Morning. You want to call the role? >> Committee member Richard Black >> here. >> Committee member Lori Lant. >> Yes. Committee member Craig Mcbay >> here. >> Committee member Joe Roth >> here. >> Committee member Roger Young
>> here. Vice Chair Susan Raphanelo. >> Yes. >> And Chair Ty Harris. >> Here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you. Um, public comment, open public comment. Dave, you want to go first? >> Yes. I guess I haven't introduced myself the other times I've spoken. I'm David
Hellwig. For those that don't know me, I've been a hard to believe, but a resident of Marada for 19 years now. Nine of those years I've been on the board of directors of Habitat for Humanity of the Upper Keys. and um
I guess six of those years I've been president of the board. So I've had the opportunity to uh observe all your committee meetings except the initial one I believe uh having been asked and agreed to volunteer to facilitate if
that was needed and I would like to take the opportunity to share a couple of observations if I may. Uh first of all I think the process has been excellent. It's been well managed. There's been lots of opportunity for diverse points of view to be expressed and discussed.
Uh important benchmark information has been provided by your consultant who I did was unaware of before that organization. I think they brought good information. The meetings have been efficient. I really like ending at 7:00. That's pretty cool. and uh as a
committee you've uh managed to stay focused on a few major important topics which I think is uh has been key. I uh have quite a bit of experience with different boards of directors and commissions and committees and things
like that over my career. And I do believe that the three-year staggered term approach and three-term limit is um uh pretty consistent with uh what would be considered widespread best practice not just for councils, municipal
councils such as this, but boards boards of directors of all sorts, including our recent experience with um Habitat International, which has reframed their policies in exactly that regard. Actually, the best practice recommendation there was three-year
terms with a two-term limit, but um Habitat didn't accept the um experts recommendation and went for three, which is kind of where I think you've ended up. So, that was uh spot on in my opinion. Uh practical solution, which is
great. Uh as as the last meeting ended, we started to get into two new topics. uh one being councilman council person compensation. I didn't get very far into that and hopefully we're getting some benchmark
information this evening on that. I've had the opportunity to research that myself. I love AI. You can ask it questions and it truncates the effort quite a bit. Having looked at that, uh you'll find there's published information for uh southern Florida
particular particularly uh all the communities in Miami date and that there's quite a range from zero compensation to more than you'd want to propose paying, but there's a mi mid ground. I believe that's uh pretty much
where we are now. as a practical matter while we're considering this um I think there is a a matter of uh social equity I I'll call it to be considered. I don't follow all the uh
details of the budget development here in the village. Um, I just don't have the heart for that. But it's quite a challenge as as you all know. And it's my understanding that in that process the staff has been told that there's no money for raises.
So it would be kind of not socially very cool to be proposing uh a raise, if you will, for our commissioners. and at the same time in the same year when uh the the staff who does really does all the work uh is uh
doesn't have the opportunity even for a cost of living adjustment. So um I I think that needs to be kept in mind. The other observation that I really related to is in these sort of things uh any any reasonable amount of
adjustment of compensation that you can make uh or even think of proposing uh isn't going to make any difference in my experience in who volunteers their time to be involved and put all the time and effort into it. It's uh done out of
personal care and commitment to the community or the organization. It it always is. Uh lastly, um oh yeah, the one that was fascinating to me, I did not realize that uh it was
unique in our charter to have the limit on the amount of uh that taxes could be raised. I believe the numbers were five mills and it's currently like one. Uh that's um an interesting point that number one that it was unique but
particularly this year I think it's especially important and if anything uh you know probably ought to control a little bit tighter. There is going to be something out of the state uh legislature dealing with property taxes this year and it will be
transformational and everybody's going to struggle with it and the last thing you want is the council just to say well look at all that money we just lost. we got to make it up by raising taxes, right? So, I think having that in the charter is um actually a good thing and
if anything, I would suggest tightening it rather than loosening it. Uh lastly, um I think for practical purposes, it's really important that you stay focused on just those few real critical and high
priority items that you have been discussing to go beyond that, you know, with a wholesale charter review and overhaul. Number one, I don't think there's uh the community interest in going in doing that. uh and the the key
issue dealing with the key issues would kind of be lost and quite frankly uh to do so would take uh quite a bit more time and effort than this committee has been allotted given your timeline. So thank you for the opportunity to observe
and I hope those are helpful comments. >> Thank you very much for your comments. Anybody else for public comment? Okay. My name is John Fernandez. I'm I'm a little bit disappointed that we have not started our meeting by
a pledge of the allegiance and also that we have not recognized those brave individuals who gave their life for our country just a few days ago. So at this point I would like to for you to spend a
couple of seconds just remind remember remembering these individuals who also happen to be Air Force members please. Thank you very much again. And my name is John Fernandez and I've been around the village for
something over 20 years and I've been very involved in the village. I was this LPA chair for seven years. I also this reason I'm have this right here is a plaque that I received from the
village on 2006 for being a charter review committee member. So I have been where you are and after this one there was another charter review committee and I was also serving in that. So what I'm saying is I know
where you are and I give you a lot of credit because it takes time effort to be where you are today. Okay? I still remember who the chair of that committee was the first one which by the way he's the very successful businessman
here in the village still. Um, the reason I'm here today is because we are doing the same thing that we did 20 years ago.
20 years ago, there was a four year membership for being a council member. And the what happened was three of those council members were called the the the gang of three. Those of you may remember
that some of you probably were in high school when when this came about. These same three individuals control the village. They did whatever they wanted and they didn't pay any attention to the
people of the village, the citizens. So a charter review committee was formed. I was I served in it and we made a recommendation to let the council decide what they want to do in terms of
term limits. The first time around it was totally defeated by a big percentage. No, we want to keep only two-year terms. A few years later, we did the same thing again. Another
charter review committee and I served in that. And again the recommendation which was was by the council let's go to four years to two to four years and again the citizens of the village said no. So this is the third time around. Now this is a little quirk now because
instead of four year we're going to three years. So those individuals that were pushing for four years back then they're still around. And now they say well we put three years maybe the people in the village will accept that. They're not going to accept it.
Now there's a number of issues why the village the the the critics say well four years are not good and I'm going to give you some of them. Um one particular individual just this in this newspaper that just came out a couple days ago
says well we want to bring more professionalism to the council. Are you saying that these individuals who serve in the council were not professionals? Matter of fact, some of them are still serving and they're serving back in two years and they're
serving now. So, they're not professional. Um, the other is uh every two years we don't have enough time to learn how to run the place. That's a fallacy. In the
US Council, Congress, two years, 400 and some individuals served for two years. Somehow, they're able to figure it out. Matter of fact, many of our council members, current council members have
served two years and they get reelected. So that means that four years is not a sure thing that hey, we're going to have continuity. Now, another issue that I said here is well, you know what happens if everybody leaves at the same time?
One individual was left not two years, not too long ago. What happened? Nothing. The village continued to run and we were able to accomplish what needed to be done. Now, it wasn't on purpose. Two individuals didn't want to run back,
didn't want to run again. Um, another person moved out of the way and so on. But the fact is that having that idea that you need so much time to run the village is not accurate. It is not because the policy of the
council is to provide policy not run the day build buildings or or or activities. Now what are some of the things that these individuals for two years have accomplished since the two-year was put in? Okay, remember when they were trying
to build a bridge across US1 for traffic? It was a two-year term council member who raised an issue and it was brought forth and after much discussion, it was decided it was not a good idea.
