negotiate certain things and the fact that that's that wasn't given as an option is a big problem for me. Right. So uh I don't know if you came here thinking the same or you came here
thinking this is it. this is the deal. I didn't. Um, so, but I'm gonna agree to this part. So, section five, I'm good with it. I respond I respond to the same thing. I thought we were going to negotiate, but to get this moving forward, I'll agree
to five. If if uh, Commissioner Ryan is correct that it's only going to be at $600. That's pennies. But I I really feel strong that I thought we were going to come here to negotiate, not to Well, I think I think to to both of your points, I think that's what we're going to do and we're going to leave it in um
the attorney's capable hands. We don't we don't know how it how much it is or do we how much would that be? If you're leaving what the attorney when we make not your at not you attorney's attorney that we're going to make some comments and
both of you on this side can let us know how you feel about those. Do we know how much impact that is or no? We're just leaving that open to to be the light for the health insurance. You do think we're talking about the life insurance the one year to the two years that we don't know. Okay.
It's minimal, but we can Paul, is it a safe assumption to say that it's at least it it's somewhere in the ballpark of 600? It's it's two years. So, is it twice the correct? Yeah, that that's that's we should run with that in light of no other information. Okay.
I agree with you. It's not going to be more than 600. Okay. All right. The additional I'm sorry. The additional premium. Oh, drastic. I I I don't think you Okay, then that's that's fine. You insure one Toyota Camry and it's 600 bucks. You insure the second Toyota
Camry, they're going to give you for 800 bucks. Okay, fine. Double I I'm I'm comfortable with your proposal, Commissioner Huntington, for section five. Correct. Commissioner Ams, I mean, I know we already have
consensus, but I don't want to I I would leave um Thank you. um life insurance premium to be the same as we carried before on previous managers which would not be what's proposed. Okay, understood.
All right. Um scrolled all the way down. Sorry. Six is our next section. The additional benefits. It was a minor change here, Brad. Correct. minor proposed change. Should I say get
to it? Sure. I switched gears. We do that quickly, Brad. Um well you know the so the way that it's proposed
by the segment is in addition to the insurance and other benefits stated in this agreement employees also entitled to any benefits which is are now furnished to or which is or are under furnished to department head. Quite frankly you don't treat your
department head any differently than you regular. So in in effect it doesn't really make much of a difference. I understand. So right just a question. So what stays is it
department heads of employer or is it your change of of full-time? Leave it as it is. I don't think it makes a difference. Okay. All right. So then I'd propose no change to section six. Is there any opposition? No. No. All right. Let's go to section section seven.
Uh annual vacation leave sick time. Annual vacation leave sick leave PTO. This is the one madam attorney that you said from a,000 to 500. Okay. Yeah. Oh, that's
not in this section. It's further down. Well, yes, at the bottom of the section. Sorry. Can I ask a question on this? So during the as an interim um the the manager had some um we we've sort of negotiated on
an hourly rate if if not I'm not mistaken. Right. So that's a difference that coming from an interim to a full-time manager that would change in the contract or not get a weird high. It was basically a salary. He was salary
But if he was taking time off, he was not to be compensated for that time he took off. But then he was supposed to be compensated for time that he worked over and above 40 hours a week. So it it was Yeah, it really was. It was a hybrid of
of which is not normally what we would do. It's very unusual contract to say the least. Yeah. Somebody is either salaried or they're paid hourly. You kind of combine the two. from no benefits and what you were
paying them and you'll agree to that. All right. Okay. So, basically, if I'm reading this right, that's it's a it's a week a year, right? And then an additional two days every year. Is that is that what I'm
seeing here? Uh uh Brad um that 240 hours uh gets 240 hours upon execution, right? And that 240 every year. So that's two weeks a week a year, right? Basically two 240.
It's a per year or no? Yes. Yeah. It's it's vacation time whatever time off whatever. But that is not a one week a year, right? One week would be 40 hours, right? 240 weeks means how many? 40 hours.
Yes. So 40 hours is one week. He's asking for six weeks. Six weeks vacation. Six weeks per year. Per year. An additional six weeks on year two. Is that what I'm reading? Each additional year. So on the anniversary, he gets another six weeks.
That's 12 weeks, right? It keeps And it keeps on and then and then is there a cap? Well, the cap turns out it it looks the cap is now thousand. It would 500
but I mean it's never cap. The way your your your way your employees are treated presently just excluding the manager for a minute. They get 200 they can acrew up to 200 hours of leave per year. They have a
buyout provision, but they can't once they get to 200 hours, they don't acrue any other anything more. That there is no stopping under this provision. There's no stopping of the acrewing of the acrewing amount of hours. So, he could have I'm just throwing a number
up. He could have 2,000 hours acrewed. It's just he can and he could use those hours while he's employed. It's just upon his separation he would only get a maximum of five out. So what are what what are we g what did
we give our previous manager as far as uh PTO on a yearly basis? He was given the same as um as employees as every other employee which is say that again which was up to two I up to 200 hours. Yeah. Let me give me one second. I had
it here. There there was a provision that they could have some sort of compensation time. Yeah, I have it right in front of me, Paul. So, it's um so employees may acrew an annual vacation annual leave of up to a maximum, I'm sorry, of 240 hours. When
they acrew 140 240 hours of of leave, they stop acrewing that time until the employees balance goes below the 240. Um and then it says no more than 240 hours, it's not 200, it's 240, I'm sorry, hours acred um may may be carried forward into
the next year. And then there's a there's a leave payment provision which says an employee that's where I got the 200 from employee may elect to be paid for acred unused leave up to a maximum of 200 hours provided that they must
maintain at least one work week of time um in their in their leave balance. So if you can put it in in straight up numbers an employee um uh currently how much time in weeks if you can say that
does they have vacation a year it can acrew up to 240 hours which is how many weeks? Six weeks so the acred mean you have to work the entire year in order to be granted 240 hours. Yes. You get it as as you go getting it up they're not
getting it frontloaded. Yes. So I could 200 this contract says work a year or you know you can acrewue on on this percentage we say you don't use any vacation at the end of the first year you have six weeks of vacation
right correct and if you on the following year you have six weeks additional is that what it it means we're asking on the contract yes yes so he could yes so under this contract he would earn
240 hours upon signing the agreement and then on his one-year anniversary he would earn another 240 hours. So I think the question you're asking is if he didn't take any time any PTO during the first year then on the anniversary he
would get another 240 front end so he would have 480 hours if it was unused. Okay. And then it goes then again every year on his anniversary he would get um okay so the second year
80 hours so it goes 240 248 okay and again u just so we're clear on this provision um the next sentence in there where it says the the use of PTO by the employee shall be approved in writing by the mayor
under your form of government, the mayor doesn't have the authority to um approve the manager's a time off. So, we would if if you want to keep that provision in there, um we would have to pass some kind of a resolution authorizing the
mayor. Generally, the manager just notifies the commission. he or she's taking time off and they take their time off and if commission as a whole doesn't like the timing of it they comment on
but that's something that can be done minor court. All right. So the in the final portion of this this agreement is the thousand hours that we've been talking about that would be reduced to 500. So please everyone consider that. There any
questions? Uh from this end, you're still on section seven, right? That's correct. We haven't moved on from section 7. No, I'll just I mean I'll provide my feeling on it that you know if manager children were to get this contract and want to cash out all 500 hours that he's
allowed to cash out, he would not be able to use the six weeks a year because he save something for the end to have the 500 hours. If he does use more than six weeks a year, the number of 500 would go down. Uh so that and that if he uses 200 or the 240 a year that's at no
cost to the village because it's not we're not paying him double if no cost. The only times it's a cost when he gets 500 in his bank at the end that would be our cost. So the only time where there's an additional cost to the village is if he retires here leaves here with 500 hours. He leaves here with 2,000 hours we're only paying 500.
So for me that the if he leaves right? Yeah. Yeah. if he gets to the end of his his his term and we pay out the 500, even has 2,000 in his bank, we pay out 500. That's it. Um, and to get there, he can't use six weeks a year. Now, he could frontload it and not use anything
for the first three years and then take a bunch of vacations, but that has to be approved by the manager. And if he takes, by my math, it would be 10 months at the end uh of if he never took a vacation day from now until year five. I'm pretty sure that would be uh looked out for if he left the bridge for the
last year. So, um, for me, this is Yeah, I have no problem with he he took a $67,000 concession in section seven. Yeah, I have a just a quick question on that. So, if I read the contract correctly,
they want this retroactive to when we voted for him, right? That would be when the term begins. Yes. The term of the contract be retroactive to just the salary? Yeah. Oh, just the salary. Oh, okay.
So, does that answer your question? So, any vacation that was taken after that, would that apply here? Sure. Did you take anything in June? No. And and but I'm pretty sure any vacation you took was unpaid. Okay.