Remember that? Those of you that were around, I know some of you not looking at me, but you know that happened, right? The other thing that happened was this. Remember that one time we wanted to have a a sewer plant in every c in every in
every v uh uh key. remember that. >> And finally, one council member said, "No, we're not going to do that. We're going to try and see if we can come up with a better solution." And that's what happened. We stopped the idea of having
four different sewer plants and decided to go and work with Kargo. And that's what happened. And it was the two-year term person who did that. Okay, let me give you another example. Uh just recently in the last couple of
years we have changed uh the the village uh uh person or company that that picks up our garbage. Remember that we had a long long-term big company that was colle collecting our our garbage.
The two-year council members decided that was not good enough. So what they did, they made a change. And I'm telling you, I'm super satisfied with the council to the with the present uh uh company that's doing the village uh picking up the trash. The point I'm
trying to make is this, folks. The people of the village, regardless what anybody else does, we have functioned and worked well with two-year terms. Going to three years, it's just a way of getting around getting four years.
Okay? But that's not the answer. Leave it like it is. Now, let me I'm going to be upfront with you guys. I may be wrong, but I guarantee you each one of the individuals are appointing you to this one of the questions they may have asked you before they appointed you. Well, what do you think about the
fouryear terms versus two years? Correct me if I'm wrong. >> You're wrong. >> Yeah. Nobody asked you. None of the C. No, they Okay, I give you I accept your word, but I can't imagine individuals all of a sudden have an interest in going to three years, especially when they've had two years, I mean two
elections already where it was totally not not accepted by the village. And you know what? It's not going to be accepted this time because people have memories and they remember how it was.
Okay? and they're not going to accept it. So, you're going to go through the whole process and you're going to find out that the members of the village, your citizens are not going to accept a change in the two-year terms. Now, I know you guys got your work cut
out for you. And you know what? I feel for you because like I said, I've been there. I've been where you are twice. I've been where you are. And in the first time, I don't know why they did it, but they give us a plaque
for those of us that serve in that committee. And it says, "Appreciation of John Fernandez for your dedication and contribution in service as a member of the 2006 charter review committee." Then we had another
charter review committee. For some reason, maybe the village was trying to save some money, so they didn't give us a bad a a plaque. Okay. So again, I'm speaking from experience, folks. I'm not standing up here just talking without
knowing what I'm talking about. Okay? So I ask you look back and look at the history of the charter review committees in the past and why they did what they did. And I appreciate you giving me the time to express me
thoughts to you. Very infrequently do I come to the village council members or to any other meetings because I'm a little bit of age. I'm getting to be like close to 87 and it's sort of hard sometimes to get somewhere. But you know, I just felt this was so important that I needed to come up here and make
you guys aware of the history of the charter review system. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And good luck to you, >> John. Thank you so much for your comments and also thank you for your service. >> Thank you. Um, I know this isn't a council meeting
because they don't respond to anything that that comes from general public comment, but we're not the village council, and I think we can we can respond to some things. Um, the three-year term really, I thought, looking back at my notes, came from the
feedback we got from the the League of Cities as to what other cities are doing. And for me, what really swayed me that the three-year was the the correct way to go was the the budget cycle and also my experience having been on on
staff and knowing that the constant potential turnover of every two years, you're always getting new people, um that it makes it harder to do. And it's frankly, if you're if you're looking at it from a manager perspective, um we seem to have gone through more
managers on the on the 2-year cycle than we did when we were with in the four-year cycle. And as we heard from Dave Hellwig earlier, um there are plenty of studies out there that say that three years staggered is best management practices for lots of
organizations. So, I do appreciate your comments and I would not be surprised that um that if three years actually goes to the voters with the staggered terms that it it may not pass. Um but we're up here to to do our job. I also
agree with both of your comments that the charter is in pretty good shape. Um you you this is the third charter review. The charter is in pretty good shape. We What's the first rule? Don't mess up something that's working, right?
Um, so we're gonna I think this committee's done a really good job of of using a light touch um in areas where we think there may be some um some area for improvement. And that's why you should have a charter review at least every
every 10 years because it's it does give you an opportunity to to look back and see what's working and if there's a chance to make it better. And sometimes you don't make a change. now and the majority of this charter I don't think um the majority of us want to touch at all. Um that's just my opinion from
listening to the comments in the last three meetings. So thank you for giving me a chance to say that as the as the um chair of the committee. And with that um is there any more public comment? Larry.
>> Good evening folks. uh Larry Dalton, uh Upper Metacon Bay. Uh I want to thank you for your service to this committee. It's a a lot of time and effort that you've put in and and the citizens really do appreciate it. Um in my
career, I've had the opportunity to serve on uh numerous committees, be they uh charitable or semi-governmental or governmental. And the key in keeping the
committee for whatever purpose it is going is having a staggered uh election cycle. Now for that I don't care if it's 24 or whatever but it's got to be staggered. We got to figure it out. We can't have
an entire uh board of uh commissioners elected every two years. So even if three years doesn't get passed, we've got to do something to ensure there's a staggering somehow. Um, and my personal opinion
being on the budget review committee, it's if we have a, you know, granted it would be every six years that it would come up, but we have to pay for a special election. And as we talk about, you know, really looking at at how much
money is coming into the city versus how much we're spending, that's an extra expense. I don't know how much it is. I haven't looked into that, but it's something that we need to consider uh whether the taxpayers want to pay for a special election if we're going to an every three-year type thing. Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. You're you're doing a great job and it really is
appreciated. Thank you, Larry, for your comments. Marne, we have anybody um on Zoom or >> We do not. >> Thank you. So, I'm going to do a better job tonight than I did last week and remembering where we were on the agenda.
Um, I believe that we left off with a little bit of a homework assignment for all of us to go back and look at and consider the information provided by League of Cities as to compensation for elected officials. Everybody agree
that's where we're that's where we left off and that's where we're starting tonight. Um, with that said, after looking at all that data and and I'm only starting this conversation off because I don't know that we have to spitball a bunch of numbers. We I think we all recognize that none of this is
going to be life-changing money. None of the the sums that we're talking about are. Um, I went and I looked at our closest neighboring city, which is Marathon, and I saw that depending on benefits, their compensation for their
elected officials is 18 to 21,000. So, I don't know if that's a place we want to start a conversation or or not, but >> what do you mean depending on benefits? Just out of curiosity. I don't know what it meant with B depending on benefits, >> but it said depending on benefits in the
um in what I read. So without delving into that, I didn't know that there was much difference between 18 or 21. But I thought maybe we start that conversation with that number and then we go up or down, but at least it gives us a a starting point based on a very similar
city. Joe, I see that you're anxious to to weigh in on this one. >> Minutes. Yeah, >> minutes. We got to approve the minutes. >> Oh, I'm so >> I'm so sorry. Um, stop where we are. Marty, can we uh get a a roll call vote
and a motion on the minutes, please? >> Motion to approve minutes from last meeting. >> Second. >> Okay. Committee member Greg McE. >> Yes. >> Committee member Roger Young. >> Yes. >> Committee member Richard Black. >> Yes. >> Committee member Lori Loland. >> Yes.