Yeah. Yeah. So, the vacation you took was unpaid. Fine with this random that way. Agreement though. on June 3. So you look at the term section if it's just the salary. Can we make it
applicable? It doesn't just to that provision. But but again, he didn't take any vacation in June. So it's not like he could retroactively get paid out for the vacation he did not take. So he would acrew it, but he can't use it because June already happened. No,
I can I can say he will not he's not asking for any retroactive PTO. So that's why it says when he starts he gets that first 240 hours. He's just been working without PTO. So it he's not trying to bring back door any kind of
benefit. He just wants the salary retro. Got it. Thank you. My only my only question about that is um I for me personally, I don't know who's going to be in in this seat going forward. I don't know how I feel about just unilaterally just saying, "Okay, you're good to go." If because I mean, traditionally, as I understand it, this
position um is is one of five. Um so that's the only provision I'm not terribly comfortable with. What do you mean one of five? Sorry. One one seat of one commissioner of five commissioners. I I don't The mayor doesn't the mayor position the chair doesn't have any other any more power
than any other commissioner. Proposing a change. Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. language changed from by the writing of the mayor to by consensus of the commission. I agree with that. I mean, the way it's been done before is the manager's always just told us he's going and if somebody has a problem, we we just say, "Okay, well, look, there's
an issue there." But I I would just honestly I just strike this portion. Well, so so he wouldn't need to ask permission to No, this is just saying it's that that the mayor gives the approval and put an article. I don't think that I don't think we don't have the wording and based on
what Brad just mentioned I think that cannot happen unless we change that. I'm saying is mayor the manager doesn't work for the mayor. Correct. Well, what I'm saying is take that point out because I don't I don't want to and for anyone else that holds the position in the future. I
can't speak for them, but I just don't want to be unilaterally responsible for saying yes, it's okay and then the commission says why. And historic historically the Sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. Sorry. the managers I think your idea about putting this commission because the managers always send an email to all the commissioners saying that I'm going
on vacation. So I I like your your idea is much better. I mean it has to be approved that it can't be just an email I'm going on vacation. So it has to be an item put in the agenda and ask for permission for you know we historically have not asked for permission but it would right it would revert. Can I can I just mention Okay. So is and
again um based on six weeks of ac cruel time on vacation that means that you would need to work 6 months and after the six months you could potentially take three weeks off. I would right what do you mean
he patientually soon as he signs the contract okay so he can start next month take two two weeks off So I think um it's important I mean uh to know these things in advance. If if
that has been done in the past it's bad practice. There is no reason why in any company that you just send an email to your boss saying I'm leaving for three weeks and that will be I mean let me know which company does this. You normally go and request for this and
have questions about it like is your stuff done? Who's you know sitting on your behalf? who's managing this. So that was probably a very bad practice. We never discussed that. And this is the opportunity to fix it. So that's why I was asking if you're requiring to
scratch out as you're you know you're proposing scratch out that it's just me. I would extend it to the commission because that's how we rule. Our charter is done that we all take part on a majority vote to do that. And it could be addressed as an item coming up, you
know, and he can put it as I'm leaving vacation. Yes. Yes. Yes. majority goal and and it happens but we wouldn't be able to do that without a public meeting because I don't think you can poll so it has to be sunshine how it would have to be done it would have to so which requires planning which vacations to take
on that topic a a CEO doesn't ask a board of directors when they can go on vacation and he's act he acts like a CEO for us we're the board of directors no um and so ultimately it's his responsibility to make sure nothing happens and everything is taken care of
and all of the responsibilities are are checked off and and crossed. Um, so I I don't have any problem with him making those decisions. Got it. Okay. The only thought I want to add is, you know, if he's got a doctor's appointment coming up, he needs to be off for a day or two because then to
come to a whole meeting for a doctor's appointment, it seemed a lot. So, we just did the mayor thing to just have a deal with sick days as well, right? to your point that that's true that you would operate
very similar ways is he would notify the commission by email that he's taking vacation and if somebody has an issue with it they they address manager taking vacation like like for instance if if the manager decided to
take vacation in the middle of budget oh you're gonna you're going to rate his performance this time that something would want to bring up and there's not a valid explanation for it and disciplinary hat and and in fairness to
Mr. showed us he's given us at least I got enough notice of one vacation. He didn't say I'm going on vacation tomorrow. I I think you have given a couple months notice that you I'm going on vacation. So yes, and I agree if you did that during the budget season then I would have a problem with that. But
but the point is that you could do that. I don't think he will. I think you have consensus to strike it, Mary. So do we have consensus to strike that? Yes. Strike it. Yes. Not with me. No. Okay. Right. Um
just being yeah the mayor being this that that sole authority. I don't I don't think that it's Yeah. And that would be uh no requirement to us for permission just a notification. Just reverts back to the way that it's been handled. Okay. Yeah. Okay.
Um All right. So uh All right. So I was comfortable with the remainder. That was my only my only change. So I I think that we already have consensus on that point. But, um, Commissioner Ams, do you, um, is there anything you want to add for section 7? Uh, no. I think, um, I I made my point
already. Okay. Yes. All right. Correct. Yes. Okay. Um, all right. Section 8 is um, uh, automobile. Uh, there were a couple of changes there. Um, right. I understand. uh is are does
anyone have any kind of substantive or material questions about the the red line that had been proposed or do we just want to go ahead on the just just to understand here so when it comes from finance and I see cell phone allowance I mean why is it included as a
package compensation and not I mean is this something you're ahead of us we're on section eight sorry we're on section eight sorry I jumped to no problem cell phone and tip end okay I know automobile I know just looking back at the numbers that you had brought up to us. Um, Commissioner Amsler, this is traditionally something that we
provided a stipen to for previous managers, but um, we are not doing that here. It's not included in this vision. So, is there any questions from your end on what you want to do? I missed what you just said. Say that again. Well, if you look back at the spreadsheet, if you go back to to going back to Chris, we gave $4,800 a year for
vehicle, but that's my understanding that's not being requested in this section. But a vehicle is being requested. Yes. But we he still drove a vehicle. I think our previous manager had both. Yes. Typen and a vehicle that was ours. So he did not drive a village vehicle.
No. When he when he took the village vehicle, he removed the expense for the $400. He didn't I understand. Okay. Not take both at the same time. Just I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Clerk. So, Commissioner Huntington, do you have anything on section 8?
No, not at all. Mayor Gonzalez, no. Vice Mayor? No. So, are you saying to add include an No, no. I was just making an observation that apparently was only half correct. Okay. So, there is no um proposal for
a stipend a separate stipen for an automobile or anything, right? The village is providing a vehicle and that's part of the expense stipend. No, it is not. So why there's no separate line item for we haven't Yeah, there's a separate section for the the section you're talking about
there. Oh, we're not there yet. That's what I'm saying. So I I just usually we would see this here when you have vehicle allowance for for example for Chris was $4,800, right? And in this case, we don't have it. Correct. So I was just wondering he's not asking for a separate line item
for vehicle. thing I will mention and this is something I you didn't include is is it anticipated that the village vehicle can be used for personal business for for personal use? No.
I'll leave that to you all to decide that. um long as my guess is and I can verify that as long as that's in his agreement the insurance carrier will cover. So is that a question? So we don't know
if it's going to be covered for personal. I'm I'm barely I'm I'm very confident that they will as long as that's a permitted use. It's I know we've dealt with that when it comes to take-home cars with it built with police vehicles.
Basically, what the insurance carrier will do is look to your policies and procedures or or the agreement you're allowing and they're going to cover it. I was just wanted to make sure that you all understand it's basically
for context though. He's he says in this provision that he's going to leave it at village hall if he leaves town. So he's not going to take it on a trip to Orlando. It would be around town and that is a very standard benefit for administrative taking a position or another um I'm I'm
fine with it. I mean remove that that would be punishing him that he lives so close. If he took it to Orlando then I would have a problem but I don't think he would do it. He's over there short for here. He has to leave in a village hall if he leaves town. No that's that's yeah right. So I'm not hearing any other change of opinion from this side. Uh, Commissioner, any other change on
opinion based on what we've heard or I hadn't even asked your opinion, so I apologize. No, that's fine. I I mean, it's I wonder if a car is even needed. Um, yes, we've done it in the past. Uh,
we didn't agree during his entering position, but he's using a car, so I don't see why it wouldn't be now to be honest with you. I leave that up to you. I don't think it's needed. Just want to clarify he did use a call
in when he went in term right I mean when you that's what I said so it wasn't negotiated as a benefit it was taken as a benefit without being negotiated um no what I'm saying is when we approved
it was salary with no benefits we we said no benefits at the time so okay that's fine that's fine So that's what I'm saying. I I I didn't think it was needed, but in the past we've done it. I understand it. I don't know why it's higher than what it used to be and
we don't know how much the impact on uh insurance is going to be if there is any. But these are the questions that again uh we don't we don't know. Um I would ask Paul to confirm. You said higher than it used to be. What do you mean? Well, Chris used to be 4,800 and just
his he's not there is no separate line. I Okay. Okay. So, it's for anything besides just the car. It's just providing a village vehicle. Commissioner, I think you're you're confusing uh sections. We're talking section 8, which is just on mobile. Yeah. The stipen you're talking about,000 is under section 9
separate stipen. Okay. So, what what I'm saying is if you if you look at this, I don't know if you can see this Excel that I have behind me. I see I see. Yes. But there's a vehicle. Exactly. So, I was comparing that and it's not comparing apples to apples. Get it? I get it. Yeah.
Great. Uh, and I'm I'm I'm comfortable with section 8 based on what um the commissioners have said. So, there's consensus on eight. Well, there was already consensus on eight before it got to us. Um, all right. Uh, section nine is cell phone and stipen. This is the one that you were you were talking
about. Hope I get my cell phone. You can just pick up where you left off if you want to. Um, sorry. I was just comparing here what we used to pay. Okay. So, for Chris, we pay 5.59 annually. Uh, cell phone allowance
here is at 1,800. Again, not not nominal uh to to make changes here. But my I was wondering why is it even here as a as a benefit? We have this as part of a contract. I'm guessing this part of the administration con um budget that we have. Um why is it considered as part of
the package if we have a negotiated rate for cell phones across the board for uh employees? Why why do we need the extra $1,800 for think all employees have
Yes. Exactly right. Like I don't know if all not all of them. Okay. Not all of them. Al doesn't have a village issued cell phone. That's I don't have mine. He's seeking the stipen. That's consistent with what he's always had. So, aren't we paying already this out of the administration um budget? There is a
line for No, you say no. You're using your phone. You have a plan that gets to you based on the phone. So, Chris used to pay his own phone, too. Chris had a a village phone. How come we How come you've been using your employ money for paying? This is
crazy. I mean, that's what I'm saying. What I see here is we used to have $600, you know, for Chris. We used to pay for it. We have $1,800 here now. I understand how commissioner, if I can give some clarity, too. I've had discussions with the manager, his intention to remove
that line item for Chris's old phone. I think it's still under our account. So that way that would be a budget savings and offset some of this uh cell phone allowance by removing the cost of that phone from the village. I mean it makes sense you have to have to me is the manager has to have his phone paid for. I mean it's crazy to
think if that's happening you know that you pay regardless of what it is to be honest with you. It could be more than this. You have to have it covered. So that's all I say. Okay. Um that was my question too is if it's already in the budget then we can then I would imagine be struck struck from the budget if it's here. So that
that makes sense. Um what? Okay. So I I want to do the whole section here. So um was there any other questions about the the line item for the phone? No. Okay. Um and what about um expense stipen? Was there any questions on this side um about expense? This the siphon?
No. None. Yeah. I I I I just want to know what we've done in the past. I I don't have anything here that um as if you can see the Excel art. Um, there's never been a provision in a contract for that. I guess then the the the follow-up
question to that is what's the purpose of this the year? If I can piggyback on that question, Paul, has there never been a line item? But has there been expenses that has been uh reimbursed that would cover the become
never contractual? It I mean it would have been in the admin budget if they you know the the previous manager would bring donuts and coffee and and just get reimbursed for it. those types of things. The manager bought a new pen, you know, that he liked better, he might he would get reimbursed on a
surprise. Yeah, those would have been done by a receipt, you know, type exchange, any qualifying expense. So, I I don't know uh any more than that on this line item. Can you explain what that one will be,
Mr. Manager? So, so the intention is to remove it from the line item of the budget for the admin or Yeah. and then and then replace it with this contractual cost. Okay. Okay. Um what is that cost currently? That's slush fund that you're
It was 10 10,000. Oh, but you're talking about uh what is that what is that called in the discretionary fund? Oh, but it's contingency. Contingency. That's that part of the contingency. Oh, okay. Because I I've never I've
never seen that before. That line item was created for Chris uh for multiple uses. He used it utilized it for uh employee bonuses, uh employee retention, uh things like of that nature, but he also utilized it for I think staff lunches a couple times. So,
it's it's been used for very similar expenses that I the manager says he's going to be using it for. Okay. So, we would we would be in effect just drawing down the budget item and replacing it with this contractual item. The only the only the only question that I have about this is is the following.
If it's a budgeted item, then we have more control. We have more saying that Um, so if it's a a line item in the budget, we have more control, more precise. Uh, giving him 500. Not saying
that he's not going to do anything with the 500, you know, and it's about Al, anybody that would be in that uh I'm giving them $6,000 and I have no idea what they're going to do with that $6,000. So, if it's line item,
um then we going to need receipts going to need to be audited. That's the only issue. This has nothing to do with how giving somebody sits down have
my problem. Um, but you'll still be able to Yeah, this should be more accountability. Uh, Commissioner um I I think I apologize just for the benefit of what we just discussed, the manager
had expressed to us that this item in the budget like the discretionary kind of fund for the manager that we have in the budget basically being replaced by this. So it would be like a swap. We would remove the budgeted item for the the contingency or whatever I
forget the name of it that we had in the budget. um discretionary fund, contingency, whatever it was, and replaced by this. And so this means that what it I mean, Paul, what does it mean for the like month-to-month tracking of the the
budget? I I I'm not quite clear on what this line item is is. I couldn't hear the answer that might have been given, what it's for, and how it would be spent. If it's an automatic payment in in pay, it would have to have FICA and everything taken out of it and it would have to,
you know, it would be treated as as salary. Uh but if it's a an allowance uh that he like a credit card for instance that he could be authorized to spend up to 500 per month, then it would have receipts etc. So then it wouldn't the trick I'm worried about is whether it
would be treated as a salary and need or if it's not then it needs to have a paper trail of a you know of receipts. So, it's not a sal a benefit that has to be taxed. So, it's a little tricky. I'm not sure what it it it's described. I thought the attorney might speak up and
tell us what this is about. We might find out. So, hang tight. Receipts. He's happy to give you receipts, but you know, it's like sometimes you you meet up with somebody for a coffee at a, you know, Dunkin Donuts and you're getting receipts for four bucks. Like, but you know, it's
town business. But yeah, he he's happy to give receipts if you guys want receipts. So, one will be with receipt, but it would still be part of the salary. Is that what we're saying? Yeah. So, it's additional to the salary,
but then he would have to uh come back to us up to $6,000 with receipts on a monthly b on an annual basis. Getting Well, can you hear Brad? No, I can't. Brad's almost always inaudible.
I do that on purpose. Um, smart. Can Can you hear me now? Yes, sir. All right. We're doing a telephone commercial. So, what they're what essentially what they're saying is for five he will receive an additional stipend of $500 a month in his paycheck,
which he can use for certain incidentals costs that that just are attributable to the manager conducting business. he takes somebody out to lunch, you know, then we don't need we don't need receipts. We don't need anything. It's just it's going to it'll add a little bit of tax dollar, you know, allocation
on his part in our part for FICA and stuff. It's not it's going to be treated as income. Yeah, it'll be treated as income. So, it would go up in the salary as a base of 216 instead of 210. uh on a paycheck it would um you know if it were
an expense report you'd have you know it would have to it would have to come with the the receipts. So I mean for simplicity let's just call it salary and if he's happy with that that's totally fine. It's much easier and I mean I understand the the convenience of of
just being able to spend it and not worry about the paperwork. I can totally get that. Okay. So you say yeah. No, I'm not I'm not okay with raising the already 210 salary to 216 so that it can be treated
that way. It's okay. So just on the on the reference that we've never done this before. We we have been so good at putting this in the budget. We have a contingency. Usually we asked what the contingency was used about. poll, you're
going to come with a wonderful Excel Excel sheet that you've been working on to show how um AP has been put in this to to um reality, right? Where we track everything we assign on the budget to spend. And that's what I want to see. I
want to have in a question and say how much money was spent in donuts and coffee. Hopefully there is a lot, you know, like there is uh stuff needed for those things, but we've been budgeting that on the administration side as a contingency budget. I wouldn't want to change that. No.
And can't we just uh get a credit card for the manager and cap it $500 a month and say, "Hey, you can use this for 500 bucks." And you know, and then it's a very simple because you get a statement every month and you know what what's what. How do you pay currently for gas
the vehicle? Okay. But normally, but you don't have a a a So, wouldn't that be just a simple solution to just take a credit card and and uh and just say it's capped at $500 a month and that's that cracker jack and then we have that we have, you know,
what's what it was spent on and whatnot. I I I agree with that. I think that would be a good idea just to be $500. Just so I understand. So, you're okay with increasing it to $6,000 extra a year via a credit card so you can track
it better? But for for company use, in other words, no, the coffee for the the donuts, for the uh Little John's or whatever the name of the restaurant is, Jimmy John's. Uh
uh yeah, Jimmy John's. uh you so so there's some kind of you know so there's no kind of paper trail here and again nothing to do with Al this has to do with whome whomever we give an additional $6,000 a year to that we know that they're using
it for legit reasons uh for this is yeah this is not a benefit to him this is a you know the village gets a a credit card yeah so so the way I see it is when you do that um you're requiring a a trail or specific that amount towards a credit
card. So there has to be a control factor. I think having it in the budget is that we are the controllers of that. Every budget besides the salary that we are proven I think it needs to go through a budget into administration so that we can ask questions as to where was that spent and that comes forward
not as a policy of payment like we put a policy up to 6,000 for payment through a credit card. I don't even know we have a policy in place related to credit card use. um that that was one of the things we were hoping to get with Paul and Paul you let us know but what I'm saying is I
think it's worked fine to have that as a contingency spend in the budget into administration we can you know as the year moves along we can ask questions as to what you know if we see an expense and you know was this oh we had a birthday party to
celebrate came out of there it's the village it's not the manager and I think that that I keep want to keep it in the administration portion for the village. Yeah, for me, uh, I'm fine with leaving it as is. I'm fine with with the credit card as well if that's a will of
commission. Uh, because the manager and this council has already said that they're willing to provide receipts. So, if there is, you know, they're willing to provide that, you know, control over it, then I'm fine with that. I I appreciate that concession. That was my concern as well is to make sure it's being spent on v not not to al, but
again, whoever sits in that chair, make sure it's being spent on village business. But as long as we're okay with as long as the provision of receipts are in there, I'm fine with either way it it shakes up. Uh look, I I think a a good medium here would be then to provide those receipts
and do it through through a credit card the way that art has has proposed it because that alleviates the issue of of adding this as looks like a salary to to still providing the stipen that he's requesting uh in a way that's got the transparency that we want. So I think
that's fine because the 500 he's not benefited and the village is benefited. I mean well I don't so it's really not a salary. I mean, I don't sit up here and expect to accuse of him using it for personal reasons. So, but if this is if this is the the added layer of security
and help that that we need, then fine, then I'm fine with that. So, let me ask you by doing that, I mean, what Paul mentioned is that that will come as to part of his salary. I It's just the way you're spending it, but then salary would go from 210 to 216. Are we saying that?
Not if we do the credit card strategy that that eliminates that. And then and it does save it saves everybody a little bit of money because then it's not a benefit that has to be taxed. Okay. Okay. I get what you're saying. So it's like um a prepaid card for a certain amount of money that you can
use. Something like that, but it's not necessarily coming from his salary. We'll figure it out if if we get to vote. Okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. Okay. So I think that covers that
section. Uh section nine. Um, section 10. Uh, as far as I'm concerned, section 10 is statutory. It's required. I don't really see that there's much room to change this, but open to any comments. I would leave as is
the head shaking for one. Yeah. That is that what you're saying? I think we're we're required to I don't think we're required according to what I just read. Um, but anyway, but forget about what is required. I just I'm just my question is have we done
this in the past for somebody else? Paul, can you hear us Paul? Yeah, I'm here. What is the provision? I I'm not FRS FRS. Yeah. Yeah. Our our our understanding is that the the village is in the system and it it is required.
Oh, okay. That's because we're in the system, right? Yes. I think that's the reason we're required. The once you're in the system, you it's like the mafia. You can't get out. I was going to say the same thing, but I I didn't want to offend anyone. I think the mafia was saying commissioner is that you
could have another retirement. It doesn't have to be F FRS but once you're in it you're in it. Got it. Okay. So again uh I read it as required now. So I don't have any changes. Any other changes if you're vice mayor? No. No. So I see a lot of uh strike through.
So what change in the wording? Um, it's essentially what what Patricia added is essentially less words. Okay, more concise. Nothing against you, Brad. Okay. Um, so, uh, the professional
development dues and subscription section 11. Um, looks like the same thing. The the the red line was basically adopted just with more concise language. Um, Brad, is is that my understanding? Is that correct? Okay.