>> Committee member Joe Roth. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Susan Raphanelo. Yes. >> And chair Ty Harris. >> Yes. >> And motion passes 70. >> Thank you. Thank you for reminding me not to skip Roman numeral 3. >> So
as I was leaving off um with that the number from marathon being somewhere between 18 and 21. U I'd like to hear what everybody else has to say. Um whether that something that we would recommend. We want to go up, go down.
Anybody want to jump in, Craig? >> Um, yeah. So, I've been trying to give this a lot of thought. Um, you know, I know listening to different arguments about, you know, it's not for the money. You know, if you don't offer a lot, then
it's, you know, people trying to give their time. Other people say, well, it obviously takes a lot of time to do the job. So, not that you're gonna get necessarily a more professional person or something like that, but for somebody who's working and might have to give up
time from work, having some compensation to make up for that, you know, that that that's another way to look at it, you know. So, if somebody's like, well, you know what, say I'm a fisherman and now I got to cut out, you know, x number of fishing trips, that might just help kind of fill the gap. Um, so I think that's
that's one way to look at it. you know, like right now at $1,000 a month, you know, I know we've all heard different estimates as far as how much time it takes to do the job. It's I've heard anywhere from 20 to 40 hours a week, and I'm sure that depends on time of year
and the week and everything. You know, if you if even at 20 hours a week, you know, somebody that's $1250 an hour if you kind of put that into an hourly. Um, so even if we double that to $2,000 a month, you know, then you're making, you
know, then at 20 hours a week, it's $25 an hour. Um, so, you know, it's, uh, again, I think at least that if it was up to 2,000, uh, which then would be $24,000 a year, um, you know, it's a little bit more than Marathon. Um, you
know, looking at the spreadsheet, there's definitely a lot of places that are are less than that. you like I saw one city was 1,800 a a month or was that or was that a year? 1,800 a year there were there. So there are some pretty low numbers on there. Um but again I don't
think we also need to necessarily say well that's is what everybody else is doing because we're our own community and I think looking at our revenues are a lot higher than some of these other ones. So um you know I think we should um try to bump it up. Um and obviously then it'll be up for the voters to
decide. So, I think anywhere between 15 um and 2,000 a month would be my recommendation. >> Roger. >> Yeah, I'm still stuck like I was last week around 2,000 a month. I do think we'll get possibly
more people to come into the race, maybe younger people. Um notwithstanding that we didn't get staff raises this year, but this isn't working with the staff raise thing. We're working on the charter. But I really think with the amount of time and and former councilmen
I talked to it is an average of 30 40 hours a week sometimes many more. Now granted they signed on for it but um I think 2,000's a decent number and I and I think it would help. I think it's
doable. So that's kind of where I'm sitting. Richard, >> um I I think 2,000 is a reasonable number. U another thought I had just kind of throwing an idea out there is what if we reduce the amount they get
paid and give benefits >> just just a thought you know I don't know just >> just throwing an idea out there >> it might it will it will cost >> that's going to cost a lot more for benefits right and then then it's also then and quite frankly at
>> least it's worth having having it out there. >> It's a it's a nice idea, Richard. But but but additionally, that's also a teaser, right? If you're somebody they're serving two, maybe three, I mean, currently two because that's terms we have for two terms and you've got insurance benefits when you previously
didn't have insurance benefits because maybe you were self-employed or you're working for an employer who didn't offer benefits and now you've got benefits for two years and then you finish your term, you conclude your term and now you don't have benefits, right? It is. Most people would most people would use it as a secondary, wouldn't use it as their primary because it wouldn't make sense.
>> There's a lot of people in this community who do not have health insurance. A lot. >> No, I agree. I just just an idea. I'm not >> Yeah, it's worth talking about, but it's it was a great idea. I'm not sticking outside the box. >> Joe,
>> well, you certainly I would advocate to be within our our peer group, our our like cities. Um, and I and I think we're I think we're probably below um where we need to be. Um, as far as a set number,
I I I would when I first looked at the spreadsheet and started doing some research and looking at some things and trying to see how we pair up, um, it seemed to me that that at a bare minimum, we should be at 1,500 a month. Um, I could certainly make an argument
for more given where we're located. Um, and given the cost of living that we experience down here across, you know, when compared to other other areas. Um, but but definitely I think there needs to be some some sort of an increase.
>> Thank you, Lori. >> Uh, yeah, I I feel there should be uh some sort of an increase as as well. Um, I'm with Joe. I think the bare minimum of an increase should be at $1,500 a month and I think the max should probably be 2,000. Again, it's going to
be a difficult sell to to um residents to vote for it. But I also think it should be tied to to increases should be tied to uh a consumer index of some sort, right? Because then we're going to continually be able to have incremental
increases versus long periods of time before there is an actual increase. Because right now the increases only takes place if it's part of the charter. So if we've only had this is our third charter review. >> Yeah. >> There's a long time span between an
increase in in their pay >> between December 31st 1997. Two charter reviews. >> Yeah. I mean I I'd like that idea if if this group wants to go in the increased salary range.
Susan. >> Um, I don't necessarily have an objection to uh some increase because there hasn't been one for many years. Um, I do like the way Richard is thinking. I will say though that if you
say benefits in this town um it's a really hot trigger item right now uh given some you know what is perceived at least as uh maybe not exactly in the sunshine dealings not that they needed
to be um with with the village with prior management. Um, so I think that there if you say benefits right now, you you you there's a backlash um uh to it and I think it would be cumbersome and hard to manage and hard to control. Um
especially with the the state of insurance right now. Um I have to look look at it every year for our firm and it's absolutely staggering. So it would definitely be a huge increase to the bottom line. Um, I looked at what the
League of Cities sent over for comparable cities. Um, again, I recognize where we are and that we're perhaps more expensive, but there was only a handful of the approximately three dozen that were double digits and
right now we're at 12. Um, there was six, seven that were greater than 12. One was 30, couple were 24. Um, they were significant outliers. Uh, I think that the 18,000 is probably um um e even
the 18,000 would be an outlier on this spreadsheet from what we are sent. So I don't think that the data out there of comparable cities supports it. I do however think that the cost of living in in Monroe County may um and so I would be open to that. I would be against 2,000. I would be open to 1500 with some
sort of definitive adjustment to it. So, I really started thinking about this and and I thought Craig brought up a really good point for somebody like Richard, a fisherman that has to give up
a charter. I mean, that's whatever that charter is going to cost in his pocket, $600,000. And we want to see more fishermen. We want to see more people that are younger that that are in a business like that. I mean, I think I think there's something
to be said for somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000. I could live with 1,500 and a a cost of of living increase automatically, but I could also feel comfortable at 2,000. I don't think it's going to make a difference to the voters
because I think they'll most likely uh shoot it down. But as Steve Freriedman uh said at the last meeting, don't worry. do your recommendation on what you think is best for the village, not what you think is going to pass. And so,
um, I would be comfortable at either number with a with a cola, but that's that's me. And I know we've been saying cola and I don't necessarily object to that for discussion purposes, but there's so many different cost of living indexes out there um that I think a
better tie just for it to be cleaner in drafting and for calculation when it really comes down to it would be whatever the increase the federal government gives the social security benefit um individuals. >> That's that's a good point. So, we've
I've heard a majority of of people that seem to be comfortable somewhere between the 1500 and 2,000 with a few at definitely comfortable at 2,000 and my vice chair being more comfortable in the 1500 >> pushing to get to 1500. >> Pushing to get to 1500
>> given the data. >> Um, with that said and everybody's cards on the table on that, does anybody want to make a motion? I'd make a motion for 1500 with cola.
>> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay, we're we're going to stop. We're going to allow public comment before we we um we vote on it or we we have more discussion. John, welcome to come up.
>> The uh my name is John Fernandez. One of the other things that I had him I've done in my life besides being in the Air Force for 20 years, I was also a human resources director for about 30 years. And I was the human resources director
for the city of North Miami Beach. And this issue came up at the same time in the LA the charter review committee that I served back when no changes were made. I suggest that you consider another
thing. Nobody is going to run for $2,000 a month. No one is going to run unless it's $15,000 a month because it's you got to put too much time, too much away from your work and so on. If you look around,
most of the people around here are in business in some fashion. This is what I would suggest. bring it down to 1500 and then has a cost of living every year
2% 3% whatever it is. Okay. And also give if council member after serving two terms, whatever those terms are, three or two years, a life insurance
that they can carry on because you know life insurance is very expensive nowadays. So if you provide that as a benefit, you have less cash upfront. No, not 15, not 2,000, but maybe 1,500.
do a percentage of increase on an annual basis whatever that may be 2% 3% you you guys decide but then I I add a life insurance option so that individuals that serve in this
capacity have something to take with them after they have served because right now after you serve you're over with. That's it. You got nothing else besides the salary you got while you were here. But I
consider you open up this whole issue of compensation for council members to more than just money because life insurance is important for many individuals, especially as you get older. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. Larry, you
want to weigh in on this one? I'm good. if we have anybody um on the internet. >> We do not. >> Thank you. So, we were back to um committee discussion. >> Lynn Typton is on Zoom though if you uh
now if you wanted to speak with her. >> I want to hear from Lynn. Lynn. >> Yes sir. Um, you want to weigh in on this a little bit? >> I wish we had the latest year's data and
I'm sorry we are always one year behind on the data collection for mayor and council salaries and I've been listening to your conversation. I'm sorry I wasn't on right at 5:30. be glad to answer any questions and just know that all city
charter review groups go through these same conversations and uh that you are not alone. It's very hard to pick a number uh both in your conversation about what you think might pass on the ballot and with what seems both responsible and reasonable. So, I think
you're doing great. >> Thank you for your comments. All right, back to committee discussion. Well, I would further point out that she just made a a a very interesting point and valid point that this is 2023 information. There is no
2026 information on here. There is no Key West information. There's no 2025 information on here. There's no Key West information on here. There's no city of Key Colony Beach information on here. Marathon's grayed out. So, the only way to find that out is, as you did, the Google machine.
>> Yes. So, you know, I I I just think that it even makes a stronger point that we're even further behind when we're looking at these as peer groups using 2023 data. >> Fair points at all. Richard, do you have
any additional comments on this? >> No real additional comments. You know, I I just I think there needs to be a pay increase. Um, that that's why I think that it's a marginal increase, but having it at least offset cost of living as it
goes on, you know, I think that's that would kind of cover it for the next 10 years. >> Yeah. I I don't know how we would consider or factor in the suggestion from John about an ongoing life
insurance policy. I I don't even know what that would look like. What those numbers >> We have an insurance expert right here on the panel. We could ask him how that would play out. >> Yeah. Well, I was kind of setting that up. >> It's after hours. >> I think it would be cumbersome on a
charter to include it >> for the voters. >> So, I'll just I'm not the expert in in the field. I'm a PNC guy. But I will tell you that when you start talking about life insurance, you start talking about insurability. There's age issues. There's are they employees? Are they not
employees? I mean, how are you doing this? Are you doing this through the 550 cafeteria plan? Are you what are you doing with this? How are you administering that? And what happens when they leave? Do they take over the premium payments or are you paying them until they die
>> until they die? I mean, there's a lot of logistics behind it. I mean, I understand the concept and I understand the the the carrot aspect of it, but I just don't know if something like that is really
doable without creating a lot of uncertainties and a lot of stuff going forward. >> Thank you. >> I mean, right, it doesn't even in their their their current health comes into play too, >> right? >> Insurability is a big thing. I mean, who
knows? and and one person could be one person could be obviously one premium and another person could be a significantly higher premium because of insurability. So I don't know how you would how you would you know equalize that
just there would be a lot to think about if you're going to do that. >> Great. >> Um you know I think I think I'm for this the the cost of living. Do we need to get specific on what that increase would be or do we just need to kind of sort of
keep it generic and let uh go to council as far as you know what I mean because not sure how >> nail well Susan made a good point that there are lots of different methodologies for calculating increases in cost and living >> right so I just I just Googled it up and
in and this you to to go along with what Susan had suggested for what the social security uh benefits increases and it says the social security administration uses the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers. So it's a CPI-W to calculate annual cost of living
adjustments at Cola. So you know maybe that's one thing we incorporate into our proposal. >> Wow. We come out a lot smarter right now. It say what that last increase was just I'm just curious. I don't I don't >> No, did not say what the last one was,
>> but it's usually the 2% or something. >> It's about 2% target. Yes. >> Okay. >> I mean, it's going to be obviously it's going to be low, which is the federal government. I mean, come on. They don't really want to pay more in social security benefits than they have to.
>> Okay. So, we're looking for a motion. >> Well, we have a motion on the table in a second. >> What was the motion? >> I was going to have Mari read it back. >> Uh $1,500 a month with a cost of living increase. So, we didn't specify the cost of living increase, right?
>> So, I think we need I need think we need to specify the cost of living an index. >> The motion maker, can you amend your motion to >> who made the motion be specific to the >> I can Yeah, we can amend it to uh 1500
cola with using the u >> me say it right. The consumer the consumer the consumer price index for urban wage earners and and clerical workers. The CPI-W. >> Yeah, the CPI-W. How about that? >> You're welcome, Richard.
>> Thank you. We got a second. >> Second. >> All right. Um, Marne, can you call the role? >> Okay. Committee member Richard Black. >> Yes. >> Committee member Joe Roth. >> Yes. >> Committee member Lori Land. >> Yes. >> Committee member Craig McBay.
>> Yes. Committee member Roger Young. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Susan Raphanelo. >> Yes. With the caveat that I'm not quite I think that they use a number of different ones. So with the caveat that whomever brighter better brains will come up with the appropriate tie off.
Not that you weren't spot on potentially. Um yes. >> And chair Ty Harris >> spoken like a true attorney. Um yes for me as well. Okay. >> Motion passes 70. Okay. Um, we've gotten through we've
gotten through one that I felt was going to take a while and I thought we we did that we did that pretty well on time. Um, our our next section I believe we either go back to we were
in five so we're still in the are we in the millillage or we in the election. We were talking we had two other issues that I had written down. One was the discussion about the millage cap and whether we need to to look at that. And the other one was u the discussion that
we had if someone leaves office uh within the first 6 months whether or not we should hold a special election um especially given that we're recommending threeear staggered terms. Marne help me out. Which one was the
next one? Uh well, Jennifer actually had um council meetings as the next item. Um >> I think that was my thing. I just wanted to add something to that. >> Yeah. So, she had um she noted that
special meetings may be held at the call of the mayor. Um in his or her absence at the call of the vice mayor, special meetings may be called upon the request of a majority of council members unless of an emergency nature. persons calling such a meeting shall not provide less
than 72 hours prior notice of the meeting to the public. Um item B is elected or reelected council members shall be inducted into office at the first regularly scheduled meeting following certification of their election and three um majority of
council shall constitute a quorum. No action of the council shall be valid unless adopted by an affirmative vote of the majority of council members in attendance otherwise as provided by law. All actions in the village council shall be by ordinance, resolution or motion.