Yeah. So, we're agreeing to something right now, right? All of these provisions that have no monetary value, right? You talking about the the professional dues and Yeah. All of that stuff. Everything in there in section 11, uh, reasonable and
customary travel and expenses and D. So I'm assuming this is all stuff that we're going to talk about during the budget uh during budget time. My recollection for this professional development dues and subscriptions within the budget they each have their own line item which we've always well I
don't know about at least for the last several years have agreed to right but my point is that we're agreeing now to pay whatever there's no monetary value here right so for instance customary travel and
customary for whom customary for me or customary for Al or customary for the next guy. What does that what does that mean? Right? I I don't know. But if we agree to that provision, we're agreeing to whatever
that is. That's that's all I'm trying to say. So historically here are so what what we got from finance is that for Chris, for example, uh the top amount budgeted for was $1,550. So f $1,550
for all those memberships and dues. Okay? not included. To your point, it doesn't say anything about specific additional travels. I mean, this and the contracts a little bit more extensive. Well, the the travel though and the reason why I added the statute is you do
not have a travel policy in the village. There's nothing established by village rule or regulation as to what will be paid for if a um including the manager were to go to a conference or something of that nature.
um that that statute talks about PDM is rates of pay rates of mileage pay that so we don't have one or what state basically that's what state employees would would get doing those
we had a situation with a prior prior manager related to travel and expenses okay so what was the situation there because uh sort of like I need to be in reimburse but we didn't have a travel policy per se. Um how
ended up paying him pursuant to Florida statute. Okay. So we use this as reference. So for instance he had submitted bills for um and I don't remember exact amounts but I'm just giving you an example maybe Al remembers but he had submitted a bill for a restaurant where his his bill may have been over a
hundred bucks. Yeah. um he only got what the statutory amount was for dinner of course which was I think 20 something dollars so it's following protocol because we don't have a policy in place we use statitude as a reference it's not unusual uh I've had other
jurisdictions that I represent that refer to a travel if there is a conference of a week or two weeks it doesn't really determine it doesn't I mean the the the hotel rates are whatever the conference hotel rates are so it What this what the
statute really refers to is pdeium for food. Yeah. Mileage. So things of that nature. So you have here uh uh Brad the the amounts allowed by section 112.061 of the Florida statutes, right? Um
should we have a put that in here? Because I I I have no to me honestly I'm signing a blank check here. So, tomorrow the the manager Al or whomever's here says, "I have a conference in Hawaii
that I got to go to, right?" Well, you're not you're not really signing a blank check. And and the reason for that is we're agreeing to travel. Okay. But if he if he's going to Hawaii, for instance, and it's if it's a $10,000 bill,
he can't expend it. He's got to come before you pursuant to your code up to 10. So what's what if it's less than$10,000? It's over $2,500. He has to come. Well, he's if technically he would have to get bids, which is not not practical.
It's for what? Well, I'm just saying under your code in order for him to go to a conference. It's training. He has certain there's certain authority within within the code for him to spend money. And I get I get you. But what
what if he has a conference every week less than $2,500? Well, but you know, you you see what I'm saying? You understand what you're saying? And I think what I would suggest is that when you're budgeting money for his professional development and dues and conferences,
if that money runs out, he would have to either move money from from somewhere within the his department within the manager's office's budget to pay for it, or he'd have to come to you to move it from another another area. But but other
than that there's no other way of of there's no other way of of this is an agreement to pay those things but we budget the amount that we are paying. You do. So it doesn't it doesn't supersede spending uh limits. It doesn't supersede the budget process. It's to be approved during the budget process.
Nothing in this contract supersedes your code that we have said that approved in budget. But does Should that be state? Where's where's it? that has to be approved. Says as are approved in the village's annual budget on a line item basis.
Approved in the village's annual budget. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, it is in there. I have personal requests. Yes. That I'm supposed to leave on the last train back to Orlando. It leaves at 9:24. So, if if you I know you're going part by part and
and and bless you because I know it's hard work, but if if there's I'm probably going to leave at like uh 30 at at 8:30. So, if there's if looking ahead there's any provision that you like think you're you have like issues about
or something if you could kind of look ahead and let me know before I go. And I recognize I'm I'm putting a fly in the ointment. Right. Well, let's let's try to help her out. If there's any is is there a major like major issue with one of the the
following sections? It's probably only going to have time to address the one while she's with us. Well, but I don't think we're going to come to an agreement tonight anyway, right? So, I think you're going to have plenty of time. Any questions? you. [Music]
I I I personally I don't see anything that's more pressing than anything else. Where which which train station? Aura. All right. That's not too bad. That's all right. That's closest at least. Okay.
Um so 11 um the the with the gap filler uh Florida statute and with with the budget item information in there. Um are there have we alleviated any concerns or any other additional concerns? I'm good with that. Good with that. Good. Okay. Commissioner.
Um yes. As long as it's in the budget and pre-approved. Okay. Okay. Great. Um uh 12 uh termination and severance. Um yeah, sure. Saw something. I'm sorry. Go ahead. So in the in that language on the
budget, it's talking about the village's an annual budget on a line item basis and Paul listen to me or is separately authorized by the village finance department director. I don't know that Paul has the authority to do that.
That's way too much power for me also. So I I would propose that that be struck through. Where do you see that? Hold on. It's it's immediately following the on the line item cases. Mayor, if I can interrupt for a second, please.
Uh, my schedule is is changing. I I need to be signing off if if it's okay. I I was really intending to just do the resolution meeting. So, are you done? No, you're on you're on vacation. Go back to vacation, bro. All right. We'll send you We'll send you questions if we have questions.
Uh, I do have a phone and I'm taking it to dinner, so don't don't hesitate. No, no, don't worry. We we'll wait for you to have dinner. All right. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. Thank you, Paul. Thanks, Paul. Um All right. So, with the with the change, it sounds like we have consensus
on that on that minor change there. Um so, section 12 is where we're at. Uh termination and severance pay. What was the request here, Brad, versus what um was brought forward? I kind of restruct
separate I separated these these two um or I proposed to separate these two provisions into a um termination by the village and severance pay and termination by manager.
Um, essentially what they did is they had bind the two and had this exceptions, the exception section. I kind of uh separated all that out and made two separate sections. You might have to read it to you. Oh,
and I believe I also change some of the time. I feel like from my own perspective, this is pretty consistent with what we've already discussed. uh commission this is this is a continuation of what at least interim contract calls for for 20 weeks of
is it different in any way for what we used to do and which let's just do one time here 20 right and just for the benefit of of everyone here 20 is the max allowed by statute
it does not violate that statute I did the I propose that the manager give 60 days notice termination whereas their agreement says 30 days. So if if he leaves in if if the manager
decides to leave in 30 days based on your structure of your village, you have no step in as an intram. It's the issue you had when Chris left. Yeah. Albeit he left. He had 60 he had a
60-day provision in his agreement. He left before that. What's that or 45? Maybe it was 45. He might have 45. So that's the only reason I I increased that amount based on the structure of the village and where that would leave you all. If
manager decided to do 45 is fine. He has it in his his interim contract has 45 and so it it should be 45. Great. That's his notice, correct? 45 days notice. Um, okay. Um, sorry,
Commissioner, you were in the middle of your thought saying that 20 weeks is what the interim contract says and not 45 days is what an interim contract says. So for the submits, I'm fine with it. Final section 12. Yeah. What's the amount? It's the amount of what? Second.
It's included in the uh cost analysis by um is it actually? Well, no, because it's on separation. Sure. rough or use Commissioner Huntington's term back in napkin. So, so the employee may terminate the
employment by providing the employer so he can give us 60 days before the date 45 for 45. That's what we're changing. Has to give you 45 notice. Yeah. 45 days notice that he's separating from the village before his
separation. Oh, if I'm correct, if he's terminated, we got to pay 20 week seven's pay. That comes out to if the mayor was correct, comes out to $80,000 unless it's for any of the reasons in section 13. Correct. If you terminate him for something other than misconduct, you
have to pay him severance. And that severance is of how much? 20 weeks, which is did the math. Sorry. Yeah.
No, no, from the uh sorry, it's we're actually combining the voting moment 13 because I'm reading what was what came forward and it's section 13. It says termination by the manager. Um, so my question here, so we're changing
the 60 days to 45 days. 30 days to 45 days. Their version was 30. Brad's went back with 60. So we're splitting the right. And to provide further context, his current agreement is 20 weeks at his current salary. That means $67,000. So
you're talking a $13,000 increase in potential segments. 20 weeks. Where do you see that? 20. It's in it's in section 12 section third paragraph on section. Let me go back version. Yeah,
would be right. Got it. So exos agreement we shall pay employee severance pay equal to 20 weeks and okay that's what I was trying to get assistant with Florida statute 2154
I'm so of course the exceptions Okay. Um about $80,000. Okay. Just of the base salary. Is it of the base salary of the total including a
package of benefits? How does it work? You're paying several groups everything just base salary. Okay. What do you mean? believe there's still required to contribution
um after they've been sever with the severance you have to still contribute to a severance considered the so it would be the 20 weeks of base salary plus the 34.5%
from that so I'm not an expert on Paul left hear you Brad pole left. I'm so we don't know that that member but I'm not I'm not uh familiar with all of that. We don't know how much how much the FRS would be on the
severance pay. Okay. Okay. I'm glad you're still with us. So they you you means if he is paid 20 week severance when he is terminated with for none of the reasons included in section 13 and
he doesn't resign then the with the severance pay we do not pay FRS on that 20we severance. M um Ming I think you started asking a question at the beginning of this. No question. I said I'm fine with section 12.
I'm fine with 45 days. 45 days. Correct. 45 days change. Okay. Um Hey, Vice Mayor. I'm fine. Uh Commissioner Hanser. Um uh that's what we paid before. I'm fine.
Yes. Okay, let's move on to section 13 exceptions. Um I know uh Brad this was I mean we we already started talking about this um which we already have the benefit of of your response basically that the everything that we're a lot of
what we're talking about is included in that statutory definition of misconduct and this also includes that line item that you added um under subsection B that if he voluntarily resigns that he's not entitled uh to at
it's the same 45 days notice. I'm not sure what you're asking. That's Brad's addition that was meant to replace both section. The 45day notice is only included in section 12. It does. It's not applicable to section. Section
13 is exceptions exceptions to severance circumstances under which separated from the village but is not entitled to sever. It's in there twice. Good. Thank you.
Well, thank you very much for joining us. Have a safe trip back. I I sincerely hope you make it. It's 8:30. 8:34. Um, all right. Start down with you again. Sorry, Commissioner Huntington. You're just starting this off. They
appreciate the uh section of the stat uh statute that governs misconduct and think that it's very encompassing covers I think his benefits are his interest as well as other okay anything to add art
vice mayor no just so understand correctly so the misconduct with all with this investigation that we had going on I just want to understand so that happened prior if that for it to happen again. Is that part of what's considered
misconduct? Sustain misconduct statute is defined I I can read it to you but it's basically um during working in the workplace or
during work powers includes following um conduct demonstrating conscious disregard of an employes's interests and found to be a deliberate employer's interest, sorry, and found to be a deliberate violation of disregard of the reasonable standards of behavior which
the employer expects of his or her employee. Such conduct may include but not be limited to willful damage to an employes's property that results in damage of more than $50 or theft of employer property or property of a customer or inviteee of the employer. Uh
careless or negligence to a degree or um recurrence that manifests culpability or wrongful intent or shows the intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employees duties and obligations to his or her employee. Chronic absenteeism or tardy
tardiness and deliberate violation of a known policy of the employer or one or more unimproved absences followed by a written reprimand or a warning relating to more than one of those unimproved absences. A willful and deliberate violation of the standard or regulation
of the state by any employee of the employer licensed or certified by the state. which violation would cause the employer to be sanctioned or to have its license or or certification suspended. Um, a violation of the employer's rules unless claimant can demonstrate that he
or she did not know could not reasonably know of the rule's requirements. Rule is not lawful or not reasonably related to job environment and performance, but the rule is not fairly or consistently enforced. Um, and then it goes on to talk about criminal conduct. This is all
in this is I'm reading to you directly out of the definition of misconduct. Okay. So we're saying as long as none of this happens. If that happens, it's within. So if there was an EEOC complaint where
he was where let's say a discriminate some discriminatory conduct took place or there was a some type of hostile work environment which we've brought up or or something like that. Yes, that could potentially be a
violation and considered misc and then that would not uh grant uh him the severance. Just the severance. Got it. Okay. Still be entitled to his other payouts but not his seance. Payouts meaning the 500 hours. Correct.
Rude and any salary owe. Correct. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, uh I think that wraps up 13. So, let's look at 14. Performance goals and evaluation process. So, the changes that I proposed was more
in line with quite frankly your budget and and the way you've done these in the past. I ch what I did is I I had proposed different dates. Let's get to it. Well, I had proposed that the um
we I left the this the 2526 the same because the timing and then I proposed that by July 30th that for October 1 26 through September 30th 27
at the that the employer would provide the commission by July 30th, the goals and objectives the coming fiscal year and then no later than August 30th, the employees goals and
objectives would be established and and be coming forward essentially. And then I basically I basically I changed the dates to be more in compliance with your fiscal year and how you do your evaluations. But um if this works for
you all this so this is saying that the the evaluation be would be when no right now we're looking at a subsection a which is performance goals and objectives. Yeah. We haven't looked at evaluation yet. Oh okay. I kind of when I changed it I changed it all in contemplation if well
I I see what you're saying but you know let's so you just want me to go chest the performance goals and objectives yeah I just like to kind of compartmentalize it so if we can agree how get what we want to do for A and then let's look at B. So,
so for the fiscal year 2026 2027 which starts in October of next year actually looks like she made no she didn't okay so she had August she the
way the agreement's proposed the employee has until August 30th to provide the commission with the employees proposed goals. goals and objectives for the coming fiscal year. I move that back a month to July 30th.
Wait. Oh, sorry. No, I was just going to say to summarize, we're just looking at moving two of these dates back. The we're to in in the agreement that's provided to us by the manager's attorney, it's he has to give to us his go his goals by August 30th. And then we
um I think uh clarity as to probably why this is August 30th versus July 30th would be our final tax numbers don't come in till July 1st. So give the manager 30 days to get into finance and figure out what goals are realistic and
get it to us in 30 29 days. just I think pushing it to August 30th of starting in budget season well before the start of the fiscal year is reasonable because with the scheduling of getting with finance getting with the department heads and saying here's our stated goals and this is realistic in 29 days the
business not even business you can't work on weekend not I I see why this is two months because you need that two months to schedule with with funding so I'm fine it's not a legal issue so I was just looking our schedule
for us too. Okay. So, um it says here performance goals and evaluation process employees goals and objectives for the fiscal year 202526 which starts October this year have already been established as of date of
this agreement have they which ones again we approve that by resolution. Uh it's our strategic plan we did in January with her here in this room. It was a by resolution and go back and look at public dollar and see our strategic
stated goal without that's referring. Let me ask you, let me rephrase employees goals and objectives. When did we do that? Done this before. That's what I when I read that that's
how I referred to is his goals are the strategic plan what we set up. Well, that doesn't say that. It says employees goals and it doesn't say the village. It's talking about his requirements which you usually put set certain amount of goals. You have to put that in writing. It says employees goals
and objectives for the fiscal year that starts October um has already been established as of date of this agreement. We don't have that. We never talked about what the goals are for the following fiscal. That wasn't
what strategic plan that was a presentation. When did we vote move forward with a we approved the strategic plan by resolution from the city. This is not referring to the street that that I mean that is employee goals. It goes over that's the commission.
Yes. Yeah. That's not his that's not how we're going to measure him. I mean at the end of the day we defined um and and again I don't know when you're talking about we approved in and January I would have to go I mean maybe you can um reference you said it was in January I can pull it out
from the Jan I think January or February we sat here for two days we were here for oh that's the workshop we talk about the priorities for the budget us the final that was a presentation correct that was a presentation it came during
presentations it was laid out I gave my I mean there was never resolution voting that that's the plan and how we're going to measure. We never discussed that. So this for me is a huge concern just because on anybody again I'm not just putting that position always has to come
with a certain uh requirements to be evaluated. We do have a format actually in place that establishes where we evaluate the employee. We do communications relationship with the commission. We talk about relationship with the residents. We talk about fiscal
responsibility. That's the format that we've approved to um evaluate the manager. Now, that's different to setting goals and expectations for the fiscal that starts in October. We never discussed that. Reads section A and B together. That's
why it's hard to break them down because if you look at section B, section B says beginning November of 2026 and each year thereafter between November 1st and November 30th, the village commission shall evaluate employees performance the
immediate preceding year. The evaluation subject shall be the established goals and objectives that were established for the applicable fiscal year. So those are the goals of the manager not of the village. So what the way I interpreted this,
maybe I'll can clear it up what what his intent was, is when you do an evaluation of the the manager, you would say before your actual evaluation, he's going to tell you what his goals are. Um, just going to make some up. I'm going to
improve village communication. I'm going to expand um the public works department. I'm going to hire more or I'm going to have more uh or create a program for more traffic enforcement things of that nature. And then those
are goals that you would review, you would approve, and then there would be an evaluation for that fiscal year based on those go the achievement of those goals and how he carried them out. That's how I interpret this. I mean, I I could be absolutely wrong and that's not
what the intent was, but uh excuse me, Mr. Mayor, didn't uh Mr. Chis, correct me if I didn't you come up with goals yourself already or what you wanted to I don't know, there's a meeting that I'm thinking you already came up what your goals were going to be
that you wanted to accomplish. I don't know if I remember something like that because I thought you did that. Well, I I think during the interview process, you asked me some questions about what, you know, what was what would I like to achieve and what was, you know, what I would be setting out to
do. I think we had talked about that during the interview process. You already did have goals that you set it up just during the interview process. I think we could also use that as interview process. Even when you were applying for the temporary, you came I just something
just tells me I remember you coming up with goals that you wanted to do and that's what we always done in the past where we ask uh you know city managers what are you going to do and then we give our ideas what we like for you to accomplish. I think that you already did that so we can base that on the check
that list and see if you have accomplished those things. So an interview I'm sorry uh um an interview it's not a formal process of establishing goals and objectives for an organization never has been. It usually is a conversation with your employer in
terms of what's to be expected of and performance, how is going to be measured and when. Um so I think that conversation hasn't happened. We've had a layown of items. There are a wish list of fiscal
um projects to be considered for next year. That's it. Um I would wonder what is it that we're going to evaluate? Well, can I ask can I this uh out there for the this section? There's nothing in this section that
does that says that we can't ask him to do it. So, well, it says have already been established as of the day of this agreement. But it doesn't say we can put we we're not allowed to put it as discussion item where we say Al one night out can you can you outline for us what those things are?
Correct. That needs to happen. Of course, we can do that. All I'm just saying is that we haven't um you know I understand what Yeah. Sorry. I don't mean to interrupt you. I understand what you're saying and I understand what the vice mayor and commissioner Hington saying. I think we're just barely missing each other on this because there are two things that have been out there,
but I think the way that you're reading is a little more is a little more targeted. So I I think there have been some goals and objectives provided to the points that we've heard, but not to the point where you're satisfied. No, no, it's not that I'm not satisfied. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase. It's not
that you need to satisfy I mean goals and objectives in organization any employee I written documents that you agree to there is no written documents that been through this commission to approve as objectives for the employee
we've put objectives as a village and things we wish to do that had no numbers to it our wish list of three years came forward in a shape of a presentation never have we agreed in either a resol solution, a format or specific number
item of objectives that we're going to be measured this uh um as any manager in the future. So that that's all I'm I'm just stating it's not to satisfy as a me. It's just a simple process in place, right? I didn't mean you specifically. What what I'm trying to what I'm trying
to get at is is I think that there's still a method by which that this contract does not prohibit for us to say this is the form we use. This is a discussion item for one of our agenda items. say Al this is the form that we use these are the items we want to talk to you about can you bring to this bring
to the next agenda those items so we can just look at them and talk about them there's nothing here pro prohibits us doing that the agreement the agreement specifically mentions what must be contained in the form but it says the form for the evaluation but be a form that separately lists each of the established goals and
objectives for the applicable year provides space for the evaluation of of employee to each of those goals but the go the the form we've news traditionally has those it has. What I what I would suggest though maybe just clear this up and I think it's fix
for the first paragraph under a you change you modify that sentence to require by a certain date there to be a commission discussion with the manager goals instead of saying they're already
established I understand what you're saying. Um, so then there we have a proposal to to make a small change to this to kind of I think achieve what we're we're asking. I'm just going to write on the line again.