So I I I really was I was trying to do was add one more letter to that because something that happens and has happened a lot in village council meetings uh over the years is >> basically I'll just describe what happens is someone puts something on the
agenda and everybody gets everything together. They go to that meeting and the council says I decided to pull that from the agenda. And I I looked under other uh municipalities u and a lot of them have this in there and it's basically I mean
>> oh >> it's no unreasonable postponement. So once once it's on the formal agenda it shall not be postponed for another day except for good cause and reasonable uh good cause in the opin in the opinion of
the council staff or employees. So that that's what I did. I I feel that one. I just going to share a brief story. As a young attorney, um I had a plat approval, which is a ministerial function in front of Miami Dade County.
And there was an a certain council commission member that had an a beef with the developer. And so she would not show up when that item was called. She would walk off the dis. and Gwen
Margolus was the chair of the Miami Day um county commission at the time. And so she would pull it from the agenda because the council person whose district the the property was in was not
in attendance and we played this game over a series of months. Um, so I agree that there should be some type of of limit on being able to pull and there should be some standard for pulling
things off the agenda and that just comes from my personal experience and suffering through that. >> Yeah, I I suffered through it as well going through you know stuff be pass. >> Um, yeah. So I I just I think it's important. It's on like I said other and
we could ask Lynn maybe um you know her opinion but it is numerous ones I have looked at it is in there. So just would love to see that happen. >> Well it it gives some certainty to the meeting. I mean people show up and then there's some gamemanship and something's
pulled and everybody goes home and then it gets pulled again and then fewer people show up and then fewer people show up and fewer people show up. There's certainly be something to be said about about putting in some kind of standard. Um, I'd like to hear what
everybody else has to say about it. >> Jeff, thought I'll reserve mine. >> Craig, >> um, I I don't have a lot of comment just because I don't don't have a lot of the background. I understand what you're
saying. I would like to hear more about it just so you know and kind of the proposal again just to make sure but um you know I've been in the same sort of meetings where things get changed I know sometimes they get pulled and because there's so many people and they say all right we can need our own meeting for
this for some bigger big topics but yeah um I'm not opposed to doing something I just would want a little more information more background >> Roger >> well I've seen it happen more than once and I get it but I'd like to see what she has to say what limits you could
actually put on it or what somebody else is putting on it. >> You were you were looking through your notes so I was I passed over you. >> Yeah, you passed over me because what happened is is is the pages weren't number on the charter and I got flipping around and I was messing things around
so I had to put them back together but I'm I'm there now. Um so you do you want to finish Roger? I I I feel I feel for you and I feel for everybody who who that happens to where their item is supposed to be on the on the agenda and then it gets it gets
pulled for one reason or another. I mean, how often do you actually feel that the reason that they were pulled was an invalid reason? It it it happens a lot um because of different personal opinions on topics that are up
there and how close they are to it individually and it it does get pulled at times when yes it's a crowd of people but sometimes it's just a sensitive subject or >> I you know I I just >> so I just >> and if it if it does get pulled or it
can get pulled with with the way other municipalities have it in there is that you know it's got a reason for it and you know it can be pulled but you can't just say you know I don't want to talk about that tonight. >> Yeah. You you're you're you're putting
the person that's pulling the item on the spot to articulate a reason that for good cause shown this item should be pulled. They don't get to just pull it and there's no discussion about it. That's that's how I see what Richard's trying to do.
Now, do they have to the good cause have some sort of a benchmark or they just have to >> articulate something? >> Other ones don't label the benchmark. It just it just says for good cause, you know? >> So then that could be arbitrary, a good cause,
>> right? How are you going to how are you going to um facilitate a valid reason for whatever reason the council person has um expressed? No, I >> as a reason for pulling the item.
>> I agree. I just went I mean that's kind of other ones and copied what they had. So that's >> Well, you know, items get pulled all the time because there's a defect in the notice. Um and that's a legal reason for those items. They have to be pulled. Um
but there are other items that at the discretion of the council they can pull. I'd like to hear u what my vice chair has to say about this. Well, I've sat through I think it was three or four meetings on some land use things where the applicant pulled it
because it didn't like the crowd. That's been obvious. That's that's been some gamesmanship I haven't liked. I've listened to council meetings where what Richard has described has taken place. It seems like they just did not want that particular conversation. Maybe
there was a different council member that might be out of town next time. although they are very all very good about um being present at meetings. Um I don't feel strongly on on this particular issue because I think when somebody wants to articulate
good cause they're going to be able to articulate it if articulate it if they do not want to have something heard. I would have a concern somewhat um about giving staff the extra responsibility
um and because it's a double-edged sword of having them determine whether good cause has been shown because of as I I've I've said repeatedly in the past, you know, human nature being human nature, they get to know the applicants, the staff do. They don't get to know the
residents who who show up at a meeting on 72 hours notice because they may oppose what the applicant's trying to do. They don't get that input from the residents until the meeting. Um and so, you know, if an applicant goes in and says, "Hey, I I think we need to to pull
this for whatever reason, I wouldn't want to put it on the staff member to say, "Yeah, that's good. That's a good reason to pull it, or that's not a good reason to pull it." when, you know, there hasn't been a mechanism to date for staff to hear from other community members either. So, I think I like the
idea about not allowing just willy-nilly um things to be pulled. I've shown up on various occasions and they've been pulled, not lately, but I have in the past um when things were important to me and it's frustrating because then you have to come back again and come back again. And I think the Marcato property
was three times. Um, >> that pain together >> in in in some respects. So, I like where you're going. I think the devil would be in the details. Um, and that was a very circuitous just extraneous kind of thought process.
So what I gathered from that is it's the concept is good but in execution are you really going to be able to stop anybody that wants to pull something? Um but you know there is that old saying give it the old college try right at least
you're you're making somebody articulate a reason based on a standard and that may be all we can do but I think it's worth something. Um because everybody's time is valuable and when things get
pulled um when there no obvious reason for them to be pulled I it frustrates everybody and and it also creates a a a level of distrust in the process when that happens. So I see lots of reasons
um to add that type of language in that Richard's suggesting. One one thought just from you saying that is you could just I don't know if this would work or not but allow if it was going to be pulled then the council
would have to vote. It can't just be one person saying I want to pull it. They all have to vote on it whether it's pulled or not. >> Don't they already have to have to have a little agreement if if someone pulled an item? >> Is that the way it works already? I
>> I mean like when someone says I want to I want to pull I I want to pull this item and then somebody else goes like oh okay >> I don't think >> I would like >> you're looking you're looking for a formal vote just to to agree to to pull an item. >> John, do we have you on?