Commissioner Huntington, is that something that you're interested in doing? As far as the evaluation form is concerned, we have historically with ones I've done, we've always approved the form just prior to the evaluation. That form is modified and Matt, we wrote
it the last time. Uh so to say we have a form set in stone is not uh what we say. We literally approve it every time. Matt spearheaded that last time. Uh, so I was actually I enjoyed seeing it spelled out here and
know what the future holds and not have to worry about, oh, where's the form? What is the form we're going to use this time? Uh, I prefer this if there's a path to including some of our old form with this uh system that they've laid out. I'm fine with that. But I
personally prefer stated goals. What he stated at the beginning of the year, how we did at the end of the year. Very simple. It's very easy to track for residents and for us commission. I I'm agreeing with I just trying to understand how this is written because I don't read this that that
where do you read that we have that in second paragraph form of evaluation an evaluation. Yeah. I'm sorry I was on the beginning. So beginning in November 2026 and each year thereafter between November 1st and the 30th, the village
commission shall ex evaluate the employees performance for the immediately preceding fiscal year. The evaluation subject shall be established goals and objectives that were established for the applicable fiscal year. So when do we u apply those
uh established goals? When do we establish that? 2627 employee will provide by August 30th proposed goals which we which we then approve. Where are you at? I'm sorry. Second paragraph of subsection A 14A the second paragraph there.
Okay. It it provides the timelines by which he has to send we have to approve. Okay. So for the fiscal year 2026 October 1st employee will by August 30th provide the commission employ. Okay. So in essence, this says that until August
30 of next year, we would not have goals. It what the agreement says is that the goals were already established. So then I guess so there is no goals for next Huntington's point he's interpreting that as the as the
two interpretations. I interpret it the same way. Well, there are two there are two points being made that there have been some goals provided. what I'm saying to to correct if with any deficiency that you're reading into this that we that we can set that on a discussion item and we can discuss it at any I I think I think we could give
directions to a manager to restate those goals so we have clarity everyone has clarity and that's fine but to play devil's advocate whatever those stated goals are we don't by per this agreement unless we change it which I wouldn't be supportive of changing it we don't have a method of evaluating those goals it
would be the preceding year we evaluate the 2026 six, which which I understand because he's writing a new ship and he needs I can hear you a lot. Sorry. Yeah, he's he's captaining a new ship. He needs time to adjust the budgets and
make sure things are fiscally possible. So, I understand why the time is in there. I'm completely fine with leaving the the stated goals as established and just kind and once this is approved at a first meeting put a discussion item please restate those goals so everyone's clear what they
so I there is two things I think in terms of evaluation I was reading uh through this first off I would like evaluation to be done at the six months this is just leaving it once a year um we learned a lesson with the last manager I mean had it not been because
at the six month point we were very clear that we were had aligned how performance was going, we would have had a different sort of perspective at the year end. So I thought that six months is a very needed point. Uh more so
considering this is not a five to zero commission entering the agreement with children's in this case. There was a 3-2 vote to have them sitting here. So with that said, it's more to the point of having another stage to evaluate progress. I think leaving it all the way
until the end of the following year is too late. So I think it's an opportunity for us to make sure we're on track. You're making the biggest investment in the village history in terms of contract. Again, leaving it just until
another year. It's a big commitment. Um I would not be forward to. I don't read this as I read this as a minimum. Okay. Okay. We we were required to beginning in November 20 26 to do the review, but nothing in here prohibits or limits our ability to do so prior to
then. Okay. That's why I read we just talked about we need um a time to led by in order to you know make sure that we have the amount of of of time like one year we just I mean that's what it says doesn't say here six months in Chris's
contract we did have a six months in the contract that we established as a checkpoint number one yes that sorry what did you say Brad you it was after it was initially initial hire there was like an intermediate valuation
Yeah, I remember. I remember. I think that was a learning I mean for me there was a learning curve. We all came with very you know sort of different evaluations at that stage would raise the flag number one. You said it yourself. It was like strike three was it.
Yeah, I remember. And so the the idea of having those checkpoints was very necess needed. At that point we were four to one into the vote of the manager. I think Olivivera changed vote at the end to be 5-0. um we're not moving forward in the same
direction. You have 40% of this DAS that does not agree he's the right manager. We have controversial issues come up um when it comes to the style of management that we're still dealing with. I would ask that at least when you're about to
consider investing so much into the next contract for the manager that you have the ability to stop at six months and evaluate that we are still on track. Hopefully guys I I want to reiterate I'm pushing for this to work out. I am not
against it in any way but it is important to have the checkpoint and no and and I think the goals need to be defined uh before well the point I'm trying to make is simply that this only requires us to start the evaluation then what I think what you're suggesting at least the way
I would read it is that you're requiring the commission to do an every six-month evaluation not just allowing us to do it upon vote. You know what I mean? Correct. So what I'm want is to have it in writing so it's not something that is life randomly. If if so it's only at the year mark would want to see it how we
did it with Chris that we put it in a contract that it is an evaluation at midpoint and I want that to be moving forward in the future. We feel we that's not needed. We're wasting too much time. I don't know at at what point that would be a a wasted time if you ask me. It's
always a wonderful thing to receive feedback. Always. So at six months and every uh six months to have the evaluation I think it's it's um it's a safe way for us to make sure we're still on track. Again I don't know track to
what I don't agree that we have established those goals and that needs to be done before. So then the proposal that Commissioner Amsler is setting forth is to change this to instead of one annual review to an uh two annual reviews one every six months.
No. Mr. Gonzalez, please me. I mean, even though you've been a manager before, I think for the first year at least. So, you're changing what she wants to do to six months and then change annually
once. Well, yeah, he should already be established. I I want to I don't want him to be every six months he has to worry about an evaluation. The first year, you're a temporary city interm city manager, so you're going to be permanent. The first
year I want it for the first six months year evaluation and then after that the six months evaluate and then after that it's once a year does it say I've done in the past anywhere that we can't do that no it doesn't then what what what is it
because uh the way I the proposal is to add a required six-month evaluation for the manager rather than the once annually it into the contractual language. Yeah. Oh okay. But we but we can still do this doesn't prohibit us from doing it the way that it's written. It doesn't prohibit
it to the contract. Yes, that's correct. We did that with Chris uh art more stringent to add a one. It requires the commit. Oh, not one every six months. You mean just for the first year? No, no, no. That she wasn't saying for the first year. Vice Mayor was saying for the first year. Okay. Sorry, I'm not trying to put
Okay. If it's for the first year, I think it's it's a needed step to just make again um art has been in the position now for how many months? Eight months. There has been no evaluation. So potentially we could I'm sorry no I hope you evaluate me. Fire me please.
Uh but has been in the position for about eight months. Um eight nine months. There was no evaluation. We are hiring. we're paying this amount of money and we're saying potentially if nobody calls the evaluation because it's not in the contract, we would have to
wait until November 2027 or no no beginning in November of 2026 beginning but the evaluation would not happen until the entire year has been passed. So
no, I don't think it's right to go eight months plus another year potentially. potentially, right? Um without having it in writing that we're going to meet and talk in the midpoint to see how things are going. So we're changing from six months every year to six months for the first year
and then once annually for every year thereafter if that's appetite for the majority. Yes, I'm okay with that. Right. Let me start back with that then. Commissioner Huntington. No. Uh I I that first year is vitally important. There are so many things wrong in this village that need fixing.
uh and he is inheriting all those problems. He needs time to to he hasn't even crafted a budget. And so you're going to start that clock ticking tomorrow if you approve this with a budget that's was not crafted by him. It was crafted by somebody else. We've had a change in in police
administration. We've had a change in other employees. We've had major problems coming through this village that uh $ 1.5 million that was almost lost because another admin administrator didn't notice where it went. commissioners didn't know notice where it went. Uh there needs to be time for
an adjustment period. I could that first year is vitally important that there's way for him to write the shift. Yeah. You don't think the ninth month has been enough time for adjustment period? Nine months when you've had a change in police uh police chief, you've had
numerous unfounded allegations thrown his way. Uh no, I don't think that's So you're okay with just waiting until 2027 for the evaluation? November 2027. um November 2026. Sorry. Because he needs that time to craft a budget,
make budget changes, make employment changes, uh go out and and seek grant funding. Fred out. We didn't get Ferd out because the last manager just decided not to sign his name on a paper. We need time to write the ship. And if you don't give it takes applications
today to do something three years from now, this is not a quick It's not my fingers and everything changes. Takes time. Yeah. No, again going down the line or are we gonna continue about this because I I listen I'm okay with giving him a six-month evaluation. Uh I think that in
six months he can come up with some goals, six-month goals. I don't think he needs to come up with a three-year plan. I think Al's smart enough to say, "Hey, in six months I'm going to do this, and I think we can evaluate him in six months." I'm perfectly fine with that. I don't think we need to add it to any contract. I think we if we all agree
here that we're going to do an evaluation in six months, we do an evaluation in six months. Having said that, let me just finish my thought, please. I just want to make sure everybody understands. I've read the entire contract going forward. I I'm good with everything else, so no need to come back this to to me for anything else.
I got it. Thank you, Art. Vice Mayor, that's I'll stick what I just said. Six month evaluation. It's like we should He's had eight months according to commissioner. He's done a lot in 8 months. Six month of a difference. I'm I still feel strong
about six month evaluation and then another six month and then after the year. Mhm. Once a year. Okay. We have done that for all past. Yeah. He's different from other city managers. So I'm not comparing him to any other city, but we have done that with all the
city managers that we have. We have had six-month evaluation and then a year. I think we should continue that. That sounds like we have a consensus on that item. All right. It sounded to me like there was a consensus to add it. Am I is that
incorrect? Anyone here differently? Right. I'm that that's what I'm proposing. So Okay. The six months would just be for the first year then. All right. Is there any other points for 14? I didn't have any. I'm sorry. Are we on
for we're on 14? Yes. So So what are we saying in terms of the goal? I don't understand what the next step is here for for for which portion. So employee goals and objectives for the year have already been established as of the date of this agreement. So what what are we doing in in terms of the goals?
When will we establish the goals for the next six months? I mean, I would I would think the way that I was proposing it was to have a commissioner put it on agenda. A commissioner, not the manager. Says here, I don't know that it matters where it comes from.
I mean, somebody's putting it on there that says the man, we're asking that the manager, you know, re basically restate the goals that that are provided for in the contractual agreement. Your mic is off. Just my suggestion for the city manager to put on the agenda
his goals for the next six month and then we could either yeah it or add our own to it. I mean we'll be able to add our own to it if we want but come up with the six months. Brad is that something that we can do right now for this special agenda meeting. Can we ask can we give
direction to the manager and ask that he please put something about the goals on the August. Thank you. The August meeting. Okay. Is there consensus to ask the manager to please do that for the August meeting? Yes. Yeah. Just put your goals which you plan on doing for the next six months.