>> Yeah, I had my hand raised for this. So uh yes, I'm here. >> Um yes. So the the item would need to be on because once you have an approved agenda uh you know your council is going to approve it the only the council can amend that agenda. So the council would
need to take a formal vote on uh removing an item once it's on the agenda. So if somebody comes in and says you know what I'm not ready to vote on this because I was sick for the last week and I just this is an important decision and I just didn't have time to read up on it. Whatever you know
whatever it is the council would then need to vote. Yes, we have a we are going to defer till the next meeting upon a finding of good cause as articulated by council member X. >> So I I have a question for you for normal agenda items versus quasi
judicial items. Is there a different standard? >> Well, right now our quasi judicial is governed by the land development code. So there there are limits on how long you could defer something. there are
there are time frames as to when staff can pull it or when an applicant could pull it. Um, I would I do think we would need to have um a different standard for quasi judicial because if something
happens with an applicant, say their attorney gets into a car accident on the way up and they're they are requesting a deferral or some their expert witness or whatnot is not available to testify for
um uh due process purposes, I would I would want to have a little bit different standard. under quasa judicial so that they have some, you know, they retain some rights in terms of of a deferral. I mean, I think depending on the time frame, they'd still need to request it um under the code, but if
they were outside that time frame and they were realized that they were not going to be able to present their case, you know, they would still retain some some rights and and it would avoid a challenge. >> Yeah. We don't want to build in a procedural due process defect unintentionally.
>> Yeah. which we we could work on. Um and and then one of the points um about why I do think it's I don't necessarily think it's imperative to have staff in there to be able to pull it because I do I do see you know um uh Susan's Susan's
point about sometimes the the um the pulling influences. But if there's a a legal defect in the notice or something like that, I I would want to have staff be allow be able to pull that because if we, you know, if that's realized, you
know, a day or two before we can have it pulled as opposed to having forcing everybody to come out and then if people have attorneys, then they have to come out because even if it's a notice, we can tell them all day long, hey, you know, you cannot hear this, you cannot hear this, council, you need to defer
this. you know, if we're talking about the potential worst case scenarios, there is that potential worst case scenario that the council says, "Well, we think we're okay and we're going to move forward." So, in those instances, I I would definitely like to have staff be able to have the authority to pull that
because it is a an absolutely legal reason that you cannot go forward. Not that you would prefer not to or that there's some good cause reason not to. There is a legal impediment to going forward. So, do you think with the language that
we're discussing right now, um, for good cause shown, do you think we cause unintentional harm to any other part of, um, of the land development code provisions for polling items right now or any other section of the code or we
safe with that language? it. Um my initial thought is we might want to exe exempt out or might exempt out the quasi judicial um or maybe build in that provision from the quasi judicial in so
that we have it a separate um basis under so those are treated differently. Um, so you could build that into the code or the I'm sorry, the charter. Uh, or you could just accept exempt it out and then it's it's already built into
the LDRs. Um, and that would require a uh a significant change to make if you wanted to do that. >> Richard, you're just the rattle rouser tonight. >> Um, you know, I I just laid it out there. I mean, I I I would love to see
something put in there, some provision of that. >> I I think what I heard from John was that we could put that in there, but we need to X out U quas judicial because that that's already covered in the land development. >> It's well covered, right? So, I mean, I I think that's
>> So, if if what does everybody feel about that? Anybody want to speak up? >> I'd like to see what it looks like before I >> Yeah. make a determination. I mean, there's a lot of these things like term
limits that you can you you know what you're talking about. I I I do believe that the language of the particular section that is being proposed would be important to see. >> Yeah, John. >> Yeah, I was just going to um suggest that I can prepare something for the
next meeting and uh you know, circulated in advance you know what what what the language would look like as I understand um what you all are looking to accomplish. I we would appreciate that. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Okay. So, we'll table that one to to the beginning of the next meeting.
>> Not pulling. Tabling. >> Tabling. I said I said tableabling. >> I know. I'm just dazing. >> Look, it's been a long day. >> Hey, Marty. What What's next on our agenda? Because I'm going to stop trying
to follow my own agenda. I >> Yeah. Next up we have um election section 8. Um >> is this where we were discussing? >> Yeah, this is >> special elections when someone >> um bows out within 6 months. That's how
I remember the conversation. >> Vacancies on in council. >> Um okay, let's hear what everybody has to say. >> But just Mr. Mr. Chair, just so the filling vacancies part is under subsection 7D.
8 is council meetings. >> No, >> I thought this was the the referendum part where we were talking about the millage rate. I thought that's what we were >> No, I know that we're going to talk about the millage rate. I I had the last the two big things we wanted to talk about other than what we've already
discussed were millage rate but also um on elections dealing with people that may exit stage left in the first 6 months of their term >> and that's 70. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And seven comes before eight. So
I'd like to hear what everybody has to say about it. I think 90 days is too long for a vacancy. I think that they should um be forced to fill that vacancy within a minute
maximum 60 days. >> I do not disagree. I'd like to hear what everybody else has to say about it. >> Well, I don't think it should be. I think within if somebody resigns um with >> within six months that's >> yeah we were talking about within six
months now with staggered terms it's a little bit um different but I think if somebody resigns and there's more than half of their term of the three years remaining it should go to a special election um which now that we have if if staggered terms take place it cures the
deficiency that already exists in our code of the next election is the only election Um, so it it by fall back either way you read 7 D2 it was going to be somebody appointed no matter when
they resigned even though there is obviously it was not supposed to be structured that way >> right >> um but I think that if I don't think that the council should be filling a position other than
potentially for an interim basis until the next scheduled election could be had if somebody has more than, you know, if somebody resigns with more than half of their term remaining. >> If it was two years, I'd go six months,
but three years, >> right? But that's kind of the compromise really. If we, you know, we go three years, then we're kind of looking at some different time frames. >> Okay. So, so, so I understand what you're saying, Susan. And so what you're saying is is that if someone resigns um in less than a year and a half of their
term, so if more than a year and a half a minimum a year and a half of their term is left remaining, then if they resign in January, then in November when elections come in, someone would be appointed in an interim basis to serve until
uh an election in November could be had to elect someone to serve a year and a half of the remaining term. Is that what you're saying? >> Yes. I would prefer actually that a special election be had and change the language of the charter. I'm just pointing out that if we switch to a
three-year term, the 7D2 language fixes itself. But I think if anybody um um resigns or has to leave office for whatever reason
with more than half of the term remaining, >> we should have an election. >> You have an election. And if there is a normally scheduled election within the next and I don't know what the lead time leading up to an election needs to be. Is it 6 months? If there's a normal election within the next six months,
it'll be on the next normal ballot. And if there's not, >> there's a special election, >> but there's only going to be one year there's not, so it won't be that big of a deal. Um, uh, or big of a stretch, hopefully, then there would be a special election if it was during an off year. >> So, but again, we need to make that
clarify that that if we if the public approve a three-year term because a two-year term, it doesn't make any sense. >> Yeah. And we can have alternatives, but yeah, I mean, no, I I disagree with that actually. The way I'm structuring it would make sense regardless of whether
it's a two-year term or a three-year term. >> If somebody resigns with more than half of their term remaining, whether it's two or three years, there shall be an election within 6 months. If it's special election, it's a special election. If there happens to be a
normal election coming up, it's a normal election. In a three-year cycle, a normal election will be coming up more often than if a two-year cycle, but a two-year cycle still works. >> And I think for the extra cost of a special election, it is well worth it to
ensure that we have um people who are elected actually serving the role for for the election for which they were elected. >> Do we want to hear from the public at this point? just brief about
>> Larry Dalton uh upper Metacumbbe uh regarding this and I think a special election is fine but a uh regulatory body can't function with an even number of people. So if there's one going, you're still going to need to appoint somebody.