And we have a format in place where establish where which areas to be evaluated. I think he already has what he wants to. So is this maybe clarity for clarity? Uh is this we're instructing him to provide what the agreed goals is or are we going
to have ability to add goals to that? because I mean I I don't want this to turn into a strategic planning session at the dis during the August meeting and overload him. We we have to be fair, you know. That's why I think we leave it I just say we leave it to his discretion. If if the manager is saying to us that those were the goals
that we agreed on, those were the goals I said in the interview, then he can let us know what those are. Or you state the goals and we'll approve them and that'll be form the basis for part of don't I just don't want to say okay well let's add this and add. Yeah. No, I don't think I don't think it's that's part of the discussion based on what it brings forward. telling me that
he's city manager. So he should be able to come up with his own six go six month six go you know months goals for us right come up with it and say we can see agreed and we judge them all based upon that. So then there is no change for you legally in I mean you just got to put it on the
contract. Yeah that that's right that has nothing to do with the the goals. So is there any other are there any other points on on section 14 so we can move on? Um well actually yes. uh for having him state his six-month goals. Yeah.
Are we or are we adding the forced six-month evaluation in 14 or is that now stricken or and if it is staying in is the what he going to what he's going to be evaluated on is the goals from the preceding commission meeting. But if we're to the point you made
before if if the commission decides on the form consistent with what's in this contract, we'll set the form for that. Right. Mhm. So that's a dis when we come together and we decide this is going to be the six-month evaluation pursuant to the conversation we had, we'll come up with
the form, which I got to imagine is probably going to be almost the exact same thing that we've done in the past. Yeah. So we'll come up with that form and then we'll set that six-month date. Does that fully answer the question or no? I mean, that's not what this says. It says the the form of the evaluation shall be a form of separately listed of
each established goal. So that's not what this Well, then we'll use what he's going to bring to us at the next meeting to help help include in the form that we're going to approve at a future meeting in line with this agreement. Correct. Yes. The old form is out. This new is
what we're going to go in. Well, I think is if we as a commission decide that the old form substantively conforms with what this section says, I think we can still use it. Yeah, it can be. I mean, it's to be considered what we've used in the past. It could be adapted as needed. your last evaluation of the
former manager, you adopted by consensus. Yeah. Use that form. Yeah. Okay. For future evaluation. Again, I still think that the form adequately addresses everything in this section. I mean, when we set that date, we can come back and if we need to change it, we can change it. But I think
that it adequately addresses everything in here to my recollection. So, having said that, does that answer all the questions for section 14? Well, that's yes for a separate agenda for a separate commission meeting. Okay. Um
to follow six month evaluation which I I don't know that you can tell me. So the commissioners are supposed to be individually meeting for the formal evaluations. You're supposed to be individually meeting with with the manager to deliver the individ the
commissioner's individual completed evaluation form. discuss it in person um and then the um with him and then that has to be done at least 10 days prior to the public meeting in which the evaluation is going to be discussed.
Yeah. Is that going to apply to the evaluation to the six-month evaluation? Is there any reason that asking I don't see a reason that it wouldn't. Okay. Okay. Is there any other points for 14? Can we move on?
uh the annual performance evaluation employee shall be completed by the official commission by December 15th of each year. If the commission does not complete the annual performance evaluation process by December, the employee shall be deemed to have met the performance standard. So what happens if
one of you don't do it and four of us do? I I mean I don't read this to say that three people complete it. Four people complete it. That's what I'm saying. So Brad, so to that I understand at the bottom of that
uh the last paragraph of section 14 says the annual performance evaluation of employee shall be completed by the village commission by December 15th of each year. If the village commission does not complete the annual performance evaluation process by December 15, then
the employee shall be deemed to have met the performance standards. What happens if you know uh two people don't do it, one people don't do it. That's the way I read that that evaluation is the collective evaluation
of the commission. Yes. So this is this is based on the forms that have been presented commissioner has done prepared and met with the manager and and provided their evaluation. So
to me if only three commissioners or two commissioners decide to meet and fill out the forms you're technically in breach of the agreement and his then he'd be deemed to have met the performance standards. You all need to do it. This is putting the onus on on all of you to do it. Yes.
Don't then you're not following the agreement. Yeah. That's our responsibility as a commission. So is there a way to clarify that and make sure that we are all I mean and I guess by def by definition of omission it means that we all have to. It doesn't specify that each commissioner needs to
do it. Right. Is it the commission? It's a commission. I mean it's so so referring to the each individual commissioner. That's referring to the commission as a whole. So we could have met four of us could have met if one of you happens to be sick does not perform
it or quits or whatever at that point he met the standards even if the um meetings individually said that he you know had areas to I don't believe that what do you think that's a fugazi
so that doesn't make any sense I know right because if you have a majority as long as you have a majority you're still whether you whether it's three or five uh as long as you know there's a majority that should be fine. I don't
see why every single person isn't that in the millillage. Correct. No, yeah, I agree with that. I don't see why everybody has to has to be here to do that. I mean I understand what you're saying, right? And tech, you're absolutely right. You know, we have to be clear. It has to be the majority and that it's
fine. But the question is right now as it reads um if everybody if there's one that doesn't do it then yeah that well commissioner this actually happened. Commissioner John Holland recused himself from an evaluation and did not do the evaluation because he was
so new on the commission and the commission still evaluated the manager. Correct. Yeah. Just just he pulled out and said I'm not going to do it because he just got there. To me is the village commission as a whole. If if one of us is sick if one of us is not here. It's two separate provisions though.
So you have one provision which talks about each village commissioner shall complete the form evaluating the employee on each of the established goals and then each village commissioner shall individually meet. So that's
requiring all five of you to do that. Yeah. All five of you do do not do that then technically you're in breach of the agreement. What do we do? village commission does not complete the ant. So the last sentence talking about not
each commissioner individually it's talking about the commission as a whole. Yeah. So so you're all the whole of the commission always the the consensus. Isn't the whole of the commission doing your individual you all have to do an individual evaluation meet with the manager and submit it to them 10 days
prior to the meeting. At the meeting itself, you're going to do a collective evaluation of the manager and come to some consent from that evaluation. That is the way I read this. That's what has to be done by December 15th of each
year. And if you don't complete that then it's then the manager is deemed to have met the performance standards because otherwise it doesn't make any sense the way they read where it's addressing each the responsibilities of each commissioner and then the village commission.
So I'm not clear. Sorry. So what's the bottom line? I think what we are if if you were to strike by each in the preceding paragraphs or the preceding paragraph each just says the village commission is that rectify the situation
because we're saying it says each commissioner if we were to just say the village commission the whole of the village commission is the majority of the village commission. Yeah. However many are there. Yeah. No, I think the each is what needs to happen. I think each one of us has
the opportunity to provide feedback. Yeah, but your to your point B, if one of us isn't here and doesn't do it, then automatically he goes to So my my problem is not with that paragraph is with the next one that says the annual performance evaluation of employee shall be completed by the
village commission by this date. And if the village commission does not complete the annual performance the evaluation process uh by the 15 the employee shall be deemed to have met the performance standards. So one of them is in each person needs to
do it which I think that's how it should be. I agree. And then the next one says as a commission we all needed a date to do this. If there's three commissioners it's still the village commission. You have a quorum and the commission. Okay. That that's what I was watching. That's it. Okay. So if we have a quorum
thataph you have to meet. So as long as you meet yes you're able to meet which means you have a quorum and you come to a consensus about his performance evaluation you've met the that that last you've met the requirements that last part. Okay. Okay.
So back to your original point though about each commissioner. Yes. Maybe that's something you want to talk about and change because if each one doesn't do it. Yeah. Then we're in breach of the agreement. Yes. You want to change each to a majority.
There you go. That's what I would do. And that's that cracker. I think each still to me to each should do it. I agree. I'm not saying you're right. But I'm I'm I'm on your side on this one. I know. I'm trying to help you here. I know. I'm just wearing it as restate
this. I'm agreeing with keeping it at each more than majority. Okay. Um just because what happened with Holland to to give him credit, you know, I mean, he had just started. He said, "I don't know much about this guy to evaluate him. It's fair." I think whoever's sitting has to I mean, if
but if they don't do it, he automatically is approved. He's he's good to go. We've we're in breach. So, okay, back to your point. I think I think that's what commissioner uh Dallas is trying to avoid is you have a nonparticipating commissioner who just is out of the country. Yeah. And they don't do they don't
fill out the form. They don't meet with the manager. They don't come to the meeting. Would he be deemed satisfactory performance? So I can change it to a majority which is there you go. Great. Does that work for everybody? Yes, I think that's the best solution. Although I agree with you everybody
should do it but just in case removing a potential fine. Okay, use it. Okay, Brad. Thank you. Well, that was 14. 15. I don't have any notes. All right. I'm not
I got I got that for you. Okay. Commissioner Huntington. No, nothing. Nothing. Which one? 15. There were no changes to 15, right? There there were there were a few, but
she incorporated them, I think. Uh I think she incorporated most of them. Let me just check before I said it's full-time employment, work hours, community involvement. What was it? What were the proposed changes? Provide that these activities do not
cause conflict with the duties uh and the responsibilities of village manager or are contrary to the best interest of the village. There's a section in the the the draft that we're looking at that says it employee agrees that he will not allow participation activities to
interfere with his performance's employee employment duties. Right. So I think that's the change that incorporates what you added Brad. Um well that's what I'm saying. So what were you proposing versus why you gone?
Paragraph on 15 I put that employer aware that employee participates in various community civic and charitable organizations including for example that employee is an active member of St. Rose of Lima Parish and serves as the chair of their finance board. Employees
participation in such activities includes a range of activities such as the for example attendance at meetings, conferences and events. Employer approves of employee continuing his participation. Here's where the
changes were. Continuing his participation in such activities provided that these activities do not create a conflict with the duties and responsibilities of village manager or are contrary to the best interest of the village.
That's what I put in there. Which I I think just kind of Yeah. I I it almost seems not maybe duplicative, Brad, but maybe just said in a different way that the section that I read. And then if you also read back to the second paragraph that says that
employee will in good faith perform the duties of the village manager. If you're happy with it, I'm happy with it. And then it says if employee would be away from work for a full day or more due to the outside activities, employee will request the use of PTO for such
days. But then before we said he doesn't have to ask for permission for PTO, we could change request to use which would be consistent. I would leave request that would be my because again I think that needs to happen through the commission.
Okay. So no changes then for 15. Okay. Uh 16 indemnification. I will join Commissioner Gonzalez in saying for the remainder of the contract I am good.
So um same thing here. Um Brad, what did you come forward with? It looks like what she included uh incorporated your changes. Brad, she added in the scope of employment. providing
notice to liability carrier. And then the last one incorporating Florida statute 76828. Yeah, those look like it substantively adopts what you had changed. So the the the notes here they're in blue on the version that we got um from
the attorney. Are those incorporated in your comments which is being left out? I'm trying to understand. Um section 16 inde indemnisification sorry incorporated
worded a little different. Okay. Okay. So we have consensus on 16. Let's look at 17 which is bonding. Uh no changes to bonding. Any questions? No hearing none. Okay.
Uh the proposed one Brad that you added which was code of ethics. So I know that was adopted in the early provision. So se section 18 is notices. I know she added a fair amount here. Looks like she adopted most of what you again most of almost
looks like she adopted all your changes just in a little more succinct way. With all respect, any uh any changes for notices. Where is it? Section uh section 18 notices.
Uh bottom of page eight. Um no. Okay. Uh section 19, reimbursement of legal fees and expenses. Uh prevailing party looks like it's been changed like you had included Brad. So I I don't have any I don't have anything
else. Looks like she adopted what you No, really. What? So guess what I did is I the first in the event of legal proceedings to be brought to enforce the terms of this agreement or for employers breach of this
agreement. I took out the word employer and had it for any breach of the agreement. So, but then um because then the prevailing party, so in other words, if you bring an action against the manager for a breach of the agreement,
there's no there's no enforcement or legal fees that can be fought by the village. It's not mutual. Basically, it can be sought against the manager by the village. only if you prevail
from a claim that the village breached the agreement. Well, if we just hypothetically for a second try to understand what we'd be trying to enforce if we're saying that he didn't do what he's required to do under the agreement, doesn't that enforcing the terms of the agreement?
Well, you can terminate them. Oh, you can do that. Yes. which would fall under the first portion of the the prevailing party attorney's fee section, wouldn't it? I'm just trying to say like I I understand what you're saying, but I'm
just trying to say any action that any action that the village might bring would be covered under enforcing the terms of the agreement. Well, you're going way too legal, too fast. Sorry, a second. Let me look at it again. Hold. I have a question. I'm getting blurry eyed. Thought it was good, but I have a question for clarity. If the village
were to bring legal proceedings against the employee, wouldn't the villages wouldn't he be covered during his time of employment under our insurance policy? Would he be covered? Wouldn't he be covered under our insurance policy? Village is suing him. Yeah.
No. I thought that when we had this discussion, previous employers employee, they said that we be basically suing ourselves. It would depend. Not necessarily. It would depend on what it is you're suing him for. Paul, so not necessarily. And
to the mayor's point, I I agree. So, it says the same thing. Uh, so summary of all this. Yeah. Sorry. The point that I was trying to make is is that in the event that the village were to bring an action to enforce any term of this agreement
that we would be entitled to prevailing party attorneys fees. So it just means if we prevail in litigation against the employee then we have a right to post suit go ahead and seek attorney's fees and award of an attorney's fees to reimburse us for having to bring the suit in the first we we do have we do have that correct okay
yes correct prevailing party is whoever wins the the litigation or proceeding I shouldn't say litigation so I I think that that adequately addresses it I don't have any other questions for 18 or 19 I'm sorry 19
was there any other thing in the in Okay. And 20 is just 20 is general provisions. I mean, these are these are very boilerplate general contract provisions that have been added based on these look like they were adopted straight from what you added, Brad. Labor Florida law governs.
Believe they were. Yeah. This is everything that you added. She just adopted because these are just general contract provisions. So, I I don't have any question about those, Brad. Are there any other questions for anything under section 20?
No. Commissioner, I'm in the midst of trying to figure that out. Okay. What were what were you asking? Because all of this is um brought forward in blue from F to J. F through J is just these are just Sorry, Brad. I don't want to speak on your rehab. Go ahead. Go ahead. They're
just general these are general boilerplate contract provisions that you include in generally include in all types of agreements. They covered various different situations. Yeah. Florida law. Yeah. Right. Choice of law provisions. Um you know that we drafted this. It's not construed against one party for drafting
it. Uh you have authority to bind the person you're signing on behalf of things like that. Yeah. Um and everything that Brad added was incorporated uh by Al's attorney. Yeah. Yes. Okay. I think that's it.
So Brad, do you have sufficient notes? I think that's good. Yes. The microphone. Sorry. Good idea. Approving this agreement tonight as amended and then I will reach out to
Miss Sigman, provide the amendments and if they agree to them, we can execute the agreement. Or are you deferring? Well, there's nothing to defer or we're just recessing for the night and I'll provide these amendments to Miss Sigman and wait back from her comments and then
report back to recess. Can I ask you does it even matter? I mean, because we still have to come back and approve by resolution anyway, don't we? No, you could you could approve it. Somebody could make a motion to approve
the agreement as amended, seconded, take a vote and I would we would do the resol I would prepare a resolution tomorrow doing that. But it would have to back no resolution just then if the agreement is approved by Miss Sigman and Mr. Childress as amended
then it would be executed in accordance with the resolution. If it's not, then we would come back to you and say, "Yeah, they reject." Make a motion to approve as amended. Uh with a caveat of us being able to see
the amendments prior to uh them agreeing to them because although he's taken green, what's that? Do that then. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. If commissioner if go ahead if I submit something to you all individ other words
how am I going to do the only way to me for me to do that is either submit it to you individually which I I can't change anything individually. So for instance if Huntington calls me up and says Brad I don't agree with that. it should be XYZ.
That's not what we agreed to. And and I'm looking and I'm watching the video and don't that's exactly what you agreed to. Then the only way the change can be done is by coming back to the commitment and approving the change. I can't get a consensus from you all. I I
can I suggest something? Um so I I would I would see it as an opportunity to clean everything we've discussed today. There was been a lot of back and forth as to each sections, things to be added, things to be okay with. I think it would be a good thing to bring that all
together and clean. Uh this was a discussion item per se. So not no vote needed to happen today more than just discussing it for the very first time. Something we received two days ago and that was just notified in the agenda yesterday, 24 hours before. I propose
you put it in the August agenda as a first draft still within discussion for us to see the final opportunity for people to come forward, state their mind. It's open to the public to participate and then you've left enough
leeway to receive those comments and approve then what the draft looks like. There is no rush uh on this. And the other question I have with that is then are we saying then the and I guess if the the clean version would say that whether we approve it um so the contract
starts uh when we approve it or is it retroactive? I don't know which retroactive your salary. Okay. So Brad Brad I have a question. And so can you can you then draft the agreement uh based on all of the all of the things that we discussed this evening present
it to Al and his attorney for their approval uh prior to bringing it back to us. Yes. So that you know by the time it comes back to us we have yes to we have yes agreed or no not agreed and then we'll know you know what our next steps are.
So since you're Yes. So what I would do is prepare the the um I would prepare the modifications or the amendments as you all have directed provided to to Miss Sigman. She can discuss that with Al. I will individually email you all a
an underlined version just these changes so it'll be clean except for these changes. Um and so that you all have it and you can look at it. If you have a question you can call me. Um, obviously I can't make a change to it based on one of your requests, but just you have it
in advance and then you can put it on for the August agenda if and and if and if if if they don't approve it before then uh you'll all know about it. Yeah, I like that idea better. So, do we have a motion to do that? Motion. Yeah, it's a discussion. Yeah, consensus. So,
Oh, all right then. Uh, I'm fine with that. I have no problem with that. Rod, can you just for clarity run down? It didn't I don't remember a lot of changes. is I think it was probably about five major changes. Can you run down the changes you have so we're all clear so that we
I can try. Um good job. So section uh let's see section seven you were reducing the thousand the thousand hours to 500 hours. Um and then
there was a there was one strike through I got to go back to it. book was the approval by the mayor at the time. Right. I couldn't read my writing as mayor striking through the mayor.
Section 9B, it's going to be by credit card with receipts. Um section 11 removing the reference to the finance director.
Section 12, changing the the termination provision by the manager to 45 days from 30 days. Same in 13B I'm changing it from 30 to 45 days. Section 14,
adding a six-month evaluation for the first year. The goals will be provided on the August regular commission meeting which will be presented by the manager. Um, and then Let's Oh, on the um and then
the second to last paragraph on 14, I am changing the I'm taking out uh each changing it to to majority. And there was one more. Let's see.
And I'm also going to clarify that the process that's in that second to last paragraph with regards to the um commissioners individually meeting with the manager and so so forth will apply to the six-month evaluation happening in
the first year. And I think that's it. Okay. For me, that's very clear. I'd approve it tonight. the resolution. Well, I think the consensus was that we're going to get it back. Okay.
We can't stop a motion from motion to approve as amended. So, is there a second? But there was a motion in the table. So, that will be There's no motion at the table. Oh, there was just you were you were about to conclude the the meeting and I did it asked a question. How do you
No, but so so I said procedurally I'm trying to understand. So can we put it in the August clean up the version bring it for discussion that enables also to be notified and have that conversation in the middle. Um
there was a discussion about doing that and then there was question a motion. I thought you said there is no motion. I said the motion to do that. You said you just need you didn't need that. You just needed a consensus. That's what I thought we So okay I was just when you said you need a motion for that. I didn't clear you didn't. So to be clear,
but if you're Go ahead. I'm sorry. We're going you're going to draft a new agreement based on all of the changes. You're going to present it to Al and his lawyer and they're going to come back with a yay or a nay and they may say yay
to some things and nay to some others and it's going to come back to us and and then in August we'll be able to push this pull this forward or that was a direction and now you have an additional motion made to approve the agreement right no but that died because nobody
second okay nobody I didn't hear it from you okay so yes Commissioner, you're correct. Okay, good. So, we have consensus to do as the attorney has provided. Yes. Yes. Nothing further. Have a motion to
adjurnn. Make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I I I But I have I needed to add more. I wasn't Yeah, it's okay. But I kind of knew what you
Sorry.