>> Okay. Just make sure we're not going to wait 6 months to have a special election. You got to appoint somebody in the meantime. Yeah. the the appointment would just be Yeah, I think Susan covered that. We would have an appointment and then that appointment would only be temporary. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> All right. I think we Well, we're all we're all on the same page with that. >> I think we're on the same page with that. Except if for the for the example, if we had a two-year term, if we we continue with a two-year term and and some of the situation we had now where somebody left,
I'm not so sure we're going to receive volunteers to sit up and serve for for two months, 3 months and prior to >> what you'll probably end up with somebody that's already been on counsel that doesn't want to be on counsel, but is willing to serve for a short period
of time. That's probably your your pool of people you're you're pulling for if you're only looking for a few months >> or somebody who's intending to run. >> I'd prefer it be somebody that's already been on that doesn't want to run because you're >> I mean that's not we can't we can't control that. >> That's crystal ball stuff. Hopefully
somebody would step up to the plate. Um but I don't think that it is you can it's not ideal but you can function with four. It certainly is not ideal and we wouldn't want it to last that long, but it can be done. Uh, number one. Number
two, if if nobody wants to be appointed, I you know, I fall back to it can be done and hopefully the election can be done in a lot faster than 6 months. Uh I just don't think that it is at all appropriate to have
um a situation which somebody resigns or has to leave office with the bulk of their term remaining and the citizens don't get to choose who their successor is. I understand interim measure. I understand you know if less than half the term is remaining um it's not really
worth the cost and and pulling out of the hair. But if somebody your situation would be the same as if somebody resigned 15 months in, who's going to want to do it for 3 months? It's the same question regardless. So, might as well have the
>> John Quick has hands up. I'm sorry. >> John, I got a question for him. >> John needs to just interrupt. >> Sorry. Mine was just a question on the six months. Um, uh, if if you guys if there's going to be a motion made, I just wanted to get clarification. Is it going to be six months? And this is just
for drafting purposes. 6 months from the date of the resignation or 6 months from the first regular village council meeting after the resignation. >> Well, I was picking 6 months out of the air as an example. How much lead time do you need for a special election to meet
all the notice requirements, printing of ballots, coming up with that sort of thing? >> I think it's a minimum of 3 months. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Usually the um supervisor of election wants everything in by end of June, beginning of July for a November election. I think Marty, you could
correct me if I'm wrong because I know you deal with her too, but I feel like that's roughly the time frame. >> Yeah, this year for an um any uh ballot initiatives or even candidates to be on the ballot for November, they need to be in by July 24th for the purpose of
printing the ballots. basically a four-month lead. >> Yeah, probably minimum. >> And and just a reminder, any any special election is subject to the approval of the supervisor of elections too. >> That is also correct. So, you know, I
would say no more than six months out um which gives some play of a couple of months for the supervisor of election and life. Does >> everybody want to hear a motion for discussion purposes? Don't all speak at once. I I don't quite
know how to word I mean that what you're say I get what you're saying but to word that for John to make sense of it just 6 months before >> No I I think it's if any vacancy occurs in the office of any council me member
and the remainder of the unexpired term is greater than 50% there shall be an election held for the filling of that vacancy within the next 6 months. Okay.
>> If there is more than half the term remaining, the the uh position can be filled with an appointment. >> The only thing >> and there'll be an interim or there's at least directive for an interim to be appointed in the
>> more than 50% um scenario. >> Yes. in the in the six month or in the you know lesser of 6 months um or when the election is held there'd be the interim appointment that could be made by the council. >> Well, for purposes of quasi judicial you
want to have five. That's just critical. Um because as most of you know a two two vote is a is a no. So you want to always have an odd number. Whether that's three or five, you still want an odd number. >> As I said, it's it's it's, you know,
ideally you have an odd number, but you can function with four. It's not optimal. >> Yeah. And and I think I mentioned at the last meeting in a quasi judicial setting, if you if you're the applicant and you you're counting an even number,
you can actually ask as of right for continuance of that item because you're entitled to an entire panel to hear your case. So that's that's why I think it's just important that we make sure that there's a process for appointing somebody in the interim until we get to the election.
>> I don't have a new issue with that. That was a given. >> I just want to make sure. >> So if um if say the three-year doesn't get approved like we want and this one is so then if this goes to a two-year term so somebody's right before the end of the
first year they have to leave for whatever reason >> an election 6 months later but then that's for six six-month term. >> Mhm. You know, so I think that's the only drawback is >> that's a very short amount of time at that point. It makes more a lot of sense with a three-year.
>> No, I I get it. And there are drawbacks if the three-year is not. I still am I'm still an advocate of this if it's a two-year term because yeah, it's it's not as much time, but the few times
there haven't been all that many times in the history of the village where there has been a vacancy created because on council for necessarily any reason, right? Um but when it creates a big
disruption is you know lay the cards on the table when Buddy left the meeting after he got elected or thereabouts that creates some real dissension within the community that doesn't have to exist if there was a procedure like this. I don't
think that you're going to have anybody that's like oh I'm going to resign because if I don't resign now they're going to appoint in two days. I have to leave before my uh half of my term is up. There's just not been that many resignations, I don't think, on village council.
>> No, you're correct. We've had one that had to resign that I remember before that. Um and then we had a death. So, I mean, we're I think we're doing the best we can to give the people a say in who's
actually sitting up here. And that's the best we can do. Um, it's not perfect, but it definitely works better in a three-year term. >> It does. >> Um, but it's workable in a two-year term as well, >> depending depending on depending on the
time that the person decides to leave office. If they left office, um, you know, 10 months in, then we're in a pickle because there not enough time for them to u be on the ballot in in November. And so then you so then you you got to
wait either you got to fill the interim person fills that spot until the next election and then it's a whole new election because his term's already concluded. >> Couldn't couldn't we just word that basically saying that the council has
the right to appoint an individual until the next available election. >> That's what exists now and on a two-year term. That's the problem is there. This has to be fixed regardless. D2 needs to be fixed regardless of whether it's a
two or a three. Because if you read D2, it says if any vacancy occurs in the office of any council member and the remainder of the unexpired term is less than 50%, the remaining council member shall within 30 days following the occurrence of such vacancy by majority
vote appoint a person to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term. >> But wouldn't fine. We're not changing that. >> Wouldn't eliminating the 50% >> It goes on next. >> It goes on though. >> If however the remainder of the unexpired term is equal to or exceeds
50%, the remaining council member shall within 30 days following the occurrence of such vacancy by majority vote appoint a person to fill the vacancy until the next regularly scheduled vigil village election. So they're doing it. >> But wouldn't just eliminating that 50%
save like clear it all up? It would clear it up, but then you're going to have an appointment. And that's what I'm saying. This should be changed. And the discussion is, do we want the village council to appoint somebody irrespective
of when that council member leaves or do we want it always to go to the voters other than the interim startup period or is there something in between? um which is where I'm suggesting the 50%
rule because that's relatively common in charters. That is the the trigger. I acknowledge it makes more sense if there's a three-year term. I think it still makes sense if there's a 2-year term. Um because either way, this whole thing reads like there should be a
switch. And the problem is even in the next regularly scheduled election if you're on a two-year term, it's always then the next election they were going to be expired and coming up for re-election anyway. So, it's always going to be an appointment on a two-year term the way we currently have it
phrased. That's why I think if if that's the decision, we can just clarify it and that's the decision of the council. But I think D72 is >> Yeah, it needs clarification. >> I don't think there's any any debate that it's clunky in a
two-year cycle and it works better in a three, but if it if it restores for part of our community some modeicum of of trust and faith that they're not getting gamed at the at the election
booth, then I think it's worth doing. Um, it even if it even if we end up with the two-year terms, I I just I fall on the side of having the people get an opportunity to vote. I mean, they should
be voting for who who sits up here. So, that's just my prerogative. So, this is going to be the last item we're taking up for the day. We're getting close to our our 7:00 witching hour or Tai's late dinner, whichever one
you want to call. >> So, Susan, I understand what you're saying. Uh, and I see it working with a three-year term, but I don't really see it working with a 2-year term. Having said that, we have not had a lot of vacancies. We haven't had a lot of vacancies. Um,
do I think this is kind of the what's written is is effective? No. It's basically saying no matter what happens whether you're uh have less than 50% of your term remaining or more than 50% of your term remaining the council is going to uh appoint somebody. So which we got
way too many words to just simply say that. I I agree with you there. Um and I do think that the citizens would like to have a say in somebody who's fulfilling a seat that's been vacated.
Like I said, I think a two-year term it it is clunky. It just doesn't work as effectively as we would like it to. More so on a three. >> Clunky is a term of art. >> Yeah. >> Um I wait for >> All right. Should I try to make the motion? >> Yeah. Can we wait for Craig to get back
just Oh, I'm sorry. >> No, he's he's like a ninja. >> Okay. He's very very ninjaike. >> Why Why were we We have a minute. Can Marne can we figure out if if we finish this item where we pick up at the next
meeting? Would we start with the millage rate or are we going to go back to the other tabled item which was the discussion of how do we keep quasi unaffected by >> well that I think we're waiting for John
to >> John say something. >> Yeah. Craig, we were waiting on you because um Susan's gonna craft a motion for us and I wanted you to be here to hear it. >> Okay, so here goes. Um if a vacancy
occurs in the office of any council member and the remainder of the unexpired term is less than 50% there shall be an election within 6 months to fill the seat. In the interim and prior
to such election being held, the council would be able to fill the seat with a majority vote of the remaining council people. If any vacancy occurs after 50%, the
council shall appoint. >> Do I have a second? >> Yeah, >> I was going to I was going to get a second and then pass it on to John >> unless I need to fix my motion, which >> Well, I you've already said it, so I want to get a second on the
I like the three years. >> Before Before we Let's get a second on We need to get a second on the motion so we can discuss the motion. I just need a second for discussion. >> Second. >> Thank you. Okay, you're back on. >> No,
makes a lot of sense to me. Not as much as it was a rarity, but I don't know. John's got a >> a good persuasive argument on it. >> I I agree with everything that you said
except the fact um of just having four run it for that interm. I I know again it goes back to having something on the agenda like you've been waiting all this time and all of a sudden yours comes up one person leaves and you have a fourperson forum to vote on it. >> Yeah. That's why the council would
appoint somebody in the interim until the election. I missed that part. >> Yes, that's in the motions. That is in the motions. >> They're going to they're going to point and that's what the conversation we're having about gee, who wants to be appointed for, you know, you know, stale bread for three three months, but and that's what we were talking about. Well,
it'll probably be a former council member or somebody that may want to run in the next >> I understand. I missed that part. And >> John, do you want to weigh in on what we're doing here? Yeah, I just I I just wanted to as I was
listening I So if I I thought Susan I thought I heard you say if it was less than 50% remaining you would call the special election um I thought it was but it did you mean to say more than 50%. >> More than 50% is what I meant to say. >> Okay,
>> that's my error. I apologize. >> That that was the only thing I was chiming in on. I wanted to make sure I got that. So, I draft it, but I I understand what you guys are looking to get to. Yep. Then, assuming it passes, >> Joe. >> No, I was going to say if you could
amend it to that where if it's less than >> I I would definitely amend it to that. If it's less than 50% council appoints if it's more election. >> I I would concur, >> Larry. >> No. Oh, good. Makes sense. >> Uh Martin, you got anybody out there?
amendment. >> No, we do not. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Uh would you let's get a show of hands or we'll actually take a voice vote on this one. It's late. >> Okay. Um excuse me, Vice Chair Susan Raphanel.
>> Yes. >> Committee member Craig McVey. Um, I'd like to see a little more like to think on this one a little bit more. >> Is that uh um I'm going to I'm going to vote no just cuz I want to think about it until next
meeting. That's that's all. >> Committee member Richard Black. >> Yes. >> Committee member Lori Leland. >> No. Committee member Joe Roth. >> Yes. >> Committee member Roger Young.
>> Yes. >> And Chair Ty Harris. >> Yes. >> Okay, that motion passes. 5 to two. >> See, democracy does work. We don't always agree on everything. >> I didn't say it didn't agree.
>> Well, >> I'm the same way. I just don't see it working with with a two-year term. and without clarifying that it's it's only going to come into play if we have a three-year term. Then I would have said yes. So that's that's my problem with that. >> Yeah. >> I'm afraid of hitching too much to the three-year term. >> So
>> yeah, and I was just trying to think in my head if there's another way to some other verbiage that could allow it to work better for both. So Craig, then you want to vote yes because if we're following Robert's rules, you could raise it as somebody on the prevailing side at the next meeting to perhaps
craft a a better a better motion, but I thought the motion was pretty good for, you know, this time of night. Um, it was the most complicated thing that we actually discussed and we waited till the end, which is not always >> So then let's come back the next
meeting, which we still need to clarify what that next date is, right? Do we not? Because next week is um >> the 23rd. >> Free break. Next week >> it's the 23rd. So we're meeting the next time we're meeting it's on the 23rd. >> Yeah. There's no meeting. >> No, there's no meeting on the 9th. >> Great.
>> Spring break. Could I suggest um that we uh pick up either next week or the week week after that? But we have done several votes on up to date. Can we see the verbiage?
Would that give it? because we're we have a long stretch between now and the 23rd >> where if that would give enough time um to John or whomever is actually crafting the verbiage to pull some things together, it might help frame our
thoughts on um what what we have accomplished and and what's may tweaks may need to be done and not all wait till the end of April and try to rush. >> No, that's a a great dis uh great point. If we can um we can try to accomplish
that from staff level, from attorney level, that would that would cut it cut it down in half. >> It doesn't even have to be it doesn't have to be perfect verbiage. >> Just frameworks. >> I Yeah, I can get you all the kind of the underlined and strike through of uh
of the the items that have passed so far. So, you can take a look at it. I did want to let you guys know I'm I'm actually out of town on the 23rd, but I'll get you guys everything in advance. And I mean one of my colleagues will be able to will be here in mystead because I'll be out of the country that day. Um but u I'll get you guys everything well
in advance so that you can review it and then you all can re you know get a hold of me in advance too before I leave um with any questions or discussion items. >> Thanks John. Um all right with that do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I >> thanks guys. You did a great job.